Next time someone blithers antisemitic, wild accusations about Jews running the world, here’s an article to which you can refer them.
‘The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York’s Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world’s transnational corporations (TNCs).
From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.
The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.’
It’s the banks and associated money launderers who do own the lion’s share of the world’s wealth, and these are owned by their shareholders, who are largely other banks and money launderers, an interconnectivity which has serious implications for global economic stability. Still,
One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.
Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, “is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups”. Or as Braha puts it: “The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy.”
So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.
#OccupyHastingsStreet notes that Noosa is so dense with rich people that it is known as the Monaco of Australia thus making it an ideal, strategic target for the Occupy movement.
Western hegemony relies on exploitation and oppression of indigenous people – time to challenge capitalism, end colonialism and dismantle the new feudalism. The colonisation of Australia is ongoing – before migaloos arrived there was no need to #OccupyHastingsStreet – time for a treaty and compensation to Australian Aboriginals. Give it back!
The social relationship constituted by value is only complete, its domination over labor is only really free, if the power of property is no longer a requirement fulfilled by previous accumulation, but a function of its future expansion. This reversal is the great motor of growth and the source of capitalism’s legendary dynamism.
This is also what has happened with Israel’s own Basic Laws. The people with clout, who were represented in the Knesset by ostensibly independent research institutes, lobbyists and Knesset members on their behalf, are the ones who dictated the sanctification of property rights and the exclusion of welfare rights. It is not by chance that the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom was passed in the middle of the night by a minority of Knesset members and without public debate, even for the sake of appearances. A constitution of this sort is one of the main means for the preservation of control by the elite groups.
Today, the wealthiest 20% of Australians own 61% of the nation’s wealth; the poorest 20% own just 1%. Although the income disparities are less marked, they too have been growing. While we are collectively wealthier than we have ever been, that wealth is spread less evenly than in the ’60s and ’70s and we are now a good deal less equal than countries such as Japan, Sweden and Norway. We are one of the most unequal developed countries, keeping company with the US and Britain.
On the 20th September, Australian ABC TV’s Foreign Correspondent broadcast a programme titled “Follow the Money”, mainly focussing on the impact of BDS on Daniel Birnbaum, the Israeli US immigrant business owner of Soda Stream, an Israeli factory illegally located in one of the neoliberal industrial zones in the Occupied West Bank. The show offered a token ‘balance’ with a Palestinian US immigrant family who supported boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israeli apartheid and occupation. The mother, Cairo Arafat, emphasised her support for two states, whilst her daughter Semma, was less enthusiastic, opining that “Two states will not work. Two states would just be a phase into Palestine being wiped off the map, into creating a one state that is an Israeli state”. The programme lacked considerable depth and sensitivity on the BDS issue within Palestine and Israel, and made some glaring factual errors – such as failing to note that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law, that instead of “Thirteen per cent of it [the apartheid wall] … being constructed inside the West Bank”, the apartheid barrier is built mainly in the West Bank and only partly along the 1949 Armistice line, or “Green Line” between Israel and Palestinian West Bank, with 12% of the entire West Bank area illegally annexed across into the Israel side of the barrier. Further, despite the new anti-boycott law passed by Israel’s far right extremist Knesset, which has been condemned by Amnesty International as “an attack on freedom of expression”, there are a growing number of Israelis who are in solidarity with the call of Palestinian people for BDS.
Foreign Correspondent programmes are re-broadcast regularly “by more than 20 international networks, including CNN International, Al Jazeera, NHK Japan and TV NZ”. Al Jazeera English re-broadcasted “Follow the Money” retitled as “About a boycott” on its “People & Power” show on October 6, 2011. So who inserted the ubiquitous fake Max Brenner this time – for this is not the first occasion that Max Brenner has been anthropomorphised.
The “Max Brenner Shop Owner” title pops up in the screenshot opposite at about 10.07 minutes into Al Jazeera English’s slightly truncated re-broadcast version. This individual is named in the Foreign Correspondent transcript as “GRAHAM WEINBERG (IN CROWD)”. Now we know which balding lookalike Max Brenner is this month. The Max Brenner site states “ALL AUSTRALIAN MAX BRENNER CHOCOLATE BARS ARE COMPANY OWNED & WE DO NOT CURRENTLY FRANCHISE”.
Foreign Correspondent Eric Campbell captures some correct information from a protester at a recent rally against the Israeli occupation-supporting Max Brenner business in Newtown.
CAMPBELL: “And what’s Max Brenner doing?”
