Middle East Reality Check

How Sweet It Is

2009-07-12T18:18:00.018+10:00

"Strauss Group, Israel's 2nd-largest food and beverage company, has become, over the past few years, an international corporation with a steadily growing part of its business conducted outside of Israel. The Group employs 11,600 people and operates 19 production sites in 16 countries. In the last 6 years the group has consistently achieved growth that more than doubled the volume of its business during that period, generating... around $1.7 billion in turnover at the end of 2008, of which 47% came from international activities. The Group is built around 3 core businesses: Strauss Israel, which focuses on 2 major consumption trends: Health and Wellness and Fun and Indulgence; Strauss Coffee... and Strauss North America, which incorporates the Mediterranean dips and spreads company Sabra, with product lines that target the health and wellness trend, and the Chocolate Bar chain Max Brenner that targets the fun and indulgence trend." (About Us - Overview, A glimpse into the Strauss Group business world, strauss-group.com)

"Max Brenner presented the Chocolate Bar to the world as an innovative retail concept characterized by a unique chocolate culture that strengthens the social experience and the fun of eating and drinking chocolate... Max Brenner has 24 Chocolate Bars operating around the world: 6 in Israel, 2 in the US, 2 in the Philippines, 1 in Singapore and 13 in Australia." (ibid)

"Max Brenner wanted to be an author. So it seems surprising that he ended up being a world-famous chocolatier... But his passion for the cocoa bean doesn't obscure his nuanced view of the world. When asked about politics and specifically about the protests at his Sydney stores - seen as a symbol of Israel - earlier this year, Brenner was quick to respond. 'Everything that has to do with conflict seems stupid to me. I am a very peaceful person. Whether it is in Israel, or not, anything to do with violence, aggressiveness or appearing at protests or boycotts seems silly [to me]. But then again I am just a tiny person who loves beautiful things'." (Brenner on chocolate, The Australian Jewish News, 10/7/09)

"Our connection with soldiers goes as far back as the country, and even further. We see a mission and need to continue to provide our soldiers with support, to enhance their quality of life and service conditions, and sweeten their special moments. We have adopted the Golani reconnaissance platoon for over 30 years and provide them with an ongoing variety of food products for their training or missions, and provide personal care packages for each soldier that completes the path. We have also adopted the Southern Shualei Shimshon troops from the Givati platoon with the goal of improving their service conditions and being there at the front to spoil them with our best products." (Corporate Responsibility, Over 70 years of Community Involvement, strauss-group.com)

"Sayeret Golani was created in 1951. It was originally named Machleket Siyur Meyuchedet, or Special Reconnaissance Platoon; a part of the 1st Golani Infantry Brigade... They have operated all over Israel and even beyond; in Lebanon, Syria, and even Uganda. Sayeret Golani has had a bloody but illustrious history." (Israel's Sayeret Golani, specwarnet.net)

"It was the height of the Palestinian intifada, or uprising, which began at the end of 1987, and Rabin, then Defense Minister, ordered a policy of 'force, might and beatings' to quell the rebellion. Israeli soldiers filled hospital wards with young Palestinian men with their hands in casts, their arms swollen like sausages. The Golani Brigade was in the midst of it. One day reporters came upon some of them in a Palestinian village near Bethlehem, dragging youths into a bus packed with soldiers beating their clubs on the steel seat frames in unison and chanting wildly: 'We are Golani! We are insane! And even in Golani, it seemed, few beat the Palestinians with the enthusiasm of Pvt. Yigal Amir [Rabin's assassin]. 'In Golani, everybody hits', Mr Amir's comrade, Mr Nagar remembered. 'I wasn't clean either. But Yigal was something special, a rank unto himself'. During searches in Jabalya, a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, Mr Nagar said, 'The officer says, before breaking into a house, give them a 10,000 mile tune-up. Yigal was the enforcer, with a capital E. Hit them hard, hit here, push there. Destroy stuff. He enjoyed badgering them just for fun'... The experience was not uncommon. A government report in 1989 on the effects of serving during the intifada found troops more violent in every aspect of their lives and, among the religious right [like Amir], imbued with a deeper hatred of Arabs. Three men who had served in Golani have committed widely publicized murders of Arabs and an Israeli peace campaigner." (A son of Israel: Rabin's assassin, John Kifner, The New York Times, 19/11/95)

"Channel 10 on Thursday released footage taken by Israel Defense Forces soldiers of themselves humiliating a bound and blindfolded Palestinian man at a West Bank checkpoint. The footage shows the Palestinian kneeling and repeating sentences given to him to say by the soldiers, who belong to the Golani Brigade. One of the lines is: 'Golani will bring you a log to stick up your ass'. As the detainee repeats the words, the soldiers are heard laughing raucously in the background." (IDF troops film themselves humiliating bound Palestinian, Haaretz, 6/11/08)

"At the eye of the Gaza storm is the Golani Brigade. Golani is currently operating in the sector in which the IDF has seen the toughest battles with Hamas, the eastern part of Gaza City... Golani has a complex image within the IDF.... [I]t is known as a brigade that struggles with no small number of disciplinary problems and scandals, caused by bad behavior ranging from revolts against commanders to abuse of Palestinians." (The IDF's Golani Brigade: always first on the scene at the front line, Amos Harel, Haaretz, 6/1/09)

Sins of Omission

2009-07-12T11:00:00.009+10:00

Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian and advertised "most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism," did not write these sentences in his opinion piece on 9 July: '[A]s usual, the Israelis have the international community bluffed. They have achieved this with the Palestinian territories in part by convincing the world that all Palestinian activists are 9/11-style terrorists.'

But he did write this: "[A]s usual, the Chinese have the international community bluffed. They have achieved this with Xinjiang in part by convincing the world that all Uighur activists are 9/11-style terrorists." (China's crackdown has the world bluffed)

Nor did he write: 'The Palestinians have a lot of grievances... When the Jewish Zionists took control of Palestine in 1948, Jews made up 33% of the poulation, with Palestinians the vast majority.'

But he did write this: "The Uighurs have a lot of grievances... When the Han Chinese communists took control of Xinjiang in 1949, ethnic Han made up about 6% of the population, with Uighurs the vast majority." (ibid)

He has never referred to Palestinians as 'a minority in their own homeland.'

He has, however, referred to Uighurs as "a minority in their own homeland." (ibid)

Likewise, he has never written about 'the danger of the nationalism and Jewish Israeli chauvinism.'

But he has written about "the danger of the nationalism and ethnic Han chauvinism." (ibid)

Go figure.

Hot on Gillard's High Heels

2009-07-11T09:03:00.007+10:00

Look who's next in line for some of that seductive Israeli stroking:-

"Following hot on the heels of his parliamentary colleagues' trip to Israel with the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange (AICE), Victorian Senator Mitch Fifield departed for the country last Friday. The Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers & the Voluntary Sector was awarded a Yachad scholarship* to travel to Israel. Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, together with other MPs**, is also visiting Israel this month as part of an Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) trip. Senator Fifield said his trip would primarily focus on matters relating to his portfolio. He will visit Israeli non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that provide help to people with disabilities, their families and their carers. He will also visit NGOs that work with youth at risk. Senator Fifield has been a long-time supporter of the Jewish community and was also one of two senators who recently defended Israel in parliament.***" (Senator's Israel scholarship, The Australian Jewish News, 10/7/09)

[*Yachad scholarship: "Mitch is an advisory board member of the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project (YALP). YALP is a unique educational program based on Israeli approaches to addressing systemic educational disadvantage. YALP began as a pilot project in Australia aimed at raising the scholastic achievements of students in regional and remote communities, particularly those with a high proportion of academically low achieving indigenous students... YALP is a partnership between: Indigenous & Non-Indigenous Communities; Government, Industry & Philanthropy; Israel & Australia." (mitchfifield.com)]

[** "I take this opportunity to acknowledge that, while the parliament is in recess, a number of members of this and the other place will be travelling to Israel. At the moment, the Deputy Prime Minister, with the member for Higgins, is leading the Australia-Israel leadership dialogue, which Senator Brandis, Senator Barnett and Mr Pyne are also participating in. Also during the break there will be an Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) delegation, led by Ms Julie Bishop, going to Israel. Senator [Simon] Birmingham [Lib SA], Senator [Scott] Ryan [Lib Vic], Mrs [Louise] Markus [Lib MP for Greenway, NSW] and Mr [Bruce] Billson [Lib MP for Dunkley, Vic] will also be taking part in that. And I will be going to Israel on a Yachad scholarship to study disability issues and the role of women in the Israeli military. These high-level exchanges are important. Australia and Israel share common values. Both Israel and Australia are great and robust democracies. Israel is a beacon of hope and liberty in the Middle East. Israel needs its friends, and there are none more staunch than Australia." (Adjournment speech - Gilad Shalit, 25/6/09, mitchfifield.com)]

[*** "Those who kidnapped Gilad are terrorists. They are criminals. Gilad was defending his country, democracy and the rule of law. We should not forget that Gilad was defending his homeland - defending Israel from those we know seek its destruction." (ibid)]

Can hardly wait for Mitch's coming report on "the role of women in the Israeli army." Only one thing's bothering me: if disability issues is Mitch's thing, wouldn't Gaza be the place to go?

