Sunday, August 18, 2013

Why Is Bob Carr Itching For A Fight Over The Arab/Muslim/Left Cold War Against Israel?

"All [Jews]*on "Palestinian land" are illegal under international law ... that is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

[*offensive weasel word deleted]


Make no mistake he wants this argument.

 He seriously can not expect the Government to be re-elected so he wants this to be his legacy. He wants to deliver the ALP to the Arab/Muslim/Left side of the cold war against Israel because he thinks that will make this a better world. Then we can expect him to see out the rest of his political career as the Jimmy Carter of the Australian Senate. 

 He locked himself  into the timing of this argument with those who reckon dumping on the only decent humane liberal free productive law-ruled human rights based democracy within a neighbourly missile range and where pretty most everyone else are at bloody war with themselves might be a little on the Bizzaroland end of the Superman comic for even a nerd like him when last year he famously complained to just about anybody who would listen about what he was supposed to say the next time he was speaking in public at the end of Ramadan from ... you know ... those steps. He said it. Not me. 

This is one suggestion he received:

The Arab "right of return" to Israel is the greatest crock in history. You must implore the "Palestinians" to accept Israel, accept Palestine, accept peace and live in security and prosperity in economic union with Israel. And if they do not then they have forfeited all Australian sympathy. Their leaders will forever remain the authors of their own people's misery and to say anything else is to feed a delusion and is anti-"Palestinian" .

So what did he say? 

Now we know. As you can see he did not take on board all of this blog's advice in anything approaching full measure. 

And we also know that if you want to hear major and emphatic statements on foreign policy concerning Israel and the Jews then you need to know  what this FM says when he is addressing a Muslim audience in Lakemba on Eid al-Fitr. No need to take a camera. SBS covers it.

This is what he said.

” I’ve been to Ramallah, I’ve spoken to the Palestinian leadership, and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle East of peace. And that means respect for the right of Israel to exist. But we want that Palestinian state to exist, in the context of a peace in the Middle East, and that’s why we say, unequivocally, all settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease. That is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

He also said he was proud about rolling the PM last year and humiliating her because she was showing too much backbone standing up to yet another big push from the tyrannies and the trenblies intent on appeasing and rewarding "Palestine" with an UN vote upgrade for ignoring its own treaties, rejecting Israel with undisclosed contempt and doing its best to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible and a good many more of their own besides. 

Perhaps not in so many words but something is clear. Carr regards this as a highlight of his career and perhaps his greatest achievement as FM. 

No one want to fight the Arab/Israel wars all over again least of all during an Australian election campaign except apparently Carr and the ALP. For now they can have that on their own. Even the Greens are doing their best to hide what they are about and to keep the ugliest of their uglies strapped to the walls in an underground basement with ball gags so members of the public don't accidentally see or hear one of them.

Here are a few reasons why this speech is a pretty classless act for an Australian Government at any time but especially right now; apart from the dubious merits of a smelly case. Pick your own order. Some are worse than others. Some are real bad.

