Does This Look Like A Man Under Unhealthy Pressure From A Disproportionately Powerful Lobby?

geoffff

He should know.

Bob Carr famously complained to the ALP caucus while in government about what was he expected to say about Israel the next time he was speaking from the steps of the Lakemba Mosque. 

After all, where else would you make a major policy statement affecting Israel and the Jews?

He could have kept his mouth shut I suppose given that his audience would have included supporters of Hezbollah and the PLO whose opinions about what should be done about Israel and the Jews would not suffer from ambivalence or uncertainty at least when expressed in private. Prominently it would have included the Mufti of Australia who was about to lead a delegation of Australian Muslims to Gaza to demonstrate solidarity with Hamas.

Instead he chose to say this.

   ” 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.”

Carr knows that the prevailing almost universal opinion of those with the power among the Palestinians and their supporters in the Middle East is that all the land between the river and the sea is "Palestinian land" and that all of Israel is one big "illegal settlement". Carr knows that even the "moderates", if they can bring themselves to talk about Israel having a "right to exist", for benefit of a foreign audience only, mean an Israel that does not have sovereignty over its own borders or population. An interim step to swamping the Jewish population and once again subjecting it to dhimmitude, expulsion or death as is required by what passes for a political culture that demands subjugation and submission even of their own people. 

This is why the Palestinian polities and those of almost all Arab Muslim countries and Iran are tyrannies. Always have been of one form or another.

Carr knows this. And yet it is the Jews living in Jerusalem and Judea, even in those tiny areas that have always been ear marked as part of Israel where the overwhelming majority of Jews live lawfully and peacefully who are "illegal". 

Is this a man who was under unhealthy pressure to signal to the world that Australia had jumped camps on the question of Israel and the Jews and their right to live peacefully and lawfully even in Jerusalem or in that tiny part of Judea that is earmarked for Israel in what remains of the Oslo Accords?

Very likely I would suggest. But there is something else in this picture.

From here this is  a man who looks and sounds just like any other garden variety bigot. The world is full of them. Either you resist them or you go along with them. That depends on what kind of a future you want for the world I suppose. 

cross posted

Geoffff's Joint

Jews Down Under

The FresnoZionist Has Some Words

Michael L.

The piece below was written by the FresnoZionist and published at his site of the same name.

Stop pretending

Today everyone is concerned that the negotiations with the Palestinians will “fall apart.” If that happens, it is said, there will be severe consequences for Israel: boycotts and delegitimization (because no matter what, Israel will be blamed for the failure of the talks), possibly another violent intifada (because Palestinians will then be even more ‘frustrated’ than usual), there will be anti-Israel actions by the UN, the Americans will stop supporting Israel diplomatically, etc.

Therefore, it is said that Israel must do everything possible to ensure that the talks continue.

This is despite the fact that everyone must know by now that the Palestinians will not and cannot honestly agree to end the conflict. As I said the other day, even if we offer them a state in all of Judea and Samaria — leaving aside the security considerations that make this impossible — they will never stop insisting that the part of the land of Israel that they don’t get also belongs to them, and will never stop trying to get it.

This is the essence of the Palestinian narrative, the Palestinian Cause, and what they have been assiduously teaching their youth. This is why Palestinian refugee status is hereditary, and why there are hundreds of thousands of refugees who are not permitted to assimilate in their countries of residence, and why they demand a “right of return.” This isn’t rocket science (pardon the expression). Just ask a Palestinian.

But if we know that the talks can’t succeed, why keep up the pretense? Well, in order to avoid the consequences discussed in the first paragraph.

My hypothetical visitor from Mars is shaking what would be his head, if he were an Earthling. This is so pointless.

But it is not pointless for the Palestinians. They have made it clear to the US that they will talk only if they are paid to do so. So they receive bribes, including money and military aid (to, er, “fight terrorism.”) Most important, every time there is a ‘crisis’ in negotiations (which they create), they threaten to walk away unless they get something from Israel. They present their demands, and the US explains to Israel that it’s necessary to “generate good will,” to “build confidence,” or to “strengthen (the allegedly moderate) Abbas.” So Israel releases 104 murderers, for example. This has been going on literally for decades.

Note that Israel gets nothing in return, except a continuation of the talks that we know will not succeed. And the Palestinian demands are never satisfied. Israel offers an additional 400 prisoners? Not enough, say the Palestinians, give us 1000! A construction freeze in Judea and Samaria? Not enough, it must include eastern Jerusalem!

I submit that the consequences of continuing the talks are worse than letting them fall. It will happen anyway at some point, and Israel will be worse off because of all the concessions it has made along the way.

