Posted on

A question of character of racism?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3983324.html
A question of character or racism?

JOSEPH WAKIM

Last week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard pondered what the “character and conduct” of the Anzac legend “did to shape our nation”, and how “a worthy foe [Turkey] has proved to be an even greater friend”.

This all sounds noble until we learn that the sixth question in the “character assessment” for those seeking to enter “our nation” appears to be shaping a new enemy: “Are you of Arabic descent?”

The question leaps loudly from the page and is also striking because of the silence surrounding this slur on our national character. There are no other questions pertaining to descent, race or religion.

Imagine someone wanting to visit our home, and we swiftly check if they are of Turkish or Japanese descent.

Surely, if we have serious concerns about someone’s character, there are many sophisticated and subtle ways to assess their “personal particulars” through their criminal records and Interpol.

The front page of the character assessment declares that the information may be disclosed to relevant law enforcement agencies in Australia and overseas, and should render the Arabic descent question redundant.

The last section of Form 80, question 57, is a checklist of “character details”. It asks if the applicant has ever had training from an organisation engaged in violence, involvement in insurgency, freedom fighting, terrorism or protests?

If answered honestly, surely these questions should be sufficient to filter out criminal characters after corroborating with relevant intelligence agencies internationally.

The checklist even asks about involvement in a “program related to the development of weapons of mass destruction”. Given the current fears about Iran and North Korea, neither of whom are Arab states, the descent question appears removed from reality, and a hangover from the Howard era “alert but not alarmed” Arabphobia.

With Al Qaeda’s ‘birthplace’ being in non-Arab Afghanistan and its net spreading to non-Arab countries such as Jamaa Islamia (translates as the Islamic Society) in South East Asia, the descent question drifts from seriousness to silliness.

The character assessment is guided by the Public Interest Criteria 4001 of the Migration Act regulations which never mention Arabic descent.

The regulations broadly outline the ‘discretionary powers’ of the immigration minister to grant or refuse a visa on character grounds on a case-by-case basis. The minister may weed out persons whose presence may be “contrary to Australia’s foreign policy interests … vilify a segment of the Australian community … incite discord in the Australian community … represent a danger … pose a significant risk … hold extremist views … or insensitive in a multicultural society”.

This is ironic given the insensitivity of the Arabic descent question to citizens in our multicultural society.

In the aftermath of the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the immediate reaction by the USA and its allies was understandable with enhanced security, border protection, racial profiling and strategically recruiting Arabic employees.

But more than a decade later, should Australia’s official checklist to weed out bad characters include such a blunt question? Not once but repeatedly – asking for the ‘full name of your father’s father’, and then the same questions repeated for the applicant’s partner, mother, father, brother and sister. This is bizarre as surely if a parent is of Arabic descent, so is the applicant.

This question was brought to my attention by an American seeking to enter Australia. The message it sent her was that our lucky country, one of the most multicultural societies in the world, advocates racial profiling rather than fair go.

What it implied is that while applicants must be of good character to enter Australia, anything Arabic must be of suspicious character or the antithesis of the Australian character.

While nationality is a characteristic of a person – as is marital status, age, sex, visa class, and occupation – it certainly should not define the character.

Arab as a characteristic may be a question of race, but Arab as a character is a question of racism.

The defenders of the Arabic descent question would presumably argue that most terrorists are of Arabic descent, that the question is merely filtering suspect characters to refer to our anti-terrorist agencies on the balance of probabilities, and that the question is hurting no-one but protecting everyone.

Really? Try replacing question six with Jewish descent to assess character. The silence will be replaced with screams of anti-Semitism and Nazi branding.

An Immigrant Department spokesman advised me that this descent question “should be viewed in the context of clear identification of an individual where there are diverse naming practices”. This explanation is illogical as questions of linguistics are completely different to questions of ancestry.

Such antagonistic messages on such official documents are tantamount to a declaration of an anti-Arab foreign policy. They wave a welcoming Australia flag with one hand but a red flag to Arabs with the other. They fuel the friction and propaganda between otherwise friendly nations and render them a “worthy foe”.

The question needs to be removed as redundant and ridiculous.

Posted on

Was KRudd dog whistling to faithful flock?

WAS RUDD ‘DOG WHISTLING’ TO FAITHFUL FLOCK?

One cannot serve two masters, otherwise one will receive devotion and the other will be despised.

This may be the take home message after the Labour leadership catharsis. Not so much for the Caucus members who voted between two leaders, but for KRudd himself.

As a professed Christian, KRudd had to choose between his messiah complex and his morality, but it appeared that the latter was temporarily suspended.

The ‘messiah’ mockery was of KRudd’s own making, when he announced that he would contest for leadership: ‘I want to finish the job the Australian people elected me to do when I was elected by them to become prime minister’. Not only was he exploiting the disconnect between popular opinion polls and his political colleagues, but also shunning the Christian principle of humility.

While his predecessor John Howard was often accused of playing the race card in his dog whistle politics, it appears that Rudd played the religion card throughout this ‘soap opera’.

In his recent speeches, the Honorable KRudd repeatedly referred to himself as honorable: ‘the only honorable thing and the only honorable course of action is for me to resign’. This was presumably intended to contrast him with the ‘dishonorable’ actions of Julia Gillard and her ‘faceless men’ when they deposed him from the ‘job the Australian people elected me to do’. The repeated references to honor may have been mischievous dog whistling to the faithful flock reminding them that an atheist and Godless leader who does not believe in marriage may not believe in honor or morality either.

