The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

by Ted Lapkin, 24 August 2015

The weekend-before-last the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) held its annual Plenary Conference at the Sydney Jewish Museum. And while Israeli journalist Shmuel Rosner’s presentations were both enjoyable and enlightening, the undoubted high point of the Conference was his conversation with Malcolm Turnbull.

As someone who has spent considerable time as a political media advisor in Canberra, the back-and-forth between interviewer and interviewee was immediately recognisable. Rosner posed incisive questions that Turnbull answered or deftly parried with the aplomb of an old political hand.

When asked about his attitude towards the Obama Administration’s Iran nuclear deal, Turnbull adhered to the Abbot Government line:

We have welcomed it cautiously. The best that you can say for the agreement it is better than the status quo because it does introduce some degree of over sight. I recognise and empathise with the anxiety in Israel but as for just continuing the sanctions indefinitely…the judgement’s been made by the P5+1.

Turnbull could be – and was – more forthcoming when asked about the shift within the ALP on the Middle East. Noting the importance of broad-based support for Israel, he said:

I think there is reason to be concerned. I think it is very important that support for Israel is bipartisan … We see ourselves as having shared valued with Israel. We see Israel as being in the first trench…in the first line of the battle against extremists and terrorism. We are definitely on the same side.

Meanwhile the Times of Israel is reporting that last Thursday’s desultory rocket fire from Syria into the Galilee and Golan is the joint work of Iranian’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and Palestinian jihadis. In the IDF’s view this barrage of five rockets was clearly pre-meditated, by contrast with the stray mortar shells that have occasionally hit the Golan as crossfire in Syria’s civil war.

We are fortunate that this incoming fire caused no casualties or property damage beyond igniting a bushfire that was quickly extinguished. But as Ynet reports, the IDF predicts we are likely to see more of the same in the weeks and months to come.

The Iranians want to heat up the front against us in the northern and southern Golan," said the officer. "It’s in the Syrian and Iranian interest."

And of course, Israel did not sit quietly in the face of this unprovoked attack, responding with artillery and air strikes against 14 military targets in the Quneitra area.

On a more positive note the Australian Jewish community last week was ‘kvelling’ with pride over the appointment of one of its own as Israel’s Ambassador to the Court of St James – the formal title of a non-Commonwealth ambassador to the UK. Long-time Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev,  a graduate  of Mt Scopus and Melbourne University, made aliya in 1982, entering the ranks of the Israeli diplomatic corps in 1990.

Regev has garnered a considerable public profile as the face of Israeli government policy, braving the slings and arrows of media hostility in the best Daniel-in-the-Lions’-Den tradition. Never losing his cool in the face of even the most adversarial questioning he has earned the grudging respect even of those not naturally well-disposed towards Israel:

If the men from Mars ever wanted to manufacture a PR man, they would model their robot on Regev. No matter how formidable the interviewer, or how aggressive the questioning, he never buckles under pressure. His disarming Aussie accent and unfailing politeness – he calls interviewers "Sir" and uses phrases like "I beg to disagree" … He is unlikely to win sceptics to Israel's cause, but as a PR performer he is horribly compelling.

That’s high praise indeed from a left-leaning newspaper like the Guardian, which over the years has become notorious for its hyper-critical attitude towards Israel.

The Australian also recently featured a story in its business section citing possibilities for collaboration between Israel and Australia in the high-tech start-up sector. Under the headline “Learn from Israel: Risk Brings Rewards”, the article cited an assessment by leading Israeli venture capitalist  Jon Medved on Australia’s potential for hi-tech innovation:

“You guys have tremendous brains, an innovative culture, a great Western-style economy and tons of capital. Just look at your superannuation funds. It’s all there, now it’s time to get it moving

But as the article noted, Australia has a way to go, with only $100-to-$300 million invested in Australia annually compared to almost $US5 billion invested in Israeli hi-tech start-ups.

But there are also things that Australians can teach Israelis, as evidenced by what surely must be deemed the good news story of the week. An article in The Australian highlighted the visit to Israel of a delegation from Surf Lifesaving Australia to advise on the establishment of a “Nippers” program to teach water safety skills. Organised by Sydney surfing aficionado Steven Rubner, this initiative brought Aussie life savers from Coogee to a beach near the coastal town of Ashdod where they taught the basics to Israeli youngsters.

A frequent visitor to Israel, Rubner was shocked by the drowning deaths of five Israelis over the course of a single weekend in 2013. Resolving to do something about it, he contacted Surf Live Saving Australia’s Doug Hawkins, who “jumped at the chance to set up the Middle East’s first junior life saving franchise.”

