Independent Australian Jewish Voices

Here's a fascinating recent speech by British Jew Tony Klug: “Are Israeli policies entrenching antisemitism worldwide?”

The following column by Greg Barns, published in Murdoch's Mercury newspaper, is instructive of a growing band of thinking; why should Israel be immune from investigation?

Last week the Right-wing media and their political friends worked themselves up into lather over an assessment by ASIO that a small number of Tamil asylum seekers should not be allowed into this country because they are apparently a security threat.

But when two Israeli political leaders came to Australia shortly before Christmas, those same politicians and media fawned over them, despite the fact they have been identified as possibly having committed crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Right at the outset let's make it clear that just because ASIO assesses someone as a security threat means nothing. ASIO jumps at shadows and you have no way of knowing if its assessment is correct or not because it is secretive, unaccountable and has a history of getting it horribly wrong in the past.

But ASIO's secret assessment of these asylum seekers was enough to get the now Far Right Liberal Party jumping. Leader Tony Abbott says the Rudd Government has put the security of Australia at risk, and his chief supporter in the media, The Australian, ran an editorial last week criticising the Rudd Government for failing to "protect our borders".

Tragically neither The Australian nor Abbott queried for a nanosecond that ASIO might be wrong. But while The Australian or Abbott are running around condemning Tamil asylum seekers on the basis of a secret assessment by "spooks", neither took issue with the visits just over a month ago by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and the current Israeli Deputy PM Silvan Shalom.

Yet both these men played a large part in the Gaza Offensive of a year ago. This military operation by Israel against the Palestinians resulted in 1300 Palestinians dying, and hundreds of thousands of others being displaced and injured.

The Gaza Offensive has been the subject of a major investigation and report by eminent South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who found that: "Repeatedly, the Israel defence forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require."

Goldstone further noted that "pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law". Failure to do so "will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy. As a service to hundreds of civilians who needlessly died, and for the equal application of international justice, the perpetrators of serious violations must be held to account," he said in his report, which he presented to the United Nations on September 29 last year.

Goldstone's Mission found that those who were responsible for the devising, planning and execution of the Gaza Offensive -- and this means Olmert and Shalom -- should be held accountable for any crimes committed by Israeli forces.

Goldstone's Mission said it found that Israel committed grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, including "wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly".

And Goldstone's Mission found that Israeli officials and armed forces should be held accountable for crimes against humanity because of a series of "acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy".

Australian law now allows for persons suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity to be arrested and tried in this country, irrespective of where the alleged offences were committed.

One would have thought that, given the very public findings of the Goldstone report, Australian political leaders and the media would be making it clear to Shalom and Olmert that they risked arrest if they entered Australia.

You can bet if it were a Tamil leader seeking to enter Australia, about whom Goldstone-type findings had been made, that would definitely have been the reaction.

But Abbott and, it has to be said, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard feted their Israeli guests.

The Australian's Greg Sheridan conducted a long and sympathetic interview with Olmert and slobbered that he spent "90 minutes in the boardroom of Sydney's Park Hyatt, and then over a relaxed lunch with his wife, Aliza, at Circular Quay", while "Olmert talked with remarkable frankness about the military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, the historic peace deal he offered the Palestinians, [US] President Barack Obama's Middle East policy and the options for action against Iran".

Would Sheridan roll out the read carpet for a Tamil leader? One thinks not. Hypocrisy and double standards are awful things.

Antony Loewenstein writes:

I co-founded Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) nearly three years ago. Since then, our achievements have been modest, but the key aim has always been to expand public debate over the Middle East and show to the wider community that not all Jews back Israeli apartheid in the occupied territories.

It’s therefore pretty amusing to read a piece published in today’s National Times attacking IAJV…as if we started recently. It rehashes the usual arguments, clearly ignores any discussion about Israel’s behaviour in the West Bank or Gaza and focuses on the initiative’s supposed dishonesty:

It is now more than two years since Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) was launched in a flurry of publicity, and past time for the original and latter signatories of its initiating declaration to take stock of their commitment.

According to the declaration, that commitment by its Jewish signatories is to “ensuring a just peace that recognises the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians with a solution that protects the human rights of all . . . (and that) Israel’s right to exist must be recognised and that Palestinians’ right to a homeland must also be acknowledged.”

This is an inoffensive statement and could loosely be sanctioned by the mainstream of Australian Jewry. Moreover, nothing is gained by an attack on the integrity of the signatories, one of whom is Antony Loewenstein who was featured on this website yesterday. Other aspects of the declaration may invite harsher interpretation, but those clauses do not detract from the straightforward call for an equitable analysis of the “crisis in the region”. More worthy of examination are the steps that have been taken by the IAJV organisers following the publication of the declaration.