During his resignation speech from Washington, the capital of the great bastion of presidential elections, Rudd positioned himself squarely in the camp of the morally right. He condemned those who were ‘party to a stealth attack on a sitting prime minister elected by the people…We all know what happened then was wrong and it must never happen again’.

This reads like a new covenant, evoking religious parallels that he was robbed of his rightful throne and we had been robbed of our elected leader in order to satisfy the hunger of the ‘thieves in the night’, all in the guise of ‘moving forward’. Ironically, KRudds’s own king-hit was launched after midnight, but we were not supposed to notice that hypocrisy.

His self-portrait evokes sacred images of the sacrificial lamb, and the one who had to personally pay for the sins of his faction-driven party. His dramatic departure from the prime minister role was like some passion play where he was betrayed by his own followers, reduced to tears, publicly humiliated, relegated to a foreign ministry and then awaiting his second coming.

On ABC TV’s QandA in April 2011, KRudd proclaimed that he never wanted to abandon his covenant for the emissions trading scheme but some wanted to ‘kill it for good’. And again pleading for forgiveness in martyr style: ‘It was a wrong call for which I was responsible’. Hence he fuelled the prophetic speculation that he would soon seek to right the wrongs: ‘I might have learnt a thing or two for the future’.

KRudd’s repeated references to ‘the truth is’ echoes of gospel readings from a pulpit. It exploits the Ju-liar smear campaign where he is juxtaposed as an honest man who is ‘plain speaking’.

When responding to the You-Tube video of the old Rudd, who appeared more like a bully than a wounded bull, he insisted that he had learned not to control every aspect in his office and to consult more broadly. Perhaps this was his act of contrition that he wanted his parliamentary colleagues to forgive him in a similar spirit to his ‘stolen generations’ apology.

KRudd prides himself as a passionate Christian who proudly integrates his faith into his politics. He conceded this when he resigned as prime minister: ‘It is probably not the occasion for high statements of theology, but I’m sure you’d be disappointed if I didn’t add something, given it’s been the subject of comment over the years in which I’ve led this party’.

It is a relief that his recent litany of religious dog whistling fell on deaf ears. There was a disturbing disconnect between the Christian preaching and KRudd’s practice. His faith, and indeed my faith, teaches us to love our enemy, never to exact revenge and to be humble: ‘he who humbles himself will be exalted (in heaven) and he who exalts himself will be humbled’.

His call for a phone referendum to reinstate the people’s popular choice of prime minister was not revolutionary, but delusional, and the antithesis of humility. This chapter saw KRudd not as serving God, but playing God and serving his own Messiah complex. Thank God most of us could see right through that.

In the 1994 Disney animated classic Lion King, we meet a baboon named Rafiki who is the king’s wise adviser. Rafiki nudges the main character Simba to return to the Pridelands ‘to challenge his uncle to take his place as king’. This begs the outstanding question: who was the baboon who nudged KRudd to challenge the prime minister?

Posted on

The great orator does the great grovel

OBAMA: THE GREAT ORATOR DOES THE GREAT GROVEL

‘There should be no shred of doubt by now – when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back’

The lullaby from the mouth of US President Obama was music to the ears of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It rang more like an annual report by a CEO to his shareholders, trumpeting about his return on their investment.

Obama was demonstrating how he ticked all boxes of his key performance indicators so he could secure sponsorship for his next presidential election campaign ‘during this political season’.

But one could tear shreds off his predictable and pathetic grovel.

When Obama reiterated a two state solution with ‘a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state’, did he forget that security should be ‘sacrosanct’ for both sides, yet only one was the nuclear superpower of the Middle East region? Did he forget that when Palestine applied to the United Nations Security Council for independent statehood within its pre-1967 borders last September, his administration threatened to (ab)use its permanent member status and veto their bid?

When Obama was chest beating that ‘Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected’, did he overlook the oxymoron? The enshrined ‘privileging of one ethno-religious group over another cannot be seen as compatible with democratic values’, as documented by a new book by Ben White ‘Palestinians in Israel’. Moreover, Israel can no longer claim to be the sole ‘democratic state’ in the Middle East given the recent ‘Arab Spring’ elections.

When Obama concedes that ‘the United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon’, why are no alarm bells ringing about his predecessor’s invasion of Iraq on the defunct ‘weapons of mass destruction’ premise? His provocative language of possibilities should be frightfully familiar: ‘There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation’.

While the Obama administration depicts Iran as a real and present danger, the November report by the International Atomic Energy Agency depicts circular arguments: Its intelligence sources are unnamed ‘Member States’, presumably the USA, and its summary is dubious: ‘The agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities’.

When Obama laments that ‘a nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we’ve done so much to build’, does he forget that its opposite number Israel refused to sign the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, which puts Israel in the same camp as India, Pakistan and ex signatory North Korea? Does he forget that unlike the signatory Iran who is now indicted by the IAEA for failing to honour its ‘safeguards’ agreement, Israel operates a policy of ‘nuclear ambiguity’, refusing to confirm or deny having atomic weapons? Does he forget that Israel’s over 200 nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction were mostly ‘made in USA’? Does he forget that in 2009, the IAEA passed a resolution which ‘calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards’ and that Israel refused with impunity and without sanctions? Does he forget that he asked Israel to sign the Treaty during the 2010 nuclear summit, and they still refused?