  • Claiming that "the settlements" are illegal is not just wrong in law on several levels but deeply offensive at a visceral level. If these people are "illegal" there is no law as we understand it. Instead there are the laws of Nuremberg  or Sharia. It is that basic. We are better off without this law. What is at stake is the very concept of law. There is a vast difference between saying that "settlement activity" is unhelpful, or even a tactical or strategic  mistake, and saying that the settlements are illegal. The former is a matter of opinion and as it happens the Israeli Government apparently agrees given there has been  a de facto freeze for some time. The latter is to declare that the Middle East Jews almost all of whom now live in Israel do not have the same basic legal, civil and human rights as everyone else in the Middle East and the world simply by virtue of being Jews. This is the law of dhimmitude. There is a duty to ignore laws like that and take the consequences.
  • The allegation of illegality is directed at civilians and not just a state and have as its object a sham legal justification to dispossess and displace these people, precisely what the Geneva Conventions are meant to condemn. Therefore it is an inversion. 
  • There are face to face negotiations in progress between the PA and Israel; the first in years and they are about these core issues such as what is "Palestinian land".  No one expects the talks to come to much but an enormous effort has gone into arranging them especially by the US and Israel that has had to pay a terrible price just to get the Palestinians to the table. Carr pre-empts all this with a speech which might not have attracted much attention in the heat of an election campaign, and indeed there is evidence he did not want too much domestic attention, but which you and he can be certain would be all around the clouds from here to Gaza in a flash.Australian FM says the Jews are illegal from outside mosque during Eid al-Fitr.  That is also the prevailing opinion in the Middle East outside Israel and there are other laws around there that could freeze your blood in the arteries. One might have hoped that diplomatic courtesy among friends and the need to be seen to be acting with some sense of propriety would  compel Carr to at least pretend he was taking the Middle East peace process seriously especially now that Australia is on the Security Council.
  • I've  been to Ramallah, ... we support their aspirations ... and that means respect for the right of Israel to exist.... But ...  There is no reassurance in these words. The "moderate Palestinians" have no difficulty mouthing what people like Carr want to hear and Carr and others are certain not to probe. This is because it is code. It is a language with meanings on two planes and no intersection. To the "moderate' enemies of Israel it means the right of Israel to exist but not as a sovereign Jewish state. Not as a sovereign state at all really because it requires Israel to open its borders to five million or more Arabs around the world who claim to be refugees from 1948 even though almost none were yet born. As this can never be accepted by free people it is code for never ending war, or war until there are no free people.  
  • The timing and place even appear to have been calculated to exploit possible ethnic divisions and flame community fears for political advantage. It shows no sensitivity for the very real concerns of Australian Jews and others about the spread of antisemitism including violence around the world and to Australia. What does the Australian government think of Jews and their future in the world? They tell you in a speech to Muslims at least some of whom are pretty clear about what they think about that future. That the government is silent on the systematic racist hate agenda of the "Palestinian" schools, politics, mosques and media compounds this. Just like "Palestinian" intransigence it cannot be acknowledged.
  • It emboldens the existentialist core of anti-Israelism and weakens efforts to nurture a rational new idealism to finding a solution to the condition of "Palestinians" and all other Arabs living under the perverse political cultures of the Arab/'Muslim world. As such it is anti-"Palestinian", anti-Arab and betrays those risking there lives to free the people from Iran to Ramallah. As such it makes war more likely.
  • It adds to isolation of Israel who knows this is an existentialist struggle even while Carr and Hague are in denial and are mesmerised by the one big lie that this is a rational struggle by a national group for a state of their own despite all the evidence. As such it makes war more likely.
  • This giant policy shift was made at the behest of the UK in a joint communiqué on 18 January 2013. There are very strong historical reasons to regard the UK as in a particularly poor position to assert what is international law when it comes to Israel, Palestine and the Jews. There are also strong historical reasons for Australia to not echo the UK on this.  Not heed the British at all really. Given their record they are disqualified as honest brokers. So is the rest of Europe.

    “All settlements are illegal under international law and settlement activity undermines prospects for peace.”

    George Orwell once remarked that the defining vice of the British is hypocrisy. He would know. Never mind the Israelis. This is offensive to Australians.

    Once again the Australian Government has shown it has no understanding of the Middle East and that it is determined things will stay that way.
    Three more weeks.
cross posted Geoffff's Joint


  1. America's Soul In the Balance: The Holocaust, FDR's State Department, And The Moral Disgrace Of An American Aristocracy

    IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation, by Edwin Black

    The Secret War Against the Jews - How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, by John Loftus and Mark Aarons

    "The authors demonstrate that numerous Western countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, have conducted repeated and willful spying missions on Palestine* and later Israel over many decades. While on the surface these two countries and others profess to be ardent allies of Israel, they work, in fact, through their intelligence services to betray Israel's secrets to the Arabs. Their motive: oil and multinational profits, which must be attained at any price through international covert policies. To understand the duplicitous nature of the West's diplomatic relations with Israel, the authors contend that one must understand the history that begins after the end of World War I with the sordid Mideast exploits of a British diplomat, Jack Philby. They then proceed into a detailed discussion of the boardrooms of American and English bankers and lawyers who had strong connections with Nazi leaders and Arab oil tycoons in the 1930s prior to the outbreak of World War II. Particularly intriguing is the information that the writers present to suggest an all-too-cozy financial relationship that existed between the Allied intelligence community and German banks even during the war. ..."

    Is the US an ally of Israel? - A chronological look at the evidence, by Francisco Gil-White

    Johann von Leers and Walt/Mearsheimer, by Clemens Heni

    "Most people think that the book 'Israel Lobby' by Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer was published in 2007 -- at the same time in the US and in Germany, by the way. Well, the first edition of that book was rather published in 1940 -- by leading National Socialist anti-Semitic publicist Prof. Dr. Johann von Leers. Von Leers published 'Kräfte hinter Roosevelt' ('Forces behind Roosevelt') in Berlin in 1940. ..."

    Antisemitism is everywhere in the mass media - Sometimes it is relatively subtle..., by Francisco Gil-White


  2. Anti-Semitism 2.0, by Mudar Zahran

    "The concept of the ‘evil Jew’ has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionists, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from ‘sanitized’ news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.

    "Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.

    "Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.

    "Such bias against Israel cannot be 'accidental' or merely 'unfortunate.' No other nation has received the amount of scrutinizing, criticism, coverage, demonization and delegitimization. In fact the question to be asked is not whether there is bias against Israel; but rather why there is bias against Israel ..."