PROTESTOR: “Max Brenner is financially and morally supporting the Israeli defence forces, particularly two brigades – the Golani and the Givati”.
“Al Jazeera is a vital component to the USG’s strategy in communicating with the Arab world.” — Joseph E. LeBaron, U.S. Ambassador to Qatar, November 6, 2008
“Al Jazeera Board Chairman Hamed bin Thamer Al Thani has proven open to creative uses of Al Jazeera’s airwaves by the USG beyond straightforward interviews.” — Joseph E. LeBaron, U.S. Ambassador to Qatar, February 10, 2009
Might the omnipresent bald man be such an example of ‘creative uses’ of Al Jazeera’s airwaves by the US or was the inserted caption a plausibly deniable slipup?
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
Palestine / Israel Links
The hand of a thief: Taking a page from Nixon (“If the president does it, that means it’s not illegal!”) Netanyahu instructed Justice Minister Ya’acov Ne’eman, a religious ultra-nationalist, to come up with a legal way for Israel to keep even the radical hilltop settlement outposts built on land that Israel itself recognizes as being owned by Palestinians.
Thaer Qirresh is a 14-year-old Palestinian living in the Muslim quarter of the Old City in East Jerusalem. His family are the last Palestinian family left in the block after a settler organisation purchased the lease and moved in
A group of students gathered outside of one of Max Brenner’s franchise cafes in Sydney in protest at its support for the Israeli army.
The protest is part of the global Boycott Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS campaign, which was called from a broad cross-section of Palestinian civil society organisations in 2005.
Max Brenner is a chocolate retailer owned by the Strauss Group, which is the second largest Israeli food and beverage company and is largely touted as one of the greatest successes of Israeli industry.
On its website in the section on “Corporate Responsibility,” the Strauss Group emphasises its support for the Israeli army, noting: “Our connection with soldiers goes as far back as the country, and even further. We see a mission and need to continue to provide our soldiers with support, to enhance their quality of life and service conditions, and sweeten their special moments”.
Max Brenner has been the target of BDS actions throughout Australia for over two years. Protesters here say that this action is part of their commitment to the global BDS campaign which seeks to pressure companies that either profit from or support the Israeli military occupation until Israel ends the occupation and complies with international law and United Nations resolutions.
Early in the protest the police officers present tightened their control over the students movements. A number of police officers asked our crew to leave on a number of occasions, forcing us to stop filming and physically removing our crew away from the protest.
The students marched on chanting anti-Apartheid messages. The police officers then attempted to disperse the crowd and put an end to the protest. The police then used force to disperse the protesters, beating a number of students. Two students were charged with hindering police and their trials set for July 13.
The students have vowed to continue protesting outside of the ten Max Brenner cafes throughout Sydney, saying it is their legal right. They also criticized the police’s role in protecting a company that openly supports an illegal military occupation while at the same time using violence against a peaceful student protest
‘Black is also expected to speak on the roiling issue of BDS, the anti-Israel Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanction movement. The BDS coalition of left-wing Jewish groups and Arab economic jihadis, traces its direct roots to the aggressive adoption of Hitler’s anti-Jewish boycott by Arabs in Palestine during the Holocaust.’
‘I found the viewpoint expressed overlooking settled history. Arabs have been mass murdering Jews in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration. The pogroms of 1920 and 1921 saw Arabs in well-documented internationally condemned orgies of death including mass battering skulls, hatchet attacks and mutilations. British commission responded but did not stem the violence. Student journalists should check it out. In 1929, because Jews sat down at the Wailing Wall while praying instead of remaining in a standing position, Arabs mercilessly massacred Jews with knives, swords, clubs and guns. In Hebron, eyes were poked out, babies cut in half, one man was crucified, another had his brains extracted and used for sport, one was cut open and his papers burned, one had his head was baked in an oven, Torahs burned–all for sitting down during prayer–all in a globally documented massacre. There have been many more attacks. Student journalists should check it out.
Does the BDS movement own up to this enormous record of mass murder and Torah desecration? Can BDS assure the world that they succeed and have their way, that Jews will no longer be mass murdered merely because they sat down during prayer?’
Black is poisoning the well, creating a lurid illusion that BDS, which was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005 because all other methods have failed to restrain the crimes against humanity continuously perpetrated by Israel, is retrospectively guilty of events which if they are factual, occurred nearly 80 years ago. Over the top and out the window. What’s this guy on?
