Saturday, May 30, 2015

Richard Di Natale: The Fool Who Rushed In

You can read the full story, New Greens boss Richard Di Natale forced to clarify Israel stance (Max Chalmers, 28/5/15) on the New Matilda website.

Briefly, Di Natale's office has been prompted, obviously by some kind of backlash from rank-and-file Greens, to issue the following clarification of his recent interview with the Australian Jewish News, the subject of my 23/5/15 post Richard Di Natale Reclassified: "He had no intention for his comments to be interpreted as support for establishment of a 'Jewish state'. It's not a phrase that he used."

"According to his office," writes Chalmers, "Di Natale simply agreed to a question put to him by [AJN] journalist Gareth Narunsky, apparently missing the distinction being made."

The "distinction" referred to is that between Israel as is, on the one hand, and the Zionist dogma of Israel as the State of Jews wherever they live, on the other.

IOW, the likes of Josh Frydenberg (Lib) and Mark Dreyfus (Lab), simply by demonstrating that their mothers are Jewish, can, if they so choose, take up Israeli citizenship, while millions of Palestinian Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, driven from their homeland in 1948 and 1967 by Zionist terror gangs, are not allowed to return.

The fact that Di Natale was unaware of this elementary distinction between Israel, the state of its citizens, and Israel, the state of its citizens plus every other Jew on the planet, including Frydenberg and Dreyfus, but  rushed in regardless with his de facto endorsement of Zionist holy writ, to the delight of the AJN and its ultra-Zionist readers, speaks volumes about his ignorance on the subject of Palestine/Israel.

There is no excuse here. The issue's been on the boil since the late 19th century, yet the man who would be king of a viable third force in Australian politics, cannot pass Israel 101?

The Australian Jewish News, BTW, is standing by its story and has released a tape of this part of its interview with Di Natale. You can listen to it on Chalmers' NM report, but here's the transcript:

Gareth Narunsky: One of the sticking points that the Palestinian Authority... the leadership [is] their refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Do you have a view on whether they should or shouldn't?

Di Natale (rushing in, scoffing): Well, of course. I mean if you have a two-state solution, refusing to acknowledge the right of one state to exist is patently nonsense... it's self-evident that you can't, we're not going to achieve progress until we accept that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist, determine their own futures and that's what a two-state solution means.

Sure, fools rush in. All the time. Especially into Australian parliaments. But if the Greens are ever to break LibLab's stifling monopoly on Australian politics and introduce a genuinely fresh approach to people and planet, they have to be up to speed on this particular issue. That means, in a nutshell, rejecting Zionism and its modus operandi, calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees, embracing the pro-Palestine campaign of boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israeli apartheid, and supporting the creation of a secular democratic state for all of its citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, in historical Palestine.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Another Zmear Campaign Bites the Dust

At last:

"Sydney University academic Jake Lynch, who has attracted controversy over his vocal support for boycotts against Israel, has escaped serious sanction over his involvement in a melee in March when pro-Palestinian students disrupted a public address on campus." (Uni warns Lynch over conduct during melee, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 27/5/15)

... who has attracted controversy...?

This, of course, is Murdochspeak for any public figure who becomes the target for a vicious smear campaign, whipped up by elements of the Zionist lobby, because of their public and principled advocacy for justice for the Palestinians.

A word from Professor Lynch:

"I have twice been cleared of allegations of anti-Semitism: once by an investigation the University of Sydney carried out into the events Ted Lapkin (Replacing Israel with a unitary Arab-Jewish state adds up to political lunacy, 25/5) refers to, and last years in the Federal Court over my support for the academic boycott of Israel. Whenever this slur is cast against me, it is refuted by the evidence. Cries of anti-Semitism are exploited by the pro-Israel lobby in an attempt to silence critics of Israeli policies, in furtherance of a strategic aim to reduce political pressure for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory. Its power to convince is waning, as witness the rapid growth of boycott activities around the world." (Letter published in The Australian, 27/5/15)

Hopefully, Sydney University (and other such institutions) will now think twice before allowing themselves to become involved in Israel lobby-instigated smear campaigns of the kind that Jake Lynch has just been subjected to.

Unfortunately, however, the matter does not end there:

"Disciplinary processes were still under way in relation to five students." (Uni warns Lynch...)

Wednesday, May 27, 2015


Re the coronial inquest into last December's Lindt cafe siege:

"The inquest heard that the lies and grandiose statements began virtually from the moment [Man Haron] Monis stepped off the plane, when he sought a protection visa on the grounds that he had been persecuted for his work as a poet and because of his connection to the Amadi [sic] Muslim minority. This was 'almost certainly a fiction', counsel assisting the inquest Jeremy Gormly, SC, said, as was Monis' claim to have been a spy for the Iranian intelligence ministry. Nevertheless, Australian authorities found the aspiring cleric's claims 'plausible', eventually granting him refugee status three years later." (Failed bikie, clairvoyant, preacher and jihadist - the secret life of the Lindt cafe siege killer, Paul Bibby, Nick Ralston, Sydney Morning Herald, 26/5/15)

So why would Australian authorities have found Monis' claims plausible?

