If we want to be a real ally to the US, if we want justice and peace, we have an opportunity

I mention ex-prime minister, Malcolm Fraser's article as published in the Age, August 11, 2009 and on the Australian All website, in the post below.

Seeing as I think that Rudd is hoping to outlast Obama, much to my chagrin and shame, though he doesn't seem to have any, I think it is worth posting Fraser's article in full. Considering deputy prime minister, Gillard and countless others take junkets to Israel and the media assists them in averting their eyes from what is going on in the occupied territories and Israel itself, people like Malcolm Fraser are one of the rarest of breeds in politics. A good man. Human.

Australia Can Take a Stand on Talks with Hamas
Malcolm Fraser
First published in The Age 11 August 2009

Barack Obama's election as US President was hailed around the world. He gave many people hope that the US would lead all of us to a new age of enlightenment.

Internationally, Obama has to deal with the fallout of Bush administration policies such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also, more vigorously than any other president, tackling problems between Israel and the Palestinians. While the security of Israel must be inviolate, he has also made it clear that expansion of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem must stop.

Too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel's existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental Islamic domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel. Such arguments exhibit a fatal hopelessness.

Even though Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has not relied on that commitment and has instead pursued its own substantial nuclear arsenal.
Having refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel's nuclear program is not subject to international inspection, supervision or criticism. But its actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran.

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.

Those who believe Israel's policies are misguided should not remain silent and governments should not be locked into uncritical support of Israel. Let me give one example.

After Hamas won a legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and the US led the international community to isolate Hamas and diminish its ability to negotiate by requiring the organisation to forswear violence and recognise Israel's rights before any talks could begin.

Obama has suggested he might have a different approach. He believes that the US should talk to potential enemies to see if some area of agreement can be reached. This is similar to the attitude that president Eisenhower and subsequent presidents took in relation to the Soviet Union. Little by little agreements were reached.

The Baker-Hamilton report in the closing stages of the Bush administration recommended that all parties in the Middle East be involved in a search for a peaceful solution. James Baker himself defended the need to talk to all parties and gave instances from his own experience where that had led to success.

The International Crisis Group, until recently led by Gareth Evans, also believes that the isolation of Hamas should be ended, and that peace will not be advanced under current policies. There are many Americans on the board of the International Crisis Group.

More and more influential people support such views in relation to Hamas. After the election that led to their total isolation, it would have been possible to say: ''From our perspective certain of your views will have to change but you have won a legitimate election, we welcome your participation in the democratic process and therefore we will get into the room with you to see if there are areas of agreement between us.''

But Hamas was isolated, violence - predictably - resumed and the whole region paid the price.

Israel and America also made attempts to strengthen Fatah, to weaken or destroy Hamas. Such attempts have failed. Fatah's leadership was not up to that challenge and too many Palestinians thought that Fatah was self-serving and incompetent.
What happens now? Does Australia have a role? Do we wish to advance the Obama agenda?

Australian governments have paid lip service to even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians. We have spoken against the expansion of settlements, but along with the rest of the world we have not been effective.

Obama is showing more resolution: can we help him? Should we help him? Cessation of settlement expansion is critical to progress. Can the Palestinians legitimately be expected to negotiate when more of the territory they believe to be theirs is taken month by month?
If there were agreement on the boundaries of a Palestinian state, Israel would have no problem about recognition. If the boundaries that existed before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967 were accepted, negotiations would clearly move forward. But that is not the case. Progress between Israel and Palestinians is critical to peace in the Middle East and important in combating terrorism worldwide.

Australia could urge, as others have done, that Hamas be brought in from the cold. But do we have the courage? In doing so, we would be a real partner of the US contributing to peace in the Middle East and removing an important source and inspiration for fundamentalist terrorists.

Fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby in Australia has so far prevented Australian governments taking effective action. If we want to be a real ally to the US, if we want justice and peace, we have an opportunity.

About Malcolm Fraser
Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.

darkly funny, funnily dark

Darkly funny, funnily dark. Via Ben White's blog, and Israeli T.V. Ben White is very pithy. Worth checking out.

1948

Announcer: In 1948, Israel declared independence. The following day, IDF forces

entered the Palestinian villages.

Palestinian: Wa, salaam aleikum, my friend, good morning, mazal tov on the state,

have a great time.

Jew: Thank you, wise Palestinian. But we still don’t know where we’ll live.

Palestinian: Walla, take our village. Here are the keys. We were thinking of leaving

anyway; after all, we’ve got 22 more countries.

Tall soldier: Nice Palestinian, are you sure you don’t want to remain in your home?

We can live together; there’s enough room for everyone.

