I'm going to open a new blog. The difference is that because it is not IAJV, I will feel free to comment on issues unrelated to Israel and Palestine.

http://michaelbrull.wordpress.com/

To ease the transition, the first entry rehashes old ground: Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, and old criticisms against the boycott. Though to repeat myself for those who'd represent me: I favour a targeted boycott, based around the occupied territories (such as of settlements, soldiers, those who support either, and so on), based on support for a two state agreement.

Actually, calling Ahmadinejad the bigot in chief is inaccurate, because he has a boss who holds all the real power in the country. It was kind of comical that after the suppression of the mass protests, you could read Zionist propagandists saying that Ahmadinejad had now concentrated all power in his hands. Knowledgeable observers, such as Akbar Ganji, warned that power was being concentrated in the hands of Khamenei, but of course, Khamenei doesn't use the same rhetoric, so it was not ideologically serviceable to recognise this. Anyway, Ahmadinejad usually uses euphemisms to avoid directly saying the Holocaust didn't happen (We just need more research, why won't you let us investigate it rationally?). He may have openly denied the Holocaust just now, though there's differences in the reported remarks, and there's a history of his remarks being mistranslated.

According to Ynet, he said "If the Holocaust was planned by the West, why won't you allow any research on the Holocaust? The Holocaust has turned into a black box and they won't let anyone open it and examine it… If this is such an important event, why won't you let us reveal the reality to the entire world?"  According to Haaretz, "The pretext [Holocaust] for the creation of the Zionist regime [Israel] is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told the worshippers. "Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty." Press TV says "The president then went on to question the story behind the Holocaust and urged a probe into it.

"If the Holocaust, as you claim, is true, why don't you allow a probe into the issue?""

Anyway, he's been condemned as a digrace by Germany, the US and so on. Looking further, the translation of the "lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim" appears to come from MEMRI. "

"The pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie - a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, and the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust."

It's possible that he did say this, but really, no one should believe anything from MEMRI. We'll wait to see what (say) Juan Cole has to say about it. That's not to say he didn't say anything stupid - the YNet version is bad enough.

Oh wait. There is a reputable source.

"Our call over the past four years has been if the Holocaust claimed by the Zionist regime and its allies is true, why they (Zionists and westerners) do not allow any research on it?"

President Ahmadinejad said research on everything is free but Holocaust is the key to a sealed fact and black box.

"When the event is so much important for which a land is occupied, such a war is waged, millions of people are killed, injured and made homeless, thousands of families are ruined and the Middle East is kept under the shadow of insecurity, why the black box should not be decoded so that facts and realities are revealed to all?"

He said Palestine is still the most important issue of the world of Islam. "We do believe that if war is waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because of Zionists’ provocation. If Sudan is suppressed it is because of Zionists’ temptations. Zionists are behind all the conspiracies of the arrogance and colonialism. They do not allow the main factor of excuses for Palestine occupation be examined and surveyed."

"The pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie; a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, and the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust."

It should be noted that "Zionists" is his racist euphemism for Jews. Anyway, this is from the IRIB website. IRIB is for official state propaganda. This should settle it. Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a lie and a mythical claim.  You can see it here too.

Of course, I condemn all Holocaust denial as outrageous and disgraceful. On this, I am different from, say, AIJAC. Take Colin Rubenstein. He indignantly denied that Khatami should be considered a moderate. For Rubenstein, the moderate Arab governments are "Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even the Palestinian Authority". Obviously untroubled by what As'ad AbuKhalil charges is institutionalised anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia and their grotesque media, Israel's favourite "moderate", and the head of the "moderate" Palestinian authority is Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Holocaust denier, and wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject. Of course, AIJAC used to write about this and complain about it, but apparently defending a Holocaust denier doesn't seem problematic for them anymore. And again, it should be stressed: Rubenstein has specifically written a column saying that "moderate" is a term which should be carefully used, and denied to Khatami. Denying it to a Holocaust denier apparently doesn't occur to Rubenstein. For those who actually take the issue seriously, you can learn a lot about AIJAC from this.

Boycotting Israel

Philip Mendes is up to his usual tricks, claiming everyone who disagrees with him is anti-Semitic if he disagrees with them. Today, he is in the Australian with someone called Nick Dryenfurth, complaining about those who would boycott Israel. He claims "Taken to its logical conclusion, the proposed cultural and academic boycott of Israel would mean that institutions such as AICE and perhaps scholarly hubs, including the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, would close, preventing a large number of students, Jewish and non-Jewish, from learning about the rich history of the Jewish people."

Notice how someone proposes boycotting Israel, and Mendes (and his co-writer) pretend this means that Jews will be boycotted. Why would boycotting Israel mean anyone couldn't study Jewish history? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Mendes without any evidence to support it labels people as anti-Semitic on the most frivolous basis.

They go on:

"According to the BDS movement, Israel is one of the world's worst human rights abusers and is committing genocide against the Palestinians."

Well, no, the BDS campaign doesn't mean Israel is engaged in genocide, but facts obviously don't trouble these writers.

