(cross posted at oldschooltwentysix)
I don't know Daphne Anson, but some of her personal story parallels my own, as to the evolution of thinking we both share about the situation of irrational hatred for Israel and its manifestations, including those from many on the Left that act as if the sole judges of morality.
Yet, the question arises whether the disparate treatment of Israel, as compared to ANY other state, is itself discriminatory and convincing evidence of antisemitism.
There must be no more serious and heinous act in this world than a government turning on its own people and committing violent atrocities on its own citizenry.
President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is her main target and she sets forth a small litany of his hate speech, including that Israel should be annihilated.
Any one of these statements on its own warrants immediate condemnation, yet this despicable vitriol is left unchallenged and has been left unchallenged too often and for too long.
She then speaks about Australia, but it has wider ramifications to us all who care about the use and abuse of human rights internationally:
In Australia during this time one must ask the questions- Who stands conspicuously quiet? Who stands silent while these human rights are abused? It is not those sitting directly opposite me. It is, in fact, the Greens, those people who suggest that they are the champions of human rights and the keepers of the moral chalice, those professed keepers of all that is right and ethical. Where, I ask you, is Senator Brown in condemning these actions? Where is Senator Hanson-Young on her soapbox demanding justice? Where is the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, in this chamber supporting this motion? Where are the Greens protests in the streets? Most importantly, given all that we have learned about the boycott, divestments and sanctions scheme that grew from the Greens local council movement in Marrickville, where are the calls for the boycotts of Iranian companies or even of Syrian ones, to be truly consistent? No, all that is simply reserved for Israel.
Interestingly, the Greens also profess to be strong champions of human rights, particularly for those who are homosexual. Yet it is the country of Israel, the only democracy in the region, that legislates rights for women and homosexuals. In fact, in a recent poll conducted by GayCities.com in conjunction with American Airlines, Tel Aviv was rated the best gay travel destination of 2011. Yet here the Greens condemn Israel and not Iran.
Could you imagine if the Prime Minister of Israel had prayed for the ‘annihilation’ of the Palestinians? How many motions would the Greens have moved by now? How many press releases, demonstrations and media conferences would they have called? I conducted a search on the Greens website. I typed ‘Iran’ into their search feature, 23 results were returned and in those results there was not one mention—not one, single, solitary mention—of the atrocities that have taken place, of the abhorrent preachings of the President of Iran or of the blatant human rights abuses posed against ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals. However, if you type in ‘Israel’ you will find pages and pages and pages—in particular pages as to how you can be involved as well in the BDS movement. This is a truly sad state of affairs and it is of great concern in particular to me that the Greens do not stand with us in this chamber against such violence against human rights workers, women’s rights activists, journalists and government opponents.
The Greens seem to quote the UN when it suits them and ignore them when it does not conform to their agenda. And make no mistake: the Greens agenda on Israel is well and truly on show.
She seems to describe a familiar group, at least to me, who are so convinced that they can only do good that they dismiss arguments to the contrary and ignore the daily events in Iran and elsewhere. To them it is so simple: Israel and pro-Israel supporters, as seen in the disproportionate lack of attention they give anywhere else. Should these advocates possess any more credibility in these matters than those they love to criticize? Or, all things considered, perhaps they should have much less.