GOOD ON YOU, SHURAT HA DIN!!
I am saddened that the usually esteemed ECAJ and other major Israel – supporting groups – ZFA and the Zionist Council of Victoria have not appreciated that their late October attempts at undermining the incipient legal action by Shuarat Hadin the Israeli Law Centre against the determined ‘boycotteers’, are dreadfully ill advised.
There will be a directions hearing commencing in the Federal Court on Wednesday 27 November in the Federal Court. I refer to The Australian: November 25, 2013 which also correctly advises that:
‘’Several prominent Australian Jewish academics -- including some who oppose BDS – manifestly back his [Lynch, Rees and University of Sydney] right to support it as an expression of academic freedom, and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has disowned Shurat HaDin's action.’’
Am I reading this correctly?
It saddens me that The Oz is correct. I posit that basis the article in JWire and ECAJ website that our leading people resent action taken by Shurat Ha Din - and in the process fail to realize they somehow also manage to effectively support the BDS! Well may they claim that they oppose the BDS. It is meaningless codswallop to so claim and yet do everything to undermine the legal process which the Australian Jewish organizations should have started themselves.
And it gets worse - much worse.
I understand they feel diminished because they did not act earlier before S.HaDin shamed them with action.
It is expected that they will have disparate excuses for what I regard as almost essentially treacherous action on their [ECAJ] part. Arguably to justify their own unmasterly inactivity. Note carefully furthermore that in supporting boycotters’ rights under the aegis of ‘’academic freedom’’ – they plainly humiliate themselves? Non? It is plainly astonishing.
I [GS] asked these Jewish mainstream organizations early November to explain the inarguable ‘’PATHETIC SITUATION THAT WILL POSSIBLY ENSURE
THAT THE JUDGE ADJUDICATING WILL BE AWARETHAT THE ENTIRE JEWISH / ZIONIST BUREAUCRACY SEEMS TO BE WORKING
AGAINST SHURAT HADIN, TO OUR MUTUAL DISADVANTAGE!!
Exactly whose side are you guys on – I continued.
Or is it do that not think things through!?
Surely if you cannot / will not help - why hinder?
What do you intend to say when your grandchildren ask: What
did you do in the war against the anti - Israel scourge of
this decade’’?
There was no answer to this: indeed one of the 'troika' essentially admitted I
was right.
How could it come to this? Our people using the favoured line of our enemies, for goodness sakes!
Any or all of the troika could have done what Shurat Ha Din did. It begged to be done because primary or secondary boycotts are arguably illegal basis either commercial law or Racial Vilification law. Which the BDS plainly comprimizes. You guys should have chosen your weapons – instead you did the most demonstrable example of mealy – mouthed inaction dressed up as jealousy.
Inverted humour attempted.
But they did worse than nothing.
Instead they publically criticised / vitiated Hamilton’s action. Certainly giving
oxygen to our enemies! Can I put in a few more exclamation marks!!?
And putting it in the public domain – in spite of the fact that action against inarguable defacto Jew haters will have had greater prospects if it was not ‘kiboshed’ with self – serving selfishness.
Now I have put this in the public domain myself – and appreciating that our enemies are reading this as well. You have forced my hand. Shame also on all of our
people who have allowed this to pass without comment. I have watched the cavalcade of nothingness for many weeks – pardon the oxymoronic insult.
Maybe in some sort of rational world the judge will contemplate my humble words and accept that the ECAJ et al are simply wrong. It is rare – but it is possible for mainstream Jewish entities to be 'misguided'. Desperately wrong and pathetically misguided. I have never seen anything like this inane situation that The Australian and Shurat HaDin have been the only ones to stand up against the BDS promoters and our local organizations do matters adverse to Israel's interest
To those Jews who espouse that theirs may be a viable legal opinion – they should realize they are helping the same people who were quoted as railing against the London Declaration on anti semitism. [see below] Even if they are proven to be right – which is far from certain - it is irresponsible to do what they have done.
Note Sydney University’s Peace Studies Prof. Rees on the London Declaration signed by all responsible parties: ‘’ it is childish, thoughtless but easily populist.’’
And never mind the self – fulfilling prophecy which our Zionist organizations had chutzpah and ineptmodus in setting into motion. Devoid of notion. I wrote some poetry many years ago which when found will aptly designate this farce for what it is; in non – post modernist poetry.
It is my understanding that holding ‘them’ to account is best achieved by threats and real world action through the courts: there has to be an understanding who
one is doing business with.
Well - may the Executive Director Peter Wertheim in his article in Jwire 31/10 ‘’believe that the most appropriate and effective way....through public discourse’’
Where is the evidence that anything anyone has said in civilized discourse has had any effect?
Au contraire – the University of Sydney have a Sturt Rees who on 15 May this year was quoted by The Oz as being against governments signing the London Declaration against anti semitism!
This is how far our enemies have taken it: who would have believed a few short years ago that 'they' would insist that railing against AS as ''childish thoughtless and easily populist''
Note Wertheim’s waffle in his public pronouncement in seeking justification for his BDS stance in nation states signing the document is strained and and inarguably absurd..
See below: it is self - contradictory tripe to suggest that the BDS promoters are allowed to have their day in court'' - and simultaneously vitiate same via suggesting they are against the action action to bring it to court is ''are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
Excuse me? This is ethereal nonsense to invert reality by criticising via the ‘political’ moniker.
Excuse me Mr Wertheim - exactly how can it be anything but ''politics'?
Maybe he can pursue legal action without subject matter? That would eliminate the political scenario!