The declaration is the centrepiece of what has become a dense online forum for anti-Israel and anti-Zionist views. The dilemma is clearly understood by the organisers, who must find a means to incorporate the innocuous clauses of an originating document while promoting views that breach its parameters. In legal constitutional matters this conflict would be resolved by a superior court. In the abstract world of the internet, the organisers achieve this by way of a less accountable device – a tortuous statement that prefaces the website and reads in part: “It is evident that we as organisers cannot speak in the name of anyone unless explicitly authorised to do so, and there can be no suggestion that signatories are in any way endorsing or associated with a statement unless they explicitly sign it . . . (we) must do whatever we hope is worthwhile and constructive towards the broad principles enunciated in the original statement.”

This begs the question, despite this statement do the signatories know what is written on their behalf, or in the alternative, that they have been disenfranchised from a project that lays its foundation squarely on their name and ethnicity? The logic of this foundation is inescapable, because without the Jewish signatories to the declaration, the IAJV is deprived of its raison d’être. The views of a handful of little known commentators would garner far less attention without the original declaration or the much proclaimed ethnicity of its signatories. Certainly virulent criticism of Israel is now so pervasive on the internet as to make the existence of yet another condemnatory website merely conventional. The power of the IAJV lies solely in the ethnicity and imprimatur of the signatories.

The signatories may believe that they have signed a petition of sorts, but in fact they have provided a platform for a broad criticism of Israel, that contrary to its declaration, is not matched by an equivalent critique of the Palestinian or regional positions. No doubt the organisers will counter, again as stated in the prefacing statement, that they intend to redress a perceived bias in the media, but once more this would be disingenuous. The declaration is too plain-spoken to allow this re-interpretation: “We call upon fellow Jews to join us in supporting free debate to further the prospects of peace, security and human rights in the Middle East.” Human rights abuses, security concerns and freedom of debate are hardly concerns that can be solely ascribed to Israel, particularly in a region where democracy is an anachronism.

The ongoing discussion regarding the IAJV has unfortunately played into the hands of a few largely unknown but canny organisers. Remove the bluster and the issue is not the credibility of their opinion or those featured by way of links to other publications, rehashed on thousands of similar websites, but rather whether those opinions reflect representations made to signatories. For the signatories there is a larger moral issue to consider. If they wish to promote a forum that makes Israel chiefly accountable for the Palestinian plight and the prospects for peace in the region, then they are in the right place. If not, or their views are tempered by pragmatism or even a well-informed ambivalence, then it is time to reassess that initial commitment.

So here’s an idea for the signatories. Take a tour of the IAJV website, look around, become familiar with the landscape. It will soon be clear that the declaration you signed was achieved more in the breach than in its plain meaning. May we suggest a new declaration, reflective of the website’s actual content. Something along these lines would suffice: “We condemn the Jewish state as the principally guilty party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and primarily responsible for its resolution.” Not only does it shave hundreds of unnecessary words from the original declaration, it is also more candid, straightforward and honest. That is something the signatories can choose to endorse. Or not.

Manny Waks is the founder of the Capital Jewish Forum and a public servant based in Canberra. Geoffrey Winn is a Melbourne based lawyer and author.

Frankly, it’s odd to have to make the same points over and over. IAJV is not an organisation or a group. There are no members. A handful of people organise occassional petitions and events and anybody who wants to sign-up or be involved can be. And people can ignore these programs, too. Nothing more, nothing less.

Waks and Winn either ignore this clearly stated aim or remain uncomfortable with Jews speaking out critically against Israel and its policies.

Get used to it lads, we have much more planned in 2010.

The following article by Antony Loewenstein was published by the Sydney Morning Herald/Age on 5 January:

The 85-year-old Jewish, anti-Zionist, Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein is a sturdy looking woman. Her slightly hunched frame hides the determination to continue a life-long dedication to social justice.

This week in Cairo she joined close to 1400 international delegates on the Gaza Freedom March (GFM), a project aimed at ending the suffocating blockade on Gaza. Epstein launched a hunger strike alongside about 50 others to highlight the human rights abuses in Palestine and Israeli and Egyptian collusion in the humanitarian crisis for the Strip’s 1.5 million population.

GFM steering committee member Dr Haidar Eid, based in Gaza, said that the “deadly, hermitic siege” had only tightened after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in December 2008/January 2009.

Epstein told The Age that she refused to remain silent as a Jew when, “Israel was committing crimes against the Palestinian people. I often receive hate-mail from Jews over my public stance, being called a self-hating Jew and worse, but I ignore them.”

Citizens from 42 countries, including America, Venezuela, Cameroon, Ireland, Australia, Britain, Japan and Libya descended on Cairo on December 27 with the hope of leaving for the Egyptian/Gaza border the following day. Organised by American peace group Code Pink, prominent delegates included leading American legal advocate Michael Ratner, European members of parliament and co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website Ali Abunimah.

The Egyptian regime blocked access for the mission, citing “security” concerns, and refused to grant entry visas to the assembled group. Cairo’s position, undoubtedly backed by its masters the US and Israel, condemned most of the marchers as “hoodlums” and “criminals”. In fact, many participants were the elderly and the religious and non-violent, Gandhian tactics were the central ideology.