"This supposedly justifies the discriminatory singling out of Israeli academics and culture producers on national and ethnic grounds." Well, no, this does not mean discriminatory singling out of Israeli academics on ethnic grounds. As the authors should know - but perhaps knowingly conceal - Israel does not just have Jews within its green line (not to mention the occupied territory). The boycott would obviously also affect Palestinians. The authors might also wonder what the Palestinians think about the boycott, but plainly only what Jews think, or how they might suffer, occurs to them.

It is also amazing that they can speak of a discriminatory boycott. At a time when Hamas and Gaza are being boycotted and under siege, when Israel is pressing for international sanctions against Iran, when there actually are lots of other countries under sanctions, boycotts, calls for divestment and so on (anyone who attended a rally for Burma - and it's likely they haven't - should know that such calls are perfectly standard for activists).

But then, watch their sophisticated arguments against the boycott: "Moderates and extremists exist on both sides of what is an immensely complex conflict and there is simply no proof that Israel is acting more severely than other countries engaged in national and ethnic conflicts."

This is the sole proof of their assertion. They then go on to complain of Indonesia in East Timor, and the US in Vietnam. They note that the boycott campaign in the West started in 2002, yet they apparently still think it is a serious argument against the boycott that war crimes committed years (and decades) earlier were worse. They even make the obscene assertion: "Nor is there any plan to boycott Palestinian or Arab academics who endorse suicide bombings and other violent attacks on Israeli civilians." Yes, there is, but Mendes and Dryenfurth are such fanatical Zionists that they have not noticed the siege and boycott on Gaza and its elected government.

"Second, it is simply arrant nonsense to call Israel an apartheid state. While the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has some superficial similarities with apartheid in South Africa, the analogy cannot reasonably be applied to Green Line Israel given the civil and political rights enjoyed by its Arab citizens."

Superficial similarities. This is again a demonstration of their intellectual sophistication. Mendes always refuses to discuss any of the issues, and this is characteristic of the intellectual substance of everything he writes, where he notes that he disagrees with whoever, and then proceeds to his typical name-calling. Note also they don't discuss any of the "superficial similarities", because that might display some sympathy for the Palestinians and their suffering (assuming Mendes and his co-author actually are capable of such emotion). They go on to say how wonderful the Israeli academia is. They say:

"Third, there is no evidence that most Israeli academics actively endorse via their teaching and research practices serious human rights abuses. On the contrary, many Israeli academics are active in the political Left and vigorous critics of the occupation. About 400 Israeli academics - about 5 per cent of all academics - signed a petition supporting conscientious draft objectors who refused to serve in the occupied territories." I would like to see where they found this petition. It seems to me unlikely, given how little political support the refuseniks get. Even if what they said were true, 5% of Israeli academics seriously supporting activism against the occupation hardly demonstrates that Israeli academics don't support (or silently collude) with Israel's crimes agains the Palestinians. Take a (much) more mild and uncontroversial issue. The proposed law that would ban Nakba commemoration. 230 academics signed a petiiton saying they'd defy such a law. Well, that's good, though it was rather belated. But the issue is so extremely mild, and that so few academics signed something that is breathtakingly racist and callous to Palestinian suffering, really speaks for itself.

This is not to say the academy in Israel is worse than anywhere else (such as Australia). It's that to pretend they're progressive is a joke. There is no peace camp in Israel, there are simply small handfuls of brave activists.

"It is incongruous that many of the boycott proponents are of Jewish extraction. None of these figures seems to have considered that a boycott together with their inflammatory rhetoric (and fundamentalist anti-Zionism more generally) might provoke racist discrimination against Jews."

It might. Yet note how they again seek to raise the smear of anti-Semitism. Boycotting Israel doesn't just mean boycotting Jews, but they're such fanatical propagandists that they conveniently forget again that there are Palestinians within Israel (they only mention this when they're pretending Israel is a liberal democracy, as proven by allowing Palestinians to vote in elections, perhaps soon only for parties that Israel considers acceptable). Of course, I oppose the blanket boycott, favouring a targetted boycott campaign of the occupied territories. Oddly, Mendes commented on this post favourably (and he apparently confused me with someone who commented on the post), raising the obvious question: does he favour a targetted boycott? Or should I soon expect to be labelled an anti-Semite? He's raised this before, as when on Galus Australis, he queried whether a talk I gave was connected to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But then, this reflects his general intellectual seriousness in discussing Israel and Palestine.

The Jewish News

Typically, there's messages from Turnbull, Rudd, Yuval Rotem (thankfully, the Israeli ambassador didn't say how wonderful it is that we're a white oasis in Asia or whatever the last guy said), the Premiers of Victoria and NSW and the opposition.

The AJN editorial is actually really incredible.

They say that "The biolerplate argument that the report should not be taken seriously because the UN has a historic bias against Israel - charge that is not unfounded - will not be enough to counter this particular report, for a number of reasons.

 Firstly, Justice Richard Goldstone, in accepting the UN's request to lead the inquest, lent credibility to the process that it would not otherwise have had. A highly regarded figure on the international human rights scene with experience in the prosecution of war crimes, Goldstone commands respect. Goldstone's presence also deflects criticism for the report by the fact that he is Jewish and has had a good relationship with Israel in the past."

