Antony Loewenstein

Obama = Bush?

Although it has made a break with many of George Bush’s controversial, self-declared war on terror policies and has promised to reach out to Muslims, the Obama administration has decided to back a Bush decision to deny one of Europe’s leading Muslim intellectuals entry.

“Consular decisions are not subject to litigation,” Assistant US Attorney David Jones told the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

He asked the court to uphold a decision to bar Tariq Ramadan, an Oxford University professor, from entering the country.

Jones argued that if the court questioned a consular officer’s decision to bar Ramadan, this would leave the administration in a “quagmire” with others seeking such reversals.

When one of the judges asked how high the review of Ramadan’s case has gone within the Obama administration, Jones said it was “upwards in the State Department.”

Ramadan was invited to teach at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 but the Bush government revoked his visa, citing a statute that applies to those who have “endorsed or espoused” terrorism.

In 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center challenging the decision.

The administration then abandoned its claim Ramadan had endorsed terrorism, linking the ban to $1,336 he donated between 1998 and 2002 to a Swiss charity the US blacklisted in 2003.

A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is one of Europe’s leading Muslim thinkers and has often condemned terrorism and extremism.

Every day, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank worsens. The Western media barely registers this reality.

News such as this:

The Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) in Hebron issued a press release on Monday accusing Israeli soldiers of not living up to their responsibility towards Palestinian civilians in the occupied south Hebron hills in the West Bank.

Israeli soldiers in charge of escorting schoolchildren from At Tuwani to their homes in the villages of Tuba and Maghayir al Abeed refused to escort the children past two adult settlers present in the area on 23 March 2009. As the soldiers and children arrived close to the chicken barns which mark the end of the area where settlers frequently attack, they saw settlers approaching the barns. The children asked the soldiers to complete the escort. Internationals watching from a nearby ridge also called the army twice to raise the problem, specifically demanding that the escort complete the accompaniment past the chicken barns as required by the protocol.

The soldiers did not walk further with the children. Instead, they directed the children to continue alone, and they left the scene before the children had passed the hill where the settlers were walking. As one child reported, “The soldiers saw the settlers and they said to us, ‘Okay, run fast. Go.’ These soldiers are new. I don’t want these soldiers. I want good soldiers.” Walking by themselves, the children took a detour around the hill to avoid the settlers and reach home safely.

The Israeli army began to escort the Palestinian children to and from school in September 2004, following a series of Israeli settler attacks upon the children and their international accompaniers. In November 2004, the Israeli Knesset Committee on the Rights of the Child endorsed this obligation.

Despite repeated settler attacks on the Palestinian elementary schoolchildren, and despite Palestinian, Israeli and international advocacy efforts, the Israeli military continues to fail to escort the hildren safely past the settlement.

During the present school year settlers have twice attacked the children on their way home, throwing stones, chasing them and yelling death threats. In the 2007-08 academic year, settlers attacked the children a total of fourteen times, as documented in the report “A Dangerous Journey: Settler violence against Palestinian schoolchildren under Israeli military escort”.

Foreign Correspondents’ Association Luncheon Series

One of America’s most vocal Zionist lobbyists, Abraham Foxman, from the Anti-Defamation League, reveals what gets him up in the morning:

Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you’re against nationalism. If you’re one of those unique individuals in this world that’s opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital… It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you’re an anti-Semite.. I don’t want to make any apologies for it.

So there you have it. Racism is acceptable. Zionism is racism. A racially exclusionary state, such as Israel, is perfectly acceptable.

And Zionists wonder why, as Mondoweiss blog reports above, that there is now a desperate need for a public forum titled, “Why Zionism has become a dirty word“.

Progressive Zionist lobbyists J Street released a study of American Jews recently that found many were less hawkish than the neo-con “mainstream”.

But according to a person commenting on hardline Zionist Shmuel Rosner’s blog, at the Jerusalem Post, we should be careful:

JStreet is the CIA’s front organization, the purpose of which is to diminish American Jewish backing for Israel. The CIA is nowadays, like all the security community, anti-Semitic, leftist organization which want to pressure Israel in a way that benefits the Arabs. JStreet is only a part of the CIA’a efforts to damage Israel – there are many more organizations which do that. The American Jews are used to promote the cause of the US’s anti-Semites and the Arab war against Israel. The American Jews should be more intelligent; the Nazis also used Jews to attack other Jews.

Jewish paranoia, enjoy the smell of fear.