More from the erudite Edwin:
‘If all Arabs want peace, it only takes a handshake and a pen to make it happen. Sadat and King Hussein proved that. Until that courageous moment occurs, all the BDS agitation,including BDS against peacemakers, is just in furtherance of the dark tendency of history to make us perpetuate and repeat all prior unhappiness. Don’t be fooled students. Peace has a chance if you give peace a chance. Good bye Harpo and all those who think BDS is an answer. Better to invest in mutual peace then endless economic jihad.
So BDS makes the zionists continue their genocide of Palestinians. And pigs fly because BDS makes them.
‘On the opening night international panel discussion scheduled for Saturday, June 11, Black will speak on the topic “Who is a Friend of Israel?” The much anticipated panel of international figures is expected to confront the BDS issue head on, with Black giving the historical perspective as it applies to today’s Arab Spring.’
Let’s hope there’s folks present to ask suitable questions in response.
Other Limmud-Oz speakers who will ‘deal’ with BDS are :
“2. ‘Beyond the Pale: Disagreeing about Israel’ with Tommy Sterling, Larry Stillman and Mark Baker. 3. ‘From BDS to Burqas! Grassroots Community Action’ with Elaine Black, Shirlee Finn, Danny
Kidron, Gael Kennedy and Sergio Redegalli. 4. ‘BDS Movement, Councils, and the art of conversation’ with Donna Jacobs Sife, Lyndall Katz, Gael
Kennedy and David Knoll. 5. ‘Is Israel an apartheid state?’ with Andrew Markus. 6. ‘Narrative Wars: A Brief History of an Enduring Conflict’ with Mark Baker.”
“Criticism of Israel or the policies of its government similar to that levelled against any other country is entirely acceptable, and is an everyday occurrence within Israel itself. However, the Executive of Limmud-Oz in Sydney believes that the BDS campaign is an attack on Israel’s basic legitimacy and harms the Jewish people as a whole, as does the singling out of Israel for unjust criticism.
Contrary to the BDS call for a cultural boycott of Israel, Limmud-Oz supports engagement with Israeli academic and artistic institutions and we have a number of their representatives involved in Limmud-Oz this year. BDS therefore undermines this crucial aspect of Limmud-Oz.
Limmud-Oz does not deny that proponents of BDS have the right to express their views to whomever they like. But that right does not impose an obligation on us to provide them with a space to do so.
This is not about censorship, nor are we seeking to stifle dissenting views. Limmud-Oz is proud of the principles of pluralism and inclusiveness which guide us and Limmuds around the world.”
‘Limmud-Oz, the Australian arm of the global festival of Jewish learning, is at the centre of controversy after organisers banned two presenters who “publicly advocate a total boycott against Israel” and a major donor threatened to withdraw funding.
The executive of Limmud-Oz released a statement last week saying it believes that the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign is “an attack on Israel’s basic legitimacy and harms the Jewish people as a whole”.
Programme director Michael Misrachi confirmed that, as a result, Peter Slezak, a co-founder of Australian Independent Jewish Voices, and Vivienne Porzsolt, a spokeswoman for Jews Against The Occupation, were disinvited from the two-day festival in Sydney in mid-June.
Mr Slezak accused organisers of “moral and intellectual weakness” while Ms Porzsolt said the ban “smacks of excommunication”‘
But Mr Immerman defended the decision to drop the two BDS proponents. “In supporting BDS, these individuals advocate denying free speech to Israeli academics and performers, on whom we depend for Limmud-Oz, yet, ironically, claim this right for themselves.”
They may, however, attend the festival, he added. “Limmud-Oz remains a very broad tent – the programme includes and celebrates a wide diversity of opinions.”
The “boycott of the boycotters” prompted two other presenters to withdraw last week in protest.
“We abhor the idea of being associated with an event that bans ideas,” Jenny Green and Joel Nothman said in a letter to the Limmud executive.’
Considering Black’s odd reinterpretations of history and the misconception Mr. Immerman has about BDS as well, it’s most unfortunate that those who would provide a more informed and balanced view are censored from attending causing others to chose to cancel as a matter of principle.
‘On Saturday, a senior Palestinian official said Abbas has concluded that a statehood push at the U.N. would not advance the Palestinians’ cause.
Abbas’ initiative, he said, will be compromised by the fact that the Palestinians first have to seek support from the Security Council before going to the General Assembly, where the Palestinians are more confident of obtaining majority support.’
A member of the PLO negotiating team, however, denied the report saying some of the world’s most important international lawyers are backing the initiative and the Palestinians are hopeful they will succeed.
