Thursday, April 24, 2014

Cleaning Up the Mess at Q&A 2

And Bob Carr's answer to Greg Weiss' question?

"I agree with you completely"!!!

Carr then went on to explain that proliferating Israeli settlements on the West Bank and a two-state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians simply don't mix.

Pressed repeatedly by compere Tony Jones to say whether he thought Gillard was capable of making up her own mind on the issue of support for Israel, instead of simply saying the bleeding obvious - well, no - and pointing out that it had taken a full scale revolt of the Labor Party, at both Cabinet and Caucus levels, to persuade her to back down over a mere routine issue (upgrading Palestine's status at the UN), the silly bugger launched into an embarrassing 'Do you have any idea how much I love Israel?' rap:

"I am in full agreement with liberal Jewish activists... that... if there is no two-state solution... Israel is left managing [!!!] a large and growing Arab population into the future indefinitely... I have got enormous sympathy with the people of Israel... I set up Labor Friends of Israel... I told the Palestinians to talk to the Israelis... I was the first... to say that Israel had a right to defend itself after the rocket attacks from Gaza."

Still, even these professions of love for Israel were way too much for the absurd Brendan O'Neill of the UK website Spiked Online. He caricatured Carr's position by asserting that it echoed "this old, quite ugly prejudice about Zionist groups or Jewish groups being the puppet masters of politics," thus demonstrating his complete incapacity to recognise that we have here a serious problem with serious consequences. But for the pernicious and long-term hold of the US Israel lobby over the US Congress, for example, the Carr-Gillard contretemps would probably never have happened. Just to remind us of what's at stake here, here is the first hand testimony, dating back to the mid-70s, of ex-Congressman James Abourezk:

"Most lobbies, no matter how good they are, fade into insignificance beside the most effective - and vicious - of them all. Israel's lobby in Washington, known simply as 'the Israeli lobby,' or 'the Lobby,' has refined to a high art form the techniques of putting pressure on members of Congress and on the Administration... The way the Lobby works is perhaps best described by by its effort to override President Ford's threat against Israel in 1975. Ford and Kissinger were insisting on a change in Israel's policy toward negotiation with the Arab countries following the 1973 war, and Israel was resisting. Ford then announced a 'reassessment' of America's policy toward Israel, meaning that our arms shipments to Israel would be stopped until it came around to our way of thinking.

"The Lobby drafted a letter to Ford with the intention of having a great many senators sign it, essentially threatening to override Ford's arms blockade. Lobby operatives took the letter to Senator George McGovern's staff, telling them that Senator Ted Kennedy had already signed it, and that McGovern shouldn't be the only prospective presidential candidate left off the list. Then producing McGovern's signature, they confronted Kennedy's staff with the same ultimatum.

"One senator, who shall remain nameless, told me on the night before the letter was released to the press that he had refused to sign it, understanding full well that it was to be used to prevent a US government initiative in the Middle East. When his name appeared on the list of signatories the next day, I asked him what had happened. 'Jim,' he said, 'after I refused the Lobby, I received phone calls from four or five Jews in my state who had worked to get me elected last time around. These weren't guys who had simply written checks. They were professionals, men who actually left their offices and businesses to work in my election. How could I refuse them?'

"The Lobby reached its high point that year, obtaining 76 senators' signatures on the letter, which forced President Ford to back down and to drop his reassessment of our policy toward Israel." (Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of an Ex-Senator, 1989, pp 167-68)

Those such as O'Neill who, for whatever reason, cannot see the elephant in the room here are frankly unfit to comment on public affairs. Alas, this Israel lobby denier felt compelled to go even further, and began banging on about "trendy Westerners" boycotting Israeli artists and academics. This unfortunately had the effect of spurring Carr to declare, yet again, his love for Israel: "I happen to be a strong opponent of BDS against Israel, a strong opponent."

Finally, we had the most godawful rant by Jewish feminist Eva Cox, who trotted out such gems as:

"Israel behaves extremely badly and deserves to be criticised sometimes in terms of the fact that it does not act in an appropriate way in relation to some things, despite the fact that all of those things are happening;" and "I agree with Brendan. We have to be very careful when we criticise Jewish lobbies and Israeli lobbies... because they are often demonised."