Pray explain what you say here: exactly how would you describe your comments: political, non? Do you resile from making political statements in
favour of protecting Israel against the BDS? Exactly what do you do during the day? Support a motherhood version of politics?
I suggest you get real as they say in the non – classicist world.It is all too absurd for serious discussion: I sometimes wonder how we won so many Nobel Prizes.
The Syney University are the source of the infamous Sydney Peace Prize.... with infamous list of anti – Israel winners. They select them for their anti Israel stance - shamelessly.
And our people select disingenuous verbiage as above and below to harm ourselves.
And the Vice Chancellor of Sydney Uni has plainly never had any intention of doing anything about Rees or the chief boycoteer Lynch, the Professor of the Peace and Conflict Studies Centre at University of Sydney. I did not realize that their much – parodied nomenclature was still extant.
Furthermore the idea to take viable legal action against those who would bedevil Israel is necessary. Surely the legal system will allow defence against evil incantations.
Contemplate what the gay or some entity turned against gays or Muslims? It would result in proverbial war or worse. And the ECAJ merely wants to continue asking them nicely to cease and desist?
Surely legal action compares favourably with ECAJ fatuous attempts at ‘’exposure... its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods...’’
Where has it got you, Peter W? In my opinion there are two irrefutable ideas in this realm: only declaration of war or threat of legal action has ever been heeded by those who care not for civil discourse.
Who is your hero – Churchill or Chamberlain? The analogy is appropriate. And if you want examples of viable real – world action via the courts compared with
waffled, plaintive bleating – tell me where have you seen examples of success with ‘’through public discourse.’’ ?
I repeat:
- Look at Rees’ comment about the London anti semitism document : ‘’childish, thoughtless but easily populist.’’
- How misguided is the modus vivendi that ‘’....but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
But now we come to the arguable ultimate: Start Rees and Lynch have tried the astonishing and got away with it to date: they effectively refused access to the
Sir Zelman Cowen Scholarship to a Jew who was plainly helping the Palestinians!
And of course Sir Zelman Cowen was the highly respected Jewish Governor – General!
The Scholarship was / is being run by a Jewess Sue Freedman-Levy who has obviously not spoken up about this.
Could someone help me understand how the Peace and ‘Conflated’ studies Centre through Lynch has the authority to control the Sir Zelman Cowen Scholarship?
I do not want to call this chutzpah – because this minimizes it somehow.
If only for this I wish Shurat Hadin well. Maybe one day I will see an article in mainstream media – not just JWire – that openly wonders at how professional Israel – Haters can refuse a ‘peacenik’ Jew access to the Sir Zelman Cowan scholarship.
Never mind all the other matters in this epistle.
And maybe someone at the ECAJ will admit that theirs was not a good idea!
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299
03 9 525 9290
“The ECAJ believes that the most appropriate and effective way to combat the boycott campaign is to expose its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods and aims public scrutiny. In our view, attempts to suppress the campaign through litigation are inappropriate and likely to be counter-productive. It is for this reason that the ECAJ has had no involvement in the action brought by Shurat HaDin and will continue to fight the boycott campaign through public discourse. If any individuals believe they have been adversely affected by racially discriminatory policies and practices of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies they are entitled to have their day in court, but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
On 15/5 Professor S Rees of Sydney University thought the signing by more than 40 Parliamentarians of The London Declaration against anti semitism was ‘’childish, thoughtless but easily populist.’’
Throughout it all we have the Vice Chancellor Spence seemingly vitiating the boycott – yet allowing it to be promoted at his University!
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has issued a statement detailing their reasons as to why they are not aligned with Israeli Human Rights group Shurat HaDin’s move to litigate against a NSW professor who advocates BDS against Israeli academics.
Peter Wertheim
In a prepared statement, executive director of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim states: “The campaign to boycott academic and other contacts with Israel is repugnant to all who sincerely seek a just and lasting resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Peter Wertheim, the Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). “The path to a just peace is through mutual engagement, not vilification. Contacts between Israeli and Palestinian academics should be encouraged and facilitated by their Australian and other colleagues, not stigmatised.”
The ECAJ has long been a vocal critic of the anti-Israel boycott campaign. “The boycott campaign is a calculated attempt to demonise, isolate and ultimately dismantle Israel through the distortion of international law and human rights. The hate-filled protests outside Max Brenner chocolate shops and the ill-considered scheme of Marrickville Council to boycott Israeli products at a cost of millions of dollars to its rate-payers, which was subsequently abandoned, have rightly been condemned and derided by most Australians. All major parties including the Greens, except for a handful of their MP’s, disavow the anti-Israel boycott campaign” Wertheim said.
“The ECAJ believes that the most appropriate and effective way to combat the boycott campaign is to expose its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods and aims public scrutiny. In our view, attempts to suppress the campaign through litigation are inappropriate and likely to be counter-productive. It is for this reason that the ECAJ has had no involvement in the action brought by Shurat HaDin and will continue to fight the boycott campaign through public discourse. If any individuals believe they have been adversely affected by racially discriminatory policies and practices of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies they are entitled to have their day in court, but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
Asked whether he believes that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, Wertheim answered “No. Israel is a vibrant pluralist democracy and its citizens – Jews, Bedouin, Druze and other Israeli Arabs – are often its most incisive critics. But it is also false to suggest that no criticisms of Israel are antisemitic. There is clearly an overlap, as has been acknowledged by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the members of pa
Oct 31, 2013 - In a prepared statement, executive director of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim states: “The campaign to boycott ...
rliament from many countries, including Australia, who have signed the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism and the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment