Just when I want to write about something else some idiot says something with the arrogant liberal sweetness of ignorant certitude…….
Ah well here goes…another chance to expose slippery speak
First let me introduce the pukable baby faced neocon, Liberal MP, Wyatt Roy. Remember he’s the youngest ever elected representative in Australia’s Federal House of Representatives. Born 22.05.1990 and elected to the House of Representatives for the seat of Longman, Queensland, 2010 and 2013.
He looks like this:
Wyatt Roy 22.05.1990 Liberal Member for Longman Queensland. Son of a strawberry farmer, Elected to the House of Representatives at 20yo 2010 and again in 2013.
His latest speech recorded in Hansard weighs in on the repeal of the Carbon tax where we see him sprouting Winston Churchill… “There is a great quote from Winston Churchill which says the idea that we can tax a nation into prosperity is ‘like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.’“
His maiden speech tells us a bit about his liberal politics… “It is the Liberal side of politics that believes that liberalism is the path to greater fairness, that enforced equality never liberates. It is the Liberal side of politics that is the side of opportunity. We are the party based on encouragement, rather than subsidy; of a hand-up, not a handout; the party that has achieved practical outcomes through real action, not cheap political rhetoric. Some people say we are a conservative party, but which party was prepared to endorse a 19-year-old in a winnable seat and then support, mentor and guide that candidate through one of the most fiercely contested political campaigns this country has ever seen?”
Its a clean cut naive liberal speech about “decent battlers” “hand up not hand outs”, “doing not what is popular but what it right”. Roy is “guided by plain good intentions” as he told us in his maiden speech, perhaps this is what had guided his recent drivel on Israel/Palestine situation, this and his blindly compromised Australian Liberal Party approach to ‘fairness’ in this question.
I am reminded of The Dinsdale brothers cruel but fair line from Monty Python …“Dinsdale, he was a cruel man, cruel but fair”. If you remember the sketch, Dinsdale Pirhana of the notorious Pirana Brothers had nailed someones head to the floor! It wasn’t popular but it was the right thing to do! The sketch is still really funny until seen in the light of current Liberal support for Israel’s hasbara position on Hamas rockets, land grabs and sea of lies to justify their current murderous behaviour in Gaza and the occupied territories.
Israel = Dinsdale Pirhana.
Absolutely worth a look
Wyatt Roy is embarrassingly naive, and dangerously neocon, particularly on the question of Israel and Palestine.
Here is his interview (6.6.2014) with Fairfax press. It will open in a new window.
Wyatt Roy Liberal MP-“calling-israeli-settlements-illegal-not-useful”
So Wyatt says…………
- On calling East Jerusalem “occupied”
“Parts of what may be considered Palestine might very well end up in Israel because of the security considerations….ah..ah or it might not and that’s the blunt reality of the situation there”..
- Challenging Lee Rhiannon (Greens) to “draw the line on the map” that separates Palestine from Israel in Jerusalem.
This response is reminiscent of the Margaret Thatcher interview with George Negus where Thatcher is asked by Negus about why ordinary people in the street would tell the crew she was ‘plain pigheaded and won’t be told by anyone’. Thatcher asks “what people”… “tell me who has said it to you, when and where”. Wyatt Roy brings these same bombastic guns out when he asks his interviewer, “What part of East Jerusalem are we talking about ? What suburb? What street?
He is then told by the interviewer,
Interviewer: There is a very clear line on the map, its the line on the map acknowledged by the UN security Council, the US … the International Court of Justice, and its the 1967 border. Everything across that line is according to them is Israeli ‘Occupied”……… Isn’t that a very clear line?
His response is classic neocon failure to acknowledge ‘what IS’ and to use their presentation of ‘what might be’ to obfuscate all rational argument…..
Wyatt Roy: No, because what I would say that in a negotiated two state solution there is the potential ah for areas er ..beyond that line to be part of Israel ..eh and other parts of that are currently part of whats considered Israel even in that time period could become part of Palestine. because you might very well see and this is part of the peace process that they were negotiating the idea of land swaps…so if you have a high hill in that part of East Jerusalem where you could potentially shoot a rocket or a rifle, part of the negotiation process was trading off part of that land for another part of what has and always has been considered part of Israel. So there is the potential for that to not be the case, now whether that eventuates or not is up to politicians in Israel and Palestine to determine and I hope that they can determine that because both states could benefit from a proper two state solution.
