Andra Jackson, The Age, 25 August 2008
Two peace ships organised by a Melbourne man, Michael Shaik, have broken through Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The ships, the SS Free Gaza and the SS Liberty, set out from Cyprus on Friday with dozens of human rights activists from around the world, carrying children's hearing aids to the Palestinian territory.
Two years of planning went into running the blockade after Mr Shaik came up with the idea of challenging Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement and access to basic services.
Israel, with US backing and Egyptian help, has controlled entry and exit from Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005, but virtually sealed off its 1.5 million people last summer after the militant Islamists Hamas put down a Fatah coup attempt.
Those on the Greek-flagged ships included Eliza Ernshire, 32, of Newcastle, NSW, Israeli human rights activist Jeff Halper and journalist Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former British prime minister and current Middle East envoy Tony Blair.
"We will surely try to bring the boats back again," activist Huwaida Arraf said. "The goal is to open a route between Cyprus and Gaza. People here are just ecstatic to see that someone cares."
At one stage on the 30-hour trip the navigation and communications systems on both ships failed. Some activists accused Israel of jamming the systems, which Israel denied.
But despite the Israeli authorities warning it would treat them as pirates, the ships were allowed to enter Gaza's harbour.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Aviv Shiron said: "They wanted provocation at sea, but they won't get it. We know who the passengers are and what they are bringing with them and so we have no problem letting them through."
A 2000-strong crowd turned out to greet the ships as they sailed into Gaza Port on Saturday night.
Speaking to London's Times , Ms Booth challenged Mr Blair to "show some guts" and visit Gaza to witness the suffering of its inhabitants.
Mr Shaik, 39, a former Defence Department employee and now a full-time advocate for the Melbourne-based lobby group Australians for Palestine, yesterday hailed the ships' arrival as "a great victory for human rights and international law".
"Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip is one of the great crimes of the 21st century, which the governments of the West and the Arab League are abetting by their silence," he said.
Thousands of activists from around the world have so far raised $70,000 towards the purchase of the ships, which would be retained to take goods to and from Gaza, Mr Shaik said.
With LOS ANGELES TIMES
Showing posts with label australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label australia. Show all posts
Monday, 25 August 2008
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
We're just here to say hi: terror squad
Arjun Ramachandran, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 13, 2008
With its ceramics classes and preschool storytime sessions, Leichhardt library - like most suburban libraries - is usually a pretty calm place.
But the "fear of god'' was reportedly put into its librarian when counter terrorism officers paid a visit to speak about an upcoming exhibition called "Al-Nakba", which means "catastrophe".
"Al-Nakba", a pictorial exhibition about Palestine and Israel, should have opened at Leichhardt municipal library last Friday.
But after the police visit on Thursday night, it was suddenly cancelled the next morning.
Friends of Hebron, a local activitist group, had been working on the exhibition of photos, poems and articles for eight months after the library agreed to host it last year.
"We set up the exhibition at the library on Thursday night and the librarian ... approved the exhibition, and said that it could be seen by children and other people,'' said Carole Lawson, a Friends of Hebron member.
Felt threatened
"But then that night, the [police] anti-terrorism squad visited the library and told her she had to vet the exhibition.
"They wanted to put the fear of god into the library staff and want the staff to feel threatened.''
On Friday morning, Ms Lawson said she received a call to tell her the exhibition had been pulled down.
"It's the censorship of Palestine - apparently the anti-terrorism squad decides what we can see on the public walls of a library.''
The librarian, Marilyn Taylor, would not speak to smh.com.au.
Leichhardt mayor Carolyn Allen confirmed police had visited the library on Thursday night, but said council, not police, had decided to pull down the exhibition because it hadn't met the council's criteria for such projects, which include not being divisive.
Counter Terrorism police just saying 'Hi!'
A police media spokesman said the officers were from the community contact unit, which falls within its Counter Terrorism operations. They had not visited the the library to to tell it to cancel the exhibition, but only to "say hi'' to Friends of Hebron members, he said.
"They went to introduce themselves to members of the community setting up the display and just to let them know who they are and what they are about. [Speaking with community groups] is part of their charter.
"When they got there the librarian was the only one there ... they just had a quick chat to the librarian.''
There had only been "a couple'' of officers involved, the spokesman said. He could not say what they said to her.
Cr Allen said the council pulled the exhibition down the morning after police visited because it had not had a chance to properly vet it.
Vetting exhibitions
Last year, council decided all projects - like the Al-Nakba exhibition - would first need to be assessed by a panel of councillors to ensure they were not divisive, she said.
This had not been done with Al-Nakba, and she blamed the late realisation of this on "a breakdown of managerial process''.
"I think it's regrettable that [the library] didn't talk about it earlier.
"I accept people might view it as [censorship] but ... I'm just implementing our policy that any exhibition that has our councils name on it needed to go through this process of making sure its not being divisive.
She said the visit by police had not influenced the decision.
"I suppose the librarian may have been a bit alarmed and concerned they had the anti-terrorism squad. I thought it was quite funny that the anti-terrorism squad would come [to a local library] - I found that a bit alarmist at the time.
Nothing disturbing
Ms Lawson said there was nothing alarming or disturbing about the exhibition, and that it merely raised the plight of "Palestinian refugees'' living in Hebron, about 30 kilometres south of Jerusalem.
"The exhibition was taken down because it was about Palestine, the dispossession of Palestinians and what's going on in Hebron," she said.
But Cr Allen said: "The people doing this exhibition clearly knew it wasn't in the general understanding of our agreement."
She objected to some captions, including one that said Palestinian children going to school needed protection from children from Israel who where throwing stones.
"Being in a public library is different to being in an exhibition space. If you're in an exhibition space and someone knows they are going into the exhibition, they expect to be educated and confronted. But most people going into a library just want to return books."
With its ceramics classes and preschool storytime sessions, Leichhardt library - like most suburban libraries - is usually a pretty calm place.
But the "fear of god'' was reportedly put into its librarian when counter terrorism officers paid a visit to speak about an upcoming exhibition called "Al-Nakba", which means "catastrophe".
"Al-Nakba", a pictorial exhibition about Palestine and Israel, should have opened at Leichhardt municipal library last Friday.
But after the police visit on Thursday night, it was suddenly cancelled the next morning.
Friends of Hebron, a local activitist group, had been working on the exhibition of photos, poems and articles for eight months after the library agreed to host it last year.
"We set up the exhibition at the library on Thursday night and the librarian ... approved the exhibition, and said that it could be seen by children and other people,'' said Carole Lawson, a Friends of Hebron member.
Felt threatened
"But then that night, the [police] anti-terrorism squad visited the library and told her she had to vet the exhibition.
"They wanted to put the fear of god into the library staff and want the staff to feel threatened.''
On Friday morning, Ms Lawson said she received a call to tell her the exhibition had been pulled down.
"It's the censorship of Palestine - apparently the anti-terrorism squad decides what we can see on the public walls of a library.''
The librarian, Marilyn Taylor, would not speak to smh.com.au.
Leichhardt mayor Carolyn Allen confirmed police had visited the library on Thursday night, but said council, not police, had decided to pull down the exhibition because it hadn't met the council's criteria for such projects, which include not being divisive.
Counter Terrorism police just saying 'Hi!'
A police media spokesman said the officers were from the community contact unit, which falls within its Counter Terrorism operations. They had not visited the the library to to tell it to cancel the exhibition, but only to "say hi'' to Friends of Hebron members, he said.
"They went to introduce themselves to members of the community setting up the display and just to let them know who they are and what they are about. [Speaking with community groups] is part of their charter.
"When they got there the librarian was the only one there ... they just had a quick chat to the librarian.''
There had only been "a couple'' of officers involved, the spokesman said. He could not say what they said to her.
Cr Allen said the council pulled the exhibition down the morning after police visited because it had not had a chance to properly vet it.
Vetting exhibitions
Last year, council decided all projects - like the Al-Nakba exhibition - would first need to be assessed by a panel of councillors to ensure they were not divisive, she said.
This had not been done with Al-Nakba, and she blamed the late realisation of this on "a breakdown of managerial process''.
"I think it's regrettable that [the library] didn't talk about it earlier.
"I accept people might view it as [censorship] but ... I'm just implementing our policy that any exhibition that has our councils name on it needed to go through this process of making sure its not being divisive.
She said the visit by police had not influenced the decision.
"I suppose the librarian may have been a bit alarmed and concerned they had the anti-terrorism squad. I thought it was quite funny that the anti-terrorism squad would come [to a local library] - I found that a bit alarmist at the time.
Nothing disturbing
Ms Lawson said there was nothing alarming or disturbing about the exhibition, and that it merely raised the plight of "Palestinian refugees'' living in Hebron, about 30 kilometres south of Jerusalem.
"The exhibition was taken down because it was about Palestine, the dispossession of Palestinians and what's going on in Hebron," she said.
But Cr Allen said: "The people doing this exhibition clearly knew it wasn't in the general understanding of our agreement."
She objected to some captions, including one that said Palestinian children going to school needed protection from children from Israel who where throwing stones.
"Being in a public library is different to being in an exhibition space. If you're in an exhibition space and someone knows they are going into the exhibition, they expect to be educated and confronted. But most people going into a library just want to return books."
Two people, one state - deal with them together
Maher Mughrabi, The Age, May 15, 2008
The unique Palestinian-Israeli situation demands a different approach.
In August 2004, the Israeli politician Shulamit Aloni received an invitation to a memorial. The event being commemorated was a massacre of Jews by Arabs in the city of Hebron during British rule of Palestine in 1929. The invitation said that it would be a state occasion, attended by Reuven Rivlin, then speaker of Israel's parliament.
In July 2006, this time in Jerusalem, a ceremony was held to honour the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel by members of the Zionist underground fighting British rule. That attack killed 91 people. The ceremony was not sponsored by the state, but it was attended by Benjamin Netanyahu, a former Israeli prime minister and the country's opposition leader.
The King David ceremony drew a protest from the British ambassador to Israel, who objected to "an act of terrorism" being dignified. Yet for Netanyahu and many other Israelis, that bombing is part of a heroic liberation struggle.
This year, for Israelis and Palestinians, is punctuated by anniversaries from 60 years ago. But as we have seen, who you are can play a big part in what you choose to remember, and how. It can even divide people according to when they remember: Palestinians today mark the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, or catastrophe, using the Gregorian calendar, while Jews mark the same event — Yom Ha'Atzmaut, or independence day — on May 8, using the Hebrew calendar.
That one nation's triumph is another's injury might strike us as obvious — that's history. But what happens when two peoples lay claim to one land?
When she got her invitation to the memorial, Aloni was quick to note that Hebron — which is called al-Khalil in Arabic, in memory of the patriarch Abraham — is not inside the recognised boundaries of the state of Israel. By contrast, Deir Yassin — which in April 1948 was the scene of a massacre of Arabs by Jews — is inside those boundaries.
There is no place in Israel's official memory for those killed at Deir Yassin. The village was razed and a mental health complex built on the site.
Elsewhere in Israel, the Arab village of Ein Houd, near Haifa, still stands, but today is an Israeli artists' colony.
Some of the families driven from its houses can be found two kilometres up the hill, living in "New Ein Houd", a village they built without Israeli government approval.
At the height of the peace process in 1994, the state recognised that village's existence and moved to give its inhabitants — Israeli citizens, lest we forget — mains electricity and roads. Within 18 months, a new government had withdrawn that recognition and funding.
Those who talk about peace between Palestinians and Israelis today frequently talk about separate states for separate peoples, before going on to congratulate Israel on 60 years of statehood.
But as today's armed Jewish settlers in the occupied territories and unrecognised villagers in Israel show, the two peoples do not live in separate spaces but under separate regimes.
It is this separation that affects Palestinians whether they hold Israeli passports, live under occupation in the West Bank or under siege in the Gaza Strip. A Palestinian cannot build a house, plant a tree, buy land, ask someone for their hand in marriage or vote in an election without wondering when Israeli state power might undo their decision.
Israel's supporters often point out that Palestinians suffer discrimination in surrounding Arab countries as well. It is true, and Palestinians haven't forgotten. But there is a crucial difference: when Israel does these things, it does them to Palestinians in the place they come from.
It is the failure to recognise this simple fact — that there is no past and no present between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea without the Palestinian Arabs — that has doomed all talk of peace for more than 80 years.
A few Jewish Israelis have grasped this, forming groups such as Zochrot (Remembrance), dedicated to marking Palestinian presence on the land, or Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit), which seeks to pull Israeli soldiers back to the Green Line that is the state's only recognised boundary (and which for years has been absent from Israel's school textbooks). There are Israelis fighting alongside Palestinians for equal rights.
But what would it look like if world leaders grasped this principle? Firstly, it would mean no mention of Israel's achievement without connecting it to the facts of Palestinian deprivation and the need for reconciliation.
Reconciliation would require foreign governments to avoid meeting Israeli leaders without democratically elected Palestinian leaders present, and vice versa. Trade and cultural relations would also have to acknowledge that until there are two recognised and sovereign states, Palestinians and Israelis must be engaged with in tandem or not at all.
In modern international relations, this would be a highly unusual arrangement. But to pretend that Palestinians and Jewish Israelis are separate parties on an equal footing, and that the usual approach to peacemaking between states therefore applies, is to condemn both peoples to further years of fruitless photo opportunities in foreign capitals while ordinary people are killed in their streets and homes.
Maher Mughrabi is a staff writer and part of the Palestinian diaspora.
The unique Palestinian-Israeli situation demands a different approach.
In August 2004, the Israeli politician Shulamit Aloni received an invitation to a memorial. The event being commemorated was a massacre of Jews by Arabs in the city of Hebron during British rule of Palestine in 1929. The invitation said that it would be a state occasion, attended by Reuven Rivlin, then speaker of Israel's parliament.
In July 2006, this time in Jerusalem, a ceremony was held to honour the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel by members of the Zionist underground fighting British rule. That attack killed 91 people. The ceremony was not sponsored by the state, but it was attended by Benjamin Netanyahu, a former Israeli prime minister and the country's opposition leader.
The King David ceremony drew a protest from the British ambassador to Israel, who objected to "an act of terrorism" being dignified. Yet for Netanyahu and many other Israelis, that bombing is part of a heroic liberation struggle.
This year, for Israelis and Palestinians, is punctuated by anniversaries from 60 years ago. But as we have seen, who you are can play a big part in what you choose to remember, and how. It can even divide people according to when they remember: Palestinians today mark the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, or catastrophe, using the Gregorian calendar, while Jews mark the same event — Yom Ha'Atzmaut, or independence day — on May 8, using the Hebrew calendar.
That one nation's triumph is another's injury might strike us as obvious — that's history. But what happens when two peoples lay claim to one land?
When she got her invitation to the memorial, Aloni was quick to note that Hebron — which is called al-Khalil in Arabic, in memory of the patriarch Abraham — is not inside the recognised boundaries of the state of Israel. By contrast, Deir Yassin — which in April 1948 was the scene of a massacre of Arabs by Jews — is inside those boundaries.
There is no place in Israel's official memory for those killed at Deir Yassin. The village was razed and a mental health complex built on the site.
Elsewhere in Israel, the Arab village of Ein Houd, near Haifa, still stands, but today is an Israeli artists' colony.
Some of the families driven from its houses can be found two kilometres up the hill, living in "New Ein Houd", a village they built without Israeli government approval.
At the height of the peace process in 1994, the state recognised that village's existence and moved to give its inhabitants — Israeli citizens, lest we forget — mains electricity and roads. Within 18 months, a new government had withdrawn that recognition and funding.
Those who talk about peace between Palestinians and Israelis today frequently talk about separate states for separate peoples, before going on to congratulate Israel on 60 years of statehood.
But as today's armed Jewish settlers in the occupied territories and unrecognised villagers in Israel show, the two peoples do not live in separate spaces but under separate regimes.
It is this separation that affects Palestinians whether they hold Israeli passports, live under occupation in the West Bank or under siege in the Gaza Strip. A Palestinian cannot build a house, plant a tree, buy land, ask someone for their hand in marriage or vote in an election without wondering when Israeli state power might undo their decision.
Israel's supporters often point out that Palestinians suffer discrimination in surrounding Arab countries as well. It is true, and Palestinians haven't forgotten. But there is a crucial difference: when Israel does these things, it does them to Palestinians in the place they come from.
It is the failure to recognise this simple fact — that there is no past and no present between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea without the Palestinian Arabs — that has doomed all talk of peace for more than 80 years.
A few Jewish Israelis have grasped this, forming groups such as Zochrot (Remembrance), dedicated to marking Palestinian presence on the land, or Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit), which seeks to pull Israeli soldiers back to the Green Line that is the state's only recognised boundary (and which for years has been absent from Israel's school textbooks). There are Israelis fighting alongside Palestinians for equal rights.
But what would it look like if world leaders grasped this principle? Firstly, it would mean no mention of Israel's achievement without connecting it to the facts of Palestinian deprivation and the need for reconciliation.
Reconciliation would require foreign governments to avoid meeting Israeli leaders without democratically elected Palestinian leaders present, and vice versa. Trade and cultural relations would also have to acknowledge that until there are two recognised and sovereign states, Palestinians and Israelis must be engaged with in tandem or not at all.
In modern international relations, this would be a highly unusual arrangement. But to pretend that Palestinians and Jewish Israelis are separate parties on an equal footing, and that the usual approach to peacemaking between states therefore applies, is to condemn both peoples to further years of fruitless photo opportunities in foreign capitals while ordinary people are killed in their streets and homes.