“President Abbas knows getting recognition will be difficult, which is something quite different,” the official said on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Here comes Abass’s sellout of Palestinians right of return? Ya’alon’s view:
‘Ya’alon said that there were “paradigm differences between the two sides.” He stated that while Abbas had expressed willingness to go to Paris, the PA president had not agreed to begin negotiations with Israel.
“We are ready to go to the table. We have been waiting for Abu Mazen [Abbas] for two years,” Ya’alon told Channel 2.’
Maybe it’s posturing – the Israelis don’t sound keen, despite the overly generous starting point.
‘that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the UN General Assembly would not lead to Israel’s isolation or have any concrete effect on the country. ‘
Then what’s the problem in a Palestinian state being declared?
“Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel’s sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action.”
‘The absence of any workable plan, he said, will leave Israel in a dangerous and weak situation if the Palestinians push for UN recognition of a state later this year.’
There’s legal dispute about whether Res 377, which is the Uniting for Peace resolution would be applicable in the case of recognising a state. It is used to resolve the peace not recognise states – yes, Israel is conducting a military occupation of Palestinians, but as long as Israel whines deceitfully that they are ‘willing to negotiate’ why, firstly would Res 377 be invoked, secondly, how could res 377 be used to form a state – that is not its role.
There are arguments for both positions. I tend to think that there will be no use of res 377 in this case, but Israel will use the situation to bleat victim again. I am of course willing to be persuaded, but then again, do we really think the sort of Palestinian ‘state’ which is on the table is actually a viable, sovereign state? As Grinstein of the Reut Institute says:
‘Despite Obama’s speeches, the diplomatic process will remain at a dead end as the moment of decision in September approaches. Then the United States will have another opportunity to do the right thing: to ensure that the establishment of a Palestinian state conforms to Israel’s needs.’
Neither Danny Danon in his NY Times article nor the Legal Forum of Israel on the face of it *want* Abass to declare a state – while the Reut Institute (hasbara central) does – yet if Israel refuses to attend the OH NO not more peas talks in Paris, Abass seems to be going to proceed with the declaration – yet this will be blocked by US veto, but may give Israel the excuse, even if it is broached, to commence annexation of all lands except for where Palestinians are living at present – the formalisation of discontinuous powerless bantustans, leaving Palestinian people without rights, presenting an opportunity to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Israel also – but of course, making Israel’s position completely untenable, except in Ya’alon’s, and the Reut Institute’s eyes.
‘Grinstein hopes that UN recognition will set rolling a bandwagon that limits any Palestinian state to precisely the kind of demilitarized bantustan under overall Israeli control that will “solve” Israel’s legitimacy and diplomatic problems while marginalizing Palestinian rights, especially refugee rights.’
‘Since the Hamas victory in the January 2006 elections, there is not and cannot be a Palestinian partner to such a diplomatic process. On the one hand, a Palestine that includes Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel and existing agreements, cannot be a partner to negotiations on a final-status agreement. On the other hand, without Hamas, the Palestinian system lacks internal legitimacy, which prevents a historic concession. That’s why all the calls out of Washington, Brussels and Jerusalem for a renewal of talks between Israel and the Palestinians are hollow, and the negotiations that were conducted during the Annapolis process had no chance of success in the first place. ‘
The last paragraph is the most sinister:
”Despite Obama’s speeches, the diplomatic process will remain at a dead end as the moment of decision in September approaches. Then the United States will have another opportunity to do the right thing: to ensure that the establishment of a Palestinian state conforms to Israel’s needs.’
‘In the Palestinian arena, we continued to meet with members of the political, diplomatic, and security establishment, and also key figures of influence from other arenas. Of particular note, we have begun the process of mapping the vast and complex political-diplomatic terrain ahead of the expected September UN General Assembly declaration of an independent Palestinian state, and the likely Durban III conference taking in New York at the same time. ‘
What Res 377 MIGHT be used for, though, is in regard to Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. I’ve written previously about this here.
Significantly, this issue also comes up in September, so Grinstein is doubtless correct when he has determined the diplomatic process will remain at a dead end till near September.
I also wrote about Professor Francis Boyle’s interpretation of the use of 377 here.