So he’s saying that whatever is determined by, not only the UN, but the dogmatic (on questions of Israels ‘rights’) US, and the ICJ is not important and HE doesn’t recognise it! Simply because negotiations will start sometime? By the way Israel has never formally declared its borders! Mainly because it is not done occupying and thieving yet.
Interviewer then goes to the question of the illegal settlements and asks, Is using that term or continuing to use that term unuseful?
Wyatt Roy: I do think so…. I think that is unuseful…. some of those settlements have been there for a very very long time.. and as I said in that negotiating process ah part of those settlements may end up as part of Israel and other parts of Israel will end up as part of Palestine because in many cases as I’ve said their up on a high hill and you could shoot a rocket or a rifle directly into your neighbour’s home effectively which might be in another country if we have a two state solution ..So eh..it is I do think that that language is often very unhelpful and it doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground, and it doesn’t actually reflect what the negotiation process is between the two sides but as I said this is something that politicians on the other side of the world will have to negotiate it will have to be a political negotiation on where that line on the map will have to be…..
So that’s one of our admittedly insignificant at this point, politicians… but then there’s Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull, has been sent a letter for his latest ‘liberal’ ‘Israel faces an existential threat’ and associated comments of justification for the Gaza assault. It is interesting to look up exactly what this term “existential threat”. What! JP Satre will force them to read Simone De Bouvoir?
No usually when considered by Israel it is the Iranian nuclear threat that they speak of in these terms, but in a recent academic article read article here by Kobi Michael he states
“Existential threat is a subjective political concept that reﬂects the conceptualization of a collective sense of security or insecurity in a hostile environment. But due to the fact that national security is a socially guided concept, it cannot remain disconnected from ideologies and cultural characteristics and, therefore, ‘national security doctrines often include regulations and norms that totally contradict the substantive interests of national security’s goals’…… And indeed, policy-makers frame threats by using their political ideology’s lens, which shapes the manner in which they perceive the other and explain the threat.”
and this from the Economist (on line Lexington’s blog) May 19 2009…
…”I SUSPECT that most non-Israelis think that all the talk of Israel facing an “existential” threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb is hysterical. The Iranians are no more likely to use the bomb than, say, the Pakistanis. So why not learn to live with an Iranian bomb?
Much depends on what you mean by “existential”. Many Israelis are worried about the whimper rather than the bang. A nuclear Iran will embolden local terrorists. The neighbourhood will become even more unpleasant. And the best and brightest Israelis will leave for Silicon Valley or one of the world’s other proliferating entrepreneurial entrepots, ruining the country’s innovation-dependent economy. This is as much about talent wars as anything else”.
Well so many do have dual US/Israeli nationality
Hmmn interesting- this is now another term that is bandied around and really has no meaning in the current context, other than the Zionist political ideology and indeed the neocon ideology which frames the current media narrative. So existential threat can mean having neighbours with nuclear power capability (as in- Israel is an existential threat to all its neighbours in the Middle East) or it can mean having neighbours who build tunnels to get supplies you deny them through imprisonment?
In an attempt to confront Turnbull’s recent statements about Israels fundemental issue of protecting its people and its existential threat, three writers/academics have sent an open letter to Turnbull as follows, see full article here
Dear Mr Turnbull,
We read your recent interview with Chris Uhlmann with concern. When asked about Israel’s attack on Gaza, you said that “Israel risks extinction” and that the “fundamental issue” is Israel protecting the “safety of its people” because Israel “faces an existential threat.” To justify this, you referred to the rockets fired by Hamas at Israel.
So, let us set out some of the relevant facts.
According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, from June 2004 to 23 July 2014, rockets and mortars fired from Gaza have killed 26 Israeli civilians. If one also counts soldiers, foreign nationals and Palestinians, rockets and mortars have killed 48 people. The cumulative effect of a decade of rockets fired from Gaza has resulted in roughly the number of deaths of somewhere between a day and half a day of Israel’s current bombardment of Gaza.
So if Israel’s massive destruction of Gaza is justified because it faces an “existential risk,” because of those rockets, and Israel has an overriding obligation to “defend the safety of its own people,” what is the obligation of the Palestinian people in Gaza? To meekly accept their own slaughter and subjugation?
