Archbishop Justin Welby

News this week of the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury will have been a shock to all Anglicans, as will have been horror that terrible abuse has been perpetrated yet again by a person while acting in the name of the Church as a carer and nurturer of young people.

It was right that the Archbishop resign, but it is wrong that he be the subject of unwarranted and ignorant vitriol and smear, particularly from social media and from some sections of the Church whose beef with the Archbishop has little if anything to do with this matter.

As Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had ultimate responsibility for all matters of oversight in the Church of England.  To fulfil his obligations, of necessity he had to rely on others. Apparently, knowledge of the dreadful and extensive nature of Smythe’s abuse was made known to the then bishop of Ely in 2013, the year Justin Welby became Archbishop. Apparently, that bishop passed the information informally to the police and wrote a letter conveying concern to the Diocese of Cape Town where Smythe was then residing.  Information of this action was conveyed to the Archbishop’s episcopal chaplain, appointed to first deal with these matters for the Archbishop, and then to the Archbishop himself.  Wrongly, as later revealed, the Archbishop came to the conclusion, protocol had been followed, appropriate authorities had been informed. The Church’s protocol required the matter be left with the police to make their enquiry.  In reality, the then bishop of Ely had not formally reported the matter to the police, as he thought, and consequently no enquiry was being made by them. The Archbishop’s guilt lies in that he did not initiate enquiry as to the matter having been followed up. He has not used his undoubted impossible workload as an excuse.

No suggestion has been made that the Church, least of all the archbishop was attempting a cover up.

The Archbishop’s resignation, is a standard seldom followed in public life in Britain, or in Australia.  He has taken full responsibility and not sought to make others responsible.  Would that this standard was the norm in industry and commerce and particularly in political life.

Now 68, the Archbishop worked in the oil industry until 1989 when he began study for the priesthood.  He was ordained in 1992.  Since then, he has had a meteoric rise, first becoming Bishop of Durham and then Archbishop of Canterbury in 2013.

Conscious of the biblical injunction that a house divided against itself falls, the Archbishop’s 12 years in office have been spent attempting to hold the unity of the Anglican Communion as his major priority.  Afraid to offend, the consequence has inevitably been less clarity in leadership that many, including me, would have liked. It would have been bitterly disappointing to him that many bishops within the evangelical faction of the Church refused to join him at the 2023 Lambeth Conference.  Presumably it would have been someone identifying with this faction who posted on social media their hope that the next Archbishop of Canterbury would be a Christian.

I have not personally been happy with everything the Archbishop has said, or has refrained from saying.  It took him a long time to appropriately condemn Israeli abuses of civilians in Gaza. He has not had the presence of a Temple, Ramsey, Williams, or even a Coggan. However, he is transparently a very good man who has sought to fulfil the Micah challenge: to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God.
​
Those unable to accept this challenge, as he has done, accuse him of “wokeness”, a word spat with increasing vehemence by supporters of Donald Trump. If it is a word of derision made by those who obviously find Christ-likeness distasteful, it should be worn as a badge of honour.

As the Archbishop with his wife and children step into a less public world he deserves to be remembered as a man of deep faith and courage, referenced in the future through his life of outstanding witness and service and not by the manner of his departure.
 
              
 
 
 

Learning from the Trump Victory
 
Peter Dutton and Gina Reinhart would have us learn from Trump’s victory.  I agree, but what exactly are we learning?

Shaun Micallef alerts us to what we knew before the election, and what has not been changed by the election:

he was (is) a well-known quantity: a fulminating blowhard with neither dignity nor shame; a cry-baby idiot who knew nothing worthwhile about anything, least of all his limitations; a pompous, inarticulate, opportunistic, grifting windbag; a liar, a cheat, a moral and, on a number of occasions, actual bankrupt; a felon several times over; a fire-and-Fred Flintstone carnival-barking Florida real estate salesman playing to, it turns out, not so much the lowest but the largest common denominators of aspiration and greed.

Well, that just about covers it!

So, what are we learning?

1.If we believe our self-interest is being served, shame and dishonesty do not matter.
 
Clearly, an unregulated and tax reduced world serves Gina Reinhart and Elon Musk very well. The end of wokism, whatever Nigel Farage thinks that is, appeals to him. That the poor in the rust belts also believed their interests would be similarly served is tragic. It is beyond dispute we (the global community) are moving from an industrialised world based on fossil fuels to a digital, electronic age served by renewable energy and shaped by circular economies. The industrialized world, which has shaped communities and economies for more than 200 years is ending. Every era has a limited time in the sun. Trump can cry ‘dig baby dig’ all he likes, but in doing so he is digging an economic as well as environmental hole which will see the US decline while other nations and economies begin to thrive.  
 

1. Empty statements without reason or logic are all that a politician needs to deliver.

 
Trump was a master at this. Who can forget his promise to end war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Apparently, Dutton is adopting this modus operandi. The most obvious example being the promise to deliver baseload nuclear energy without costing, without community consultation, and with a timeframe that even at its best does not deliver carbon neutrality within the frame demanded by science.
 
3.The ‘most Christian country in the world’ can abandon traits of integrity in support of exclusivity.
 