From apartheid to inappropriate Israel!

Her rant ended with this utterly insulting (to Carr), wholly incorrect (he did not say anything 'nasty' to Gillard), and censorious (please shut up) outburst:

"When the foreign minister of Australia says something nasty to the prime minister of Australia, it's not going to solve the Middle Eastern problems, so can we please shut up and let people sort of try and work out how they do it, because otherwise they end up with silly arguments like this."

Frankly, Cox was even more of an embarrassment than O'Neill.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Cleaning Up the Mess at Q&A 1

Monday night's Q&A really was a real dog's dinner on the question of Palestine/Israel. Averse to mess, I'll try and clear some of it up in the next few posts.

For example, the opening question on the subject by audience member Greg Weiss (which I've edited for clarity) must surely be one of the most confused and problematic ever asked on the program: 

My question is to Bob Carr... 6 million Jews were murdered while waiting for the world to speak up om their behalf. None did. That is why the Jewish people have been forced to... have their own lobby groups... 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... Why single out the Jewish lobby group...?

If Jews, as a faith grouping, had formed a lobby in the wake of the Nazi genocide to blow the whistle on genuine cases of anti-Semitism, no reasonable human being could possibly have a problem with it.

While there are Jews, there is no such thing as "the Jewish people." This is a construct of political Zionism, the ideology which underpins the ongoing colonisation (1917-2014) of Palestine by Western Jewish colons.

The Zionist movement's only interest in the plight of Europe's Jews in the 30s and 40s was to channel them into Palestine in accordance with its goal of achieving a demographic majority there at the expense of the country's indigenous Arab population.

Unlike the gay lobby, assuming there is one, the Zionist lobby fights not for the rights of Jews as Jews but to sustain and promote a supremacist 'Jewish' state in Palestine at the expense of the fundamental human and political rights of Palestine's indigenous Arab population.

This work of sustaining and promoting Israel, moreover, involves the use of a range of tactics designed to influence governments (and societies), particularly those of the US and its Anglophone client regimes such as Australia and Canada. In Australia, these include ensuring that Zionist propaganda dominates all discussion of the Palestine/Israel issue in the ms media; sponsoring propaganda tours of Israel by politicians, journalists and other community leaders; smearing critics of Israel as anti-Semites; and the strategic use of political donations to ensure that both government and opposition adopt pro-Israel foreign policy positions.

This means in practice that while Greg Weiss, an Australian with no real connection whatever to Palestine, has the 'right' as a Jew under Israeli law to migrate to Israel and take up citizenship there, millions of Palestine's indigenous people must remain in exile, denied the fundamental right to return to the homes and lands from which they were driven by Zionist terror gangs in 1948, and no one here bats an eyelid.

Weiss then has the hide to ask: 'Why single out the Jewish (actually Zionist) lobby?'

To be continued...

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

The Grooming of Gareth Evans & Pat Moynihan

"It took the UN far too long to realize that Zionism is a form of racism, representing a blatant violation of the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the standards of international law. It was only in the wake of the 1967 war and the consequent war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli occupation forces, challenged by the renewed resistance of the Palestinian Arab people led by the PLO, that the UN corrected its record and passed General Assembly Resolution 3379 of November 1975 determining that 'Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination'. And it is, indeed, most regrettable that in the wake of the Middle East Peace Conference convened in Madrid in October 1991, co-sponsored by the USA and the former USSR, the General Assembly muddied its record again by passing Resolution 46/86 of December 1991, revoking Resolution 3379." (Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, 2003, p 3)

Gareth Evans, Australia's foreign minister (ALP) from 1988 to 1996, was a recruit/dupe in the Zionist campaign to have UNGA Resolution 3379 revoked, and is today President of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group. An ally of Bob Carr's in the revelatory events of November 2012, chronicled in Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister, Evans launched the book earlier this month. The following report on that occasion intriguingly harks back to Evans' participation in the 18-year Zionist assault on Resolution 3379:

