Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label Bob Carr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Carr. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 March 2016

Australia's Carr Fumes on Behalf of "Arabic" Voters

Look who's coming to Oz – the Electronic Intifada founder
A report by journalist John Lyons in The Australian newspaper claimed this week that Mary Easson, one of five members of the New South Wales branch of the Australia Israel Labor Dialogue group (AILD) (which since its formation in 2010 has sent over 30 Aussie trades union and Labor Party (ALP) officials on fact-finding trips to to Israel), "is also a lobbyist for the Australian subsidiary of one of Israel’s ­largest arms manufacturers [Elbit]" and "has also played an active role in the emotive ­debate within the Labor Party over its policy towards Israel".

Lyons wrote:
"The fact that Ms Easson’s company, Probity International Pty Ltd, is lobbying for Elbit is ­almost certain to lead to anger within the ALP from those who have taken trips organised by the AILD.
Ms Easson has been locked in a brutal fight inside the Labor Party with former foreign minister Bob Carr over policy towards Israel. Ms Easson wants the ALP to retain its bipartisan support for Israel while Mr Carr wants a deadline for Israel to cease its expansion of settlements in the West Bank and to return to negotiations with the Palestinians.
Elbit is one of Israel’s largest manufacturers of bombs, mortars, cyber warfare systems and drones and much of its ordnance was used in the 2014 war with Gaza. On its website, Elbit says one of its products — the Soltam Spear — has “unprecedented lethality."
Sure enough, again according to Lyons in a follow-up report, former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr is on the trail, fuming that'
"It would be common sense for party leaders to say the dialogue­ must present an independ­ently audited account of its fundraising. The party’s credibility with literally hundreds of thousands of ­voters with Arabic backgrounds is at stake."
Lyons further reported:
'Ms Easson denies Elbit has ever made a donation to AILD. But Mr Carr said any connection to Elbit was “a shameful look — arms dealers, civilian deaths, the electronic fence”.'
And Israel bashing ALP member of the federal Parliament is reported as saying:
“Given the significant numbers of ALP members who are apparently being taken on these trips to Israel, it is a concern not to know who is providing the funds, particularly where there is a person associated with an Israeli weapons manufacturer on the AILD committee."
But former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, patron of the New South Wales branch of AILD is quoted thus:
“I am not interested in a petty side argument between the warring factions in the ALP over ­Israel and Palestine”
(These reports are behind a paywall.)

Meanwhile, AILD, in response to what Lyons reports, states:
"The AILD is not now, or has ever sought to be funded by Elbit or any other defence company, whether Israeli or Australian.
The Mission of the AILD is to build bridges between the Australian and Israeli Labor Parties across the spectrum of shared values such as workers rights, women’s status, gay rights, multiculturalism and shared understanding of a two state solution to the Israel Palestine conflict.
As part of our activities we arrange tours to Israel and Palestine and provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to travel to the region. Our funding comes from private donations sought from the Australian Jewish and pro-Israel Non-Jewish community.
To insinuate that because 1 of our supporters and activists is a consultant to a company that has a contract with Elbit, so AILD must be involved is both absurd and extremely poor journalism. It smacks of an opinion in search of a story in order to smear AILD and it’s democratic right to actively and openly champion a peaceful resolution of two nations for two peoples within the ALP.
There are those who seek to impose their own one-sided view on Israel Palestine within the ALP, and ban subsidised trips to Israel and Palestine. The AILD will never subscribe to impose totalitarian controls on what any individual wishes to see or do in their quest for understanding in this and any place in the world."
.And Dr Colin Rubenstein, executive director of The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), which sends journalists on fact-finding trips to Israel, declares:
“As noted by AILD, their program of sending union officials to the Middle East is not and has never been funded by Elbit or any other arms manufacturer, regardless of the indirect connection of one AILD director, Mary Easson, to that company, and no matter what John Lyons chose to imply ...
The only real news story here is that there is an organised campaign, as we have seen in the NSW ALP recently, to try and stop Australian political and opinion leaders going to the Middle East, meeting leaders and experts from both sides and learning the truth about the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This campaign is determined to seize on anything, however tenuous, to try and discredit such trips, despite how much they have enriched the debate in this country. Unfortunately, Australian journalist John Lyons seems all too willing to lend his pen to this campaign.”