More rabid anti-Semites dare to criticise Israel’s “moral” war in Gaza:

Israel‘s military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately in its three-week war, killing and injuring civilians and committing war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed “a pattern or policy of conduct”.

It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a “deliberate or reckless” way.

Jerusalem Post correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh – a man who says what the neo-cons want to hear – feels sorry for the poor Jewish state:

What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the “occupation” as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel.

Our Voice – Refugee Youth Magazine is a new initiative recently launched in the West Bank as a way to show the diversity of occupied Palestinian voices:

Through this project Laje’oon Center (popularly known as Lajee Center) will establish a solid network of active Youth and Cultural Centres from 6 refugee camps, spread across 6 major West Bank population centres. Lajee is proud to be working with Yafa Cultural Center (Balata Camp, Nablus), Lest Not Forget Center (Jenin Camp), The Childrens’ Center (Qalandia Camp, Ramallah), The Childrens’ Social Center (Aqabat Jabar Camp, Jericho), and The Palestinian Children’s Cultural Centre (Al Fawwar Camp, Hebron).

The current first year of this project will see Lajee Center establish a team of qualified professionals in a range of subjects including Human Rights, Democratic Citizenship and the Rule of Law, Gender Equality and Women’s Rights, Journalism and Principles of a Free Press, Conflict Resolution, and Photography. These professionals will run an ongoing series of workshops with 15 children of mixed gender aged between 14-15 years old in each of the respective participating centres. These workshops aim to develop in each project participant a sound understanding of each subject, and place them in a position from which they can begin to produce coherent and articulate text-based and photographic essays to be included in a collaborative quarterly magazine which will enter into publication in the last quarter of 2009 and continue through the project duration stretching through to the end of 2011. The second and third years of the project will see the initial project participants joined by further groups from each participating centre, leading to a final total of participants which will reach 210 refugee children/youth from across the West Bank working collaboratively by the third year.

Our Voice – Refugee Youth Magazine will be a bi-lingual magazine in English and Arabic facilitating both national and international distribution, and consequently dispersion of the participants collective voice.

This is an important way for us to hear Palestinian refugees explain their lives and experiences.

Israeli/American activist Jeff Halper left Australia this morning after a highly successful two-week visit, speaking to a host of media, upsetting the bigoted Zionist establishment and teaching thousands of Australians about the reality of Israeli apartheid. I was proud to be a part of his visit, via Independent Australian Jewish Voices.

Halper told New Matilda that the Obama administration had to force the Jewish state to end the occupation or its relationship with the super-power was in jeopardy:

Halper’s formula has three stages. “First, Obama must assure Israel, ‘We love you’. Second, he guarantees Israel’s security; Israel can become a member of NATO. And third, the occupation is over — period. You have to be out of every square inch in three to four years. We, the international community, will pay for the redeployment, which the World Bank estimates will cost about $140 billion.”

And when Congress refuses? Halper refers to a strategy of “dual loyalty” that Obama can employ against Congress. As a precedent, he points to Ronald Reagan’s response to Congress when, under pressure from Israel, it attempted to block the US sale of sophisticated surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

“Reagan stood up and said ‘I am the Commander and Chief, and this is in the vital interests of the US, and you’re all American Congressmen’. The sub-text that the Jews picked up was this issue of dual loyalty. Reagan said to Congress, ‘Are you Americans or are you Israelis?’” Congress backed down.

By bringing the Israel lobby face-to-face with this notion of dual loyalty, Halper is sure Obama will be able to overcome Israeli resistance to ending the occupation. He advises Obama to speak privately with the Jewish leaders, including members of Congress, to get their help convincing Israel to end the occupation.

For the local Zionist lobby, however, it absurdly claimed that Israel was desperate to end its occupation:

The only reason Israeli troops are still there [in the West Bank] is because there is no Palestinian leadership willing and/or able to take control and prevent rocket and other terrorist attacks from the West Bank into Israel.

Yes, continually expanding colonies in the West Bank is the sign of a state that wants to cease its building program.

Human rights abuses are the defining feature of Israeli policies in the territories (just the latest here.) Acknowledging this challenges the fundamentals of Zionism: expansion, domination, control and humiliation.

The following letter appears in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

I do not believe the “media’s negative coverage” of the Gaza war damaged Israel’s image (“Israel risks isolation after Gaza assault, warns Olmert“, March 24). The distorted image of Israel is simply readjusting according to its long-term actions.