Palestinian: You know what we Palestinians are like. We’ve got an urge to wander.

What’s that we say? Hoo-wha, hoo-wha, a voice calls, to roam, to

roam.

Jew: Ok, if that’s the way things are we’ll honor your request and take over your

homes. Goodbye, wise Palestinian. (Read more, it doesn't stop there.)

________________________________________________________

Fraser, one of Australia's ex-prime ministers, has been urging a balanced role in dealing with Gaza and Israel and has urged Australians to support Obama on this issue, as Obama has come across as the strongest President, since Eisenhower on the issue of trying to stem somewhat human rights abuses in the area. Not trying to stem aid, though, of course.

He also questions Australia's blind support for Israel. Rightly so, to my mind.

The typical responses have been found in the letters pages, but positive ones also. If you visit either Australians for Palestine, or Antony Loewenstein's blog you will find the original article and the letters. The original article is also at Malcolm Fraser's website, Australians All.

craftiness, witchcraft or skill? gareth evans joins the fray.

I will write about Malaysia, with lots of photos to boot, but I just wanted to quickly observe the following. It is interesting the number of Australian, and politicians of other nations, who find their voice and conscience once they actually leave the craft (as in craftiness, or witch craft, or skill? I'll let you decide) of politics.

Joining Malcolm Fraser as another ex-politician of repute, Gareth Evans, a former Labor foreign minister and ex-deputy prime minister, along with former peace negotiators, has urged Israel and the greater world at large (that being the U.S. and the European Union - though you may as well throw Egypt into the mix) to take the commonsense action of negotiating with Hamas. Hamas (who were elected) have shown a consistent willingness to negotiate since they were elected to power. Israel (and the U.S.) have shown consistent stubbornness in not approaching the negotiation table.

Evans' current post is President and Chief Executive of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), an independent multinational non-governmental organisation with 90 full-time staff on five continents which works, through field-based analysis and high-level policy advocacy, to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.

I'll make my point very sanely

____________________________________________________
Sanity in motion



From Channel 4.

Part of the problem was the IDF's expansive definition of a military target. It attacked a range of civilian facilities, from government offices to police stations, on the theory that they all provided at least indirect support to Hamas militants. But by that theory, Hamas would have been entitled to target virtually any government building in Israel on the ground that its office workers indirectly supported the IDF. That would make a mockery of the distinction between civilians and combatants that lies at the heart of the laws of war, which require direct support to military activity before civilians become legitimate military targets. Behind the unsupportable legal claim seemed to lie a determination to make Gazans suffer for the presence of Hamas--a prohibited purpose for using military force.

The IDF's credibility probably took the biggest hit on the issue of its use of white phosphorous. A typical artillery shell of white phosphorous releases 116 phosphorus-soaked wedges which, upon contact with oxygen, burn intensely, releasing a distinctive plume of smoke. That smoke can be used legitimately to obscure troop movements, but white phosphorous can be devastating when used in urban areas, igniting civilian structures and causing people horrific burns. Its use by the IDF in densely populated sections of Gaza violated the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions during military operations to avoid harming civilians. It never should have been deployed.

The IDF has tried to defend itself with denial and obfuscation. It first denied using white phosphorous at all. Then, when that proved untenable, it claimed that use was limited to unpopulated areas of Gaza. Neither claim is true. On Jan. 9, 10 and 15, a Human Rights Watch military expert personally observed white phosphorous being fired from an artillery battery and air burst over Gaza City and the Jabalya refugee camp. Its telltale jellyfish-like plume was a dead giveaway, as can be seen from many photographs that are now emerging from Gaza of white phosphorous raining down on civilian areas.
___________________________________________________________________
Predictably, the IDF holds Hamas wholly responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza, alleging that Hamas combatants stored weapons in mosques and fought from among civilians. Those allegations may or may not be true. Long experience, as during the 2006 war in Lebanon, shows that we must take such ritual IDF pronouncements with a grain of salt. We will not know exactly how Hamas waged the war until human rights monitors can conclude the on-the-ground investigations that they are only just beginning because of the IDF's earlier refusal to let them into Gaza.

Israelis seem dismayed that the world has not embraced the justness of its latest war in Gaza. Of course Israel is entitled to defend itself from Hamas' rocket attacks, but when it does so in violation of its duty to spare civilians, and with so massive a civilian toll, public outrage is entirely predictable. Meanwhile, the IDF does itself no favor when it resorts to censorship, PR techniques and misrepresentation rather than subject its conduct to the open and independent scrutiny that should characterize any military that is genuinely committed to respecting the laws of war.