When Obama grandstands about ‘nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction’, why does he turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of Israel denying the Palestinian dispossession (al Naqba) of 1948? Israel does not need to threaten to wipe its Arab neighbours off the map, but flex its military muscle as it did when Gaza was reduced to an inhuman abattoir in December 2008. With over 1300 Gazans bombed through collective punishment, an overkill of one hundred times more than the Israelis, there was no question about who could seriously be wiped off the map.

With the five Iranian nuclear scientists killed in Iran since 2007, US secretary of State Hilary Clinton hastened to ‘categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran’. However, proxies and dissidents can be paid like sponsored terrorists. With Israel intent on maintaining its regional nuclear weapons monopoly and Obama pledging that ‘we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge’, does the truth lie behind another policy of ‘terrorist ambiguity’?

When Obama annunciates an ultimatum for Iran between ‘a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t’, does he forget that it is Israel that has abandoned their international obligations? By his own admission, Obama concedes that ‘the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations’ even if ‘there was not a lot of applause’ by the UN General Assembly. Obama has ensured that Israel was protected from any consequences, unlike Iran who has endured four sets of US-led sanctions.

Obama’s oration should be shredded as evidence of his desperation to appease his shareholders. In his rhetoric about building ‘a better world…where our people can live free from fear’, it is clear who he fears if they do not butter his bread, which should make us all more fearful.

Posted on

The irony of boat people phobia

The irony of boat people phobia
Published in Brisbane Courier Mail, 30 July 2010

Why do politicians pursuing power prey on the most powerless people?
Asylum-seekers arriving in boats are mostly women and children, yet they have conveniently become a demonised dartboard in the current federal election. They are the balloons that must be speared before they enter our comfort circle.

Boat people are nothing new. White Australia began with boat people. Australia Day celebrates the arrival of the First Fleet, and the Sydney Opera House is inspired by this historic spectacle of white sails in the sun.

To the local people at that time, the boats carried invaders who had to be feared and resisted. It must have been a nightmare for the elders when 11 convict ships from Great Britain, led by Captain Arthur Phillip, appeared on the horizon of what is now Sydney Cove on January 26, 1788. Some of their worst fears were realised with the introduction of foreign diseases, criminals and firearms.

Fast forward to 2010 and this xenophobia about boat people invading our sacred shores continues. Ironically, the resistance is now led by
fair-skinned people against dark skinned people.

And what weapons are these invaders supposedly carrying? Difference. More dangerous than explosives because it is a moving target that cannot be contained. Hence the holding centre gives us peace of mind that their foreign poison will not leak.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott regurgitated the same old stereotypes of asylum-seekers: ‘‘We’ve got illicit drugs, we’ve got plant and animal diseases, we’ve got all sorts of other potential criminal activity’’. This is probably what an indigenous elder may have declared two centuries ago, after the convicts settled and hoisted their flags. Abbott’s idea of ‘‘turning the boats back’’ is about as likely as turning the clocks back to pre-white Australia.

Ask anyone who has ever worked with these boat people about their degree of desperation. No human being would risk the lives of their
beloved family in treacherous waters unless they were in an irreversibly life-threatening situation, with nothing more to lose.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard vows to ‘‘stop boats, not when they are on our horizons, but before they leave port’’. This may be closer to a solution if it is coupled with a strategy to redress the root causes of the desperation. That way, we would be dealing with the sources, symptoms and solutions.

It is ironic that some of these ‘‘invaders’’ are themselves fleeing from the effects of western invasion. The Iraqis are a case in point, many of
whom have found their homeland unliveable after the Coalition of the Willing (that included Australia) invaded their country to overthrow
their dictator in 2003.

So what exactly is this difference that is so threatening to Australia?

It should not be that some are Muslim as we have had Muslims in Australia since the Macassar fishermen pre the First Fleet, then as British convicts in subsequent fleets in the 1700s, then as Afghan camel drivers in the 1800s. Indeed, it was these Afghans who helped open up the
inland rail lines and telegraph lines in this vast continent that would eventually link Adelaide to Darwin. So it was beneficial to take in Muslims and animals at that time.

It should not be that they are criminals, as there is no empirical evidence for this stereotype. Unlike the convicts who were Australia’s first
boat people, many of whom committed petty crimes, there is no evidence that today’s boat people generally have a criminal record.

Yet there is abundant evidence that boat people love to give something back to Australia. Due to their deprivation, they cherish the new homeland that may be taken for granted by those of us who were born here. The Vietnamese and Iraqi refugees are testament to the aspiration to seize and celebrate their citizenship. As a Multicultural Affairs Commissioner who attended many citizenship ceremonies,
I heard the stories of many of these boat people who shed tears as they grabbed the certificate with both hands. They have become the
staunchest ambassadors of Australia’s generosity, both at home and abroad.

What is probably most threatening about their weapon of difference is that they are not so different. If we listen to their narratives, from chapter one – their love of family, their fear of persecution, their experience of war, their loss of relatives, their prayer for a safe haven – they are suddenly not so different in their aspirations, and them become us.

Beneath the grainy images of skinny, sea-sick, unshaven vagrants, they have faces, names and dreams – just like us. Of course there are bad apples in every bunch – indigenous people and boat people. But if fair-skinned politicians are going to throw darts and generalisations, it is best that they start with fair dinkum facts about the majority. Otherwise, they will drown in a tidal wave of ironies about so-called invaders.