Highway Robbery

2009-07-08T10:17:00.018+10:00

Here's an interesting piece from the Sydney Morning Herald's Middle East correspondent Jason Koutsoukis: "The Israeli Prime minister's closest adviser and key strategist, Ron Dermer, has admitted that Israel faces a serious public relations problem and needs aggressively to tackle negative perceptions around the world... 'We have to break out of the straitjacket', he said. 'We have to defend our own right to defend ourselves. It's not for other people to do it for us... It is not enough for Israel to say that it wants peace... You must also say that you are not a thief. We did not steal another people's land. That is the core of this conflict'... In pursuing a strategy that will centralise the Government's responses to issues raised by the foreign media into a kind of war room, and make better use of public opinion research, Mr Dermer says Israel has to start shaming countries and organisations that hold Israel to a different standard. '[People] who get together to call for a boycott against Israel, are they calling for a boycott against North Korea, the world's largest concentration camp? When you hold Israel to a standard that you won't hold another country to, what are you doing? You are being anti-Semitic... Within this story [of Israel & the Middle East] is this narrative that has grown much stronger in recent years that is essentially false: people who see us as colonialist invaders. But once the Palestinians accept that we, the Jews, are here by right, that we are not foreign colonialists and we're not invaders, even if they say [the land] it's 1% yours and 99% ours, then we're in real negotiations'. " (Israel draws up road map for image overhaul, 4/7/09)

On the allegation of holding Israel to a different standard to other international terror states, see my 17/5/09 post Sheridan in Love 4. It's Dermer's claim that Israel is not a land-grabbing colonial settler state that I wish to tackle here. True, prior to 1948, the Zionist movement in Palestine wasn't in much of a position to turf the natives off their land. It had to fork out for the territory it acquired. After 1948, however, it was a different story:-

"Having expelled the majority of the native indigenous Palestinian... people from the territories that came under the control of the Israeli army in the course of the 1948-49 war and being congnizant of UN General Assembly Resolution 194(II) of December 1948 'that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date', the Israeli authorities then pursued the systematic destruction of their homes with the aim that there be no homes for the refugees to return to. Of the 500 or so Palestinian Arab villages and cities, some 400... were destroyed and almost all razed to the ground by the Israeli army during the 1948-49 war and throughout the 1950s.

"As noted above, the State of Israel has consistently denied the right of return to the erstwhile Palestinian Arab inhabitants of the land, and violated UN General Assembly resolutions recognizing their right of return and calling for their repatriation. In fact, all 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees and internally displaced persons are legislated in Israel as 'absentees' through the Absentees' Property Law of 1950. Thus some four million 1948 Palestinian refugees today outside the 'Green Line' have been alienated from all rights to Israeli citizenship, to their lands, and to their properties in Israel. And of the 150,000 of the native indigenous Palestinian Arab people who found themselves in the wake of the 1948-49 armistice agreements inside the 'Green Line', the approximately one million Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel today, some 25%, 250, 000 persons, are internally displaced persons, 'present absentees', likewise denied all rights in their pre-1948 properties inside Israel... The vast number of properties classified under the Absentees' Property Law... as 'absentee property' can be further assessed if one recalls that, until 1947, individual or corporate Jewish land ownership in Palestine did not exceed 7% of the territory of British Mandate Palestine, or 10% of the territories that came under Israeli rule and occupation following the 1948-49 war. According to the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property, almost 70% of the territory of pre-1967 Israel consists of land classified as 'absentee property'... Jewish National Fund estimates, on the other hand, set the figure as high as 88%... All these massive properties have been vested under the Absentees' Property Law... with the Custodian of Absentee Property... Under the said law, every right an 'absentee' had with regard to any property is vested with the Custodian, and the status of the Custodian was legislated to be the same as that of the owner of the property... By all accounts, the properties invested in the Custodian... following the 1948-49 war constituted the primary rural and urban resources for post-1948 Israeli, exclusively Jewish, settlement projects, cultivation and development.

"As Moshe Dayan noted in his famous speech before students at the Israeli Institute of Technology (Techniyon) in 1969: 'We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the lands from the Arabs. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village'." (Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, Uri Davis, 2003, pp 31-36)

Pull the other, Ron.

Our Lady of the Walkleys

2009-07-07T10:19:00.030+10:00

According to her profile at womenofaustralia.info, the ABC's Monica Attard is the holder of "five Walkley Awards including a Gold Walkley for Excellence in Journalism." We are also told that she believes that "the journalist should not set out to provoke interviewees, but at times there is a moral obligation to speak out." Since leaving ABC's Media Watch, Attard has been interviewing the movers & shakers on Radio National's Sunday Profile.

Interviewing Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Australia's Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 2/7/09 was evidently not one of those occasions that entailed "a moral obligation to speak out." No, more a time to go with the Zionist PR flow washing over the ABC these days.

Attard's introduction set the tone for the interviews: Israel's inexorable 61-year old colonial project of swallowing the land of Palestine while spitting out its indigenous inhabitants was described as a "dispute." Hamas, not Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestine, was "the sticking point." Its "habit of firing rocket missiles [!!!] into Israel... a practice which caused a dramatic and bloody response from Israel earlier this year," was the main game, with not a peep about Israel's sadistic throttling of the Gaza Ghetto. And then, of course, the obligatory reference to Iran, which "leaves Israel feeling very nervous indeed." How very solicitous. What followed was predictably tame:-

Ayalon's risible statement that "we do not interfere with other countries' domestic issues" passed without comment from Attard. As did his hypocritical references to the Iranian elections: "an issue of freedom and human rights"; "I do hope there's no bloodshed"; Iran should abide by "international norms." Ditto for Ayalon's equally hypocritical reference to Iran's alleged "illegal nuclear activities."

Asked about Gillard's trip to Israel, Ayalon cooed these now familiar sweet nothings: "We see Australia not only as a sister democracy, but as a very good friend and ally which has historic ties here in Israel. There were Australian soldiers... that participated in... liberating the land of Israel from the Ottoman Empire during World War I. [!!!] They were again here in World War II. We have very good trade relations and are really kindred spirits in many, many ways when it comes to the rule of law, democratic values, ethics. You also had come to a barren land and made it bloom, [!!!] so the relations are very good and we were very happy and pleased and delighted to have here the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and the more visits the better, and we also intend to reciprocate with visits in Australia as well." Neither his liberties with history, nor his humbug, elicited so much as a groan from Attard, allegedly "one of Australia's most respected news and current affairs journalists (womenofaustralia.info).

"There are some things we don't have in common," Attard finally piped up, referring merely to Gillard's parroting of Obama's call for a "freeze" on Israeli settlements. The former Israeli Ambassador to Washington was more than a match for her though: "We understand, but friends may agree to disagree." And then, having touched on that Incarnation of Evil and Insuperable Impediment to Lasting Peace in the Middle East, Hamas, came this gobsmackingly gormless question from Our Lady of the Walkleys: "Can you accept Hamas having a role in a Palestinian government in return for more settlements?" Think about it.

"Was there any discussion of military cooperation between us?" Attard asked. The otherwise fluent Israeli pollywaffle sounded lost for words: "No, but... we... you know... as like-minded states in many areas of course... that we will always share everything that we can and we will continue with that." Share what? she neglected to ask. "Was an international peace-keeping force discussed?" she did. "We're not there yet," replied Ayalon. Yet? she didn't ask.

A particularly bizarre question arose in the context of Attard's reference to Ayalon's chairmanship of "an organisation dedicated to increasing the number of immigrants to Israel." Referring to Jews who live outside Israel as a "diaspora," Attard asked, "Would you consider helping Australian Jews move to Israel considering that Australia has the highest proportion of Jews outside Israel?" Were they perhaps in some kind of danger that only Attard could divine? Apparently, the distinct possibility that Australia's Jewish community might actually consider Australia their real home seems to have eluded her. Ayalon, of course, didn't miss a beat. "Australia could be a very great place for us to work," he chirped.

At that, it was Gillard's turn. "How did the idea of a settlement freeze go down with the Israeli leadership," Attard asked her: "I don't think that they were surprised by Australia's position. Our foreign minister Stephen Smith had made it well known. Clearly, for the Israeli government... this is a difficult issue. What the prime minister would say is that he does agree with the need to halt the further development of new settlements, but he would seek to continue to have natural growth within current Israeli settlements, whereas the Americans have made it very clear that they're talking about a halt on all settlement activity. The Australian view is that we do need to see a halt if we are going to have a peace process and dialogue in the Middle East that leads to a two-state solution... and it only makes the striking of that agreement more complicated if we continue to see settlement activity..."

