Silly Question

Do Israel lobbyists, I wonder, ever pause before writing things like this:

"[Iran is] a veteran flouter of clear legal obligations with a long history of deliberating [sic] using negotiations merely to buy time." (Pause for a rethink will help West avoid being sold a pup, Colin Rubenstein*, The Australian, 13/11/13)

[*Executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).]

'Engaging': Julie Bishop Points the Way

When it comes to flying off to a Commonwealth Heads of Government bash in a butcher shop, aka Sri Lanka, the word on every sophisticated Western politician's tongue is 'engage'.

For example:

"British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote this week: 'the right thing to do is to engage. To visit the country. To shine the international spotlight on the lack of progress in the country'." (Bishop urges leader to attend talks, Ben Doherty, David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/11/13)

"Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has vowed to 'engage' rather than 'isolate' Sri Lanka over claims of human rights abuses, bucking a growing trend to boycott this week's Commonwealth Meeting in the country." (ibid)

Now Jules has had some experience 'engaging' in Sri Lanka. And thanks to News Ltd's Rowan Callick, we now have a pretty good idea of just what it is that a politician actually does when she 'engages'. And as it turns out, David Cameron seems to have gotten it all wrong. But then that's men for you, right?

Apparently, when you 'engage' in a place like Sri Lanka, or as Callick has it, "the Tamil badlands of Sri Lanka," the last thing you do is "shine the international spotlight on the lack of progress in the country." No way!

What you do - what Jules did at any rate - was to negotiate the rubble-strewn, khaki morass, with its odd, reddish splashes, in her stylish new Milan stilettos, adjust her new Kailis pearl necklace, brush the dust off her immaculate new Escada frock, sweep the joint with her trademark death-stare - so appropriate in a killing field, no? - wince at the decidedly un-Israeli ambiance of the place ("scarcely vibrant" as Callick put it), note with relief the absence of Tamil women being raped by Sri Lankan troops within the immediate ambit of her gimlet-gaze, then high-tail it back to her air-conditioned luxury hotel in Colombo as soon as decently possible:

"Earlier this year, with immigration spokesman Scott Morrison and customs and border protection spokesman Michael Keenan, she spurned all government and high commissioner offers of guides and escorts and placed her team in the hands of local Tamils; the Australians were picked up in an old minibus at Jaffna airport and checked in to a $17-a-night hotel with cold showers only. They stayed in Kilinochchi, a town at the heart of the failed Tamil rebellion, which had seen little development for decades. For two and a half days they were taken to meet people whose lives were scarcely vibrant, but who could provide no evidence, Bishop says, of continuing persecution from Sri Lanka's Sinhalese majority." (Julie Bishop: All the right moves, Rowan Callick, The Australian, 28/9/13)

Now unlike Jules, Tone hasn't been there before, but he too will soon be 'engaging' with the best of them in Sri Lanka. In fact, as befits a PM not particularly known for his foreign affairs expertise, he's taken time off from pollie-peddling to practise 'engaging' with Sri Lanka right here in Australia, and I have to say I'm quite impressed with the result:

"Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Abbott said the Sri Lankan government deserved praise for ending its civil war. 'I don't propose to lecture the Sri Lankans on human rights,' Mr Abbott said. 'I accept that by Australian standards, probably things could have been done a little differently and maybe a little better'." (Tony Abbott to stay quiet on Sri Lanka human rights, Dan Harrison, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/11/13)

"Probably things could have been done a little differently... maybe a little better..."

Yep, for a bloke, he's a natural, and I'm sure that, as with Jules, "no evidence of continuing persecution" is ever going to cross his path in Sri Lanka.

Manifesto of All People of Good Conscience

by Salman Abu Sitta*

We, citizens of the world,

celebrating the human pursuit of freedom and independence,

adhering fully to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

rejecting the ideology and practice of colonization under any name at any time,

declaring the colonization document known as the Balfour Declaration as null and void in word, intent, and practice.