Israel doesn’t need to be ashamed of its history and of its possession of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. It doesn’t need to apologize for its struggle to keep the Jewish homeland that has been reestablished after almost 2000 years. And it doesn’t need to pretend that its enemies — who themselves don’t pretend otherwise — are interested in coexistence.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Words Cause Permanent Damage

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

Barry Shaw is a special consultant on delegitimization issues to the Strategic Dialogue center at Netanya Academic College. He is also the author of Israel Reclaiming the Narrative and a columnist for the Jerusalem Post.


In his most recent piece, entitled Original thinking: When Israel supporters use the language of delegitimization, we read:

We increasingly see well-intentioned, powerful and influential people, who have the close attention of the media, make misplaced statements that feed into the adoption of a viewpoint that Israel has no legitimate right to be where it is. The misuse of language and deed is an indicator not only of the general public’s views, it also displays how pro-Israel influential voices are chasing a narrative that is driven by the Palestinian side of the conflict.

One perfect example of terminology drift can be seen with the area once known as Judea and Samaria becoming “disputed territory,” then the “West Bank,” and now “illegally occupied Palestinian land.” Any staunch Israeli, or dispassionate neutral, would argue that it is neither illegal, nor occupied, and certainly not Palestinian land according to international law and binding resolutions going back as far as the League of Nations Mandate of 1922. All this has not stopped the flow of terminology becoming accepted language.

I have been making precisely this same argument for years, now.

The language that pro-Israel people often use to describe the aggression against us is the very language that our enemies use to delegitimize Israel for the purpose of its eventual dissolution.  When we erase 3,500 years of Jewish history through the casual usage of "West Bank" we are playing directly into the hands BDS and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.

By normalizing usage such as "Occupation" - with the "Big O" to suggest that it is the Big Mama of All Other Occupations or the Uber-Occupation or the perfect Platonic Occupation - sends a signal to the world community that even most Jews consider a Jewish-Israeli presence on the historical heartland of the Jewish people to constitute theft.

We not only rob ourselves of our own history through veiling that history under a misnomer like "West Bank" but we essentially tell the rest of the world that historically Jewish land is not historically Jewish land and that, therefore, we are thieves.

We validate the so-called "Palestinian narrative" of pure victim-hood and then wonder why so many people despise the Jewish State and consider her supporters to be morally bankrupt.  Of course, many people consider Israel, and her supporters, to be morally bankrupt.  How could they think otherwise when even so many Jewish supporters of Israel speak about the conflict in terms specifically designed to suggest Jewish guilt and Palestinian-Arab innocence.

As I wrote in a piece back in March 2011 for Israel Thrives:

These things are important to keep in mind, because the language that we use often predetermines the conclusions that we draw. If, for example, we think of Israel as "an apartheid state" then it goes without saying that Israel is an institutionally racist country, much like the former apartheid South Africa, and it must therefore be eliminated as a Jewish state. The word "apartheid" predetermines the conclusion. 

What I recommend to all my fellow Jews, if I may be so bold, is to rid oneself of all elements of the Palestinian narrative. Just root it out entirely and examine the elements. Remember, those who project the Palestinian narrative do not have an interest in Jewish well-being and the narrative, itself, is largely an ideological construct, a fantasy. It certainly doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny, not unless you think that Jews fleeing the pogroms of late 19th century Russia came to Palestine as the vanguard of some expanding empire, which of course they did not.

This being the case, it is worthwhile to reexamine the language that we use in regards I-P and the assumptions that we may bring to the table. The question to ask when we examine that language and those assumptions is whether or not they form a part of the Palestinian narrative? If so, it should be held up to serious inquiry and deleted if found to be just more anti-Israel propaganda that has snuck into the minds of well-meaning liberal Jews.

I couldn't agree with myself more.

You'll notice, by the way, that in early 2011 I was still referring to the Arab-Israel conflict (or the Long Arab War Against the Jews of the Middle East) as the "Israel-Palestine" conflict.  I was wrong then because even as I wrote a piece concerning ridding ourselves of the faux "Palestinian narrative" I was using terminology derived from that narrative.  It is not an Israel / "Palestine" conflict because the aggressors against the Jews are not limited to the Palestinian-Arabs.  It is the Arab Middle East as a whole that is seeking to eliminate Jewish sovereignty and self-defense on Jewish land.

The odds are 60 or 70 to 1 against us, in terms of shear numbers.

Goliath was not a Jew, but a Philistine.

David was a Jew.

Spanish Village of "Kill Jews" Pondering Name Change

Michael L.

{I don't think that they should do it, but that's just me. - Editor's note.}

The Jerusalem Post is reporting this delightful story:

A Spanish village is considering removing the phrase “kill Jews” from its name.

The village of Castrillo Matajudios near Leon in northern Spain will convene its 60 resident families at a town hall meeting next week to discuss and vote on the first formal proposal to change the village’s name, the regional daily Diario de Burgos reported Friday. was changed during the Spanish Inquisition.