Asked about possible "obstacles" in the way of such a scenario, Gillard proceded to tie herself in knots: "I walked away from my conversation with the Israeli prime minister believing there was a real preparedness for a genuine discussion. He genuinely wants to step forward and engage in a discussion about peace. He has obviously made his predispositions as the prime minister of the nation clear, but he's also said he's prepared to participate in a discussion with the Palestinian leadership with no preconditions." This was apparently too hard for Our Lady of the Walkleys to unravel, and so the contradiction inherent in Netanyahu having "predispositions" (no Palestinian army, no Palestinian control over airspace, no sharing of Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees, Palestinian recognition of Israel as an ethnocracy), but "no preconditions," was left dangling.

Past this point, Gillard started sounding like Ayalon himself. When asked if the Australian government could see itself dealing with Hamas, she positively took the words right out of his mouth: Hamas was a "terrorist organization" that needed to "renounce violence." If images of Israeli state terror rose before her eyes, the Walkley Winner remained mum.

She did, however, raise the issue of Amnesty International's recent accusation of Israeli war crimes in Gaza (See Amnesty accuses Israel over Gaza, Jason Koutsoukis, SMH, 3/7/09). Gillard, continuing to channel Ayalon, responded: "We do need to remember this was an Israeli response to continued rocket attacks out of Gaza into Israeli civilian areas." And when asked about Israel's "level of force," Gillard-Ayalon was quick to assert "Israel's need to defend its people," before adding that "we've continued to express concerns about the humanitarian circumstances of the Palestinian people." And to whom in Israel did you express these concerns, and with what result? Attard didn't bother asking.

More 'Quality' Journalism at The Australian

2009-07-06T13:54:00.013+10:00

"Saddam Hussein was evil, but he was no genius. According to declassified FBI prison interviews with the Iraqi dictator he wanted the world to believe he was armed with weapons of mass destruction. His purpose was to intimidate Iran, which he feared more than the US... But by encouraging the US and its allies to overestimate his arsenal he designed his own destruction. These revelations end arguments the US invaded Iraq to make it an American puppet... And the way US energy companies pulled out of the bidding for petroleum concessions on offer in Iraq this week demonstrates arguments the war was all about oil were always nonsense. While the West's intelligence effort was utterly inadequate, all GW Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard are guilty of is being gulled by Saddam. He did his best to make them believe he was armed with chemical and biological weapons... [I]n invading Iraq the allies acted in good faith. Saddam wanted the world to believe he was armed and dangerous - and he succeeded." (As inept as he was evil: Saddam wanted the world to believe he was dangerous, The Australian editorial, 4/7/09)

Run that past me again: "[H]e wanted the world to believe he was armed with WMD." Did he now? What did Saddam really say in those declassified prison interviews?

"Saddam acknowledged Iraq had made a mistake in destroying some weapons without UN supervision. In Saddam's view UN inspectors wanted all their expenses... paid for by Iraq. Instead of waiting for the inspectors and bearing these expenses, Iraq commenced destruction of the weapons. Iraq did not hide these weapons. Regarding destruction of weapons, Saddam stated, 'We destroyed them. We told you, with documents. That's it.' When asked about restrictions placed on locations... Saddam replied, 'By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the United States'." (The Saddam Files: His final interviews, The Independent, 5/7/09) Nothing here about wanting the world to believe he had WMD.

Or here: "Saddam stated the development of WMD was for the defence of Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq demonstrated this with the use of WMD during the Iran-Iraq War, as Iran had threatened the sovereignty of Iraq. Yet Iraq did not use WMD during the 1991 Gulf War as its sovereignty was not threatened... Saddam claimed his position was that Iraq prior to the invasion did not have them." (ibid)

In fact, in the years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam denied having WMD. Hans Blix, head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification & Inspection Commission in Iraq (2000-2003), quotes from a letter of Saddam's (7/2/02) to the Turkish PM (cited by US Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation Robert Einhorn): "As pertains to the WMD, Iraq, which no longer has any of these weapons, and has no intention of producing them, is in the forefront of those who are keen that our region be free of WMDs." (Disarming Iraq: The Search for WMD, p 60)

The Australian's editorial is quality alright - quality bullshit.

Quality Journalism Heads South

2009-07-06T08:05:00.012+10:00

"Quality journalism,"* as produced by the "most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism"** Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan: "Latin America is a vast treasure house of cultural and human richness. But, at the moment, too much of it is going badly awry. Too much chilli in the burrito, not enough sweetness in the tortilla." (Where democracy heads south, The Sunday Telegraph, 5/7/09)

And in case you were wondering, it's supposed to be about the coup in Honduras.

Viva "quality journalism"!

[*See my 2/7/09 post Corrupting Serious Debate; **About Greg Sheridan, The Australian's website]

Honduras: The Israeli Connection

2009-07-03T17:54:00.018+10:00

The democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya has just been ovethrown in a military coup. The New York Times reminds us - ever so gently - that "The United States has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps train Honduran military forces. Those close ties have put the Obama administration in a difficult position, opening it up to accusations that it may have turned a blind eye to the pending coup. Administration officials strongly deny the charges, and Mr Obama's quick response to the Honduran president's removal has differed sharply from the actions of the Bush administration, which in 2002 offered a rapid, tacit endorsement of a short-lived coup against Mr Chavez." (In a coup in Honduras, ghosts of past US policies, Helene Cooper, 30/6/09)

But someone else has also had very close ties to the Honduran military:-

"Mention any trouble spot in the Third World over the past 10 years, and, inevitably, you will find smiling Israeli officers and shiny Israeli weapons on the news pages. The images have become familiar: the Uzi submachine gun or the Galil assault rifle, with Israeli officers named Uzi and Galil, or Golan, for good measure. We have seen them in South Africa, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, from Seoul to Tegucigalpa, from Walvis Bay to Guatemala City, from Taipei to Port-au-Prince, Israeli citizens and military men have been helping, in their own words, in 'the defense of the West'." (The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms & Why, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, 1987, p xii)

That's right, Tegucigalpa, capital of Honduras. Here are some of the pre-1987 details:-

"Honduras has the distinction of being the poorest country in one of the poorest regions of the world. This lack of resources does have its positive aspects, though; for instance, it has sometimes prevented the Honduran generals and their Israeli friends from carrying out grand designs for spending on new and sophisticated weapons. Honduran ground forces have been equipped with Israeli Galil rifles and Uzi submachine guns, and both the air force and ground forces have had Israeli advisors. Israel has played a crucial role in making the Honduran air force the strongest in Central America, by sending Israelis to train Honduran pilots, and by selling rebuilt French Dassault Super-Mystere B2 jets equipped with American engines. These jets, originally built in the 1950s and considered obsolete anywhere else today, are considered sophisticated in Central America - they were the first supersonic jet fighters in the region. Since 1977, Israel has sold twelve Super-Mysteres, three Arava transports, and a Westwind jet transport to Honduras, making it the leading air power in the region. (Israel wanted to sell its Kfir jet fighters to Honduras, but since their engines are made by General Eletric, the United States used its authority to block the sale.)

"The December 1982 visit to Honduras by Defence Minister Ariel Sharon received much attention. 'During my brief stay, I could take advantage of the opportunity to sign agreements on agriculture, health, and cultural assistance', he said at a news conference in Tegucigalpa. Sharon came only two days after President Ronald Reagan left - and according to a Honduran functionary, 'Sharon's trip was more positive. He sold us arms. Reagan only uttered platitudes, explaining that Congress was preventing him from doing more'. The Sharon entourage included General David Ivri, commander of the air force, and General Aharon Beit-Hallahmi, then director-general of the Defense Ministry. Besides signing a military accord, including weapons deliveries and training by Israeli advisors, Sharon visited miltary bases - and contra units based in Honduras.

"Interestingly, Sharon was invited not by the Honduran government, but by the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and strongman General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, who had told the world about his admiration for two great modern generals: Irwin Rommel and Ariel Sharon. The Sharon visit reciprocated Alvarez Martinez's secret visit to Israel in July. The major arms deal envisioned by Sharon did not materialize, apparently because of the Hondurans' lack of hard currency. Sharon's aides had proposed a rearmament program worth $200 million, while impoverished Honduras could offer only $1 million. Three years later, in August 1985, Honduran foreign minster Edgardo Paz Barnica visited Israel and announced that his country was interested in Israeli civilian aid, but not in arms or military advisers. He acknowledged that Israel had sent military aid and advisers in the past." (ibid, pp 88-89)

So what was Honduras like when Sharon admirer General Martinez was strutting his stuff? Did any of that alleged 'Light unto the nations' shine on Honduras?