And cognizant of the fact that Great Britain,

had not respected its pledges to the Arabs of Palestine for independence,

had not respected the League of Nations' undertaking under Article 22 of its charter to act according to the 'sacred trust of civilization' regarding the people of Palestine,

had undermined the inherent rights of the majority Arab population of Palestine by allowing an influx of foreigners into the country against the demand of its people,

had promulgated laws, particularly in the period 1920 to 1925, including the period when it had no jurisdiction under the mandate, which alienated the land of Palestine, changed its demography and created the roots of a foreign independent entity, including a separate military force,

had enacted new laws without the authorization of the League of Nations as required,

had denied consistently the just and legitimate demand of the Palestinian majority for democratic representation,

had failed to bring progress, prosperity, and development as required, to Arab Palestinians in all spheres of life while never failing to collect taxes from them,

had, particularly in the period from 1936 to 1939, decimated Palestinian society under its administration by killing, wounding, imprisoning tens of thousands, imposing collective punishment, destroying villages, dissolving political parties, and imprisoning and deporting political leaders,

had been derelict in its duty under the Mandate to preserve the territorial integrity of Palestine by putting the country under such conditions that allowed its partition in 1947 against the express demand of the majority of the population and the imperative text of the Mandate,

had been derelict in its duty to safeguard the holy places and maintaining the status quo 'in perpetuity',  

had failed, willfully and/or by gross negligence, to defend the Arab Palestinians from dozens of massacres committed by the Zionists under its own eyes before the end of the Mandate,

had failed to prevent, and sometimes aided, the Zionist conquest of Arab lands in the coastal plain, Marj ibn Amer, and Houla Plain, while under the protection of the Mandate administration,

had failed to prevent the war crime of ethnic cleansing, which led to the dispossession of half the total of Palestinian refugees and the cleansing of of 220 Palestinian towns and villages in areas under its control before the end of the Mandate,

had actually aided and abetted the ethnic cleansing, particularly in Tiberius and Haifa between April 14 and April 21, 1948, and by allowing its armament and military installations to fall into the hands of Zionist forces,

had consistently refused, as military logs show, to come to the rescue of Arab Palestinians when in distress, but rescued Jewish convoys carrying arms and munitions in the Arab-held territory,

had been derelict in its duties, as required, to hand over the government of Palestine's offices and documents, and its public amenities and services to the Palestinians before its departure.

Therefore,

We call on the British Government, to apologize to the Palestinian people for its suffering during a century of death and destruction with no end in sight, due to its willfully or carelessly failing to undertake its duties and obligations,

to pay full compensation for all direct and consequential losses and damages to the Palestinian people,

to comply with the rules and directives set out in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of July 9, 2004, regarding the Wall,

to make amends by assisting, as required for the purpose, in the establishment of a free, democratic Palestine, by means such as:

- correcting its policies within the United Kingdom and in the international arena such that the inalienable rights of the Palestinians are fully realized,

- helping, as a primary actor, in the rebuilding of Palestine and the repatriation of its people,

- reflecting Palestinian history and the suffering of the Palestinian people in its school curriculum and in the media,

- and by any other means found necessary to achieve the aim of a free and independent Palestine.

On all of the above, we pledge our unfettered support, call on the United Kingdom to rectify its grave historical deeds, and call upon all people of conscience in the world to stand by the terms of this manifesto.

[*Palestinian historian and creator of the seminal website Palestine Remembered.]

Related: See my 17/1/13 post, Britain, It's Time to Apologize - simply click on the 'Balfour Declaration' label below.

The Politics of Partition 2

As anyone who reads this blog regularly will know, one of the worst crimes in my book is lying about, misrepresenting, or otherwise distorting the historical record.