Maher Mughrabi is a staff writer and part of the Palestinian diaspora.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Pro-Israel lobby appoints first campus watchdog
Pro-Israel lobby appoints first campus watchdog
Brendan O'Keefe, The Australian, April 16, 2008
Joel Burnie, 23, the first campus co-ordinator to promote Israel and Jewish culture, doubts there is systematic academic bias against Israel.
"I'd like to do some proper investigation to see if there is a systemic problem but I do not believe there is," said Mr Burnie, a Monash University arts-law student. "(But) we need to make sure that all academic opinions are being expressed equally on campus."
The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council has appointed him inaugural (part-time) student program co-ordinator for universities across the country. It's a joint venture with the US campus movement StandWithUs, which advertises itself as "the next generation of Israel advocacy".
Australian academe was a "rogues' gallery of anti-Zionists", Ted Lapkin, former AIJAC director of policy analysis, wrote in Quadrant magazine in 2006.
Asked if his role had been created to counter anti-Israel bias or anti-Semitic activity, Mr Burnie said: "This position has not been created out of an emergent necessity." Rather, he would be "an on-campus advocate for Israel and Jewish culture". "The role involves promotion of Israeli culture and promotion of Israeli speakers that may come out to Australia. It will give students access to these people so they can listen and be educated."
AIJAC executive director Colin Rubenstein said in a statement that the Burnie appointment represented a "serious effort to increase understanding about the Middle East at Australian universities".
"It demonstrates that AIJAC and SWU appreciate how important campuses are in shaping public opinion," he said.
SWU president Esther Renzer welcomed Mr Burnie's appointment on standwithus.com, saying: "When Jewish and non-Jewish students are presented with a comprehensive and balanced picture of Israel, they understand that what they might read in the newspapers, or hear on radio, or see on television, is not always true or fair."
Last year Mr Burnie was national president of the Australian Union of Jewish Students.
He said would continue the inter-faith work he did through that organisation, talking with Muslim and Christian student groups. In his five years on three campuses, he had found relations between students to be "quite healthy".
"People can interact socially; I don't think there's too much of a problem," he said.
"But we need to help students become better informed about what is a complicated situation (in the Middle East)."
Brendan O'Keefe, The Australian, April 16, 2008
Joel Burnie, 23, the first campus co-ordinator to promote Israel and Jewish culture, doubts there is systematic academic bias against Israel.
"I'd like to do some proper investigation to see if there is a systemic problem but I do not believe there is," said Mr Burnie, a Monash University arts-law student. "(But) we need to make sure that all academic opinions are being expressed equally on campus."
The Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council has appointed him inaugural (part-time) student program co-ordinator for universities across the country. It's a joint venture with the US campus movement StandWithUs, which advertises itself as "the next generation of Israel advocacy".
Australian academe was a "rogues' gallery of anti-Zionists", Ted Lapkin, former AIJAC director of policy analysis, wrote in Quadrant magazine in 2006.
Asked if his role had been created to counter anti-Israel bias or anti-Semitic activity, Mr Burnie said: "This position has not been created out of an emergent necessity." Rather, he would be "an on-campus advocate for Israel and Jewish culture". "The role involves promotion of Israeli culture and promotion of Israeli speakers that may come out to Australia. It will give students access to these people so they can listen and be educated."
AIJAC executive director Colin Rubenstein said in a statement that the Burnie appointment represented a "serious effort to increase understanding about the Middle East at Australian universities".
"It demonstrates that AIJAC and SWU appreciate how important campuses are in shaping public opinion," he said.
SWU president Esther Renzer welcomed Mr Burnie's appointment on standwithus.com, saying: "When Jewish and non-Jewish students are presented with a comprehensive and balanced picture of Israel, they understand that what they might read in the newspapers, or hear on radio, or see on television, is not always true or fair."
Last year Mr Burnie was national president of the Australian Union of Jewish Students.
He said would continue the inter-faith work he did through that organisation, talking with Muslim and Christian student groups. In his five years on three campuses, he had found relations between students to be "quite healthy".
"People can interact socially; I don't think there's too much of a problem," he said.
"But we need to help students become better informed about what is a complicated situation (in the Middle East)."
Israeli leaders shun Carter
Israeli leaders shun Carter
Ed O'Loughlin, The Age, 15 April 2008
Shunned by Israeli political leaders, former US president Jimmy Carter says he will go ahead with plans to meet the leader of Hamas to promote peace in the Middle East.
Mr Carter was speaking in Jerusalem on Sunday after Israel's four most senior politicians — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu — declined to meet him. Mr Carter has also been criticised by the US State Department and all three US presidential candidates.
According to Israeli media, the leaders are angered by Mr Carter's decision to meet exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus this week. Israelis were also offended by Mr Carter's 2006 book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, in which he compared Israel's military occupation and colonisation of seized Arab territories with the policies of apartheid South Africa.
Israeli President Shimon Peres, who met Mr Carter, reportedly accused him of "causing significant damage to Israel and the peace process in recent years".
In an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, Mr Carter said he believed that for peace talks to work all parties had to be engaged.
"Hamas' position is that they are perfectly willing for (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas) to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis, and they also maintain that they will accept any agreement that he brokers with Israelis provided it will be submitted to the Palestinians in a referendum. Hamas is also willing to accept a mutual ceasefire with Israel," Mr Carter said.
"I do not agree with … the unwillingness to talk to someone who disagrees with you unless he agrees with all your prerequisites."
■Representatives of Lebanon and Iran have pulled out of a conference in Qatar due to Ms Livni's attendance. She is to give a speech calling for Arab support for Mr Abbas against Hamas and unity against Iran.
Ed O'Loughlin, The Age, 15 April 2008
Shunned by Israeli political leaders, former US president Jimmy Carter says he will go ahead with plans to meet the leader of Hamas to promote peace in the Middle East.
Mr Carter was speaking in Jerusalem on Sunday after Israel's four most senior politicians — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defence Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu — declined to meet him. Mr Carter has also been criticised by the US State Department and all three US presidential candidates.
According to Israeli media, the leaders are angered by Mr Carter's decision to meet exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus this week. Israelis were also offended by Mr Carter's 2006 book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, in which he compared Israel's military occupation and colonisation of seized Arab territories with the policies of apartheid South Africa.
Israeli President Shimon Peres, who met Mr Carter, reportedly accused him of "causing significant damage to Israel and the peace process in recent years".
In an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz, Mr Carter said he believed that for peace talks to work all parties had to be engaged.
"Hamas' position is that they are perfectly willing for (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas) to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis, and they also maintain that they will accept any agreement that he brokers with Israelis provided it will be submitted to the Palestinians in a referendum. Hamas is also willing to accept a mutual ceasefire with Israel," Mr Carter said.
"I do not agree with … the unwillingness to talk to someone who disagrees with you unless he agrees with all your prerequisites."
■Representatives of Lebanon and Iran have pulled out of a conference in Qatar due to Ms Livni's attendance. She is to give a speech calling for Arab support for Mr Abbas against Hamas and unity against Iran.
Monday, 31 March 2008
Gaza one of the top ten most dangerous places in the world
Stories for Monday, 31 March 2008
Produced by Kate Pinnock, THE WIRE
Listen HERE
The Gaza strip and the West Bank are ranked in the top ten of the worlds most unstable and dangerous areas, according to Jane's Information Group. The group does a check on every country recognized as an individual state or territory by the United Nations.
As Kevin Rudd seeks to make Australia a middle power, creative force in international politics, what are they doing about Gaza? This was the critical issue at the weekly forum "Politics in the Pub" held in Sydney's Surrey Hills last Friday night. Featured in story: Ross Burns Australia's former ambassador to Israel and Dr. Izzat Abdulhadi, the Australian representative for the Palestinian Authority.
Produced by Kate Pinnock, THE WIRE
Listen HERE
The Gaza strip and the West Bank are ranked in the top ten of the worlds most unstable and dangerous areas, according to Jane's Information Group. The group does a check on every country recognized as an individual state or territory by the United Nations.
As Kevin Rudd seeks to make Australia a middle power, creative force in international politics, what are they doing about Gaza? This was the critical issue at the weekly forum "Politics in the Pub" held in Sydney's Surrey Hills last Friday night. Featured in story: Ross Burns Australia's former ambassador to Israel and Dr. Izzat Abdulhadi, the Australian representative for the Palestinian Authority.
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Blinkers off for the other side of story
Alan Ramsey, Sydney Morning Herald, March 15, 2008
At 11.58am on Wednesday one half of the Australian Parliament "celebrated" the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel. More than a third of that one-half was absent, whatever their reasons. A number of MPs deliberately excluded themselves. Labor's Kevin Rudd, as the host, did not. He spoke for eight minutes. "Celebrate" was the word Rudd used to begin his remarks. "Congratulations" was the word he used to end them. The Liberals' Brendan Nelson spoke for seven minutes in supporting the Prime Minister. He concluded: "Shabat shalom forever."
Nobody else spoke. The whole affair, carefully orchestrated, carefully bi-partisan, lasted just 15 minutes. The press gallery was almost empty.
So, too, were the two public galleries. About 100 invited guests, each wearing a security pass, filled the first three rows of the Speaker's gallery upstairs and spilled into the fourth. These were the people who, after Rudd's seven-part, 191-word motion had been "put and passed" without a vote, applauded enthusiastically. The only other person who spoke - or attempted to - was a middle-aged woman.
She got to her feet, in the seats behind the VIP guests, and held up a T-shirt, exclaiming, "What about UN resolution 242?", as Rudd had begun speaking. Two attendants moved in quickly. Taking her by the arm, they escorted the woman outside, without fuss. Unlike what is still happening in Israel's military occupation, after 41 years, of the Palestinian people of the West Bank and its siege of the Gaza strip, it was a very civilised eviction.
On this day, in the Australian Parliament, normal legislative business resumed at 12.13pm. The VIP guests upstairs in the Speaker's gallery filed out. Most of the MPs downstairs drifted away to their offices. At 4pm the Israeli ambassador hosted a reception in the Parliament's second-floor Mural Hall for invited guests only. Rudd and Nelson reappeared, as suitably Uriah Heepish as their midday speeches had been.
That night, back on the floor of the House of Representatives, the woman MP who took Tim Fischer's southern NSW seat off the Nationals in 2001 and, in two elections, turned it into safe Liberal territory, did an extremely courageous thing.
Her name is Sussan Penelope Ley.
She is the daughter of a British colonial police officer who served in British-mandated Palestine in the 1930s, before the United Nations ceded half of it to become a Jewish state in May 1948. Born in Nigeria in 1961, Ley spent most of the first 13 years of her life in what was then the Trucial States, later the United Arab Emirates. Her family migrated to Australia in 1974. She has lived here ever since, working as an air traffic controller, a commercial pilot, a shearer's cook, a farmer, and a senior taxation department official. She has a bunch of degrees, three children and is now a member of the Nelson shadow ministry.
What Sussan Ley did in Parliament on Wednesday night was speak for the Palestinian people. She was the only MP who did. In fact, the only MHR of the House's 150, apart from the two leaders, to even raise the issue.
When Rudd and Nelson had spoken at midday I counted 53 Government MPs present, including six ministers, and 39 Coalition MPs. When Ley got the call 7½ hours later, at 7.38pm, to speak on the adjournment, there were five people in the public gallery, four Labor MPs and two Coalition MPs in the chamber, and one journalist in the press gallery. She was the fourth-last speaker before Parliament shut down for the day, after 11 hours, and she was allowed five minutes.
Here is an edited version of what she said:
"Today the Parliament passed a motion honouring Israel's 60 years. My purpose tonight is not to diminish Israel's achievements but to note the interests and legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine.
"Israel has many friends in this country and in this Parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause. But it is one I support, in part out of knowledge that the victors of World War II, including Australia, wrote a 'homeland' cheque to cover the sins of the holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, but it was the Palestinians who had to cash it.
"Israel has much to celebrate after 60 years. It has built a modern, accomplished and intelligent society, one whose scientific and technological expertise offers a great deal to the world. It has a robust democracy, a free press, a secular state with freedom of faith, and an unfettered opposition, regrettably rare in the Middle East. If there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians, one can only imagine the achievements of these two cultures today.
"Israel's 40-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, its continued expansion of [illegal Israeli] settlements [on Palestinian land] and its refusal to allow the return of expelled refugees have caused deep resentment in the Arab world. Palestinian corruption in government and failure to abandon violence against civilians as a political tool have meant Israel does not feel secure behind secure borders. Sixty years have seen a great deal of bloodshed - Arab, Israeli and others, including 34 US soldiers killed by Israeli forces on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war. I do not find it helpful to engage in a forensic apportionment of blame; each side has legitimate grievances.
"The current blockade of Gaza, confiscation of Palestinian land, and the expansion of settlements must be mentioned in the context of today's motion. Gaza is besieged, contained and on the brink of starvation. Rockets are fired into Israel every day, and Israel has a right to self-defence, but the crushing economic embargo feeds fury and resentment both in Gaza and the West Bank. [A total] 2679 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli [military] forces in the Gaza Strip since September 2000, [while] an Israeli human rights organisation reported 1259 of those were not participating in hostilities when they were killed, and 567 were minors …
"We ought not be naive or simplistic about the challenge faced by the Israelis in moving towards peace with a [popularly elected] counterpart, in Hamas, that is funded and supported by a foreign power [Syria] and which retains an explicit commitment to [terrorism] as a political instrument. But may I remind the House of the example of the Northern Ireland peace process [which succeeded] after a more than 40-year struggle.
"There are signs the Israeli people are developing a renewed hunger for peace. A recent Tel Aviv University poll indicates 64 per cent of Israelis believe the [Israeli] Government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza towards a ceasefire. Military occupation, blockades and hostility against civilians in the name of security will result in [more] violence and terror. We must think what we can do [for] ordinary Israelis and Palestinians to give them some faith in the peace process …
"We are the leaders of our generation. We are accountable for results. If the principal protagonists and the rest of the world community hand Palestine on to the next generation as a twisted mess of grievance, hatred and retribution, then we have failed. The last two generations of leaders have failed to produce peace. Let us renew our efforts."
Unlike earlier in the day, nobody applauded - though I wished I could have. Many Australians, too, had they been present, surely would have wanted to acknowledge such a speech of such honesty and sensibility, about the Israelis as much as it was about the Palestinians. Ley put the grovelling Rudd and Nelson to shame. The truth is there is no real debate in this country about the travesty of what is happening in the Middle East, and there are those in the community who, with their money and influence, do all they can to ensure no such open debate occurs, either in the national Parliament, in the media or anywhere else.
So why was the Rudd Government, in its first four months of office, doing what no Australian government or parliament had done, to acknowledge any of the decades of Israeli statehood since the Six-Day War in 1967 saw the Israeli military occupy the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza and ignore 40 years of mutual violence and barbarity as well as 40 years of United Nations resolutions, to withdraw?
The Howard government did not "honour" Israel's 50th anniversary in 1998, nor the Hawke government the 40th anniversary in 1988, nor the Fraser government the 30th anniversary in 1978. Why the 60th in 2008 the instant a Labor Government comes to power?
When the Labor caucus met on Tuesday, as it does every week the Parliament sits, Sydney's Julia Irwin asked Rudd this very question.
Why? Irwin never takes a backward step in her defence of Palestinian rights, but all she got from Rudd this time was waffle. He did not explicitly respond as to why 60 might be different from earlier decades when the Parliament had done nothing and neither had earlier governments. And no Labor MP supported Irwin in pushing it.
She was a lone voice in the Labor caucus as Sussan Ley was in the Parliament. How's that for political ticker?
Leaders vie to ladle on the gush
When our Prime Minister spoke in the Parliament this week before a select audience of 100 VIP guests, including the Israeli ambassador, he was speaking to a 191-word proposal he had drafted, in consultation with a range of people, which read:
"That the House [of Representatives]
"(1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the state of Israel in the 60 years since its inception;
"(2) remember with pride and honour the important role which Australia played in the establishment of the state of Israel as both a member state of the United Nations and as an influential voice in the introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel's statehood [in 1948], and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation;
"(3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel, a bond highlighted by our commitment to the rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural diversity;
"(4) commend the state of Israel's commitment to democracy, the rule of law and pluralism;
"(5) reiterate Australia's commitment to Israel's right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
"(6) reiterate Australia's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East; and
"(7) on this, the 60th anniversary of independence of the state of Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together."
Make of this splendid piece of mutual back scratching what you will, but know that the supposed virtue of Australia "proudly" becoming "the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation" at the United Nations in 1948 is sophistry. We were the first for no other reason than, in voting by alphabetical order, Australia was the first country to vote.
Some excerpts from the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in support of the bipartisan motion make the point that when politicians seek to trowel on the gush, Australia loses nothing now that Rudd and Nelson have replaced Howard and Beazley.
Rudd: "… The 60 years since the establishment of Israel have been full of challenges and full of trials. Similarly, the process for the emergence of a Palestinian state has come along a tortuous path. There has been too much bloodshed. But over those 60 years there has also been cause for hope.
"We think today of prime minister Menachem Begin standing with Jimmy Carter and Egypt's Anwar Sadat at the White House on March 26, 1979 at the signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty that followed the Camp David accords. Prime minister Begin used both the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace when he urged: 'No more war, no more bloodshed, no more bereavement. Peace unto you. Shalom, salaam, forever.' "
Nelson: "In a region of the world that is characterised more by theocracies and autocracies, the state of Israel is the custodian of the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions, and that is hopeful belief in the freedom of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. There are many things for which Israel stands and which characterise the modern state of Israel, but included among them is the celebration of knowledge for its own sake and knowledge as the driver of economic development and emancipation from human poverty…
"Israel, like all democracies, is far from perfect, but it is, in every sense of the word, on the front line of the struggle for the things that we hold dear, not only as Australians and free people but as human beings. And it is far too frequently on the front line of the struggle against all the things repugnant to universal human ideals …
"Israel is home to many things that are spiritual, but it is home in the end to the human spirit of resilience, of confidence, of determination and of respect for one another, irrespective of political, religious or other affiliations … No Australian who believes in the dignity of man, in freedom and in democratic principles should ever, through neglectful indifference, allow Israel to be a stranger. To do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security …"
How can you top that lot?