"With the ascension of Ronald Reagan to the White House... US pressure to democratise ended, and the military strengthened its stranglehold over the economy... Tens of millions in military aid poured into the generals' coffers, and the country was used as a base for US covert actions in the region... The president was reduced to a figurehead, while the army chief, General Martinez, a fanatical anti-Communist, wielded the real power. Under General Martinez, a comprehensive 'anti-subversive' pogrom was carried out, and death squads roamed the land. Labor organizers, dissidents of every stripe, even Catholic priests were rounded up, jailed, tortured, and murdered. Trained in Argentina in the tactics of the 'dirty war', Martinez was unrelenting in his ferocity, and his reign of terror effectively shut down Honduran civil society - with the enthusiastic approval of the American embassy." (History haunts Honduras, Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, 30/6/09)

That was then. This is right now: "A Latin American expert sent me this from a major newspaper in Honduras: "Buena noticia. Embajadas de Taiwan e Israel reconocen al nuevo gobierno de Roberto Micheletti." (Good news. The embassies of Taiwan and Israel recognize the new government of Roberto Micheletti.) (The Angry Arab News Service, 1/7/09)

Will death squads be roaming the land once more?

The Palestinian Golan Heights

2009-07-02T18:07:00.008+10:00

Doug Anderson is the Sydney Morning Herald's TV reviewer. In today's edition, he reviews Beyond the Walls, a documentary on Israel's 100% illegal, land-grabbing West Bank Apartheid Wall to be screened on ABC Television tonight. Anderson has been the SMH's TV critic for as long as I can remember. His introductory sentences prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that too much television turns your brain to mush: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... in perpetuity. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is... Moshe Dayan? The arguments persist - lives are taken, sacrificed and wasted in an intractable dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Neither can claim the high moral ground yet both lay claim to the Golan Heights [!!!] and Yahoo Netanyahu's rubbery policy of 'no new settlements' (but gradual and natural growth) is matched by faster breeding among the Palestinians. Do I have a solution? Do you? No."

I have a solution, Doug, switch the bloody thing off for once in your life and read a book.

Corrupting Serious Debate

2009-07-02T14:39:00.004+10:00

Is that the truth? Or was your News Limited?

John Hartigan is the chairman and chief executive of Murdoch's News Limited, owner and publisher of The Australian, the foreign editor of which is Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan. Hartigan spoke yesterday to the National Press Club in Canberra. Among other things, he said, "several newspapers, notably the Wall Street Journal and The Australian... had prospered by investing in quality reporting." Just click on the 'Greg Sheridan' tag at the bottom of this post if you'd like to see what "quality reporting" means in action.

Hartigan had something else on his mind at the NPC: "Mr Hartigan... took aim at the blogosphere and so-called 'citizen journalism'. He said bloggers lacked the resources, training, skills and contacts to produce reliable news. 'Blogs and a large number of comment sites specialise in political extremism and personal vilification', he said. Mr Hartigan dismissed the claims often made by bloggers that theirs was a fresh, more democratic medium. 'Amateur journalism trivialises and corrupts serious debate', he said. 'It degenerates democracy into mob rule and rumour'." (Future of our newspapers is bright, Paul Maley, The Australian, 2/7/09)

Long live political extremism, personal vilification, the trivialisation and corruption of serious debate, mob rule, and rumour!

Lame As

2009-07-02T11:01:00.004+10:00

Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan in praise of DPM Julia Gillard: "Gillard's outlook on... international relations generally has matured and deepened enormously over the past few years." (Gillard prime ministerial material in Israel, The Australian, 25/6/09)

Julia Gillard, on the ABC's Radio National, displaying her alleged enormously matured and deepened outlook on international relations:-

Geraldine Doogue: Now Minister Gillard, you've just returned from Israel and the Middle East. You're known for a bit of a forensic mind yourself. I wonder - if you were trying to sit there solving those issues, what would be your top priority seeing what you just have?
Gillard (embarrassed laugh): Well I may have to defer to the great and the good like Tony Blair who are working on these problems, but having just been to the Middle East, it seems to me that there is good will on both sides, both the Israeli and Palestinian side. I think the parties need to sit down and negotiate issues that have been identified in earlier peace processes. They of course go to having a separate state for the Palestinian people, its borders, its government's arrangements, and the way in which Israel and that new state will work together. (Breakfast, 1/7/09)

It doesn't get much lamer than that.

Calling Italy a Christian State

2009-06-30T08:28:00.015+10:00

Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian, dispenser of Likudnik snake oil, and now Gillard soulmate, slipped this little gem into his propaganda piece for 27 June: "Netanyahu has lately insisted that the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab governments recognise Israel as a Jewish state. All of Israel's Arab interlocutors have refused point blank to do this. Israel's population is 75% Jewish, the only majority Jewish state in the world. Recognising Israel as a Jewish state would seem to be no more controversial than calling Italy a Christian state or any of the Arab nations Muslim states."

Don't you love the phrasing: "would seem to be"? Maybe, just maybe Netanyahu's demand is not as simple it seems? Of course, if "recognising Israel as a Jewish state" is "no more controversial than calling Italy a Christian state," then why the "insistence" and why the "refusal"?

The reference to Italy, of course, is completely disingenuous. The Italian government isn't insisting on its neighbours recognising it as a Christian state for the simple reason that Italy has not achieved nationhood in the way Israel has. Italian Christians did not a) enter Italy as colonists; b) ethnically cleanse a non-Christian majority population already in residence there; or (c) refuse to allow the return, as international law requires, of this ethnically cleansed non-Christian majority lest it outnumber Italian Christians such that they would no longer be able to retain their privileged status as Christians and Italy would become a secular state for all its citizens, Christian and otherwise.

As for Arab nations being Muslim (majority) states, this has nothing to do with ethnocratic, ethnic-cleansing colonial projects. Arab countries do not have Muslim majorities because indigenous non-Muslim majorities were expelled beyond their borders, just as European nations don't have Christian majorities because indigenous non-Christian majorities were expelled beyond their borders. There is no body of non-Muslim refugees clamouring for the right of return to Muslim-majority Arab nations, for the same reason that there is no body of non-Christian refugees clamouring for the right of return to Christian-majority European nations.

No, the only reason Netanyahu is insisting that the Palestinians and the Arab states grant Israel de jure recognition as a state which privileges Jews in law and is underpinned by a Jewish majority is so that Israel can claim that the legal right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands in Israel has been superseded and no longer applies, and so that Jews from any part of the world can relocate to Israel should they feel so inclined- with the Palestinian and Arab blessing that came from that de jure recognition.

I look forward to seeing Sheridan argue for a Christian state in Australia. After all, to rephrase him, "recognising Australia as a Christian state would seem to be no more controversial than calling Italy a Christian state."

Gillard Gets a Gong

2009-06-29T10:12:00.015+10:00

Surprise, surprise, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, one of Gillard's 40-strong entourage on her recent trip to Israel, has nothing but praise for her. As always, he's long on assertion, smear, and straw men, but short on evidence:-

"Gillard deserves particular praise for attending the [Australia Israel Leadership] forum, as she was subject to a nasty campaign from the Left to try to intimidate her out of going. The Left internationally is going through one of its periodic bouts of trying to isolate Israel. This is one of those demented moments where allegedly progressive opinion believe it's the height of creativity to engage the mullah dictatorship in Iran, as it steals elections and pursues nuclear weapons, but wrong to visit a democratic ally such as Israel. The Rudd government has stood four square against this nonsensical position, as demonstrated in Kevin Rudd's long telephone conversation with Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, earlier this week... Gillard also met Netanyahu and Israeli President Shimon Peres. Gillard's outlook on national security and international relations generally has matured and deepened enormously over the past few years. She certainly believes what she says. But there is also a good political dimension to what Gillard is doing. A Labour politician from the Left, she aspires one day to the prime ministership. The traditional doubt about the Left is that they tend to be anti-American or simply unreliable on national security. Gillard has given a series of speeches and performances that demonstrate she is 100% with Rudd in the mainstream Curtin-Hawke Labor tradition on the US alliance, the deployment of Australian forces overseas and indeed Israel and the Middle East." (Gillard prime ministerial in Israel, The Australian, 25/6/09)

The DPM, who didn't say boo about Israel's West Bank settlements in her "remarkably gracious address" (Sheridan's assessment) in Jerusalem, is now reportedly backing "the Obama administration's call for a freeze on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank." (Stop settlements, Gillard urges, John Lyons, The Australian, 27/6/09) However, when "[a]sked what action should be taken if Israel did not halt settlements, she said: 'I believe what President Obama is calling for and what the the world is looking towards is having a real dialogue that leads to progress." Howzat for a mature and deep outlook on international affairs? Sooo mature, sooo deep!