I attended the week-long event, as a Jew, human being and journalist, and never heard any mention of incitement from the delegates. Instead, it was clear that Palestine had become a key concern for citizens across the globe, dismayed that the Western political elites continued to support Israeli aggression. The Jewish state’s very legitimacy is being challenged like never before.

A key concern of the GFM was establishing closer global links between civil communities. The Congress of South African Trade Unions held a meeting with various individuals and shared stories about its own ultimately successful struggle against apartheid. A leader from the metal worker’s union intended to educate his delegates about the importance of boycotting Israeli products. “During apartheid we labelled certain products with a label that excluded its export,” he said. “We can do the same thing with Israeli products if they arrive on our shores.”

The term “apartheid Israel” wasn’t controversial in these circles; it was simply used as an accurate description of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains desperate and the GFM aimed to highlight the plight to the international community. On the one-year anniversary of Israel’s latest assault, according to Israeli human rights group Gisha, “87 million litres of untreated or partially treated sewage is dumped into the sea daily for lack of electricity and spare parts”.

The Gazan people are being collectively punished to pressure the democratically elected Hamas Government. It seems to be failing. During my visit to the Strip in July last year, I constantly heard complaints towards the Islamist organisation but they’ve only increased their grip on the territory in the past 12 months.

The GFM was faced with a dilemma. The focus was supposed to be Gaza but Cairo’s intransigence forced them to find creative ways to protest peacefully in a country where the gathering of more than a few people is deemed illegal.

Mass demonstrations were held outside the UN building, the Journalist’s Syndicate and about 300 French citizens camped for three days outside the French Embassy, surrounded by hundreds of Egyptian riot police. One of their leaders told me one night, as we snaked past sleeping bags, tents, mattresses and aching bodies, that, “we are only sacrificing our comfort while the people of Gaza have been suffering for years”.

A small Australian delegation was granted a meeting with the Australian ambassador, Stephanie Shwabsky, who said she found the situation “utterly tragic”, but could only pledge to push the tired, unworkable formulas offered by the Rudd Government and the Obama Administration.

On the last day of the GFM, after a handful of delegates were granted entry to Gaza, about 500 protested in Cairo’s central Tahir square. The state’s security forces dragged, kicked, punched and groped a number of us, causing a few broken ribs and bloody noses, but we stood firm for about five hours.

Participants wore T-shirts with the words, “The audacity of war crimes”, “Boycott Israel” and “Free Gaza”, the sheer range of countries represented and the backgrounds of those present reflecting the internationalisation of the Middle East conflict.

Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney journalist and the author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution

Nearly one year after Israel’s onslaught against Gaza, the wounds are still fresh. The Independent has published a detailed accounting of the carnage:

Hilmi Samouni still hopes at some point – “inshallah” – to go back to his old job as a kitchen assistant in the Palmyra, Gaza City’s best known shwarma restaurant. But unlike his 22-year-old brother Khamiz, who is working once again in a car paint shop, and his 20-year-old cousin Mousa, on a two-year accountancy diploma course at Al Azhar University, Hilmi, who is 26, found that he couldn’t cope when he returned to the Palmyra after the war. “Everyone there was very supportive,” he says, “but I couldn’t do good work.” Unlike Mousa, who also lost his parents, and Khamiz, Hilmi saw the bodies not only of his father Talal and his mother Rahme but also of his wife Maha, age 20, and their only son, six-month-old Mohammed, among the 21 killed in the shelling of the warehouse in which they had been ordered by Israeli troops to gather. It still bothers Hilmi that he has no pictures of any of them; they were burnt when the family home was fired on the day before.

Now Hilmi mainly potters round the house, set amid devastated orchards and chicken coops in the southern Gaza City district of Zeitoun. The graffiti in English and Hebrew on the interior walls, left by the men of the Israeli army’s Givati brigade, are the only relics of their two-week occupation of the building – a gravestone drawn beside the words “Gaza we were here”; “One down and 999,000 to go”; “Death to Arabs”. Has the family deliberately kept the graffiti visible? “Yes, but anyway we didn’t have paint to cover them,” he says. One of Hilmi’s duties is to help look after his dauntingly self-possessed 11-year-old sister Mona, who turns the pages of artwork inspired by her memories of the morning of 5 January 2009. “This is me cleaning the face of mother who is dead. This is my father who was hit in the head and his brains came out. This is my dead sister-in-law. This is my sister taking the son from my sister in law…”

The warehouse shelling commemorated in Mona’s artwork was one of the worst of many attacks on civilians in Gaza by Israeli forces between 27 December and 18 January. The Israeli military offensive had been a long time coming but still the multiple Saturday-afternoon bombing raids with which it began came as a surprise. The stated purpose was to halt the rocket and mortar attacks – 470 of which had spread undoubted fear through the border communities of southern Israel since an Israeli raid on Hamas ended an uneasy but largely effective five-month ceasefire in early November 2008.

But if the timing was a surprise, the unprecedented ferocity of the onslaught on Hamas-controlled Gaza was even more so. More than two weeks into the war, the Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni would boast in a radio interview that “Israel … is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild – and this is a good thing”.