"Mr Evans, an informal sounding board for Mr Carr during his stint as foreign minister... said lobbyists from the Victorian Jewish community had influenced him to campaign against the 'Zionism as Racism' resolution when he was foreign minister - and he was proud to do so because the cause was just. 'But it also lost me... when it lost its way, as it continues to do to this day, on the larger Palestinian issue'." (Gillard cloth-eared on Israel, says Evans, Brad Norington, The Australian, 15/4/14)

Isn't it amazing, the almost mesmeric sway these Zionist lobbyists seem to exercise over our politicians? Here's the even more opaque Zionist version of Evan's falling under the influence:

"Australia will back an attempt to seek support among Asian-Pacific nations to have the iniquitous United Nations Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism rescinded. Foreign Minister Gareth Evans gave this undertaking to a joint delegation from the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry in Canberra last week." (Australia will back move to rescind 'Zionism - racism', Australian Jewish News, 13/4/90)

You will not, of course, be surprised to know that Mark Leibler (now of AIJAC, then of the ZFA) was as integral to the process of grooming (or influencing if you prefer) Evans in 1990 as he was of grooming Gillard in 2012. Now while we know that Evans' was groomed by Leibler and Co, neither Evans' reference, nor the Zionist report of 1990, sheds any real light on the details.

We do though have details of the grooming of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003), the US Ambassador to the United Nations (1975-76) and the spearhead of USrael's opposition to Resolution 3379 in the UN, by Ziocon Godfather and editor of the influential US magazine Commentary, Norman Podhoretz (1930-).

It is tempting to see in Leibler's grooming of Evans in 1990 a parallel with Podhoretz's grooming of Moynihan in 1975. The following account of the latter comes from Norman Podhoretz: A Biography by Thomas L. Jeffers (2010)

"On July 9, 1975, Barbara M. White cabled the American Mission a euphoric report on the UN-sponsored International Women's Year Conference in Mexico City. Moynihan's initial reaction was happy: the United States could at last get on the side of the LDCs and, under the banner of feminism, pull some of them away from the Soviet lodestone. There were poisoned dregs at the bottom of the cup, however. With Israel and America voting no, the Conference had also called for the 'elimination of... Zionism, apartheid, [and] racial discrimination.' It was what Garment later named 'the thing from 20,000 Leagues Below the Sea.' He and Weaver told Moynihan that 'this is trouble, Zionism as a form of racism.' And Pat, leaning in, said, 'Well, isn't it?' Knowing next to nothing about the origins of Zionism or the subtler permutations of anti-Semitism, Moynihan didn't, Garment remembered, think it 'unreasonable for an ethicist to say that this is a Jewish people just taking the land from Palestinian people and declaring 'you're not going to come here, we're here'.'

"Bringing Moynihan up to speed, Garment and Weaver called on their 'biggest gun,' Podhoretz, more knowledgeable and more intimate with Moynihan than they were, to conduct dinner-table seminars. Podhoretz himself had learned a great deal about the history of the Zionism-as-racism calumny from the English-born Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis and got Moynihan to read him, too. Garment, 'though Jewish, was only just getting interested' in Israel, Podhoretz recalled: 'What Pat and Len together didn't know could, as the cliche goes, fill an encyclopedia.' But they soon caught on, Moynihan being 'a quick study, as intelligent a person as you could ever meet in higher walks of life, and he rigorously cross-examined me.' He also invited Podhoretz to compose most of the speech, especially the first paragraph, that he would give in the General Assembly when a UN resolution defining and denouncing Zionism as 'a form of racism and racial discrimination' came up for a vote - and passed." (p 182)

How utterly grotesque that a man like Moynihan, who started out with a perfectly accurate understanding of the dynamics of the Zionist project, should go on to became a mere mouthpiece for Podhoretz.

Here, BTW, is the opening paragraph of his aforementioned speech, assumed in his Wikipedia entry to be all his own work. It's Zionist hysteria and bombast at its best? worst?

"The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States representative in the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, 'obscene.' It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism - as this year's Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago - the abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction.. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty - and more to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us - the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened."