The Christian right’s help in shaping the Trump victory was significant. To do this it sacrificed integrity in leadership to gain support for an ideology of exclusivity on several fronts: including gender, sexuality, women’s rights and the triumph of Israel notwithstanding genocide. ‘Jesus is my Saviour and Trump is my President’ must be the most idolatrous statement I have ever heard. Linking a saint in that fashion, no matter how noble, would be idolatrous, and Trump is no saint, indeed by any discernible measure he is not a man of faith. Rank individualism, which appears to be a cornerstone of American life, certainly of its right wing represented in Trump and Musk, is anathema to Christian life. Christianity is, of its very nature, socialistic, it is belief in the unity of life, respect for others including the natural order, lifting the poor out of poverty: - it is belief in a life of service.
 
4.Truth does not matter. 
 
It is inevitable that politicians will massage truth to suit their message. However, what Trump has done is lift untruth to an entirely new level. Because his self-belief is superiority in all things no story can be told, no message given, other than one that presents him as the extraordinary genius he clearly believes he is. Because one cannot believe anything he says, it is yet unknown whether he will carry through or some of the more outrageous statements he has made, not least his statements of vengeance and reprisal.
Sadly, Trump’s behaviour in this way seems to have bequeathed two sources of news and information across the globe.  On the one hand there are those outlets that strive, no matter how imperfectly, to provide genuine information and facts, and news outlets whose sole objective has nothing to do with fact, but the promotion of a Trump like brand.   In the latter category we find Sky News in Australia and Fox News  in the US.  Because Dutton appears addicted to a Trump-like version of truth he continues, as do all his acolytes, to undermine sources of news however imperfect which attempt to convey truth realistically – notably the ABC, a source of news paid for by the public purse.
 
5.America first, the rest of the world must fall in behind

Because the US is such a big economy, global best interest matters greatly. What the US does or does not do has a disproportionately greater affect on the wellbeing of others than most other countries.   The threat of abandoning environmental responsibility is morally outrageous for those living in more vulnerable parts of the world.  However, it is also reprehensible action for younger US citizens as well as younger people everywhere in the world. Climate disruption with only a 1.5 degrees rise is barely manageable, the consequences of a three-degree rise, which will happen with this kind of irresponsibility is unthinkable.
​
So, Dutton and Reinhart, please learn from the US election, if that is the world you wish to live in, move to the States, it is not a world you should be imposing upon Australia, we are better than that.
 
 

The Banning of UNWRA
​
Let us be abundantly clear.

What Israel is intending is against its obligations under international law
What Israel is intending is against its moral obligations as fellow citizens of the human race.

The United Nations Relief Agency UNWRA has been in operation since the early 1950’s and has hundreds perhaps thousands of employees. Palestinian refugees across the Middle East, but especially in Gaza have been totally reliant upon it for their welfare.

That in any organisation this large, there might be some who do not comply with the organisation’s charter is both possible and probable.  No different to any large organisation, charitable or commercial, anywhere in the world. However, Israel accuses the organisation of large-scale corruption and malpractice, even supporting terrorism. It has provided no evidence. You will remember Israel gaoled the previous head of World Vision in Gaza under accusations of corruption, and directing funds to Hamas, without providing a skerrick of evidence. Mohammed EL Halabi has subsequently been in an Israeli gaol since 2016. A thorough audit has shown the accusation was simply not plausible. He could have been released had he confessed to something he has not done. He has refused

Similarly, following an audit, the Australian government has satisfied itself that it is safe to continue channelling Australian charitable aid through its large-scale distribution network to the millions of Palestinians in need, believing the Israeli accusation to be false.

To imagine that another network, trusted by Palestinians, can suddenly emerge to distribute the level of aid required is worse than naïve. It takes years to develop both the infrastructure and trust required.

To imagine that Israel’s defence force will itself meet this need quickly, generously, and thoroughly is bizarre. Apart from anything else where would trust be found amongst Palestinians to believe and cooperate with the very people who have demolished schools, hospitals, distribution outlets, and blocked safe aid transition for over 12 months.  It simply does not work to expect aid from the one who is the cause of your devastation.

Israel now has an almost impossible task in convincing the world it is not a pariah state.  If this resolution of the Knesset is not rescinded, Israel must be immediately subject to isolation and boycott.
Messrs Dutton and Albanese you are now in full glare of the headlights.  What is your response?  Israel has the right to defend itself? This has absolutely nothing to do with defending itself.  It has everything to do with an intention to remove by any means possible a whole race of people from their land. The very fact of passing a law with effect in Gaza and the West Bank indicates the mind of the Knesset that it already possesses sovereignty over these occupied lands.  It does not have sovereignty. But this is clearly the intention.  If it did have legitimate sovereignty, all Palestinians should have full rights as citizens. The West Bank and Gaza are clearly intended to become part of greater Israel – but without a Palestinian population.

So, Messrs Dutton and Albanese, not to mention Biden, Trump and Harris, what is this nonsense you keep sprouting about a two-state solution while doing absolutely nothing to stop what in the mind of Netanyahu is clearly a fait accompli, sovereignty of Israel from the river to the sea.

The situation could not be grimmer, or graver.

We hardly need to be reminded by Dr Martin Luther King or Archbishop Desmond Tutu that those of us who are not affronted by evil become part of it.

Please do all in your power to lift voices in condemnation of a decision, which, if left to stand, could have apocalyptic consequences for the people of Gaza and severe distress for the people of the West Bank.
 