Thursday, 11 February 2016

"The NSW Branch of the ALP Has Launched a Full-scale Attack on Israel... And we should ask: Why?"

This coming weekend the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in New South Wales (power base of Israel-demonising ex-state premier and ex-foreign minister Bob Carr) is holding its state conference.

Of 45 proposed resolutions relating to foreign policy a whopping 28 concern Israel/Palestine, and you can guess their flavour.

As Australian Jewish News publisher Robert Magid writes in the course of a long and penetrating op-ed in the current issue of that newspaper:
 '.... One can ask why are there no resolutions about the extermination of the Yazidis and the Nazerenes; the rape of Tibet by our major trading partner; concern for the spread of Islamic extremism in our closest neighbour and largest Muslim country; the spread of mayhem at the hands of Islamist terrorists in much of Africa, the slaughter in Syria and Iraq, Russia's rape of Ukraine, the dangerous path Europe has taken, to name only a few pressing issues which can't be converted to condemnation of Israel....
 .... [A] worthy resolution would include an understanding of Israel's concern for its people's safety, condemnation of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and of the war crimes of missile attacks from Gaza intent on the mass killing of Israeli civilians.
Before one calls for the creation of a Palestinian state [as 13 proposed resolutions do] one has to resolve the issue of borders, end the fantasy of "right of return" into Israel and require a guarantee that all aggression ceases.
The NSW branch of the ALP has launched a full-scale attack on Israel, an ally of Australia and a country which on a global scale, is involved in a tiny distant conflict of little impact strategically to Australia.  And we should ask: Why?'
Here's a rather interesting recent conversation between two ALP heavyweight old-timers, ex-Senator Graham Richardson and ex-federal minister Peter Baldwin, concerning the present iniquity.


 Meanwhile, for anyone who missed it, here's what the editor of Melbourne's The Age newspaper, one of the Israel-critical Fairfax stable of newspapers, has had to say about his paper's woeful attitude towards Israel.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Dissecting A Lizard Of Oz

"Something very strange has happened to the Western Left in recent times, exemplified by its attitude to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I say that as someone who was affiliated with the Left of the Australian Labor Party throughout by 22-year parliamentary career. On the one hand, this is the great age of political correctness, where the slightest implication of racism, sexism or homophobia is instantly condemned and the perpetrators required to do penance. Yet here we have clear advocacy of genocide, right there in plain sight in Hamas’ foundational document adopted in 1988. Whole forests have been levelled to produce anti-Israel resolutions. How many of these have called on Hamas to repudiate this foul, evil document? Some academic enthusiasts even argue that Hamas should be considered part of the ‘progressive Left’.
Israel, on the other hand, is the country that can do no right, blamed for a large share of the ills that beset the region if not the world. Even its friendliness to the gay community (in a recent poll Tel Aviv was rated the world’s top gay tourist destination) is derided at academic conferences as pinkwashing designed to mask its repression of the Palestinians. Meanwhile in Teheran gays are publicly lynched from cranes. No resolutions or conferences about that, needless to say. The Left has a singular obsession with the real or imagined misdeeds of Israel, giving little or no attention to far greater humanitarian calamities such as the conflict in Syria and Iraq.
The thing I find particularly disturbing is not legitimate criticism of Israel but the tacit or explicit support given to a movement that embodies everything the Left should stand against, one face of a hideous barbarism afflicting multiple locations throughout the Islamic world. It is impossible to reasonably pass judgement on the Israelis without taking account of the nature of their adversaries. This the ‘pro-Palestinian’ Left seems incapable of doing, and in effect ends up lending support to a futile and destructive rejectionism that will ensure the continuing immiseration of the Palestinians."
Those are the words of a  former Australian Labor Party minister Peter Baldwin, who sat in the federal House of Representatives from 1983-98.  It is part of a much longer rejoinder to an inveterate Sydney Israel bashing "as-a-Jew" academic Peter Slezak, and makes such good points in defence of Israel that it deserves to be read in full here.

Last month, Melissa Parke, Labor member for Fremantle, WA, in the federal House of Represntatives, became the darling of the Israel-hating Left in Australia when she broke ranks with her party to defend the despicable BDS movement, insisting that it is not antisemitic.