It'd be interesting to know whether Gareth Evans' promise to "back an attempt to seek support among Asian-Pacific nations," as the AJN put it, involved him in Australian taxpayer-funded travel to the region on Israel's behalf, and if it did, what exactly his talking points were. Did he too play the anti-Semitism and Holocaust cards I wonder?

Monday, April 21, 2014

The Knives Are Out...

... for Bob Carr in the Murdoch press:

Gerard Henderson: A great read with deeply troubling insights into the mind of Carr and his Israel-lobby obsession, The Australian, 19/4/14:

"Diary of a Foreign Minister indicates that Bob Carr is somewhat unhinged in so far as Israel is concerned."

Whereas Gerard Henderson's columns reveal an always rational and objective approach to everything.

"Carr is ready to bag what he terms the 'Israel lobby' in Australia... But he offers no criticism of of such an entity as a 'Palestinian lobby'..."

Would that be a Palestinian lobby with or without a direct line to the PM's office?

Michael Danby: Throwing the Jews under the bus won't help drive the Labor Party to power, The Australian, 19/4/14:

"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 arsehole' and even alerted that 'we all know what you people are up to... same old nonsense as last 2000 years'."

Bigotry? Is that all, Michael? Just be thankful you're not a Palestinian! If you were, you'd not only be subjected to Zionist bigotry but Zionist brutality in spades and on a daily basis.

"Of course, all the Jewish individuals who dared advance a view slightly different from Carr's global vision - my colleague Mark Dreyfus, respected community leaders such as Albert Dadon, lawyer Mark Leibler and I - support a two-state solution, Australia's policy since the partition of the British mandate since 1948."

Want to know the shortest book ever written? Our Epic Struggle for a Two-State Solution by Danby, Dreyfus, Dadon and Leibler.

"None of the Australians stereotyped and caricatured by Carr... are the fanatics he pretends they are. Leibler is a mate of Noel Pearson. His firm Arnold Bloch Leibler has a legacy of supporting indigenous communities and leaders..."

Not to mention a legacy of supporting Israel's dispossession, exile and occupation of indigenous Palestinians.

"... and Dadon has taken his career as international jazz musician to new heights."

But of course. Nero only fiddled while Rome burned. Dadon fiddles while an entire country burns.

"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 Bashar al-Assad drops barrel bombs on 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."

... in violation of the Geneva Conventions!

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Carr Diary 12: Reflection 6

In his Diary entry for 27 November, 2012, Carr tells how he received a phone call from Kevin Rudd, "speaking in that sinister undertone that bodes no charity."

You might remember the msm media seizing on this and hyping it as one of the Diary's quotable quotes. Typically, however, what immediately followed it - a matter of far more import - received scant attention:

"Darkly he commented on the state of affairs, rehearsing the history of his relations with the Israel lobby, once so happy, now so gloomy. How much of this is about money, I asked him. He said that about one-fifth of the money he had raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community." (p 232)

He goes on to describe the cabinet meeting from which Gillard emerged, virtually bereft of support:

"So nine ministers spoke against the Prime Minister's position and [defence minister Stephen] Smith had spoken at the earlier meeting. That was ten. On the other side, only two [Shorten and Conroy, described as having "an umbilical attachment to the cause of Israel"] had spoken for her. But the Prime Minister repeated that it was her right to decide and she would adhere to her previous position. Her brisk efficiency descended into a style that was icy and robotic." (p 236)

The next morning Carr informed Gillard, who had obviously learnt nothing from her lack of support in cabinet, what was being planned for the coming caucus meeting:

"I said the motion in caucus would no longer be for Australia to support a 'yes' vote at the UN... but for Australia to support an abstention. I saw fear dance in her eyes. She had not been expecting abstention business." (p 238)

In caucus, Gillard had the choice of either sticking to her guns and going down for Israel, or else caving in and so retaining her position as PM. It was a no-brainer. Carr writes of her decision to finally back down in the face of a caucus revolt against her hitherto adamantine refusal to contemplate anything other than an Israel YES vote (in the form of a Palestine NO vote) with all that that signified: "For a moment at least, the universe was moving in accordance with the laws of justice." (p 240)