At 11.58am on Wednesday one half of the Australian Parliament "celebrated" the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel. More than a third of that one-half was absent, whatever their reasons. A number of MPs deliberately excluded themselves. Labor's Kevin Rudd, as the host, did not. He spoke for eight minutes. "Celebrate" was the word Rudd used to begin his remarks. "Congratulations" was the word he used to end them. The Liberals' Brendan Nelson spoke for seven minutes in supporting the Prime Minister. He concluded: "Shabat shalom forever."
Nobody else spoke. The whole affair, carefully orchestrated, carefully bi-partisan, lasted just 15 minutes. The press gallery was almost empty.
So, too, were the two public galleries. About 100 invited guests, each wearing a security pass, filled the first three rows of the Speaker's gallery upstairs and spilled into the fourth. These were the people who, after Rudd's seven-part, 191-word motion had been "put and passed" without a vote, applauded enthusiastically. The only other person who spoke - or attempted to - was a middle-aged woman.
She got to her feet, in the seats behind the VIP guests, and held up a T-shirt, exclaiming, "What about UN resolution 242?", as Rudd had begun speaking. Two attendants moved in quickly. Taking her by the arm, they escorted the woman outside, without fuss. Unlike what is still happening in Israel's military occupation, after 41 years, of the Palestinian people of the West Bank and its siege of the Gaza strip, it was a very civilised eviction.
On this day, in the Australian Parliament, normal legislative business resumed at 12.13pm. The VIP guests upstairs in the Speaker's gallery filed out. Most of the MPs downstairs drifted away to their offices. At 4pm the Israeli ambassador hosted a reception in the Parliament's second-floor Mural Hall for invited guests only. Rudd and Nelson reappeared, as suitably Uriah Heepish as their midday speeches had been.
That night, back on the floor of the House of Representatives, the woman MP who took Tim Fischer's southern NSW seat off the Nationals in 2001 and, in two elections, turned it into safe Liberal territory, did an extremely courageous thing.
Her name is Sussan Penelope Ley.
She is the daughter of a British colonial police officer who served in British-mandated Palestine in the 1930s, before the United Nations ceded half of it to become a Jewish state in May 1948. Born in Nigeria in 1961, Ley spent most of the first 13 years of her life in what was then the Trucial States, later the United Arab Emirates. Her family migrated to Australia in 1974. She has lived here ever since, working as an air traffic controller, a commercial pilot, a shearer's cook, a farmer, and a senior taxation department official. She has a bunch of degrees, three children and is now a member of the Nelson shadow ministry.
What Sussan Ley did in Parliament on Wednesday night was speak for the Palestinian people. She was the only MP who did. In fact, the only MHR of the House's 150, apart from the two leaders, to even raise the issue.
When Rudd and Nelson had spoken at midday I counted 53 Government MPs present, including six ministers, and 39 Coalition MPs. When Ley got the call 7½ hours later, at 7.38pm, to speak on the adjournment, there were five people in the public gallery, four Labor MPs and two Coalition MPs in the chamber, and one journalist in the press gallery. She was the fourth-last speaker before Parliament shut down for the day, after 11 hours, and she was allowed five minutes.
Here is an edited version of what she said:
"Today the Parliament passed a motion honouring Israel's 60 years. My purpose tonight is not to diminish Israel's achievements but to note the interests and legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine.
"Israel has many friends in this country and in this Parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause. But it is one I support, in part out of knowledge that the victors of World War II, including Australia, wrote a 'homeland' cheque to cover the sins of the holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, but it was the Palestinians who had to cash it.
"Israel has much to celebrate after 60 years. It has built a modern, accomplished and intelligent society, one whose scientific and technological expertise offers a great deal to the world. It has a robust democracy, a free press, a secular state with freedom of faith, and an unfettered opposition, regrettably rare in the Middle East. If there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians, one can only imagine the achievements of these two cultures today.
"Israel's 40-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, its continued expansion of [illegal Israeli] settlements [on Palestinian land] and its refusal to allow the return of expelled refugees have caused deep resentment in the Arab world. Palestinian corruption in government and failure to abandon violence against civilians as a political tool have meant Israel does not feel secure behind secure borders. Sixty years have seen a great deal of bloodshed - Arab, Israeli and others, including 34 US soldiers killed by Israeli forces on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war. I do not find it helpful to engage in a forensic apportionment of blame; each side has legitimate grievances.
"The current blockade of Gaza, confiscation of Palestinian land, and the expansion of settlements must be mentioned in the context of today's motion. Gaza is besieged, contained and on the brink of starvation. Rockets are fired into Israel every day, and Israel has a right to self-defence, but the crushing economic embargo feeds fury and resentment both in Gaza and the West Bank. [A total] 2679 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli [military] forces in the Gaza Strip since September 2000, [while] an Israeli human rights organisation reported 1259 of those were not participating in hostilities when they were killed, and 567 were minors …
"We ought not be naive or simplistic about the challenge faced by the Israelis in moving towards peace with a [popularly elected] counterpart, in Hamas, that is funded and supported by a foreign power [Syria] and which retains an explicit commitment to [terrorism] as a political instrument. But may I remind the House of the example of the Northern Ireland peace process [which succeeded] after a more than 40-year struggle.
"There are signs the Israeli people are developing a renewed hunger for peace. A recent Tel Aviv University poll indicates 64 per cent of Israelis believe the [Israeli] Government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza towards a ceasefire. Military occupation, blockades and hostility against civilians in the name of security will result in [more] violence and terror. We must think what we can do [for] ordinary Israelis and Palestinians to give them some faith in the peace process …
"We are the leaders of our generation. We are accountable for results. If the principal protagonists and the rest of the world community hand Palestine on to the next generation as a twisted mess of grievance, hatred and retribution, then we have failed. The last two generations of leaders have failed to produce peace. Let us renew our efforts."
Unlike earlier in the day, nobody applauded - though I wished I could have. Many Australians, too, had they been present, surely would have wanted to acknowledge such a speech of such honesty and sensibility, about the Israelis as much as it was about the Palestinians. Ley put the grovelling Rudd and Nelson to shame. The truth is there is no real debate in this country about the travesty of what is happening in the Middle East, and there are those in the community who, with their money and influence, do all they can to ensure no such open debate occurs, either in the national Parliament, in the media or anywhere else.
So why was the Rudd Government, in its first four months of office, doing what no Australian government or parliament had done, to acknowledge any of the decades of Israeli statehood since the Six-Day War in 1967 saw the Israeli military occupy the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza and ignore 40 years of mutual violence and barbarity as well as 40 years of United Nations resolutions, to withdraw?
The Howard government did not "honour" Israel's 50th anniversary in 1998, nor the Hawke government the 40th anniversary in 1988, nor the Fraser government the 30th anniversary in 1978. Why the 60th in 2008 the instant a Labor Government comes to power?
When the Labor caucus met on Tuesday, as it does every week the Parliament sits, Sydney's Julia Irwin asked Rudd this very question.
Why? Irwin never takes a backward step in her defence of Palestinian rights, but all she got from Rudd this time was waffle. He did not explicitly respond as to why 60 might be different from earlier decades when the Parliament had done nothing and neither had earlier governments. And no Labor MP supported Irwin in pushing it.
She was a lone voice in the Labor caucus as Sussan Ley was in the Parliament. How's that for political ticker?
Leaders vie to ladle on the gush
When our Prime Minister spoke in the Parliament this week before a select audience of 100 VIP guests, including the Israeli ambassador, he was speaking to a 191-word proposal he had drafted, in consultation with a range of people, which read:
"That the House [of Representatives]
"(1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the state of Israel in the 60 years since its inception;
"(2) remember with pride and honour the important role which Australia played in the establishment of the state of Israel as both a member state of the United Nations and as an influential voice in the introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel's statehood [in 1948], and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation;
"(3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel, a bond highlighted by our commitment to the rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural diversity;
"(4) commend the state of Israel's commitment to democracy, the rule of law and pluralism;
"(5) reiterate Australia's commitment to Israel's right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
"(6) reiterate Australia's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East; and
"(7) on this, the 60th anniversary of independence of the state of Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together."
Make of this splendid piece of mutual back scratching what you will, but know that the supposed virtue of Australia "proudly" becoming "the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation" at the United Nations in 1948 is sophistry. We were the first for no other reason than, in voting by alphabetical order, Australia was the first country to vote.
Some excerpts from the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in support of the bipartisan motion make the point that when politicians seek to trowel on the gush, Australia loses nothing now that Rudd and Nelson have replaced Howard and Beazley.
Rudd: "… The 60 years since the establishment of Israel have been full of challenges and full of trials. Similarly, the process for the emergence of a Palestinian state has come along a tortuous path. There has been too much bloodshed. But over those 60 years there has also been cause for hope.
"We think today of prime minister Menachem Begin standing with Jimmy Carter and Egypt's Anwar Sadat at the White House on March 26, 1979 at the signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty that followed the Camp David accords. Prime minister Begin used both the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace when he urged: 'No more war, no more bloodshed, no more bereavement. Peace unto you. Shalom, salaam, forever.' "
Nelson: "In a region of the world that is characterised more by theocracies and autocracies, the state of Israel is the custodian of the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions, and that is hopeful belief in the freedom of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. There are many things for which Israel stands and which characterise the modern state of Israel, but included among them is the celebration of knowledge for its own sake and knowledge as the driver of economic development and emancipation from human poverty…
"Israel, like all democracies, is far from perfect, but it is, in every sense of the word, on the front line of the struggle for the things that we hold dear, not only as Australians and free people but as human beings. And it is far too frequently on the front line of the struggle against all the things repugnant to universal human ideals …
"Israel is home to many things that are spiritual, but it is home in the end to the human spirit of resilience, of confidence, of determination and of respect for one another, irrespective of political, religious or other affiliations … No Australian who believes in the dignity of man, in freedom and in democratic principles should ever, through neglectful indifference, allow Israel to be a stranger. To do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security …"
How can you top that lot?
Friday, 14 March 2008
PM snubbed from all sides over Israeli motion
13 Mar 2008 MURPHY, Katherine
Praise for Israel draws MPs snub
THE AGE (Read it Here)
13 Mar 2008 EDITORIAL
PM snubbed from all sides over Israeli motion
THE CANBERRA TIMES (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008
Lib MP speaks up for Palestinians
THE AUSTRALIAN (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008
PM marks Israeli anniversary
THE AGE (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008 JENKINS, Melissa
Israel protester ejected from parliament
THE AUSTRALIAN (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008 EDITORIAL
Bipartisan support for state of Israel
THE AUSTRALIAN (Read it Here)
--
Australians for Palestine
Praise for Israel draws MPs snub
THE AGE (Read it Here)
13 Mar 2008 EDITORIAL
PM snubbed from all sides over Israeli motion
THE CANBERRA TIMES (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008
Lib MP speaks up for Palestinians
THE AUSTRALIAN (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008
PM marks Israeli anniversary
THE AGE (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008 JENKINS, Melissa
Israel protester ejected from parliament
THE AUSTRALIAN (Read it Here)
12 Mar 2008 EDITORIAL
Bipartisan support for state of Israel
THE AUSTRALIAN (Read it Here)
--
Australians for Palestine
Full Text of the Australian Prime Minister's Motion on Israel
WOMEN FOR PALESTINE / AUSTRALIANS FOR PALESTINE
13 March 2008
Attached is the full text of the motion put forward by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and also the Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson's statement seconding it, in the Australian Parliament on 12 March 2008.
Both their statements warrant letters pointing out the inappropriateness of even putting such a motion forward. No one could imagine from these statements that Israel is brutally oppressing the Palestinians under its occupation or that Palestinian citizens of Israel are living there as second class citizens.
What a shameful day for Australia!
=========================
60th ANNIVERSARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
House of Representatives
Australian Parliament
12 March 2008
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (11.58 am)—
by leave—I move:
That the House:
(1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the State of
Israel in the 60 years since its inception;
(2) remember with pride and honour the important role which
Australia played in the establishment of the State of Israel as both a
member state of the United Nations and as an influential voice in the
introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel’s statehood,
and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in
support of Israel’s creation;
(3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between
Australia and Israel; a bond highlighted by our commitment to the
rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural
diversity;
(4) commend the State of Israel’s commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and pluralism;
(5) reiterate Australia’s commitment to Israel’s right to exist and our
ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
(6) reiterate Australia’s commitment to the pursuit of peace and
stability throughout the Middle East;
(7) on this, the 60th Anniversary of Independence of the State of
Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to
the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together.
Today the parliament of Australia notes the occasion of this year,
being the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel.
The story of the establishment of the state of Israel begins with the
unimaginable tragedy of the Holocaust. At the Holocaust memorial
at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem the words of the Australian delegate to
the 1938 Evian Conference are recorded. He said that Australia could
not encourage refugee immigration because, ‘as we have no real
racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one’. Thankfully,
later in 1938 the Australian government took the decision to admit
15,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. But by the time the war
began only 6,500 had reached Australia.
By war’s end, six million Jews had been murdered. By war’s end, the
international community finally began to look again in earnest at the
question of a homeland for the Jewish people. Australia is proud to
have played a significant part in the international process that led to
the foundation of the state of Israel. Australia’s then Minister for
External Affairs, Dr Evatt, was part of the United Nations Special
Committee on Palestine, which recommended in August 1947 the
termination of the Mandate for Palestine. And he was chairman of
the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on the Palestinian Question that
proposed the partition of Palestine. He strongly believed that the
fundamental right of self-determination for the Jewish people and for
Palestinians could only be achieved by each having their own state.
The resolution that the United Nations adopted in November 1947
reflected that. It proposed the establishment of two independent
states—one Arab and one Jewish. And Australia was the first state in
the historic vote of the international community on that resolution to
cast its vote in support of the modern state of Israel. On 14 May 1948
David Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the modern state of
Israel.
Prime Minister Ben Chifley, too, was closely involved in Australia’s
policy towards Israel. In June 1948 he reinforced Evatt’s strong
support for a two state solution when he cabled British Prime
Minister Clement Attlee and urged early recognition of Israel,
saying that:
Such [a] declaration would properly indicate willingness to agree in
principle to the recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel,
and at the same time willingness to recognise de facto the Arab
authorities in actual control of Arab Sections of Palestine.
On 29 January 1949 he announced that Australia would become one
of the first countries to recognise the new state of Israel, describing it
as ‘a force of special value in the world community’. As President of
the General Assembly ‘Doc’ Evatt then presided over the historic
May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the United
Nations. On 11 May 1949 the Chifley Labor government opened an
embassy in Tel Aviv. Evatt later said that, when working on the
question of Israel, he wanted to ensure that the ‘new State of Israel,
whose people had in the past done so much for humanity, would be
welcomed, not merely formally but with good heart and good
conscience’ into the international community.
The 60 years since the establishment of Israel have been full of
challenges and full of trials. Similarly, the process for the emergence
of a Palestinian state has come along a torturous path. There has been
too much bloodshed. But over those 60 years there has also been
cause for hope.
We think today of Prime Minister Menachem Begin standing with
President Jimmy Carter and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat, at the
White House on March 26 1979 at the signing of the Israel-Egypt
Peace Treaty that followed from the Camp David Accords. Prime
Minister Begin used both the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace
when he urged: ‘No more war, no more bloodshed, no more
bereavement. Peace unto you. Shalom, salaam, forever.’ We can
think, too, of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, shaking hands with his
lifelong enemy Yasser Arafat on the lawns of the White House on
September 13 1993, saying:
We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with
blood; we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our
eyes; we who have attended their funerals and cannot look in the
eyes of their parents; we who have come from a land where parents
bury their children; we who have fought against you, the
Palestinians—we say to you, in a loud and clear voice, enough of
blood and tears. Enough!
All peoples of goodwill yearn for that vision to be realised. It has
not been realised yet. To borrow again from former Yitzhak Rabin,
a man who tragically paid the ultimate price while pursuing peace
‘The risks of peace are preferable by far to the grim certainties of
war’.
We firmly believe the establishment of an independent and
economically viable Palestinian state must remain a key objective in
the Middle East peace process. This is important for the future. It was
important in the vision of 1947. It remains the vision today, just as
our objective must be for Israel to exist within secure and
internationally recognised boundaries.
Today, we in Australia support the ongoing negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority towards a final status agreement
by the end of 2008, as launched at the Annapolis Conference in
November last year. To support the establishment of a viable and
sustainable Palestinian state Australia pledged a $45 million
assistance package at the donors conference for the Palestinian
territories in Paris on 18 December. Australia remains, as we have in
the past, committed to an effective two-state solution.
Over the past 60 years Israel has preserved its robust parliamentary
democracy and has built a vibrant society and economy. If anyone
wants a dictionary definition of the term ‘robust’ they should spend
an afternoon in the Israeli Knesset. That is where you see the
definition of ‘robust’ at work. By contrast we are a pack of pussycats
in here!
