“If, by accident, by design, by misfortune, by error or by misjudgement, events occur which weaken or diminish Israel's right to command the support of countries such as Australia, because it breaks down the moral position on which it stands by any of those means—I am not saying deliberately; inadvertently or in any other way-the capacity of nations to support Israel is obviously diminished because we need to have a credible position from which we can argue our support.”

So said our Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in 1982.

There will always be events that have the capacity to make the citizen proud. Doc Evatts efforts on behalf of the Jewish people and the formation of the State of Israel is one such event.

In a discussion with an Australian reporter one UN envoy noted, “Ah, from Dr. Evatt’s country. Now that’s a great man for you…. Without him the Israelis would never have got in. He bullied, pleaded, cajoled, coaxed until he got the right numbers for them.”. After partition Australia repeatedly presented resolutions calling for the recognition of the State of Israel which was finally achieved in 1949. I am proud of Mr Evatt and my country for their role.

There are also those events that dismay. Australia's abstention at the UN on the question of recognising Palestine as an 'observer state' last week will undoubtedly have many future Australians wishing they had seen better from their country. We were saved from the ignominy that befell our Commonwealth cousin Canada, that of voting against the resolution, yet there is little chance our position will be remembered favourably.

Where was our modern day Doc Evatt championing for justice for a people, knowing the importance of statehood and 'bullying, pleading, cajoling, coaxing until he got the right numbers for them'. Where is our modern day version of Mr Fraser telling Israel that is has “broken down the moral position on which it stands” through its slaughter of civilians, its brutal blockading, its gunning down of the members of a peace flotilla, and its terror?

At least we are saved Canada's shame.

A one sided view, one I do not agree with.
But it is bound to feed the xenophobia, seen in some posts in a thread about the same issue.
When talking of Palestinians right to statehood, they do have that right.
Do not forget these folk want to take the right to exist from Israel, that speaks of a two sided and not simple problem.
History tells of far more murders than our author wishes us to talk of.

Here is a link to a map of Palestine pre 1948 to 2011 in size it is only 12% of what it used to be who has all that lost territory Israel.

http://enpassant.com.au/2012/12/02/palestine-the-story-in-maps/

When they won the UN recognition Israel spat the dummy and announced the building of 3,000 more homes so the 12% will be smaller now.

I have no time for the criminal Zionists of Israel.They have continued to steal land of the Palistinians and hold the world to ransom with their 200+ illegal nukes.

The question I'm trying to address is whether Australia's moral capital has been diminish because of the position it has taken regarding Palestinian statehood.

It is instructive to look at the UK response. They said they would change their vote to yes but only; “Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.”

“Abbas is also being asked to commit to an immediate resumption of peace talks "without preconditions" with Israel. The third condition is that the general assembly's resolution does not require the UN security council to follow suit.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/27/uk-ready-to-back-palestine-statehood

Just think about that for a moment. Supposedly one of the world's most liberal democracies, a standard bearer for the rule of law and representative rule, places as a precondition for its support, the giving up by the Palestinians any rights and protections under international criminal law.

The UK of course was one of the foremost proponents of the International Criminal Court both signing and ratifying their membership well before Australia. Yet here they are, taking what any thinking person would regard as a morally bankrupt position toward an oppressed and occupied peoples whose land is being subsumed on it would seem an almost monthly basis.

Cont..

cont..

Just as their 'No' vote served to diminish Canada in my eyes (who would have thought it) the same can be said of the UK. I am enough of a romantic to have felt the Commonwealth of nations that Australia is part of stood for something, that we would support fledgling nations, chastise bullying, aggressive states, back new democracies, and generally stand up and be counted. The actions of Canada, the UK and ourselves has served to disavow me of that notion.

My question really is how have we come to this? I know Doc Evett pushed very hard to keep Jerusalem as an international city much to the angst of the Israelis. His efforts were toward justice, whoever that meant supporting was secondary. Once again I could be over romanticising but I could easily see him striving just as hard and diligently for a Palestinian State were he alive today. This is why Australia has been so diminished by Israel, we have taken sides rather than seek to do what is right. When Israel announced new illegal West Bank settlements as a punitive response to the UN vote we expressed our 'concern'. Where is the outright condemnation such an act really deserves? Why are we not withdrawing our ambassador at a measure declared utterly against the proscriptions of the Geneva Convention?

