Michael Brull

Anti-Semitism in the Jewish News (Friday 13 Jan 2012)

michaelbrull — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:24:49 +0000

Ok, so I think today’s issue of the AJN is pretty revealing, and probably a good demonstration of a reason why banning racist speech is problematic. I’m also reading an excellent book called Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex. Henry Louis Gates Jr’s essay is brililant.

Anyway, the front page of the AJN screams:

Broken Promise: Amid fears that SBS TV will rebroadcast anti-Semitic drama The Promise, Jewish leaders have this week called on the ombudsman to shelves the series.

Anyway, page 3 continues the coverage. On the right hand side at the top it decalres “TV series The Promise akin to Nazi propaganda”. It has quotes like “insidious” “racist” “a landmark in the creeping rehabilitation of anti-Semitism in Western culture”. This is taken from an ECAJ complaint about it to the SBS ombudsman. It “consistently casts Jews in a negative light” to “demean Jews as a group”. And Jews are supposedly portrayed as “aliens, predators and thieves and who enforce their usurpation by brutal, racist policies akin to those inflicted by the Nazis upon the Jewish people” (says Wertheim). This story is 3 columns, and also gets a pullout quote. There is no one else quoted – just ECAJ and ECAJ head, and a tiny quote by SBS saying it wasn’t planning on rebroadcast yet. That’s it.

Oh, and this was remarkable:

Comparing The Promise to infamous Nazi propaganda film Jud Suss, Wertheim wrote that both interpreted historical events not only as a tragedy, but as a tale of “Jewish wrongdoing”, and that both “made liberal use of anti-Jewish stereotypes”.

A more minor story – with smaller headline, and only 2 columns is on the left. It begins “The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has urged the federal government to act on a Neo-Nazi music event that is to take place in Brisbane later this year.” It’s scheduled for the day after Hitler’s birthday. ECAJ president Danny Lamm said

Those who say Australia’s laws against racial villification are an unwarranted intrusion into free speech should hang their heads in shame. Those laws are clearly not tough enough.

Queensland AG Paul Lucas said “We are not in the business of banning people who express moronic, stupid and wrong points of view”. Qld police Service spokesperson said it’s not a poilce issue, so long as they abide by the law. (public safety and amenity).

The AJN clearly knows which is more important, and which is a greater threat to the Jewish community, and what should be of greater interest to the Jewish community.

Anyway, the editorial speaks about the terrible anti-Semitic revival – that is, The Promise. It says the show is guilty of “promoting a plethora of anti-Semitic stereotypes”. Ok. And then they praise their beloved dictator, King Abdullah of Jordan. Now that Mubarak’s overthrown, they hope they can “improve his image as a statesman and promoter of Palestinian interests”. You get an idea of how supportive of the Palestinians Jordan is when the Jewish News think he’s doing a good job. They want him to “take on the regional peace-brokering role.”

Anyway, the op ed pages are entirely devoted to The Promise. It goes on and on, extracted from a 20 page letter. It then has a special section “Distorted and Balanced”. The crimes it accuses this Nazi propaganda show of are of course pretty grim. For example, “There is a focus on atrocities committed by Jews and these are not placed in context.” Or “The character Eliza mentions how Israelis say, ‘f**k Arabs”, and “drive the Arabs into the sea”. Or Arab characters say “The Jews are in our country, the problem started when the Jews came from Europe, Jews aren’t interested in being good neighbours.” There is no mention of the various Arab attacks and pogroms against Jews since the 1880s.”

Now I want you also to remember this: ECAJ and other Jewish groups routinely accuse those who make Nazi comparisons of anti-Semitism. The headline of the p 3 story says – “TV series The Promise akin to Nazi propaganda”. Anyway, Robert Magid, AJN publisher, gave himself two columns to attack The Promise in the remainder of the op ed pages. I mean…. you just have to read this for yourself

How does one present today’s Palestinian society – which venerates mass murderers of Israeli civilians – as ubiquitously gentle and innocent?

Suppose anyone spoke in that manner of the Jewish community. What kind of response might we expect? And this is in the midst of their fury about Nazi propaganda – a boring SBS historical drama – not about an actual Nazi festival. His historical insights are also interesting: “As for the so-called expulsion of the Arab population by well-armed Jewish forces, this is pure propaganda. Far from being well-armed, Ben-Gurion felt that the odds were against the survival of the Jewish community.” The tacit admission here is almost funny. But does go on to write “Yet in other cases Jews drove out Arab neighbours they felt were a long-term security threat.” Oh? Why were civilians a “long term security threat”, Mr Magid?

Anyway, much of this is simply comical. But the point I originally wanted to make is this. When racist speech is banned, leftists think of the Nazis being banned and celebrate. But just as much – if not more energy – will go into trying to silence critics of the Israeli government and so on. Even makers of boring SBS dramas aren’t immune (I should admit, I barely watched any of The Promise).

I hope there isn’t a big turnout at the neo-Nazi festival. But I think it is good and important that people be allowed to express such grossly offensive points of view. This is what freedom of speech means. And if there is a serious attempt made to shut down their show (which would be predictable, if the Jewish organisations found a little time off from their obsession with The Promise), I hope the swarms of defenders of Andrew Bolt find their voices a second time.

Liam Getreu in the Drum

michaelbrull — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:25:51 +0000

I could call this the arrival of Amos Oz liberalism in Australia. Tepid, politically uncourageous, but a major shift to the Left for Australia’s articulate segment of establishment friendly Jews. This is his op ed in the Drum. He criticises Newt Gingrich for saying the Palestinians are an “invented” people. But “it’s probably fair to say that the Palestinians are a new people, more so than the Jews”. Note how even when criticising this ultra-right Zionist propaganda, he has to stake a superior claim to Jews than Palestinians.

Factually, I think it’s a pretty dubious claim. I mean, I reject all nationalisms. But suppose we were to accept either as legitimate. Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal trace Palestinian nationalism back to the mid 19th century. This obviously pre-dates modern Jewish nationalism. I mean, think about modern Jewish nationalism. Herzl was by no means a major representative figure. Many Jews who moved to Palestine didn’t do so for ideological reasons: they moved because they were fleeing persecution in Europe. And as more and more Jews fled Europe, they went to Palestine because they couldn’t escape to anywhere else. Maybe the argument can be made that after the Holocaust Zionism was more generally accepted among Jews. Ok, but if we’re to date the acceptance of modern Jewish nationalism among Jews from the 40s (or even, to be generous, the 30s) – I think it’s hard to argue that makes Jewish nationalism more recent than Palestinian nationalism. It could be argued the yishuv embraced Jewish nationalism, but they were – then as now – a small minority of the world’s Jewish population. Most Jews today accept Zionist claims, whether in the diaspora or in Palestine – this is a recent innovation.

Note also this, as is typical in writings by Amos Oz type “liberals”.

They’re clambering for support from the hawkish Jewish Right, trying to prove that they, more than any other, are the true ‘pro-Israel’ candidate. The only thing is, in doing so, they’re ultimately being destructive to Israel’s own interests.

Obviously, this is the only issue that matters. Trivial issues like the Palestinians don’t matter, because they’re not people, so we don’t even have to consider what interests they might have.