Over the past 60 years governments from both sides of politics in
Australia have supported our strong relationship with Israel. That
relationship is strong and it is deep—and it will remain so. Because
we are both democracies, as democracies sometimes we will agree
and sometimes we will disagree. That is in the nature of strong
relationships. But the underlying friendship between us does not
alter.
Australia offers our congratulations to the government and people of
Israel on this the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the modern
Israeli state. We acknowledge our special history and relationship
and we look forward to its continued strength and development into
the future.
I commend this motion to the House.
Dr NELSON (Bradfield—Leader of the Opposition)
(12.06 pm)—
I rise on behalf of the alternative government to provide our very
strong support for this motion and to support the remarks on the
historical circumstances of the development of the state of Israel, the
role that Australia played in that, the relationship between our two
countries, the initiatives that are being taken by the current
Australian government and indeed those taken by the most recent
government to further the peace process between Israel and the
Palestinians.
Jewish identity over the last 100 years has been shaped by three
things. The first is anti-Semitism, which remains a virulent and
repugnant force still in far too many parts of the world and in the
dark recesses of some people’s hearts. The second is the holocaust,
which saw the systematic extermination of more than six million
Jews through the course of the Second World War. The third is the
continued threats to the very existence of the state of Israel, which is
constantly embattled and, every single day, every week and every
year, needs to struggle to defend its very existence.
In a region of the world that is characterised more by theocracies and
autocracies, the state of Israel is the custodian of the most fragile yet
powerful of human emotions, and that is hopeful belief in the
freedom of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom
of assembly. There are many things for which Israel stands and
which characterise the modern state of Israel, but included amongst
them is the celebration of knowledge for its own sake and knowledge
as the driver of economic development and emancipation from
human poverty. Israel also stands for personal independence, a free
parliament and an independent judiciary. It is a nation where
Christians, Baha’is, Muslims and Arabs enjoy equal rights. Israel, like
all democracies, is far from perfect, but it is, in every sense of the
word, on the front line of the struggle for the things that we hold
dear, not only as Australians and free people but as human beings.
And it is far too frequently on the front line of the struggle against all
the things that are repugnant to universal human ideals.
On 14 May 1948, the day that the British mandate expired, the Jewish
People’s Council gathered at Tel Aviv Museum and approved the
Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel. It read, in part:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration
and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the
development of the country for the benefit of all its
inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as
envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete
equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants
irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom
of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will
safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be
faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Israel is home to many things that are spiritual, but it is home in the
end to the human spirit of resilience, of confidence, of determination
and of respect for one another irrespective of political, religious or
other affiliations. It is a land that boasts many ancient buildings, but
its people are firmly focused on building the future. That it is difficult
to achieve a peaceful resolution to the tensions surrounding Israel’s
existence should only strengthen our resolve to reach out not only to
Israel but also to Palestinians of good heart who genuinely seek and
should achieve a two-state solution. No Australian who believes in
the dignity of man, in freedom and in democratic principles should
ever, through neglectful indifference, allow Israel to be a stranger. To
do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security.
To any Australian who has not done so already and who has the
privilege and the opportunity to visit Washington: I urge you to visit
the Holocaust Memorial Museum. There is a very large sign out the
front of the museum that says: ‘Never forget what you have seen
here’. There are piles of shoes that were worn by Jews exterminated,
photographs of men and women and children looking out into lives
that were never lived, and many other things to remind us of why
our relationship with Israel and our respect for the Israeli cause and
the two-state solution is so important to our own beliefs, our own
values and ultimately our own freedoms and security. Shabbat
shalom forever.
Question agreed to.
Hansard Reference
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/latesthansard/rhansard.pdf
13 March 2008
Attached is the full text of the motion put forward by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and also the Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson's statement seconding it, in the Australian Parliament on 12 March 2008.
Both their statements warrant letters pointing out the inappropriateness of even putting such a motion forward. No one could imagine from these statements that Israel is brutally oppressing the Palestinians under its occupation or that Palestinian citizens of Israel are living there as second class citizens.
What a shameful day for Australia!
=========================
60th ANNIVERSARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
House of Representatives
Australian Parliament
12 March 2008
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (11.58 am)—
by leave—I move:
That the House:
(1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the State of
Israel in the 60 years since its inception;
(2) remember with pride and honour the important role which
Australia played in the establishment of the State of Israel as both a
member state of the United Nations and as an influential voice in the
introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel’s statehood,
and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in
support of Israel’s creation;
(3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between
Australia and Israel; a bond highlighted by our commitment to the
rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural
diversity;
(4) commend the State of Israel’s commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and pluralism;
(5) reiterate Australia’s commitment to Israel’s right to exist and our
ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
(6) reiterate Australia’s commitment to the pursuit of peace and
stability throughout the Middle East;
(7) on this, the 60th Anniversary of Independence of the State of
Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to
the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together.
Today the parliament of Australia notes the occasion of this year,
being the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel.
The story of the establishment of the state of Israel begins with the
unimaginable tragedy of the Holocaust. At the Holocaust memorial
at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem the words of the Australian delegate to
the 1938 Evian Conference are recorded. He said that Australia could
not encourage refugee immigration because, ‘as we have no real
racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one’. Thankfully,
later in 1938 the Australian government took the decision to admit
15,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. But by the time the war
began only 6,500 had reached Australia.
By war’s end, six million Jews had been murdered. By war’s end, the
international community finally began to look again in earnest at the
question of a homeland for the Jewish people. Australia is proud to
have played a significant part in the international process that led to
the foundation of the state of Israel. Australia’s then Minister for
External Affairs, Dr Evatt, was part of the United Nations Special
Committee on Palestine, which recommended in August 1947 the
termination of the Mandate for Palestine. And he was chairman of
the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on the Palestinian Question that
proposed the partition of Palestine. He strongly believed that the
fundamental right of self-determination for the Jewish people and for
Palestinians could only be achieved by each having their own state.
The resolution that the United Nations adopted in November 1947
reflected that. It proposed the establishment of two independent
states—one Arab and one Jewish. And Australia was the first state in
the historic vote of the international community on that resolution to
cast its vote in support of the modern state of Israel. On 14 May 1948
David Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the modern state of
Israel.
Prime Minister Ben Chifley, too, was closely involved in Australia’s
policy towards Israel. In June 1948 he reinforced Evatt’s strong
support for a two state solution when he cabled British Prime
Minister Clement Attlee and urged early recognition of Israel,
saying that:
Such [a] declaration would properly indicate willingness to agree in
principle to the recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel,
and at the same time willingness to recognise de facto the Arab
authorities in actual control of Arab Sections of Palestine.
On 29 January 1949 he announced that Australia would become one
of the first countries to recognise the new state of Israel, describing it
as ‘a force of special value in the world community’. As President of
the General Assembly ‘Doc’ Evatt then presided over the historic
May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the United
Nations. On 11 May 1949 the Chifley Labor government opened an
embassy in Tel Aviv. Evatt later said that, when working on the
question of Israel, he wanted to ensure that the ‘new State of Israel,
whose people had in the past done so much for humanity, would be
welcomed, not merely formally but with good heart and good
conscience’ into the international community.
The 60 years since the establishment of Israel have been full of
challenges and full of trials. Similarly, the process for the emergence
of a Palestinian state has come along a torturous path. There has been
too much bloodshed. But over those 60 years there has also been
cause for hope.
We think today of Prime Minister Menachem Begin standing with
President Jimmy Carter and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat, at the
White House on March 26 1979 at the signing of the Israel-Egypt
Peace Treaty that followed from the Camp David Accords. Prime
Minister Begin used both the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace
when he urged: ‘No more war, no more bloodshed, no more
bereavement. Peace unto you. Shalom, salaam, forever.’ We can
think, too, of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, shaking hands with his
lifelong enemy Yasser Arafat on the lawns of the White House on
September 13 1993, saying:
We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with
blood; we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our
eyes; we who have attended their funerals and cannot look in the
eyes of their parents; we who have come from a land where parents
bury their children; we who have fought against you, the
Palestinians—we say to you, in a loud and clear voice, enough of
blood and tears. Enough!
All peoples of goodwill yearn for that vision to be realised. It has
not been realised yet. To borrow again from former Yitzhak Rabin,
a man who tragically paid the ultimate price while pursuing peace
‘The risks of peace are preferable by far to the grim certainties of
war’.
We firmly believe the establishment of an independent and
economically viable Palestinian state must remain a key objective in
the Middle East peace process. This is important for the future. It was
important in the vision of 1947. It remains the vision today, just as
our objective must be for Israel to exist within secure and
internationally recognised boundaries.
Today, we in Australia support the ongoing negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority towards a final status agreement
by the end of 2008, as launched at the Annapolis Conference in
November last year. To support the establishment of a viable and
sustainable Palestinian state Australia pledged a $45 million
assistance package at the donors conference for the Palestinian
territories in Paris on 18 December. Australia remains, as we have in
the past, committed to an effective two-state solution.
Over the past 60 years Israel has preserved its robust parliamentary
democracy and has built a vibrant society and economy. If anyone
wants a dictionary definition of the term ‘robust’ they should spend
an afternoon in the Israeli Knesset. That is where you see the
definition of ‘robust’ at work. By contrast we are a pack of pussycats
in here!
Over the past 60 years governments from both sides of politics in
Australia have supported our strong relationship with Israel. That
relationship is strong and it is deep—and it will remain so. Because
we are both democracies, as democracies sometimes we will agree
and sometimes we will disagree. That is in the nature of strong
relationships. But the underlying friendship between us does not
alter.
Australia offers our congratulations to the government and people of
Israel on this the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the modern
Israeli state. We acknowledge our special history and relationship
and we look forward to its continued strength and development into
the future.
I commend this motion to the House.
Dr NELSON (Bradfield—Leader of the Opposition)
(12.06 pm)—
I rise on behalf of the alternative government to provide our very
strong support for this motion and to support the remarks on the
historical circumstances of the development of the state of Israel, the
role that Australia played in that, the relationship between our two
countries, the initiatives that are being taken by the current
Australian government and indeed those taken by the most recent
government to further the peace process between Israel and the
Palestinians.
Jewish identity over the last 100 years has been shaped by three
things. The first is anti-Semitism, which remains a virulent and
repugnant force still in far too many parts of the world and in the
dark recesses of some people’s hearts. The second is the holocaust,
which saw the systematic extermination of more than six million
Jews through the course of the Second World War. The third is the
continued threats to the very existence of the state of Israel, which is
constantly embattled and, every single day, every week and every
year, needs to struggle to defend its very existence.
In a region of the world that is characterised more by theocracies and
autocracies, the state of Israel is the custodian of the most fragile yet
powerful of human emotions, and that is hopeful belief in the
freedom of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom
of assembly. There are many things for which Israel stands and
which characterise the modern state of Israel, but included amongst
them is the celebration of knowledge for its own sake and knowledge
as the driver of economic development and emancipation from
human poverty. Israel also stands for personal independence, a free
parliament and an independent judiciary. It is a nation where
Christians, Baha’is, Muslims and Arabs enjoy equal rights. Israel, like
all democracies, is far from perfect, but it is, in every sense of the
word, on the front line of the struggle for the things that we hold
dear, not only as Australians and free people but as human beings.
And it is far too frequently on the front line of the struggle against all
the things that are repugnant to universal human ideals.
On 14 May 1948, the day that the British mandate expired, the Jewish
People’s Council gathered at Tel Aviv Museum and approved the
Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel. It read, in part:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration
and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the
development of the country for the benefit of all its
inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as
envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete
equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants
irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom
of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will
safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be
faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Israel is home to many things that are spiritual, but it is home in the
end to the human spirit of resilience, of confidence, of determination
and of respect for one another irrespective of political, religious or
other affiliations. It is a land that boasts many ancient buildings, but
its people are firmly focused on building the future. That it is difficult
to achieve a peaceful resolution to the tensions surrounding Israel’s
existence should only strengthen our resolve to reach out not only to
Israel but also to Palestinians of good heart who genuinely seek and
should achieve a two-state solution. No Australian who believes in
the dignity of man, in freedom and in democratic principles should
ever, through neglectful indifference, allow Israel to be a stranger. To
do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security.
To any Australian who has not done so already and who has the
privilege and the opportunity to visit Washington: I urge you to visit
the Holocaust Memorial Museum. There is a very large sign out the
front of the museum that says: ‘Never forget what you have seen
here’. There are piles of shoes that were worn by Jews exterminated,
photographs of men and women and children looking out into lives
that were never lived, and many other things to remind us of why
our relationship with Israel and our respect for the Israeli cause and
the two-state solution is so important to our own beliefs, our own
values and ultimately our own freedoms and security. Shabbat
shalom forever.
Question agreed to.
Hansard Reference
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/latesthansard/rhansard.pdf
Friday, 29 February 2008
Australian government continues its love affair with Israel
Sonja Karkar, Women for Palestine, 28 February 2008
Well, so much for our new government taking an even-handed position on Israel/Palestine. Before our politicians even warmed their seats in the new parliamentary sittings, the Australian Prime Minister announced that he will lead a parliamentary motion to honour Israel on 12 March acknowledging Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day. The Opposition Leader will second the motion. Then, celebrations will take place at a reception in the Mural Hall of Parliament House.
If Palestinians and their supporters had any hopes of a sympathetic hearing from the new Rudd government on the multiple human rights abuses being perpetrated by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, those hopes are now well and truly dashed.
This year marks 60 years of Palestinian dispossession and displacement and a savage, relentless occupation that is smothering the lifeblood of the Palestinians while Israel celebrates its ill-gotten gains. Palestinians are starving in Gaza. Palestinians are being sold out in the West Bank. Palestinians are dying. Their very existence is under threat. It is as simple and as awful as that.
Every Australian ought to be asking why our Prime Minister and the parliament feel so humiliatingly obligated to Israel that they must go to these lengths to show their friendship with a foreign country that consistently violates international law, United Nations resolutions and human rights conventions? If supporting the Palestinian cause is too much to ask, then refusing to single Israel out for any kind of recognition would at least be sensitive to the Palestinians living here. The Palestinians were never asked if they would agree to the foreign imperial division of their country. Most had their family homes and lands taken from them by Zionist forces ruthlessly pushing for a Greater Israel not intended by the 1947 United Nations Partition of Palestine. All suffer indescribable pain knowing that many of their people live a hellish existence under Israel’s occupation. It is on this human wreckage of Palestinian lives that Israel celebrates its independence, honoured so gratuitously by our government.
Such demonstrations of affection are not new. Our former Prime Minister John Howard had already fostered this extraordinary bond when he declared Australia as Israel’s closest friend. Many of his ministers followed suit and none was more accommodating than former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when he said that he wore Israel as “a badge of honour” even as Israel’s war planes decimated the Lebanese landscape in 2006
True to form, Israel has rewarded its friends with facile honours. John Howard received two in one year. He was awarded the Jerusalem Prize from the World Zionist Organisation and he had a forest named after him in the Negev by the Jewish National Fund, which specialises in acquiring property for “the purpose of settling Jews on such lands.” These lands are the subject of legal proceedings brought by the now displaced indigenous Bedouins of the Negev who are being “moved out” for the exclusive benefit of Jews worldwide who want to live in Israel. Although these Bedouins live in what is now called Israel, 45 of their villages are not recognised by the Israeli government and have never received even the most basic amenities.
All this falls hard on the heels of the new Prime Minister’s moving apology to our own indigenous people and raises many questions about the sincerity of that momentous gesture. The similarity between the grievous losses suffered by both peoples – the Aborigines and the Palestinians – is not fanciful. Both peoples have been the hapless victims of the great white colonial enterprise and in both cases, it would have succeeded brilliantly, if these people would have just disappeared. But it is not so easy to kill off people and their dreams.
There are some 11 million Palestinians worldwide whose collective memory is seared with the narrative of their people who fled in terror during Israel’s 1948 purge of Palestine. About two-thirds of the Palestinian population never saw their homes again. Many still have the keys to their front doors, the deeds to their properties and lands, the photos of happier moments, and the endless familiar memories of smells and sounds unfaded by time. Around 7.2 million refugees are languishing today in refugee camps waiting to return home and to receive compensation for the calculated decimation of their society – one that had successfully developed culturally and economically over centuries, despite four hundred years under Ottoman rule.
Palestine was not a land without people as Israel’s mythmakers have tried to promote, particularly through the emotive Hollywood film “Exodus”. Palestine was, in fact, populated by successful citizen merchants and officials who added an economically vibrant dimension to the essentially peasant population who were actively engaged in working the land. Not only did Palestinians own land, but even where there was no legal title, the land was considered as belonging to the Palestinians through their history of land use and uninterrupted possession.
All the recent posturings by Israel’s supporters, to show Israel as a first world country in the forefront of science and technology and the cutting edge of the arts in order to gain legitimacy with Western countries, might resonate with our politicians, but it does not with people who know Israel’s atrocious human rights record. More and more people are beginning to wake up as intrepid journalists report a far from rosy picture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Yet, these are still lone voices in our Australian media and not enough to reach the wider population. For decades, Israel has won the battle for the hearts and minds of people, despite the official reports of every human rights organisation – from Amnesty International to Israel’s B’Tselem – documenting in graphic detail Israel’s litany of human rights abuses. Most are gathering dust, but they provide more than enough evidence to challenge the appropriateness of aligning ourselves with Israel. And there are stirrings in our churches, universities, the legal fraternity, social justice groups and in the consciences of people generally, to reach out to the Palestinians.
