Senator Brandis has decided to remove the term ‘OCCUPIED’ in relation to East Jerusalem saying it’s “unhelpful to bring up historic events”.

Brandis was responding to Lee Rhiannon, Greens Senator who referred (as is the norm on both sides of Australian politics since the occupation of Palestinian Territory by Israel in 1967) to the occupied East Jerusalem in a question in the Senate today. Brandis described the use of the term ‘occupied’ as ‘judging matters that were still under discussion’ in the Palestinian- Israeli negotiations.

He called it a ‘tendentious’ description.


“If you are writing a report on climate change, and ignore evidence that the earth is warming, the paper might be called tendentious. Tendentious means promoting a specific, and controversial, point of view. When something is tendentious, it shows a bias towards a particular point of view, especially one that people disagree about. It shares a root with the word, tendency, which means leaning towards acting a certain way. If you have the tendency to talk in a tendentious manner about politics, people might tend to avoid you at parties.”

I wonder if people at parties avoid Lee Rhiannon? Or perhaps its Brandis who is ignored, just as we should ignore him now.

Here’s why……..

It is Brandis who is in fact being TENDENTIOUS in trying to sanitise what is clearly an occupation not an historic event

Since when is the Occupation of Palestine historical?

It exists NOW.

Are we expected to deny that when both the International Court of Justice and the UN have deemed East Jerusalem to be part of the Occupied Palestinian West Bank.

Additionally……(Though no-one pays any attention)

United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted 22 March 1979, on the issue of Israeli settlements in the “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.[1] This refers to the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights, determined: “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East” (my emphasis)

The Resolution was adopted 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions from Norway, the UK and the US.(Thanks Wiki)

Dangerous precedents being trialed Australia, stay awake.

Nick Xenophon advised the Sydney Morning Herald that even the US does not hold this position. I would go further and say the only people who do hold this position are our excuse for a government and the current Israeli, openly zionist Netanyahu  Likud government.


1 Comment

  1. Pingback: IS, Da’ash, ISIS, ISIL The US and its 51st State | asidewrite

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s