There are also the factual issues which Getreu has no grasp of at all

For example, since the Six-Day War, US foreign policy has held that Israeli settlements over the Green line are illegal, putting its interpretation of the Geneva Convention in line with everyone else’s. That policy has formed the basis of American support of the two-state solution to this day – that the West Bank and Gaza are temporarily occupied by Israel in the expectation that one day soon they will disengage, with minimal agreed swaps, to create a Palestinian state.

The US might say settlements are illegal – that’s not the same as saying it is US policy. The obvious fact is that settlements are basically bought with US aid money, and have been for decades, and with diplomatic support at the UN, as Getreu probably knows. Put that aside. When has the US supported a two state solution? It has overwhelmingly supported Israel blocking the two state solution, against the rest of the world. And when Getreu says the “Zionist dream” of a Jewish and democratic Israel – what he leaves out is an Arab free (or at best, minority) Israel. The issue is obvious, so he obscures it. Why not annexe the occupied territories? Because it would give Israel too many Arabs. Why are there millions of Palestinians in refugee camps? Because of the Zionist dream.

Look at how he deals with the Nakba by the way: ” as 750,000 Arabs living in Palestine were expelled and/or fled as a result of the end of the British Mandate and the establishment of Israel”. They fled because of the end of the Mandate and creation of Israel. Not because of, say, the Zionist militias forcibly expelling them from Lydde and Ramleh and so on, or from terror after seeing what happened at Deir Yassin and Dawayima and so on.

But let’s go on

Perhaps the only thing clearer is that today the Palestinians have a well-defined desire for statehood, not only independent of the Israeli occupation, but also of their neighbouring Arab states.

The Palestinians don’t have any relevant rights that Israel is violating. No, they have a mere desire for self-determination. Getreu concludes with waffle about the “peace process”. That presumably means something like this: Netanyahu and Abbas should conduct “negotiations” “without preconditions” – that is, Israel can build more settlements on Palestinian land, whilst refusing to negotiate with Hamas (who the Palestinians elected). Tragically, Getreu complains that “There is no hope their position of an honest broker can be sustained by a president with such a view.” Plainly, he considers Obama, Bush, Clinton et al honest brokers.

Note also – when talking about “counter-productive” contributions to his imaginary peace process, he doesn’t mention any of Israel’s policies (or the US’s for that matter). It’s just the Republicans holding Israel back. Ok, I guess if the Republicans were more reasonable there would be peace. Except Obama is more hated in the Arab world than Bush, Clinton oversaw the rise and fall of Oslo and the 2nd Intifada, and Carter oversaw zero progress on Palestine but at least the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Incidentally, that was when the world first started supporting a two state agreement, which the US began blocking in 1976.

John Stuart Mill on Marriage

michaelbrull — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:06:01 +0000

From his Subjection of Women. I think this is a beautiful quote. I also think it is worth bearing in mind, how his liberalism laid down principles that I think can be more broadly generalised (eg, in support of gay marriage).

What marriage may be in the case of two persons of cultivated faculties, identical in opinions and purposes, between whom there exists that best kind of equality, similarity of powers and capacities with reciprocal superiority in them — so that each can enjoy the luxury of looking up to the other, and can have alternately the pleasure of leading and of being led in the path of development — I will not attempt to describe. To those who can conceive it, there is no need; to those who cannot, it would appear the dream of an enthusiast. But I maintain, with the profoundest conviction, that this, and this only, is the ideal of marriage; and that all opinions, customs, and institutions which favour any other notion of it, or turn the conceptions and aspirations connected with it into any other direction, by whatever pretences they may be coloured, are relics of primitive barbarism. The moral regeneration of mankind will only really commence, when the most fundamental of the social relations is placed under the rule of equal justice, and when human beings learn to cultivate their strongest sympathy with an equal in nights and in cultivation.

Me vs the Intervention

michaelbrull — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:37:27 +0000

So lately I’ve been waging my own mini-campaign against Jenny Macklin’s propaganda for the Intervention.

First, there was this on her claims of independent proof of the benefits of the Intervention. I gave an interview on this article for NITV, available at youtube. I then wrote another Drum article, this time about her claim that Indigenous communities were clamouring for cuts to welfare for parents whose kids cut school. And finally, this reply to my critic at the Centre for Independent Studies, at my Overland blog.

My response to CIS criticisms; Elders on the Intervention

michaelbrull — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:41:26 +0000

So Sara Hudson criticises me at the Drum today. I think it’s pretty insubstantial. Also note her tone

Michael Brull in his 3,000 word diatribe…

It is easy to throw stones but it is much harder to come up with solutions. Does Brull really think things would be better if the Government closed down the 18 new police stations in the Northern Territory and got rid of the additional police and teachers that the Northern Territory Emergency Response has provided funding for?

What is the intervention really? Isn’t it time for people like Michael Brull to move on and find some other bandwagon to push – what about joining the protestors ‘occupying’ Martin Place? They seem to share the same desire to protest for the sake of protesting.

…

But then, do the anti-intervention activists really care about the lives of remote Indigenous Australians or do they just like complaining?

Anyway, it’s not really worth responding to what she wrote, but one example is probably interesting to readers and illustrative of her style.

She writes

Anti-interventionists like Brull are vehemently opposed to income management and argue that the Howard government did not follow the recommendations in the Little Children are Sacred Report when it implemented this measure. But not widely known and buried in the Little Children are Sacred Report is the fact that Aboriginal people themselves suggested that at “least 50 per cent, if not all, of the total sum of individuals’ welfare payments [be] made in the form of food vouchers” to reduce the money available to buy alcohol. Perhaps the Howard government read the Little Children are Sacred Report more closely than the anti-interventionists.

Ok, so the report has 97 recommendations. It is not one of the recommendations. However, page 171 says:

The Inquiry was told by some people that they would
like to see at least 50%, if not all, of the total sum of
individuals’ “welfare” (Centrelink) payments made in
the form of food vouchers. The view was expressed that
this may impact positively on alcohol consumption. The
Inquiry believes it is worth investigating.
However, the Inquiry notes the provision of vouchers
has also been criticised by some because it encourages
dependency and can be seen as a return to paternalism.

This kind of tendentious approach to the evidence was the subject of my 3000 word “diatribe”.

In other news, I’m going to reprint in full a media release, because I don’t think it’s available anywhere else on the net.

“RAMINGINING ELDERS SAY NO TO THE SECOND INTERVENTION!”

Today, Elders of the remote NT Aboriginal community of Ramingining are shocked and angered by last week’s announcement that the fundamentally destructive measures of the intervention will be extended for another 10 years.

“We don’t want another decade of discrimination here in Ramingining. The government is extending and strengthening laws designed to assimilate Aboriginal people. We will not sit back and watch these attacks on our lives, our future, our culture and our law,” said Mathew Dhulumburrk, a 67 year old Gupapuyngu man.

“After 5 years, it feels like the water level has climbed up to our neck. Another ten years will bring it way over our heads. The government is drowning us slowly and wonders why twice as many of our young people are attempting suicide. There is no valid reason to discriminate against Yolngu in this way.”

The people of Ramingining are unhappy with the consultation process and expect better from a government that is supposed to work with them. They know that community empowerment is vital for tackling issues in the community, but the intervention leaves their hands tied.

“In the days of self-determination, senior elders of every community were asked what we wanted to do, they would ask for our ideas. Now they just come and tell us “This is it! Non-negotiable.” Only community empowerment allows us to participate effectively, but our community councils have been destroyed,” said Dhulumburrk.