Just imagine if Gillard had replied thus: 'The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be 'frozen' or allowed to grow 'naturally'. But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more. It misses the most fundamental point. Under international law, all settlements on occupied territory are unlawful. And there is only one remedy: Israel should dismantle them, relocate the settlers within its recognized 1967 borders and compensate Palestinians for the losses the settlements have caused. Removing the settlements is mandated by the laws of the Geneva Convention, which state that military occupations are to be a temporary state of affairs and prohibit occupying powers from moving their populations into occupied territory. The intent is to foreclose an occupying power from later citing its population as 'facts on the ground' to claim the territory, something Israel has done in East Jerusalem and appears to want to do with much of the West Bank."*

Presumably, Sheridan would have denounced her as an immature and shallow product of the "demented Left." After all, Sheridan doesn't really have a problem with Israeli settlements: "Although I think Israel will be prepared to give up numerous settlements in the West Bank, I don't think [Gilot, Har Homa, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumin, Ariel] will be given up under any circumstances. The stereotype of the Jewish settler... is of 'a beligerently bearded Jew with a knit skullcap on his head, a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other'. It's a stereotype I didn't meet at all in any of these settlements, and not for want of trying, although of course I met only a fraction of the nearly 400,000 Jews who live beyond the 1967 lines... [T]he settlers I met lived where they did for a variety of reasons, mainly the lower cost of housing..." (Deep inside the plucky country, The Australian, 19/1/08)

[*Israel's settlements are on shaky ground, Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, latimes.com, 28/6/09)]

Rambamming Declined

2009-06-28T12:43:00.006+10:00

Paul Barratt is a former Defence Department official. The following quote is from his post Passionate Supporters of Israel at http://aussieobserver.blogspot.com/:

"The Israelis are very good at duchessing people. I had been Secretary to the Department of Defence for only a few weeks when I received a visit from the late Sir Peter Abeles*, with the Israeli Defence Attache in tow. They had come in ostensibly to talk about the merits of Israeli missiles - not a very profitable use of their time or mine because we buy military material through open competitive tender, so however impressed I might be with the capacities of Israeli missiles, it was not going to make any difference to anything. The real purpose of the visit was dropped in right at the end. The Government of Israel would like to invite me to visit Israel, all expenses paid, and of course you must bring your wife, you will have a wonderful time. I thanked them politely and made a mental note that that was never going to happen; how could I as a public official place myself in the position of being beholden to a foreign government? A pity not all of our parliamentarians feel that way."

[*TNT & Ansett boss, 1924-1999: "It was in 1949... that the 25-year-old Peter Abeles migrated to Australia from Hungary. The following half century saw him amass a powerful fortune and powerful allies on both sides of the political fence... BOB HAWKE: 'I knew when I saw Sir Peter last night that I would not be seeing him again. He was obviously in the very last stages of a great life. I was able to put a kiss on his forehead and say goodbye'." (7.30 Report, 25/6/99)]

Now Honestly...

2009-06-25T09:50:00.053+10:00

What follows is an update of my 29/5/09 post (Her Brilliant Career) on Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposed visit to Israel:-

After a detour to the United States, Gillard arrived in Israel to address the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum on 24/6/09 and reaffirm her government's claimed genetic ties to Israel. "Erev Tov Haverim (Good evening friends), Shalom, Salaam, G'Day!," she greeted the assembled faithful (who must have winced at the token Salaam) in her familiar nasal twang. "Our Forum is part of a wider celebration of Israeli and Australian culture," she droned on, echoing Rudd's parliamentary motion of 14/3/08: "That the House: (1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the state of Israel in the 60 years since its inception..." Yep, for the Ruddies, it seems, if not for the rest of the world (or the Australian people for that matter), Israel's always a cause for celebration.

Meanwhile, as Gillard & Co were busy celebrating the sheer festive magic that is Israel, out in the real world of the Israeli-Occupied Territories (OPT) it was business as usual: In the period 18-24 June, 5 Palestinian civilians, including a journalist, and an international human rights defender were wounded; the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) conducted 19 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank; the IOF arrested 22 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children in the West Bank; the IOF continued to impose a total siege on the OPT and isolate the Gaza Strip from the outside world; IOF troops positioned at military checkpoints continued to harass Palestinian civilians; the IOF continued measures aimed at establishing a Jewish majority in occupied east Jerusalem; the IOF forced 2 Palestinian civilians to demolish their homes, and issued demolition orders against others; Israeli settlements continued to expand in the West Bank and Israeli settlers continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property; Israeli settlers set fire to Palestinian farmers' tents, injuring 3; Israeli settlers uprooted at least 150 trees and razed dozens of dunums of agricultural land. (Weekly report on Israeli human rights violations in the OPTs, 18-24/6/09, reliefweb.int)

Central to Gillard's spiel was the invocation of the recently coined myth that Australia was somehow metaphysically present at key junctures in the history of the Zionist project, enabling, through its interventions, both the implementation of Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN partition resolution (181) of 29 November 1947. The myth's creators would have us believe that Australian troops, in action against the Turks at Beersheba in 1917, weren't so much doing their bit for King & Country as paving the way, via the Balfour Declaration, for the British Mandate over Palestine, from within whose womb the state of Israel emerged (See my 1/5/08 post Myth In-formation). As Gillard put it: "Yesterday the delegation visited the Park of the Australian Soldier at Beersheva. It is a wonderful reminder of our shared history and one more part of the legacy of the late Richard Pratt. It will serve as a place of pilgrimage for Australians and a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy today were hard-won."

The other aspect of our alleged "shared history" - former Labor Minister for External Affairs Dr HV Evatt's 1947 chairmanship of the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which proposed the partition of that country into a Jewish and an Arab state, was alluded to by Rudd in his abovementioned parliamentary motion "celebrating & commending" Israel's 60th anniversary: "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 chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on the Palestinian Question that proposed the partition of Palestine." (See my 14/3/08 post The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3) In Gillard's speech, we get this truncated version: "When a vote was called in 1947 on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, to establish separate Jewish and Arab States, the Australian delegate was the first to vote. The first vote in favour of Israel's right to full independent nationhood and its right to live securely within defined borders. Our support has continued strongly ever since..."

The very first vote, eh? Had Gillard visited one too many classrooms prior to her pilgrimage? Can't you just see the Australian delegate crying out 'Sir! Sir! Sir!' as he waves his hand furiously to catch the teacher's attention and beat all the other kids to the nod in response to the invitation: 'Right, now who wants to be first to vote for Israel?' That aside, Gillard's implication is that a vote in favour of UNGA Resolution 181 was something every little Goody Two-Shoes in the UNGA classroom back then automatically aspired to. In reality, of course, it was bully boy tactics in the schoolyard that secured the passage of the resolution.

Take, for example, the case of the head of the Philippino delegation: "Speaking to the General Assembly, Mr Romulo, on the morning of 26 November 1947, said: 'My delegation takes part in this final stage in the consideration of the Palestinian problem with profound misgivings. With interest, we have followed the course of the debate since the special session of the General Assembly last April. We have carefully studied the Report of the Special Committee on Palestine and pondered the various proposals that have been submitted. As a result of these studies, the Philippines Government has come to the conclusion that it cannot give its support to any proposal for the political disunion and the territorial dismemberment of Palestine... We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which, not being mandatory under any specific provision of the Charter nor in accordance with its fundamental principles, is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government believes that the United Nations ought not to accept any such responsibility'. On the orders of his government, Romulo was on the Queen Elizabeth bound for Europe within hours of delivering his fiery speech against partition. [The Philippines] Ambassador [to the US] Elizalde had spoken by telephone to President Roxas and told him of the many pressures to which Romulo and the delegation had been subjected. While the ambassador believed that partition was not wise, he felt that it would be foolish to vote against a policy so ardently desired by the US Administration at a time when 7 bills important to the Islands were pending in the US Congress. The Ambassador and President Roxas agreed that support could be gained easily by voting properly on Palestine. In Manila, as political adviser to the President of the Philippines, was Julius CC Edelstein, a confidant of Zionist Herbert H Lehman." (The Palestine Diary, Vol 2, 1945-1948, Robert John & Sami Hadawi, 1970, p 250)

Do I need to add that on 29 November the Philippines' delegate voted for partition?

I've already posted on the Machiavellian politics of partitioning Palestine (The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3, 14/3/08; Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution, 11/11/08), and suggested that Australia's role, such as it was, is hardly something to be proud of (Evatt's Legacy, 5/12/08). However, by invoking the myth of Australian troops as closet Zionists and Evatt as some latter-day Lord Balfour, Gillard was able to avoid reference to the only genuine historical link between Australia and Israel - our common origins as colonial-settler states created at the expense of pre-existing indigenous populations. The closest she got was this: "Both [nations] have been established and built in difficult, sometimes hostile, physical conditions."

Another near-brush with reality came with her talk of a "world where exclusion and humiliation breed despair and hatred" - surely a reference to Israel and its 61-year exclusion of Palestinian refugees and 42-year occupation of the Palestinian territories? Err, no. Iran was what she touched on next, though how such words apply there is beyond me. Yet, if she were really serious about the "despair and hatred" of the wretched of the earth - which she clearly isn't - she need look no further than Israel's cruel experiment in Gaza.