You say that “Israelis have to try to work out how to eliminate the source of the missiles” from Gaza. We know what it takes for Palestinians to stop firing rockets, because they’ve done so for great lengths of time in the past and the evidence indicates that it is Israel, not Hamas, who is the “serial truce breaker”.
If Israel is serious about addressing the underlying cause of hostilities, then why does it not accept Hamas’s modest ceasefire conditions? Hamas offered terms for a 10 year ceasefire. Indeed, Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy has written, “Read the list of demands and judge honestly whether there is one unjust demand among them.”
As long as Israel refuses to end its aggression, do Palestinians not have a responsibility to try to end the bombardment of Gaza? If you are opposed to Palestinians engaging in violent resistance to the bombardment of Gaza, how do you suggest that they protect their own citizens? Or do only Israelis deserve protection?
You may say that even if few Israelis are killed by rockets, many of them are forced to live in fear because of them. According to B’Tselem, from July 8 to July 30 this year, Israel killed at least 1262 Palestinians, including 314 children. 90 percent of those killed by Israel were civilians.
According to the latest report by the United Nation’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 137 schools in Gaza have been damaged by Israeli bombing, including 88 United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools. Over 250,000 Palestinians need emergency food assistance. 9,815 families have had homes destroyed or damaged to the point that about 58,900 people in Gaza need emergency shelter assistance. An additional 5,005 families (an estimated 58,900 individuals) have homes that are habitable, but need “emergency shelter repairs interventions.” 28,400 more families (an estimated 170,400 individuals) also require assistance with damage to their homes. In a population of 1.8 million people, about 14% have sustained damage to their homes.
Israel bombed Gaza’s only power plant, so now most Palestinians in Gaza get little or no electricity each day. OCHA has reported that:
“It is estimated that the entire population has reduced or no access to water, due to electricity shortages, lack of fuel and inability of the water network to reach certain streets, areas on higher altitude or upper levels of multi-storey buildings. Many are also exposed to public health risks due to the mixing of sewage with water from damages that occurred in the sanitation system, the lack of chlorination and the lack of solid waste collection.”
24 hospitals and medical clinics have been bombed by Israel, and 25 ambulances have been bombed too. Eight of UNRWA’s staff have been killed, and four water and sanitation technicians have been killed. 29 Palestinian Red Crescent and Ministry of Health ambulances have been damaged. Critical supplies of medicines and disposables are reported to have almost depleted too. On Saturday the United Nations described the situation as a “health and humanitarian disaster,” and expressed “grave concern about the lack of protection for medical staff and facilities, and the deteriorating access to emergency health services.”
Within the confines of this letter, we cannot even begin to explain the devastation of Gaza caused by Israeli barbarism. So consider one more fact from the OCHA report. They estimate that over 300,000 Palestinian children require “direct and specialised psychosocial support.” After all the horrors and bloodshed of almost four weeks of bombing and invasion, a generation of Palestinian children are growing up with indescribable trauma. And you dare to say that the “fundamental” issue is whether or not Israelis feel safe?
An August 2012 report by UNRWA wondered if Gaza would be a liveable place by 2020. At that time, about 80% of Palestinians depended on food aid, and 90% of water was not safe for drinking. And this because of the appalling blockade on Gaza. UNRWA asked if Gaza would be liveable, before Israel’s savage attack on Gaza.
And you tell us Israel risks extinction. You are either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly indecent.
Michael Brull, Randa Abdel-Fattah and Amy McQuire
Michael Brull is Jewish. He has written for a range of publications, including The Guardian, the National Times, Crikey, ABC’s The Drum, New Matilda and elsewhere. He has recently completed a Juris Doctor at UNSW.
Amy McQuire is a Darumbal woman and former editor of Tracker and the National Indigenous Times.
Randa Abdel-Fattah is of Palestinian and Egyptian heritage. She is the author of nine books, former lawyer and a doctoral candidate in the department of sociology at Macquarie University.
Now here’s both Lib Israeli apologist frontmen at GQ’s Man of the year awards in 2010 – a rare shot together. …..Wankers
We have to confront this irresponsible throwaway language and get the facts out. These are our representatives and their liberalness is nauseating – welcome to Bleahland!
caught at the 2010 Men of the year awards GQ Magazine Liberal Politicians Malcolm Turnbull and Wyatt Roy