Many people are feeling stigmatized by this blanket policy that brands all Aboriginal people as alcoholics, irresponsible parents and child molesters.

“The government is telling the world that we can’t look after our kids. This is lies! The government only looks at school attendance instead of looking at what and how our children are being taught. We need our bilingual education, we need more Yolngu teachers and we need elders involved in developing curriculum. We know what our kids need, but the Government is ignoring us and punishing us if we don’t do what they say.”

“In homelands in particular, and also in our larger remote communities, Yolngu are happy and safe. The Intervention is pushing Yolngu into urban towns where they are on foreign country. CDEP wages have been cut for thousands of our people and no new jobs have been created. We watch contractors come in from outside earning top dollar, while the government tells us we must work for the dole! We could be doing a lot of that work and earning that money. This hopeless situation drives people to alcohol”.

“The intervention has brought hatred. We know now for certain that the true enemy of our people is the Government and the philosophy behind this new assimilation policy. They have declared war on us, but we will fight for self-determination.”

“What happened to democracy in Australia? We don’t want to have to fight against government. We want to engage with government, we want to take control of our lives and we want to build our future, but these policies leave us penned like animals with nowhere to go.”

Elders backing the statement:

Matthew Dhulumburrk Gupapuyngu Clan

Dhaykuli Garrawurra Buyulkumirr Clan

Matjarra Garrawurra Buyulkumirr Clan

Daphne Banyawarra Ganalbingu Clan

Barry Malibirr Ganalbingu Clan

Shirley Nulumburrpurr Liyagalawumirr Clan

Gilbert Walkuli Gupapuyngu Clan

Jane Miyatatawuy Gupapuyngu Clan

Peter Gambung Gupapuyngu Clan

Trevor Djarrakaykay Gupapuyngu Clan

Valerie Munininy Buyulkumirr Clan

Richard Bandalil Ganalbingu Clan

Yambal Dhurrurrnga Liyagalawumirr Clan

Martin Garrangunung Gupapuyngu Clan

Doris Rangimula Djambarrpuyngu Clan

Dorothy Wiliyawuy Djambarrpuyngu Clan

Tommy Munyarryun Wangurri Clan

My argument with This Blog Harms at Crikey

michaelbrull — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:50:55 +0000

Ok, so there’s this guy at Crikey, NAJ Taylor, whose blog I don’t enjoy reading. He is, however, very gracious and gentlemanly in argument, which I should note to his favour. He has been far more polite than I have been. Nevertheless, I criticised his blog on twitter. It’s impossible to make a serious or extended argument in the constrains of 140 characters, so really all I could do was indicate where I disagreed. However, he has gone to the effort of writing an entire blog disagreeing with a few of my tweets, so I thought this would be a useful illustration of why I don’t enjoy his blog. I think this is the most dull argument I’ve ever found myself in.

Ok, so at his original blog here, he made this claim, which I think really is just kinda comical: “More than any other state on earth, Iran is presently keeping her enemies on their toes – expertly.” I mean, it would be far more accurate to say that Iran’s enemies are keeping it on its toes. Remember when Martin Van Creveld wrote “Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.” As Greenwald has noted, Iran is the one being menaced. Not the other way around.

Taylor included this bit at the end:

Now the international community has indicated that it is losing patience, I have some small hope that Israel too may do the unexpected, and bring its nukes to the negotiating table. Israel has the trump card in this; may Iran and the Arabs respond in kind. Relations in the Middle East are tense enough without the need for WMD. [Emphasis added]

As Taylor notes at his new blog, I responded on twitter saying this:

And the idea Israel would “bring its nukes to the negotiating table” is completely absurd.

It should be forced to, but the idea that’s on the agenda in Israel or the US is just breathtakingly naive.

How has he responded? By seeking to demonstrate that “the proposal for a denuclearised (or WMD-free) Middle East has both historical and current support throughout the region, as well as, crucially, embedded compatibility with existing international nonproliferation and disarmament agreements.”

He then seeks to demonstrate, with great earnestness, that there is regional support for the Middle East being nuclear weapons free, and that it would be a good idea. He apparently believes that this somehow refutes what I wrote.

Mr Taylor: you appear to have missed the obvious. If the US and Israel are opposed to dismantling Israel’s nuclear weapons, then Israel’s nuclear weapons will not be dismantled. The only way to do so is if Israel agrees to do so. I said that your “hope”, without a shred of justification, is “breathtakingly naive”, because it is not on the agenda in Israel or the US. If you want to prove that I’m wrong, you have to show that it is on the agenda. Showing that other countries think it would be a good idea is not the same thing. You probably know that the US is routinely in a tiny minority in votes at the UN General Assembly – like on the Cuban blockade, and so on. Israel and the US routinely vote against a two state agreement – the vote is usually something like 150-5.

This doesn’t mean I think Israel should have WMDs. It means that for those of us opposed to Israel – or anyone else – having nuclear weapons, analysis has to actually be reality based. If you want to talk about how to make the Middle East “denuclearised”, you have to account for the fact that Israel refuses to acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons, that it has no plans to get rid of its nuclear weapons, and there will need to be enormous pressure on Israel to make such a process even conceivable. Having a “small hope” is nice for you, but it seems to be based on nothing at all. I do not think this kind of baseless speculative dreaming is very serious, or worthwhile.

Israel’s very best friends (delayed post)

michaelbrull — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:34:56 +0000

Israel’s very best friends

Michael Brull

Israel may well consider itself blessed when it come to Australia’s media. They are such good “friends of Israel”, that sometimes their devotion to the Israeli government even outshines that of Australia’s leading Jewish organisations, and on occasion even the Israeli government.

One of Israel’s newest friends is the Australian Protection Party. Jeff Sparrow identified [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2877306.html] these friends in an article on The Drum in September. According to evidence cited by Sparrow, Hodges is a “long time racial activist”, who thinks Hitler’s writings “still have much relevance”. Specifically, Hitler’s “comments on multiculturalism and politics in general”.

The Jewish News finally reported on this new friend, with the front page [http://michaelbrull.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/the-jewish-news-stop-nazi-comparisons-on-app-supporting-max-brenner-and-the-best-editorial-its-ever-run-on-the-mosque-burning/] declaration: “Strange bedfellows”. Anyone who looked for a condemnation of Israel’s newest pro-Hitler friend (there have been others, such as Anwar Sadat) would have wound up disappointed. The closest one came to even criticism of the APP was a news story describing it as “hardline”, or describing it as one of the groups with “fringe political ideologies” supporting Israel.

The editorial notes that its new friends stand “shoulder to shoulder” with them in the campaign against BDS. However, whilst “we may be grateful” at these new friends, they “have their own agenda”, so their support may not be reliable. Whether the “support” of a pro-Hitler group who wants a return to White Australia is a good thing evidently is too trivial a concern to seriously consider.

However, there was one criticism made of APP, though it was not made explicitly. A news article featured the peak body for Jews in Australia, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, calling for an end to “inappropriate use of Nazi analogies”. A lengthier outline of ECAJ’s position can be found at Galus [http://galusaustralis.com/2011/09/5140/ecaj-urges-restraint-from-all-sides-in-bds-rhetoric/]. Whilst they display the usual double standard, in that comparing Israel to the Nazis is anti-Semitic, whereas comparing BDS advocates to the Nazis is a mere rhetorical excess, they still oppose these Nazi comparisons.