‘The statement emphasizes that however one feels about the issue of diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian “state,” the campaign to achieve such recognition cannot stand as a substitute for the global struggle for Palestinian rights in all their aspects. Here are some key passages with highlighting added:
” This September will mark the 20th anniversary of the start of the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” that is widely recognized as a total failure, by any objective standard. This sham process has served as a cover for Israel’s intensive colonization of Palestinian lands, continued denial of Palestinian basic rights, and gradual ethnic cleaning of Palestinians, while simultaneously giving a false impression of peacemaking. In this context, the BNC welcomes the recognition of a great majority of states around the world that the Palestinian right to statehood and freedom from Israeli occupation are long overdue and should no longer to be held hostage to fanatically biased US “diplomacy” in defense of Israeli expansionism. However, recognition of Palestinian statehood is clearly insufficient, on its own, in bringing about a real end to Israel’s occupation and colonial rule. Neither will it end Israel’s decades-old system of legalized racial discrimination, which fits the UN definition of apartheid, or allow the millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes of origin from which they were violently uprooted and exiled.
Diplomatic recognition must result in protection of the inalienable right to self-determination of the entire Palestinian people represented by a democratized and inclusive PLO that represents not just Palestinians under occupation, but also the the exiled refugees, the majority of the Palestinian people, as well as the discriminated citizens of Israel.. For it to go beyond symbolism, this recognition must be a prelude to effective and sustained sanctions against Israel aimed at bringing about its full compliance with its obligations under international law. As shown in the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa, as well as in the current struggles for freedom and justice in the Arab region, world governments do not turn against a patently illegal and immoral regime of oppression simply on ethical grounds; economic interests and hegemonic power dynamics are far weightier in their considerations.”
The statement continues:
” The key lesson learned from South Africa is that, in order for world governments to end their complicity with Israel’s grave and persistent violations of human rights and international law, they must be compelled to do so through mass, well organized grassroots pressure by social movements and other components of civil society. In this context, BDS has proven to be the most potent and promising strategy of international solidarity with the Palestinian people in our struggle for self determination, freedom, justice and equality.
In light of the above, and inspired by the will and the power of the people which have given rise to the Arab spring, the BNC calls upon people of conscience and international solidarity groups to proceed with building a mass BDS movement in the US and elsewhere in the world’s most powerful countries before and after September. Only such a mass movement can ensure that whatever diplomatic recognition transpires at the UN in September on Palestinian statehood will advance the rights of the Palestinian people and raise the price of Israel’s occupation, colonialism and apartheid by further isolating it and those complicit in its crimes”.’
Just-recently retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who had already come out publicly in favor of the Ofers a day earlier, wrote an op-ed on Israel’s leading Internet portal, YNET, saying that it’s not illegal to trade with Iran (technically false, practically speaking sometimes true, depending on the whims of the authorities) and that Iran isn’t even considered an “enemy country” (false, it’s specifically referred to as such in several laws, including one that bans anyone who visited it from running for Knesset for seven years). Then, to change the subject and get the Ofers off the front pages, he went on to say it would be “stupid” to attack Iran and expressed grave concerns as to the judgment of PM Netanyahu* and Defense Minister Ehud Barak**. In addition, Dagan also said that Israel should have accepted the Saudi (Arab League) peace proposal, but then said that once it became an Arab League proposal it became “verboten”. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, I know.
The Government could not support the part of Ms Bishop’s motion because it stated there was a “fraying of the traditionally bipartisan support amongst Australia’s political parties for the State of Israel”. This statement is false. Bipartisan support for the State of Israel is strong and undiminished. Israel is fully supported by the Government, and we are not aware of any fraying of support from the Opposition.
Government members today voted in favour of the following motion in Parliament today.
“(1) restates its support for the motion moved by the then Prime Minister and passed by this House on the sixtieth anniversary of the State of Israel, and in particular:
(a) acknowledges the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel, a bond highlighted by the commitment of both societies to the rights and liberty of our citizens and to cultural diversity;
(b) commends the State of Israel’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law and pluralism; and
(c) reiterates Australia’s commitment to Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and our continued support for a peaceful two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. ”
The motion should have had the word ‘unique’ changed for ‘special’ so it more closely aligned with the US commensalist position. Australia, the US, Canada and Israel – all settler colonial entities in denial of their ongoing genocide of their indigenous peoples. Israel differs from the rest of course in its ‘cultural diversity’ because there are no equal rights under the law in Israel – non-jews are discriminated against by more than 30 laws. Can equality exist in the Jewish state? After 44 years of occupation: where is the Israeli Peace Camp?
Israeli peace activists do not need to dictate to the Palestinians how to run their resistance; they have their own work to do.
If they are truly worried about a one state solution, they need to organise and take to the streets to protest Netanyahu’s fatal blow to the two-state solution and to force their government to change its course.
After 44 years of occupation, what are they still waiting for?