Posted on

Arabists failed to read signs

Arabists failed to read signs
Published in Brisbane Courier Mail, 3 March 2011
http://bit.ly/uo5UVh

DIDN’T SEE IT COMING: Middle East experts did not predict the uprisings sweeping the Arab world which began in Tunisia sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi on December 17 and leading to the ousting of the country’s President.

WHAT differentiates the recent natural disasters sweeping across our region and the Jasmine Revolution that is sweeping across the Arab region?

The experts have proved to be fairly reliable predictors for the former, but useless for the latter.

During the past decade, so-called Arabist experts have dominated our TV screens, radio waves, opinion columns and bookstores with their specialised knowledge on the region and have been major consultants to governments throughout the “war on terror”.

They have been entrusted to shape our foreign policies and have propagated the simplistic notion of us (freedom lovers) versus them (fanatical tribes).

It is time for analysis of the Western Arabists and their agendas. If they place Israel in the centre as the only true democracy in the region, then their law of relativity would render Arab states as merely threats driven by Islamic fanatics. This is ironic, as the demonstrators do not have Islam and Israel on their lips or banners.

Of course, humans cannot be read and predicted as scientifically as nature, but there were many metaphorical weather patterns missed by Arabists.

When Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia on December 17, they could have read the high temperature and realised that this one match would ignite a bushfire that was more potent than oil wells.

His fate epitomised the frustration of so many others – a 26-year-old university graduate whose qualifications could not be used, so he resorted to selling fruit and was stopped by the police for not buying a permit. He could not afford the bribe and the local authority refused to hear his complaint.

Contrary to what the Arabists would have us believe, the anthem of the demonstrators was not a verse from the Koran. It was the verses of a rap song, Rais Lebled, by Tunisian rapper El General, that had become so popular it was adopted as the battle hymn of the Jasmine Revolution. The hits to download and share this song should have triggered curiosity as this was a cyclone gaining momentum.

Yet the power of the internet, Facebook and mobile phones was grossly overlooked. With more than half the Arab population aged under 30, these technologies enable instant organisation and mobilisation.

Even the expert advisers to the US Government did not see the digital “levee” was broken and an inland tsunami was imminent.

Trusting her advisers, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared “our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable”.

The refusal of the military to follow orders and use force against the demonstrators, especially in Egypt, should have been detected by the intelligence gatherers as a fault line between the army and the president.

Why this disturbing and dangerous disconnect between the Arabists and the Arabs? Perhaps because the experts were so busy looking for the next Islamic bogeyman, who might be a threat to Israeli security, that they had lost touch with the moderate majority.

Too busy searching for the next terrorist cell, but ignoring the tyrants who have often been quietly supported by the US Government.

Posted on

The Pacifist Intifada

The Pacifist Intifada
Published in New Matilda, 8 June 2011
http://bit.ly/mbEYis

Why are Australian politicians so reluctant to express moral outrage about Palestine? Joseph Wakim on the UN vote on Palestinian statehood and the rise of peaceful protest in the region

“We cannot be selective. We must be consistent in our approach to the region. It is not good enough that Australia and the international community offer little more than words and sanctions that continue to be defied. Australia needs to be a leader in its condemnation of the atrocities.”

Now this oration deserves a standing ovation. If only it was Australia’s foreign policy.

These passionate words of Liberal front bencher Joe Hockey echo exactly what a growing chorus of Australians have been chanting (pdf) about Palestinians. Except that Hockey was referring to Syrians, in a speech sparked by the mutilation of 13-year old-Syrian child Hamza al Khatib.

Hockey hails from a Palestinian father and established the parliamentary Friends of Palestine. Yet why is he afraid to express the same moral outrage at the daily atrocities committed against Palestinians?

It has never been politically popular to support so-called terrorists and to offend friends in high places.

But in case our MPs have not noticed, the Palestinians are unarmed in this third Intifada and their pacifists have arrived. The litany of excuses and delays should be stripped away.

Instead, UN resolutions “continue to be defied” and the members of the Congress of the world’s sole superpower jumped up on cue 55 times to applaud the defiant words of the Israeli Prime Minister. They jumped so high we could almost see the strings dangling and tangling above them — but not the faces of the puppeteers.

These double standards raise the question — when does morality matter more than money when it comes to Palestine?

Australia’s position will be put to the test in September when the UN General Assembly decides on the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood within the pre-1967 borders. The well-oiled machine will wield the usual carrots and sticks internationally to ensure that Palestine remains subservient and indeed sub-human, in the hope that at least a two thirds majority of the 192 UN members also jump on cue when their strings are pulled. However, this vote has to be recommended by at least nine members out of the 15 who sit on the Security Council, and cannot be vetoed by any permanent UNSC member.

If the application is successful, the sovereign state of Palestine will be able to make claims against Israel in the International Criminal Court, just as Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has called the UN to do with the Syrian president. Some Israeli leaders fear that to legitimse Palestine would delegitimise the “Jewish state”. Indeed Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned of a “diplomatic tsunami [toward] Israel’s delegitimisation”.

Israel could also choose to become part of the human rights revolutions in its neighbourhood.
The global rise of non-violent movements to end the immoral and illegal occupation of Palestine is gaining momentum. These movements aim to re-legitimise, not de-legitimise, Israel, within international law.