 
 

This blog was posted on Pearls and Irritations 13 October 2024

Dutton and Netanyahu’s projection of Good and Evil
 
The leader of Australia’s Opposition, Peter Dutton, is aligning himself with a proposition about good and evil, civilisation and tyranny, that can only lead to the perpetuation of violence and the glorification of war, not its diminishment. The position of both men is dishonest, self-deluding and dangerous. Dutton is knowingly or unknowingly aligning himself with a quasi-religious proposition that because the cause is ‘righteous’ it permits evil.   This is a matter which should deeply concern any and all who are followers of Jesus, the Prince of Peace.  
Peter Dutton’s agreement with Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel is engaged in a war against evil and tyranny that every civilised nation on earth should support is not the view of thousands of Jewish people worldwide, nor is it the view of the US, Canada, Great Britain, nor should it be the view of the Christian world.  It is outrageous that Dutton is advocating the position of Israel’s Zionist extreme right, a position highly disputed within Israel itself, let alone in the world community and a position which has caused terrible suffering and evil to prevail.   

Of course there must be a ceasefire and release of captives. And of course there must be commitment to the recognition of Palestine.

Neither good nor evil reside exclusively anywhere. Good to the exclusion of evil most certainly does not reside in the Israeli Knesset.  All human beings, all communities and nations are capable of extraordinary heights of morality, sacrifice and goodness, but all are equally capable of rank evil.  There is no excusing evil. Excuse based on ‘defence’ or righting wrong, does not diminish evil but reinforces it. To declare one section of the world evil, and by implication another part ‘good’ is to mimic the terrible error of the medieval crusades. This mimicking was of course done by George Bush Jn, resulting in the calamitous aftermath of the Gulf and Afghan wars.

 The Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, was pure evil. But in equal measure, the Israeli slaughter of Gazans, the destruction of their homes and infra-structure has been evil on a terrifying scale.  In both cases the intention has been to cause as much suffering and devastation as possible.

Dutton’ contribution to this week’s parliamentary debate on a resolution marking the first anniversary of October 7 was ugliness personified. He must be reminded that words have consequences.

The Israeli right wing which he so enthusiastically supports, has called for starvation to be used as a weapon of war. The same Israeli politicians have said killing Palestinians should be rewarded.  Equally they have said Palestinians are not humans therefore their killing is warranted.  Peter Dutton, your words implying moral superior support these views.

For more than a decade it is well known that Benjamin Netanyahu gave covert support to Hamas to aid his goal of undermining Palestinian political unity and fuelling Palestinian political division and ineptness. Doing this may not in itself be described as evil, but it has had evil consequences for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

That antisemitism has been on the rise across the world, including Australia, is indisputable. Any form of racism is evil.  Why it’s rise?  That there are rabble-rousers in every society and in every city square who enjoy any opportunity to demean is certainly true.  But this is not the reason.  The reason is that Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right-wing government which holds him captive have accelerated injustice, suffering, and dehumanising of Palestinians. They have ignited ire amongst global citizenry everywhere. Unfortunately, this ire has fallen on Jewish people as a collective, rather than where it belongs on the promoters of this Zionist pogrom.    It is fruitless for Australian politicians to decry antisemitism within Australian society without addressing the reason for its rise.  Dutton is politically driven to ugliness in speech, believing as Abbott did, it would be interpreted in the electorate as strength in leadership. In fact, the stupidity of his words, decrying a cease fire and pouring ice cold water on any thought of a Palestinian State, only leads to more misdirected ire.

The current tragic situation did not begin 12months ago.  It is deeply rooted in decades of ill treatment, expulsion into refugee status, abuse, lack of rights, unlawful imprisonment and theft of homes and livelihood by the expanding Israeli State.

Peter Dutton and Benjamin Netanyahu, do you seriously think that the crushing, perhaps annihilation, of the current Hamas guard will permanently ‘fix’ the problem.  You are deceiving yourselves. Current actions of the IDF are deepening the resolve of the next generation whom you call terrorist; but self-identify as freedom fighters. No child old enough to remember will ever forget what they have been put through. No amount of force will ever extinguish human resolve to live in freedom, to share the same rights as others, or to break the bonds of servitude inflicted by others.

The actions of October 7 must always be described as evil.  (The role or non-role of the IDF is yet to be told).
The never-ending imprisonment of all Gazans is also evil.
As is:

• The imprisonment of Palestinian children
• Settler attacks on Palestinian villages
• The imprisonment at scale of Palestinian adults without charge
• Unsubstantiated maligning of charitable or humanitarian organisations such as World Vision, UNWRA
• Unequal treatment at law of Palestinians and Israelis
• Wholesale theft of Palestinian land and assets

Do not expect Israel to ever live without the need for walls, armaments and fear, unless the reasons for such enmity are addressed.

Mr Dutton, by your language and apparent abject disinterest in facts on the ground, you are doing more than any other Australian to contribute to the lack of social cohesion which you so stridently decry.
​
It is poignantly stated by many Jewish leaders that the strategy of the Israeli government does not speak for Judaism.  Thousands of Jews have contributed to values held dear in the free world. The action and behaviour of the Israeli government exists outside these parameters and no, we do not hold the same values as the Israeli government.

Israel’s goal: less defence, more domination

It was almost impossible to listen to Benjamin Netanyahu speak at the United Nations General Assembly without a feeling of despair and disgust.
Israel’s ‘friends’, which include Australia, must change their rhetoric in defence of Israel when they say: “Israel has the right to defend itself”.