Take, for example, the case of 20-year old trainee teacher Yahya Abu Saif, a resident of the Gaza Strip. Back in January, when the Israelis were raining fire and brimstone on Gaza, Yahya was in a mosque targeted by an Israeli missile. His right leg was amputated and the shrapnel which pierced his skull, paralysing his left side. Weekdays he's in Gaza's only rehabilitation hospital, a shattered building with perforated walls and a disabled hydrotherapy pool. Neither the hospital nor its pool can be repaired because Israel won't allow any building materials into Gaza. Yahya needs a special right-hand controlled wheelchair, but the Israelis won't allow them in either. He comes home on weekends to a 5-room house with 13 occupants, only 2 of whom have work. The toilet, a hole in the floor, is at the bottom of 6 steep, concrete steps. A local organization wants to build him an accessible toilet, but you guessed it, the Israelis won't allow any building materials into Gaza. Yahya needs an artificial leg, but the Israelis will only allow a drip-feed of prosthetic equipment and medical supplies into Gaza. (See Recovery battle for Gaza war injured, Heather Sharp, BBC News, 24/6/09)

Gaza, of course, isn't on Gillard's itinerary. In fact, it's as remote from her mind as the moon. She hasn't a flicker of interest in how Israel (or any other terror state for that matter) sadistically keeps an entire subject people in various states of "despair and hatred." She's simply too busy being stroked by the Israelis: "In front of an elite audience of Israeli politicians, academics and cultural figures at a dinner at the landmark King David Hotel, senior Israeli minister Isaac Herzog paid a warm tribute to Ms Gillard for her support for Israel during the Gaza conflict in January. 'You stood almost alone on the world stage in support of Israel's right to defend itself', enthused Mr Herzog, an act of courage he said would never be forgotten by the people of Israel... Mr Herzog, a personal friend of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and chairman of the Israel-Australia parliamentary association, also thanked federal parliamentarians for passing a motion last year in support of Israel's 60th anniversary." (Israel to Gillard: thanks for standing by us, Jason Koutsoukis, The Age, 24/6/09)

"We should be honest about the difficulty of achieving a just and lasting settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she droned on.

Now honestly...

Gillard's vapid and platitude-ridden speech fairly reeks of dishonesty and ignorance. She's definitely prime minister material. Have a nice day.

Children of a Lesser God 2

2009-06-24T08:41:00.010+10:00

Obama spoke up for Neda Agha-Soltan:-

"Obama paid tribute to the women of Iran, pointing to the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, a bystander who was apparently shot in the chest and died bleeding on the street in a grisly death flashed around the world on the Internet. 'We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets', Obama said. 'While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history', he said." (Obama 'strongly condemns' Iran, says not interfering, AFP, 24/6/09)

Obama remained silent for Basem Abu Rahme:-

"Friday, 17 April 2009, Bil'in Village: a resident has been killed by Israeli forces during a demonstration. Basem Abu Rahme, 29 years of age, was shot in the chest with a high-velocity tear gas projectile... According to eyewitnesses, Basem was on a hill with several journalists to the side of the other demonstrators. Soldiers opened fire from 40 metres, aiming directly with the tear-gas projectiles... According to Michael Sfard, the lawyer representing the village of Bil'in, 'The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled 3 times that the route of the Wall is illegal and needs to be removed. However, to date not a meter of the Wall has been rerouted'. Basem Abu Rahme is the 18th individual to be killed by Israeli forces during a demonstration against the Wall." (Demonstrator killed in Bil'in by Israeli forces, International Solidarity Movement Digest, 20/4/09)

Make that 19:-

"Palestinian officials reported on Friday that a Palestinian demonstrator had been killed during the weekly anti-separation fence rally near the West Bank town of Na'alin. Palestinian medical officials said 36-year old Yusuf Srour... was hit in the chest by a live bullet and another protestor was wounded when [Israeli] soldiers fired at protesters." (Palestinian protester killed during Na'alin rally, Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz, 5/6/09)

Needless to say, Obama also remained silent for Yusuf Srour.

Hezbikies Ho!

2009-06-23T08:12:00.022+10:00

The following sentence concludes a letter (ostensibly on Iran) published in The Australian on June 20:

"In fact there seems to be little sympathy for the Palestinians on the streets of Tehran, and the reported attacks on protestors by imported Hamas and Hezbollah thugs have caused additional anger." (Mary Werther, Camberwell, Vic.)

Reported, eh? In part, Werther's letter recycles the following disinformation from Israel's right-wing rag The Jerusalem Post: "Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters on the streets of the Iranian capital said on Tuesday... 'The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of', said a protester who did not wish to be identified, 'is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots'. Another protestor... also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran [sic]. On Monday, he said, 'my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too'. It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad 'tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel'. His hope, he added, was that Israel would 'come to its senses' and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians." (Report: Hamas helping Iran crush dissent, The Australian Jewish News, 19/6/09)

Apparently, we're expected to believe that, among the thousands of demonstrators flooding the streets of Tehran, the Jerusalem Post has managed to locate a pair (no names, no pack drill) who are more pissed off with Hamas and Israel's alleged mollycoddling of the Palestinians than they are with Ahmedinajad.

Werther also mentions "Hezbollah thugs." In which case she may have been perusing another choice site, worldtribune.com: "Iran opposition sources said Hamas and Hizbullah have come to the aide [sic] of government forces in wake of the presidential elections... They said Hamas and Hizbullah officers trained by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iran employed brutal tactics against students and other supporters of Ahmadinejad's chief rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi [sic]. 'We have seen masked and unmasked security personnel who were speaking with a clear Arabic accent or simply did not look Iranian', an opposition source said... The sources said the use of motorcycles by Hizbullah, said to have been developed in 2006, was seen in IRGC and Basij operations against pro-Moussavi [sic] demonstrators in Teheran [sic]..." (Hamas, Hizbullah join Iran's paramilitary forces in post-vote crackdown, 19/6/09)

Why, you all remember those Hezbollah bikies who took on the most moral army in the universe back in '06, don't you? And how, until those same Hezbikies thundered into Tehran, motorcycles were completely unknown in Iran?

For a more detailed discussion of this nonsense see Right-wing Media & Twitter Echo-Chamber Continues to Spread Unsubstantiated Rumors (19/6/09) at Views from the Occident blog.

Children of a Lesser God

2009-06-22T19:15:00.004+10:00

"President Obama reacted to the unfolding events in Iran by issuing a statement calling on the government of Iran to "stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people"... "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching"..."The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights"... "Martin Luther King once said -- 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice'. I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness"... "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion." (Obama to Iran: 'Stop all violent & unjust actions', Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post, 20/6/09)

"Despite growing pressure on Barack Obama to speak out on the crisis in Gaza, the US president-elect has remained silent on the issue." (Obama's Gaza silence condemned, aljazeera.net, 31/12/08)

Intelligence You Can Trust

2009-06-21T09:04:00.002+10:00

"US legislators are seeking a review of the US listing of a Uighur Muslim group in northwestern China as 'terrorist', accusing US authorities of relying on intelligence from Beijing." (Uighurs defended, Sydney Morning Herald, 18/6/09)

Of course, US legislators will continue to rely on intelligence from Tel Aviv.

Massacres? What Massacres?

2009-06-20T10:59:00.005+10:00

"Right now, today, Palestinians are demonstrating peacefully in the occupied territories, protesting the demolition of their homes by the Israeli authorities and government-backed 'settlers' decrying the shameful 'Wall of Separation', and demanding an end to the daily indignities visited on them by the occupiers of their land. Yet we don't see American web sites changing their colors in showy displays of narcissistic 'solidarity'. We don't see 24/7 breathless blogger coverage of events as they unfold - heck, we don't even hear about it at all. When the Israelis went in to Gaza and killed thousands, injuring thousands more, these people were nowhere to be found: or, at any rate, there was a notable lack of breathlessness in their coverage, such as it was." (Iran's Green Revolution, Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, 19/6/09)

Headline for John Lyons' report from Tehran in yesterday's The Australian: Students massacred in attack on uni

In the opening paragraphs we read: "Details emerged last night of a massacre of students at Tehran University by suspected members of the Basij militia as opposition supporters planned a day of mourning for slain protesters. At least 3 men and 2 women were killed in the attack on their dormitory on Sunday night."

Hold that thought: 5 killed=massacre. Got it?

Now revisit The Australian's headlines for December 2008 and January 2009 when Israel's massacres in Gaza were in full swing:-

29/12: Israel may follow strikes with ground war And in the body of the report: 270 killed.
2/1: Hamas appeals for ceasefire in Gaza (400 killed)
3/1: Nuclear fear drives Israel's hard line (425 killed)
6/1: Israeli chemical cover for Gaza assault (500 killed)
8/1: UN rejects claim on school (660 killed)
9/1: Lebanese rockets fire on Israel (700 killed)
12/1: Israelis split on do-or-die decision (850 killed)
13/1: Troops mass as Gaza endgame looms (879 killed)
14/1: Israel divided over its next move (900 killed)
15/1: Olmert dodging ceasefie meetings (1000 killed)
19/1: Hamas rockets break truce (1200 killed)
20/1: Israel begins withdrawal after truce (1300 killed)

Moral of story: In Murdoch fish wrapper, if Iranian forces murder 5 or more Iranian protestors, it's a massacre. If Israeli forces murder 1300 or more Palestinians, it ain't.