So it turns out [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2847334.html] Paul Howes, Kevin Rudd, and much of the Murdoch press is more fanatically pro-Israel than the leading Jewish body in Australia. They think people who want to boycott Israel are like Nazis – the leading Jewish organisation does not. If ECAJ was consistent, it would say that by its own logic, Howes, Rudd, the Murdoch press (and more) are anti-Semitic for making Nazi comparisons. Evidently, it thinks that would be absurd, or has no desire to make such powerful enemies at a time. Interestingly, this may well demonstrate the comparative lack of influence of the Jewish lobby, and that Australia’s support for the Israeli government is motivated by different considerations.

Then there is the case of Greg Sheridan. In 2008, after Sheridan wrote about how fantastic Israel is for the Australian, the Jewish News printed two letters, both pointing out a particularly glaring factual inaccuracy (one by Sol Salbe, one by me). Sheridan had claimed that “a few years ago… [Palestinian] terrorists were murdering 1500 [Israeli] citizens a year”. I wrote that according to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, “1030 Israelis – 325 of them soldiers – were killed from 2000 to the end of 2007. During this period, 4437 Palestinians were killed, including 867 children.” Sheridan conceded the next week he was wrong. He never explained how he came up with this figure – and the Australian was never made to explain why it didn’t check this most basic fact. I am the last person to describe the Israeli government as a credible source, but it does not lie about how many Israelis have been killed. According to its current website [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm], 1216 Israelis have been “killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000”.

So however it is that Sheridan “researches” his articles on Israel, it appears the process is more supportive of the Israeli government than the Israeli government. It’s maybe a little remarkable that the Jewish News checked his facts more rigorously than his editors at the Australian.

More recently, Sheridan explained [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/anti-semitism-the-real-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/story-e6frg6zo-1226144877560?sv=f4ab2ab0741870175c9c17b127601e5d] that the “key issue in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and in the wider Israeli-Arab dispute” is the “pervasive and profound anti-Semitism that permeates the contemporary Islamic world”. Not the millions of refugees in the Palestinian diaspora who Israel refuses to let return to their homes, not the brutal occupation of the territories conquered in the 1967 war, and not the appalling discrimination suffered by Palestinians living within Green Line Israel.

Sheridan’s article argues in support of Israeli rejectionism of a two-state agreement, on the grounds that such a peace deal “could gravely compromise Israel’s security”. Suppose we adopt the radical position that Palestinians are as human as Israelis, and therefore have equal human rights. We might then be skeptical that the right of Israelis to peace trumps the Palestinian right to self-determination. How might one respond to the argument that we should abolish Israel in the interests of Palestinians, but we might let them have their state when Palestinians are convinced that the Jews will offer sufficient security guarantees for them? Does it sound reasonable to suspend the rights of Jews until Palestinians feel safe?

Yet put aside the moral framework, and just consider the factual question. Sheridan posits that Israel lacks a “partner on the other side both willing and able to make and enforce a peace agreement that provides for Israel’s security.” Is this true?

As I have noted before at the Drum, the Israeli army [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2909478.html] has been able to drastically reduce the number of troops it deploys in the West Bank, because of collaborative efforts with Fatah security forces to repress threats to Israel. This is probably the greatest demonstration of faith in Fatah possible for the Israeli army. Apparently, the Israeli army and intelligence services have more faith in Fatah than Greg Sheridan. Perhaps he understands Israeli security better than they do.

Also worth considering is this [http://www.haaretz.com/news/haaretz-wikileaks-exclusive/haaretz-wikileaks-exclusive-israel-has-no-clear-or-consistent-policy-on-gaza-strip-or-hamas-1.354824] little noticed Wikileaks revelation.

Firstly, as to Israel’s security, it revealed the US embassy noting the obvious

On November 11, 2009 the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv reported to Washington that “Israelis are enjoying the best security situation since the outbreak of the second intifada [in 2000], the result of Israeli intelligence successes in destroying the suicide bombing network in the West Bank as well as good security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority’s security forces.”

Correcting for the reflexive pro-Israel bias of an alleged disruption of a suicide bombing network years after Hamas declared it would end its tactic of suicide bombing, the truth in this apparently has gone unnoticed by Mr Sheridan. More interestingly, the Israeli army general responsible for Gaza and southern Israel, Major General Yoav Galant explained that “In the short term… Israel wants Hamas to be strong enough to enforce the de facto ceasefire between the two sides and prevent the firing of rockets and mortars into Israel.”

That is, Hamas has been so successful in ensuring Israel’s security from rockets, that in the short term Israel supports Hamas. Clearly, the Israeli government knows that if Israel enters a truce with Hamas, Hamas will honour the truce. If this fact were not concealed, there might be pressure on the Israeli government to reach a peace agreement with the representatives the Palestinians democratically chose.

Fortunately, this was concealed from much of the public, such as by “friends” of Israel like Sheridan. Strangely, contributing to the avoidance of a peace agreement is considered by some a service to Israel.

Interestingly, if one wants to read at least some criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, it appears the Jewish establishment is becoming a little uneasy. For example, after the Goldstone Report was released, the Australian Jewish News editorialised [http://michaelbrull.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/jewish-news-vs-goldstone/] that Israeli should “take this report very seriously”, and not simply stick to the “boilerplate argument that the report should not be taken seriously because the UN has a historic bias against Israel”. Mysteriously, the editorial the next week reversed the position of the AJN on the Goldstone Report – yet this was indicative of at least some unease.

More recently, a new Jewish NGO, the New Israel Fund Australia, has been launched. It is supposed to support Israeli NGOs, a generally worthwhile project, given that NIF supports some fantastic organisations. It has decided its greatest priority, however, is respectability in the Jewish community, choosing as its chair Robin Margo, the former president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Strangely enough, in his new role he has complained [http://www.nif.org/media-center/nif-news/1117-the-hall-was-transfixed] that the majority of Australian Jews “have heard only the official party line on Israel for years.” A few short years ago, the JBD was among the many Jewish communal organisations which [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cut-paste-not-perfect-but-israel-is-still-more-right-than-wr/story-e6frg6zo-1111113122513 ] blasted Independent Australian Jewish Voices, on the grounds that, for example, “debate and airing of diverse views is the norm within the Jewish community” (David Knoll, JBD, and Graham Leonard, ECAJ). If Jews have only heard “the official party line on Israel”, why did he become President of an organisation that had declared the opposite? And why didn’t he offer, or allow, a different line during his presidency? Who was he criticising?

However, it should be noted, in his new incarnation, Margo quoted Naomi Chazan approvingly, condemning an “occupation that is “immoral, undemocratic and un-Jewish””.

More recently, the AJN has finally found that not all is perfect in the Holy State. In an editorial [http://michaelbrull.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/the-jewish-news-stop-nazi-comparisons-on-app-supporting-max-brenner-and-the-best-editorial-its-ever-run-on-the-mosque-burning/] on October 7, it came out scathingly against “The arson attack on a mosque in a Bedouin town in the Galilee”. Denouncing this “price tag” operation as a “cowardly hate crime”, they say this will “shock the overwhelming majority of Jews who are repulsed by their acts.”