He adds: "The Prime Minister... had a word with me outside, saying she wanted help in seeing that the story wasn't pitched in terms of her being done over..." (p 240)

What an extraordinary state of affairs! As I indicated in my 18/1/13 post, The PM Who Put Her Job on the Line for Israel, the day an Australian prime minister took her leadership down to the wire for Israeli apartheid must surely rank as one of the most bizarre and ignominious moments in Australia's political history. The msm media at the time, of course, simply failed to register this. Thank God Carr has chronicled it for us. He will be forever in our debt for having done so. I'll let him have the last word:

"I rang the local ambassador of the Palestinians to tell him the decision. He was thrilled. 'I can show my face in the Arab world,' I joked. I rang [US ambassador] Jeff Bleich to break the news that we won't be sticking to them. But he had been primed with a good line, I guess from the Prime Minister's office. 'I hear you and the Prime Minister stopped a 'yes' vote getting up,' he said. Er, yes, I concurred. I told him it confirmed a shift in thinking in my party - tired of Netanyahu and the bellicose right wing and sick of the spread of settlements. He agreed Israel had lost the public relations battle. He said we couldn't be accused of changing our vote to earn Security Council votes - we didn't promise anything. That's right, we got elected without a commitment and simply delivered. I got a message from James that Yuval was unhappy with the decision and my role in it. It had been my doing. Correct. The column of ten nations, die-hards, glued on Israel supporters - Micronesia and the Marshall Islands - had just been reduced by one. A message to the settlers and the fanatics in Israel, a message to the noble Israeli liberals and moderates, a message to a suffering West Bank population, battered and trapped, a message to the UN membership about Australia, the country they just elected to the Security Council." (pp 240-41)

Saturday, April 19, 2014

The Carr Diary 11: Reflection 5

November 20, 2012 sees another 'Australian' vote in the UN, another day of shame in the UN:

"To feed my gloomy irritation I sustain another defeat at the hands of the Likudniks. This is over how we vote in the UN in a dispute between Israel and Lebanon. When I met the Lebanese Foreign Minister in Cairo in September I told him we would be more sympathetic than we'd been in the past on the annual General Assembly motion that deals with the 2006 destruction by the Israeli air force of the oil-storage tanks in the Jiyeh Power Plant in Lebanon. This caused an oil slick along the Lebanese and Syrian coasts. This motion calls on Israel to provide compensation to Lebanon and Syria. We had voted against the resolution on the grounds that we do not consider the General Assembly the appropriate forum. But this implies we are unsympathetic and in my view Lebanon is a country with which we have friendly relations. Moreover, we have over 181,000 people of Lebanese ancestry living in Australia. I wanted to abstain. For some reason this motion got threaded through the Prime minister's office - even though it doesn't deal with Palestinian status or the Israel-Palestine dispute - and today I got a message that we were not to shift our vote to an abstention but were to continue to vote against this resolution. This would place us with only seven nations." (pp 223-24)

In a series of text message exchanges between Carr and the PM, Gillard asserts that she alone has the final word on all UN resolutions. Carr, less than impressed, turns to former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans:

"I rang Gareth Evans and he said a 'no' vote by us would be the worst Australian foreign- policy decision in a generation. He told me to fight all the way." (p 226)

The November 22 vote on Lebanon's Israeli-generated oil slick is the last straw:

"[T]oday... I get the report from the UN mission: 152 nations voted yes, a few abstained, seven voted no. In this last category: the US, Canada, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Micronesia, Israel and - disgracefully, shamefully - us. The shame." (p 227)

A call to the PM on the fast-approaching Palestinian status vote elicits this:

"She tells me the Jewish community remains very important and they won't settle for anything other than a 'no' vote, that they figure prominently in fundraising and they're big in Victoria." (p 229)

IOW, bend the knee and kiss the ring, Bob, just like I do.

The fight is on.

To be continued...

Friday, April 18, 2014

Baruch O'Farrell's Other 'Memory Lapse'

That deadly bottle of 59 Penfold Grange Hermitage was not the only example of Premier Baruch O'Farrell's 'memory lapses.'

Time to re-read my 29/1/13 post, Not So Fast, Baruch O'Farrell.