Having Their Cake & Eating It Too

2009-06-19T17:35:00.011+10:00

Thou shalt have no other historical narrative before Me...

In 2011, all Australian schools will be switching to a national curriculum. Zionist indoctrinators, however, are concerned:

"It is... particularly significant that the draft version of the year 10 history curriculum... contained the following: 'The Holocaust that Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on European Jewry will be studied in its own right. Its enduring consequences will also be considered, including... the establishment of Israel and its effects on Palestinians'. The leadership of the Jewish community had lobbied for the inclusion of the Holocaust in the curriculum. We can only speculate whether this explicit linkage between the destruction of European Jewry and the situation [!] of the Palestinians was included as a counterbalance and a concession to pressure from anti-Zionist groups. Whatever the origin, the draft version of the curriculum would oblige every year 10 student in Australia to learn that the plight of the Palestinians is a consequence of the Holocaust. This is precisely the position of Hamas and its ilk, who ask why Arabs should 'suffer' for the sins of Europeans. And it is but a short jump to compare Israelis to Nazis... A strongly argued response from the community, assisted by history teachers in Jewish schools, explained why the linkage was unacceptable on educational and historical grounds. Only when the final curriculum is published will we know if this was successful." (The dangers of a national curriculum, Rabbi James Kennard*, The Australian Jewish News, 12/6/09)

[*Principal of Mount Scopus Memorial College]

So Rabbi Kennard believes that linking the Holocaust with the plight of the Palestinians is unacceptable on historical grounds.

In a sense, he's correct: Zionism was around long before the Holocaust and the creation of Israel was not a response to it.

Zionists, however, as Norman Finkelstein reminds us in his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, use the Holocaust to cast Israel as a 'victim' state, and shield it from justified criticism for its appalling treatment of the Palestinians. It has become in their hands, says Finkelstein, "an indispensible ideological weapon." (See my 14/12/08 post Quack Cure) Gush Shalom's Uri Avnery describes the utility of the Holocaust thus: "Once we could rely on the Holocaust. We said Holocaust, and the room fell silent. We could oppress the Palestinians, steal their lands, set up settlements, scatter checkpoints everywhere like the droppings of flies, blockade Gaza and so on. When the Goyim opened their mouths to protest, we cried 'Holocaust' - and the words froze on their lips." (Obama won't wink back, 13/6/09)

What's that about Pandora's box?

Groundbreaking Stuff (& Nonsense) at the SMH

2009-06-16T19:18:00.012+10:00

Groundbreaking stuff! The Sydney Morning Herald's Middle East correspondent Jason Koutsoukis reveals a hitherto unknown era in Palestinian politics - the Palestinian occupation - yes, occupation - of the West Bank (1948-1967):-

"When Netanyahu's immediate predecessor, Ehud Olmert, went to Annapolis in 2007 and promised the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have included nearly 100% of the land occupied by Palestinians between 1948 and 1967, even more was on offer than at Camp David. And still Abbas was unable to accept such a deal." (Big step for PM means no turning back now, 16/6/09)

More groundbreaking stuff!! The SMH editorialist reveals for the very first time that Israelis in 1948 were, even then, not only making generous offers (a la Ehud Barak), but that hordes of Palestinians had actually accepted them! If only Arafat had known back at Camp David that his own people had set such a precedent in 1948, the entire course of the Middle East conflict would surely have been different:-

"Palestinians are asked to renounce the right of return to homes from which they were forced or induced to flee in 1948 and 1967..." (16/6/09)

Even more groundbreaking stuff!!! The SMH editorialist discovers that Israel isn't yet a Jewish state. Currently, it's apparently just a "homeland for Jews, mostly" meaning Balfour was right and Herzl was wrong:-

"As part of this [Netanyahu's generous offer], the Palestinians are asked to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, though what this means is unclear. Is Israeli [sic] going to be Jewish, in the sense that Iran is Islamic, or a homeland for Jews, mostly?" (16/6/09)

Yet more groundbreaking stuff!!!! The SMH editorialist has discovered that, contrary to long established historical and political fact, Israel has actually had a constitution now for around 6 decades (but hasn't yet got around to road-testing it):-

"For a country still working on its constitution, 60 [sic] years after its foundation..." (16/6/09)

It's cutting edge, investigative journalism and informed opinion such as this that make the SMH the quality broadsheet we all know and love.

Australia's Thomas Friedman?

2009-06-15T09:39:00.018+10:00

"Is there anything more annoying than a Western correspondent parachuting into a foreign country and offering, only hours after his arrival, words of wisdom and analysis about that country? And who can compete with Thomas Friedman* in that regard? Really. He said: "First, a solid majority of Lebanese Christians voted against the list of Michel Aoun, who wanted to align their community with the Shiite Hezbollah party, and tacitly Iran, because he viewed them as best able to protect Christian interests - not the West." Of course, he was wrong... not only did Aoun remain the person with the largest Christian bloc in parliament (in fact, his bloc expanded from 2005) but he received 50% (versus 49%) of the Christian vote nationwide. And, in the key areas where Aoun lost, such as Zahle, it was due to Sunni votes... He then said: "Second, a solid majority of all Lebanese - Muslims, Christians and Druse - voted for the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri , the son of the slain Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri." Well, sorry to disappoint, but if you measure the popular vote, it was in favor of the opposition: "the 'losers' got 54.8% of the total vote (839,371) and the 'winners' 45.2% (692,285)."** He then adds: "Ballots were the only weapons the March 14 coalition had against an Iran-Hezbollah-Syria alliance..." Well, yes, ballots and: 1) Saudi & Western money; 2) acute sectarian mobilization and agitation that would have made Zarqawi proud; 3) Hariri money; 4) intervention by the Lebanese president against Aoun; 5) intervention by the Maronite church in favor of March 14... He then said: "I watched the voting at a school in Brummana. People came by car, by wheelchair, by foot - young, old and sick." Don't get me wrong: Thomas Friedman can only write recycled cliches, but could you find a more hackneyed cliche about an election than this one?" (Thomas Friedman in Beirut, The Angry Arab News Service, 10/6/09)

[*New York Times columnist. Friedman often crops up in The Sydney Morning Herald, most recently on 5/6/09;**Ah, that damned popular vote, friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com, 9/6/09]

But don't worry, we have our own Thomas Friedmans. Some gems from The Australian's Middle East correspondent John Lyons, 'reporting' from Beirut (Vote for bombs or business, 13/6/09):-

"... the 40,000 missiles that Hezbollah claims to have along the border with Israel..." Hang on, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, your foreign editor, said on 11/6/o9 that it was 50,000 (A new cold war in the Mid-East). Do I hear 60,000?

"Lebanon... voted to keep Hezbollah from formally taking control in a country awash with weapons. The result highlights two Lebanons: the victorious March 14 Alliance, led by Saad Hariri, which is popular among young Lebanese who want to engage with the world, and the defeated March 8 Alliance whose support base, Hezbollah, is made up of fundamentalist Shi'ite Muslims who look to Iran for religious and financial support." How to explain then that 50.3% of Christians, 25% of Sunnis, and 30% of Druse voted for March 8? (Brilliant insights on Lebanon from Elliot Abrams, The Angry Arab News Service, 13/6/09)

"The two Lebanons are obvious to see when The Inquirer takes a tour of one of Hezbollah's strongholds, the southern suburbs of Beirut. Leaving the city we drive past the Sabra & Shatila camps for Palestinian refugees, made famous in 1982 after 800 Palestinians were massacred there by militia allied to Israel." Alas, the most definitive study of the massacre to date - Sabra & Shatila: September 1982 (2004) by Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout -estimates 3,500 victims. So here's the trick: If it's Hamas/Hezbollah rockets, the sky's the limit. If it's Palestinian/Lebanese victims of Israeli aggression, no number is too low.

"Pacifist Hezbollah is not." Pacifist Israel is...???

"While Nasrallah, with his firebrand speeches vowing wrath on Israel...." How impressive! Lyons of Lebanon has not only mastered Arabic, but he's actually heard/read all of Hassan Nasrallah's speeches!

"Although the location of Nasrallah's home is secret because of fears that the Israelis want to kill him, one local tells me he knows where it is, then takes me down a side street. Uniformed Hezbollah soldiers sitting on the corners of an otherwise abandoned block suggest someone of importance is being guarded."Lyons puts Mossad to shame. His talents are obviously wasted at The Australian. He should be put on the trail of Osama bin Laden immediately.

"The enthusiastic local takes me past Hezbollah's military headquarters... Around here are dozens of new buildings that have replaced those bombed by Israel in 2006. Iranian funding is obvious from the many buildings displaying Iranian names." Amaazing! Lyons is also fluent in Farsi!