So there we have it – the good, the bad and the ugly. A typical week in the ever-surprising, ever-predictable Middle East.

New Israel Fund: wolf in sheep’s clothing

From Im Tirtzu, 23 July 2015 by Douglas Altabef, Executive Board Member:

The [recent] defences [in the AJN] of the [New Israel Fund] NIF by among others, their head in Australia, are disingenuous to say the least. The analogy that best fits the NIF is the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

While the NIF does in fact make humanitarian and public welfare donations, a highly disproportionate amount of their giving on a pro-rata basis is to NGOs that have an openly de-legitimizing agenda concerning Israel. These include BDS campaigns, and scurrilous charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, none of which are designed to improve the status of anyone here, but rather to de-legitmize the State of Israel.
 

As to any readers who would burst with pride as to Israel’s having NGOs that would rake them over the coals for alleged violations, I would remind them of the wisdom that democracy is not a suicide pact.

Many of the NGOs that the NIF supports are themselves being investigated in Israel. There is a strong suspicion that many – Breaking the Silence, B’tselem, Adaklah, among the NIF darlings - are in effect foreign agents, seeking, in the guise of internal dissent, to destabilize the country.

This reality, and the activities of the NIF, are nothing to be proud of.

ALP Resolution on Middle East "Reckless, Poorly Thought-Out and Frankly Foolish"

From The ZFA, 26 July 2015:

Last week Western Australian Labor Senator Joe Bullock took to the opinion page the Australian, warning that “obsessives” and “cranks” were trying to hijack his party’s Middle East policy.

Judging by the results of today’s ALP National Conference, Senator Bullock’s prediction has come to pass.

The so-called ‘compromise’ ALP resolution on Israel-Palestine was the fruit of hallway negotiations that dragged on until the last possible minute. Yet the end product of this inter-factional haggling turned out to be as predicted by Senator Bullock:
“reckless, poorly thought-out and frankly foolish.”
Amongst the most pernicious facets of this misbegotten Labor resolution is the moral equivalence that pollutes it to the core.

Both explicitly and implicitly this declaration places the jihadi theo-fascists of Hamas on the same plane as  progressive democrats of Israel.

But it gets worse. The resolution contains a blatantly one-sided laundry list of complaints against Israel whilst simultaneously endorsing the “special circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect”.

And with its ex cathedra declaration that Jewish settlements are “illegal”, the ALP veers dangerously close to out-and-out ethnic bigotry with the implicit assertion that any future Palestinian state must be devoid of any Jewish population. In this respect the ALP is echoing the infamous declaration made in 2010 by Mahmoud Abbas that “we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli” within an independent Palestinian state.

And finally this resolution ends with a biased diplomatic threat aimed solely at a single party – Israel. In the event Middle East peace negotiations do not proceed to the ALP’s satisfaction, it declares the intention to consider unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.

The whys and wherefores of such diplomatic failure will apparently be irrelevant to the ALP. Even if the breakdown in negotiations is the result of Palestinian recalcitrance – as has often been the case in the past – the Palestinians will nonetheless be rewarded.

The perverse incentives that permeate this resolution are mind-boggling in their stupidity. And while the resolution’s statement of opposition to BDS is all well and good, it can hardly counterbalance the broader malignancies in the policy adopted by the ALP.

Founded in 1927, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) is the national roof body that unites all pro-Israel organizations within the Australian Jewish community. And as such the ZFA would like to express it’s appreciation to all those members of the Australian Labor Party who fought the good fight behind-the-scenes against this ill-advised and ill-conceived resolution.

We look forward to working with Israel’s friends on a bi-partisan basis towards the achievement of a Middle East peace agreement that is fair and enduring. It is tragic that the resolution approved by the 2015 ALP National Conference does injury to that effort.

ALP resolution dissappointing

From AIJAC, 26 July 2015:

"While there are aspects in the Middle East resolution adopted at the ALP conference today that can be welcomed, its general tenor and threat to support unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State under a future Labor Government are disappointing.

 

This approach is likely to undermine, rather than constructively encourage, progress toward a negotiated, durable two-state resolution that remains the bipartisan consensus in Australia", commented AIJAC's national chairman Mark Leibler and Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein.