No nation has the right to use this slogan to justify its actions if its very existence is hewn out of the wholesale displacement of those who should be its neighbours.  A nation only has the right to defend itself, if in its very existence it wishes to live as neighbour with those who surround it. It is a contradiction in terms to seek to be a neighbour to those whom you have been responsible for their pain and anguish. Netanyahu almost certainly disparages anything Christian, but if he is in the slightest bit interested in what is meant by the term ‘neighbour’, he would do well to listen to the parable of the Good Samaritan and be reminded that in this emblematic parable it was a Samaritan, not a Jew who bound up the wounds of the Jew fallen amongst thieves.

Thousands of Palestinians live in Lebanon.  By no means all of them are 1948 Nakba refugees and their descendants, but many are.  Those who are Palestinian Christian have been given the right to live and work in Lebanon, a right that does not, and should not, negate their fundamental right to return home to Palestine.  Sunni Muslim refugees, however, have no rights in Lebanon.  Most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni. These Sunni descendants of the 1948 Nakba have no right to work, no rights to social welfare, no rights to own property, no rights to education.  They are considered by the Lebanese government to be temporary residents on their way back to their homes in Palestine. They are utterly dependent upon UNWRA for their survival. Netanyahu is committed to ensuing they never return home.  That they are sympathetic to Hezbollah is hardly surprising.

There can never be peace in this part of the world unless or until underlying grievances are addressed. Peace is not an absence of war. Peace emanates from justice.

I do not support or condone activities of Hamas or Hezbollah which threaten the lives of Israeli citizens. However, the undeniable truth is that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah would exist if it were not for the fact that the people they represent, or who support them, have suffered intolerable injustice.
Netanyahu does his best to demean the United Nations and its agencies, especially UNWRA.  However, he needs to be reminded that his nation would not exist if it were not for a resolution of the United Nations in 1947 and its outcome in 1948. In this resolution of partition, it was intended the lands of Palestine be divided almost equally.  As a result of the war that followed, causing mass scale destruction of Palestinian homes and communities, Israel has existed on 78% of the land leaving 22% as ‘Palestinian Territories’.  In the Oslo accord of the 1990’s Yasser Arafat agreed to accept Palestinian statehood on the 22%.  What has happened since has been the Zionist pogrom of gradual destruction and occupation of the 22%.  How can any nation, given the original intention of the UN resolution, argue that Israel has the right to defend itself given this context?

What Israel is doing cannot in good conscience be called ‘defending itself’.  It is aggressively pursuing its agenda of occupation of ancient Palestine ‘from the River to the Sea’ to the exclusion of those who are not Jewish. In his UN speech Netanyahu said Israel would continue its assault in both Gaza and Lebanon until all its goals are met.  What are its goals? Clearly the goal is not ‘defence’.  The goal is the elimination of any resistance to its goal of complete control of all land from the river to the sea – preferably with no Palestinians.  It must be said often and everywhere, this is not the agenda of thousands of Jewish people, both in Israel and in the diaspora, who utterly deplore these actions and most courageously stand with their Palestinian brothers and sisters.  

Netanyahu loves maps. But the maps he uses are his version of history, not history as it occurred. He loves to use a map which totally ignores the West Bank, in his mind it simply does not exist.

Let me remind him of a few facts of history.  Israel has never existed in its own right; it has always existed under the threat or with the help of a great power.  Jews were slaves under the Egyptians.  The State of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, leaving the small State of Judah as a remnant. Jerusalem and its temple were sacked by the Babylonians. Ironically the power that allowed them some autonomy and return was the Persians – modern day Iran! The Greek, Antiochus Epiphanes erected his own image in the second temple. The Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the second temple. Over many centuries, various waves of Europeans sought control of Jerusalem and its surrounds (notably in the Crusades). In more recent times the whole of the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire.

It is ironic, bizarre and morally wrong that from the late 19th century onwards, waves of Jewish emigrants first from Europe and Russia and more latterly from North America are considered to have automatic right of entry and possession, while those who can trace unbroken ancestry for multiple generations have none.   It needs to be pointed out that the great power that now influences Israel’s future is the United States.  Without that support, Israel would not have been able to pursue its pogroms and be saved from multiple resolutions of condemnation at the UN Security Council where the US holds the power of veto.
​
Please Anthony Albanese, do not continue the empty argument that Israel has the right to defend itself. Argue that those who have always lived there, have the right to always live there.
 
 

Melbourne Weapons Expo
\
On October 7, 2024, Hamas did not have the right to enter an Israeli Kibbutz and slaughter innocent civilians.  However, the Israeli occupation, the denial of Palestinian rights, the imprisonment of Palestinian citizens, and the Zionist project to forcefully remove Palestinians from their land and birthright, is an outrage against which protest is legitimate, morally right and inevitable.  Terrorists are those who take what belongs to others, not those who protest what is taken from them.

In the same way, protesters at the Melbourne weapons expo did not have the right to disrespect the police, use violence, and generally be responsible for anti- social behaviour.  But on the other hand, not only did they have the right to protest the expo, they, along with all Australian citizens, have a moral obligation to confront an industry that is not primarily about world peace but about one of the most lucrative for-profit enterprises on the planet.

2 trillion US Dollars is a lot of money to spend on destruction when a much smaller sum could have been spent on building a fairer and more just world, and in turn become a far more effective way of building harmony and peace. 

