Trending Topics:

Australia opposed Palestinian UN bid because foreign policy was ‘subcontracted to Jewish donors’ — report

Israel/Palestine
on 54 Comments
Former Australian PM Julia Gillard

Former Australian PM Julia Gillard

I used to feel scared and guilty when I wrote about Jewish donors. But other journalists recognize the importance of the issue. “Jewish donors” is in the headline of a report in the Guardian on a memoir by a former foreign minister. Writes Lenore Taylor:

Former [Australian] foreign minister Bob Carr has suggested [Australia Prime Minister] Julia Gillard’s dogged insistence on supporting Israel in a controversial United Nations vote was because Australian foreign policy had been “subcontracted” to Jewish donors….

Bob Carr: Diary of a Foreign Minister includes a detailed account of a period in October and November 2012 when Carr campaigned against Gillard’s insistence that Australia should support Israel and vote against Palestinian observer status in the United Nations.

[Former Australian PM Kevin] Rudd’s had a “morbid interest” in the issue which had the potential to impact both on Australia’s fate in the upcoming vote for a seat on the UN security council and on his own chances to return to the prime ministership.

“How much of this is about money, I asked him,” Carr writes. “He said about one-fifth of the money he had raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community.”

Carr concludes that “subcontracting our foreign policy to party donors is what this involves. Or appears to involve.”

He describes how nine ministers spoke against Gillard when the issue was discussed by cabinet, and only two in favour of her position.

“Jewish donors” of course doesn’t discriminate between Zionist ones and non-Zionist ones; but the fact is that the Jewish community has been so homogeneous on this issue till lately that the politicians didn’t have time to discriminate on that basis. That’s why former Congressman Barney Frank said to Jeff Halper, You’ve convinced me; I’m against settlements, but I won’t come out against them till you find 5,000 Jews in my district who will come out against them too. Otherwise it’s political suicide.

This is also the importance of John Judis’s book on Truman. He reports similar division inside Truman’s braintrust as there was in Gillard’s cabinet –overwhelming majorities against Partition. And he says domestic political concerns drove policymaking in ’46 and ’48, and in 2011, too: Truman deferred to Abe Feinberg on foreign policy, as Obama later deferred to Haim Saban. So long as journalists won’t talk about a real effect in our politics, then these rich rightwingers and politicians won’t be embarrassed, the public remains uninformed, and nothing changes.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. hophmi
    hophmi
    April 9, 2014, 2:43 pm

    The fact is that this brand of rhetoric is the definition of antisemitism.

    • The Truth
      The Truth
      April 9, 2014, 3:53 pm

      LOL.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      April 9, 2014, 4:05 pm

      “The fact is that this brand of rhetoric is the definition of antisemitism.”

      If what Carr says is true, then how is that antisemitic? (Unless you define “antisemitism” to mean “anything that I or some other Jewish person doesn’t like.”) And if you don’t believe what Carr says is true, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it or at least come up with some basis to disbelieve him.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        April 9, 2014, 4:44 pm

        A statement can be both true and an expression of prejudice, I suppose. To me anti-Semitism is prejudice against at least some things Jewish, presuming that prejudice is always an irrational thing.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 9, 2014, 5:40 pm

        Yes, it can be both true and an expression of prejudice. But if it is true, then more is needed than the statement itself in order to determine whether it is also an expression of prejudice. For example, (to mimic the stereotype) if a Jewish person the speaker know habitually tips 5% in restaurants, then the speaker saying that the person is a bad tipper is true and it could express prejudice (as for example, the speaker knows 10 people who only tip 5% but it is only the Jewish person who he calls out for it.) But without more, I see no basis to infer prejudice.

        The same here. I think that hoppy’s charge requires him to do more than allege that the statement could be viewed as antisemitic. I think he’s got to show that the claim is factually false or that there is an antisemitic motive at work.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        April 9, 2014, 6:45 pm

        Yes, it can be both true and an expression of prejudice.