I think our sycophantic relationship with both Israel and the United States has poisoned us as an independent nation, one that at some point believed in a quality of international justice. I at least thank those Labour federal politicians who change the PM's mind on a no vote.

Cont..

Cont..

I also want to directly apologise to the Palestinian people for my country's abstention at the UN vote. I am sorry that our government did not see its way clear to support your striving through one of the few peaceful means you have available for achieving statehood. Please believe I truly feel as a whole we are better than this and hopefully in the future we can assist in easing the hurdles that are preventing you becoming the independent nation you deserve to be. This does not mean we forsake the right to rebuke your government if it transgresses international law, or your military if it causes civilian deaths, or your people if they are determined to deny the right of others to live peacefully. I realise this may seem hypocritical given our obvious acquiescence to even the more egregious actions of the state of Israel, but I ask the you understand that often leaders in a democracy place their personal stamp on foreign policy. On the question of your people former prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard have done both your nation and ours a disservice.

Perhaps our future will bring a leader whose commitment to international peace and justice will be more even handed and reflect the way most of us would like to think of our country's moral weight. Though there is no doubt in my mind that even though we were not in the half dozen nations that voted against the Palestinian recognition the very fact we were in the small majority that abstained has served to diminish us. My own patriotism is fed from a firm belief that as a whole my fellow citizens, once properly informed, are capable of judging what is right and wrong, of determining the bully from the oppressed, and of condemning obvious injustice. It is plain to see our former and current leadership, with the help of very influential lobby groups, have managed to strip us of that clarity. Return it and we will again stand tall.

Csteel, this government has no moral conscience whatsoever. They have no policy that cannot be disjointed if there is a political imperative to do so. The political imperative in this instance is the Arab vote in key Labor electorates, nothing more nothing less.

Dear sonofgloin,

I'm not saying the Muslim representation wasn't a factor and Gerard Henderson tries to make the same argument.

“Labor frontbenchers and backbenchers alike appeared to brief journalists that a reason for the decision turned on the need to appeal to the Muslim vote in potentially marginal seats, particularly in western and south-west Sydney.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/un-vote-unlikely-to-help-fragile-labor-20121203-2ar53.html#ixzz2EB4MwbF4

But similar accusations were directed at Evatt when he drove the move to have Jerusalem be an 'international city',

“Evatt pushed hard for the resolution. There is considerable controversy over his motivation, but the best evidence suggests it was probably a desire to win Catholic votes in the Australian parliamentary election of December 1949”
http://jcpa.org/article/a-distant-affinity-the-history-of-australian-israeli-relations-2/

And it doesn't take into account the very heavy lobbying of Gillard by Bob Hawke and Gareth Evans. I would trust that both had their eye on priorities other than marginal Sydney seats.

I'm still prepared to give credit where it is due even if an abstention was certainly not a strong moral position to take it is better than what we would have got from Abbott.

But look at the lengths Henderson goes to to justify a 'Yes' vote;

“the position adopted by Gillard, Conroy and Shorten was in no sense extreme. It was consistent with the social democrats in President Barack Obama's administration in the United States, with the political conservatives in Stephen Harper's government in Canada and with the stance of the Czech Republic.”

Since when is 9 out of 188 nations not an extreme position? To put it in a local perspective double that percentage of Australians voted NO! in the 1967 Aboriginal referendum.

Bolt called it “a betrayal of voters and our national interest.”. Why is it against our national interest to take a moral position on the Palestinian people striving for independence and freedom from oppression? (I note the original article showed Israeli missiles raining down on Gaza. The online version now shows Israelis in bomb shelters.)

Henderson and Bolt debase the notion of a fair go in relation to the Palestinians. They are among the worst of us.

Why would Australia take sides in the Palestine – Israel conflict. The western world created the problems when it gave Israel land in about 1948 that other people lived in. The western world should help both nations resolve the differences. It is not helped by both sides using killing as a means of dispute resolution instead of discussion. “An eye for an eye” on both sides means they will keep on fighting until the last eye is removed.

Dear csteele,

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is
vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and
international sanction - out of all proportion to any other
party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so
is dishonest."
(Thomas Friedman, 2002).

Dear Lexi,

It is a hugely interesting personal issue and one that engages me still, but I have come to some conclusions about my contributions on OLO regarding the Israel/Palestinian situation and how they may be judged when calls of anti-semite have arisen in the past, or as they do now.

This is the path my thinking took and you are welcome to challenge any of it.