It is a lie to suggest investment in armaments is about investment in defence. Investment in armaments is about power and advantage.  Because the US invests twice as much as its nearest rival, it has the capacity to exert power and authority anywhere in the world, often to the great disadvantage and against the will of nations in whose presence this power is being exercised.

Wars waged by the US and supported by Australia in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan have not made the world a safer place. They have caused needless death and destruction for countless people and damaged the future lives of veterans called upon to serve in these flawed campaigns.

There can be little argument that the greatest legacy of the John Howard years was disarming the Australian domestic population after the Port Arthur massacre.  This action made life for all of us much safer.  Similarly, life in our region has been made much safer through strong ties that have now been made by successive Australian governments with Indonesia, the world’s largest Islamic nation. Through diplomacy and generosity Australia, somewhat belatedly, is seeking to build a sense of family and shared commitment amongst all nations in our part of the Pacific. If we genuinely seek security, this is the way forward, not being armed to the teeth.

Christopher Pyne, who made a lightening and lucrative switch to the arms industry after leaving parliament, disingenuously said he was proud of the fact that investment in the arms industry protected the opportunity for protest in the western world.  What protects free speech and the right to protest is a vibrant democracy, not armaments. Indeed, in a vibrant democracy it should not have been possible for links made in politics to be immediately transferable to an industry whose very existence is dependent upon decisions made in politics and investments made by governments. In a democracy, his political career should have made him ineligible for a post political position in which his political knowledge and contacts had become his most valued asset.

The expo is being held in the context of a world dominated by dreadful military campaigns causing death, destruction and mass dislocation on a great scale. In the Sudan it does not appear to matter which side is the purchaser. Weapons have caused a wholesale movement into poverty and exile by vast numbers of the population. It is more than likely that arms exporters sell to both sides.

The Ukrainian conflict is about far more than the integrity of Ukraine.  It is about the relative strength of the Western Alliance vis a vis a resurgent Russia-Soviet ambition. At present everyone is losing, mostly the citizenry, including fighters on both sides who are reportedly dying in their hundreds of thousands. The solution is not going to be that the one with most or biggest weapons will win. The solution is a negotiated way forward. Reliance on armaments alone, on both sides, is the problem, not the solution.

The conflict in Palestine is being prosecuted with armaments designed for mass destruction.  While Israel claims to be using weapons capable of precision targeting this is clearly not happening. Australia has significant contracts with Elbit, the Israeli armament manufacturing company that hones its arms development through actions against Palestinians.  This company has a significant presence at the Melbourne expo.  It has long been clear that Israel’s capacity to prevail against Palestinians is entirely dependent upon armaments. The US is a major supplier of these weapons. Both the US and Australia say they want a ‘two-state’ solution.  The provision of this weaponry guarantees this will never happen and that Israel will fulfil its ambition to denude the Palestinian territories of Palestinians.

The global armament trade is an evil force. It is not about defence or security.  It is about wealth, power and dominance. It is about maintaining a position of advantage, no matter how egregious such a position might be.

The Melbourne protesters are being thoroughly patriotic. If I were in Melbourne I would be attending the protest.  I am deeply sorry the power of the protest has been diminished by behaviours that mimic the activity of those arms traders at whom the protest is directed. The protest itself is very important.
 
 

Dutton, Racism and Electoral Popularity
 
About ten years ago I found myself in the office of a Coalition Senator in my role as President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network.  I and my delegation received a generous reception. At that stage the Senator did not hold an office on behalf of the Liberal party which would now automatically prevent them from seeing us.  The Senator recounted back-packing days though Egypt Turkey and Israel following university and assured us that the struggles facing Palestinian people did not need to be made any clearer.

I said “that is great, we can obviously rely on you to make a speech alerting the parliament to these struggles and the need for a just outcome. “No, I won’t” was the response.  “Why not” I asked. “Because it would not be in my political interest to do so”. Despite being kicked under the table by one of my colleagues in a vain attempt to make me back off, I asked, “Is there anything of sufficient moral import which would require you to speak, even if it were not in your political interest”.  “No”, was the immediate response.

The Senator, now holding a senior position in the Shadow Cabinet, stands enthusiastically behind the leader, Peter Dutton, nodding approval as he accelerates his racist remarks about people from Gaza, and Palestinians generally. 

There are so many issues to follow through here.

I am not absolving the Labor Party from the same priority, placing the party and personal ambition above everything including truth, morality, and conscience.  However, this appears to be the unapologetic and preferred modus operandi of the conservative coalition.  So, why?

Politicians have known for a long time that it is easier to garner votes if you confirm an impending threat in people’s minds.  Howard did it with children-overboard. According to Dutton, people arriving from Gaza are automatically a threat to national security and therefore should not be processed in the same way that all other refugees are processed, including refugees from other warzones such as Ukraine, Myanmar and Sudan.

Let us accept, for a moment, that elements of the Hamas military wing have committed atrocities including war crimes, notwithstanding their context of being a generationally displaced and imprisoned people. Does that mean all Palestinians, or all Gazans are tainted?  If so, the same argument should apply to all Israelis.  That Palestinians have been rounded up without charge in their thousands and face terrible torture in Israeli goals is undeniable. That illegal Israeli settlers on the West Bank are committing daily attacks on Palestinian villages, resulting in the death of countless Palestinian civilians, is a daily news story. The IDF, which by law must protect Palestinians, passively watches from the shade of olive trees, and sometimes provides armaments. That right wing elements in the Knesset openly call for the death of Palestinian civilians and that starvation is owned by some of them as a legitimate weapon of war, is on the public record. Therefore, using the same argument, would not a visit by any Israeli to Australia be a threat to our National Security based on this behaviour?

There can be no dispute that Dutton’s outrageous language is racist.  Why is his use of such language in his political interest?

Sadly, we must admit that many Australians are racist.  Dutton is overtly courting such votes.  Surely there are not enough of these votes to make his agenda worthwhile?  I may be naïve, but I do not think so.  But politics is also theatre.  Theatre like the football (any code) is enhanced through combative behaviour. People are drawn to combatants. Dutton is addicted to the role of a combatant in the theatre of Australian politics. Is he imitating Trump? For Trump, theatre is all there is. Substance or policy is an inconvenient distraction, truth is irrelevant, winning is everything. Whitlam and Hawke on the other hand, while masters of theatre, used their skill to achieve groundbreaking reform. Dutton, like Barnaby Joyce, prides himself as a major (if not the main) player in the theatre of Australian politics.  However, like Abott before him, he is born to say No; to choose, on our behalf, who the bad guys are.     
                                       . 
Now let us come back to Israel/Palestine. Dutton has chosen to tell us that Israelis are the good guys and Palestinians are the bad guys.  That evidence in international law, in humanitarian need, in human rights, in terms of the oppressed and the oppressor indicate the opposite, is clearly beside the point.

So, what are the other factors?

Is agreeing that Israelis are the good guys while Palestinians are the bad guys the price we must pay for our security pact with the USA?  This is not the place to be drawn into AUKUS, but clearly our pact with the US has drawn us into wars that we should not have fought and has clouded our choices in strategic alliance making.  

Is agreeing that Palestinians are the bad guys and an existential threat to Israel, the price that must be paid on the conservative side of politics for allowing the Zionist lobby to be the strongest and most effective foreign national lobby group on Australian soil? Dutton, his followers and of course the Lobby, will find this statement outrageous.  But it happens to be true.  Why it is true, an allowed to be true, is a mystery I have found impossible to solve.

Finally, is money involved? Is Dutton beholden to the wealthy whose place in life is threatened by the thought of equality, fairness, compensation, or simply the right of others to exist, to flourish where they live in the sun.  Britian flourished through wealth harvested from its colonies, as did all the colonial powers of the past. Israel is the latest in a long line of colonialists who are taking that which belongs to others to enrich themselves.

It is clear Dutton is a supporter of the idea that the powerful deserve the rewards of power, regardless of the source from which it comes.
​
Dutton’s comments have been outrageous and in themselves are a threat to harmony on Australian soil. He is the threat to harmony, not refugees from Gaza. Hopefully truth and an inherent belief in fairness will nullify self-serving political aggrandisement.   
 
 
 

“I am your retribution”

“I am your retribution” must rank as one of the more dangerous and insane statements of Donald Trump. Retribution focuses on the alleged failings or offences of the other.  In Donald Trump’s case the other is democracy itself, or at least the trappings of democracy in an independent judiciary, a public service that serves the good of the nation, not partisanship, and of course a free and open ballot box.

 According to Trump, it is these democratic institutions which have caused the ‘rustbelt’ and enslaved its citizens. He says they are controlled by a socialist ‘elite’. He and his plutocrats will set them free. Owning this story, citizenry rail against the institutions that serve the very constitution upon which their nation is founded. This is the insane language of ‘victimhood’, of apportioning blame, of being comforted in the knowledge that others can be brought to account for perceived ills. It is the common language not simply of dictators but also of popularist politicians in Western democracies. They foster contempt for an imagined enemy. The enemy is provided a name – the favourite from the right is to call anyone who supports the principle of common good a ‘socialist’.

If this language were restricted to Donald Trump, it would be dangerous enough for global citizenry, but unfortunately it is common language across the globe, used not only by dictators, but in democracies such as ours, by popularist politicians and media barons who support them.

It is the language of Vladimir Putin who insists his nation is under immediate threat from the Western alliance and that much of what is now Eastern Europe has been stolen from Russia. He and his people must fight to restore Russian territory, integrity and nationhood.

It is the language of Benjamin Netanyahu who plays the victim card to the utmost.  His nation has not just risen from the ashes of the holocaust, but apparently the Palestinian people are outsiders, living on land that belongs to Zionists; therefore, their removal is not simply justified, it is a moral cause with a biblical mandate.

It is the language of Xi Jinping, who insists the time has come for China’s place in the sun. China’s past suffering from European and Japanese powers is a thorn that needs excising.

It is of course true that past European dominance and exploitation lies behind many legitimate international grievances. But remedying the past is best achieved through the emergence of superior technology, culture and morality, not retribution and the violence it generates.  Retribution guarantees the continuance of the grievance, not its vanquishing.

While not being named as such, the retribution principle, the naming of offence in the other, is sadly employed in popular politics everywhere in the world but let us look for a moment to our own backyard. Elections are increasingly won or lost, not through the enunciation of good policy, but through the articulation of grievance.

