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.
Showing posts with label kevin rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kevin rudd. Show all posts
Monday, 31 March 2008
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.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