In response, Israel has established the Peres Centre for Peace in Australia which is endeavouring to project an image of Israel as peacemaker. Rather than the usual rounds of dialogue and conflict resolution, it is being done on a populist level through sporting activities and culture. The Centre has already persuaded the Australian Football League (AFL) to include a friendly team of Israelis and Palestinians in their 18-team line up for this year’s AFL International Cup. In this way, Israel hopes to normalise its image with the Australian public, and through a handful of players, show its willingness to work towards peace - something it has been unwilling to do at the negotiating table.
However, Israeli tanks and soldiers are still shelling Gaza, and Israel is further tightening its siege on this tiny sliver of land with a population almost at bursting point The recent smashing of the wall with hundreds of thousands of desperate Palestinians swarming into Egypt to look for food and other basic necessities gave the world a glimpse into the misery of their lives. And, in the West Bank, Israel is increasing – not decreasing as it promised to do in the most recent peace negotiations - the number of checkpoints that totally suffocate the ordinary daily movement of another burgeoning population.
The surest sign though of Israel’s real intentions, is its blatant disregard of international law and all requests to stop its illegal settlement project that is literally turning thousands of Palestinians on to the streets – homeless and stateless and forced to rely on the world’s pitiful humanitarian aid that can never bring them economic or political independence.
As conditions deteriorate for the Palestinians, and the words “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” begin to enter mainstream consciousness after being given voice by former US President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Tutu, Israel is employing new public relations strategies to secure its legitimacy in the global community. In Australia, where sport dominates so much of our cultural life and social interaction, using sport as a vehicle for peace is a powerful image. This latest venture by The Peres Centre - named after one of the more notorious Zionist architects of Palestinian ethnic cleansing – is already bedazzling the AFL administrators with the idea of people crossing all boundaries “for the simple love of the game” - a notion that would never be entertained by a government at war with an enemy state and one that has been rejected when political pressure through sports’ boycotts is deemed necessary to stop countries behaving oppressively. Nowhere else was this so effective than in South Africa’s anti-Apartheid struggle.
There is no excuse for our leaders in politics and business to buy into this scam when they know that some 4 million Palestinians are being denied justice and basic human rights under Israel’s illegal military occupation, with no sign of reprieve. If it were not for the West’s craven politicians indecently rushing to join Israel’s circus, Israel would long ago have had to find a solution to give justice and dignity back to the Palestinians.
Regrettably, our leaders will continue to pursue their self-serving policies until ordinary, decent people force them to accept that our common humanity is worth more than the lucrative deals that bring such enormous profits to the multinational corporations, and from which many governments benefit. It is by no means impossible. Just as people brought down the Apartheid regime in South Africa, the people can bring down the ethnically divisive Zionist regime in Israel as well. This is why the word “apartheid” so rattles Israel’s supporters.
But, we have a long way to go, especially when governments insist on continuing their love affairs with Israel. In the meantime, al-Nakba – the Palestinian catastrophe of dispossession and displacement – is being accelerated. This crime against humanity is what needs to be acknowledged in our Parliament and not a motion honouring Israel. The Australian “fair go” that our Prime Minister so fondly embraces, has never sounded so hollow or sunk so low.
Well, so much for our new government taking an even-handed position on Israel/Palestine. Before our politicians even warmed their seats in the new parliamentary sittings, the Australian Prime Minister announced that he will lead a parliamentary motion to honour Israel on 12 March acknowledging Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day. The Opposition Leader will second the motion. Then, celebrations will take place at a reception in the Mural Hall of Parliament House.
If Palestinians and their supporters had any hopes of a sympathetic hearing from the new Rudd government on the multiple human rights abuses being perpetrated by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, those hopes are now well and truly dashed.
This year marks 60 years of Palestinian dispossession and displacement and a savage, relentless occupation that is smothering the lifeblood of the Palestinians while Israel celebrates its ill-gotten gains. Palestinians are starving in Gaza. Palestinians are being sold out in the West Bank. Palestinians are dying. Their very existence is under threat. It is as simple and as awful as that.
Every Australian ought to be asking why our Prime Minister and the parliament feel so humiliatingly obligated to Israel that they must go to these lengths to show their friendship with a foreign country that consistently violates international law, United Nations resolutions and human rights conventions? If supporting the Palestinian cause is too much to ask, then refusing to single Israel out for any kind of recognition would at least be sensitive to the Palestinians living here. The Palestinians were never asked if they would agree to the foreign imperial division of their country. Most had their family homes and lands taken from them by Zionist forces ruthlessly pushing for a Greater Israel not intended by the 1947 United Nations Partition of Palestine. All suffer indescribable pain knowing that many of their people live a hellish existence under Israel’s occupation. It is on this human wreckage of Palestinian lives that Israel celebrates its independence, honoured so gratuitously by our government.
Such demonstrations of affection are not new. Our former Prime Minister John Howard had already fostered this extraordinary bond when he declared Australia as Israel’s closest friend. Many of his ministers followed suit and none was more accommodating than former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when he said that he wore Israel as “a badge of honour” even as Israel’s war planes decimated the Lebanese landscape in 2006
True to form, Israel has rewarded its friends with facile honours. John Howard received two in one year. He was awarded the Jerusalem Prize from the World Zionist Organisation and he had a forest named after him in the Negev by the Jewish National Fund, which specialises in acquiring property for “the purpose of settling Jews on such lands.” These lands are the subject of legal proceedings brought by the now displaced indigenous Bedouins of the Negev who are being “moved out” for the exclusive benefit of Jews worldwide who want to live in Israel. Although these Bedouins live in what is now called Israel, 45 of their villages are not recognised by the Israeli government and have never received even the most basic amenities.
All this falls hard on the heels of the new Prime Minister’s moving apology to our own indigenous people and raises many questions about the sincerity of that momentous gesture. The similarity between the grievous losses suffered by both peoples – the Aborigines and the Palestinians – is not fanciful. Both peoples have been the hapless victims of the great white colonial enterprise and in both cases, it would have succeeded brilliantly, if these people would have just disappeared. But it is not so easy to kill off people and their dreams.
There are some 11 million Palestinians worldwide whose collective memory is seared with the narrative of their people who fled in terror during Israel’s 1948 purge of Palestine. About two-thirds of the Palestinian population never saw their homes again. Many still have the keys to their front doors, the deeds to their properties and lands, the photos of happier moments, and the endless familiar memories of smells and sounds unfaded by time. Around 7.2 million refugees are languishing today in refugee camps waiting to return home and to receive compensation for the calculated decimation of their society – one that had successfully developed culturally and economically over centuries, despite four hundred years under Ottoman rule.
Palestine was not a land without people as Israel’s mythmakers have tried to promote, particularly through the emotive Hollywood film “Exodus”. Palestine was, in fact, populated by successful citizen merchants and officials who added an economically vibrant dimension to the essentially peasant population who were actively engaged in working the land. Not only did Palestinians own land, but even where there was no legal title, the land was considered as belonging to the Palestinians through their history of land use and uninterrupted possession.
All the recent posturings by Israel’s supporters, to show Israel as a first world country in the forefront of science and technology and the cutting edge of the arts in order to gain legitimacy with Western countries, might resonate with our politicians, but it does not with people who know Israel’s atrocious human rights record. More and more people are beginning to wake up as intrepid journalists report a far from rosy picture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Yet, these are still lone voices in our Australian media and not enough to reach the wider population. For decades, Israel has won the battle for the hearts and minds of people, despite the official reports of every human rights organisation – from Amnesty International to Israel’s B’Tselem – documenting in graphic detail Israel’s litany of human rights abuses. Most are gathering dust, but they provide more than enough evidence to challenge the appropriateness of aligning ourselves with Israel. And there are stirrings in our churches, universities, the legal fraternity, social justice groups and in the consciences of people generally, to reach out to the Palestinians.
In response, Israel has established the Peres Centre for Peace in Australia which is endeavouring to project an image of Israel as peacemaker. Rather than the usual rounds of dialogue and conflict resolution, it is being done on a populist level through sporting activities and culture. The Centre has already persuaded the Australian Football League (AFL) to include a friendly team of Israelis and Palestinians in their 18-team line up for this year’s AFL International Cup. In this way, Israel hopes to normalise its image with the Australian public, and through a handful of players, show its willingness to work towards peace - something it has been unwilling to do at the negotiating table.
However, Israeli tanks and soldiers are still shelling Gaza, and Israel is further tightening its siege on this tiny sliver of land with a population almost at bursting point The recent smashing of the wall with hundreds of thousands of desperate Palestinians swarming into Egypt to look for food and other basic necessities gave the world a glimpse into the misery of their lives. And, in the West Bank, Israel is increasing – not decreasing as it promised to do in the most recent peace negotiations - the number of checkpoints that totally suffocate the ordinary daily movement of another burgeoning population.
The surest sign though of Israel’s real intentions, is its blatant disregard of international law and all requests to stop its illegal settlement project that is literally turning thousands of Palestinians on to the streets – homeless and stateless and forced to rely on the world’s pitiful humanitarian aid that can never bring them economic or political independence.
As conditions deteriorate for the Palestinians, and the words “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” begin to enter mainstream consciousness after being given voice by former US President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Tutu, Israel is employing new public relations strategies to secure its legitimacy in the global community. In Australia, where sport dominates so much of our cultural life and social interaction, using sport as a vehicle for peace is a powerful image. This latest venture by The Peres Centre - named after one of the more notorious Zionist architects of Palestinian ethnic cleansing – is already bedazzling the AFL administrators with the idea of people crossing all boundaries “for the simple love of the game” - a notion that would never be entertained by a government at war with an enemy state and one that has been rejected when political pressure through sports’ boycotts is deemed necessary to stop countries behaving oppressively. Nowhere else was this so effective than in South Africa’s anti-Apartheid struggle.
There is no excuse for our leaders in politics and business to buy into this scam when they know that some 4 million Palestinians are being denied justice and basic human rights under Israel’s illegal military occupation, with no sign of reprieve. If it were not for the West’s craven politicians indecently rushing to join Israel’s circus, Israel would long ago have had to find a solution to give justice and dignity back to the Palestinians.
Regrettably, our leaders will continue to pursue their self-serving policies until ordinary, decent people force them to accept that our common humanity is worth more than the lucrative deals that bring such enormous profits to the multinational corporations, and from which many governments benefit. It is by no means impossible. Just as people brought down the Apartheid regime in South Africa, the people can bring down the ethnically divisive Zionist regime in Israel as well. This is why the word “apartheid” so rattles Israel’s supporters.
But, we have a long way to go, especially when governments insist on continuing their love affairs with Israel. In the meantime, al-Nakba – the Palestinian catastrophe of dispossession and displacement – is being accelerated. This crime against humanity is what needs to be acknowledged in our Parliament and not a motion honouring Israel. The Australian “fair go” that our Prime Minister so fondly embraces, has never sounded so hollow or sunk so low.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
West Bank farms fall to Israeli bulldozers
The Age, February 23, 2008
The farmers of Beit Ula spent two years preparing their new groves of fruit, nut and olive trees, clearing rocks, building stone terraces and digging deep cisterns to catch the scarce rain.
The Israeli army destroyed it all in less than a day.
"We heard they were here at 6.30 in the morning, when it was still dark," said Sami al-Adam, one of eight farmers whose terraces were bulldozed on January 15.
"There must have been dozens of soldiers with jeep and bulldozers, and they brought a lot of Filipino workers, or maybe they were Thai, who pulled up the trees and cut them and buried them so we wouldn't be able to plant them again."
When the soldiers and police left the site, in the low hills on the West Bank's border with Israel, 6.4 hectares of trees and terraces had been uprooted and bulldozed. The concrete cisterns were broken open and choked with rubble. Two years' work and an investment of more than 100,000 euros ($160,000) had gone to waste.
The Israeli military department that controls the occupied West Bank, confusingly called "the Civil Administration", said it demolished the terraces because they were built illegally on state land belonging to Israel.
This came as a surprise to the West Bank farmers, who brandish documents with Palestinian, Israeli and even Turkish stamps that, they say, prove their title to the land. It came as an even bigger surprise to the European Union, which provided 64,000 euros to the project as part of a program to improve "food security" for Palestinians.
European Commission spokeswoman Alex de Mauny said: "Obviously it's a disaster in human terms — these are not rich people, they are living very much on the margins — but there's the broader issue of why it happened, and how we can stop it from happening again."
A statement from the Civil Administration maintained, contrary to the EU's statement, that the Europeans had not funded the project.
According to a 2002 report by Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, 40% of the West Bank has been seized by Israeli military tribunals, which declare it to be "state land", re-allocating much of it to Jewish settlements.
In the case of Beit Ula, the Civil Administration says the farmers were officially informed that they were building illegally on state land in 2006 and given the statutory 45 days to appeal before the demolition notice became final.
One of the farmers, Mahmoud al-Adam, shows visitors a military form that he found under a stone on his plot in June 2006, telling him he would be evicted from 2.5 hectares of state land that he was illegally building on, and that he would be charged the demolition cost.
Such forms are the Israeli army's standard notification for house demolitions or land seizures. But there was apparently no warning to the other seven farmers, and 6.4 hectares of terrace and trees were destroyed, not 2.5 hectares.
The Civil Administration has yet to respond to the claim that most of the farmers received no legal warning or due process.
A spokesman said: "It's a routine action. It's nothing special. We do these activities every day in Judea and Samaria," using the biblical Jewish terms for the West Bank.
"We are very strict about these things. If you let one person do it unauthorised, all the others will come after him."
According to Civil Administration figures, in the seven years to September 2007 nearly 5000 demolition orders were issued against unauthorised Palestinian houses, buildings or infrastructure in Area C, the 60% of the West Bank that officially remains under full Israeli rule. Of these, 1663 were executed, or roughly a third.
In the same period, 2900 demolition orders were issued against illegal building by Jewish settlers in the area. Only 7%, or 199, were carried out.
And while the Civil Administration issued permits for 18,472 housing units for Jews in those seven years, the indigenous Palestinians were granted only 91 building permits. According to figures from the Israeli group Peace Now, 94% of the Palestinian applications were rejected, including requests to build or extend houses as well as repair roads, water pipes, wells and other infrastructure.
"The numbers speak for themselves," said Hagit Ofran, a settlement monitor with Peace Now. "Settler lands are being supported by government funds and planners and so on, but often the settlers also build without permits and on state land, and when they do, nothing happens to them … But law enforcement against the Palestinians is very efficient."
The Civil Administration accuses Peace Now of distorting the truth and said the reason so few permits were granted to the 70,000 Palestinians in Area C, and so many demolitions were carried out, was that most did not apply for permits until their projects had already been condemned by military inspectors and their applications must therefore be refused.
"We assume that if they came and asked, we'd give them thousands of permits," a spokesman said.
This week also brought news of the establishment of two more Jewish settlements in the West Bank — one in the Jordan Valley and another a "new neighbourhood" of Eli, an older Jewish settlement near Nablus.
These are illegal under Israeli law and breach Israel's own loose interpretation of its promise to freeze settlements under the 2003 Road Map, and last year's Annapolis process. Yet the new settlements are guarded by the Israel Defence Forces and have already been hooked up to state water, power and road networks.
The Civil Administration told journalists any attempt to evict the settlers or demolish their structures would depend on the political leadership and on Israel's High Court.
The farmers of Beit Ula spent two years preparing their new groves of fruit, nut and olive trees, clearing rocks, building stone terraces and digging deep cisterns to catch the scarce rain.
The Israeli army destroyed it all in less than a day.
"We heard they were here at 6.30 in the morning, when it was still dark," said Sami al-Adam, one of eight farmers whose terraces were bulldozed on January 15.
"There must have been dozens of soldiers with jeep and bulldozers, and they brought a lot of Filipino workers, or maybe they were Thai, who pulled up the trees and cut them and buried them so we wouldn't be able to plant them again."
When the soldiers and police left the site, in the low hills on the West Bank's border with Israel, 6.4 hectares of trees and terraces had been uprooted and bulldozed. The concrete cisterns were broken open and choked with rubble. Two years' work and an investment of more than 100,000 euros ($160,000) had gone to waste.
The Israeli military department that controls the occupied West Bank, confusingly called "the Civil Administration", said it demolished the terraces because they were built illegally on state land belonging to Israel.
This came as a surprise to the West Bank farmers, who brandish documents with Palestinian, Israeli and even Turkish stamps that, they say, prove their title to the land. It came as an even bigger surprise to the European Union, which provided 64,000 euros to the project as part of a program to improve "food security" for Palestinians.
European Commission spokeswoman Alex de Mauny said: "Obviously it's a disaster in human terms — these are not rich people, they are living very much on the margins — but there's the broader issue of why it happened, and how we can stop it from happening again."
A statement from the Civil Administration maintained, contrary to the EU's statement, that the Europeans had not funded the project.
According to a 2002 report by Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, 40% of the West Bank has been seized by Israeli military tribunals, which declare it to be "state land", re-allocating much of it to Jewish settlements.
In the case of Beit Ula, the Civil Administration says the farmers were officially informed that they were building illegally on state land in 2006 and given the statutory 45 days to appeal before the demolition notice became final.
One of the farmers, Mahmoud al-Adam, shows visitors a military form that he found under a stone on his plot in June 2006, telling him he would be evicted from 2.5 hectares of state land that he was illegally building on, and that he would be charged the demolition cost.
Such forms are the Israeli army's standard notification for house demolitions or land seizures. But there was apparently no warning to the other seven farmers, and 6.4 hectares of terrace and trees were destroyed, not 2.5 hectares.
The Civil Administration has yet to respond to the claim that most of the farmers received no legal warning or due process.
A spokesman said: "It's a routine action. It's nothing special. We do these activities every day in Judea and Samaria," using the biblical Jewish terms for the West Bank.
