|
March 14, 2003
My personal reaction to the PM's case for war delivered to the National Press Club now can be found What can you say. My reaction? I was not persuaded by the passionate rhetoric that Australia should go after Saddam Hussein because he might arm the likes of international terrorists, such as al Qaeda, with weapons of mass destruction
But still, full marks for Howard for engaging in debate at the Press Club and on the ABC's 7.30 Report. There was genine engegement this time not the crude attack on the critics that has been the policy in the past. THe PM was given it his best shot. A very good and critical account of this speech is given by Tim Dunlop How the Australian PM made the case against war with Iraq. On Tim's account the PM's argument is that:
"we go after Saddam because terrorism is a threat and Saddam has WMD. The question is really, then, are the two matters linked in any meaningful way that justifies war now with Iraq? My opinion is that he didn’t make this case....The argument that there is a link between the two, and that therefore attacking Iraq is attacking al Qaeda simply isn't credible."
I concur. The PM's best shot was not convincing. He did not persuade a sceptical audience that we ought to take invade Iraqi regime rather than than attack al Qaeda, because Saddam Hussein has, or is likely to pass his weapons along to al Qaeda.
I would like to come at this speech from a tangent. What struck me from a public policy viewpoint was the PM's one-sided remarks on the Palestine-Israel conflict. John Howard said:
"Israel is also a special target of terrorism. Israel’s legitimacy has been denied for almost fifty years by many of her neighbours. And even the steadfast support of the United States for Israel has not altered that situation. In that setting, many extremist Middle Eastern groups have mounted terrorist attacks on Israeli interests over the decades. And in the 1990s, these murderous methods have spread to other Middle Eastern and Islamic extremist circles. All of this in part emphasises the need for the world to try even harder to achieve a lasting settlement of the ongoing dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians - a subject to which I may return in a moment."
That, as it stands, tacitly gives support to the Israeli state using military power to crush the Palestinan people and dispossess them of their homeland. (occupied territories) Equally one sided? Maybe. It depends on what John Howard says next.
Before we come to that we should note that John Howard did not address the official acceptance of the ideology of ethnic cleansing by the Jewish state, and its practice under the cover of the US war with Iraq. See this Position Paper Against the Transfer/Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians (scroll down to 1.31. 03.)
Sharon's new Israeli coalition government includes the racist National Union, which is an alliance of three small parties: Moledet, Tekuma and Yisrael Beitenu. Moledet calls openly for "solving" the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by forcing millions of Palestinians out of their homeland, while the National Union's joint platform states that all three parties espouse "transfer" and "population exchange." This is an open call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It received no recognition in the PM's speech, only muted coverage in the Australia media and has passed largely without comment in thsi country. For the US see this report.
If the PM is rightly concerned about the brutality of the Iraqi regime then he should be concerned with the policy of “solving” the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. As he promised, the PM returned to Palestinian-Israeli issue in his speech. He said:
"Israel has no stauncher friend or ally than Australia in her legitimate aspiration to exist behind secure internationally recognised boundaries. We also support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and it remains one of the great disappointments I’ve witnessed in the time that I’ve been Prime Minister that the courageous attempt of Ehud Barak, offering so much of what had been asked of him by the Palestinians was not successful. But we have to move on and I would again renew my appeal to Ariel Sharon to use the authority of his re-election to take every opportunity that may be there to move towards peace. And I welcome Arafat's appointment of a Prime Minister and I hope he or she has a good negotiating mandate. But could I just say one thing to the Palestinian Council and any who may be responsible or who may exert influence, how can any Prime Minister of Israel take the steps I’m talking about while the murderous pattern of suicide bombing continues to be inflicted on their people."
Note the position. Though Australia is a staunch ally of Israel, it supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Reasonable enough. However, the Howard government sides with the Israeli state against the murderous use of terror by the Palestinians. Note the complete silence about ethnic cleansing. That is what is shocking, given the critical response to the same practices in Europe when practised by the Serbs.
|
Correct! Howard is psychologically incapable of an empathetic response to the plight of the Plaestinians. It is a common disability in this neck of the woods. But without this ability to approach the issue with fairness to both sides all is wind and bluster and no solution from this perspective, short of the final cleansing solutions you detail, amount to anything other than a prolongation of the current crises.