When Greg Met David

2009-06-12T17:45:00.031+10:00

When Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, self-styled "most influential foreign affairs commentator in Australia" (Australian website) and foreign editor of The Australian, writes (apropos the Lebanese elections) that "The best piece of writing on Lebanon in recent months was a brilliant cover story in the May 20 issue of The New Republic*. In it, journalist David Samuels recounts an interview with former Lebanese president Amin Gemayel, in which he outlines Hezbollah's strategic value to Iran*" you just know that you've got to sit up and take notice, right?

[*The Year of the Elephant; **A new cold war in the Mid-East, 11/6/09]

After all, Sheridan is a highly respected Lebanon expert with impeccable sources: "Lebanon, its sons and daughters will tell you, used to be the best country in the world. Beirut was the Paris of the east." And TNR is the very model of a modern neoconservative, pro-Israel magazine. And David Samuels* is a Zionisto from Brooklyn, who, as he says in the essay that so inspired our Greg, was brought to Lebanon by "The New Opinion Group, an NGO aligned with March 14**," along with such fearless journalistic investigators as Judith Miller, who penned all those juicy fairytales about Saddam's WMDs for The New York Times before she was dropped for creative writing.

[* I'm sure you'll be just as interested in Samuels' article for The Atlantic Monthly about the paparazzi who trail Britney Spears (Shooting Britney, April, 2008); **Hm, an "NGO aligned with" a governing coalition? How very interesting!]

Anyway, to cut to the chase, after reading Sheridan's column on Lebanon, I was so intrigued by what Samuels had to say that I thought I'd look his essay up and see a) Exactly what he had to say; b) What insights into Lebanon "the best piece of writing on Lebanon in recent months" had to offer; and c) How Australia's Lebanon expert, Sheridan, could top these. IOW, I was curious to know what happens when "the most influential foreign affairs commentator in Australia" meets the best writer on Lebanon in recent months.

Talk of the town, of course, is Hezbollah, described by Sheridan as a "devoutly Shi'ite terrorist group controlled by Iran." "Hezbollah won all the sears it contested," he laments, and "will continue to wield by far the most powerful army in Lebanon," possessing "50,000 rockets deployed on Israel's border." Of course, Sheridan has a way with numbers*, at variance with both Hassan Nasrallah (33,000 rockets) and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who will only say that the organization has "more rockets than before the Second Lebanon War." ('Hezbollah has more rockets than before Lebanon War', Haaretz, 27/5/09)

[* See my 4/2/08 & 10/2/08 posts When Even the Retraction is Dodgy 1 & 2]

Sheridan quotes Samuels, who quotes Gemayel: "In the form of Hezbollah, they [Iran] get a brigade on the Mediterranean and on the border with Israel. So $100 million a year they spend here is nothing." In typical partisan fashion, though, he omits the bit in Samuels about the "hundreds of millions of Saudi dollars that are flowing into Hariri's coalition."

And speaking of Sa'ad Hariri, Sheridan is at pains, drawing on Samuels' interview with him, to point out that Hariri is so in danger from Hezbollah/Iran/Syria that he "lives behind [sic] a fortress." "If he wants to go out for an evening meal at a restaurant, he goes overseas." What about getting safely to Beirut Airport? I hear you ask. Presumably, by contrast, Hariri's nemesis, Hassan Nasrallah, has the streets (and restaurants) of Beirut all to himself. Not so, according to Samuels. The Hezbollah leader, in fact, has to deliver his speech in honor of the birth of the Prophet Mohammed from a "bunker." But then, for Sheridan to admit as much would entail an admission that Israel is doing more than just twiddling its thumbs south of the border. You see, when Sheridan mutters darkly about "giant, convulsive and violent forces... at work within [Lebanese] society...," you're only supposed to be thinking Iran, Syria, Iran, Syria... never Israel, America, Saudi Arabia.

Writes Sheridan: "Samuels argues that Lebanon offers a taste of the future in the Middle East, once Iran has a nuclear weapon and can operate anywhere without fear of military retaliation. For Iran and Syria today operate with a virtually free hand in Lebanon." You bet -poor old Samuels had the heebie jeebies like you wouldn't believe while in Lebanon. Check this out: "[Y]ou can get a pretty accurate sense of how Lebanon works by sitting in a restaurant in the Albergo Hotel, a decidedly luxurious place where I had lunch with a former intelligence professional and watched a dozen Lebanese cabinet ministers savor excellent Italian dishes. The tailored suits, the loosened ties, the broad hands, the arrangement of tall flowers in the center of the room - the scene had the sunlit inner presence, the radiant sensual completeness, of the world of physical objects as painted by Bonnard or Vuillard. Watching the ministers as they conducted their business, it was easy to see how the philosophical embrace of the physical world makes good sense here. Nasrallah and his patrons in Iran guarantee the stability of the country while, day to day, mouthing all kinds of insane stuff designed to paralyze the faculty of reason. Someday soon, the key will turn in the lock, the door will open and they will blow Lebanon to smithereens. Meanwhile, there are precious moments of physical existence to be savored, such as a diamond necklace for one's wife, a pair of earrings for one's mistress, a sizable deposit in a numbered bank account, and shrimp fettucini at the Albergo." Tres fin de siecle, non? Curiously, however, Samuels' purple prose prediction doesn't prevent him from noting elsewhere in his essay that "if the purpose of the Lebanese elections were to select the most capable man in the country, regardless of party or foreign affiliations, Nasrallah would win in a landslide."

Of course, when it comes to Hezbollah, there's no such ambiguity for Sheridan: "The Hezbollah group [sic] is called the March 8 coalition and involves Hezbollah, another Shia group called Amal and the Christian forces of former general Michel Aoun. Aoun's forces were the big losers in the election. The inherent madness of Lebanese politics and the sheer desperate scramble to survive is evident in Aoun's electoral alliance with Hezbollah. This is an alliance against nature and against conviction. Aoun was once the hero of Lebanese resistence to to Syrian hegemony. One of Aoun's election posters features a dazzlingly beautiful, bare-armed young woman wearing saucy orange lipstick* and with plucked eyebrows. The caption urged women to 'be beautiful and vote'. Yet Aoun's allies, Hezbollah, are Islamic fundamentalists who want an Islamic state. Go figure." Blimey, where do I start? Aoun was the big loser? Not so, according to the Angry Arab: "[N]ot only did Aoun remain the person with the largest Christian bloc in parliament (his bloc expanded since 2005) but overall he received some 50% of the Christian vote versus 49% if measured nationwide. And, in the key areas where Aoun lost, such as Zahle, it was due to Sunni votes." (Thomas Friedman in Beirut, The Angry Arab News Service, 10/6/09) And that alluring young Lebanese female with the saucy orange lipstick? Orange just happens to be the colour of Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement. As for Hezbollah wanting an Islamic state, if Sheridan had bothered to consult the book by Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's deputy Secretary-General, Hizbullah: The Story from Within (2005), he would have read the following: "The creation of an Islamic state is thus not a function of adoption by one group or branch and a subsequent imposition on other groups... [W]e call for the implementation of the Islamic system based on a direct and free choice of the people, and not through forceful imposition as may be assumed by some. The message is clear, and beckons the creation of an Islamic state based on free public choice. We are hence in perfect harmony with our convictions and with the practical, objective circumstances surrounding us. As long as such circumstances are not in support of the project, either due to peoples' diverging opinions or for any other reasons, we would consider ourselves forgivable in the sense that we have conveyed the message and declared our stance, thereby leaving it up to the people to choose their governing system and bear the responsibility for such choice: And if thy Lord willed, all who are on the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou [Muhammad] compel men until they are believers?" (p 31)

Greg and David - made for each other.

Suckholes for Zion

2009-06-10T20:08:00.015+10:00

"The best-laid plans of mice and men/ often go awry":-

"Foreign editor of The Australian Greg [Jerusalem Prize] Sheridan was supposed to be keynote speaker at the [Jewish National Fund's] AGM, but pulled out at the last minute because of illness. He was replaced by Paul Sheehan from The Sydney Morning Herald. Sheehan, who has visited Israel a number of times, told the AGM that we are currently living through 'possibly the greatest era' in Jewish history. He praised Israel and its people for their 'strategic and intellectual depth'. As a gesture of gratitude, 50 trees were planted in Israel in Sheehan's name." (JNF turns over a new leaf, The Australian Jewish News, 5/6/09)

Hm, maybe we now have enough data to posit the existence of a sliding scale of Zionist awards:-

Occasional Scribblers for Zion (eg Paul Sheehan): 50 trees planted over razed Palestinian village from 1948*

Constant Scribblers for Zion (eg Greg Sheridan): The Jerusalem Prize

Lackeys of Zion- Prime Minister/Opposition Leader level: Forest planted over razed Palestinian village (eg RG Menzies - Menzies Forest, Galilee; AA Calwell Forest of Life, Jerusalem; Bob Hawke - Australia-Israel Friendship Forest [dedicated to all the prime ministers of Australia & Israel as a tribute to the Australian Bicentenary & the 40th Anniversary of the State of Israel], Galilee; John Howard - John Howard Negev Forest)

[*See my 14/6/08 post A Certain Jewish Tree Planting Group]