        That’s an illogical statement to make. To be prejudiced is to pre-judge before the facts are known. We are merely judging after the facts are known.
        Note that Carr said that 20% of the donations came from the Jewish community, this means that the vast majority of the money came from non-Jews.

        So why does it matter? Because politicians know that Zionism is the big issue for Jewish donors aside from the usual positions that attracted them to the left or right in the first place.

        Just like a mining tycoon giving money to the Australian right might have an economic interest in the right in general but has specific interests in the mining sector. Same rule applies here.

        20% might not be a huge amount, but if it is perceived that most of them care very deeply about a single, relatively marginal issue like Israel, then it can have a big impact, which Carr also notes.

        The same here. I think that hoppy’s charge requires him to do more than allege that the statement could be viewed as antisemitic. I think he’s got to show that the claim is factually false or that there is an antisemitic motive at work.

        Hophmi’s tactics are hit and run. The fact that you even bother to engage in these kinds of distractions shows that his tactics can be work from time to time(which is why he continues).

        Hophmi fundamentally doesn’t want a debate about Jewish influence/power. It makes him uncomfortable. He also happens to be a person who defends Israel on even the most heinous of actions it makes.
        Are the two linked? Well, the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd can easily morph into Jews-right-or-wrong.

        Generally speaking, the fight to prevent talking about Jewish donations, Jewish political pressure etc has long been lost.

        And it has been lost for a very simple reason: nobody is fooled by the BS explanations of the Almighty Paster Hagee and his ultra-influential CUFI group which can’t even get Romney to talk to them on an election year. Nor are people fooled by the incredibly important role that geezer Jews in Florida have, despite the fact that the state has been less important than places like Ohio for 3 consecutive elections.

        Australia have neither geezer Jews in large numbers nor does it have an equivalent of CUFI. Jewish donations become necessary to explain why Gillard goes against almost her entire government on a relatively marginal issue(for Australia).

        People got serious about Israel/Palestine. People started to ask the necessary questions. Jewish donations to both parties is a requirement to follow if you are serious about the reasons behind the policy. It isn’t the only factor, but is is a primary factor.

        And the policy looks the way it looks because the money isn’t representative of the wider Jewish community, but of the top 0.1% of Jews, whose politics on I/P is somewhat to the right of Attilla the Hun.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 10, 2014, 11:59 am

        @Krauss: “That’s an illogical statement to make.”

        I disagree. Prejudice speaks to motivation, not truth. For example, if 10 employees are late for work at the same rate, but only those who are black are written up for it, the supervisor, when asked why those people were written up can speak the truth: “because they were late” but the fact that the white workers were also late but not written up demonstrates that the motive was prejudice and the truthful reason was merely pretext.

        As for the rest concerning hophmi and all the rest, I would agree with you. But I cannot say with certainty that truth precludes prejudice because I don’t believe it does.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 9, 2014, 6:01 pm

        @MHughes – Prejudice is not allowed? Strange. Prejudice may always be irrational, if you say so, but it can almost always be given a perfectly rational basis. As you say, a lot of prejudice may also be based on perfectly true statements. Prejudice against religion is, in my opinion, the most positive thing on earth after sliced bread. Prejudice against any and all nationalisms may be what a lot of people are fighting for, and so on.
        If the prejudice is against a group, not based on individual members’ acquired attitudes but their accident of birth, I’d join you in opposing it. But that’s it. Otherwise you are severely restricting the capacity to criticize practically anything.
        This is not the first time a similar statement of yours is being objected to. Perhaps I don’t deserve a response but the objection does: your repeating a statement as if the objection had not been raised is objectionable.

      • April 10, 2014, 7:20 am

        How is expressing a fact — a very relevant and important fact — an “expression of prejudice”?

      • NickJOCW
        NickJOCW
        April 10, 2014, 7:29 am

        MHughes, Racism (antisemitism, prejudice) may be anti-social, immoral, illegal etc., but that doesn’t make it irrational. Reason is simply a thinking tool. It’s dangerous to equate rationality with right and wrong; the world overflows with the bloody consequences of applying reason as an end in itself, unmitigated by compassion, humanity or guilt.