This habit, of course, is second nature to those with a vested interest in propping up the false historical narrative of political Zionism, and explains the need for, and motivation behind, blogs and websites such as this, which seek to combat Zionist (and Islamophobic) spin as it arises - alas, far too frequently - in the MS media.

Unfortunately, and I find this particularly troubling, such spin, though not necessarily Zionist in motivation, can also crop up in government-endorsed online resources for Higher School Certificate Modern History.

Take, for example, the following highly dubious treatment of the November, 1947 partition of Palestine in a document called Arab-Israeli conflict 1948-1996: 1948: A Year of myth or miracle? by Stephen Dixon of Kirrawee High:

"The United Nations (UN) vote for the partition of Palestine... illustrates well the public and private faces of Israeli policy during the period 1947-49. As the relieved and joyous crowds danced in the streets of Tel Aviv, there was talk of the hand of God miraculously delivering his people."  (HSC Online, hsc.csu.edu.au)

One wonders why, in 2013, Dixon is invoking such a musty Eurocentric metaphysical concept as "the hand of God delivering his people" when the Zionist movement of the time was wholly secular in outlook, and in fact, just another European settler-colonial implant in the non-European world.

And where, one wonders, is there mention of the Palestinian Arabs, still the overwhelming majority of Palestine's population at the time? Doesn't it matter what they were thinking, and why?

To continue:

"On a more terrestrial level, the success of the Zionist enterprise can be attributed to the work of seasoned political in-fighters such as Golda Meir, Abba Eban and, above all, David Ben Gurion. Two examples serve to show how the establishment of the Jewish state was not left to chance or divine whim. As the date for the UN vote neared, the Arabs showed their naivety by eschewing the back-room deals and corridor meetings that are part and parcel of Western diplomacy. Not so the Zionists. Sustained and encouraged by the personal sympathy of President Truman of the USA and the powerful Jewish lobby of the eastern American seaboard, they began a process of intense behind-the-scenes lobbying to maximise the vote in favour of partition. Pressure was placed on the ambassadors of less committed small countries, such as Cuba, Haiti and Liberia, whose votes would help determine the decision. In the case of Liberia, the owner of the American Firestone Rubber Company, which held huge economic interests in the African country, was enlisted to pressure the Liberians to vote for partition." (ibid)

Now I suppose, one should be grateful that the student reading this is at least apprised, however sketchily, of the pressure tactics employed by the usual suspects to get their way. Be that as it may, Dixon's framing of the issue here is hugely problematic.

First, there is no hint here that our "in-fighters" were actually the ruthless Indian fighters who would go on to ethnically cleanse as much of Palestine as they could lay their hands on, leaving the partition resolution far behind in their wake. Nor is there a hint that Truman was motivated at the time largely by the desire to secure Jewish votes in a hard-fought election campaign.

But that's really the least of it.

The Arabs, in Dixon's construction, are simply assumed to have the same clout in the matter as the US Zionists whose dupes, in particular Clark Clifford and David Niles, were strategically positioned in the White House to ensure compliance with Zionist demands. If only these lackadaisical Arab klutzes had hopped off their camels long enough to get down and dirty in true Western style seems to be the gist here.

It appears that Dixon didn't pause long enough to consider whether the Arabs even had such useful things as a direct line to Firestone Rubber. No, they were just plain, bloody clueless!

Finally, the student who consults this text can surely be forgiven, in light of Dixon's presentation of the issue, for taking home the message that any low tactic is permissible in the world of statescraft. To hell with international law, ethical standards, and public probity.

Good one, Mr Dixon!

The Politics of Partition 1

"Having cut Palestine up in that manner, we shall then put its bleeding body upon a cross forever." Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, Pakistan's UN representative, speaking at the UN against the partition of Palestine, 29 November, 1947

Second (but only in the chronological sense) to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in paving the way for the disappearance of Palestine, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November, 1947, which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, warrants more scholarly scrutiny than it's so far received.