In doing so, Ms Parke, who has form when it comes to demonising Israel,  cited some very dodgy "authorities".

As Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, (ECAJ) and that organisation'spublic affairs director, Alex Ryvchin, noted soon afterwards:
'.... In her attempt to distinguish between hatred for the Jews as a people and hatred for Jews as a people with a national home, the Labor Member for Fremantle relied on the views of former UN-official Richard Falk.
Falk is known as a "9/11 conspiracy theorist", and was denounced, including by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for vile comments blaming the Boston terrorist attack on "the American global domination project" and "Tel Aviv."
So extreme are Falk's views that the Palestinian Authority requested that he step down from his position as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories because they considered him to be a partisan of Hamas and opposed his deeply offensive references to the Holocaust.
To build the case for BDS, Parke also quotes Peter Slezak, of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. Just hours after a bus-load of Jewish primary school children were threatened in Sydney with having their "throats cut" and were subjected to shouts of "Heil Hitler" and "all Jews must die", Slezak declared that "Jews are fair game because of their influence and militant support for crimes of [the] Jewish state." Slezak insists that he meant Jews were "only" fair game for criticism, but this is belied by the timing and context of his comment."
They went on:

'The dishonesty and extremism of what Parke calls the "official BDS campaign" is evident.
The founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, claims  Palestinians have a "right to resistance by any means, including armed resistance," and denies that the Jews are a people or have a connection to the land of Israel.
Other leading figures in the movement have openly asserted the campaign's purpose of destroying Israel....
Parke's speech in support of BDS is symptomatic of the same psychosis for which Richard Falk has been roundly condemned. It places all the ills of the Middle East, if not the world, at the feet of Israel.
Parke even goes so far as to link the scourge of militant Islam with the actions of Israel and implies that BDS is part of the solution. What connection Israel has to the marauding jihadists consuming much of Africa and the Middle East, Parke does not tell us. Israel's only involvement in the Syrian tragedy that  spawned IS and which has claimed, in just a few years, far more lives than the Arab-Israeli conflict has in over six decades, is to smuggle wounded Syrian civilians across the border and heal them free of charge in Israeli hospitals.
Every party in the Federal Parliament and in the State or Territory parliaments has rejected the anti-Israel BDS campaign, and leaders of the Coalition, Labor and the Greens have denounced BDS publicly more than once.  
More importantly, Australians have shown no tolerance at all for the fringe groups that picket chocolate shops, university centres that try to exclude Israeli academics, or local councils that seek to spend ratepayers' money on anti-Israel crusades.
Parke's public endorsement of a campaign that is at best dishonest and at worst racist, will disgust all people of goodwill who support a Palestinian State alongside Israel, something that BDS staunchly opposes. ...'
More recently, former Australian Foreign Minister and former president of Labor Friends of Israel Bob Carr's much-flaunted decision to become patron of Labor Friends of Palestine has, deservedly, attracted widespread derision from Jewish and other pro-Israel sources.

Speaking to the Australian Friends of Palestine Association (a most active ratbag crowd of BDSers; latest video below) in Adelaide, Carr said, in part:
"Pennant Hills Golf Club in Sydney is an unusual place for an epiphany on the changes in Israel. Still, it was there I met a Christian volunteer who went to the occupied territories to escort Palestinian children to school, to protect them from verbal and physical ­violence by Israeli settlers.
Violence against Arab kids? Christian volunteers to protect them? From Jewish settlers?
None of this was around in 1977 when I rented a room in Sydney Trades Hall and called on Bob Hawke, ACTU president, to help me launch Labor Friends of Israel.
In 1977 the Israeli occupation was 10 years old. There were 25,000 settlers. It was easy to believe the Israelis were holding the West Bank only as a bargaining chip. Arabs were terrorists.
Now the occupation has lasted 47 years. There are 500,000 settlers. Up to 60 per cent of the Israeli cabinet is on record as opposing a two-state solution. Palestinians have been part of a peace process for 25 years....
In 1977 the Palestine Liberation Organisation was blowing up planes. Now for 25 years Palestinians have been committed to a neg­otiated solution, most recently to a demilitarised state with the presence of a US-led NATO force on the West Bank and East ­Jerusalem.
In 1977 when we launched Labor Friends of Israel we knew, to our disgrace, none of their narrative....
From the writers of The West Wing came this. Discussing Gaza and the West Bank, a White House adviser says to another, “Revolutionaries will outlast and out-die occupiers every time.” No other colonial rule has survived, let alone with rich settlers on fortified hilltops with Los Angeles lawns, the wretched huddled in the gullies, their 12-year-old kids subject to military arrest and ­detention.
We have politely pitched the case for Palestinian statehood as creating security for Israel. But in view of the settlements and settler violence, I now pitch the case in terms of the rights of the Palestinian people, recognised in international law and every draft peace statement supported by the world for a quarter of a century.
Palestinians must commit to non-violent resistance, not a third intifada. They must build international support. They must engage with the righteous Jews who condemn the takeover of Zionism by the fanatics.
Forty years ago I signed up to be president of Labor Friends of Israel; I still count myself a friend of the liberals in that country but it serves the cause of a just peace better by me this week becoming patron of Labor Friends of Palestine."