"On the positive side are the calls for direct negotiations between the parties towards a two state outcome, for the end of rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel from Gaza, rejection of the BDS strategy, and call for demilitarisation of any Palestinian entity. Also welcome was the important recognition that any genuine two-state peace must be based on the formula of 'two states for two peoples,'" Dr. Rubenstein added.

"Yet one -sided, problematic claims that all settlements are 'illegal' and Jerusalem 'occupied', and the false assertion that Prime Minister Netanyahu has permanently ruled out a Palestinian state when he has made clear repeatedly that he still seeks such an outcome, are very counter-productive toward achieving peace, especially at a time when the Palestinian side is declining to even negotiate directly with Israel.

 

This is even more true of the threat that, if there is no progress in Palestinian/ Israeli negotiations, a future Labor government will discuss the timelines and conditions for the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.

 

There are few international diplomatic moves more likely to discourage a Palestinian return to serious and sustained negotiations than a promise that if negotiations fail, they will be given unilateral recognition anyway," Dr. Rubenstein added.

"We trust that, despite these unhelpful shortcomings in the resolution, Labor Party leader Bill Shorten and his parliamentary colleagues will be still able to pursue a genuinely constructive approach, recognising some of the real obstacles to a final lasting peace which this resolution ignored - such as continued Palestinian incitement toward violence against Israel and Jews and the continued control of half the Palestinian polity by Hamas, with its rejectionism and unchanged genocidal ambitions. Such realism - as opposed to the ideology and prejudice which shaped elements of this resolution - remains the only way that Australia can continue to try to contribute to the viable, two state-outcome that rightly remains the goal of all Australia's major political parties," Mark Leibler concluded.

Disappointment in the (ALP) National Conference resolution on Israel

From Zionist Council of NSW, 26 July 2015, by Dr Ron Weiser AM, Hon Life President:

The Zionist Council of NSW views with disappointment the resolution passed at the Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Conference on the 26^th of July (coincidentally Tisha B’Av) on the Israel Palestinian issue.

This resolution dents the bipartisan approach that has existed in Australia in order to reach a Two State for Two People solution by not understanding what these words mean.

The Two State for Two People solution is the position that the Jewish people and the State of Israel have supported and aimed towards from even before her establishment.
This key point was neither recognised by the ALP resolution nor understood by the movers of the motion.
The Palestinians have sought to avoid direct negotiations with Israel precisely to avoid having to recognise Israel as a Jewish State and have literally conned some members of the international community into allowing the Palestinians to bypass direct negotiations and gain unilateral recognition.
Sadly the Australian Labor Party has fallen into this trap.
Despite Labor’s welcome words of commitment to the Two State for Two People solution, Labor does not actually require the Palestinians to agree to Israel as a Jewish State.
It is a deviation from the principled stand by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she emphasised on the 25^th of November 2011 that “A just and secure Israel as a homeland for the Jewish People is an indispensable part of a just and secure world”.
Until the ALP recognises that under a Two State for Two People resolution a requirement is not merely recognition of the State of Israel per se, but recognition of the State of Israel as the vehicle for Jewish self determination, the ALP is not really pushing for the aforementioned solution.
Rather this new ALP resolution merely requires a Two State Solution where Labor recognises the “special circumstances of the Palestinian people”, but does not mention the rights of the Jewish people, or the Jewish right to self determination, or the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.
There is no mention of any special circumstances around the situation of the Jewish people, only of the Palestinians.
The resolution allows the Palestinians to avoid coming to the negotiating table, as if negotiations will not proceed the ALP will apparently blame Israel and will consider unilateral steps to recognise a Palestinian State.
Therefore as per Labor’s resolution, the Palestinians have further encouragement to avoid sitting down with Israel to actually negotiate a Two State for Two People solution.
By the Palestinians simply doing nothing and agreeing to nothing, Labor will consider rewarding them by supporting unilateral moves towards a Palestinian State.
It should be noted that the Labor resolution ignores years of positive statements and actions by Prime Minister Netanyahu in support of the establishment of a Palestinian State and highlights some unscripted throwaway lines made in the heat of an election campaign. Comments later retracted by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
This is all the more disingenuous and astounding when one considers that not a single statement by Palestinian leaders about how they will never agree to Israel as the Jewish State, nor the general incitement that occurs in the Palestinian media and education system against the Jewish State, were worthy of mention in the new ALP policy stance.
It should also be noted that the Labor Party resolution falsely makes a pre determination that the “settlements are illegal under international law”.
 

Biased anti-Israel resolution of the ALP Conference

My comments on the resolution of the ALP National Conference today are below, inserted in the actual wording of the resolution.