In fact, it amazes me that no reputable scholar has, to my knowledge, devoted an entire book to it. Given Resolution 181's appalling repercussions, which are still with us today, its scandalous nature, both in terms of its content and the events surrounding its passage, its devastating blow to the credibility of the United Nations so soon after its creation in 1945, and its persistent use in Zionist propaganda, not least in this country, here is surely a subject in search of an author. (A suggested title: 'Giving the Zionists an Inch: The Politics of the Palestine Partition Resolution.)

Although I've posted on the subject before (simply click on the 'Palestine partition' label below), I keep coming across so many missing pieces of the partition jigsaw that I've decided to post them as I find them under the above heading.

The following reflection on the resolution as an act of "inter-continental aggression," comes from Anglo-Indian journalist G.H. Jansen's 1971 study, Zionism, Israel & Asian Nationalism:

"In that final vote [of 29/11/47] only Liberia and the Philippines among Afro-Asian countries voted affirmatively; China and Ethiopia abstained; and of the 13 negative votes, 11 were Afro-Asian, the other two coming from Cuba and Greece.

"No further evidence is required to prove that the Jewish State was thrust into Asia, against the wishes of Afro-Asia, by other continents - Europe, and North and South America. A clear case of inter-continental aggression.

"On this issue Europe, east and west, communist and anti-communist, was united. In order to get the British out of a particularly sensitive area of the Middle East, Russia and her junior partners switched from their established, doctrinal hostility to Zionism to a policy favouring partition and the creation of a Jewish State. No sooner was the state created than they switched back to opposition.

"From the Afro-Asian viewpoint the real villains of the piece at the United Nations were not the Europeans or the North Americans but the Latin Americans. The European and North American vote can be explained, though not excused, as an expiation of their anti-Semitic guilt. But that explanation does not apply to South America. A Zionist author has ascribed South American pro-Zionism to a belief in humanitarianism, Catholicism, the self-determination of peoples, the sovereign and juridical equality of states, and universality of UN membership. If this explanation is true the Latin Americans can be accused of the most insufferable hypocrisy. Perhaps the most charitable explanation is to say that with their Hispanic background they are more susceptible than most to quixotry. Yet, quixotic or not, their vote was decisive: a Zionist publication was quite correct when it described their support as 'the spinal column of the pro-Zionist bloc in the United Nations'.

"It should be made clear that not all the Latin American states were pro-Zionist. Cuba voted against and Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico abstained.

"The Colombian delegate was one who clearly saw the vote as inter-continental aggression: 'No wonder,' he said, 'that the plan has had to come across the Atlantic in search of the supporters it has failed to find in the countries adjoining Palestine in the eastern Mediterranean, in western Europe, or in the distant Asiatic mainland.'

"Not only the Latin Americans but almost all the pro-Zionist delegations at the UN in 1947 can be brought under the charge of hypocrisy. During the debates on the future of Palestine a resolution was put forward which asked all states to admit Jewish refugees on a quota system. It was defeated by a vote of 15 affirmative, 18 negative* and 22 abstentions. The geographical distribution on this humanitarian vote was almost the exact opposite of the political vote on partition. Those countries that voted for partition abstained on accepting Jewish refugees; and those delegations that voted against the Jewish State voted for accepting Jewish refugees. It was only the latest expression of an apparent correlation: anti-Semites are often pro-Zionist, anti-Zionists are often pro-Semites. The Zionists had no complaints about this outcome: 'It (the resolution) was denounced as gambling with the bitter lot of the refugees' wrote [Jewish Agency liaison officer with UNSCOP] Horowitz." (pp 201-202)

[*I don't have the documentary proof of Australia's vote on the vital third recommendation of this particular resolution (GA/PAL/85, 24/11/47) - the creation of a quota system for Jewish refugees - but I'd bet my bottom dollar that we voted against it.] 

Speak Up, Mother Suu, We Can't Hear You!