We find many manifestations of this spirit: The mass march of thousands of unarmed Palestinians towards the Israeli borders to commemorate Al Nakba Day on 15 May, marking the exodus of 760,000 Palestinians in 1948 to make way for the Israeli state.

The grass-roots driven BDS campaign which includes boycotts by performers such as Roger Waters from Pink Floyd.

The second multinational Gaza flotilla carrying humanitarian aid. The June fleet will consist of 15 ships carrying over 1500 activists from about 100 countries, double the scale of the first and ill-fated flotilla 12 months ago.

The courageous rise of Jewish voices who distinguish between Jews, Israelis and Zionists. A prime example is the launch of The General’s Son, a firsthand account by Israeli Miko Paled about the 1948 and 1967 occupation. He warns that “when the truth and reconciliation commission begins its work and they [occupiers] are finally shamed into admitting they were wrong, they need to remember to go down on their knees and beg forgiveness from the people they so greatly wronged”.

The regular candle vigils (pdf) held by church groups for peace in the land that is sacred for all Christians.

The rise of Palestinian pacifists such as Gazan Doctor Izzedin Abuelaish who spoke about his book I Shall Not Hate at the Sydney Writer’s Festival and the Wheeler Centre last month. After losing three of his children during the Israeli assault on Gaza in January 2009, this Palestinian is touring the world preaching peace through compassion.

The release of Freedom for Palestine by international musicians One World. This song was inspired by Free Nelson Mandela by The Special AKA in 1984, because “apartheid in South Africa has fallen but something very similar remains in Palestine”.

The list goes on as the third but non-violent Intifada takes root globally and uproots the immoral occupation of our minds, after decades of wearing terror-tinted glasses.

But does this groundswell of people-power matter if puppet strings can still be pulled by those wielding the carrots and sticks?

Even though the stone throwing and the shoe throwing have stopped, morality must be given an opportunity to prevail. And Australia has a historic opportunity to lead by conscience, rather than follow like cowards. Only then will we be “consistent in our approach to the region”.

________________________________________
Source URL: http://newmatilda.com/2011/06/08/pacifist-intifada
Links:
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/02/3233225.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/02/3233225.htm
[2] http://australiansforpalestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BP1-Hamas-27May11.pdf
[3] http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201153185927813389.html
[4] http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/no-ordinary-bloke-joe-hockey-20090518-b9me.html
[5] http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6B939C57EA9EF32785256F33006B9F8D
[6] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/30/the_virtues_of_folding
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html
[8] http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-un-official-u-s-veto-would-block-vote-on-palestinian-statehood-1.364506
[9] http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/rudd-wants-court-action-against-alassad-20110601-1fg3q.html
[10] http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-israel-must-advance-peace-or-face-a-diplomatic-tsunami-1.348973
[11] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/2011515649440342.html
[12] http://www.bdsmovement.net/
[13] http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=210986
[14] http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=205047
[15] http://mikopeled.wordpress.com/category/the-generals-son-by-miko-peled/
[16] http://www.actforpeace.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Advocacy/Peace Vigil.pdf
[17] http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/not-hate-gaza-doctor-abuelaish-review
[18] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4077103,00.html
[19] http://www.newstatesman.com/music/2010/03/dammers-nelson-mandela-political
[20] http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/?p=8988
[21] http://newmatilda.com/user/register
[22] https://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Matilda/23703068834
[23] http://newmatilda.com/subscribe

Posted on

Why PM Gillard is nearly crying over Gilad

Why PM Gillard is nearly crying over Gilad
Published on The Drum, ABC Online, 25 October 2011
http://bit.ly/srjwE9

The homecoming celebrations for IDF Sergeant Gilad Shalit highlights two inconceivable collaborations.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who has vowed never to negotiate with terrorists – executes a prisoner swap deal with Hamas to release his soldier.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard – haunted by the return of her popularly-elected predecessor – issues a joint statement with him pandering to the pro-Israel benefactors.

Both of these deals reek of desperation as they juggle principle against pragmatism.

Both give succour to the notorious provocation that ‘one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail’, which Israeli Rabbi Yaacov Perrin declared to glorify the terrorist act of Dr Baruch Goldstein in 1994.

While Netanyahu was representing the vast majority of his cabinet (26 out of 29 supported this prisoner swap) and indeed his nation, Gillard appears to be turning her back on the majority of her nation when it comes to Palestinian issues. For example, recent polls suggested that Australia should support Palestinian statehood at a United Nations vote, yet Gillard could not face her ‘friends of Israel’ if she joined the majority, rather than the margins, of the UN member states on this historic bid.

The disproportionate equating of one Jew with many Arabs is nothing new. During Operation Cast Lead in December 2008, 1,300 Gazans were killed, which was a hundredfold more than Israeli deaths. While a Morgan poll revealed that the majority of Australians saw this overkill as ‘not justified’, Gillard squarely blamed Hamas, hence ‘Israel responded’.

Gillard’s zealous tributes to the returned IDF soldier is a pathetic pledge to please the pro-Israel lobby and an unashamed declaration of where her loyalties lie:

As a human being, I have been very touched … seeing that young man returned to his family… after five long years of being held unlawfully.

Her joint press release describes Shalit’s captivity as ‘inhumane as it was unjustified’.

But was there any ‘heart warming moment’ at seeing the Palestinian families embrace their returned sons after years and even decades? Could she name any of the Palestinian political prisoners or were they all terrorists who deserved to rot in Israeli prisons?