The other thing is the US has joined the HRC. Taking it seriously because the US is in it is indicative of how shocking the AJN is. But anyway. However, the AJN says it would be a "mistake" to simply dismiss the report. "The Israeli government must keep its emotions in check and take this report very seriously - refute what it can refute, and continue to work towards vigorously prosecuting the rest. The consequences of misplaying its hand on this would be grave."

Larry Stillman wrote a letter complaining about Danby's attack on NM and Crikey. I have no idea why he calls Danby a "strong defender of human rights, refugees and freedom of expression". Though to be fair to Danby, the AJN says he defends the rights of Jews in Melbourne Ports.

Another letter by Ian Katz compares Jake Lynch's advocacy of a boycott of Israel as reminiscent of the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. Also, what about Sudan and Zimbabwe (etc)?

There's a column by Michael Visontay. Where does the AJN get these people? He writes "It is legitimate to argue that Israel did not "invade" Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, but rather, re-occupied territories to which is had a historical right of ownership."

That's right. He puts "invade" in quotation marks. These sorts of views are almost pathological.

The water supply in the Gaza Strip is on the very of collapse due to
pollution that has been worsened by damage to infrastructure during Operation Cast Lead, according to a United Nations Environment Program report released Tuesday.

Sewage contamination of the water table far exceeds allowable levels set by the World Health Organization, the report states. The UN report notes that it will take more than 20 years and a billion dollars to rehabilitate the water system in Gaza.

The report, based on a visit by representatives of the United Nations
Environmental Program to Gaza in May, says that nearly one-fifth of the
greenhouses in Gaza were destroyed in the war in Gaza. The movement of tanks caused long-term damage to the ground that will impede cultivation.

Damage to sewage facilities apparently led to waste water penetrating the
aquifer.

In a number of places, high concentrations of toxic substances were found, which had originated from within homes or industrial structures, although no significant source of pollution dangerous to humans was found.

However, the most severe problem according to the UN report is a decline in the quality of drinking water. The decline is not directly connected to Operation Cast Lead, but rather to prolonged over-pumping from Gaza's aquifer, which has led to its salination.

The report recommends seeking alternative water sources as soon as possible for Gaza, including desalinated sea water.

Gaza's population faces severe health problems due to the decline in drinking- water quality, such as the so-called "blue baby syndrome" in which babies' blood is damaged by exposure to nitrate compounds in waste. The babies become cyanotic, which causes their skin to take on a blue tinge, and to suffer from respiratory and intestinal problems.

That said, I was not an hour late, but about 20 minutes late, and so I heard most of the speeches. When they were done, I spoke against the BDS campaign, though unlike the latecomers, I was quickly cut off by the chair. Afterwards, I spoke to Docker about why I oppose a blanket boycott.

One of the latecomers called out to Lynch that he would like to see a forum organised to discuss the issue. Indeed, I very strongly agree, and I would love to take part in such a debate if anyone would host it, though my perspective is more of a third perspective than in favour of the Israeli state loyalists, or the BDS campaigners.

In my brief comments, I noted that whilst Loewenstein cited Naomi Klein and Neve Gordon in favour of the boycott, in a sense they are not orthodox boycotters. Klein went on a book tour of Israel, and explained that she boycotts Israeli state institutions, not Israelis. Similarly, Gordon has joined the BDS campaign, but in an interview which you can hear on ZNet, he advises that this be contextual, and focus on boycotting the occupied territories (ie, the settlements etc).

This sort of boycott is different from a blanket boycott of Israel. For those whose boycott is to implement a two state solution, it will be an effective campaign. It means they can unite with Israelis who would be willing to support a viable two state solution, against their government. For those who boycott Israel as a whole, they simply fan the flames of Israeli nationalism, and push the population to the right. It may be held that this doesn't matter, but this is only the case for those who support a one state solution. Yet those who support a one state solution do not, in my opinion, do any service to the Palestinians.

People who support a one state solution go on to decry Zionism, to say how unjust Israel is and so on. I think this largely misses the point. It seems to me little different from a socialist who refuses to campaign against Workchoices, because capitalism itself needs to be dismantled. Well, it's nice to have ideological purity, but if you want to struggle for something, it's worthwhile asking how this can be achieved. There is no support for a one state solution in Israel's Jewish 80% of its population, and even among the Palestinians - under occupation, and likely among Israeli Palestinians - the majority supports a two state solution. Hamas and Fatah both support a two state solution (though Hamas is more equivocal, but it is becoming increasingly committed to it), the international community supports a two state solution, and the Arab League is becoming openly supported to the two state solution. A few countries might be expected to be willing to support a one state solution, but it would hardly be wise to place bets on the sincerity of the anti-Zionism of Syria or Iran. Syria would happily sell out the Palestinians for the Golan Heights, and Iran had no problems buying arms from Israel in the 1980s. Given Israel's nuclear weapons, military power, support by the US, it is inconceivable that Israel can be forced to do anything against the wishes of its population.