As Liberal federal MP Josh Frydenberg, parliamentary secretary to prime minister Tony Abbott, and the only Jewish MP on that side of the House, commented:
“This grandstanding by Bob Carr is all about him. It’s nothing more than an obsession on Bob Carr’s part.
He is a real opportunist. He’s been silent as we’ve seen ISIL or ISIS go ahead and engage in beheadings in Iraq and Syria and butchery and genocide but he’s just obsessed with the Israel-Palestinian issue and I just think it’s because he’s got relevance deprivation syndrome.”....'
The current Australian Jewish News, which hit the newsstands today, is replete with letters and articles about Bob Carr's treacherous attitude towards Israel.

One of the best and most trenchant of the indictments of Carr comes from the paper's publisher, Robert Magid, who is not afraid to suggest that awareness of the Muslim vote in Sydney and Melbourne has prompted Carr's volte-face; his article, headed "Carr's veered off the road of reality", appeared yesterday in The Australian behind a paywall (title, should you wish to google it: Bob Carr is no friend of Israel or Palestinians)

"Israel", writes Mr Magid inter alia,
lives in a rough neighbourhood. Syria recently killed more than 200,000 of its citizens and more than half of its population have fled their country. Lebanon has tens of thousands of missiles pointed at Israel. Gaza recently fired batteries of Fajr-5 missiles not at military targets but Israeli civilians. An army of fanatics is intent on killing anyone who is not Sunni, beheading or mass murdering prisoners, enslaving women and children. Iran is marching inexorably to acquire nuclear weapons, intent on wiping Israel off the map.
Into these shark-infested ­waters swims our heroic former foreign minister with all the answers. His view? Everything is Israel’s fault. The Palestinians are helpless victims. The expansion of settlements is irreversible and renders peace impossible. With the ­absorption of the West Bank, Israel will become an apartheid state. Israel is becoming more religious, hence more fanatical and more right wing, and while Israel expands, Palestinians have been thwarted in the peace process for 25 years. The imagery is all there. Mahmoud Abbas sits, pen in hand, a jilted bride.
What is the reality? Start with the peace process. Every Palestinian is suckled on the belief that Palestine includes all of Israel. Look at any map in the Palestinian territories or the Arab world. To Palestinians, “the Occupation” is not of Jenin or Ramallah but Tel Aviv and Haifa. Anyone who betrays that birthright should be killed as a traitor. The only peace agreement Abbas would sign is for Benjamin Netanyahu to hand over all of ­Israel.
So who is responsible for the lack of progress towards peace?
Israel agreed to the Oslo Accords that brought to the West Bank Yasser Arafat and his PLO, who, rather than seeking peace, unleashed an intifada that killed more than 1000 Israelis.....
 Bob Carr sees settlements as the essential obstacle to peace from which Israel will never withdraw, the only possible outcome a Greater Israel with a disenfranchised Palestinian minority.
Yet there were no settlements between 1948 and the war of 1967 and Palestinians refused to negotiate peace, and all Israeli proposals since then have been rejected. Former Peace Now activist Ari Shavit acknowledges that even if all the settlements were dismantled, Palestinians would never sign a peace agreement.
Carr implies Israel is becoming more right wing. But democratic politics is a pendulum. When Israelis feel secure, they vote on domestic issues, usually for leftist parties. When they feel threatened, they vote for the party they believe provides them with security.
Carr shows his ignorance by confusing religious parties in the Knesset with support for extremists — the main religious parties are focused on support for their education and welfare priorities and join in coalitions with whichever party meets their needs.
Carr also fails to mention that the Netanyahu government is committed to a two-state solution....
Carr talks about future apartheid if Israel remains in control of the West Bank but Israel is the only country in the neighbourhood where apartheid is not practised. Israeli Arabs vote, are represented in parliament, sit on the judiciary, are active in academe as students and lecturers, are doctors and staff in all hospitals, and represent Israel in international forums.
Palestinians born in Syria, Lebanon and other Arab states have no right to citizenship and are restricted in their place of residence.
As for the West Bank, Palestinians voted for their own government, which is responsible for all domestic policies....
The West Bank cannot be a stand-alone economy. Many Palestinians see their future not in exacerbating relations with Israel, a technological wonder but in constructive economic and social ties. Palestinians are forming companies linked with Israeli hi-tech companies to provide services.
Hamas has shown considerable technical skill building rockets, missiles and tunnels but these skills should be harnessed to improve its people’s lives. Instead of encouraging constructive dialogue, Carr plays to the victim mentality. Therein lies the difference between those who welcome an integration of Palestinian and Israeli economies to the benefit all rather than the destructive negativity of Carr. Sadly, he is no friend of Israel or of the Palestinians.'
 Meanwhile, as J-Wire's Henry Benjamin reports here, the ECAJ's president, Robert Goot, has told delegates its AGM:
"The erosion in support for Israel within the Australian Labor Party, especially in New South Wales and Queensland, has lead to a weakening of the cross-party consensus on Israel that has been a feature of Australian politics since at least the mid-1950’s. The ECAJ is working closely with the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in particular and the Jewish community’s many friends within the ALP, to address this issue especially in the context of the national conference of the ALP to be held in 2015, where we anticipate a move led by Bob Carr to change the policy. His latest remarks reported in “The Australian” yesterday, will undoubtedly attract support and demonstrate yet again the impact on some of our friends of the settlement policy, the attitude of some of the settlers and their political supporters, which whatever their motivation, is seen to undermine support for the 2 state solution and further isolates Israel.”  [My emphasis]

Monday, 16 June 2014

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.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Carr, Cox & Kennedy: Aussie pro-Israel politician Danby on the ABC's bias

The ABC is Australia's equivalent of the BBC, though it is state-funded out of the public purse via taxation rather than by means of that odious poll-tax known as the "licence fee" that comfortably sustains its British counterpart.  Like the BBC, the ABC is very much a voice of the liberal-left, and, though probably not as audaciously prejudiced as is the arrogant and self-satisfied Al Beeb, its current affairs programs and panels tend to be in thrust and composition accordingly skewed.