In the same article, Israel is said to have made moves to demolish 100 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem to make way for new Jewish housing. The removal of one population to make room for another, as defined by the United Nations, is called ethnic cleansing.

James Merhebi Winston Hills

It’s not just Zionist hacks who lie about civilian casualties in war.

Clearly the Sri Lankan government is taking lessons from the master:

For the foreign correspondent, everything in Sri Lanka begins and ends with the armed forces: where one can travel; what one can film; even to whom one can speak. And dealing with the military is like travelling through the looking glass, although a blunter analogy would be with George Orwell’s 1984.

They lie brazenly and the lies aren’t even credible.

The UN may tell you that at least 2000 civilians have been killed in fighting since January, but Sri Lanka’s Secretary of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, says there are none.

Absolutely none. “If you want to believe me, believe me, no civilian casualties.

“We have taken all the precautions to avoid civilian casualties …The world has to appreciate this, if somebody doesn’t appreciate this — bad luck,” he told me.

The reality, like in Palestine, is utterly different.

Lebanese Chess is a fascinating blog written by a Lebanese Australian. His recent post is titled, “A week of speeches“:

Khatami, Halper and Loewenstein … three public speakers at Australia’s main political university, the Australian National University (ANU), in a week.

I went to see them all, and nothing much out of the three surprised me. Many Israeli and Jewish critics of Israeli policy only seem to be repeating what Arabs have been saying for 60 years, but we’re never going to convince the Israeli or Jewish public on our own. Indeed, a solution will never be found unless Israelis and Jews participate in finding a just peace.

Mohammad Khatami was eloquent and insightful about his program for dialogue among civilisations, and the need for the various civilisations to respect each other, something which he insists the West does not do vis-a-vis Islam or other cultures of the Third World.

He was able to steer clear of being dragged into discussion about the more controversial issues dominating Iran today, such as its stance towards Israel, the rights of women and minorities in the country etc.

The former Iranian President made the point that dialogue between civilisations had to be conducted by those that represent culture … artists, scholars, academics, scientists and not politicians. However, he managed the questions as professionally as a politician could. He retorted narrow questions that specified on a certain point by fluffing about grand schemes. For example, several Bahais in the audience repeatedly quizzed Khatami on the rights of the sect in Iran, and Khatami brushed them off as matters of crime and governance.

Having said that, those who posed such political questions could only have expected a political response. Anyone who attended the public lecture (and there were several hundred in the audience) and anticipated a Khatami tirade of his theocratic regime were kidding themselves. Khatami eloquently distanced himself from some of the harsh measures of the theocracy, whilst maintaining its integrity and dignity in his responses.

I enjoyed watching Khatami, it is always enjoyable to watch a statesman at his best, regardless of his political affiliation. Khatami was followed by Australia’s own statesman and former conservative Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser – a harsh critic of Israel and Australia’s blind support for the country – who welcomed Khatami’s initiatives, and urged the West to open its eyes and do away with its superior-inferior complex when it comes to non-Western cultures. Indeed, perhaps their shared ideas of dialogue among civilisations and cultural co-existence might come into fruition some day.

Jeff Halper, the pro-Palestinian rights Israeli academic, was outstanding to say the least. Nothing he mentioned differed very much from the traditional Arab perspective, which is that the Palestinians have no rights, live in hell, and need help. The charismatic academic did well to outline the facts of Israel’s colonisation of the West Bank, and its intentions. What he revealed matched everything of what I and others have previously said about Israel’s strategy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Halper is now championing a one-state solution, something I too have long supported. I never considered the two-state solution to be feasible, essentially because it didn’t take into consideration all of the Palestinian concerns, which meant conflict would always result. Even when the Palestinian leadership seemed willing to accept this half-arsed compromise, the Israelis had no intention of giving an ounce of territory to them.

Although Halper did step a bit further by privately stating to me that Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan should move to create a single economic unit that mirrored the historical unit of the Levant. I put the question to him, “you mean a Greater Syria?”, followed by a few laughs. An Israeli advocating a Greater Syria? Who would’ve thought?

His essential point in the lecture was as follows: “For there to be a one-state solution, that would mean an end to the Jewish state. What’s wrong with that?”

Exactly! What is wrong with that? Why can’t Jews, Muslims and Christians share what is essentially the same country? If we are to approach this conflict from a human rights angle, there is nothing wrong with this proposal at all.