On the other hand, a boycott of the occupied territories makes perfectly plain that the issue is over the occupation: Israel can achieve normalcy if it abides by the two state solution it offers lip service to, or it can become a pariah, like apartheid South Africa, because the occupying regime in Palestine is an apartheid regime. This does not change that Israel discriminates against the Palestinians in Green Line Israel, that the refugees suffer in camps in Lebanon and Gaza and so on because of the crimes of Zionism and so on. It simply means that supporting Palestinian rights for sober observers cannot mean insisting on demands that have no prospects of being achieved.

This doesn't mean that we should stop talking about Zionism or anything like that. It means we take a few simple questions seriously in activism.

Firstly, what would we like to see achieved? Secondly, what can be achieved? The second one is considered unimportant by some, yet surely is no less important. A two state solution has the backing of the international community, most of Israeli and Palestinian populations, and so on. The only things blocking it are the Israeli government and the American government (and occasionally, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and on occasion Australia). Saying that the two state solution has failed because we haven't achieved it is remarkable. If we have not yet ended the occupation with these factors on our side, that hardly makes the case for switching to a one-state struggle. The switch would only make sense if it were shown that a one-state solution were somehow more achievable. And this plainly and obviously is not the case.

Having said this, we should reject those who claim support for a one state solution is racist, anti-Semitic and so on and so forth. And we should reject those who pretend that a two state solution is just, that Israel has a right to be racist, to treat its Palestinian citizens with contempt, to refuse to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes because of Israel's "demographic balance" (ie, a euphemism that could be called ethno-national purity). Zionism still deserves honest discussion, and Palestinian suffering still deserves to be known and deplored.

The Gaza Strip's underground water supply is in danger of collapse due to overuse and contamination, exacerbated by Israel's offensive there in December, the United Nations said Monday.

A report released at the Nairobi headquarters of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned that it could take centuries for damage to Gaza's aquifer to be reversed unless action was taken now.

"Many of the impacts of the recent hostilities have exacerbated environmental degradation that has been years in the making," UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said.

Alternative water sources need to be found in order to rest the aquifer, which provides drinking water for Gaza's 1.5 million residents, UNEP said.

Salt water intrusion and pollution from sewage and agricultural runoff are serious concerns, putting infants in the Gaza Strip at risk of nitrate poisoning, said the report, based on an assessment carried out earlier this year.

Other environmental concerns for Gaza include 600,000 tonnes of rubble created by the Israeli offensive, UNEP said.

The hostilities also saw refuse collection suspended, the build up of hazardous medical waste at landfill sites due to more injured and the release of pollutants such as fuel into the soil, UNEP said.

According to UNEP, more than 1.5 billion dollars could be needed over the next 20 years to restore the aquifer.

One can understand this - and the silence, when it is not support, of the Zionist leadership here in Australia - on the presumption that Palestinians do not deserve water.

Two regular contributors to Crikey and Newmatilda-Antony Loewenstein and his Sancho Panza, Michael Brull-also responded tomy speech in a jointly authored article stating that my criticism could be condensed into the following:

Michael Danby erodes his credibility by accusing two Jews of anti-Semitism because they don't agree with him ...

I am certainly content to reiterate here that, in relation to their commentary of the conflict, the two individuals are guilty of double standards, demonisation and delegitimisation. However, contrary to their response, their ethnicity

was not addressed in my speech at all because it was clearly not my principal concern.

Their writing and the editorial bias of the online publications for which they write clearly puts them on the fringe of Australian politics. If one compares the things that they wrote with, say, Labor Party discussions at the recent national conference, one would see that they are completely outside the mainstream of the centre-left party in this country, for instance. For those writers to seek refuge behind their ethnicity is particularly craven. It is dishonest.

The thrust of my previous speech and tonight's lies with the creepier bigotry that their articles and other articles unleashed in these two online publications, which apparently had no problem with publishing them.

Later, there's an article about South Africa and support for boycotting Israel within the ruling ANC. They note that Ronnie Kasrils has been critical of Israel, and don't use ad hominems, but say he is "a Jewish champion of the South African anti-apartheid struggle, who until last year was the country's intelligence minister."

The editorial is a little amazing. It seems to come out in favour of the settlers. They call for negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu to be resumed. They complain about all these world leaders (the EU and the US - note the skin colour of the governments that matter to the AJN) criticising Israel over the settlemetns. They go on to say that the

settlement issue isn't that simple. It is more complicated than its dog-eared entry in the diplomatic playbook would suggest. Nothing is better evidence of that than the story of the 1929 Hebron Massacre, the anniversary of which was observed this week. That unprovoked attack, which killed 67 Jews, long predated Israeli settlements or even the State of Israel. It didn't predate Hebron's Avraham Avinu synagogue - built in 1540 - or the soaring facade of the Cave of the Patriarchs building complex, which traces back to Herodian times.

The Jews have a continuous connection to these disputed lands - immaterial to arbitrary ceasefire lines. Regardless if you agree with Israel's decision to build homes there, their claim deserves the right to be aired in the framework of comprehensive peace negotiations.

Okay? So, even if you don't think Israel should build homes there, they should be able to do what they want during negotiations. The AJN goes on to note that Abbas has negotiated before in the absence of a settlement freeze. Yes, so did Arafat, and we learn a lot from that fact. But anyway, they say Netanyahu has extracted "substantial concessions" from his Likud government. !!!