By far the most prolific article writer on this web site is David Singer with often weekly contributions on Israel that all but the most biased of readers would consider extremely one sided and many would consider racist. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say for an Australian site this focus is out of the ordinary.

As a long time consumer of OLO I try and do some research about any of the topics I choose to respond to and over the years these have been delightfully varied. And thanks to OLO I have become far more informed than I may otherwise have been on these topics and attained far more insight than I might have garnered as a casual reader of the news.

Therefore the combination of Mr Singer's intransigence, the issue being front and centre on a site I enjoy, the knowledge I have accumulated, the fact that over recent years I find myself more and more leaving topics like religion or politics for the new folk, now mean a larger percentage of my posts are about Israel and the Palestine.

This is not attempting to justify myself to you rather to explain how I am comfortable with that focus even though it means Thomas is again directed my way. By the way I accept his sentiment but don't personally accept his argument.

To conclude, if instead of Mr Singer we had a weekly diet of contributions from an apologist for the regime in Iran, explaining why the repressions of their minorities was completely justifiable due to their terrorist acts, then I venture my focus would likely be different.

Dear Voterland,

Australia took a position on a homeland because of the horrors of what had been done to the Jewish people through the Holocaust. That some of the impetus was driven by guilt is undeniable, but there was undoubtedly a sense of it being the right and just thing to do and as I have stated earlier I am proud of my country's contribution to assisting them to realise the state of Israel.

The problems now is that 'sense of the right and just' has been subsumed by the expediency of our relationship with the US and a powerful pro-Israel lobby within Australia. Of course residual guilt plays its part, as it should in my opinion, but our current responses to Israel's actions fall far short of what is appropriate for a nation such as ours.

Dear csteele,

Firstly let me say that my previous quote
was not directed at you, it was intended for those (like Mr Singer)
who accuse anyone who dares to criticise the actions of Israel
of anti-Semitism.

As Edward Said stated in 2002, "The real question of Israel's existence: whether it can exist as a state
like all others, or must always be above
the constraints and duties of all other states in
the world today. The record is not reassuring."

It does not help that we are generally ill served by our media's
reporting of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The predominance of
the Israeli (as the aggrieved party) and US perspectives means that
the Palestinian narrative and motivation remain murky. This of course
suits certain agendas and does not contribute to a balanced view
of the competing histories.

I also was very disappointed by our government's position on
this matter but not surprised.

In abstaining, Australia took sides. There is no right side to take, but at least Palestinians should be allowed a more level playing-field by approaching parity with Israel's UN status, which is what we should have voted for.

The UN created Israel and can equally uncreate it and replace it with a democratic secular state (including Gaza and the West Bank) for all inhabitants.

What should be its name?

OK, pigs might fly but what other alternative exists to the escalation/de-escalation cycle, which will eventuallly turn into catastrophe as larger and larger portions of both sides become radicalized?

Dear Lexi,

I wasn't sure how to take your previous post so I took it as it came, though I am grateful for the response you have given.

To explain a little more about accepting Friedman's sentiment but not his argument it is interesting to note Chomsky's position on the BDS movement against Israel. He makes the point that without the imprimatur of the US Israel would not feel it has the leeway to act as it does. Therefore to be attacking only Israel and not the US is anti-Semitic. He does have a point. But Friedman's position seems to be that unless one has a record of condemning other middle eastern states, some of which have pretty vile records, then one is being anti-Semitic.

I would make the case than as Israel is predominately made up of colonising European Jews not only do we identify with them culturally but we expect them to exhibit values that are closer to ours rather than many other nations in the Middle East.

It is that empathy that allowed us to contemplate, then accept to the colonisation and dispossession of a people.

That empathy has now seemingly turned into an illness, an almost perverse infatuation from our leaders and our media. I think we have a fair way to go to get well again.

Dear csteele,

Successive US administrations have offered little more than
lip-service to the principle of an even-handed approach to the
Israel-Palestine conflict. And I don't see this changing
any time soon.

Edward Said, 2003 summed things up thus:

"Wherever you look in the Congress there are tell-tale
signs either of the Zionist lobby, the right-wing Christians,
or the military-industrial complex, three inordinately
influential minority groups who share hostility to the
Arab world, unbridled support for extremist Zionism, and an
insensate conivction that they are on the side of the angels."

The US a peace-broker? It would be foolish for people to think
that somehow the US is neutral.