      • Montsegur
        Montsegur
        April 10, 2014, 9:30 pm

        Antisemitism is not defined now, everything can be thrown into this “bag”. The original meaning of the term was completely different:

        http://www.monio.info/2013/11/11/anti-semitism-and-other-terms/

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 9, 2014, 4:28 pm

      The fact is that this brand of rhetoric is what Romney was campaigning on in 2012. Funny how it wasn’t anti Semitic then Hop.

    • Balfour
      Balfour
      April 9, 2014, 5:35 pm

      Hophmi is right; Mondoweiss readers need to attend a lecture on the definition of antisemitism conductd by Dov Hinkind dressed in blackface and the Jewish high schoolers dressed in KKK costumes last Purim.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 9, 2014, 11:37 pm

        Hophmi defended Israeli High Schoolers dressed as KKK /black face enacting a lynching to the last breath. He found really nothing wrong with it and even tried to place the blame of this heinous and disgusting acting out back onto Americans and a lack of understanding by Israelis of US history.

        Sorry, but the guy and his hasbarism is revolting.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      April 9, 2014, 5:40 pm

      @ hophmi,

      Q: The fact is that this brand of rhetoric is the definition of antisemitism.

      R: Yeah, I hate wealthy Palestinians too!

    • puppies
      puppies
      April 9, 2014, 5:46 pm

      @Hophme – You’re right, the donors had all converted to Catholicism. Or was it Hinduism? One of those isms, at any rate.

    • eljay
      eljay
      April 9, 2014, 6:11 pm

      >> The fact is that this brand of rhetoric is the definition of antisemitism.

      hophmeee may be right but, seeing as how he considers just about anything to be “the definition of anti-Semitism”, it’s hard to know for sure.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      April 9, 2014, 6:59 pm

      Please define anti-semitism.

      With the establishment of the State of Israel, much of what was “trope” becomes practice. Factual, demonstrable practice. I hate the word conflate, but that’s what you’re doing. Maybe overlap is a better word.

      This is a transitional period for you, so the overlap can be forgiven. You simply didn’t or don’t know any better or different. But I think the transitional period is over.

      It’s up to you to distinguish, provably so, what criticism and/or generalization is “state” based and what is “Jew” based. Otherwise, well, you know, it’s increasingly ignorable.

      I guess my question is, Do you want to be increasingly ignorable? Does Israel?

    • John Douglas
      John Douglas
      April 9, 2014, 8:06 pm

      Bob Carr claims that Australia’s 2012 position on Palestine’s UN status was motivated by what was best for the politicians’ fundraising among Jewish citizens. hophmi claims that discussing this is anti-Semitic. If hophmi is correct then he has identified a case where anti-Semitism is not only appropriate but required. I don’t think hophmi is correct.

    • annie
      annie
      April 9, 2014, 10:54 pm

      LOL, what would we do without you hops! you crack me up.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      April 10, 2014, 2:18 am

      Ironically, Hophmi, even murdoch’s rightist media attack dogs like the vile Andrew Bolt admitted that Bob Carr was not anti-Semitic but rather “bigoted”. They obviously are more principled and scrupulous than you’ll ever want to be. Really shows.

    • FreddyV
      FreddyV
      April 10, 2014, 5:58 am

      I know Hophmi and his buddies are great target practice, but as Krauss pointed out, he’s all about derailing the conversation so people don’t learn anything and instead raise their arms at whatever crass statement he’s last dropped here.

      All I’m saying is don’t fall for his bullsh1t. Sure, if he has a legitimate argument engage him, but for the most part his trolling works very well. He’s probably getting bonuses from Hasbara based on the number of replies he get and topics he derails.

  2. talknic
    talknic
    April 9, 2014, 3:20 pm

    Australian recognition of Israel 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…” Australia has never recognized any further territories as Israeli.

  3. Red
    Red
    April 9, 2014, 3:32 pm

    Hi Phil,
    Bob Carr is actually the ex-Foreign Minister for Australia under the Gillard government (so not an ex-Foreign Minister for Britain/UK). He is a member of the Labor Right faction of the Australian Labor Party, the same party as former Australian Prime Ministers, Gillard and Rudd (Gillard is supposedly a member of the Left faction and Rudd was not in either faction, one of the things that contributed to his political demise).

