Friday, April 18, 2014

Antisemitism And The Australian Left


Those looking for the smoking gun of Australian Leftist antisemitism and how far and deep it has come so quickly need only take a glance at New Matilda. Look at this recent article by Stuart Rees following on from antisemitic enabler, Bob Carr's outburst about the Jews. Needless to say my retort was not published.

The Israel Lobby's Goal Is Silence

By Stuart Rees

As Bob Carr's diaries reveal, the Israeli lobby has consistently tried to silence critics of the state and shut down discussion of the human rights situation in Palestine, writes Stuart Rees
In the much discussed memoirs from his time as Foreign Minister, Bob Carr revealed the "extraordinary influence" that the Israeli lobby has on Australian foreign policy. His work details how former Prime Minister Julia Gillard would not criticise Israeli West Bank settlements for fear of the anger such criticism would provoke. "So we can’t even ‘express concern’ without complaint," wrote Carr.
For decades, the narrative about Palestinians being savage and uncivilised has been controlled by Israel — but under the influence of the world wide, non-violent, Boycott, Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement to assert Palestinians’ rights to self-determination, that control is being challenged.
A week ago, a public forum in Sydney’s Footbridge Theatre was subtitled "All you wanted to know (about BDS) and were afraid to ask". Palestinian playwright Samah Sabawi identified Israeli academics’ deafening silence when Palestinian universities were bombed or closed, or when such academics learned of other human rights abuses against Palestinians: murders, the theft of lands and destruction of homes. She asked, "Would an invitation to Australian academics to protest these abuses and to join the BDS movement also be met by silence?"

Do read it all You will find just about every antisemitic trope going in just a few hundred words. Including
  • That there is an extraordinarily powerful "Lobby" doing the bidding of Australian Jews 
  • Its job is not to put a case to politicians and the media but to silence "critics" of Israel
  • Its influence extends way beyond mere political pressure 
  • Australian bureaucrats, academics, journalists and politicians are pressured to not criticise Israel  
  • Rees's fellow antisemite, Jake Lynch, is being pursued in the Federal Court at the behest of the "Lobby" (In fact Australian Jewish communal leaders opposed this action)
  • Major newspapers do not report on the court action against Lynch because of fear or intimidation 
  • Jews deploy enormous wealth to achieve these ends 
  • Rees gets "hate mail" every week and that this appears to be organised
  • Jews bash and intimidate foreign pro BDS demonstrators in Israel  

And so on.
You might think that at least New Matilda and its commenters are not yet pushing Holocaust Denial. You would be wrong.

Look at this The emphasis is mine.

Syd Walker
Posted Thursday, March 27, 2014 - 17:08

I'm also someone who usually identifies with the "Left" on most issues and I've been a passionate conservation for many years. I dislike bigotry, the Murdoch media and Andrew Bolt. 
However, I find most of the current debate shrill, formulaic and partisan. When the Human Rights Commission was estabhed in the 1980s, I remember feeling excited that it would help push the case for human rights in Australia. I was aware of the International Declaration of Human Rights and pleased to have a Govt body set to defend it. i was especially keen on Article 19 of the UDHR which gives a robust guarantee for free speech.
28 years later I am disappointed. I'm unaware of a single instane when the HRC has actually promoted free speech in Australia. On the contrary, it has acted to limit free speech. The 1990s amendment that introduced 18C was lobbied for by the Zionist movement. A few years ago, Jeremy Jones of the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council was actually given a HRC award for his efforts
The Scully and Tobin cases followed enactment of 18C. , their human rights were shredded by the HRC in the courts. Both ended up bankcrupted. The Tobin case was particularly egregious. As far as I'm aware, it was the first time a court in Australia arrogated to itself the right to specify historical truth, in some detail. 
Now we have a boorish, unchallenged and multi-partisan vilification of "Holocaust Deniers" - while these peoples' free speech is almost completey denied (they're NEVER given a fairing airing in the mass media - not as long as I've been watching this issue).
Is there anyone viewing this forum who'd like to explain why they believe the opinions expressed by Paul Eisen in the article below should be routinely vilified and subject to criminal prosecution?

Posted Thursday, March 27, 2014 - 17:37

The net result of 18C on the thorny topic of judically-enforced historical 'truth' has been a handful of show trials (eg Scully and Tobin), while more-carefully worded querying of 1930s/40s history has not, so far, been persecuted.
But there has been a more important effect. That has been to give the mass media a rationalization for why they report and discuss "The Holocaust" with such egregious bias.
Roughly a decade ago, I emailed Phillip Adams to ask why, after an hour-long, utterly one-sided interview he gave to one of David Irving's most prominent critics on Late Night Live, in which Irving was repeatedly vilified, he didn't invite Irving to reply. Adams responded that he didn't think irving would dare accept. I emailed Irving to ask him directly if he was willing to be interviewed on Australian radio. He said he most certainly was - but doubted the offer would come to anything. He was right. When I emailed Adams again to say Irving accepted, he ignored my correspondence.
When I re-read Adams' emails, he did at one time mention there might be 'legal issues'. I presume he had in mind the Tobin case. As long as 18C is on the statute books, it facilitates wholly one-sided coverage of this important history in mass media, schools, academia and public discuourse in general. Someone like Adams or his prodcuer can avoid accusations of bias by claiming they are compliant with the law.

Posted Friday, March 28, 2014 - 14:38

Syd Walker:
I did not read the full Paul Eisen article but the pertinent points.
I would classify him not as a denier - as he himself does - but a skeptic.

And this guy:

Kevin Charles H...
Posted Friday, April 11, 2014 - 18:03

I question the numbers murdered in the Shoah.

Does that make me a H denier?

And so on.

My reply

Posted Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 10:50 new

Sure it does. Why would you even bother given that this is the most examined and closely recorded event  in human history? Why is it so important  to you to deny that? Why are the "numbers" so important to you especially given you must know you haven't a clue what you are talking about? What exactly is your point?
There is is not a shadow of doubt about it. The Left has become the natural home of the bigots. A glance at this thread proves that beyond any question.
Congratulations modern Australian Left with all your pretensions and elitist self importance courtesy of a public education system that you made not the slightest contribution to build. 
Syd Walker is this charmer  Have a look at his most recent contribution to the public conversation. Some years ago he was even banned from Margo Kingston's now defunct Webdiary. Why? You guessed it. For Holocaust Denial.

No comments:

Post a Comment