Antony Loewenstein Online Newsletter

NOVANEW

• Yes, Israel, we want Christian fundementalists on your side Chomsky on the real 9/11 Zionist lobby says Nazi comparisons wrong and yet rather loves calling enemies anti-Semitic “It’s a Jewish obligation to criticise state violence” Serco doesn’t train staff properly yet calls itself fit and proper Sinhalese thug feels weight of investigation ABCTV News24 on climate change, Murdoch thuggery and asylum seekers Another day and all we hear are conservative voices fellating Israe Yes, Israel, we want Christian fundementalists on your side Posted: 14 Sep 2011 07:30 AM PDT Today in the New South Wales Parliament Christian hard-liner David Clarke will be reading the following in the Upper House. Once again, Israel’s best friends are Christian fundamentalists and conservatives who loathe Arabs. Nice going: Mr Clarke to move— That this House: (a) notes with concern the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) Campaign against legitimate businesses operating in Australia which provide jobs to hundreds of Australians, (b) calls on all members to condemn the targeting of Max Brenner Chocolate Cafes by anti-Israel protestors, (c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS campaign has descended into anti-Semitism, and (d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.

  Chomsky on the real 9/11 Posted: 14 Sep 2011 This is classic clear-thinking from Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now! this week, views so rarely expressed in the corporate press: …The claim that the U.S. was being attacked [on 9/11] because, as the president put it, they hate our freedoms was completely untenable. They hated our policy. In fact, it would be more accurate to say we hate their freedoms.There’s plenty of documentation about that, going back to the 1950s. Shortly after the president’s speech, the Pentagon had a study of this, and they concluded, yes, it’s not that they hate our freedoms, it’s they hate our policies.

  Zionist lobby says Nazi comparisons wrong and yet rather loves calling enemies anti-Semitic Posted: 14 Sep 2011 Where to begin with this confused statement? The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, a key Zionist lobby group who rather loves defending the war crimes of Israel, release this today about BDS, Israel, Nazis, Palestine, Nazis, Jews, Nazis and you guessed it, Nazis. You can almost see feel the tension in the statement, essentially saying, “we aren’t saying you BDS backers are anti-Semitic but really you are actually anti-Semitic”. No mention of the occupation, of course. Nor why BDS is thriving globally. BDS isn’t about Jewish businesses because they’re Jewish, you dishonest Zionist lobby. It’s called targeting the unaccountable Zionist state,  an increasingly anti-democratic entity, and those associated with it. Get used to it; it’s growing by the day: Criticism of the BDS Campaign There has been widespread criticism of the recent BDS protests against Max Brenner outlets in Sydney and Melbourne. The criticism has come not only from Labor and Coalition members of parliament, Federal and State, but also from some of their Greens colleagues. The ECAJ thanks all of them for their efforts in opposing and speaking out against the Australian arm of the global BDS campaign against Israel. The Max Brenner chain is a legitimate, privately owned business that operates in accordance with Australian law. It provides employment to approximately 750 Australian workers and pays taxes that contribute to the public revenue. Its alleged ‘crime’ is to be connected in some way to a company that supplies chocolate and other food products to the Israeli army. Recently, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was asked by the Victorian government, with the near unanimous support of the Australian Senate (excluding the Greens), whether the BDS campaign against Max Brenner outlets constitutes a secondary boycott in contravention of section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC concluded that thus far there has been no contravention because the BDS campaign is unlikely to have had the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Max Brenner, as would be required to constitute a breach of section 45D. Whilst in some respects that conclusion is disappointing, it highlights how ineffectual and unsuccessful the BDS campaign has been in persuading the Australian public not to patronise Max Brenner shops. Indeed, the BDS campaign has, if anything, succeeded in alienating broader public opinion in Australia and engendering sympathy and support for the target businesses. Racist rhetoric employed in the BDS campaign The ECAJ is, however, concerned about some of the rhetoric that has been deployed by both sides of the public debate concerning BDS. On occasions, some of those supporting BDS have lapsed into both overt and implicit antisemitism, and some of those opposing BDS have inappropriately likened Greens leaders to “Nazis”. Neither infraction excuses the other. We note that no members of parliament, Federal or State, on either side of the debate, have engaged in these extreme forms of rhetoric. All expressions of antisemitism are repugnant not only to the Jewish community but also to the vast majority of Australians. An ancient and pernicious form of antisemitism is known as the “blood libel”, a vicious and revolting smear to the effect that Jews as a group habitually shed and consume human blood. (In point of fact, this is the exact opposite of Jewish teaching, which holds human life to be sacrosanct, a belief that has been inherited by both Christianity and Islam). In the BDS campaign against Max Brenner, the ancient blood libel is revived in the protesters’ chants: There’s blood in your hot chocolate. You support genocide. Max, Max murderer. It is of course ludicrous to describe someone who merely sells chocolate products as a “murderer”. Yet in our view, it is no accident that the BDS protesters choose to make their points in these specific ways, which tap into an historical reservoir of anti-Jewish tropes. They could make their points in other ways. True moral leadership requires our political representatives to repudiate this sort of deeply racist rhetoric, regardless of where they stand on the BDS issue. One aspect of the BDS campaign that is particularly troubling is that the boycotts are aimed at businesses with Jewish owners. Thus, Max Brenner is targeted, but Intel or Microsoft or any other similar company, which operates significantly in Israel and supplies the Israeli Defence Force, is not targeted. It is entirely legitimate to draw attention to this disparity and to question the motives of BDS leaders. There is further antisemitism in the implied denial of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination. Another frequent anti-Israel chant is: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. This implies that all of the land situated between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea is “Palestine”. Of course, part of that land consists of Israel. What is thereby advocated is the end of Israel as a sovereign State and its replacement by “Palestine”. Distinguishing between political comment and inappropriate rhetoric The ECAJ does not suggest that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.  Israel is a vibrant pluralist democracy and its citizens (Jews, Bedouin, Palestinians, and Druze) are often its most incisive critics.  But it is also false to suggest that nocriticisms of Israel are antisemitic.   There is clearly an overlap, as the foregoing examples illustrate. The existence of an overlap was also acknowledged in the Working Definition of Antisemitism developed by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which monitors racism and xenophobia in the 31 countries and candidate countries of the European Union, in collaboration with key NGOs and representatives of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The EUMC, now called the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted the definition in 2005 and distributed it to all its national monitors. In September 2006, the definition was adopted by the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.  It is also employed by units of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), representing about states. The definition has been translated into 33 languages including Arabic and Turkish. In February 2009, it was adopted in the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism.  The working definition includes the following: Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: •         Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. •         Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. •         Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. •         Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. •         Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Inappropriate Holocaust Rhetoric The way to combat these more contemporary and subtle forms of antisemitism is not, in our view, to fight fire with fire. Whilst hyperbole is to be expected in any free-flowing political discussion in Australia’s robust democracy, special care is needed to avoid comparing any Australian political leaders or members of parliament to “Nazis” or comparing any political party in Australia to the former Nazi regime in Germany. There is, thankfully, nothing in Australia’s history and experience that is even remotely comparable to the unique evil and horror of the Hitler period in Germany and Europe. Yet the use of inappropriate analogies with Nazism has crept into political discourse in Australia with increasing frequency. This has the effect of trivialising Nazi totalitarianism, particularly in the thinking of younger people who have no personal point of entry into understanding the realities of life under the Nazi jackboot. For this reason our organisation some years ago adopted an express policy against inappropriate Holocaust rhetoric (see ECAJ Platform). The ECAJ: recognised that the Holocaust, the Nazi program of genocide, was a unique historical event; noted that the Holocaust is generally recognised as the benchmark of the most extreme case of human evil; and deplored the inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazi Genocide in Australian public debate. The ECAJ is concerned that some of the media discourse has resorted to rhetoric that has been less disciplined than it should be. In particular we seek to discourage the use of imprecise analogies with the Nazi regime. One must acknowledge that there are significant historical differences between rag-tag groups of BDS protesters outside Max Brenner outlets in Australia and a campaign backed by the Nazi state and enforced by state-sanctioned Nazi thugs who picketed shops owned by Jews in Germany in the 1930’s.  Yet Nazis commenced their campaign as purportedly private action before there was government sanction for it. In another context which has nothing to do with the BDS issue cartoons were recently published in a syndicated newspaper depicting Greens leader Bob Brown as a book-burning Nazi, complete with swastika arm-band, Gestapo cap and SA (Sturmabteilung) uniform. Prime Minister Julia Gillard was similarly portrayed. Even allowing for the usual latitude accorded to political cartoonists, nothing can justify comment of this nature. Political leaders are fair game for all kinds of criticism, but this exceeds the bounds of fairness and diminishes the uniquely evil character of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust. Some BDS supporters have also been guilty of making inappropriate comparisons with the Nazi era. It is not uncommon to see placards at their demonstrations which depict the Israeli flag with a swastika at its centre in place of the Star of David or contain other images which, as referred to in the Working Definition of Antisemitism, draw comparisons between Israel and the Nazis. Clearly, BDS leaders and supporters are in no moral position to accuse others of lacking rhetorical virtue. Rejecting inappropriate comparisons between the BDS campaign and Nazi Germany does not require us to accept the claim that the BDS protesters are merely opposed to Israeli government policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians, but are not in any way animated by anti-Jewish prejudice.  The BDS protests do not have to rise to the level of seriousness of the Nazi era in order, on occasion, to qualify as antisemitic. Further, the BDS campaign is calculated to orchestrate public hatred, an ugly and unworthy tactic regardless of the alleged target.  The fact is that an unusually high percentage of Australian Jews are survivors of the Holocaust.  Nobody should callously dismiss the reaction of Australian Jews to the sight of Jewish-owned shops once more being picketed by chanting, aggressive demonstrators many of whose faces are contorted in hate, as can be seen on YouTube and other recordings of BDS events.   Even though the parallels to Nazi Germany are an historical over-statement, those who have suggested that that reaction is contrived should be ashamed of themselves.  The reaction is entirely genuine and understandable. Nevertheless, the ECAJ is asking all of our political representatives who count themselves as supporters of Israel and opponents of BDS, and the media, to refrain from the inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazis, and to provide moral leadership to others to exercise restraint in their rhetoric. This is the right thing to do even if it is a vain hope that supporters of BDS will exercise a reciprocal responsibility to eliminate express or implicit antisemitism from their rhetoric.