    Prior to becoming Australian Foreign Minister, Carr had been the New South Wales (NSW) State Premier for 10 years from 1995 until 2005.

    The 7.30 program on the ABC (Australian Broadcast Corporation) -one of Australia’s public broadcaster did an interview with him where he discuss in detail his criticism of the Israel lobby (see link below)

    The ABC had also run a online report on their website of his criticisms last night (Australian time) which carried the headline: Bob Carr lashes out at Melbourne ‘pro-Israel lobby’. However, the headline has now changed and the online report now covers a range of issues, not just his criticism of the Melbourne Israel lobby. It also has an embedded video with the 7.30 Report interview.

    The current version of the article on the ABC website now gives much more space and weight to the response from the Israel lobby, than the original version did (unfortunately, I can’t find a cache copy of the original article).

    As a result, it is better to watch/listen to the video embedded in the page as it contains his full comments on the issue of the Israel lobby, which had originally been given more prominence in the first version of the report.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-09/bob-carr-lashes-out-at-melbourne-pro-israel-lobby/5379074

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      April 9, 2014, 4:28 pm

      Thanks for correction!

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 9, 2014, 10:37 pm

      Hey Red,

      It’s no coincidence that the Telegraph ran a front page story attacking Care today for some trite comments he allegedly made about the inadequacies of business class travel. No mention is made about this story, but the timing is all too obvious.

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    April 9, 2014, 3:44 pm

    “This is also the importance of John Judis’s book on Truman. He reports similar division inside Truman’s braintrust as there was in Gillard’s cabinet –overwhelming majorities against Partition.”

    Truman was over half a century ago.
    Nobody dares write about Jewish money in DC today.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      April 9, 2014, 6:55 pm

      People don’t? People talk openly about Adelson. Sure, you still have your self-censoring Matthews’, but lots of other folks are upfront about his Israel politics.

      The WSJ had an article showing the exact percentages of Jewish donations to both American parties last year or was it in 2012? It garnered a lot of controversy. It was something like 60-70% for both parties, so much more than the 20% for the Australian labor party.

      Tony Blair’s chief fundraiser tapped Jewish donor networks, too.

      The reason why all these people are going through the money route is very simple: they are weak on campuses and in the grass roots. Beinart explains this quite well in his book on Zionism(the first half is far better than the latter half).

      Although Beinart’s book deals with American Jewry, the analysis is by and large true across the Western world. Plus, as Mearsheimer points out, there is typically no major interest in Israel/Palestine among major non-Jewish donors, which means that there isn’t really any competition. Arab-American donors are basically nonexistent.

      And anyway, while money matters, its importance over the long term is overblown. Money can’t buy policy forever, and it certainly can’t stop a cultural force which we are witnessing now.

      P.S. Phil, have you read Shira Robinson’s book yet? I am reading it now, it is amazing. I was wondering if you’d do a review of it or just write a general commentary based on your reading on it(not necessarily a “strict review” per se).

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        April 10, 2014, 4:35 am

        Krauss
        Can you recommend a book where I can read a historic chronology of the influence of zionist money on US foreign policy in the near east? Something that gives the background to the process by which American politicians such as de Blasio are broken in the manner of horses to follow instructions , the reasons behind all those UN vetoes, the media stenography, the farce of 242, the complicity in the expansion of the YESHA project, the role of Diaspora elites in strangling debate, the hounding of dissenters, the use of antisemitism to silence people, the abuse of the memory of those murdered in the Holocaust and the reasons why we are at this particular juncture now.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        April 10, 2014, 9:38 pm

        Weir came out with a new book. You may already know of Findlay’s.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 10, 2014, 4:54 am

        RE: “People talk openly about Adelson. Sure, you still have your self-censoring Matthews’, but lots of other folks are upfront about his Israel politics.”