Australia is about to get a visit from a certain celebrity human rights icon:

"Later this month Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi will receive a joint honorary degree from the University of Sydney and the University of Technology, Sydney... For more than 20 years Suu Kyi sought the release of political prisoners, advocated sanctions against the government, and tried to rally support for her party, the National League for Democracy. She was repeatedly put under house arrest and on one occasion her convoy was attacked. The insecurity associated with an authoritarian government did not weaken her voice." (No end to challenges for heroic duo, Susan Banki, Sydney Morning Herald, 7/11/13)

Susan Banki is described as "a lecturer in the human rights program at the University of Sydney." I find it curious, therefore, that she omits all mention of the following less than stirling performance from her heroine:

"Burma's opposition leader... has stopped short of directly condemning anti-Muslim violence in the country and said that it was motivated by fear. Sectarian violence between Buddhists and Muslims began in western Rakhine state last year, with hundreds killed and 140,000 people, mostly Muslims, driven from their homes... The government has been heavily criticised for not doing enough to protect Muslims, who account for 4% of Burma's roughly 60 million people, and Aung San Suu Kyi has also been accused of failing to speak out. In an interview broadcast on Thursday, the Nobel laureate insisted there was no ethnic cleansing taking place and said that both sides were afraid of each other... 'The fear is not just on the side of the Muslims but also on the side of the Buddhists as well. Muslims have been targeted but also Buddhists have been subjected to violence... Global Muslim power is very great and certainly, that is a perception in many parts of the world and in our country as well.'... During the interview she was asked to condemn Wirathu, a Buddhist monk labelled the 'Burmese Bin Laden' who has been stoking hatred against Muslims, denouncing them as 'crude and savage.' She replied: 'I condemn hatred of any kind.' Similarly, she was asked to condemn violence against Muslims and answered: 'I condemn any movement that is based on hatred and extremism.'... Aung San Suu Kyi showed frustration with her interviewer at the number of questions about the violence. 'I would say instead of asking us members of the opposition what we feel about it, what we intend to do about it... you should ask the present government of Burma what their policy is,' she said." (Burma sectarian violence motivated by fear, says Aung San Suu Kyi, Haroon Siddique, theguardian.com, 24/10/13)

(See also: Aung San Suu Kyi & the world of Buddhist Islamophobia, Maung Zarni, modernwriters.org, 3/11/13)

Aung San Suu Kyi is equally lame when it comes to an understanding of a certain other key human rights issue. When asked by an Israeli journalist if she had any message for Israelis and Palestinians, she replied: "I just wonder whether they could not sit down and think that it would be so much nicer if they could be friends." (Aung San Suu Kyi: Israelis and Palestinians could be friends, Miri Scharf, Haaretz, 26/11/10)

John Howard: Iraq Believer, Climate Change Sceptic

Funny, isn't it, how some people can be absolutely certain about the rectitude of their involvement in a course of action based on nothing but the proverbial tissue of lies, but be completely overcome by doubt in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence?

Take former PM John Howard, for example. He's been out of office now since 2007, swanning around the globe, doing gig after gig at the Australian taxpayers' expense.

He's had about 6 years now to think about the wisdom of his decision to involve Australia in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, surely one of the dodgiest (and most destructive) wars of all times; 6 years in which to read what's been written on the subject and maybe revise his views on it.

And yet, he is as certain today as he was over 10 years ago that his decision to join the Coalition of the Willies was the right one:

"It remains my conviction... that it was right [to invade Iraq] because it was in Australia's national interests, and the removal of Saddam's regime provided the Iraqi people with the opportunities for freedom not otherwise in prospect." (Speech to the Lowy Institute, April, 2013)

When it comes to climate change, however, and the firm conviction of thousands of climate scientists that we're burning the toast, the man's a complete sceptic:

"You can never be absolutely certain that all the science is in." (Global warming exaggerated, former PM John Howard says, The Australian, 6/11/13)

Funny man, John Howard.