Mayor Lorenzo Rodriguez, who submitted the proposal, suggested changing the village’s name to Castrillo Mota de Judios, which means “Castrillo Jews’ Hill.” He said this was the village’s original name, but it was changed during the Spanish Inquisition.

Every once in awhile I run across a story that is so outrageous and so unlikely that I feel that I must highlight it even if I have no idea what to make of it.  This one is such.  The image above, by the way, is the flag of the village of Castrillo Matajudios.  Notice the prominent Shield of David.

In parts of Spain, and especially in the north, locals use the term “killing Jews” (matar Judios) to describe the traditional drinking of lemonade spiked with alcohol at festivals held in city squares at Easter, or drinking in general.

Is it like a toast?  You know, here's mud in your eye and matar Judios!

This is just bizarre.  So, we are to understand that in certain parts of Spain having a drink is called "killing Jews" or "kill Jews"?

Really??  Fascinating, I say!

Leon will hold its “matar Judios” fiesta on Good Friday, April 18, where organizers estimate 40,000 gallons of lemonade will be sold.

A "killing Jews" festival in Leon, Spain, featuring spiked lemonade?  Good times!

I have to say, I find this so unusual that I cannot even begin to feel any outrage.  It's absurd and hysterical and I doubt very much that the vast majority of Spaniards who attend the festival are particularly interested in killing Jews.

The name originates from medieval times, when converted Jews would sometimes be publicly executed in show trials at around Easter, Maria Royo, a spokesperson for the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain told JTA.

Jews publicly executed around Easter after show trials in medieval Spain, you say?

Ahh, the good old days!

“Regrettably, this type of expression exists in Spain in ceremonies and parties,” she said, but added that “the people saying it are mostly unaware of the history. It is a complicated issue that is ingrained in local culture.”

That is regrettable, although I cannot help but wonder how historically astute one needs to be in order to understand that naming a festival in celebration of the slaughter of Jews is perhaps something other than "liberal," not to mention functionally humane.

Europeans often like to flatter themselves that they are very much more enlightened and sophisticated than those of us in places like, say, North America or Australia, yet can you imagine if some small town in South Carolina held an annual Kill Black People Festival?

The federation is in contact on this issue with authorities, but given the popularity of the expression, “it is impossible to forbid this language” in that context, she added.

The popularity of the expression?

"Killing Jews" or "Kill Jews" is a popular expression that refers to drinking alcohol in parts of Spain?

This is news to me, I have to tell you.  I new that Spain was perhaps the least friendly country to the Jewish State of Israel - and thus to the Jewish people, more generally - throughout all of Europe, but I never thought that "Killing Jews" or "Kill Jews" was a sort-of general expression associated with festivals, intoxication, and overall good times.

Nice to know.

2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2

Empress Trudy

There are problems you can and want to see addressed, problems you can, but don’t want to see addressed, problems you will never be able to address and problems which aren’t intended to ever be addressed at all. It’s important to understand which one you’re dealing with.

1) Problems that you can and want to see addressed.

2) Problems you can, but don't want to see addressed.

3) Problems you will never be able to address.

4) Problems which aren’t intended to ever be addressed at all.

To many Israelis their problems are of the first type. They want some resolutions with the Arabs and genuinely believe that somewhere there’s a mix of different things which more or less can result in something resembling a resolution or management of the problem to some vague point in time in the future.

The key difference between Israel and John Kerry is that’s it’s likely that the US sees this as an issue of the second type; as something which can be managed but their intent isn’t to ‘solve’ it only to leave it out there as a bludgeon to beat the Israelis over the head with for whatever the US happens to need this month or this year.  Politicians are after all, politicians, and what they do is shaped by today’s need, yesterday’s poll and next year’s election. This is also why the US almost reflexively supports the Arabs blaming Israel for pretty much whatever does or doesn’t happen or won’t happen or hasn’t happened. The Arabs see this too as an issue that must never be ‘fixed’. Having a ‘state’ is the last thing they want.  A state isn’t useful to the oligarchs and criminal terrorists to rule over the Arabs like the Sopranos. This one gets taxicabs, that one gets cigarettes, that one gets cement, the other one gets cell phones, and so on.  And with a reliable stream of several billion dollars and euros flowing in each year sufficient to create the most heavily armed, per capita society on the planet today, they use a judicious mixture of criminality and violence to keep things just as they are.

But I diverge. The issue is that the US and the Arabs don’t see this as anything other than a weapon to wield against Israel to keep this status quo operating.

This will eventually force the Israelis into a position from the first type to the third. Eventually they will come to see this as irresolvable.  Not even manageable in the long run as some see it now since the point to managing something is to eventually move the status forward. But if you come to believe that whatever whenever it’s no more likely than teaching an octopus to fly then only one of two things will occur – either the Israelis will stop engaging them at all, or they will adopt a highly cynical approach of tacitly agreeing with the Arabs and the US that they know they know there’s  no point in any of this theater.  Keep Calm and Carry On as it were.