Alas, there was no place for Palestinians in her occupied heart. Hence, her pragmatic fears have outweighed her democratic principles.

Since speculations of a leadership challenge have surfaced, joint statements between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have been rare, perhaps since the pledge to support the independent South Sudan in July. But when it comes to saluting Israel, our leaders line up to sing in perfect harmony.

It is richly ironic that Gillard is so vocal over one soldier, yet so silent over countless Israeli actions that are inhumane, unjustified and unlawful.

While ‘1941 terrible nights spent in solitary captivity’ are inhumane, Hamas negotiator Mahmoud Zahar declared that many Palestinian prisoners were also held in solitary confinement ‘to increase pressure…to reach an agreement on freeing Shalit’. Zahar also claims that this deal includes relaxing the blockade against Gaza.

While 477 Palestinian prisoners were released as the first phase of the 1,027 total, there are still another 5,000 held in Israeli prisons. It is unclear whether phase two will include the 164 Palestinian children who are imprisoned with adults, mostly for stone throwing. Their conditions are in contravention of article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Israel’s own laws. Both Hamas and Fatah leaders need to quell any temptation to exploit this precedent for more disproportionate prisoner swaps.

While compromising his principle about dealing with terrorists, Netanyahu sought a pragmatic means to boost Israel’s morale, especially as the tides turn against Israel in the UN. Hence his timing was perfect to revive the Israeli honoured tradition that ‘no soldier is left in the field’, especially as conscription is compulsory for Israelis aged over eighteen years.

However, Netanyahu’s principle is farcical given that many Palestinians would see the state sponsored brutality of the IDF as terrorism, and they remember a phase when Israel preferred to deal with Hamas rather than Arafat.

At least the Israeli Prime Minister represents the sentiments of most of his citizens, whereas our Prime Minister is increasingly detached from hers.
The Twitter broadcast across Israel to hail this historic day read ‘Israel loves its sons more than it hates its enemies’. If indeed what we love and hold dear prevails over what we hate and fear, there is hope.

Two waves of violent Intifadas have been superseded by non-violent mass movements. Within the Holy Lands and even the Diaspora, a growing numbers of Jews and Palestinians are capitalising on new technologies for conceivable collaborations and joint statements. This is not driven by a pragmatic panic that Palestinians are fast outnumbering Israelis, despite the increased settlements and the disproportionate ‘overkill’. It is driven by a principled perspective that every individual has an inalienable right to be treated with equal dignity, rather than equating the other with a finger nail.

Posted on

Unfairly flogging Shariah Law

Let’s give sharia another flogging
Published on The Drum, ABC Online, 25 July 2011
http://bit.ly/qyFOMt

View PDF

It is tragic and ironic that the recent ‘flogging of a Muslim convert’ story weaved another strand into the anti-Muslim whip.

There was absolutely no mention of religion when this Sydney story was first broadcast on news bulletins, presumably based on the police and court reports.

When I heard this report about the 40 lashes with an electrical cable, I immediately cringed as I evoked Opus Dei and self flagellation. Here we go again – mocking, then defending and contextualising the diversity of Catholics.

But once the intoxicating word sharia was added to the cocktail, this local story spilled over into national banner headlines.

The story epitomised all the ingredients that so many Australians love to loathe and it played right into the hands of Muslim-haters: a young convert whose name happened to be Christian; a gang of four bearded men; an attack in the middle of the night; whipping the victim while he is held down; punishment for allegedly having alcoholic drinks with the boys. All the stereotype boxes are ticked.

Rather than feeling relief that this was not a Catholic, I empathised with the Muslim elders who braced themselves for a flogging. They pre-empted this with yet another condemnation of these (un)Australian crimes that have no right to incriminate Islam and no place in Australia. These crimes are neither sanctioned by Muslim clerics nor representative of Muslim communities, but executed by misguided Australians.

The sharia label was draped like a burka to completely cover this story, as if quarantining some imported disease before it spreads, as if the case was closed even before it was open. But the label shrouded many questions such as the relationships between the offenders and the victim, their mental states, pathologies, personal debts and mentors. Even if a victim or offender blames a religion, or voices in his head, or a movie, or a book, or a media report, this should not justify generalisations and criminalisations about that source. Just as the Catholic faith per se cannot be blamed for paedophile priests.

The story was no longer about a local crime which must face the full force of the law. It was now a renewed ‘I told you so’ moral panic that directly linked Islam with these barbaric crimes.
Even Prime Minister Julia Gillard tried to placate the panic merchants before they whipped up a frenzy: “There’s only one law in this country, Australian law”. NSW Police Commissioner Andre Scipione was just as blunt “There is no place in Australian for sharia law, full stop”.

What is always missing with these stereotypical stories is some sobering perspective.

If this is an isolated case of misguided individuals, do the extreme actions of an extreme minority deserve such moral panic? The victim reported the crime to the police who in turn acted swiftly and responsibly, putting the religion aside, and concentrating on the crime. One of the offenders was arrested and another voluntarily turned himself in. Both are now out on bail and it is now revealed that the assault had more to do with bad debts than alcohol or sharia.

In Arabic, sharia literally means the path (to the watering hole). It is derived from the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna – the example and utterances of Mohammed as recorded in the Hadith (narrative).