    Islamism, Antisemitism, and the political left, by Matthias Küntzel

    "...The main achievement of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was to combine the Jew-hatred of ancient Islam with modern antisemitism into a new and persuasive rhetoric. I discovered a speech he gave in 1937 with the title, ‘Jewry and Islam’. Here, he intermingled modern antisemitism with the stories of very early Islam, going back and forth from the 7th and the 20th centuries, and connecting both kinds of Jew-hatred. This was something new. ..."


  3. George Bernard Shaw -- one of the many Western Communist, and Socialist, and supposedly "liberal", pro-Soviet and, as part of that, pro-Nazi, so-called "Anti-Imperialist" self-defined "Pacifists" during the 1930's:

    "...As the Archbishop nobly confesses, we made all the mischief, we and the French when we were drunk with victory at Versailles; and if that mischief had not been there for him to undo, Adolf Hitler would have now been a struggling artist of no political account. He actually owes his eminence to us; so let us now cease railing at our own creation and recognise the ability with which he has undone our wicked work and the debt the German nation owes him for it. Our business now is to make peace with him and with all the world instead of making more mischief and ruining our people in the process. ..."

    -- George Bernard Shaw, Uncommon Sense about The War, October 1939


  4. Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany, by Robert P. Ericksen

    Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and The Swiss Banks, by Mark Aarons and John Loftus

    Dining with the Devil, by Faith McDonnell

    "The leadership of the Presbyterian Church recently decided to encourage its governing body to promote divestment from companies that do business with Israel. Shortly thereafter, the Anglican church, the Lutheran church and the World Council of Churches (WCC, with 347 member denominations world-wide) followed suit with the explanation that divestment ‘(is) a new way to work for peace, by looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation.’ These churches are among those often referred to as ‘mainline’ churches.

    "The most problematic issue of this new ‘mainline’ posture is that it is clearly intended to support the Arab terror war against Israel; and to justify that support, church spokespersons make use of false information about the conflict.

    "A review of factual information about the conflict and the nature of divestment reveals that the mainline churches have stood up in favor of a process that is illegal, irrational, immoral, biased against Israel and in favor of Israel’s enemies, and consciously oblivious to the transparent lies of divestment proponents. ..."

    Israel as the Ram in the Thicket, by Dexter Van Zile

    "In the course of my work, I have become increasingly worried about the message offered by mainline Protestant churches (and some quarters of the Roman Catholic Church) about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Not only is the narrative offered by these institutions distorted, it has a negative impact on the safety of Jews throughout the world. ..."

    The World Council of Churches Broadcasts a Lethal Narrative, by Dexter Van Zile

    "...The WCC's obsession with Jewish sin can be seen in its commentary about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The World Council of Churches speaks about the modern state of Israel in a manner similar to the way Christians spoke about Jews in Medieval Europe – as a uniquely sinful nation worthy of contempt from all right thinking Christians. ..."


  5. Carr Said:

    "I’ve spoken to the Palestinian leadership, and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle East of peace.

    What he fails to understand is that the Palestinian leadership have no aspiration for a Palestinian state in peace next to Israel.

    If that is what they wanted they could have had it at almost any point between 1937 and the present. That is theirs for the taking, yet they won't take it.

    One begins to wonder why?

    1. "At heart they think the Arabs and the Islamists are stupid primitives who know no better and cannot help themselves. This is because they are racist."

      This is one of the more profound and significant points that we very much need to get across.

      The west has got to stop treating the Arab-Muslim world like it is filled with children who have no responsibility for their own behavior.

      Maybe once the EU gets its collective brain around that issue, perhaps they will stop supporting Hamas and Hez, but I would not count on that any time soon.

  6. oops wrong thread. Meant to say this here.

    Thanks Dan for your comments and these links. They provide the perfect context

  7. Thanks, Geoff. Thanks for your appreciation. I'm glad that you found the information that I posted helpful.

    And thank you for your article.

    And, I just want to add:

    Between 1921 and 1924, British officials, in contravention to the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement of 1919, and in contravention to the (still currently legally binding official international law mandate) San Remo Conference of 1920, created the Arab state Transjordan in the British Mandate of Palestine and gave rulership of Transjordan to the Hashemites. In 1946, Britain granted independence to Transjordan, and Transjordan was renamed Jordan.

  8. Dan "Remember: Until 1939, Winston Churchill was reviled and despised by his colleagues in the government of Britain for arguing for opposition to the Nazi regime of Germany."

    Churchill is perhaps the one figure in history that I admire most even though he was politically responsible for the Dardanelles disaster of 1915 which is commemorated annually here and has long morphed into a secular holyday in honour of all Australian war dead.

    Churchill is strangely not sufficiently credited for his enormous support for Zionism that stayed with him until the end of his career. He spoke passionately against the 1938 White Paper from Opposition and ignored or over rid its worst features during the war as PM when he legally could. There is no question that the immediate post-war history of Palestine and the Jews would have been very different had Churchill been re-elected by the Brits for saving the world instead of electing a heavy leftist Labour Government .