Moreover, as Jewish MP Michael Danby has observed:
“The ABC regularly exhibits its cultural insensitivity of having programs like Q&A on Jewish holy days such as Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Passover.”
Nowhere was the ABC's bias and insensitivity more apparent than in the selection of panellists for last night's Q&A (billed as "Lobbyists, Lies & Libertarians"), as described in the following letter of protest from veteran pro-Israel federal MP Michael Danby (correctly anticipating  “the inevitable attack on Israel and the Australian Jewish community” and considering the program as advertised  "a set-up because the panel designed to promote Bob Carr along with overseas guest [violinist Nigel] Kennedy and [Viennese-born feminist] Eva Cox* who is a critic of the mainstream Australian Jewish community”) in an as yet unanswered letter to the ABC's managing, Mark Scott:
Dear Mr Scott,
Thank you for our telephone conversation earlier today. At your suggestion I am copying Peter McEvoy, Executive Producer of QandA to this note restating my concern with the likely content and construct of the panel of next Monday’s QandA program. Clearly there will be a focus on Mr Carr’s book, particularly given the publicity his book attracted this last week. The publicity highlighted his controversial views of the ‘unhealthy influence of the Australian Jewish Community’ on Australian Foreign Policy. A community, of which you know, I am a proud member and advocate.
Mr Carr’s advertised co-panelist Eva Cox has virulently negative views about Israel and the Australian Jewish Community which she has previously expressed on QandA. [compere] Mr [Tony] Jones has hosted Ms Cox on previous QandA programs when Israel has been a topic, in which she has vociferously expressed such views. A third panelist, British violinist, Nigel Kennedy, was censored by the BBC in August 2013 for his ad-hoc attack on Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state during a performance screened by the British network. As it stands, those criticised in Mr Carr’s book, such as myself, Mark Dreyfus, Josh Frydenberg and Mark Leibler will have not any opportunity to respond to the inevitable chorus of criticism of phantom ‘Likudniks.’ Even though our position of a two state solution brought about by an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis is the position of both Australian Parties representing 90% of Australians. Of course each panelist is entitled to their opinion, however, it would be both equitable and instructive for an element of balance to be introduced by either myself, Dreyfus, Frydenberg or Leibler. [Emphasis added]
I accept that the British panelist Mr O’Neil[l] has at times written regarding the issues of anti-Semitism and BDS, and has expressed views that might introduce some balance on the Middle East. However, he is not cognisant of the domestic issues ventilated by Mr Carr, which are specifically with regard to Australia’s vote at the UN and a severe critique of the Australian Jewish Community, nor would he have any knowledge of the specific electoral pressures that I and many others ascribe as a primary source of Mr Carr’s conduct and writing. Nor, I doubt would [NSW Liberal politician]Ms  [Kerry]Chikarovski.
 .... I believe the views of at least one articulate Australian who represents a different view on the inevitable discussion of the thrust of Carr’s book should be included in the line-up.
Finally, as a suggestion, one of the panelists or Mr Jones might want to raise with Carr why he was so obsessed with this issue when there are far worse situations in the world, such as 300,000 incarcerated in North Korean Concentration Camps, or 140,000 people murdered by their own government in Syria, or indeed Bob Carr’s cruel indifference to the millions of Tibetans living under China’s boot...."
For the entire letter and the full story see J-Wire here