  “It’s a Jewish obligation to criticise state violence” Posted: 14 Sep 2011 The subtle but noticeable shift in American, Jewish public opinion towards Israel and Palestine. Occupation matters. Human rights abuses noticed. Blind backing for Zionism is unimaginable. Bring it on: Initial Development Trailer: Some of My Best Friends Are Zionists from Open Letter Productions on Vimeo.

  Serco doesn’t train staff properly yet calls itself fit and proper Posted: 13 Sep 2011 Here’s why: The Darwin Asylum Seeker Support and Advocacy Network released the statement below on September 13. * * * A detention centre worker has contacted the Darwin Asylum Seeker Support and Advocacy Network (DASSAN) and indicated that a SERCO security guard was in tears as a result of a directive from the Department of Immigration following a hunger strike and rooftop protest at the Northern Immigration Detention Centre (NIDC) in Darwin. An Afghan Hazara has been on the roof of South 1 compound for two days and has been on a hunger strike for a number of days before that. Before getting onto the roof and as a form of protest, he drank a bottle of shampoo to make himself ill. Since he got onto the roof, SERCO guards have been directed not to provide or offer him food or water on medical advice that he should be able to survive for a couple days on the roof without food or water. As a result of this directive, the guard was in tears and highly concerned as to the man’s welfare. The man is lying in the Darwin sun without any shelter and was moving very little. He remains on the roof. DASSAN spokesperson Carl O’Connor said: “The direction by the department that this man not be offered food and water is cruel and could result in serious health problems or worse. SERCO guards are understandably concerned for his welfare and it must be traumatic for them to be told they are not to provide assistance to him.” Mr O’Connor added: “It is a result of this sort of approach to managing people that we have seen dozens of suicide attempts, self harm incidents and daily protests in the Northern Immigration Detention Centre — Australia’s most dysfunctional and cruel immigration detention centre.”

  Sinhalese thug feels weight of investigation Posted: 13 Sep 2011 Unlike in Australia, where the Federal government was more than happy to accept a Sri Lankan nominee for a top diplomat post despite serious allegations of war crimes against him, some other countries treat human rights with proper seriousness: The Sri Lankan government has recalled its second most senior diplomat to Switzerland and Germany in response to accusations he was involved in war crimes. Former general Jaghat Dias led the 57th division of the Sri Lankan army. He is accused of ordering his troops to fire upon civilian and hospital targets during the army’s final offensive against the rebel Tamil Tigers in 2009. A report by the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights also accuses Dias of participating in acts of torture and the execution of rebel fighters. Last month, the Swiss foreign ministry confirmed it had contacted Sri Lankan authorities about the case, which it said was of “great significance”. The Swiss news agency reported on Tuesday that diplomatic sources had confirmed Dias had been recalled to Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan embassy in Berlin also has diplomatic responsibility for Switzerland and the Vatican. Dias was accredited in Switzerland in January 2010.