Meanwhile, Jamie Hyams in the AIJAC column proves he knows one fact. He admits that the Stern Gang was "certainly guilty of terrorism". It seems like the most right-wing elements in the community are gaining some familiarity with reality. I still know some ultra-Zionists who think the Zionists never committed any acts of terrorism, and in fact even the blowing up of the King David Hotel wasn't terrorism.

The writer in the AJN explains solemnly that it has “called for the destruction of Israel”, and “is banned in several countries, including Egypt.” YES! Including Egypt! And you want to send him back there. But this just reflects the Mubarak-Zionist alliance, showing how seriously Zionists take their propaganda about how terrible other countries in the region are, so why pick on Israel. Right now, the only countries in the region Zionists pick on are Sudan, Syria and Iran, because they’re not American puppets aligned with Israel, with varying degrees of overtness. Jeremy Jones of AIJAC says the MB has “been banned in many countries for many sound reasons. They’re dedicated to replacing existing regimes with theirs.” Yes, political parties do tend to advocate political change (such as, the Liberals here, or the Australian Labour Party. Has he heard of this thing, democracy?) Note that this is a tacit defence of the existing regimes that the MB threatens. Apparently, Jones thinks it inappropriate to seek to replace the existing regime in Egypt for example. Perhaps he agrees with Colin Rubenstein that these are "moderate" regimes.

This is not to defend the MB in Egypt as an admirable organisation. Angry Arab, for example, holds the perfectly simple position of opposing their political views, whilst supporting the rights of their members to not be arrested and tortured.

The AJN editorial is customary. Remembering the Holocaust, it concludes: “For Jewish communities, the words “never again” summarise feelings about the Holocaust, and more broadly, about world wars. Is there another Hitler on the horizon? Who knows? But one thing is for sure. If there is, this time he will have a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.” This is their sober way of saying Ahmadinejad is Hitler trying to get nukes. There is a thoughtful letter by Ron Burdo, suggesting that disillusionment with Israel may be inevitable. There is a frivolous letter by Ian Katz suggesting instead of Pilger getting the Sydney Peace Prize, it should be awared posthumously to the Balibo Five and Roger East. He goes on to praise the “great journalists” who wrote about the crimes in East Timor and exposed our complicity. He thinks he’s praising the aforementioned, without realising it includes Pilger too. But such is the mypoia that often characterises letter writers to the AJN.

David Langsam writes to AJN on Pilger. I like this fellow Langsam, he seems pretty cool. Anyway, he was “dismayed” to read ECAJ’s Goot comments on Pilger. “If Pilger was a working journalist in 1940, he would have been the lone voice demanding attention for the plight of Jews in Germany and Poland. And the rich and powerful in the land would have used precisely the same wrods to denigrate him that Goot used.

  I have known of John Pilger since I was a teenager in the 1960s when he reported firsthand on the disaster that was Vietnam and later Cambodia and everywhere else. I am proud to say that I have known John personally for 20 years and have reviewed his documentaries for the Fairfax press, as well as UK media, and the accusations against him are simply wrong and defamatory.”

Pilger “seeks out inequality and exposes it. He has said nothing that is not reported daily in Ha’aretz, Ma’ariv, and the Jerusalem Post. I am saddened that Good doesn’t understand that Pilger’s life is dedicated to spotlighting inequity. He has spoken against Australia’s treatment of Aborigines, he has documented poverty in Britain, exposed the horror of Cambodia, and was on the case of East Timor a decade before it became popular. Pilger’s track record is impeccable.”

Meanwhile, Abramovich’s frivolous attack on Sensible Jew was reprinted again, originally from the Age. The Age printed a bit of my letter today in response.

Wide range?

DVIR Abramovich (''There are as many Jewish opinions as there are Jews'', 30/8) quotes approvingly some Jewish declaration that ''most communal roof bodies include a wide range of opinions''. [But] all major communal Jewish organisations support almost everything the Israeli Government does. They make no pretence at including alternative views, and actively seek to smear people who hold different views.

To give some examples, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry called Norman Finkelstein and Ilan Pappe anti-Semitic in their submission to the Senate on academic freedom. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council's Bren Carlill said I wanted to see the West Bank ''Judenrein'' because I said settlements had a relation to the lack of peace.

The [B'nai B'rith] Anti-Defamation Commission privately wrote to New Matilda, urging them to stop printing articles criticising Israel, singling out two serial offenders: Antony Loewenstein and myself. We're both Jewish.

Age readers should not fear that disbelieving Abramovich makes them anti-Semites. It means they take anti-Semitism more seriously than those who think it's an easy way to win arguments.

MICHAEL BRULL, Sydney

The AJN interviews Thomas Buergenthal. They don’t seem to be familiar with his views on the West Bank Wall (such as asking him about his ruling, although perhaps they did ask and thought better of publishing it. They put him under the heading of his place with the International Court of Justice, and also Child Holocaust Survivor. Saying he regards the settlements as illegal and all parts of the wall protecting them illegal too, perhaps didn’t make the cut.)