*In 2010 Cox (pictured right, alongside Carr), like Antony Loewenstein and a number of figures marginal to the mainstream Australian Jewish community, signed the following petition:
We are Jews from Australia, who, like Jewish people throughout the world, have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel’s “law of return.” While this law may seem intended to enable a Jewish homeland, we submit that it is in fact a form of racist privilege that abets the colonial oppression of the Palestinians.
Today there are more than seven million Palestinian refugees around the world. Israel denies their right to return to their homes and land—a right recognized and undisputed by UN Resolution 194, the Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, we are invited to live on that same land simply because we are Jewish, thereby potentially taking the place of Palestinians who would dearly love to return to their ancestral lands.
We renounce this “right” to “return” offered to us by Israeli law. It is not right that we may “return” to a state that is not ours while Palestinians are excluded and continuously dispossessed.
'We are Jews from Australia, who, like Jewish people throughout the world, have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel’s “law of return.” While this law may seem intended to enable a Jewish homeland, we submit that it is in fact a form of racist privilege that abets the colonial oppression of the Palestinians.
Today there are more than seven million Palestinian refugees around the world. Israel denies their right to return to their homes and land—a right recognized and undisputed by UN Resolution 194, the Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, we are invited to live on that same land simply because we are Jewish, thereby potentially taking the place of Palestinians who would dearly love to return to their ancestral lands.
We renounce this “right” to “return” offered to us by Israeli law. It is not right that we may “return” to a state that is not ours while Palestinians are excluded and continuously dispossessed.'
The Q&A program that was the subject of Danby's letter was broadcast last evening.  It included discussion on not one but two questions (a not insubstantial portion of the entire subject matter) of relevance to Danby's fears, as set out on the ABC site:
ISRAEL LOBBY
Greg Weiss asked: Bob Carr, in your previous book “My Reading Life” you praised the Jewish Holocaust survivor Primo Levi. Primo Levi's family along with 6 million Jews were murdered while waiting for the world to speak up on their behalf. None did. That is why the Jewish people have been forced /opted to have their own lobby groups as no one lobbied on their behalf. What is the problem then with a Jewish lobby group? I see no difference between it pushing for its own case any more than a Gay lobby group fighting for Gay rights or the Groceries Lobby arguing for its interests or any other group. Why single out the Jewish lobby group from any other one?
PALESTINE
Jessie Tu asked:Nelson Mandela famously said that our freedom will be incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians. I believe that what is occurring to them is a direct violation of the most fundamental human rights. However, I've noticed that my views are often deemed 'Pro - Palestinian' and retaliated against and labelled 'anti Semitic' by those on the other side. How can a logical dialogue even begin when the belief in the equality of all humans is met with such aggressive defensiveness?
Brendan O'Neill spoke well in Israel's defence, but Kerry Chikarovski proved a cop-out, being by her own admission out of her depth on the issue.  (In fact, besides panellist O'Neill, the only articulate pro-Israel speaker was Greg Weiss, a questioner, who cogently pointed out from the floor that Israel is not an "apartheid state".)