How else can the burning of Muslim houses of prayer be seen if they have indeed been carried out by Jews, a people who once were subjected to Kristallnacht? After all, the slogan “never again” is not merely a mantra for the Jewish people to never allow a repeat of the Nazi-like behaviour against them, but also a promise to [sic - not] stand by as other minorities are persecuted and, certainly, never to practice those repugnant tactics ourselves against others.

Strangely enough, by their own logic, this may be anti-Semitic. It is also not clear why this is the one crime which shocks them so deeply. Perhaps because it was perpetrated by deranged Jewish fundamentalists. The editorial writes that “The shame is not just that it happened, but that it has apparently taken until now for enough people to sit up and take notice of the problem.” This could be said of them – after all, they apparently didn’t notice that this is the fifth [http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-message-for-jews-in-a-charred-mosque-at-yom-kippur-1.388534] such attack on a mosque in the last year alone. Unsurprisingly for Israel, none of the perpetrators have been brought to justice.

Furthermore, if burning a mosque down offends the editors of the AJN so much, why didn’t Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2008-9? According to Norman Finkelstein, Israel destroyed 30 mosques during the attack, and damaged a further 15. This included the systematic targeting of minarets. Minarets have no strategic value – they’re too narrow to store snipers. South Africa’s John Dugard, who led the Arab League’s fact finding mission, concluded that they were “deliberately targeted on the grounds that they symbolised Islam.” Finkelstein also notes that from 2001-8, Israel had already damaged or destroyed 55 mosques in Gaza. Perhaps the editors of the Jewish News can explain why they feel no shame that they haven’t yet thought to “sit up and take notice of the problem” – and it should be stressed, this is a tiny sample of Israel’s cruelty to the Palestinians.

Consider another recent example. A group of left-wing Israeli activists accompanied Palestinians, a married couple, on a protest, whose privately owned land has been stolen by the settlement, Anatatot. There is video footage [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EKzNrNhTu5w] of what happened next – Israeli settlers viciously assaulted the Palestinians. They were both hospitalised, as were three activists [http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/press_releases/1317480522/]. The Israeli police not only failed to intervene – they arrested three of the activists. No settlers were arrested.

That evening, another group of leftist activists, Israeli and Palestinian, arrived to protest the earlier attack. They were also, male and female, severely assaulted. Again, the police didn’t intervene, and 19 more activists were injured. The video footage shows the settlers chasing the activists, chanting “mavet la’aravim” (death to the Arabs). Activists don’t expect any justice after the event – after all, many [http://972mag.com/policeman-involved-in-attacking-activists-identified/24591/] of Anatot’s settlers are police, and at least one of the attackers was a policeman. A Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity activist wrote furiously that this was a pogrom, and “anyone who doesn’t cry out against it is a party to it.” Those who refuse to speak out “will enable more blood to be shed in the future.” One of NIFA’s directors, Liam Getreu, has written in support of Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity. Strangely, after their activists were viciously assaulted and they called out for solidarity, NIFA hasn’t spoken out. Or even condemned the mosque burnings that have so offended the AJN.

However, it would be wrong to imply that just because the Netanyahu government won’t bring the settler terrorists to justice, it hasn’t done anything. It has set up a task force to try to legalise [http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-seeks-to-legalize-outposts-built-on-private-palestinian-land-1.389233] the kind of land theft by the settlers that prompted the protest.

Israel’s “friends” obviously aren’t doing the Palestinians any favours. However, Israeli journalist Larry Derfner recently made a different point [http://www.forward.com/articles/143855/] about Israel’s friends: he says he has “had it” with their support. “All it’s doing for my country now is enabling its most nationalistic and militaristic tendencies, helping it slide into the next war, helping it lose its place in the democratic world, helping it self-destruct. If that’s “pro-Israel,” give me neutrality.”

Update:

So it turns out the timing for this was bad, because there’s just been the prisoner swap, which deserves lengthier discussion, which I won’t do. Suffice to make a few points: firstly, most discussion in the Western media is brazenly racist – best captured [http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/gadfly/us-media-reports-gilad-shalit-swapped-1000-non-people-updated] in the title of Max Blumenthal’s blog, “Gilad Shalit swapped for 1000 non-people”. This has been noticed [http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/10/two-worlds-about-prisoners-release.html] in the Arab [http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/french-press-bias-coverage-prisoner-swap] world.

The basic principle that Palestinians are as human as Jews has been entirely missing from most accounts of the swap. Liberals who recoil in horror at the military “justice” system of Guantanamo Bay and its systematic torture can’t understand why anyone would want to free Palestinians who are alleged to be terrorists. I mean, not so long ago, Israel killed dozens of Palestinian terrorists [http://overland.org.au/2011/08/beyond-the-headlines-in-israel-and-palestine/], and then it turned out the militants who’d attacked Israel were Egyptian [http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/09/21/yediot-idf-investigation-confirms-all-eilat-attackers-were-egyptian-not-gazan/]. We’re meant to trust the Israeli army that the people it holds are terrorists. According to the Goldstone Report (para 1444), “during the past 43 years of occupation, approximately 700,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been detained under Israeli military orders.” I guess they were all terrorists.

As virtually no one in the West knows the names of any of the Palestinian prisoners, but all know the name of the soldier serving in an occupying army. So it is worth reading [http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/10/2011101613718856735.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets] a few stories of Palestinian families, who waited for the return of their loved ones. It may be shocking to some to realise that Palestinians can grieve and suffer like anyone else.

Mohammad Halabia, 17, student from Abu Dis, East Jerusalem
Arrest: 2009
Imprisonment: 1.5 years
Charge: Throwing a petrol bomb

“Mohammad was half-way through 11th grade when he was arrested. He was focused on school and a hard worker. He worked after school at a garage, he would just come home, eat, change and go to work. On weekends, he would work 12 hours a day to help us.

“He was arrested with a group of friends one day after going out to eat after work.

“An Israeli patrol grabbed them and took them to a military base. They abused them. During the arrest they broke Mohammad’s leg, and he was on crutches for three months.

…

Duaa Jayyousi, 32, student from Tulkarem, occupied West Bank

Arrest: 2002

Imprisonment: Ten years

Charge: Transporting attacker to Netanya

“The Israelis accused Duaa of transporting an attacker to Netanya, an industrial city on the coast.

“For the first year or so after her arrest, we had no idea where she was because the Israelis didn’t tell us. Since then, we have visited her whenever we could.

“It usually takes us five or six months for each permit. And sometimes after we get that permit, we get to the prison, and they turn us back and we have to start again.

“Duaa is my only daughter, I only have her and my son – who was seriously wounded by the Israelis. So you can imagine what it means to know she should be coming home soon.

…

Mahmoud Alama, 16, student from Beit Ummar, occupied West Bank

Arrest: August 6, 2011

Imprisonment: Two months

Charge: Stone throwing

“Mahmoud was in his last year of high school when he was convicted of stone throwing. He was sentenced to three months in prison.

“I hope nobody ever has to go through what we went through. The moment I saw him at his first trial … I will live and die and never will forget the expression on his face – the humiliation and the emptiness.

“From that day on, we never felt even content. We haven’t haven’t eaten right. I sent the money for the 500 shekel fine today. His sentence ends on Thursday anyway.