The Australian Labor Party Conference:

Affirms Labor’s support for an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state.

“internationally recognised and agreed by the parties” is excellent, but this resolution goes on to impede agreement between the parties by blaming Israel only, and by holding out the prospect of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian-Arab state without that entity reaching any agreement with Israel

Deplores the tragic conflict in Gaza and supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and the exercise of the maximum possible restraint by Israel in response to these attacks.

This suggests a “moral equivalence” between a genocidal terrorist group and free democratic nation. HOW does the conference propose to “support… an end to rocket attacks by Hamas”? It doesn’t condemn the attacks or label them as illegal or immoral. Such criticism is reserved for Israel alone.

Supports a negotiated settlement between the parties to the conflict, based on international frameworks, laws and norms

Recognises in government Labor retained its commitment to two states for two peoples in the Middle East and specifically

“two states for two peoples” is good

Did not block enhanced Palestinian status in the General Assembly;

Restated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;

Opposed Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, recognising that a just, peaceful and enduring resolution will involve a territorial settlement based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps;

Held that the settlements are illegal under international law.

There is plenty of authoritative legal opinion that the settlements are legal. Calling them “illegal” is wrong, or at least a contentious statement.

In fact Jerusalem and the West Bank have never been under “Palestinian” sovereignty. No international law prevents Israel from controlling those territories gained in a defensive war, pending a negotiated settlement.

For several hundred years leading up to World War I, the region was part of the Ottoman Empire. After World War 1, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate that empowered her to facilitate the creation of a “Jewish National Home” there.

See

·        http://jiw.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-occupation.html

·        http://jiw.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/abandon-rejection-make-peace.html

·        http://jiw.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/over-100-years-of-chronic-arab.html

Recognises that any resolution will be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to end Israeli occupation, demilitarization of Palestinian territory, agreement on a solution to Palestinian refugee issues, and resolution of the issue of Jerusalem’s final status.

There are no “1967 borders”. Before the 1967 war, the belligerents were separated by an Armistice Line, which is simply where the opposing military forces were when the fighting stopped in 1949 (the “Green Line”). Beyond the Green Line were the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem and many villages that had been Jewish for hundreds or thousands of years and had been destroyed by Arab League forces in 1948-9. All parties agreed that the Green Line was not a final border. Final borders were to be subject to negotiated agreement between the parties….

Recognises that settlement building by Israel in the Occupied Territories that may undermine a two-state solution is a roadblock to peace. Labor calls on Israel to cease all such settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace.

This supports the PA demand that it wants a territory “without a single Jew” for its state, and is plain anti-Semitic. Israel has many Palestinian-Arab villages and 1.5 million Palestinian-Arab citizens inside the Green Line. Are these also “roadblocks to peace”? If the aim is peaceful co-existence between two states for two peoples, why can’t each state allow citizens of neighbouring states to live amongst them?

Rejects the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

good

Condemns the comments of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the recent elections where he ruled out a Palestinian state and further condemns his appeals to race during the campaign.

Binyamin Netanyahu did not rule out a Palestinian-Arab state, yet this resolution condemns only Israel’s PM. There is not a word of condemnation for genocidal terrorism and incitement to hatred which is endemic in Arab society.

Recognises a lasting peace will require a future State of Palestine to recognise the right of Israel to exist and the State of Israel to recognise the right of Palestine to exist.

Recognises the special circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect, and the achievement of their legitimate aspiration to live in independence in a state of their own. This is a cause Labor is committed to.

If however there is no progress in the next round of the peace process a future Labor government will discuss joining like minded nations who have already recognised Palestine and announcing the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state, with the objective of contributing to peace and security in the Middle East.

Unilateral declarations like this impede progress towards peace and security; they don't promote it. Why should the Arabs negotiate a resolution and end of the conflict if the ALP and others around the world promise them statehood without reconciling with Israel?

 

 

A sane voice amongst the few obsessives and cranks within the ALP

From The Australian, 24 July 2015, by Stefanie Balogh:

...Labor senator Joe Bullock has accused “a few obsessives within the ALP’’ and “cranks’’ of seeking to “undermine the ­bipartisan commitment to a two-state solution” for Israel and ­Palestine. 
              
Writing in The Australian today, Senator Bullock pulls no punches in attacking what he warns is a “reckless, poorly thought-out and frankly foolish motion urging the immediate ­recognition of a state of Palestine’’.