"The Incendiary IDF", Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Watch, 22 January, 2009. Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch.
____________________________________________________________________
BBC vs Disasters Emergency Committee

Well, Channel 4 shows that it can go for the jugular, but the BBC's approach is a little more mixed.(Pressure still on BBC in Gaza row, BBC News, UK, 25 January, 2009).

They have come under flak for so far deciding not to show a charity fund raising appeal for the people of Gaza. The BBC feels that it would compromise its impartiality in an ongoing story by airing the appeal. However:

The BBC has given free air time to previous appeals by the Disasters Emergency Committee, an umbrella for groups including the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save the Children. The appeals have raised millions of pounds (dollars) for victims of war and natural disaster in Congo, Myanmar and elsewhere (BBC slammed for not airing gaza appeal, Ninemsn, January 24, 2009).

From the first link above, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the British public could "distinguish between support for humanitarian aid and perceived partiality in a conflict".

There is quite a lot of governmental pressure on BBC to run the appeal, and 2000 people protested the fact that they have, so far, decided not to. Of course the governmental pressure is worrying for any news group, but as BBC has supported other appeals, as detailed above, which were also surely dealing with ongoing news stories, the reasons given for not showing the appeal do not necessarily stand up, unless of course, by showing the appeal they are somehow limited in their access to Gaza and Israel. Within the articles I have read, that does not seem to be the case.

From the Ninemsn article (the second one linked above):

International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said the BBC had made the wrong decision. He called on the BBC to reconsider, "to recognise the immense human suffering and to address the concern which I think otherwise may develop that somehow the suffering of people in Gaza is not taken as seriously as the suffering of people in other conflicts."

Health minister Ben Bradshaw called the BBC's decision inexplicable and accused the publicly funded broadcaster of being cowed by the Israeli government.

"I am afraid the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally," Bradshaw said.

ITV, Channel 4 and Five are going to broadcast the appeal, though ITV had said earlier that it would not.

It is interesting that 2000 people protested the BBC's decision. I wonder if in Australia

a) there would be or is a similar appeal , and

b) whether 2000 people would care enough to protest (somehow I think everyone is thinking of Australia Day tomorrow).
___________________________________________________________________
Rubber Bullets and Boycotts

On Wednesday, 21 January 2009, at 12.30, residents of Ni’lin, along with International and Israeli solidarity activists, gathered to demonstrate against the construction of the Apartheid Wall. The demonstration began in the olive fields but was forced back when the Israeli army shot teargas and threw sound bombs. After the demonstration began, the army invaded the town from the fields and the checkpoint at the entrance of the village, firing tear gas canisters, rubber coated steel bullets and plastic coated steel bullets. The army proceeded towards the centre of the town, shooting at houses and cars. Israeli forces arrested three Ni’lin residents who were not participating in the demonstration and injured nine individuals.

This is a peaceful demonstration, as can be read here, and the demonstrations are held regularly, with Palestinian people, ISM volunteers and Israeli volunteers.

All the above is very worrying, of course, but the thing that most worries me is this:
This is the second invasion of Ni’lin in one week. The Occupation is collectively punishing the Palestinians of Ni’lin for their resistance to the Apartheid Wall. When completed, the Apartheid Wall will annex land belonging to villagers. Furthermore, the simultaneous establishment of the Apartheid Wall and a tunnel will allow the Israeli army to bar all but one connection leading to complete control over movement for Ni’lin residents.

There has just been an update posted on the town, too.

Israel is often cited as the "only democracy in the Middle East". But these practices seem pretty undemocratic to me. Once people are finally and completely hemmed in. What then? Further stories and statistics can be found at B'tselem. Australia currently has United Nations security sanctions on Sudan and Congo. It supported the security sanctions on Rwanda, which have recently finished. It has autonomous sanctions on Zimbabwe.

I assume that these sanctions are mostly in place due to the practices of genocide and human rights abuse. So, again, to the people who say why not look at the problems of these countries instead of Israel and Palestine, well, my government seems to be concerned about the injustice that occurs there, and I think, at the very, very least, my government could follow Malcolm Fraser's following suggestion of . . .support[ing] the appeal for the Australian Parliament to pass a resolution recognising the hardships of the Palestinian people and committing Australia to work for a fair and peaceful resolution and the establishment of a viable independent state for Palestinians. At the very least. So much more could be done. ( Balanced policy the only way to peace, Malcolm Fraser, The Age, May 10, 2008) such as the following moves:
Both Oxford City council and Quebec Colleges and Universities are endorsing and calling for extensive boycotts of Israel. Maybe it's time for the "culpably ignorant" to ask ourselves why.
____________________________________________________________________
Essential reading

Because she says far more than I ever can.
The last two entries from Eva Bartlett's blog:

Beneath the surface and

It's a ceasefire, just not on the beach, not in your home. Children are still getting injured by Israeli fire, by the way. A 'siege-fire' as one commenter put it.