        Really? What TV channel are you watching? Most American adults (55%) get their news from TV; the two lead channels are Fox (8%) and CNN (7%). Both channels have been mentioning Sheldon Adelson lately in the general context of the latest SCOTUS decision equating campaign donations and free speech, but neither mentions Adelson’s self-declared prime agenda: Israel. They have occasionally mentioned a secondary Adelson interest: union busting in the union town of LV. The other TV news channels either don’t mention Adelson at all or they too avoid informing their audience of Adelson’s main agenda. The big donor name that comes up most frequently is Koch Brothers. Haim Saban rarely, Soros rarely (now that Beck’s show is gone). http://www.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source-news.aspx

  5. Abierno
    Abierno
    April 9, 2014, 3:58 pm

    Important article. It appears well understood in the US, Great Britain and Australia
    that with acceptance of Jewish politically-directed financial contributions, comes
    the expectation that the candidate will adhere at above 100% fidelity to Israeli
    expectations as regards foreign policy, particularly as it impacts Israeli security,
    financial and political interests. However, could it be the case, that those
    candidates who choose to side step such heavy handed directives, supporting the
    needs of their own country first, experience the political analogue of the well
    known “Dahiya doctrine” – notably experiencing disproportionate push back (force), inflicting widespread damage (think about smears, lawfare, rumor campaigns, outright sabotage) and punishment to the extent that addressing all of it will demand long (ideally well beyond the election date) and expensive reconstructive processes which may or may no be effective, given the remarkable low level or non existence of investigative journalism in any of the above countries. If this were true, the percentage of money which is relatively low (20%) would not be nearly as persuasive, as the implicit threat of well-funded multi media, McCarthy level tactics, with all those bought and paid for politicos pushed to use the full range of their powers to extend the smears and the punishment.

  6. ritzl
    ritzl
    April 9, 2014, 4:27 pm

    I defy US Chief Justice Roberts to distinguish between this “ingratiation” reciprocity and “quid pro quo corruption” (aka bribery).

    McCutcheon Decision (pdf): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

    [Roberts/Majority Opinion, p3]: …In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. “Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 360 (2010). They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

    Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance. …

    Analysis (Emily Bazelon/Slate): http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/supreme_court_s_mccutcheon_ruling_john_roberts_opinion_wrecks_what_remains.html

    This MW article is about Australia, but a US Constitutional Amendment which specifically un-equates and/or decouples money with political speech would go a long way to solving this issue (and, needless to say, so many others). I think it’s coming.

    I’d wager that US pols are especially tired of how overt their manipulation is wrt Israel. This issue has great potential to be both the spark and the grease that propels any such movement.

  7. Vacy
    Vacy
    April 9, 2014, 6:45 pm

    What’s new? This subcontracting to Zionist donors has been happening since Truman.

  8. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    April 9, 2014, 6:57 pm

    Jews contribute an extraordinary disproportionate amount to Australian society and are currently involved in the front line of a significant national debate about mooted changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. They are perfectly entitled to exploit their position to express their views.
    To demean what they are saying because of the strength of their influence on society is to denigrate their success in achieving prominence in the fabric of the nation.
    What about focussing on a lobby that does wield real inordinate power selfishly like the Organisation of Islamic Countries in the United Nations that has turned the UN into a complete joke?

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 9, 2014, 10:34 pm

      Jews contribute an extraordinary disproportionate amount to Australian society and are currently involved in the front line of a significant national debate about mooted changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. They are perfectly entitled to exploit their position to express their views.

      No they are not. That’s called corruption in Australia.

      It doesn’t matter how much success they have achieved. To exert more influence than any other Australian citizen is antithetical to democracy and a violation of the principal of one man/one vote.

      Buying politicians is a crime inAustralia.

      What about focussing on a lobby that does wield real inordinate power selfishly like the Organisation of Islamic Countries in the United Nations that has turned the UN into a complete joke?

      The Organisation of Islamic Countries wields very little power. They are not even bit enough to secure a majority. If they wielded an inordinate amount of power, there would be far fewer vet is from the USA.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 9, 2014, 11:41 pm

        @Shingo – “Buying politicians is a crime in Australia”
        How much would it cost to change that and make it legal like in America?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 10, 2014, 3:46 am

        How much would it cost to change that and make it legal like in America?