"We are very strict about these things. If you let one person do it unauthorised, all the others will come after him."
According to Civil Administration figures, in the seven years to September 2007 nearly 5000 demolition orders were issued against unauthorised Palestinian houses, buildings or infrastructure in Area C, the 60% of the West Bank that officially remains under full Israeli rule. Of these, 1663 were executed, or roughly a third.
In the same period, 2900 demolition orders were issued against illegal building by Jewish settlers in the area. Only 7%, or 199, were carried out.
And while the Civil Administration issued permits for 18,472 housing units for Jews in those seven years, the indigenous Palestinians were granted only 91 building permits. According to figures from the Israeli group Peace Now, 94% of the Palestinian applications were rejected, including requests to build or extend houses as well as repair roads, water pipes, wells and other infrastructure.
"The numbers speak for themselves," said Hagit Ofran, a settlement monitor with Peace Now. "Settler lands are being supported by government funds and planners and so on, but often the settlers also build without permits and on state land, and when they do, nothing happens to them … But law enforcement against the Palestinians is very efficient."
The Civil Administration accuses Peace Now of distorting the truth and said the reason so few permits were granted to the 70,000 Palestinians in Area C, and so many demolitions were carried out, was that most did not apply for permits until their projects had already been condemned by military inspectors and their applications must therefore be refused.
"We assume that if they came and asked, we'd give them thousands of permits," a spokesman said.
This week also brought news of the establishment of two more Jewish settlements in the West Bank — one in the Jordan Valley and another a "new neighbourhood" of Eli, an older Jewish settlement near Nablus.
These are illegal under Israeli law and breach Israel's own loose interpretation of its promise to freeze settlements under the 2003 Road Map, and last year's Annapolis process. Yet the new settlements are guarded by the Israel Defence Forces and have already been hooked up to state water, power and road networks.
The Civil Administration told journalists any attempt to evict the settlers or demolish their structures would depend on the political leadership and on Israel's High Court.
Sunday, 27 January 2008
Palestinians suffer as the world fails Gaza
Michael Shaik - The Age - January 28, 2008
Talking is not enough to halt the colonisation of the West Bank.
ZIONIST colonisation, wrote the Zionist thinker Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 1923, can develop only "under the protection of a force independent of the local population — an iron wall which the native population cannot break through".
Before its "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army decided to implement Jabotinsky's idea literally by erecting a six-metre-high concrete and steel wall across the Gaza's border with Egypt.
To prevent Palestinians from tunnelling under the wall, about 1800 houses in the Palestinian refugee camps alongside the wall were demolished. When American peace activist Rachel Corrie tried to save one such house, she was crushed under the blade of an Israeli bulldozer.
For the people of Rafah, the wall has been an ever-present reminder of Israeli power and the futility of resistance — a 21st century Berlin Wall amid the rubble of their ruined homes.
For Israel, the wall is the means by which it maintained control over Gaza Strip without having to garrison troops inside it. Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in June, Israel has used this control to place Gaza under siege. Imports and exports have been suspended.
The supply of food, medicine and fuel for cooking, transport and electricity generation has been alternately reduced to a trickle or cut off altogether.
According to the UN, 80% of Gaza's population now lives in a state of extreme poverty — 72 Gazans have died because they were unable to leave Gaza for medical treatment.
While cautiously criticising the more draconian aspects of the siege, the West has lent its consent to its underlying premise: that the people of the Gaza Strip would rid themselves of Hamas when they realised how much worse off they were than their compatriots in other parts the occupied territories.
Over the past weeks this premise has collapsed. The Palestinian militants' success in puncturing Israel's blockade of Gaza has underscored the value of armed resistance as a way to improve Palestinian welfare, and contrasts sharply with the Annapolis peace summit's failure to halt Israel's deepening colonisation of the West Bank.
This month the UN reported that, despite its promises, Israel had increased the number of checkpoints and roadblocks throughout the West Bank to 563. Last week Israel announced that it would build 2461 new housing units for Jewish settlers on confiscated Palestinian lands in East Jerusalem.
The collapse of its iron wall in Gaza presents Israel with an embarrassing dilemma. Invading Rafah again to rebuild the wall would belie its claim that it no longer occupies Gaza, and probably prove ineffective unless it leaves behind a permanent garrison. Now it is insisting that the Egyptians close the border, but the Egyptian Government's willingness to abet the collective punishment of Gaza's people is doubtful, to say the least.
Accepting Hamas' offer of a ceasefire to end Palestinian missile attacks on Sderot would seem its most promising alternative, but this is unlikely for a number of reasons.
First, having spent the past two years insisting that Hamas is a terrorist organisation with which it cannot negotiate, Israel's Government would find it difficult to explain the sudden change of policy. Second, the illusion that the intelligent application of punitive measures is the only lasting solution to Arab resistance is so prevalent among both Israel's leadership and public that it is unlikely to be dislodged by the mundane reality of failure.
Finally, diplomatic pressure to moderate its actions in the occupied territories is almost non-existent.
After hesitantly voicing their "concern" over Israel's post-Annapolis decision to expand Jewish settlements throughout East Jerusalem, both the United States and the European Union have lapsed into an embarrassed silence.
All the frontrunners in this year's US presidential campaign — Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani — have expressed their uncritical support for Israel as they compete for Jewish campaign funding.
And Australia? In December 2006, Melbourne mining magnate Rabbi Joe Gutnick declared that members of Australia's Jewish community could not help but support John Howard unless they saw "something amazing from Kevin Rudd".
Over the following months, Rudd ran four pro-Israeli Labor candidates in the federal election, and declared to a private function of Melbourne's Jewish leaders that his support for Israel was "in his DNA".
This month, the Australian Government voted against funding the 2009 Durban Conference to review the UN's progress in combating racism, discrimination and xenophobia. No official reason was given, but the vote follows an Israeli campaign to de-fund the conference, which it expects will criticise what Noble laureates Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu have described as its regime of apartheid in the occupied territories.
"Israel," Henry Kissinger once quipped, "has no foreign policy, only domestic policy." In this respect, as in many others, it is certainly not alone.
Talking is not enough to halt the colonisation of the West Bank.
ZIONIST colonisation, wrote the Zionist thinker Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 1923, can develop only "under the protection of a force independent of the local population — an iron wall which the native population cannot break through".
Before its "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army decided to implement Jabotinsky's idea literally by erecting a six-metre-high concrete and steel wall across the Gaza's border with Egypt.
To prevent Palestinians from tunnelling under the wall, about 1800 houses in the Palestinian refugee camps alongside the wall were demolished. When American peace activist Rachel Corrie tried to save one such house, she was crushed under the blade of an Israeli bulldozer.
For the people of Rafah, the wall has been an ever-present reminder of Israeli power and the futility of resistance — a 21st century Berlin Wall amid the rubble of their ruined homes.
For Israel, the wall is the means by which it maintained control over Gaza Strip without having to garrison troops inside it. Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in June, Israel has used this control to place Gaza under siege. Imports and exports have been suspended.
The supply of food, medicine and fuel for cooking, transport and electricity generation has been alternately reduced to a trickle or cut off altogether.
According to the UN, 80% of Gaza's population now lives in a state of extreme poverty — 72 Gazans have died because they were unable to leave Gaza for medical treatment.
While cautiously criticising the more draconian aspects of the siege, the West has lent its consent to its underlying premise: that the people of the Gaza Strip would rid themselves of Hamas when they realised how much worse off they were than their compatriots in other parts the occupied territories.
Over the past weeks this premise has collapsed. The Palestinian militants' success in puncturing Israel's blockade of Gaza has underscored the value of armed resistance as a way to improve Palestinian welfare, and contrasts sharply with the Annapolis peace summit's failure to halt Israel's deepening colonisation of the West Bank.
This month the UN reported that, despite its promises, Israel had increased the number of checkpoints and roadblocks throughout the West Bank to 563. Last week Israel announced that it would build 2461 new housing units for Jewish settlers on confiscated Palestinian lands in East Jerusalem.
The collapse of its iron wall in Gaza presents Israel with an embarrassing dilemma. Invading Rafah again to rebuild the wall would belie its claim that it no longer occupies Gaza, and probably prove ineffective unless it leaves behind a permanent garrison. Now it is insisting that the Egyptians close the border, but the Egyptian Government's willingness to abet the collective punishment of Gaza's people is doubtful, to say the least.
Accepting Hamas' offer of a ceasefire to end Palestinian missile attacks on Sderot would seem its most promising alternative, but this is unlikely for a number of reasons.
First, having spent the past two years insisting that Hamas is a terrorist organisation with which it cannot negotiate, Israel's Government would find it difficult to explain the sudden change of policy. Second, the illusion that the intelligent application of punitive measures is the only lasting solution to Arab resistance is so prevalent among both Israel's leadership and public that it is unlikely to be dislodged by the mundane reality of failure.
Finally, diplomatic pressure to moderate its actions in the occupied territories is almost non-existent.
After hesitantly voicing their "concern" over Israel's post-Annapolis decision to expand Jewish settlements throughout East Jerusalem, both the United States and the European Union have lapsed into an embarrassed silence.
All the frontrunners in this year's US presidential campaign — Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani — have expressed their uncritical support for Israel as they compete for Jewish campaign funding.
And Australia? In December 2006, Melbourne mining magnate Rabbi Joe Gutnick declared that members of Australia's Jewish community could not help but support John Howard unless they saw "something amazing from Kevin Rudd".
Over the following months, Rudd ran four pro-Israeli Labor candidates in the federal election, and declared to a private function of Melbourne's Jewish leaders that his support for Israel was "in his DNA".
This month, the Australian Government voted against funding the 2009 Durban Conference to review the UN's progress in combating racism, discrimination and xenophobia. No official reason was given, but the vote follows an Israeli campaign to de-fund the conference, which it expects will criticise what Noble laureates Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu have described as its regime of apartheid in the occupied territories.
"Israel," Henry Kissinger once quipped, "has no foreign policy, only domestic policy." In this respect, as in many others, it is certainly not alone.
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/27/1201368941248.html
Michael Shaik is the public advocate for Australians for Palestine
Friday, 25 January 2008
Comparing Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto
Sydney Morning Herald, Letters page : 22-24 January
January 22 2008
Lesson unlearnt
Nearly 70 years ago, in a small eastern European city, an oppressed and occupied people were under siege, living under atrocious and brutal conditions, lacking food, medicine, electricity, water, and slowly being strangled in the hope they would just disappear. Warsaw Ghetto 1941 - Gaza 2008. Israel, you are a disgrace.
Zaid Khan Blakehurst
....................
January 23 2008
Slight difference
I am not as familiar as Zaid Khan (Letters, January 22) with Europe 70 years ago but, to the best of my knowledge the oppressed minority in Warsaw were not firing Katyusha rockets indiscriminately into the surrounding area and neither were their kids being wrapped in explosives and sent out to blow up the neighbours.
David Calvey Vaucluse
...................
January 24 2008
Warsaw and Gaza a difference of means and ends
What we can never know, David Calvey (Letters, Jan 23), is whether the oppressed in Warsaw would have retaliated had they been given the means with which to do so.
Rachel Merhebi Turramurra
You're right, David Calvey, the oppressed minority in Warsaw before World War II did not protest with rockets and suicide bombs. But I believe most of them ended up in the Nazi gas chambers.
Paul Sadler Newtown
The reason, David Calvey, that the oppressed minority were not fighting back with weapons and explosives is that they didn't have them. I am sure Polish Jews would have used anything available and done anything possible to disrupt the German war machine. I am sure what Zaid Kahn was getting at is the massive hypocrisy of Israel; it was oppression back then when done to them, but it is somehow OK to do it to someone else now.
Daniel Gardiner Camperdown
Maybe I'm not as familiar as David Calvey with Europe 70 years ago but, if the oppressed minority suffering in Warsaw was subjected to the same oppression for 50 continuous years or more, they, too, would take more extreme measures. Also, to the best of my knowledge, like the people in the occupied territories, the oppressed in Warsaw did eventually revolt against the oppression, and justifiably so.
Brad Spencer Ljubljana (Slovenia)
I don't need to visit Gaza to tell David Calvey that 99 per cent of its population don't have rockets in the back shed and bomb vests in the bedroom.
Like the Jews in Warsaw, most Palestinians in Gaza are being held captive with the barest of essentials purely on the basis that they were "accidentally" born of the wrong blood in the wrong place. How can an average Palestinian Joe hope to stop the actions of a few mad militants? And why should the Israelis or we expect them to do so? The current policy effectively holds every man, women and child responsible for any act of terrorism.
Last thing I heard, there are quite a few unsolved murders in Sydney. I say we lock the whole place down until people there realise that the rest of the country won't tolerate it. After all, if they are prepared to murder their fellow Sydneysiders they might come after the rest of us.
Anura Samara Geneva (Switzerland)
=====================================
British MPs compare Gaza to Warsaw ghetto
Press Association
Thursday June 19, 2003
Guardian Unlimited
Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was today compared to the Nazis' creation of the Warsaw ghetto by MPs who recently returned from the region. The controversial comparison, drawn by Oona King and Jenny Tonge, will anger the pro-Israel lobby and the visiting Israeli finance minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, who met Tony Blair at Downing Street this morning.
Labour MP Ms King, who is Jewish, said Gaza was "the same in nature" as the infamous Polish ghetto.
Lesson unlearnt
Nearly 70 years ago, in a small eastern European city, an oppressed and occupied people were under siege, living under atrocious and brutal conditions, lacking food, medicine, electricity, water, and slowly being strangled in the hope they would just disappear. Warsaw Ghetto 1941 - Gaza 2008. Israel, you are a disgrace.
Zaid Khan Blakehurst
....................
January 23 2008
Slight difference
I am not as familiar as Zaid Khan (Letters, January 22) with Europe 70 years ago but, to the best of my knowledge the oppressed minority in Warsaw were not firing Katyusha rockets indiscriminately into the surrounding area and neither were their kids being wrapped in explosives and sent out to blow up the neighbours.
David Calvey Vaucluse
...................
January 24 2008
Warsaw and Gaza a difference of means and ends
What we can never know, David Calvey (Letters, Jan 23), is whether the oppressed in Warsaw would have retaliated had they been given the means with which to do so.
Rachel Merhebi Turramurra
You're right, David Calvey, the oppressed minority in Warsaw before World War II did not protest with rockets and suicide bombs. But I believe most of them ended up in the Nazi gas chambers.
Paul Sadler Newtown
The reason, David Calvey, that the oppressed minority were not fighting back with weapons and explosives is that they didn't have them. I am sure Polish Jews would have used anything available and done anything possible to disrupt the German war machine. I am sure what Zaid Kahn was getting at is the massive hypocrisy of Israel; it was oppression back then when done to them, but it is somehow OK to do it to someone else now.
Daniel Gardiner Camperdown
Maybe I'm not as familiar as David Calvey with Europe 70 years ago but, if the oppressed minority suffering in Warsaw was subjected to the same oppression for 50 continuous years or more, they, too, would take more extreme measures. Also, to the best of my knowledge, like the people in the occupied territories, the oppressed in Warsaw did eventually revolt against the oppression, and justifiably so.
Brad Spencer Ljubljana (Slovenia)
I don't need to visit Gaza to tell David Calvey that 99 per cent of its population don't have rockets in the back shed and bomb vests in the bedroom.
Like the Jews in Warsaw, most Palestinians in Gaza are being held captive with the barest of essentials purely on the basis that they were "accidentally" born of the wrong blood in the wrong place. How can an average Palestinian Joe hope to stop the actions of a few mad militants? And why should the Israelis or we expect them to do so? The current policy effectively holds every man, women and child responsible for any act of terrorism.
Last thing I heard, there are quite a few unsolved murders in Sydney. I say we lock the whole place down until people there realise that the rest of the country won't tolerate it. After all, if they are prepared to murder their fellow Sydneysiders they might come after the rest of us.
Anura Samara Geneva (Switzerland)
=====================================
British MPs compare Gaza to Warsaw ghetto
Press Association
Thursday June 19, 2003
Guardian Unlimited
Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was today compared to the Nazis' creation of the Warsaw ghetto by MPs who recently returned from the region. The controversial comparison, drawn by Oona King and Jenny Tonge, will anger the pro-Israel lobby and the visiting Israeli finance minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, who met Tony Blair at Downing Street this morning.
Labour MP Ms King, who is Jewish, said Gaza was "the same in nature" as the infamous Polish ghetto.
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
PM will visit Israel
Michelle Grattan, The Age, December 7, 2007
Kevin Rudd will go to the Middle East, including Israel, during this term.
Mr Rudd made this commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who rang him offering congratulations on Wednesday night.
Mr Olmert, who called the Prime Minister at home, was particularly interested to inquire about the success of the new Labor MP for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, who is married to a cousin of Mr Olmert.
Mr Rudd and Mr Olmert discussed the Middle East peace talks and Mr Rudd wished Mr Olmert every success.
They also discussed getting together at some international event.
------------------------
Olmert joins growing list of overseas callers
Paul Maley, The Australian, December 7, 2007
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has joined the growing list of world leaders to congratulate Kevin Rudd on his recent win.
Mr Olmert called the Labor leader on Wednesday night and the two had a 10-minute phone call.
It is understood the conversation covered the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks conducted in the US city of Annapolis.
Mr Rudd's office last night confirmed Mr Olmert had phoned but refused to discuss the details of the call.
However, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy said Mr Rudd had expressed support for the talks and pledged to visit Israel at some point during his first term, as part of a broader trip to the Middle East.
The spokesman said the tone of the phone call was positive.