Last year’s referendum loss became inevitable when rhetoric that the majority were being dudded prevailed.  The No Vote successfully convinced the majority that saying Yes would allow a small minority – First Nations people - to “double dip”, that they would have an advantage not enjoyed by the majority.   That this was rank nonsense meant nothing. Now the architects of the No vote in Mr Dutton’s office are doubling down, they refused to attend the Garma festival and have informed us that when in power they will not pursue ‘truth-telling’.  Why should we be surprised? Being confronted with truth is the last thing that politicians who rely on populist slogans want to face.

The same language is being used by the likes of Barnaby Joyce in his full-frontal attack on the development of renewable energy.  He is out to re-enforce minds that latte drinking socialist elites from cities are stealing their prosperity and livelihoods by encouraging wind turbines and solar farms across the country. Every attempt is being made to stir righteous indignation. That global warming is the greatest threat to security and prosperity for all, no matter where we live, and time is running out to address it, is apparently beside the point.

We are what we believe.  We are shaped not simply by the stories others tell us, but more significantly by the stories we tell ourselves.

Too many of us are telling ourselves that we are victims of circumstance created by others, that others have an advantage we are denied, or even that our way of life is under attack from opponents known or unknown, but guessed at through conspiracy theory.

This clearly is the view of the American Christian right who in their millions support Donald Trump.  No matter he is egregiously guilty of breaking moral codes that all citizens, let alone Christians, hold dear, that he is ontologically incapable of speaking truth and believes in his superiority in all things: nevertheless, he is supported because these people have told themselves he and he alone stands between them and a full-frontal attack on the place Christianity holds in American life, or at least the Christianity they have carved in their own image. It is an attack they believe is already underway.  

The Christianity of Jesus seeks no place of its own.  It is an incarnational faith. It seeks the face of Christ in the other. As Pope Francis said in his May exhortation, “there is no Catholic God, only God”. Christianity exists where love abounds, where life is honoured, where sacrifice is made, where justice is demanded, where the vulnerable are cared for, where the voice of God is heard in the rhythms of creation, where innocence is protected in children, where beauty in all its forms becomes a channel of grace. 

There is no power on earth that can threaten the Christian faith or its practice, as numerous saints have testified over millennia.  The greatest threat to faith is its reshaping in our parochial likeness. The greatest gift of faith is discovering Christ in the other.
​
In the beginning God spoke just one word, that word is love. Investing in its discovery is the singular role of leaders whether secular or religious.
 
 

The two Envoys

This article was posted on Pearls and Irritations 11 July 24
 
The Prime Minister says he has appointed an antisemitic envoy and will soon appoint an islamophobia envoy, because the population does not understand the complexity and seriousness apparent in a perceived threat to Australia’s social cohesion.  But the boot is on the other foot. He and his government have shown an abysmal lack of understanding or perhaps wilful blindness to the causes of misplaced anger with racist overtones. Defacing war memorials and attacking the offices of members of parliament, which I do not condone, are protests against our government for not sanctioning Israel for its gross violations of international law.

1. The cry chanted by supporters of Palestinians “from the river to the sea” is not a cry of antisemitism as Mr Albanese, Mr Dutton, and their supporters claim. ​

 It is a cry which puts the whole terrible suffering in context. It is a response to the truth that the Zionist project is one of gradual appropriation of all land and the displacement of all Palestinians including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. As Senator Payman has said, she does not seek the end of Israel, she seeks the end of the colonial Zionist project. She seeks freedom and equality for Palestinians wherever they live from the river to the sea. 

Because the Australian government and the opposition both claim to support a two-State solution they should be in the forefront of boycotting Israel for actions that make this proposition impossible.  Since October 7 there has been an escalation of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, an escalation of proposals for more illegal settlements, an escalation of imprisonment of Palestinians for protesting their loss of rights and an escalation of demolition of Palestinian properties.   Senator Payman was right to vote for a motion which would have led to Palestinian recognition without caveat, and even more importantly she was right not to vote for the motion which would have kicked the can down the road and tied recognition to a peace process to which Israel will never agree.

2.  The appointment of proposed islamophobia and antisemitism envoys places the cause of unrest and anger in entirely the wrong place. 

This is not about religious bigotry or even religious identity; it is about gross human rights violations. What is happening in the Middle East is political, not religious, as is the response in the US, Britain and Australia. Mr Biden has clearly had a gutful of Mr Netanyahu, but he will not give sway to his sense of justice emanating from his Catholic faith because he knows if he did so, he would have even less chance of winning the November election. I am personally so angry about what is happening in what I have always understood to be the Holy Land. I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew.  From my Christian faith I am outraged by the subjugation of the Palestinian people. Here in Australia, neither side of politics, with some courageous exceptions, is prepared to see, or speak, with Palestinian voice. 

3. In making these appointments, Mr Albanese is muddying the waters between religion and ethnicity.

For decades Palestinian Australians have been too anxious to identify themselves as such and have been more likely to say they are Lebanese than Palestinian.  It is ironic that since October 7 and the rise of sympathetic focus on the plight of Palestinians, it has freed many Palestinians, especially the young, to stand up.  Palestinians identify as people of Palestine.  They are both Muslim and Christian, although Christian Palestinians are now more likely to be found in the diaspora than in Palestine.

Similarly, when I became President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network in 2012, my first challenge was to recognise that my understanding of ‘Jewishness’ as a form of religious identity was inaccurate. Many of my Jewish friends made it clear to me they were not at all religious (some claimed to be atheistic), but that did not diminish in any way their sense of being Jewish. I have come to understand that for many (possibly most), Jewishness is a cultural, perhaps ethnic, identity.  It is certainly true that most Israelis are secular, not religious. I was told in no uncertain terms that “the more you understand the Old Testament, the less you understand modern day Judaism”. 