“For those of us genuinely committed to a two-state solution and a lasting peace, the position put by proponents of ‘statehood now’ is counterproductive,’’ Senator Bullock says. “It is war masquerading as peace, hostility disguised as kindness.”

...Tony Burke...is expected to move a resolution which is likely to reflect the ...motion from the NSW ALP conference last year, which was drafted by former NSW premier and former foreign minister Bob Carr. It stated if there was no progress towards a two-state solution and Israel continued to build and expand settlements, then a future Labor government would “consult like-minded nations towards ­recognition of the Palestinian state’’.

...and from The Australian, 24 July 2015, by Senator Joe Bullock*:

In my maiden Senate speech a year ago, after a lifetime of representing retail workers, members of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, I promised the Senate I would continue to be a voice for shop assistants and ordinary working people who carried this country forward on their shoulders.
              
In the wake of the first Abbott budget, I determined to focus on core issues for the average Australian: secure jobs, accessible and affordable education, the protection of Medicare, a fair go for seniors and pensioners. As I said in that speech, a lifetime of representing working people is not easily set aside, nor should it be.

Naturally I assumed the Labor Party, my party, would share this focus.

I did not imagine that at its first national conference since the election of the present Liberal government a few obsessives within the ALP would choose to concentrate instead on the Middle East peace process.

Much less did I imagine that these cranks would seek to undermine the bipartisan commitment to a two-state solution with a reckless, poorly thought-out and frankly foolish motion urging the immediate recognition of a state of Palestine.

Yet here we are.

It would appear to be stating the obvious to say that all sides in this discussion want to see a resolution of the conflict on the basis of “two states for two peoples”. And so, in this context, it is quite accurate to say that everyone, certainly within the ALP, supports a Palestinian state. However, sensible people recognise the vast gulf between wanting to see a Palestinian state established within a framework of secure borders, the renunciation of violence and terrorism, and a final peace settlement on the one hand and, on the other, demanding a Palestinian state be established at once without regard for these issues.

The advocates of immediate recognition have never answered five key questions about their position.

First, how can a state exist without agreed borders? The Palestinian people do not fulfil the Montevideo Convention requirements for statehood and recognition under international law. How can one recognise a state that does not exist on the ground?

Second, given the lack of democracy and democratic institutions — including the protection of minority rights — in the Palestinian areas, how can the rights of the people within those states be safeguarded and guaranteed?

Third, given that Hamas (a registered terrorist organisation) controls Gaza while Fatah controls the West Bank, how would the question of leadership be resolved? We are dealing here with two rival potential governments, one of them a theocracy. How is this practically managed?

Fourth, and perhaps most important, what incentives would exist for the Palestinian leadership to renounce terrorism, cease attacks on Israel and negotiate a settled, comprehensive peace if they are recognised as a state without being required to do any of these things?

Finally, why the focus on Israel and Palestine? The peoples of, say, Kurdistan or Assyria are equally if not more deserving of their own states, and in much better shape on the ground to assume the responsibilities of nationhood. Why do we hear not a peep from the Left and their fellow travellers about these issues — but only about the Palestinians, and only when it involves Israel?

It is fashionable now to say the Israeli settlements are the cause of all the trouble, or that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a barrier on the path to peace. Yet while Israel will have to give ground on settlements (subject to being able to maintain its border security), so too will the Palestinians have to let go of the fiction that all descendants of the original Palestinian people are themselves refugees, with a “right of return”.

Israel has accepted and put forward proposals for a Palestinian state many times — in 1947, in 2000, in 2001 and in 2008 — while facing attempts to wipe it off the map in 1947, 1967 and 1973. Settlements did not create, nor will their abolition solve, the fundamental problem of Arab rejectionism.

As for Netanyahu, every remark made by the Prime Minister that has drawn criticism pales in comparison to far worse statements from Palestinian leaders denying Israel’s right to exist. The charter of Hamas itself calls for the extermination of all Jews, speaking longingly of the days when even the trees themselves would connive in the genocide of the Israeli nation.

For those of us genuinely committed to a two-state solution and a lasting peace, the position put by proponents of “statehood now” is counterproductive. It is war masquerading as peace, hostility disguised as kindness.

Palestinian statehood is not a “Jewish” issue (the happily Protestant Bullocks hail from Staffordshire), nor should it be seen in the context of taking sides between Israelis and Palestinians. It is a question of what will produce lasting results.

Israel and the Palestinian people do not need an ALP resolution — they need a genuine resolution.

*Joe Bullock is a Labor senator for Western Australia.