Mr Rudd twice visited Israel as Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, first in 2003 and again in 2004.
The last time an Australian prime minister visited Israel was in 2000, when John Howard was invited by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
It is understood the two men also discussed Eden Monaro MP Mike Kelly, whose wife, Shelley is Mr Olmert's cousin.
The Australian understands Mr Olmert also phoned Mr Kelly to congratulate him on his victory over former special minister of state, Liberal MP Gary Nairn.
===============================
Sydney Peace Prize row
PM - Monday, 3 November , 2003 18:38:00
Reporter: Nick Grimm
MARK COLVIN: Who'd have thought that the awarding of a peace prize could create so much hostility and in so many places? The row over plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian activist, Hanan Ashrawi, has now widened to the Australian military.
A senior Australian army officer in Iraq wrote to the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, pleading with him not to proceed with the award.
It was supposed to be a private letter, but it was leaked to the media, and it's raised questions about the military's relationship to politics, and about whether the Colonel was right in linking Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Nick Grimm compiled this report.
MIKE KELLY: And people have to realise that if they're arguing against this legislation, they're arguing in favour of the maintenance of this archaic status quo.
NICK GRIMM: That's the voice of military lawyer, Colonel Mike Kelly, three years ago when he was a plain old lieutenant colonel in charge of the Australian Defence Forces Military Law Centre.
In those days, he was well known to the Canberra press gallery, as he helped to argue the merits of the Federal Government's controversial Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. At the time, it was being opposed by the Opposition parties because it opened the way for the military to be sent in against striking workers, or, it was argued, for troops to open fire on civilian protestors.
MIKE KELLY: We're in fact attempting to fix that problem.
NICK GRIMM: Now, Colonel Kelly is back in the news, apparently most unwillingly. He's currently serving in Baghdad as a senior adviser to Coalition forces. A highly regarded expert in military law, until now Mike Kelly has been noted for his writings on the legal aspects of peacekeeping operations.
But it was a letter he sent to New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, urging him to reconsider plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize this week, to the Palestinian activist Dr Hanan Ashrawi, that has brought the Colonel back into the spotlight.
Sections of that letter leaked to the media are as follows:
EXCERPT OF LETTER: It is precisely these kinds of legitimising actions that have encouraged the terrorism that I and my colleagues in the Coalition forces are engaged in fighting.
I am well aware, having studied and been involved in the counter-terrorist effort over 16 years that people like Hanan Ashwari are paraded before the Western media as a voice of reason, while out of the corner of their mouths establishing the basis for the slaughter of the innocents in a cynical, calculated, malevolent method of operating that completely dupes naïve Westerners.
You have to have spent time in this part of the world to appreciate what I am saying, but I would suggest that you credit my opinion as based on bitter experience. It would be hard to explain to a soldier here who has just lost both legs in a terrorist attack, why an Australian State Premier, supposedly an ally in this war, has been in effect, comforting the enemy.
NICK GRIMM: According to the Australian Defence Force, Mike Kelly is not interested in speaking to the media, and he's said to be angry that what was sent as a "private letter" has been leaked.
Today meanwhile, Bob Carr attacked the officer who he's dismissed as "clanking around in colonel's regalia".
BOB CARR: Since he very kindly sent it to the media and it was publicised in The Australian on Saturday, I have confirmed that it's been received in the office. But it is very, very wrong for someone wearing the uniform of his country, serving all Australians to find time to shoot off an intervention in Australian politics.
NICK GRIMM: The Defence Force says Colonel Kelly's views are his own and not those of the Department. A Spokesman told PM his letter does not contravene any defence instructions to its personnel and that no action will be taken against him.
Certainly, it's not matter for a court martial, but whether it was wise, is open for judgment.
NEIL JAMES: Well, the position of the Australian Defence Association is that we're somewhat surprised to see something like this appear in the media.
NICK GRIMM: Neil James is from the Australian Defence Association.
NEIL JAMES: I think the fact the letter's become public is obviously somewhat of an embarrassment. The other way of looking at the question is, is there would appear to be a somewhat tenuous connection between the peace prize being awarded to Dr Ashwari and the ensuing controversy, and Coalition operations in Iraq.
NICK GRIMM: So, Neil James in the light of that, are you surprised this letter was written in the first place?
NEIL JAMES: I'm somewhat surprised that an officer of Colonel Kelly's experience wrote a letter like this.
NICK GRIMM: But the views expressed in Colonel Kelly's letter aren't so far off the mark, according to Justice Marcus Einfeld, who has also publicly criticised the choice of Hanan Ashrawi.
MARCUS EINFELD: The problem with Dr Ashwari is that she hides under an ostensibly peace agenda, with eloquence and considerable intellect, a proposal or series of proposals that far from creating peace would in fact create war.
NICK GRIMM: Let's get it straight though, you're not actually arguing that the prize shouldn't go to a Palestinian, per se?
MARCUS EINFELD: Absolutely not. I know… I've worked with and know well a significant number of Palestinians who have made and are still making major efforts to bring about peace and an end to the senseless killing that is taking place on both sides.
NICK GRIMM: But Bob Carr says Dr Ashwari's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict will make her a worthy recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize when he awards it to her in the New South Wales Parliament, on Thursday.
MARK COLVIN: Nick Grimm reporting.
Kevin Rudd will go to the Middle East, including Israel, during this term.
Mr Rudd made this commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who rang him offering congratulations on Wednesday night.
Mr Olmert, who called the Prime Minister at home, was particularly interested to inquire about the success of the new Labor MP for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, who is married to a cousin of Mr Olmert.
Mr Rudd and Mr Olmert discussed the Middle East peace talks and Mr Rudd wished Mr Olmert every success.
They also discussed getting together at some international event.
------------------------
Olmert joins growing list of overseas callers
Paul Maley, The Australian, December 7, 2007
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has joined the growing list of world leaders to congratulate Kevin Rudd on his recent win.
Mr Olmert called the Labor leader on Wednesday night and the two had a 10-minute phone call.
It is understood the conversation covered the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks conducted in the US city of Annapolis.
Mr Rudd's office last night confirmed Mr Olmert had phoned but refused to discuss the details of the call.
However, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy said Mr Rudd had expressed support for the talks and pledged to visit Israel at some point during his first term, as part of a broader trip to the Middle East.
The spokesman said the tone of the phone call was positive.
Mr Rudd twice visited Israel as Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, first in 2003 and again in 2004.
The last time an Australian prime minister visited Israel was in 2000, when John Howard was invited by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
It is understood the two men also discussed Eden Monaro MP Mike Kelly, whose wife, Shelley is Mr Olmert's cousin.
The Australian understands Mr Olmert also phoned Mr Kelly to congratulate him on his victory over former special minister of state, Liberal MP Gary Nairn.
===============================
Sydney Peace Prize row
PM - Monday, 3 November , 2003 18:38:00
Reporter: Nick Grimm
MARK COLVIN: Who'd have thought that the awarding of a peace prize could create so much hostility and in so many places? The row over plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian activist, Hanan Ashrawi, has now widened to the Australian military.
A senior Australian army officer in Iraq wrote to the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, pleading with him not to proceed with the award.
It was supposed to be a private letter, but it was leaked to the media, and it's raised questions about the military's relationship to politics, and about whether the Colonel was right in linking Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Nick Grimm compiled this report.
MIKE KELLY: And people have to realise that if they're arguing against this legislation, they're arguing in favour of the maintenance of this archaic status quo.
NICK GRIMM: That's the voice of military lawyer, Colonel Mike Kelly, three years ago when he was a plain old lieutenant colonel in charge of the Australian Defence Forces Military Law Centre.
In those days, he was well known to the Canberra press gallery, as he helped to argue the merits of the Federal Government's controversial Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. At the time, it was being opposed by the Opposition parties because it opened the way for the military to be sent in against striking workers, or, it was argued, for troops to open fire on civilian protestors.
MIKE KELLY: We're in fact attempting to fix that problem.
NICK GRIMM: Now, Colonel Kelly is back in the news, apparently most unwillingly. He's currently serving in Baghdad as a senior adviser to Coalition forces. A highly regarded expert in military law, until now Mike Kelly has been noted for his writings on the legal aspects of peacekeeping operations.
But it was a letter he sent to New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, urging him to reconsider plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize this week, to the Palestinian activist Dr Hanan Ashrawi, that has brought the Colonel back into the spotlight.
Sections of that letter leaked to the media are as follows:
EXCERPT OF LETTER: It is precisely these kinds of legitimising actions that have encouraged the terrorism that I and my colleagues in the Coalition forces are engaged in fighting.
I am well aware, having studied and been involved in the counter-terrorist effort over 16 years that people like Hanan Ashwari are paraded before the Western media as a voice of reason, while out of the corner of their mouths establishing the basis for the slaughter of the innocents in a cynical, calculated, malevolent method of operating that completely dupes naïve Westerners.
You have to have spent time in this part of the world to appreciate what I am saying, but I would suggest that you credit my opinion as based on bitter experience. It would be hard to explain to a soldier here who has just lost both legs in a terrorist attack, why an Australian State Premier, supposedly an ally in this war, has been in effect, comforting the enemy.
NICK GRIMM: According to the Australian Defence Force, Mike Kelly is not interested in speaking to the media, and he's said to be angry that what was sent as a "private letter" has been leaked.
Today meanwhile, Bob Carr attacked the officer who he's dismissed as "clanking around in colonel's regalia".
BOB CARR: Since he very kindly sent it to the media and it was publicised in The Australian on Saturday, I have confirmed that it's been received in the office. But it is very, very wrong for someone wearing the uniform of his country, serving all Australians to find time to shoot off an intervention in Australian politics.
NICK GRIMM: The Defence Force says Colonel Kelly's views are his own and not those of the Department. A Spokesman told PM his letter does not contravene any defence instructions to its personnel and that no action will be taken against him.
Certainly, it's not matter for a court martial, but whether it was wise, is open for judgment.
NEIL JAMES: Well, the position of the Australian Defence Association is that we're somewhat surprised to see something like this appear in the media.
NICK GRIMM: Neil James is from the Australian Defence Association.
NEIL JAMES: I think the fact the letter's become public is obviously somewhat of an embarrassment. The other way of looking at the question is, is there would appear to be a somewhat tenuous connection between the peace prize being awarded to Dr Ashwari and the ensuing controversy, and Coalition operations in Iraq.
NICK GRIMM: So, Neil James in the light of that, are you surprised this letter was written in the first place?
NEIL JAMES: I'm somewhat surprised that an officer of Colonel Kelly's experience wrote a letter like this.
NICK GRIMM: But the views expressed in Colonel Kelly's letter aren't so far off the mark, according to Justice Marcus Einfeld, who has also publicly criticised the choice of Hanan Ashrawi.
MARCUS EINFELD: The problem with Dr Ashwari is that she hides under an ostensibly peace agenda, with eloquence and considerable intellect, a proposal or series of proposals that far from creating peace would in fact create war.
NICK GRIMM: Let's get it straight though, you're not actually arguing that the prize shouldn't go to a Palestinian, per se?
MARCUS EINFELD: Absolutely not. I know… I've worked with and know well a significant number of Palestinians who have made and are still making major efforts to bring about peace and an end to the senseless killing that is taking place on both sides.
NICK GRIMM: But Bob Carr says Dr Ashwari's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict will make her a worthy recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize when he awards it to her in the New South Wales Parliament, on Thursday.
MARK COLVIN: Nick Grimm reporting.
Palestinian donor talks in Paris
Part 1
Part 2
Al Jazeera English - December 17, 2007
Ninety international donors have begun a one-day meeting in Paris to pledge funds to help lift the Palestinian economy and underpin the Middle East peace talks.
But is mobilising financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority enough to stop the worsening economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
The economic well-being of the Palestinians is widely seen as an essential pre-condition for the building of a viable and successful Palestinian state.
We explore the Paris conference and its chances of success, especially as the situation in the Gaza Strip continues to deteriorate.
The development plan presented by Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has won the support of the World Bank, but it relies on the gradual shift to development projects under a scenario that has Israel easing restrictions and enabling the private sector to recover. Can the Paris conference kickstart this process?
Part 2
Al Jazeera English - December 17, 2007
Ninety international donors have begun a one-day meeting in Paris to pledge funds to help lift the Palestinian economy and underpin the Middle East peace talks.
But is mobilising financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority enough to stop the worsening economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
The economic well-being of the Palestinians is widely seen as an essential pre-condition for the building of a viable and successful Palestinian state.
We explore the Paris conference and its chances of success, especially as the situation in the Gaza Strip continues to deteriorate.
The development plan presented by Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has won the support of the World Bank, but it relies on the gradual shift to development projects under a scenario that has Israel easing restrictions and enabling the private sector to recover. Can the Paris conference kickstart this process?
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Courting the Jewish vote
Antony Loewenstein - 25 October 2007
For Australian Jews this election is about a variety of issues and Israel is just one of them. Like all citizens, concerns about health, education, foreign policy and industrial relations are paramount, but Israel is central.
======================
Local Jewish leaders warn off Labor’s “anti-Israel ratbags” - 21 September, 2007
Please somebody, anybody, love Israel - 25 September, 2007
Howard and Rudd show their love for Israel - 2 October, 2007
How dare Jews speak out of turn? - 3 October, 2007
Asking for common sense - 4 October, 2007
The Rudd Delusion - 30 October 2007
For Australian Jews this election is about a variety of issues and Israel is just one of them. Like all citizens, concerns about health, education, foreign policy and industrial relations are paramount, but Israel is central.
======================
Local Jewish leaders warn off Labor’s “anti-Israel ratbags” - 21 September, 2007
Please somebody, anybody, love Israel - 25 September, 2007
Howard and Rudd show their love for Israel - 2 October, 2007
How dare Jews speak out of turn? - 3 October, 2007
Asking for common sense - 4 October, 2007
The Rudd Delusion - 30 October 2007
Sunday, 30 September 2007
Abdel Bari Atwan at the Brisbane Writers Festival
Al-Qa'ida expert arrives at right time
Rosemary Sorensen, The Australian, September 17, 2007
ABDEL Bari-Atwan has fallen in love with the Australian people, following his highly publicised delayed arrival at the Brisbane Writers Festival on Saturday.
The Palestinian-born, London-based newspaper editor and author of The Secret Life of al-Qa'ida praised the Australian media for their support, and said he had been overwhelmed by the attention he had received when Immigration delayed his visa.
"I am very moved by the reception, and it makes me more in love with this country," Atwan said yesterday.
"I don't want to be a hero, I don't pick a fight. I think letting someone like me, who has a very critical attitude towards the war (in Iraq), works to the Government's advantage to let me speak my mind."
Speaking publicly on Saturday and Sunday, Atwan told jokes about how scared he had been meeting Osama bin Laden in 1996, and warned the audience that the failure to capture or kill the leader of al-Qa'ida had meant the organisation was spreading "like a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise".
"There used to be just one address, like the first cave on the left, but now there are six or seven addresses.
"It's very clear that al-Qa'ida is a Hydra-headed monster."
He said both he and Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor working on the Gold Coast whose work visa was cancelled during an investigation into terror-link claims, were victims of Islamophobia. "His case and mine are known because they are publicised but imagine how many cases are not publicised," Atwan said.
His "visa saga" had now become "something to laugh about", and he praised the members of the ABC television satire team, the Chaser, for inviting him to take part in the festival.
We need groups like the Chaser," Atwan said. "We need to laugh at our politicians, and to highlight these kinds of mistakes."
During a panel session on Saturday, chaired by ABC radio's Rachel Kohn, Atwan had defused a situation that had threatened to become unpleasant, when audience members began shouting at Kohn's defence of the Iraq war.
"I was surprised that she entered into the argument when she was supposed to be a neutral moderator," Atwan said.
Instead, she was defending the undefendable."
Festival director Michael Campbell said Atwan's al-Qa'ida book was the best-selling title at the festival. "We had anticipated that there would be questions posed to him by audiences but I hadn't expected it from the Government," Mr Campbell said.
=========================================
AUDIO: Abdel Bari Atwan and the history of al-Qa'ida
Paul Barclay, ABC Radio National, 18 September 2007
Palestinian-born journalist and author Abdel Bari Atwan has finally made it to Australia following a delay with the issuing of his visa. He will be on the program discussing his book The Secret History of al-Qa'ida.
VIDEO: "A Case for War" Iran Debate PBS
Richard Perle and Abdel Bari Atwan discuss the consequences and realities of the U.S. presence in Iraq from the upcoming PBS special, A Case for War.
Rosemary Sorensen, The Australian, September 17, 2007
ABDEL Bari-Atwan has fallen in love with the Australian people, following his highly publicised delayed arrival at the Brisbane Writers Festival on Saturday.
The Palestinian-born, London-based newspaper editor and author of The Secret Life of al-Qa'ida praised the Australian media for their support, and said he had been overwhelmed by the attention he had received when Immigration delayed his visa.
"I am very moved by the reception, and it makes me more in love with this country," Atwan said yesterday.
"I don't want to be a hero, I don't pick a fight. I think letting someone like me, who has a very critical attitude towards the war (in Iraq), works to the Government's advantage to let me speak my mind."
Speaking publicly on Saturday and Sunday, Atwan told jokes about how scared he had been meeting Osama bin Laden in 1996, and warned the audience that the failure to capture or kill the leader of al-Qa'ida had meant the organisation was spreading "like a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise".
"There used to be just one address, like the first cave on the left, but now there are six or seven addresses.
"It's very clear that al-Qa'ida is a Hydra-headed monster."