Jamie Hyams, in his AIJAC column, writes with his trademark erudition. Under the heading “Historical wrongs”, he seeks to correct Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: “In fact, the Palestinian mandate was created following World War I, with the specific aim of the creation of a Jewish state, and anti-Jewish violence there preceded the UN partition resolution.” Emphasis added.

The first letter is interesting. Arthur Hurwitz explains that “Israel should learn from Sri Lanka how to deal with terrorists.” I think they already have (or rather, they have a few things in common, such as refusing international media access).

An editorial says there were 144 questions in the survey. They say 80% of Jews identify as Zionist – something “we should take great pride in and it should finally put to rest the absurd notion pushed by the likes of Antony Loewenstein, and Jews Against the Occupation, that there is a large and silent group of Australian Jews who don’t support Israel.

                Perhaps the survey has unwittingly revealed that these types of people are merely self-promoters who add nothing to the Australian Jewish experience.”

Okay, so the figures are often interesting. Around 8 in 10 identify as Zionist. This is pretty broad. It is frivolous for the AJN to claim that being Zionist means they’re all “supporters of Israel”, because someone can say they are Zionist, believe they support Israel, and oppose the occupation and discrimination against Palestinians. Saying they’re Zionist actually carries very little information, but what it does show is that 20% of Jews don’t identify as Zionist, and are effectively unrepresented (more on this soon).

Anyway, 21% of Jews are secular, 37% traditional, 14% progressive, 3% conservative, 19% modern orthodox, and 6% strictly orthodox. I don’t know how they figure this out either – lots of Jews identify as modern orthodox, but do not practice modern orthodoxy at all. So it’s perfectly possible that something between 25% and 8% of Jews are orthodox. In Sydney, synagogues are overwhelmingly orthodox or modern orthodox, Moriah and Emanuel are modern orthodox (etc)

On Zionism: 78% of Sydney Jews, and 82% of Melbourners identify as Zionist. It’s a strong majority, but hardly a consensus one. More than 10% of Jews across various educational attainments do not identify as Zionist, whereas the remainder of the missing 10% decline to answer. Well, it’s possible that some decline to answer because they couldn’t be bothered getting through 144 questions. That should become clear if we can look at the results and see how conscientious responders were. It’s also possible Jews were not willing to identify themselves as non-Zionists.  Or perhaps they felt the issue was too complicated. Regardless, an ordinary Jew could have read an early edition of the dreaded Loewenstein’s book, where he still supported Israel’s right to exist, and be Zionist, yet hold the view the AJN regards as so criminal and outrageous.

The other questions they tell us is that 56% of Jews feel “special alarm” if Israel is in danger (as opposed to another country. 20% feel their own life is in danger, with the greatest fears from elderly Jews. 63% of Jews follow events in Israel closely (a lot or to a large extent). Less than 5% were not at all interested in events in Israel. Now, that’s pretty striking. If you have something like 95% of Jews interested in Israeli politics, and 20% do not identify as Zionist, that means 15% of Jews care at least a bit about Israel, but are sufficiently skeptical of the views of the leading Jewish organisations to not identify as Zionist. The AJN treats these figures with triumph. If they were more intelligent, they would be alarmed. Jews overwhelmingly only hear pro-Zionist (and basically right wing Zionist) claims from all the Jewish organisations (educational, communal, spokespeople and so on). Yet a serious minority doesn’t trust them. 10% non-Zionist is about the same as the vote Greens get. The Greens obviously won’t win an election, but Australian politics means they get a voice and hearing. The Jewish News, on the other hand, thinks their equivalent is so marginal that they add nothing to the Jewish experience, and are not a large and silent group and so on. 10% of some 100 000 Jews means 10 000 Jews. And regardless, I’ll stress again: being non-Zionist does not summarise the view of those who think Israel is oppressing the Palestinians dreadfully. Lots of Zionists can and do think that (though how many Australian Jews think this is something we don’t know). This is despite a media which is overwhelmingly devoid of sympathetic coverage of Palestinian rights, that the only public commentators who ever criticise Israel are printed in small circulation magazines like Crikey and newmatilda, with the corporate media overwhelmingly avoiding printing people like  Loewenstein (and really, Loewenstein belongs to a very small category of public critics of Israeli actions and crimes).

As if they want to give me a heart attack, watch the vox pop on should Israel negotiate with Hamas.

http://jewishnews.net.au/2009/05/27/video-vox-pop/97

People actually are in favour of it, with the first person saying it’s complicated, another saying no, another saying “you have to negotiate with your enemies”. The lady is from Habonim. I have a very low opinion of Habonim, so that was a pleasant surprise (though I know one dude from Habo who I think is a good dude, but politically I have sharp differences).

Anyway, the Zionist identification. Yes, no, and decline will be presented as numbers after catgeories:

Year 11-12: 80.9, 11.8, 7.3 (sample size 560).

Diploma: 74.1, 16.2, 9.7 (384)

Some tertiary: 85.1, 10.4, 4.5 (503)

Bachelor: 84.4, 10.6, 5 (1519)

Postgrad diploma: 81.8, 11.5, 6.8%

Masters degree: 83.7, 11.3, 4.9 (635)

PhD: 77.4, 14.5, 8.1 (207)

I would have anticipated a far smaller non-Zionist turnout. Perhaps my views were skewed, because I’ve been involved in so many Zionist Jewish organisations, which as it turns out are of course not representative.