For centuries, Islamic scholars and Imams have had diverse interpretations of sharia, with many cultural customs. It is akin to the catechism for Catholics, except that its application is more localised than universal. Among Catholics, local variations can be seen with the liberation theology in Latin Americans compared with the crucifixions in the Philippines compared with the monastic movements in Lebanon.

Unlike Catholics, Muslims have no singular papal head of church or clear hierarchy of clergy. But like Catholics and indeed all faiths, there is the usual human spectrum of literalists, conservatives, moderates and progressives. The extreme interpretations of sharia criminal codes where the ‘haram’ offences are met with abhorrent punishments have attracted most attention, and need most perspective.

Catholics have their own canon law regarding the status of homosexuals, divorcees, abortions, unbaptised children within the church. The consequences are not normally violent or inconsistent with Australian law, nor are they directly attributed to the Bible. But they have been practised and observed by Catholics in Australia since the First Fleet.

Similarly, civil aspects of sharia have been practiced in Australia and not normally inconsistent with Australian laws. For example, customs relating to funeral parlours, businesses, Islamic banking, Islamic charities, halal meats. When family disputes reach stalemate, sometimes they turn to their local Imam where sharia is invoked to resolve issues of marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. This can be problematic if the cleric has no formal training or accreditation in Australian family law. But it can also prevent the protracted and costly process of family court settlements.

This compatibility between Australian laws and sharia customs has been the subject of a new report Good and Bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic Law by Queensland academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq, to be published in the University of NSW Law Journal next Monday. Their report reveals that 90 per cent of Muslims interviewed did not want to change Australian law, and they conclude that “the wider Australian community has been oblivious to the legal pluralism that abounds in this country”. Perhaps our well intentioned leaders need to read the report before denying sharia practices exist. They may never need to be enshrined in Australia, but the blinding criminal aspects may blur out the civil pathways.

Sharia criminal codes cannot be implemented by individuals or groups on their own accord. They cannot be self appointed law enforcers. This is illegal under both Australian and sharia law.
One of the rules in sharia is that one must always obey the law of the land, which always prevails.

Despite all these perspectives, I suspect that the offenders will receive heavy sentencing as a public deterrent to others who dare to take the law – whether Australian or sharia – into the own hands.
There is always something ironic about such public ‘floggings’ in order to steer people onto the right path.

Posted on

We can save their souls

Playing with great risk
Published in Adelaide Advertiser, 24 June 2011
http://bit.ly/uUJkeh

View PDF

View PDF

NOW and again, we drown in a verbal tsunami about the “tidal wave” of boat people.

Invariably, the phobic voices of those who demand border protection float to the surface.

They blow the same dog whistles about queue jumpers, cultural contamination, future terrorists and taxpayer costs, all of which have been debunked as myths.

The inquest into the Christmas Island boat tragedy and the proposed “refugee swap” with Malaysia have prompted the usual moral panic about “not in our backyard”.

Ironically, these same voices demand that refugees on the other side of the world be accommodated by their neighbouring countries.

A case in point is my country of birth, Lebanon, where my compatriots are too often asked this loaded
question: “Why can’t your country grant citizenship to your Palestinian refugees?”

Despite all our infrastructure, our First World country panics at the spectre of a boatload of asylum seekers. But we expect post-war and post-occupation Lebanon to naturalise its refugees.

The Palestinian refugees fled their homeland in 1948 when the state of Israel was established. Apart from Lebanon, the refugees ended up in Jordan (two million) and Syria (477,000).

I have visited the refugee camps in Lebanon which make Australia’s appalling detention centres look luxurious.

When considering the full narrative that rendered the Palestinians homeless, a different set of questions needs to be asked. Why are these refugees treated like commodities that can be cut-pasted from one Arab land to another?

This line of propaganda is fundamentally racist, assuming that all Arabs are the same: Palestinians should feel at home and simply dissolve into the familiar sand dunes.

Imagine permanently relocating victims of the Brisbane flooding to Christchurch then frowning at any ungrateful complaints of homesickness, as it is still an English-speaking country.

Rather than assuming that the solution to this inter-generational refugee problem is Lebanese citizenship, why not ask them about their aspirations and solutions? Because the answer to this pertinent question is too confronting – they want to return to their ancestral home and land in Palestine.

For too long, the receiving states have been guilted into greater responsibility. Instead, the sending state should be asked if it is mature enough to accept responsibility for its actions. What compensation will it pay for Al Naqba – the catastrophic displacement and dispossession of Palestinians?

The UN General Assembly Resolution 194, passed in December 1948, declares that “all refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date”.

After 60 years, this international law is still ignored with impunity.
The coronial inquest into the Christmas Island boat tragedy addresses six operational questions pertaining to surveillance and detection. It has confirmed that about half of the asylum seekers had fled the civil turmoil in Iraq.

Australia was part of the Coalition of the Willing that illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 without UN Security Council approval – overthrew their government, destroyed their civic infrastructure and inadvertently unleashed the unholy sectarian war between Sunnis and Shi’ites.

We played a part in uprooting and creating these asylum seekers and have a moral responsibility to compensate for the fallout as they wash up on our shores in the ultimate act of desperation.

Apart from the valid operational questions that Coroner McCusker is investigating, there are bigger moral questions that go to the heart of the matter.

The same old questions dictate the public discourse: When, how and where did the boats arrive? How many boats and how many passengers? How much will they cost? Where shall we process them?

This is akin to planning a relocation of the refugee camps within Lebanon without exploring if Palestinians can return home.