In a word, Iranophobia. And where does that come from?

See my 19/12/14 post Paying the Price.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Frankenstein Monster Mark III

The following silliness on the subject of Islamic State comes from former Howard government minister-cum-ABC pundit-cum-Age columnist Amanda Vanstone:

"Islamic State is a hot topic in the media. We see, read and hear about it every day... Thankfully, I do not know anyone who thinks IS can be seen as the good guys. Of all the bad guys that are around at the moment, we can probably agree that they are the worst... The IS ideology comes out of medieval times, but we would be mistaken if we thought that their ideology is everything we need to know about them. In fact, as Mike Marinetto from Cardiff University has pointed out in an article in The Conversation, IS has learnt a lot from the West. They know that money is important, and their securing of territory with plenty of oil fields is no accident. They are the best funded terrorist organisation in the world, with billions of dollars in assets. There is nothing medieval about their finances... Yes, part of the battle is on the ground... However, the bigger battle is for hearts and minds, and that has to be fought in mainstream and social media. Ask yourself this: is there a wordsmith out there to lift our hearts and minds and help us win this battle? There was Churchill in the Second World War, Kennedy in the Cold War; now, we need a new hero." (We need a new hero to show us how the West can win the war against Islamic State, The Age, 25/5/15)

In addition to her nonsense about the need for a new Churchill/Kennedy, Vanstone's piece contains two major misconceptions:

First, there's her inappropriate use of the word 'medieval'.

In fact, IS's ideology doesn't come out of medieval times, an adjective, in any case, applicable to European, not Middle Eastern, history. IS's ideology stems from Wahhabism, the intolerant, puritanical brand of Islam, originating in 18th century Najd in the Arabian peninsula, and peddled by every Saudi king since, including those presiding over Saudi Arabia as we know it today (1926-2015). Those interested in this aspect of IS can read my posts Islamic State's Wahhabi Roots 1 & 2 (1/9/14 & 2/9/14)

Second, and this is the biggie, there's the false notion that the West and IS are poles apart. The simple fact is that IS is to the West as Frankenstein's monster was to its creator.

Just as al-Qaida was a creature of the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's Afghan jihad of the 80s, and al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) was the by-product of the Ziocon-inspired and US-led invasion, occupation and dismemberment of Iraq from 2003 to 2011, the re-badged AQI - ISIL/ISIS/IS (4/13) - is today a creature of the Ziocon-inspired, US, Saudi, Qatari, Turkish and Israeli manipulation and hijacking of the anti-Assad opposition in Syria.

Typically, while Fairfax is happy to run Vanstone's tripe, it has so far shown no interest in the following recently declassified, SENSATIONAL, August 2012 US Defense Intelligence Report, Syrian Uprising, Gulf Intervention, and Potential for al-Qa'ida Gains, obtained by Judicial Watch ("a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law," through an FOI request:

Department of Defense Information Report, Not Finally Evaluated Intelligence Country: Iraq (IRQ)


1.The General Situation:
A) Internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction.
B) The Salafist[s], Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.
C) The West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
E) The regime's priority is to concentrate its presence in areas along the coast (Tartus and Latakia); however, it has not abandoned Homs because it controls the major transportation routes in Syria. The regime decreased its concentration in areas adjacent to the Iraqi border (Al Hasaka and Der Zor).


3. AlQaeda-Iraq (AQI):
A) AQI is familiar with Syria... trained in Syria and then filtered into Iraq.
B) AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media. AQI declared its opposition to Assad's government because it considered it a sectarian regime targeting Sunnis.
C) AQI conducted a number of operations in Syrian cities under the name of Jaish al-Nusra (Victorious Army), one of its affiliates.
D) AQI... declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of... Jibha al Ruwafdh (Front of the Shiites) because of its... declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally, [it called] on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions... to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support to the infidel party Hezbollah and other regimes [considered] dissenters like Iran and Iraq.
E) AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.

4/5/6. The Borders: [MERC: Contains data on the geography, sociology etc of the Syrian-Iraqi borderlands.]

7. The Future Assumptions of the Crisis

A) The regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.
B) Development of the current events into proxy war: with support from Russia, China and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts. This hypothesis is most likely in accordance with the data from recent events, which will help prepare safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the control center of the temporary government.

8. The Effects on Iraq 

A) [Start of sentence REDACTED] Syrian regime forces retreated from the border and the opposition forces (Syrian Free Army) took over the posts and raised their flag. The Iraqi border guard forces are facing a border with Syria that is not guarded by official elements which presents a dangerous and serious threat.
B) The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces, taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring refugees (Syria).
C) If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the regime, which is considered to be the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
D) The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows: 1) This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers as one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.


3) The Renewing Facilitation of Terrorist Elememts from all over the Arab World entering into Iraqi Arena



Let me run that (8C) past you again:  

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria... AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS WANT IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE [SYRIAN] REGIME.