        Probably a lot.

        The political system in Australia is flawed and corrupt as any other, but campaign contributions are strictly regulated.

        Still, the idea that politicians could be bought off the wag they are in the US is utterly repugnant to the Australian public. In fact the entire US political system is looked upon as a cesspool of hypocrisy and big money in Oz

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 10, 2014, 6:21 am

        I don’t know, but we can find out. Send me money, and I will try to get the law changed. When I succeed, you will know how much it cost.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 11, 2014, 7:27 pm

        @RoHa – On its way. Taxpayer dollars OK?

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      April 10, 2014, 1:49 am

      Mayhem
      If you cared to listen to what Bob Carr has actually said instead of going on a convoluted rant you’d know that one of his main criticisms of the pro Israel group is not mere influence but that they fund and support a far right position on Israel/Palestine and not a liberal Israeli one. He stated the settlement building issue as an example that this group support.

  9. Kay24
    Kay24
    April 9, 2014, 11:47 pm

    Yet another example of Israel controlling other nations, politicians, and leaders, through treacherous means, control, and dishonest machinations. If they can do it, and control, the world’s greatest superpower, the US, then others like Canada and Australia, will be child’s play. The evils of zionism.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 10, 2014, 2:20 am

      It’s not just direct control and influence either Kay. You can rest assured that on the foreign policy level, they would also be getting leaned in by Washington throw the line.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      April 10, 2014, 3:46 am

      Aha. Israel using the Jewish fifth column to sway Australia from its staunch support of Palestine’s accession through the “through treacherous means, control, and dishonest machinations” of Jewish money. But you’re not antisemitic; you’re just stressing the evils of Zionism.
      The wonder of words.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 11, 2014, 6:32 pm

        Aha. Israel using the Jewish fifth column to sway Australia from its staunch support of Palestine’s accession through the “through treacherous means, control, and dishonest machinations” of Jewish money

        That’s pretty much it. Just as the case with Adelson, some wealthy donors are doing Israel no favors.

  10. MRW
    MRW
    April 9, 2014, 11:49 pm

    Then you should dial this message up a notch or two because it’s true:

    So long as journalists won’t talk about a real effect in our politics, then these rich rightwingers and politicians won’t be embarrassed, the public remains uninformed, and nothing changes.

  11. annie
    annie
    April 10, 2014, 12:24 am

    oh lookie i’m shocked “Bob Carr accused of bigotry over diary claims of pro-Israeli foreign policy” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/10/bob-carr-accused-of-bigotry-over-diary-claims-of-pro-israeli-foreign-policy

    Melbourne-based Jewish MP Michael Danby rejected the allegation on the ABC and accused Carr of bigotry: “It’s laughable but I suppose in the current climate, as George Brandis says, it’s OK to be a bigot.

    “No one has that kind of influence. There are various people who have different views in Australian political life and Bob’s a big boy. He should be bigger than that.”

    And the national chairman of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Mark Leibler, said Carr was vastly exaggerating the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

    “I think Bob doesn’t miss a trick. I mean, if anything’s calculated to sell books.

    “Just unpick for a moment what he’s saying. He’s talking about the Jewish lobby; he’s talking about a difference of opinion between him and the prime minister. Why can’t they have a difference of opinion on a matter related to Israeli policy? No, if there’s a difference of opinion, the prime minister has to be controlled or influenced by someone. So the prime minister has to be wrong ‘cause she’s controlled by the Jewish lobby.

    “How does the Jewish lobby control the prime minister? Through donations to the ALP and sending people to Israel. I mean, give me a break. I mean, would anyone sort of seriously accept that? I mean, I’m very flattered … [but] this is really a figment of his imagination. I mean, Julia Gillard is an independent-thinking woman. She can come to her own conclusions without being influenced by the Jewish lobby.

    sure she can, but does she? and if so, then why bother throwing all that money around ?