Instead, we can ask questions that address the causes rather than the consequences of boat arrivals. Unlike public discourse which can be reduced to a string of formal expressions, private dialogue requires listening wholeheartedly, without prejudice, but with empathy.

A dialogue would reveal why they are fleeing in the first place. What can drive a family to sell everything they own and risk everyone they love to take this treacherous voyage?

Why are almost all these boat people vindicated and granted refugee status? What actions can we take as a nation to redress the unbearable circumstances that lead them to the sea in the first place?

If we are blinded by the boats and the tents, we fail to see the faces and hear the stories of the families inside.

If we question the question, we free ourselves to explore the causes rather than consequences. If we keep having discourse about boats, we fail to have dialogue with the people.

Posted on

It’s Democracy Stupid

It’s democracy stupid
http://bit.ly/rxbUSQ

View PDF

If the resistance is armed, it is terrorism. If the resistance is unarmed, it is extremism. If the resistance is verbal, it is anti-Semitism. And if the resistance is crushed, it is colonialism.

Attempts to redress Palestinian human rights have been check-mated with a litany of labels that are aimed to invalidate their every move.

It is ironic that the Greens candidates who dared to take a moral and non-violent stand against the Israeli occupation have copped the wrath of those who carry the political whips. Labels such as extremist, anti-Semitic and Nazi have been used as an emotional weapon to deride the lunatic left and mask many sobering facts. The antidote to a perceived vilification of Zionists appears to be to the vilification of the individual.

With swastikas and loaded labels smeared onto the Greens candidates, the individuals are placed in a defensive position where they are permanently tattooed as guilty – defeated Greens candidate for Marrickville Fiona Byrne, successful candidate for Balmain Jamie Parker, and Senator elect Lee Rhiannon.

It is a profound price to pay and a powerful tactic to silence future critics of Israel or supporters of the global Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

On cue, the major parties promptly paid their dues to Israel. Tony Abbott stated that “the Coalition completely rejects any campaign designed to weaken Israel…I call on the Prime Minister to pull her alliance partner into line”. He referred to the BDS as “nonsense”.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said his government “did not condone nor support any boycotts or sanctions against the Jewish state”.

Opposition Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop referred to Lee Rhiannon’s pro-BDS comments as “extreme”, “highly prejudicial” and “deeply troubling”. This should come as no surprise given that Ms Bishop attended the Kevin Rudd-led delegation of 17 parliamentarians to the Australia Israel Leadership forum last December.

Trade Minister Craig Emerson referred to BDS as a “disgusting policy” and praised the Marrickville voters for rejecting this “Greens extremism”. The applause from Israel was almost audible from Australia.

If any of these whip crackers bothered to research the facts about the BDS, they would struggle to find any extremism. The BDS campaign was founded in 2005, one year after the International Court of Justice found that Israel’s wall, built on occupied Palestinian territory, to be illegal. Contrary to the scaremongering of its critics that compares the BDS campaign with Nazi propaganda, the Palestinian Civil Society BDS founder Omar Barghouti articulates the genesis and inspiration.

“We the representatives of Palestinian civil society call upon international civil society organisations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era….We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this call for the sake of justice and genuine peace.”

Anchored in international law and universal human rights, the BDS campaign has three stated goals: ending the occupation including the dismantling of the wall; equal rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel; the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes as per UN resolution 194.The movement categorically rejects all form of racism including anti-Semitism, and has attracted support from Jewish civil groups both within Israel and in the Diaspora.

Where exactly is the extremism with this vision that is “rooted in a century-old history of civil, non-violent resistance against settler colonialism, occupation and ethnic cleansing”? The extremism is more likely to be found in the anti-BDS propaganda, comparing this unarmed resistance to the Nazi boycott of Jews in 1930’s, whereby “dehumanizing them…is a vital step on the way to genocide”.

Australia’s bipartisan loyalty to Israel is apparently in question when the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate in three months. Is this because the major parties need to save face with Israel or Australia?. Over 100 Australian leaders have ‘graduated’ from the Rambam Israel Fellowship, including Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Alexander Downer and Bill Shorten. The six day program is engineered by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. By their own admission, the Rambam organisers have declared that “for the money we invest in, you can’t ask for better results”.

The latest vilification of the BDS campaign is yet another example of a return on this investment.

Ironically, Ms Gillard has declared that “we are ready to support sanctions against Iran if it does not comply with the obligations placed on it by the international community”. But Israel will remain exempt from that same moral principle.

The BDS was borne out of frustration, where armed resistances and two Intifadas have failed to produce peace. The verbal resistance via successive negotiations and ‘road maps’ also failed. Hence, the BDS attempts to do what governments have failed to do. The most recent example of a non-violent and civil campaign took place across Israel’s borer on 30 January, where the Egyptian Third Army deliberately and collectively disobeyed their president’s orders to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square. The momentum inspired a domino effect across the region.

If indeed the Greens senators cause a rethink of the Middle East foreign policy, this is not daunting. This is democracy. It may indeed be a logical extension of a Roy Morgan national poll in June 2009 which found that 42 per cent of Australians found Israel’s actions in Gaza ‘not justified’, compared with 29 per cent who found them ‘justified’.

In our democracy, our politicians should shape our foreign policy based on our population and our national interests, not based on lubricated lobbying and ‘behind the scenes’ engineering.

Joseph Wakim is founder of Australian Arabic Council