“He’s been in jail for a several months so I don’t want to throw a big party in the streets.

“But we’re counting down by the minute, everyone, from my youngest to me. We are all counting by the minute until he gets home.

Perhaps these stories can explain why a Palestinian crowd [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/palestinian-view-despite-the-siege-and-the-suffering-we-can-share-in-a-feeling-of-victory-2372564.html] chanted “We want another Shalit”. Until Israel shows that there is another way of liberating Palestinian prisoners, Palestinians will continue to try to capture Israeli soldiers. And the Western media will look on mystified, wondering why the Palestinian savages don’t value life like we do.

Occupy Melbourne vs the police

michaelbrull — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:37:25 +0000

I think these are pretty terrible videos.

Here, a policeman hits a man in the face. (they slow it down for you

Watch this one from 0:37 to see a cop hit someone in the face. Another highlight is from around 1:37 for 10-15 seconds



The Jewish News: Stop Nazi comparisons, on APP supporting Max Brenner, and the best editorial it’s ever run (on the mosque burning)
michaelbrull — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:47:58 +0000
Jewish News September 23 2011
The headline says “Strange bedellows”. It says “far-right fringe groups” are among those “standing up for Israel”. Page 3 quotes from Darrin Hodges seemingly interviewed for the article. The Australian Protection Party is described euphemistically:
The APP believes in a zero-net immigration policy – one in, one out – with migrants sourced from Europe, opposes mulitculturalism and calls for an end to emigration from developing and Muslim countries.
The opening paragraph says “GROUPS with hardline policies against multiculturalism and immigration or linked to fringe political ideologies have not traditionally aligned with the Jewish community on common causes.”
They then quote from David Goodrige of the Australian Tea Party, comparing the protesters to Nazis. For example, “Goodridge noted that the Nazi party were socialists” (!), “We feel Australians should be against what happened in the 1930s”, and another claim that the behind the scenes lobbying, as opposed to public campaigning against BDS will lead to extermination (that is paraphrased as “in reference to the gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps”).
Oh, and a small thing notes that ECAJ has criticised Nazi comparisons. Typically, only leftist Nazi comparisons are anti-Semitic. It concludes
Urging supports of Israel and opponents of BDS to refrain from “inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazis”, Wertheim added: “This is the right thing to do even if it is a vain hope that supporters of BDS will exercise a reciprocal responsibility to eliminate express or implicit anti-Semitism from their rhetoric.”
For more on this, see the article on Galus.
The editorial is notable for what it doesnt do: ie, condemn the APP etc. Instead, it calls its new friends with whom it’s “standing shoulder to shoulder… an eclectic band of activists in the battle agaisnt the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.” It concludes these groups “have their own agenda”, “And while we may be grateful that there are many who speak out against it, we should also remember that those who do so aren’t necessarily fighting the same battle.”
Jewish News October 7 2011
Ok, so I’m not completely critical of this editorial. In fact, in many ways its very praiseworthy, as the first editorial I think I’ve ever read in the Jewish News saying anything of the sort. However, its very selective outrage in my view is problematic. I think it’s also noteable – they make a Nazi comparison. By their own logic, this is anti-Semitic. After their Goldstone editorial, they reversed themselves the next week without explanation- maybe they’ll do it again this time. I’ll write out the editorial, because I suspect it will never go online.
Settlers’ shame
The same is not just that it happened, but that it has apparently taken until now for enough people to sit up and take notice of the problem.
The arson attack on a mosque in a Bedouin town in the Galilee should be an affront to every Jew during the most penitent period on the Hebrew calendar.
While as of press time the culprits have not been found, the graffiti left at the site has left a trial of suspicion too obvious to ignore.
A “price tag” is what the Jewish extremists call it.
A cowardly hate crime would be a better description. In the twisted minds of the perpetrator, it is justifiable to damage Palestinian or Muslim property in order to protest the actinos of the Israeli government.
Make no mistake – the criminals who act out on this vile logic are looking to shock the overwhelming majority of Jews who are repulsed by their acts.
How else can the burning of Muslim houses of prayer be seen if they have indeed been carried out by Jews, a people who once were subjected to Kristallnacht? After all, the slogan “never again” is not merely a mantra for the Jewish people to never allow a repeat of the Nazi-like behaviour against them, but also a promise to [sic - not] stand by as other minorities are persecuted and, certainly, never to practice those repugnant tactics ourselves against others.
If Israel would like the Palestinians to recognise it as a Jewish state, it must step up and take responsibility, taking the security of the country’s minorities as seriously as that of the Jewish majority.
The “price tag” violence must end, and it must end immediately – before others get hurt, or worse. The perpetrators must be pursued and brought to justice, which should include a lengthy jail sentence in order to deter others who might follow.
This sort of behaviour must be stamped out regardless of what side of the Green Line it is on and regardless of whatever perceived provocation may have precipitated it.
As for those who may know who is responsible or who may be harbouring such criminals – how often have we as a people protested the shame and guilt of those who are bystanders to evil?
At this time of the year when we reflect on our conduct and values as both human beings and as Jews, it is worthwhile to recall the immortal words of Rabbi Hillel when he was asked to distill the Torah’s teachings into its essence.
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the entire Torah and the rest is commentary. Now go.”

         


Greens John Kaye and David Shoebridge in Parliament talking about Palestine
michaelbrull — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:53:40 +0000
I thought it was a good read. I’d love to see it on youtube. I think it was good to read Shoebridge in particular speaking articulately against the occupation in concrete terms.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.58 a.m.]: I cannot support this motion and will be voting against it. This motion is a cheap attempt to smear the boycott, divestment and sanction movement as anti-Jewish when it is not. It is an attempt to allege that there is anti-Semitism on the side of the boycott, divestment and sanction debate when there is no evidence of such anti-Semitism.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane to order for the first time.
Dr JOHN KAYE: There is direct evidence that the anti-boycott, divestment and sanction side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections, the Australian Protectionist Party—and not just fascist connections, but connections to holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to exploit the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust and the many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on the record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 the New South Wales Greens supported the boycott, divestment and sanction mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there and if Trevor Khan could find it surely anybody could find it.

<7>

The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli Government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens’ belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that the boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa—the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era, where human rights were no longer determined upon the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose boycotts, divestments and sanctions, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and they are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it—as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support boycotts, divestment and sanctions are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded in fact. It should not be founded in a fantasy borne of ideology.
The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those who called an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than those of us who have criticised the Syrian Government and its policies and called for boycotts against that government—as the mover of the motion and I did at a meeting in this Chamber two nights ago. That does not make the Hon. David Clarke or me anti-Syrian; it makes us concerned for the systematic abuse of human rights in Syria. Those of us who support boycotts, divestments and sanctions are not anti-Israel, are not anti-Semitic and are not anti-Jewish; we are concerned about the systematic abuse of human rights.
I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate and other senators voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell’s motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I am not the only person of Jewish extraction who believes this. Vivienne Porzsolt is a spokesperson for Jews Against the Occupation in Sydney, and she has worked for years for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In April this year she wrote:


I know many Jews feel deeply threatened by the boycott, divestments sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.




It feels like a threat to eliminate Israel. For so many Jews, Israel is a guarantee of survival, so BDS is a threat to Jewish survival and


ipso facto


anti-Semitic.