4. Treating the manifestation of an illness without addressing it cause is futile

The October 7 Hamas sponsored brutality on an Israeli kibbutz and the consequent taking of hostages is rightly condemned without caveat or qualification.  However, associating the attack with all Palestinians is unconscionable. The slaughtering of tens of thousands of Palestinians without consequence from the international community is a crime against the decency of all humanity.  Several members of the Knesset have said there is no such entity as an innocent Palestinian.  The refusal to treat Palestinian asylum seekers from Gaza in the same way that asylum seekers from Ukraine have been treated by the Australian government appears to make this link. The unjust treatment of the Irish by the British created the IRA. The unjust treatment of Palestinians, leaving them without hope, has created Hamas. More than anyone else, Netanyahu is responsible for the rise of antisemitism, Albanese will not have taken a meaningful step to address the issue unless he at least uses the same language moderate Jews use to condemn the leader of Israel and its government’s apartheid inspired policies.

5. Criticism of Israel is antisemitic if it is criticism which would not be brought against other countries - Attorney General Mark Dreyfus.

The strident criticism I bring against Israel is because of what it and its allies claim it to be, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.  We have sadly come to expect atrocities from North Korea, the Myanmar junta, and from Russia.   They do not claim to be democracies.

Israel claims to hold the same values as Australia and vice-versa.  I want to shout as loudly as possible – no we don’t.  It is true that our colonial past held many similarities.   It is also true that some ‘red neck’ Australians continue to hold similar values. But as a people and as a government we do not.  It is a cause of grief and anger that we, who continually espouse to uphold international law, do not require this of Israel.

Mr Albanese, setting up your envoys may help you think you are addressing a lack of social cohesion; you could do far more by addressing the causes of such disruption.
 
 
 

Open Letter
Prime Minister, Mr Dutton, Senator Wong, Senator Birmingham, Senator Paterson

(The letters have been sent)
 
Yesterday you, or your party, opposed a motion which would have encouraged Australia to join a growing majority of the world’s countries that recognise Palestine.  Why did you do that?

Please take the time to view the recently released film:

Where Olive Trees weep

This is a film produced on the Palestinian West Bank in 2022.  Its Australian premiere happened on 25 June 2024 in Brisbane and Adelaide.

Please do not tell me you are too busy, or that the film is some kind of Palestinian propaganda. It is a film based on brutal facts, revealing what it is like to be born Palestinian and to have absolutely no right in the place of your birth.

As a politician you should develop policy based on facts.  Israel is clearly a pariah state. Watch this film and tell me why that is a heinous thing to say.  Also tell me why your commitment to a two-state solution with absolutely no condemnation of Israeli policy and action which makes that outcome impossible, is a position worthy of anything other than contempt?

 It is a film that painfully displays the brutality of the Israeli Zionist project. You don’t believe this is the case? Well, watch the film and tell me how you justify your position.

What is the story you believe that leads you to think that Palestinians do not deserve the same rights as Israelis, or indeed as other human beings for that matter?

Do you think Israelis are the victims, that their security is so perilous that for security reasons they can lock up more than 9,000 West Bank Palestinians since October 7? They have no formal charges laid against them and no right to legal representation.  It is not Israelis who lie in bed thinking Palestinians are coming after them with guns. It is Palestinians who lie in bed knowing Israelis are coming after them with guns.

What is the story that the Tamimi family and others on the West Bank have concocted about Israelis?  It is that they can and would like to live in harmony and peace with all who live in the lands once called the Holy Land from the river to the sea. The Tamimis genuinely feel sorry for Jews whose country now exists without a sustaining moral narrative. (I have visited the Tamimis in their village).
What is the story Netanyahu and his fellow thugs (and they are thugs) have concocted about Palestinians?  It is that they are vermin, less than human and can and should be exterminated. It is a narrative that insists Tamimis and others are terrorists.  Bassem and other members of his family have been brutally tortured in Israeli gaols on multiple occasions. Why?   They have committed a heinous crime? They are a threat to Israeli ‘security’? No, they have resisted the theft of their land, their property, their rights, their freedoms.   Mr Dutton you clearly accept this resistance as a fair definition of a terrorist, that is, one who resists brutality. Some years ago, you cancelled Bassem’s visa for an intended journey to Australia. 

What story are you people really believing about Palestinians and who is providing you with that story?   Why will you not listen to the Palestinian narrative?

“If we shall not end the occupation, we shall not have security, and if we shall not end this occupation, we shall not have democracy.”  This is a recent statement by Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet. Similar statements have been made by Ehud Barak.

It also appears to be the view of the majority of Israelis that Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza for his own political reasons and to avoid the Israeli courts.  The leader of the IDF has wisely observed you cannot militarily defeat an idea.  Hamas is an idea which, if anything, is being strengthened the longer the conflict continues.
​
To begin the end of the occupation the world community must recognize Palestine.
 
Watch:       Where Olive Trees weep
 
The film ends with the following statement.  We Palestinians know that no one can or will help us. We can and will help ourselves.   All we ask is that the world stops feeding and resourcing the machine that is killing us.  Surely that is not too much to ask?  
 
Recognise Palestine
 
Watch:    Where Olive Trees weep