As for Antony Loewenstein, the Jewish-Australian and fellow pro-Palestinian rights activist/blogger/writer, I do feel for this guy. He is relatively young and has devoted an extraordinary amount of talent and effort to stand up to the Zionist powerhouse of his own community. He contributes far more to the Palestinian and Arab cause than do many of our own people. Activists like Loewenstein and Halper really put the Phalangists, Samir Geagea and their likes to shame.

Loewenstein also audaciously mentioned (to the humming of the audience) what is on all of our lips in the West that is seldomly spoken aloud … our entrenched racism.

A brilliant remark he made, something which even I have dared not mention, was a reference to Western attitudes reflected in the military’s treatment of indigenous populations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon/Palestine.

He stated that the horrors of Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Lebanon 2006, and Gaza 2009 were not simply lapses of military discipline, but rather a result of a widespread lack of “rules of engagement”. Western militaries, Israel included, have no rules of engagement, and often do not distinguish between occupied civilians and combatants. The recurring abuses and massacres perpretrated by Western armies and Israel is a consequence of our underlying racism, and the fact that – as Loewenstein beautifully put it – the West views the indigenous peoples of these countries as inferior, akin to German perceptions of the inferior and expendable Jew prior to and during WWII.

This ties in with, what I believe was, Khatami’s comments today that the West must respect the cultures and civilisations of the Third World, and cease viewing all that is non-Western as inferior.

Discussion on this core matter is virtually non-existent in the West because, as Loewenstein added, we in the West do not dare question our moral right, nor the possibility that we are in fact racist. We like to view ourselves as liberators, the bearers of modern civilisation and democracy, the beacon of human rights … not as racists.

Well if there was something glaringly obvious to me whilst in Lebanon 2006, it was that too few cared about 1200 civilians getting killed, or the fate of those stuck in the conflict. I recall clearly how there were many in Australia who called on the Howard Government to not send rescue ships to help us, thousands of Australian-Lebanese stranded in the conflict. The arguments ranged from ‘we weren’t Australian’, or ‘we were just using the country for its welfare benefits’ and so forth.

Indeed, the pro-Bush conservative government at the time acted to the tune of these arguments. I rang the embassy in Beirut, I registered online countless of times, I went down to see them face-to-face, only to be told I couldn’t see them. Nothing, there was no news, there was no action, no one from DFAT or the embassy bothered to contact me or my friends. The clear underlying belief from these calls and the subsequent lacklustre behaviour of the Australian Government was that we were inferior Arabs, we weren’t white and we weren’t worthy of rescuing.

Fortunately, my Australian-Lebanese friends and I organised our own sortie, and drove to Syria in a private vehicle, dodging Israeli warplanes, with two Australian flags on our vehicle. Funny that us so called non-Australians happened to have Australian flags on us at the time.

What appeared so clear to me from these three talks is that we are all speaking the same language. A former Iranian President, an Israeli academic, a Jewish Australian activist/blogger/journalist, me – a Lebanese Australian blogger – and hundreds, if not thousands, of others on the blogosphere, in academia, in refugee camps, are repeating the same lines:

- The Palestinians need to be given their rights, and Israel has to accept their existence and learn to share the land with them.

- The West must equally learn to accept and respect the many civilisations it once colonised. It colonises them no longer, and this century will see its former colonies rise above it.

Whilst all three speakers happened to be coincidentally scheduled in the same week, together they served a serious reality check for those who attended.

A few comments. The Australian visit of the former Iranian President continues to generate debate here (from rational to neo-conservative rantings). During my visit to Iran in 2007 I found a great deal of support for Khatami among the youth, a rejection of the extremism of Ahmadinejad. For some critics, however, it seems that unless a leader is a Zionist apologist they should be shunned.

And yesterday I spent the day with Jeff Halper, a wonderfully warm, articulate and passionate Jewish advocate for peace in Israel/Palestine. The faux controversy stirred by some Jews who refuse to hear his brutal message of apartheid in the West Bank – including a few Jewish students at UNSW last night, clearly unfamiliar with the actions of the IDF – suggests that many in the organised Jewish community continue to imagine an Israel in their minds, not reality.

The Jerusalem Post may mock the serious allegations of war crimes against the IDF in Gaza – in an editorial titled, “Purity of Arms” – but the image of the Zionist state is declining by the day. The Jewish establishment either accepts that there are fundamental flaws in a racially discriminatory nation or they pay a dear price, namely boycott, divestment and sanctions.

It seems most have already made their decision.

The world either embraces leaders and spokesmen who crave peace and engagement; or war and only conflict with the “other”.