But principled opposition to the state of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel are not anti-Semitic. BDS is not aimed at Israel or Israelis or Jews as such; it is aimed at the institutions of the state of Israel until it abides by international law.


She goes on to say:


Israel is in breach of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in so many ways: torture, collective punishment, transferring settlers to land under occupation, refusal to allow Palestinians displaced in the wars of 1948 and 1967 to return to the land of their birth, disproportionate response to attacks, illegal destruction of Palestinian homes, crops and olive groves; continuing alienation of land; the illegal blockade of Gaza; the systematic discrimination in access to land, education and resources within Israel and ongoing military occupation.




It is fundamentally dishonest to attack opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic. It is intended to silence legitimate criticism. It also makes it impossible to challenge the real anti-Semitism that is, unfortunately, on the increase.


 


…




Jews Against the Occupation supports the broad-based call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel until it abides by international law.




…




It is the only non-violent way to put real pressure on Israel. It is in the proud tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.




Criticism of Israel in the name of justice and human rights is much more in line with traditional Jewish ethics than the narrow focus of the shortest Zionist movement.




“Never again” must mean “never again” for all people, not just Jews.


I echo Vivienne Porzsolt’s words. She is saying that there is a range of opinions amongst Jews with respect to the Middle East. Those who seek to say that the Jewish community is 100 per cent opposed to the boycotts, divestments and sanctions are simply wrong. The mover of the motion seeks to close the attack on the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign under the mantle of anti-Semitism. But the accusation surely does not sit comfortably with him. He is the same David Clarke who twice—once in April 2005 and then in April 2007—attended a commemoration of the rise of the fascist Ustasha Government into power in Croatia in April 1941. He is the same David Clarke who was reprimanded by the chief executive officer of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Mr Vic Alhadeff, who I acknowledge is present in the gallery today. In the Jewish News of 26 April 2007, Mr Alhadeff said of the Hon. David Clarke:


The function—


that is, the function attended by Mr Clarke—


celebrated Hitler’s establishment of the Nazi state of Croatia … This is a state that supported the Jasenovac extermination camp,


 


where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, including 60,000 Jews … It is very troubling that such a brutal regime still finds support in democratic Australia.


There is no excuse for the Hon. David Clarke moving this motion when he so shamefully supported the celebration of the Nazi regime in Croatia. Like so many who come from the extreme Right, today he finds himself with the fanatical support of Israel. He joins with groups such as the Australian Protectionist Party and others in opposing the boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign. Many in the Jewish community will be shocked to see the way the Hon. David Clarke summons up the memory of the Holocaust when his mentor—
The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: I take exception to some of the comments made by Dr John Kaye. I find the comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr John Kaye is well past the point of merely addressing the motion. He is making serious reflections on the Hon. David Clarke, who has taken exception to them. The Hon. David Clarke, who moved the motion, will have an opportunity to respond to the comments of Dr John Kaye in his reply. However, if Dr John Kaye wishes to continue to explore these matters he should do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made my ruling. Mr David Shoebridge will not canvass my ruling by taking a further point of order.

<8>

Dr JOHN KAYE: Use of the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes, as has been done in the Chamber today, is unconscionable. It is unconscionable because it holds to ransom the memory of people who cannot speak for themselves, the many people who were fine supporters of social justice and who stood up for the rights of other oppressed people. I cannot support this motion. Earlier this week Bob Brown, Christine Milne and the other Greens senators voted against the motions put forward by Senator Boswell and Senator Abetz. I will follow their lead and vote against this motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph (a).

The boycott, divestment and sanction movement is a valid expression of democracy. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that the boycotts did not in any way interfere with company profits. It is a legitimate way for individuals to protest. It is a way for individuals to say that they cannot tolerate the treatment of the Palestinian people, just as they cannot tolerate the treatment of other people who are abused around the world. If the Hon. David Clarke and supporters of this motion were serious about supporting the future of the Jewish people they would desist in giving unqualified support to Israel. The future of the Jewish people in the Middle East will be determined by a settlement that respects the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Those who live outside Israel, who give that unqualified support and refuse to tolerate any criticism of Israel, do the Jewish people no favour. All they do is create an environment in which the Jewish people and the state of Israel continue to operate without respect for the human rights of the Palestinian people. As long as that continues there will not be peace or human rights in the Middle East. This motion does nothing to advance the cause of human rights and peace in the Middle East; it works against them. This motion does nothing to respect the systemic denial of the Palestinians in the Middle East, and it does nothing to respect the rights of Australians to legitimately protest when they see injustice internationally. I am opposed to the motion.
And then Shoebridge

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.15 p.m.]: At the outset let me say that there are elements of this motion that I support as a member of The Greens New South Wales. I support paragraph (d), which states:

(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.

I confirm my support for the motion moved earlier by my colleague Dr John Kaye that did just that. Indeed, I echo and commend the words of my Greens colleague Dr John Kaye in his contribution to the House. If the motion were drafted to condemn violence, including violent protests, I would support it. However, the motion goes well beyond these matters; therefore, I do not support it and I will be voting against it. I join with my Federal colleagues—including Senator Bob Brown, Senator Christine Milne and Senator Lee Rhiannon—who opposed a similar motion in the Federal Senate earlier this week.
I am a proud member of The Greens New South Wales. I have a deep respect for our history, our structures and the decisions the party makes. One core principle underpinning The Greens New South Wales is peace and non-violence. We oppose violence and promote peace wherever we can. The Greens oppose the use of violence by police and protesters alike. We oppose violence by Israelis and Palestinians. We also respect the right of people to protest as fundamental to a healthy, functioning democracy. This is true even when we disagree with those protesters. For example, when 300 hopelessly misguided individuals went to Canberra to protest against the carbon tax I did not agree with them, but my Greens colleagues and I respected their right to protest.
When Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile wants to protest against Greens policies—such as abortion law reform, euthanasia or marriage equality—and organises supporters to protest outside Parliament House or in the Domain I will not agree with what he is protesting about, but I will respect the fact that he and his supporters have a right to protest as a sign of a functioning democracy. I cannot support this motion as it seeks to condemn people for exercising their right to protest. I have not been involved in the Max Brenner protests. The Greens New South Wales have not endorsed any of them, but I respect the right of those protesters to make their views known and to use peaceful protests to raise their concerns about the plight of Palestinians under occupation, those in refugee camps and those suffering from an unjust trade blockade in the Gaza.
I will not condemn people of goodwill who are protesting on our streets for the rights of oppressed people, such as the Palestinians. The protests outside Max Brenner clearly have been controversial. I may not choose to protest outside one of these premises in New South Wales, but I will not condemn those people of goodwill who choose to peacefully protest and raise in the way they see best the plight of the Palestinian people and the culpability of the Israeli state in that plight. The motion attacks the boycott, divestment and sanction [BDS] campaign. Many people from across the globe have drawn inspiration from this global movement to promote the human rights of Palestinian people. The movement was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005 and is coordinated by the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanction national committee established in 2007. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is one strategy to allow people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice.

<9>

As the committee says on its website:


For decades Israel has denied the Palestinians their fundamental rights of freedom, equality and self-determination through ethnic cleansing, colonisation, racial discrimination and military occupation. Despite abundant condemnation of Israel’s policies by the UN, other international bodies and pre-eminent human rights organisations, the world community has failed to hold Israel accountable and enforce compliance with basic principles of law. Israel’s crimes have continued with impunity.