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 10, 2014, 2:15 am

      Danby is an Abe Foxman wannabe – always policing the airwaves for criticism of Israel. When Miko Peled cane to Australia, he was invited to give a speech in Canberra to an audience of politicians. He recalled how Danby remained silent and wouldn’t look him in the eye.

      As for Julia Gillard, she stabbed Rudd in the back and I am quite certain the she called in the Australian Jewish lobby.

      Some theories suggest Rudd was targetted partly because he was a harsh critic of Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara. I don ‘to know his true that us but he was enjoying very high approval ratings and then the press’s and his own party turned on him, then overthrew him.

      Gillard is also very right with the lobby here.

    • John Salisbury
      John Salisbury
      April 10, 2014, 9:54 am

      She was “got at” by the lobby several years ago.We down here in Melbourne Australia have our own versions of those malign forces that you are saddled with in America.Fat pockets and blind loyalty to a country other than the one they live in.

      ps love your work Annie

  12. straightline
    straightline
    April 10, 2014, 3:05 am

    Gillard was given her reward for supporting Israel:

    https://www.jewishnews.net.au/gillard-to-receive-jerusalem-prize/32701

    According to ZCV president Sam Tatarka, Gillard “has demonstrated over her entire political career that she identifies and empathises with the Jewish people and our connection with the land of Israel”.

    “The Zionist Council of Victoria and the Zionist movement of Australia are honoured to be able to demonstrate our gratitude and respect for Ms Gillard’s many years as an unstinting supporter of the Jewish and Zionist cause,” he said.

  13. RoHa
    RoHa
    April 10, 2014, 6:37 am

    Just a few reminders of recent events.

    Israel misused Australian passports for assassination purposes.
    PM Kevin Rudd (Labor) protested.
    Deputy PM Julia Gillard (Labor) lay low and said nothing.
    Opposition MP Julie Bishop (Liberal) defended Israel.
    Kevin Rudd pushed out. Julia Gillard become PM.
    Julia Gillard’s partner is an agent for Israeli companies.
    Leader of the opposition Tony Abbot kicked off his election campaign at an Israeli/Australian bash.
    Julie Bishop becomes Foreign Minister. Australia takes more pro Israel line at the UN.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      April 10, 2014, 10:46 pm

      Good summary Roha,

      Except you left out Rudd’s denunciation of Israel’s actions against the Gaza flotilla.

  14. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 11, 2014, 7:16 pm

    In Europe , Israel has Holland

    Thanks to the Dutch – How the American Israel Lobby Steers Official EU Policy on Israel

    On 26 January the Dutch quality newspaper NRC Handelsblad quoted sources in Brussels and other European capitals, revealing that Dutch officials managed to soften the tone of an EU declaration about Israel earlier that week. Last September a similar thing happened, when the Dutch silenced a critical EU standpoint on Israel in the UNHRC. The censuring role of the Dutch brings to light the successful influence of the American Israel Lobby on official European politics.

    —-

    Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal did it again. He sabotaged an official EU Declaration referring to the recent ‘Area C Report’ by the EU diplomatic representation in Israel. This report states that ‘Palestinian presence is being undermined’ by the continuous arrival of Jewish settlers – up to a point that it is preventing a Two State Solution. Just like the report, the drafted declaration was in fact the final call for a just solution.

    Not anymore. The EU now speaks of ‘disturbing developments on the ground’ – a formula that Rosenthal tried to block as well, preaching that ‘this is the wrong moment to criticise Israel’. But even so he successfully dismantled the urgency and in fact the reality of the alarming EU Report, downgrading its makers – his own diplomats – in the process. The frustration in their ranks will be fierce. And so is the anger among the leading EU nations Germany, France and the UK, and most other member states.

    Why would the Dutch alienate themselves within the European community for which they have always been a driving force? Of course – Holland is a loyal friend of Israel by tradition, so seeing the Dutch step in for Israel should surprise no-one. But pro-actively clearing the way for the large scale abuse of human rights and international law is something else.

    from mondoweiss.net ( by a commentator )

Leave a Reply