Further interesting reading (not from Eva) is as follows, if you are up to it:
Gaza crisis: Regimes react with routine repression, January 21, 2009; Human Rights Watch and,
Newsweek:, Feb 2nd, 2009 and,
Francis A. Boyle,, 30 December, 2008.

Depressingly, but not suprisingly, fundamentalism is further on the rise and has a focus as articles from this site can attest. And a big shout out to it for a lot of the material presented above, though it can readily be found on the Net also. Also to the other blogs I visit and friends who send me things they think I might be interested in.

If you've stuck with me this far, Gong Xi Fa Cai‏ ! for the 26th (two hours away for my side of the world), and Happy Australia Day.

Being even-handed

I found this article from Malcolm Fraser, one of our former prime ministers, who was seen as an arch conservative when he was in office. However, I'm putting him up for man of this decade. This is the last paragraph of a piece of his called: Balanced policy the only way to peace about the situation between Palestine and Israel today (The Age, May 10, 2008):

Against this modern-day tragedy, it is important for countries such as Australia to be even-handed. That is why I support the appeal for the Australian Parliament to pass a resolution recognising the hardships of the Palestinian people and committing Australia to work for a fair and peaceful resolution and the establishment of a viable independent state for Palestinians.


I have linked to the article here, but have also reproduced it in full below.

Balanced policy the only way to peace

Malcolm Fraser May 10, 2008

TWO months ago, the Australian Parliament passed a resolution celebrating Israel's first 60 years. Until recently, Australia had preserved a balance in Middle East policy that asserted Israel's right to survival and security, but also the right of the Palestinian people to their own state. Under the previous government, in lock-step with the US, our policies veered to a more one-sided support for Israel. The vision of a Palestinian state seemed to slip from view.
US President George Bush claims that it is possible for Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state before the end of this year. That ignores the realities of the current situation, which Bush has done a good deal to exacerbate.

It is a fact that Israel has persistently established more and more settlements on the West Bank and that it has ignored the US and the UN Security Council, which have continuously branded these settlements, together with settlements in East Jerusalem, as illegal. However, the US has not exerted real pressure to stop them and the process continues. Through most of my life I have believed that Israel was a beacon of hope. But somewhere Israel's leadership lost its way.
Since the start of the war on terror, US policies have become increasingly unrealistic, branding people as terrorists to be beaten with guns.

In Bush's world, discussion or negotiation with those who are labelled as terrorists is unthinkable, and indeed would be a betrayal of American values. Yet he should recall what earlier US presidents did in negotiating with leaders of the Soviet Union. Those presidents avoided nuclear war and won the Cold War. Britain achieved peace in Northern Ireland with similar policies.

Failure to talk with an opponent or with an enemy is perhaps the major mistake of the Bush Administration. A mistake that has made many parts of the world more dangerous.
Hamas won a legitimate election in early 2006. Aid workers on the ground in Palestine knew that Hamas would win because Hamas helps local people while Fatah, corrupt and inefficient, did not. The West claimed to be surprised at Hamas' victory. It betrayed its own principles by making it plain that democracy was only acceptable if it gave the kind of result that Israel and the US wanted.

It would have been possible to say to Hamas: a number of your policies must change but we welcome your participation in the democratic process and we are therefore prepared to talk and explore possible areas of agreement. This approach would have given Hamas an alternative to violence and the possibility of a different future.

When a joint Hamas-Fatah government was formed, it was short-lived. Both Israel and the US sought to undermine it and encouraged Abbas to pursue a policy that would diminish or destroy Hamas. In this regard, Israel and the US have played a major part in the continued divisions among the Palestinian people themselves.

I know there are those who would say that Hamas cannot be believed. No agreement would be sustainable because it wants the total destruction of Israel. However, those who hold such views commit themselves in effect to continued warfare. If this situation prevails, Israel will lose more and more friends and will place its own future in danger.

Terrorism must, of course, be condemned but if one measures the loss of life in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is clear that the scales are heavily balanced against the Palestinians. The tactics used by Hamas are inefficient as a weapon of war, almost futile, but they have extracted a disproportionate response.

If there is to be any progress, in addition to talking to Hamas it is critical to heal the divisions between Hamas and Fatah. No arrangement between Israel and Abbas will be acceptable unless the divisions among Palestinian people are addressed. But Israeli and American policy is still focused on perpetuating those divisions, breeding more hatred and bitterness and making a secure future even more remote.