  ABCTV News24 on climate change, Murdoch thuggery and asylum seekers Posted: 14 Sep 2011 I appeared last night on ABCTV News24′s The Drum (video here). The Federal government is introducing its carbon tax legislation into the parliament and yet I argued it’s legitimate to ask why so many polluters are receiving such concessions. It’s an attempted political fix that hasn’t convinced many Australians. Simply put, many people are skeptical about the tax and even the science. That’s because hysteria has too often been associated with the debate over global warming. Climate change is clearly happening (hello Arctic!) but real leadership involves convincing the masses that reform is both necessary and vital to saving the environment. Personally, I remain far from convinced that the very weak carbon tax on offer will really make any difference to climate change. The asylum seeker question continues to haunt both major sides of politics and Australia remains mired in a debate that sees politicians looking to be tough on the “people smuggler’s business model”. Human rights be damned. Off-shore processing is a sneaky way to take the “problem” somewhere else, causing untold mental misery. What Australia needs, without privatising the system with Serco, is to manage the relatively small refugee flow with speed and fairness. Finally, the announcement of a media inquiry is welcome but it appears the main issue will be absent; an investigation into ownership and power of the moguls. It’s unsurprising that the Labor government is scared to seriously tackle the Murdoch thugocracy in Australia – why should one family control 70% of our print media? – but tickling around the edges may achieve window-dressing at best. A real democracy would want to encourage more diverse voices in our media landscape. That country isn’t Australia.

  Another day and all we hear are conservative voices fellating Israel Posted: 13 Sep 2011 Oh Australia, you are a parochial place. First up, here’s the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesperson Julie Bishop who says that, “Australia must stand firmly with Israel at this tumultuous point in its history.” Yes, that brutal Zionist occupation of Palestine needs all the support it can get. This week’s Federal Parliament was filled with talk about BDS, Nazis, Israel, Nazis, Palestine and Nazis (see here and here). Even the pro-settler Jerusalem Post covered it: Australian politicians engaged in heated political debate on Tuesday, with contrasting opinions about support or condemnation of boycotting Israeli products and businesses, according to an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald. It was reported that Australia’s part in the global anti-Israeli Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was at the root of the debate.The Greens were condemned for not having denounced the movement, which Greens Party senator Lee Rhiannon has publicly supported in the past, though it is not party policy. BDS is a campaign that has expressed itself in various regions of the world through academic, cultural, political and economic boycotts of Israel. The movement recently gained some momentum in Australia, with protests taking place outside Israeli chocolate shop chain Max Brenner in several cities during the summer. “(The Senate) should not tolerate the boycotting of businesses because the ownership is Jewish,” leader of the opposition in the Senate Eric Abetz is reported to have said. “We know enough about world history never to go down that track.” AAP quoted Greens Party Deputy Christine Milne rejecting accusations from other parties that compared their support of the boycott to the start of the Holocaust: “I know precisely about the cruelty of the Nazis to the Jews in the second World War and I find it despicable in the extreme that every last one of you stand over there and try and point fingers.” He reportedly added, “The issue we should be debating is the question of … a two-state solution in the Middle East.” Today’s Murdoch Australian, as usual helpfully looking for anti-Semitism and Nazi behaviour in every corner of the country, hilariously chastise the Greens for wanting to inform consumers if they’re buying products from illegal colonies in the West Bank. To his credit, Greens leader Bob Brown is asking the right questions. Clearly the corporate hack tasked to write this drivel and the politicians pushing it don’t realise; your stated aim of a two-state solution can’t happen if the settlements continue to thrive and produce goods. Just a helpful memo to the clueless. Here’s the article: The Coalition has accused Greens leader Bob Brown of kowtowing to his NSW Senate colleague Lee Rhiannon after the minor party requested labelling information from the government on Israeli products made in the occupied territories. The opposition’s leader in the Senate, Eric Abetz, yesterday lashed Senator Brown for failing to voice his opposition to the BDS movement after veteran Nationals senator Ron Boswell moved a motion condemning recent protests against Max Brenner chocolate stores. “After the NSW election campaign, Senator Brown allegedly took a ‘robust’ line against Lee Rhiannon’s support for the boycott, divestment, sanctions campaign in the March NSW election,” he said. “But every time the Coalition has put up a motion in the Senate condemning an aspect of the BDS campaign, Senator Brown has some excuse for not supporting it and has registered the Greens’ opposition.” Coalition concerns were further fuelled yesterday after it emerged the Greens had requested, on notice, detailed information from the government about the labelling of Israeli products. In a series of questions, the Greens asked whether the government was satisfied that all goods originating from Israel or the occupied territories were truthfully labelled. It asked whether this information was required on labels or import documentation. The Greens have sought further information on whether the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission or any government agency had taken action against products labelled “Made in Israel” when they were made “partly or in full in the occupied territories”. Information on contracts between Australian and Israeli businesses was also requested, with Senator Abetz saying it amounted to a “shopping list for the BDS campaign”. Senator Boswell’s motion condemning the pickets on Max Brenner chocolate stores was yesterday endorsed by the Senate, despite unanimous Greens opposition. Senator Brown’s office did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.