And just to remind you: that was written in August 2012.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Harry Krishnas

Off topic, I know, but, like doggy-do trodden into the carpet, I'm having difficulty in getting this shit out of my mind. So put this post down to nothing more than the need to vent and accept my apologies in advance:

"The charming prince, the family role models in line to the throne and a baby so cute he can thwart a republic - the bigger question among young Australians is why wouldn't you love the latest crop of royals. 'You've got Prince Harry serving in the armed forces, he's got the whole Captain Wales thing going on,' Sydney University student Gabrielle Hendry, 20, told The Weekend Australian. 'You've got Will and Kate, a really great symbol of family unity and a great marriage. And you've got lovely little baby Prince George, the republic slayer. The image they present for young people is really worthwhile and I think people can relate to this new breed of royals.' It's not just among the ladies that Harry's light shines brightest. The prince's knockabout nature has also hit a chord with the local gents. 'I like Harry, a lot of people like Harry,' Ms Hendry's friend Gareth Guest said. 'He makes a good impression with young Australians - he's a larrikin, he's a fun type of guy, he's young and he's in the armed forces and he's very dedicated to what he does and as a role model I think he's brilliant.' (Knockabout charm, adorable cuteness... what's not to like? Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, 23/5/15)

Notice that the Murdoch hack responsible for this doggy-do nowhere informs us that Hendry and Guest are members of the Australian Monarchist League. Instead, the reader is left with the mistaken impression that the student body, or at least part thereof, is similarly afflicted by Hendry and Guest's folie a deux.

Thank God then for this spot of real journalism in the same day's Fairfax press:

"Australian taxpayers will be billed an estimated $115,000 for Prince Harry's month-long army secondment - including $1000 for bottled water and Gatorade... If the Defence estimates prove accurate, taxpayers are getting off relatively easy this time. They were charged a whopping $150,000 for Prince Harry's two-night visit to Australia in 2013." (Prince Harry's Australian visit to cost $115,000, documents show, Adam Gartrell, Sydney Morning Herald, 23/5/15)

Sunday, May 24, 2015


Who does this remind you of?

"After a flurry of diplomatic activity, the government of Myanmar has finally agreed to a regional meeting in Bangkok next week aimed at resolving the Bay of Bengal crisis and addressing the larger issue of human trafficking. But U Zaw Htay, deputy director-general of the president's office, said that Myanmar had agreed to attend only after being assured that the term 'Rohingya' would not be used. 'The term 'irregular migrant' will be used instead,' he said. 'They can't pressure us. We won't accept any pressure.' Myanmar does not recognise 1 million Rohingya inside its borders as citizens, referring to them as 'Bengalis' and implying they are from neighbouring Bangladesh." (Myanmar: Don't say Rohingyas, New York Times/Sydney Morning Herald, 23/5/15)

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Richard Di Natale Reclassified

In my May 7 post on Richard Di Natale, The Green's New Limp Lettuce Leader, I jestingly classified him as being at the iceberg lettuce end of the greens spectrum.

Having just read Di Natale in his own words in The Australian Jewish News of May 22, however, I now realise I was wrong. Even an iceberg lettuce would have a more informed, nuanced and ethical perspective than this:

The two-state solution: "Most people who have followed this issue and care about it, would acknowledge that there really isn't any other [sic] alternative."

Hello? Does anyone seriously believe that Di Natale has ever "followed and cared about this issue"? Even for a nanosecond?

There is "no alternative" to two states? Oh, really?

IOW, there's no alternative to:

a) an ethnocratic, apartheid Israeli state on 78% (+ settlements + Jordan Valley + East Jerusalem) of historical Palestine; and

b) an impoverished, de-militarised, non-contiguous series of Palestinianian bantustans (with no control over borders or airspace) on the bits left over.

Although Di Natale lives in a unitary state blind to ethnicity or sectarian affiliation, he doesn't see it as an alternative to the above?  Well I'll be buggered!


Recognising Israel's existence as a Jewish state: "Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It's patently nonsense."

Let's get this straight. The occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza (many of whom, BTW, are the descendents of refugees from Israel improper) should recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state which excludes the indigenous, non-Jewish Palestinians it turfed out in 1948 by denying them the right of return?

IOW, he expects the West Bankers and Gazans to kiss international law and basic, inalienable human rights goodbye and recognise an apartheid state based on the permanent exile of most Palestinians?

Apparently so. After all, as far as Di Natale's concerned, anything less is "patently nonsense."
BDS: "It's just not the party position. Some time ago we made a very clear statement that we didn't believe that this was a pathway to peace."

I think what Di Natale really means here is that BDS is not a pathway to peace with the Zionist lobby.

'Israeli' technology: "Israelis are at the forefront of innovative technologies around [water-saving]. Why wouldn't we be learning from some of the new technologies that the Israelis have developed?"

Which simply means that he cannot see past the brand Israel hype to Palestinian water tanks riddled by Israeli bullets and Israeli settler swimming pools brimming with water.

On visiting Israel: "Absolutely."

Iceberg lettuce? This bloke's not even a member of the plant kingdom. Is there a mycologist in the house?