Why don’t Jews feel part of the community (or feel like they are only slightly part of the community)? 4.8% say they have “views different from leadership”. 1.8% say “Not Zionist”. Now that means that they feel alienated from the community because of the leadership’s stance on Israel. That means if the polls is representative, we should extrapolate to 1 800 Jews who are basically radical anti-Zionists. This presumably seems a tiny minority of the Jewish community. Yet the experience of Jews criticising Israel in Australia is a very new phenomenon. I grew up without anything like it, but Jews who grow up with this can increasingly be expected to be open to drifting leftwards on the question of Israel. Besides that, if 1800 Jews take a position which is somewhat radical, how many Jews are less radical, but still critical of the Israeli government and opposed to the leadership’s endless support of Israeli crimes?

This is all very interesting, and in a way, I think it is cause for optimism. There is more of an opening in the Jewish community than I had actually realised. Even in the tiny category of 1800 radical Jews, it does not include those who are anti-Zionist, but feel part of the community. What is also news is that contrary to Mendes, it turns out people are Jewish even if they are not Zionist (or whatever ridiculous criteria he applies to Jews with opinions he disapproves of).

I think really, what this poll shows is that the Jewish left isn’t so different from the Australian left. Australian voters support the Greens at about the same rate as non-Zionists (10%), if we put aside the decline to answer category. Of course, non-Zionism may be more complex, but only 5% of Jews aren’t interested in Israel, so we might say 15% of Jews take a stance which is really quite uncommon and unexpected for Jews. And again, we don’t yet know what respondents would have said if asked “do you think the settlements in the West Bank should be dismantled right now?” or “Do you think Israel’s attack on Gaza this year was immoral?” In fact, it’s sort of interesting to think, I think about 28% of Australians recently asked in a poll identified as pro-Palestinian, whereas 24.5% said they were pro-Israel. If perhaps 10% of Jews might identify as pro-Palestinian (and it’s possible that it’s actually more, or that some of those who don’t follow events in Israel are actually Zionist anyway), that means there’s not such a huge gap between the Australian public and the Jewish public in supporting Palestinian rights (except that the uneducated in the Australian public find their corresponding figures in Zionists).

Of course, I would think a more important study would be of attitudes towards Israeli governments. What do they think of Lieberman? Do they like Netanyahu? And so on. Regardless, this is a significant study, and should be a welcome contribution. The anti (or non)-Zionism in Australia is actually similar to the Knesset representation of Palestinians in Israel. I’m sure there are some bigots who will say this makes the anti-Zionist left the Jewish Australian Arabs. For my part, I’m pleased and interested, and receive the news with pleasant surprise.

Friday August 14’s edition. The Jewish organisations are not happy about the Sydney Peace Prize going to John PIlger. Robert Goot of ECAJ says "Awarding a peace prize to John Pilger is bizarre and disgraceful". "Pilger does not promote peace, but is a polemicist, a distorter of facts and history, and he promotes an extreme Palestinian narrative at the expense of Israel’s narrative and objective analysis."NSW JBD CEO Vic Alhadeff agreed. "Presenting the Sydney Peace Prize to Mr Pilger makes a farce of the award. Some of his work over the years has been noteworthy for its extreme lack of balance or context, which has done nothing to promote the cause of peace." Perhaps Alhadeff includes his work on South Africa (which he was banned from for decades), or East Timor, or the Chagossians from Diego Garcia.

In the letters bit, Vic Alhadeff strives to show that Michael Burd (previous week in letters) was wrong in saying there was no point in dialogue with Muslims. To show this isn’t the case, he talks about how he and someone else from JBD repeatedly have given talks to Muslims about anti-Semitism. Apparently they also welcomed a Muslim to speak about anti-Muslim racism. But this is just farcical. Surely, it should be Muslims speaking about anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, and Jews talking about anti-Muslim racism. Yet Mr Alhadeff has little interest in this. When Benny Morris - who thinks the Arab world is barbarian, who thinks the Palestinians should be caged, who regrets the failure to expel all the Arabs in 1948 - came to speak at Central Synagogue, he was introduced by Alhadeff. And what did Alhadeff talk about? His struggle against anti-Semitism.

There is an editorial whose title is "Danby’s human rights message." It says " Danby’s work in promoting the rights and interests of the large number of Jewish community workers in Melbourne Ports is well known, but it is possible to overlook his work on human rights for Jews and other minorities." Did they mention that he supports the rights of Jews in Australia? Surely they can stop here: What else would it take to show how deeply he cares about human rights?

"It is not just rocket attacks on Sderot, or bombings and shootings in Jerusalem that bring Danby to his feet in Parliament." He speaks out on Tibet, and "stands up for the Sudanese in Darfur and monitors Wahabist Islamic extremism encroaching on South-East Asia." I’m sure everyone in South East Asia (particularly Burma and Vietnam) appreciates his vigilance on this most pressing issue facing them.

