Quote from The Australian, 1 April 2011:

>>[Senator elect] Rhiannon was quoted … as saying, …that the Greens should have spent more time building support for the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions [of Israel]) movement, particularly among academics, Arab communities and social justice groups.

"Months before the election we needed to explain why the Greens backed BDS and we needed to work closer with our allies on BDS - academics, the Arab community and social justice movements in Sydney and Melbourne," Ms Rhiannon was quoted as saying.

"Collectively we didn't do enough to amplify support for BDS and show that this is part of an international movement.">>

See: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bob-brown-told-to-rein-in-anti-israel-senator-lee-rhiannon/story-fn59niix-1226031644809

Later the following appeared on The Australian’s website:

>>GREENS leader Bob Brown has carpeted future Senate colleague Lee Rhiannon for her anti-Israel stance, telling her the policy was a mistake that cost the party votes in the NSW state election.
[…]
>>“I think that it was damaging to the Greens campaign, they had very good policies on transport, preschool education, renewable energy, and the hate media was able to play this issue up,” he said.>>

See:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/victorian-greens-distance-themselves-from-nsw-branchs-israel-boycott/story-fn59niix-1226031927385

If the report in the Australian is correct Senator Brown does not state whether in his view there OUGHT to be a BDS campaign against Israel. He merely states that such a stance costs votes?

How is this different from the two main parties who are both deservedly notorious for their reliance on opinion polls and focus groups?

If Senator Brown is a conviction politician does he not owe it to the electorate to explain his personal view on this matter?

Full disclosure:

Obviously I oppose a BDS campaign against Israel.

However that is NOT what I am writing about here.

The issue I am addressing is this:

--Should Senator Brown should be allowed to get away with his “Don’t do it because we’ll lose votes stance”? Or

--Should the leader of the Greens be asked to justify his stance on the basis of his convictions

Steven
IMO conviction politicians do not worry about votes. A conviction politician does not lie or obfuscate their policy for votes.

If convictions are genuinely put, the votes will come from those who support those convictions. That is the best democracy one can hope for under our system - sadly the public does not always know what they are voting for, nor if they will get what they think they voted for, or even if there is real choice about what to vote for with two very similar parties both hell bent on a neo-liberal agenda.

I hope the Greens do not go the way of the majors in becoming overly embroiled in the 'sport' of politics sacrificing ideology in the process.

Since submitting this post a member of the Greens has drawn my attention to the following item on the ABC website:

BROWN REPRIMANDS RHIANNON FOR ISRAEL BOYCOTT STANCE

Quote:

"The NSW Greens have taken to having their own shade of foreign policy - that's up to them. It was a mistake. I differ with Lee on that and she knows that," Senator Brown said.

"I think the policy deliberations by [the NSW Greens] were wrong - and they know that."

He said the Greens recognise the right to sovereignty of both Israel and Palestinian territories - a mainstream position.

"It was damaging to the Greens campaign and the hate media was able to play this issue up," Senator Brown said.

"I've had a good, robust discussion with Lee.

"She and I, not for the first time, have engaged in a very frank discussion about the way the NSW election went."

End Quote

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/01/3180023.htm

Senator Brown seems to stop a little short of taking an unambiguous stance on the question of a BDS campaign against Israel.

Dear Steven,

I've read articles in the Australian newspaper and elsewhere and the impression that I've obtained is that the Greens Leader Bob Brown makes it quite clear that Ms Rhiannon's support for the boycott of Israel was wrong. From what I gather - Senator Brown supports negotiations and engaging in dialogue rather than boycotts. I'm sorry that his stance isn't strong enough for you. Surely you don't suffer from the "ghetto" mentality of "You're either with us or against us"
And, anyone who dares to criticise Israel deserves to receive threats and abuse? I would have thought that you were more broad-minded than that. But perhaps I'm wrong. However, you needn't fret. Senator Brown is trying to rein in Ms Rhiannon (according to The Australian newspaper). And, as the Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd made quite clear -
"The whole principle of BDS is unacceptable to Australia."

Kevin Rudd also emphasised,

"The Australian government has consistently supported a negotiated two-state solution to the Middle-East peace process where Israel and a future Palestinian State live side by side in peace and security."

Lexi,

If Brown’s position is as you say that’s fine. But that is not the impression I get from the statements attributed to him in the past two days in The Australian and on the ABC website. There he appears to me to be trying to hedge his bets.

As to whether I have what you call a “ghetto mentality” – I’ll leave that to others to judge.

In my original post I asked whether Brown was a conviction politician.

I now pose another question.

IS RHIANNON A CONVICTION POLITICIAN?

First some background.

Rhiannon believes that Israel should be the subject of boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS). This stance is likely to strike a chord with Muslim voters. It is natural that Rhiannon should seek to get her message out to such voters.

There is nothing sinister about this. It is the way the game of politics is played in every democracy. Politicians strive to cultivate voters they believe would share their point of view.

However I have now received an email from a member of the Greens containing the following link:

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P23ehzI8k-0
(Rhiannon appears after about two minutes)

It appears that Rhiannon, a woman on what calls itself the “progressive” side of politics, has shared a platform with a reactionary misogynist like Sheikh Hilaly.

Is this the behavior of a principled politician?

Or is it the behavior of someone who will do anything for votes?

Was there really no other member of the Muslim community who Rhiannon could share a platform with?

To put this in perspective, Tony Abbott was deservedly castigated for allowing this photo to be taken:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/933302-tony-abbott.jpg

(The “Juliar. Bob Brown’s Bitch” picture)

But there was no suggestion that Abbott was actually sharing a platform with these cretins.

What are we to make of a woman who shares a platform with a cleric who refers to rape victims as “uncovered meat?”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773857.htm

The Greens claim to some sort of moral superiority over the two big parties is looking increasingly threadbare.

Lee Rhiannon is a conviction politician, she is convinced that she is right and that she is destined to lead the Greens.

She takes her seat in the Senate in July and I'd say that by the Ides of March . . . .