In view of this continued failure Palestinian civil society called for global citizens’ response on 9 July 2005 a year after the International Court of Justice’s historic advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a clear majority of Palestinian civil society called upon their counterparts and people of conscience all over the world to launch broad boycotts, implement divestment initiatives and to demand sanctions against Israel until Palestinian rights are recognised in full compliance with international law.

This is a peaceful movement. It is an option raised by many Palestinians in place of a further armed struggle or intifada. We must not forget this. For many people struggling with occupation, armed struggle is an option. By contrast, the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is rooted in peace and non-violence. It is a campaign that The Greens New South Wales support. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign seeks to place pressure on the Israeli Government until it meets its obligations under international law by:


(1) ending its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the wall;




(2) recognising the fundamental rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and



(3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Many members of this House would support these goals if they took the time to read and understand them. However, opponents go to great lengths to discredit supporters of this movement by talking about anti-Semitism, by talking about violence and by alleging incorrectly that the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign denies Israel’s right to exist. It simply does not. As I have set out above, none of these allegations is true of the principles of the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign. Of course, no movement is perfect. No global grassroots campaign is without difficulties. I am opposed to people being violent, racist or discriminatory whatever banner they do it under—including if it happens under the banner of the Liberal Party, the banner of the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign, or any other banner.
This is not an issue that I have sought to make the focus of my time in the New South Wales Parliament. However, given the motion has been moved, I note that I am opposed to the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories by the Israeli Government. I also oppose the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, both in density and size. There are now more than 230 illegal settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. All are illegal under international law and have been repeatedly condemned in the United Nations, yet nothing changes on the ground. Since 1967 more than 24,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in the occupation. This is simply wrong.
I am opposed to the ritual humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints by members of the Israeli Army. Again, it is wrong. Of course, I fully support the right of Israel to exist in safe, secure and United Nations mandated borders. This is a fact enshrined in The Greens policy at both a State and Federal level. I emphasise this fact. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign acknowledges the right of Israel to exist, but it also confirms that Israel, like all nations, has an obligation to those people who live within its borders. It is within its power to respect the rights of those people and it is a necessity that Israel respects the rights of Palestinians, including the right to self-determination.
The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign in Australia has been answered and supported by groups as diverse as the Australian Council of Churches, the Victorian Trades Hall and various unions, including the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Manufacturing and Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Queensland Branch of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and the Finance Sector Union. It is supported in one form or another by groups and individuals across the globe, including many local governments. Indeed, it is supported by the socialist left of the New South Wales Labor Party. One notable supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is Nobel Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who recently wrote to Marrickville Greens Mayor, Fiona Byrne, and three fellow councillors in relation to the campaign. I quote from Desmond Tutu’s letter:


We in South Africa, who both suffered Apartheid and defeated it, have the moral right and responsibility to name and shame institutionalised separation, exclusion and domination by one ethnic group over others. In my own eyes I have seen how the Palestinians are oppressed, dispossessed and exiled.



We call on all our Jewish and Israeli sisters and brothers to oppose the occupation, and work for equality, justice and peace, between the River and the Sea, in the same way that so many South African Whites took risks to oppose the crime of Apartheid.

It continues:


International Boycotts Divestment and Sanctions against the Apartheid regime, combined with the mass struggle inside South Africa, led to our victory. I recall that after the very strong actions to prevent Apartheid sportsmen competing with Australians, that Councils, starting with Wollongong, declared their cities “Apartheid-free” areas, and this was a great contribution.



Sometimes taking a public stand for what is ethical and right brings costs, but social justice on a local or global scale requires faith and courage.

Paragraph (d) of the motion speaks about condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms. I think we should recognise that includes condemning anti-Semitism where we see it appear in New South Wales politics. Sadly, it has raised its head in the ranks of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. My colleague Dr John Kaye spoke of the attendance by the Hon. David Clarke at that appalling celebration of Croatia’s independence in April 2007 and 2005. I join with Dr John Kaye in condemning the Hon. David Clarke in that regard.
Again we must look towards the Liberal Party’s rather unfortunate flirting with anti-Semitism, including allowing into its ranks a gentleman by the name of Lyenko Urbanchich, who had an absolutely appalling history. He held a senior position in the then German quisling Slovenian administration that commenced in 1943. He had an appalling history of anti-Semitism. Indeed, he spewed forth streams of Nazi propaganda in the position that he held in the Slovenian administration at the time. Unfortunately for Australia, he migrated here in 1950. Unfortunately for opponents of anti-Semitism, he joined the Liberal Party. Indeed, in 1964 Mr Urbanchich was president of the Liberal Party’s branch of Kings Cross. But he went beyond that: he took a central role in the Liberal Party. At the peak of Lyenko Urbanchich’s success—
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Point of order: Mr President, I refer you to your earlier ruling in relation to comments made by Dr John Kaye in similar circumstances. I did not know Mr Urbanchich. He is dead and cannot defend himself. The comments of Mr David Shoebridge have nothing to do with the motion before the House. They are not relevant.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The motion condemns anti-Semitism. I am referring to that issue.
Dr John Kaye: Mr President, I ask that you turn the clock off.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Clerk to stop the clock.
Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: Your ruling in relation to my speech was about comments I made about a member who was present in the House. I abided by your ruling. Mr David Shoebridge is not talking about somebody who is present in the House; he is talking about somebody who is not here. Other members chose to attack another person who is not here: Ms Lee Rhiannon. They thought that that was absolutely fine.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Earlier I made a ruling in relation to Dr John Kaye making reflections on another member of this House. The second part of the point of order taken by the Hon. Marie Ficarra referred to relevance. Paragraph (d) of the motion states:

(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.

If the comments of Mr David Shoebridge are directed towards that paragraph of the motion they are in order. However, I ask the member to ensure that his comments are relevant to that paragraph in all his observations.

<10>

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Mr President, I note and appreciate your ruling. The peak of Urbanchich’s success came in 1977, when he helped form the Liberal Ethnic Council. I take the following from the obituary of Urbanchich written by Mark Aarons, “As council president, he automatically had a seat on the State executive. Other council executive members included his close ally, David Clarke,” who, it was said, learnt ethnic branch-stacking techniques from his mentor, and today leads a faction of the Liberal Party. It is well known that the Hon. David Clarke helped organise the numbers to narrowly save Mr Urbanchich—
The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is clearly casting reflections on a member of the House in remarks he has already made and appeared to be ready to continue. Mr David Shoebridge should bear in mind the rulings that have been made on this issue, because the standing orders are quite clear.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Again, I note and respect your ruling, Mr President. So when this House joins in condemning anti-Semitism, as it did earlier today in a motion that I proudly and happily supported, it must recognise that doing so condemns anti-Semitism wheresoever it appears, in whatever form it appears. Of course, that is a sentiment that The Greens—I, my colleague John Kaye and other members of The Greens—fully and sincerely support. The strong and principled opposition to anti-Semitism, and falsely drawing a connection between the BDS campaign and anti-Semitism for what is a shallow and cheap political point, goes against that campaign, that strong sense of unity that we should all be building against anti-Semitism. I will not be supporting this motion.