Former US president Jimmy Carter has recently held discussions in the Middle East with many of those with whom Bush will not speak. He has attracted a great deal of criticism from many quarters, including the Israeli lobby. However, his efforts are to be applauded because he recognises that talking to Hamas is essential for progress.

Hamas has supported a ceasefire. But this was rejected out of hand as a subterfuge for gaining time to reorganise and rearm. Hamas has said that if Abbas can negotiate a solution and if that is endorsed in a referendum by the Palestinians, it will support it, provided that there is reconciliation among Palestinians.

What then should be done? The principles endorsed by the Baker-Hamilton report in relation to Iraq must be adopted in regard to the Palestinian case as well. There must be talks leading to negotiations involving all the players including Hamas. Progress will not be quick, it could be months and possibly years, but a ceasefire, even initially for a limited period, would be a good start. The ending of the blockade of Gaza and the cessation of new settlements in the West Bank would be a prerequisite. In addition, the adjudication of boundaries of Israel and Palestine would be critical to a final settlement.

Against this modern-day tragedy, it is important for countries such as Australia to be even-handed. That is why I support the appeal for the Australian Parliament to pass a resolution recognising the hardships of the Palestinian people and committing Australia to work for a fair and peaceful resolution and the establishment of a viable independent state for Palestinians.

Fraser also recently wrote Israel's actions foster extremism (January 16, 2009, The Age).

a prime minister finds his voice (shame it's not the current one)

A former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, speaks. He has become a good man since he left politics. Funny that the once-bastion of extreme conservatism (though not all of his policies were) speaks the truth, whereas Rudd, as ever, keeps his silence. Not even a token condemnation from him of the carnage that has been inflicted on the Palestinians. I wonder if this letter will have any appeal. Somehow, I doubt it.

They've been pulling bodies out of the rubble in Gaza. Posted my morning, this was the Death toll: 1310, wounded: 5600 (that's Palestinians, remember), the vast majority of whom were civilians. Some firing/fighting continues, though it is quieter. I'll post a figure tomorrow, if it has changed.

____________________________________________________________

The following is geared towards US or European readers, even though the first organisation (United Nations) is international. It was sent to me by a friend in Oman. I'll see if I can track something down for Australia. These organisations always helped, and will be called on to help more, the Palestinians. From an email I received:

The war on Gaza has been devastating on lives and properties; almost all sectors of Gaza's civil infrastructure have been destroyed. Since many of us feel helpless these days, it might make you feel better to donate whatever you can to any of the following reputable charitable organizations:

United Nations Relief and Works Agency: UNRWA is the primary institution which has been helping Palestinian refugees for the past 60 years, it provides educational, healthcare, and food distributions in all refugee camps in the Middle East. Although the organization is affiliated with the United Nations, it's mostly being funded from non UN sources. These are the details for Americans or Europeans wishing to make a donation.

Palestine Children's Relief Fund: PCRF is one of the most active organizations on the ground who specializes in helping injured Palestinian and Iraqi children; their work has directly affected thousands of lives in occupied Gaza Strip, occupied W. Bank, Iraq, and Lebanon, click here to see news coverage for PCRF's activities. (*This is an American organisation for my Aussie readers).

American Near East Refugee Aid: ANERA is a leading provider of development, health, education and employment programs to Palestinian communities and impoverished families throughout the Middle East.

It should be NOTED that all of these charitable organizations

-are not affiliated whatsoever with any political group,
-have been faithfully serving the Palestinian people (especially the refugees) for generations, and

-your donation will be tax deductible and completely legal, especially here in the United States.

My blog is not from the US, of course, but the email was generated from there.

Here is a report of the money UNRWA will need to raise, and how it will be used.
______________________________________________________________

On another tack (well, the same one as for the last three weeks, really), this story from Ha'aretz is interesting (not only because it mentions the weapons talked about in this post, but for the following information). Again, a big shout out to this blog for first highlighting the article:

Fosse [a Norweigan doctor] and a Norwegian colleague, Mads Gilbert, arrived in Gaza on December 31 and remained until January 10. They were financed by the Norwegian government. On his return, Fosse submitted a report to his government in which he accused the IDF of deliberately targeting civilians.

Fosse said he believes Israel deliberately chose to attack while Westerners working for international organizations were back home for the Christmas vacation. "The Palestinian witnesses, as medical workers, are very accurate in their reports, but if we hadn't been there to confirm their testimony, it would all have been presented as Hamas propaganda," he said.

Norway sent doctors; the Australian government and media sent their apathy and silence.

"What we are up against is not just bias, but a kind of culpable ignorance".