He said both he and Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor working on the Gold Coast whose work visa was cancelled during an investigation into terror-link claims, were victims of Islamophobia. "His case and mine are known because they are publicised but imagine how many cases are not publicised," Atwan said.
His "visa saga" had now become "something to laugh about", and he praised the members of the ABC television satire team, the Chaser, for inviting him to take part in the festival.
We need groups like the Chaser," Atwan said. "We need to laugh at our politicians, and to highlight these kinds of mistakes."
During a panel session on Saturday, chaired by ABC radio's Rachel Kohn, Atwan had defused a situation that had threatened to become unpleasant, when audience members began shouting at Kohn's defence of the Iraq war.
"I was surprised that she entered into the argument when she was supposed to be a neutral moderator," Atwan said.
Instead, she was defending the undefendable."
Festival director Michael Campbell said Atwan's al-Qa'ida book was the best-selling title at the festival. "We had anticipated that there would be questions posed to him by audiences but I hadn't expected it from the Government," Mr Campbell said.
=========================================
AUDIO: Abdel Bari Atwan and the history of al-Qa'ida
Paul Barclay, ABC Radio National, 18 September 2007
Palestinian-born journalist and author Abdel Bari Atwan has finally made it to Australia following a delay with the issuing of his visa. He will be on the program discussing his book The Secret History of al-Qa'ida.
VIDEO: "A Case for War" Iran Debate PBS
Richard Perle and Abdel Bari Atwan discuss the consequences and realities of the U.S. presence in Iraq from the upcoming PBS special, A Case for War.
Saturday, 29 September 2007
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Causes and Consequences
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Causes and Consequences
Sonja Karkar, 20 September 2007
The Citizenship and Gloablisation Research Priority Area at Deakin University hosted a forum in which advocates representing both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict debated the causes and consequences. The Israeli perspective was presented by Dr Danny Lamm, President of the State Zionist Council of Victoria and Mr Michael Shaik, Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine presented the Palestinian perspective.
----------------------
Apartheid in the Holy Land - The Struggle for Peace in Israel and Palestine
with Mr Michael Shaik Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine
and Rev. Helen Cox Uniting Church Minister, Deep Creek - Victoria
Uniting Church Synod Annual Meeting
LaTrobe University
Moammar Mashni, 25 September 2007
On Tuesday, as part of the Uniting Church’s Synod meeting, Mr Michael Shaik and the Rev. Helen Cox delivered an extremely informative, and sometimes quite moving, depiction of the current state of affairs in the Holy Land. Synod 2007, Victoria and Tasmania was held from September 23 to 26 at La Trobe University’s Bundoora campus.
Sonja Karkar, 20 September 2007
The Citizenship and Gloablisation Research Priority Area at Deakin University hosted a forum in which advocates representing both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict debated the causes and consequences. The Israeli perspective was presented by Dr Danny Lamm, President of the State Zionist Council of Victoria and Mr Michael Shaik, Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine presented the Palestinian perspective.
----------------------
Apartheid in the Holy Land - The Struggle for Peace in Israel and Palestine
with Mr Michael Shaik Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine
and Rev. Helen Cox Uniting Church Minister, Deep Creek - Victoria
Uniting Church Synod Annual Meeting
LaTrobe University
Moammar Mashni, 25 September 2007
On Tuesday, as part of the Uniting Church’s Synod meeting, Mr Michael Shaik and the Rev. Helen Cox delivered an extremely informative, and sometimes quite moving, depiction of the current state of affairs in the Holy Land. Synod 2007, Victoria and Tasmania was held from September 23 to 26 at La Trobe University’s Bundoora campus.
Friday, 28 September 2007
A conversation with Dr Victor Batarseh, Mayor of Bethlehem
‘Visit the cradle of Christianity’ – plea to world
16 September, 2007, The Catholic Weekly
The Catholic Mayor of Bethlehem, Dr Victor Batarseh, visited Sydney last month to 'twin' his ancient, multi-racial home city with the Sydney suburb of Marrickville, one of Sydney's most multi-cultural communities, and to invite Australians of all religions to visit Bethlehem. A retired surgeon, Dr Batarseh, 72, seeks in his world travels to highlight the sufferings of his city, to win as many friends as he can in an international campaign, Open Bethlehem, a core component of which is the "granting" of a Bethlehem 'passport'. His goal is to increase employment in the troubled city and to rebuild its tourist status. At the heart of the campaign is provision of free access to and from the city.
In a conversation with Brian Davies, Dr Batarseh explains the stress and hardships of life in the pilgrims' city and its first problem. “They (Israeli forces) come over looking for anyone who might do anything against Israel, try to imprison them and, if they do not give themselves up, then they take them by force or sometimes they shoot them. All this has had a terrible impact on the people of Bethlehem. It’s why tourism has come down to 10 per cent of normal tourism; even when the tourists come over they don’t stay overnight in Bethlehem. They just come to the Church of the Nativity and then go back to Jerusalem.”
--------------------------
Q. So it’s no wonder tourism has faded drastically?
Well, they used to stay in Bethlehem, but, you know, the bad propaganda propagated by outside travel agents linked with Israel puts them off. They say Bethlehem is unsafe, that it’s more expensive than Jerusalem. It has had a very bad effect on tourism to Bethlehem and with this wall Israel has built and its checkpoints – this wall is a big syndrome against tourism to Bethlehem. And, you know, tourism is the main source of income in Bethlehem, for its citizens. The other contours of income include labour in Israel proper, but this has come down, too, to about 15 per cent, because any person who wants to leave Bethlehem to go to Israel has to get a special permit from the Israeli authorities which is rarely granted to anyone; they can take days to be issued. Even on health, you have to change ambulances and that can still be a 24-hour delay. So labour in Israel for us in Bethlehem is also down to about 15 per cent. Our other income was agriculture and most of the agricultural land in Bethlehem is now cut off by the Israeli wall of separation. All of our olive trees are behind the wall so the citizens cannot go and harvest their olive trees. That’s why we have economic stress, very high economic stress. More than 55 per cent of the population in Bethlehem lives below the poverty line.
Q. How are they supported?
Non-government organisations have set up in Bethlehem and we have some international aid agency support.
Q. Just going back to the Open Bethlehem campaign and the message you take with you about the plight of Bethlehem, what sort of impact have you had elsewhere?
Well it has given a good result: we had one day in Italy where they brought along about 40 travel agents and we spoke to them for most of the day, stressing how safe Bethlehem is for tourists and how Bethlehem is much cheaper than Jerusalem. We really had a very good result after that, but a few months later the Israeli and Lebanese war started and everything went bad again.
Q. That sounds a bit like the mayor of any city wanting to promote his against rivals; what you don’t refer to is the political situation that gives rise to these problems. When do you talk to political leaders of influence?
I talk not only to travel agents, but to political leaders abroad. Some of these leaders say that it is unsafe to go to Palestine, unsafe to go to Bethlehem. This is due to the powerful Zionist lobby all over the world and you know also the media is biased all over the world against the Palestinians and this adds up to preventing tourists and pilgrims coming to Bethlehem.
Q. Can you foresee a point at which Israeli policies and the situation of Palestine will somehow or other resolve amicably or how else do we arrive at a resolution of the problems you’re describing?
We hope this conflict can be solved peacefully, resolved peacefully, because this is the only way. Palestinians do not have an army. Israel has the mightiest army in the Middle East; they are a nuclear power and the only way we can reach peace is through peaceful ways, but we have to have world support on the UN resolutions, the key words to force Israel to comply with the UN resolutions . . . if the world won’t pressure Israel to meet these resolutions then I don’t see a way to peace, the only way to peace we would have liked, the ideal solution – a one state comprising all three religions. The Israelis would not accept this; that’s why we now accept a two-state solution, but tell me, where is the Palestinian state going to be, with all these settlements dividing the Palestinian citizens among themselves and into by-roads? There is no more land to build a viable Palestinian state.
Q. What would it take to persuade Israel to make whatever concessions are appropriate – yours, too – to achieve the two-state solution?
We have given all our concessions as Palestinians. All our land has been taken by the Israelis. Whatever they are going to give in way of concessions they are giving us back part of what we owned in the historical time and this part is only 13 to 18 per cent of historical Palestine and we are ready to accept that small part of our original land, but, unfortunately, until now Israel is manipulating the whole world and playing with words and building something solid on the ground: these illegal settlements in the West Bank. And they’re still building, up and down. These settlements will be a hindrance to the future, a hindrance to peaceful solution..
Q. You obviously see the Palestinian-Israeli situation as the core of the Middle East? If it was resolved might much of the difficulties of the rest of the Middle East also be resolved? What’s your view?
The core and the centre really of this problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli issue. If that was resolved then we would have peace in the Middle East and all over the world and I think the US and the European Union should think better; they should try to be more balanced in their policies. They should really make Israel accept all the UN resolutions. They should not use force of arms; there are other ways of forcing Israel to listen. Remember what happened to South Africa, how change was finally made there by boycotting? Boycotting Israel – this is the way. You might go for one year or so, but it is a way, a peaceful way of forcing Israel to adopt the UN resolutions.
Q. So you would turn to the UN and Europe and the Western world to follow that through ?
Yes, of course . . .
Q. Do you see a role for the Vatican and the Church generally?
A big role. Don’t forget Bethlehem for Christians all over the world is the ‘mainland’ of the faith – the cradle of Bethlehem. Bethlehem and Palestine are the cradle of Christianity so they should look after it and not abandon this land. They should use their powers, the Church’s powers, the Vatican’s powers, to try to make peace in the Holy Land. By powers, I mean moral powers – and political power.
Q. What’s your message to Australians Christians in general, Catholics in particular?
I send a message from Bethlehem that the star of Bethlehem always shines and always sends messages of peace and love to all the world. To all, I say of this small city, this cradle of Christianity, don’t abandon Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the city of all Christians all over the world – every Christian anywhere in the world is considered by us to be a citizen of this holy city. Don’t abandon your city; come over, visit the city, visit the holy Church of the Nativity, spend some time in this city. In this way you’ll stand in solidarity with the city of Bethlehem and with the citizens of Bethlehem. We need you, we need your help, we need your prayers, we need to see you among us. By coming in hundreds and thousands you will, psychological, break this wall of separation that has been built by Israel.
Q. Others would say Bethlehem is not entirely Christian; after all it’s also very important to Muslims and Jews.
We have them all living in the city of Bethlehem, OK? We have been living together as good neighbours and we will remain living together as good neighbours . . . living together in the city of Bethlehem – a model of co-existence between these religions. Palestine was a model of co-existence between the three religions before the existence of Israel, before 1948. That is what we care for. This is what we aim for – to have co-existence between all religions and all nations.
Copyright © 2007 The Catholic Weekly - Sydney
16 September, 2007, The Catholic Weekly
The Catholic Mayor of Bethlehem, Dr Victor Batarseh, visited Sydney last month to 'twin' his ancient, multi-racial home city with the Sydney suburb of Marrickville, one of Sydney's most multi-cultural communities, and to invite Australians of all religions to visit Bethlehem. A retired surgeon, Dr Batarseh, 72, seeks in his world travels to highlight the sufferings of his city, to win as many friends as he can in an international campaign, Open Bethlehem, a core component of which is the "granting" of a Bethlehem 'passport'. His goal is to increase employment in the troubled city and to rebuild its tourist status. At the heart of the campaign is provision of free access to and from the city.
In a conversation with Brian Davies, Dr Batarseh explains the stress and hardships of life in the pilgrims' city and its first problem. “They (Israeli forces) come over looking for anyone who might do anything against Israel, try to imprison them and, if they do not give themselves up, then they take them by force or sometimes they shoot them. All this has had a terrible impact on the people of Bethlehem. It’s why tourism has come down to 10 per cent of normal tourism; even when the tourists come over they don’t stay overnight in Bethlehem. They just come to the Church of the Nativity and then go back to Jerusalem.”
--------------------------
Q. So it’s no wonder tourism has faded drastically?
Well, they used to stay in Bethlehem, but, you know, the bad propaganda propagated by outside travel agents linked with Israel puts them off. They say Bethlehem is unsafe, that it’s more expensive than Jerusalem. It has had a very bad effect on tourism to Bethlehem and with this wall Israel has built and its checkpoints – this wall is a big syndrome against tourism to Bethlehem. And, you know, tourism is the main source of income in Bethlehem, for its citizens. The other contours of income include labour in Israel proper, but this has come down, too, to about 15 per cent, because any person who wants to leave Bethlehem to go to Israel has to get a special permit from the Israeli authorities which is rarely granted to anyone; they can take days to be issued. Even on health, you have to change ambulances and that can still be a 24-hour delay. So labour in Israel for us in Bethlehem is also down to about 15 per cent. Our other income was agriculture and most of the agricultural land in Bethlehem is now cut off by the Israeli wall of separation. All of our olive trees are behind the wall so the citizens cannot go and harvest their olive trees. That’s why we have economic stress, very high economic stress. More than 55 per cent of the population in Bethlehem lives below the poverty line.
Q. How are they supported?
Non-government organisations have set up in Bethlehem and we have some international aid agency support.
Q. Just going back to the Open Bethlehem campaign and the message you take with you about the plight of Bethlehem, what sort of impact have you had elsewhere?
Well it has given a good result: we had one day in Italy where they brought along about 40 travel agents and we spoke to them for most of the day, stressing how safe Bethlehem is for tourists and how Bethlehem is much cheaper than Jerusalem. We really had a very good result after that, but a few months later the Israeli and Lebanese war started and everything went bad again.
Q. That sounds a bit like the mayor of any city wanting to promote his against rivals; what you don’t refer to is the political situation that gives rise to these problems. When do you talk to political leaders of influence?
I talk not only to travel agents, but to political leaders abroad. Some of these leaders say that it is unsafe to go to Palestine, unsafe to go to Bethlehem. This is due to the powerful Zionist lobby all over the world and you know also the media is biased all over the world against the Palestinians and this adds up to preventing tourists and pilgrims coming to Bethlehem.
Q. Can you foresee a point at which Israeli policies and the situation of Palestine will somehow or other resolve amicably or how else do we arrive at a resolution of the problems you’re describing?
We hope this conflict can be solved peacefully, resolved peacefully, because this is the only way. Palestinians do not have an army. Israel has the mightiest army in the Middle East; they are a nuclear power and the only way we can reach peace is through peaceful ways, but we have to have world support on the UN resolutions, the key words to force Israel to comply with the UN resolutions . . . if the world won’t pressure Israel to meet these resolutions then I don’t see a way to peace, the only way to peace we would have liked, the ideal solution – a one state comprising all three religions. The Israelis would not accept this; that’s why we now accept a two-state solution, but tell me, where is the Palestinian state going to be, with all these settlements dividing the Palestinian citizens among themselves and into by-roads? There is no more land to build a viable Palestinian state.
Q. What would it take to persuade Israel to make whatever concessions are appropriate – yours, too – to achieve the two-state solution?
We have given all our concessions as Palestinians. All our land has been taken by the Israelis. Whatever they are going to give in way of concessions they are giving us back part of what we owned in the historical time and this part is only 13 to 18 per cent of historical Palestine and we are ready to accept that small part of our original land, but, unfortunately, until now Israel is manipulating the whole world and playing with words and building something solid on the ground: these illegal settlements in the West Bank. And they’re still building, up and down. These settlements will be a hindrance to the future, a hindrance to peaceful solution..
Q. You obviously see the Palestinian-Israeli situation as the core of the Middle East? If it was resolved might much of the difficulties of the rest of the Middle East also be resolved? What’s your view?
The core and the centre really of this problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli issue. If that was resolved then we would have peace in the Middle East and all over the world and I think the US and the European Union should think better; they should try to be more balanced in their policies. They should really make Israel accept all the UN resolutions. They should not use force of arms; there are other ways of forcing Israel to listen. Remember what happened to South Africa, how change was finally made there by boycotting? Boycotting Israel – this is the way. You might go for one year or so, but it is a way, a peaceful way of forcing Israel to adopt the UN resolutions.
Q. So you would turn to the UN and Europe and the Western world to follow that through ?
Yes, of course . . .
Q. Do you see a role for the Vatican and the Church generally?
A big role. Don’t forget Bethlehem for Christians all over the world is the ‘mainland’ of the faith – the cradle of Bethlehem. Bethlehem and Palestine are the cradle of Christianity so they should look after it and not abandon this land. They should use their powers, the Church’s powers, the Vatican’s powers, to try to make peace in the Holy Land. By powers, I mean moral powers – and political power.
Q. What’s your message to Australians Christians in general, Catholics in particular?
I send a message from Bethlehem that the star of Bethlehem always shines and always sends messages of peace and love to all the world. To all, I say of this small city, this cradle of Christianity, don’t abandon Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the city of all Christians all over the world – every Christian anywhere in the world is considered by us to be a citizen of this holy city. Don’t abandon your city; come over, visit the city, visit the holy Church of the Nativity, spend some time in this city. In this way you’ll stand in solidarity with the city of Bethlehem and with the citizens of Bethlehem. We need you, we need your help, we need your prayers, we need to see you among us. By coming in hundreds and thousands you will, psychological, break this wall of separation that has been built by Israel.
Q. Others would say Bethlehem is not entirely Christian; after all it’s also very important to Muslims and Jews.
We have them all living in the city of Bethlehem, OK? We have been living together as good neighbours and we will remain living together as good neighbours . . . living together in the city of Bethlehem – a model of co-existence between these religions. Palestine was a model of co-existence between the three religions before the existence of Israel, before 1948. That is what we care for. This is what we aim for – to have co-existence between all religions and all nations.
Copyright © 2007 The Catholic Weekly - Sydney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