See the program (or, when it becomes available later today, read the transcript) here

Incidentally, Danby has written regarding Carr's book:
'.... Let’s look not at some of the anonymous trolls on Twitter empowered by Bob the book-pedlar but at people willing to put their names to their bigotry, who feel empowered by a man of his high rank indulging in a false and disgraceful critique of the “unhealthy influences’’, which he was ‘‘shining a spotlight on’’, of the “Melbourne-based Israel lobby”.
My ears burned. I was sent messages by Carr’s biggest fans such as ‘‘you are scum’’, ‘‘Jew loving asshole’’ and even alerted that ‘‘we all know what you people are up to … same old nonsense as last 2000 years’’. Carr is not responsible for these or for David Duke, or for the Nazi Stormfront website adulating his exaggerated claims, but their adulation ought give him pause....
None of the Australians stereotyped and caricatured by Carr in his book are the fanatics he pretends they are. [Mark] Leibler is a mate of Noel Pearson. His firm Arnold Bloch Leibler has a legacy of supporting indigenous communities and leaders, and Dadon has taken his career as an international jazz musician to new heights.
Carr, that supposed struggler for justice, offered nothing when I ran an international conference on the 300,000 people incarcerated in concentration camps in North Korea.
He says nothing about the abuse of African Muslims in Darfur or the Turkish Uighu­r of Xinjiang. Where are he and his Twitter-troll supporters as President Bashar al-Assad drops barrel bombs on Syrian cities every day?
Yes, I suppose he perfunctorily dispensed some Australian aid. Excuse me, but I think any of these issues are more pressing and ought to be the subject of public mobilisations, rather than a young, struggling Jewish family making a life in a new apartment on a hill in East Jerusalem....
Can you imagine how I felt, at a meeting with six MPs, when he jumped out of his seat, arms flailing like Mr Bean, indignant that the “Jewish lobby” was stopping him issuing a press release on a Lebanese oil spill?....'
Read more here (or try googling the title...)
We are Jews from Australia, who, like Jewish people throughout the world, have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel’s “law of return.” While this law may seem intended to enable a Jewish homeland, we submit that it is in fact a form of racist privilege that abets the colonial oppression of the Palestinians.
Today there are more than seven million Palestinian refugees around the world. Israel denies their right to return to their homes and land—a right recognized and undisputed by UN Resolution 194, the Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, we are invited to live on that same land simply because we are Jewish, thereby potentially taking the place of Palestinians who would dearly love to return to their ancestral lands.
We renounce this “right” to “return” offered to us by Israeli law. It is not right that we may “return” to a state that is not ours while Palestinians are excluded and continuously dispossessed.
We are Jews from Australia, who, like Jewish people throughout the world, have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel’s “law of return.” While this law may seem intended to enable a Jewish homeland, we submit that it is in fact a form of racist privilege that abets the colonial oppression of the Palestinians.
Today there are more than seven million Palestinian refugees around the world. Israel denies their right to return to their homes and land—a right recognized and undisputed by UN Resolution 194, the Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, we are invited to live on that same land simply because we are Jewish, thereby potentially taking the place of Palestinians who would dearly love to return to their ancestral lands.
We renounce this “right” to “return” offered to us by Israeli law. It is not right that we may “return” to a state that is not ours while Palestinians are excluded and continuously dispossessed.