On the next page (a Danby special), there’s an article on Danby, who weeps that whilst the Tibetans do not get UN support, unlike the Palestinians, "who are having butter gorged down their throats by the United Nations, by the European Union, and yet they don’t have anything by comparison to the Tibetans." Danby is deeply distressed by the occupation of Tibet by China, but not West Papua by Indonesia or Palestine by Israel. However, to be fair to him, he does support the rights of Jews in Melbourne Ports.

AIJAC AND BREN CARLILL

Malcolm Fraser "who’s not my cup of tea generally, but has become increasingly liberal over the years " advocates negotiations with Hamas. He also says: "There is significant debate within Israel itself about policy regarding the Palestinians. However, attempts by others to debate issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently Israel's attacks in Gaza, often lead to a charge of anti-Semitism." I wonder if he has the case involving me, Antony and New Matilda in mind.

Bren Carlill writes in the Australian about the ACMA letting al Manar (Hezbollah tv) broadcast into Australia. Carlill claims:

"Yet while a majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, the majority of terrorists are Muslim, an uncomfortable fact that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of political correctness. It is rare to find a Muslim terrorist who acts only for a secular, nationalist cause. The vast majority act, in part or wholly, according to their interpretation of Islam. We can decry this, but we shouldn't deny it. Doing so removes the possibility of us understanding their motivations and thus, a pathway to prevent future terrorism."

What can be said about this? It is true that the majority of terrorists are Muslims if we define terrorism to mean "terrorism committed by Muslims." Firstly, and most obviously, state terrorism has always been a more severe phenomenon than anything by non-state actors. Even in the case of suicide bombings, Pape’s study showed that more suicide bombings had been committed by the (secular) Tamil Tigers than any other group. More generally, it’s perfectly obvious more severe crimes have been committed by non-Muslims in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and so on. Furthermore, even if we stick to terrorism by Muslims, it is ridiculous to say there has been no secular nationalist cause for terrorism. Firstly, the Mujahideen declared a holy war, but their cause was secular and nationalist " expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan. Obviously, a religious person will always interpret their actions as sanctioned by their religious beliefs " but those religious beliefs interact with reality. The mujahideen attacked Soviet Russians, and not Swedish people, for a reason. Why should we believe Islam is responsible for terrorism? If that were the case, how could we account for the close relations between the house of Saud and the West? More broadly, practically every resurgence of political Islam can be attributed to secular causes. Take Iran. Obviously, the Islamic revolution was Islamic " but the people rallied around a cause which was at least partly secular: against the tyranny of a vicious autocrat who was a US puppet. Hamas sprung up because of the failures of Fatah, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s resurgence in Egypt came after secular forces were crushed (and on and on)

Carlill goes on to warn of "Islamists" " those who see "no distinction between Islam and politics." But again " this doesn’t account for the West’s cosy relations with some Islamists. It is not support for Islamic theocracy that accounts for differences between the West and "Islamists".

Carlill goes on to claim that Hezbollah "refused to disarm" after Israel’s alleged withdrawal from all of Lebanon. He does not mention the Sheba’a Farms. To him, it seems natural to insist that Hezbollah disarm. I imagine people in Hezbollah might consider it equally natural to demand that Israel disarm. People in AIJAC would naturally respond with incredulity to such a claim - after all, Israel has the right to defend itself. Yet after constant bombardment since the 1970s and repeated invasions since 1978, is it so puzzling that Hezbollah should claim a right to defend their country from Israeli invasion? During Israel’s last war on Lebanon, Hezbollah provided the only military response (regardless of what one thinks of the forms it took), which was actually somewhat effective. Whilst Israel’s posture remains belligerent - and it seems likely that Israel may well attack again soon to regain its "deterrent" capacity - it’s straightforward enough that Hezbollah will be unwilling to leave their small, poor country more vulnerable than it is to being devastated by another brutal Israeli attack.

Carlill goes on to define terrorism: "Hezbollah has also fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians; turned its guns on Lebanese civilians; bombed foreign embassies in Lebanon and elsewhere; kidnapped and held for ransom foreign civilians in Lebanon; and carried out multiple terrorist attacks in South America, the European Union and the Middle East. It is, unequivocally, a terrorist organisation."

Well, consider just some of these. Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. Well, Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment of Lebanon has killed thousands of civilians. Hezbollah has held hostages for ransom. What Carlill doesn’t mention is that this is something Israel does too. For example, after Gilad Shalit was captured, Israel captured and locked up for 3 years dozens of members of the elected Hamas government. This is obviously a more extreme crime than capturing civilians, though AIJAC didn’t notice. It was openly condemned in Haaretz as an exercise in using bargaining chips to gain leverage over Hamas. Well, if Carlill were consistent, he might conclude that Israel is a terrorist organisation too. I don’t expect him too. The answer is plain, and can be found in his previous writings. He has claimed that the expulsion of some 10 000 Jews into Israel from Palestinian areas was consistent with the Arabs actively trying to enact a genocide. On the other hand, the "deliberate expulsion" of a "significant minority" of the Palestinian refugees from the Nakba was "perfectly understandable."