Then we come to the last type, the problems which aren’t supposed to be fixed. We call these bellwether issues. Politics is thick in bellwether issues: abortion, gun control, first amendment, global warming, illegal aliens and Israel. These are never supposed to get fixed because they aren’t truly ‘real’. They’re signposts that signify where one generally stands for a whole host of other political issues. They’re proxies. Moreover they CAN’T be solved because any solution will guarantee 100% dissatisfaction of whomever views they got the losing end. You can’t partially come to terms with people who 100% oppose abortion. You can broker a deal with people who never want any conceivable form of gun regulation at all. You can’t argue with people who say global warming deniers should be censored then put in prison. And you can’t hammer out a deal with student groups who openly embrace genocidal anti-Semitism.  But what you can do is scream slogans at one another which is more for your own fellow travelers’ benefit so you know they know you’re one of them.

In college life in the US and the UK and I’m sure other places as well, adopting this is a kind of one size fits all shorthand for the whole basket of anarchist protest one is expected to adopt when one is a college student.  This week Brandeis offered then withdrew an honorary doctorate from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch politician, feminist and critic of Islam originally from Sudan who’s written and spoken for years not about the dangers of Islam per se but the cruelties created by political Islamism upon the very same people and groups those college students purport to embrace; women, children, the marginalized, the poor, the powerless.  Once we introduce criticism of Islam though, the bellwether crowd trots out the same tired tropes – “Islamophobia” which itself is a bellwether for “be afraid we might rise up and hurt you”.

What it boils down to is Israel has adopted one approach, a mindset that their issues with the Arabs are social-political problems much like those between any two other people’s who ultimately see a need and benefit to coming to terms.  It’s unlikely, as some of Israel’s internal critics assert, that this is just craven surrender, appeasement to give up give in and hope for the best. No it’s more likely that Israel’s leaders more as a matter of choosing to take specific unpalatable actions each one fairly small to make some kind of slow progress – more of a scattershot approach of “well we tried that now try this see what happens”. Because that’s how negotiations work in the real world .

But the Arabs and the US aren’t really playing the deep game they pretend to. In fact they’re not playing much of a game at all. They’re playing a no-move game. One where any next move is as good as any other because NONE of them matter.  That’s not the objective. Their objective is doing nothing and keeping the static line in place. For as long as it’s useful to extract and extort something out of the Jews.

The Arabs don’t have a single government – the PLO/Fatah in one place and Hamas in another. Hamas itself it’s entirely in control of Gaza either. No one inside their leadership is ever going to make a move to change that either. For two reasons, 1) anarchy works to their continued benefit, 2) they will never overtly impose their political will on each other because some outsider told them to.  Not having a unified government and openly admitting that half the Arabs concerned will never not only accept Israel but they won’t even accept the other half of the population and their leadership speaking for them.

Meanwhile with 30 months left on the Obama administration all the US cares about is what if anything they can accomplish for themselves inside that window. I guarantee there’s never been a US President who worried for 3 seconds what happens to Israel on the day after he leaves office. US support of Israel is a policy issue that has always originated from Congress not the Executive Branch. It has never been and will never be a matter of personal affinity between the US President and Israel.  The issue for the US such as anyone can tease out any issues that are critical, is what the US can do to lean on Israel as an ‘ally’ to get what the US wants out of that exercise.  Perhaps Obama needs to lean on Israel for something with Iran or Turkey or Russia or who knows? Maybe it’s purely domestic and Obama’s only goal is to threaten Congress with harming relations with Israel so that Congresspersons feel it in their local districts. I don’t know.

Lastly, what to do with the bellwether crowd? That angry ignorant gabble of useful idiots who tell each other they never saw a Jew they couldn’t enjoy kicking in the teeth? Is it worth engaging them at all? Most people would say yes. I remain not 100% convinced of this. It’s possible that this can useful as long as we understand who the intended audience is. Certainly none of these glint eyed zealots will ever be swayed; they don’t want to. It’s possible to convince some of the people who don’t have a firm opinion but generally hasbara has been a failure. Either we don’t know how to educate people or we’re getting the wrong message out. Bellwether loons appeal to the emotions not the mind so stating facts and figures might not mean anything. But emoting doesn’t appear to afford much benefit either. I’m not close enough to campus life to recognize how BDS motions get rejected. Someone should look into how that happens.

I am not suggesting here to take one approach over any other. I am not even suggesting that concluding this is something that can never be solved and we should no longer even try. That is your own conclusion.  What I am suggesting is that it’s vital to understand how your opponents view the nature of their own 'arguments'.