A response to “The legacy of 1968”

Posted on April 2, 2024 by c21styork

Platypus Review 165 | April 2024

On June 24, 2023 at Trades Hall in Melbourne, Australia, the Platypus Affiliated Society hosted a panel on the legacy of 1968.^[1] The speakers included Andy Blunden, Alison Thorne, and Arthur Dent. Barry York provides his response to the panel.

HERE ARE MY RESPONSES to the questions put to the panelists.

How were you aware that what you were doing was something new compared to that of the Old Left of the 1930s and 40s?

We were developing in rebellion against the Old Left, i.e., the old Communist Party revisionists who consistently tried to block our anti-imperialist “red” politics on the grounds that they would alienate people and lose support for the Australian Labor Party whose election they said we needed to support.

The generational aspect to the rebellion was also in play. The Old Left were elderly people, whom we could respect for their past sacrifices and struggles, but they were culturally different, compared to the permissive values of most of the young rebels.

It was not that simple, though, as there were communist leaders like E. F. (Ted) Hill who, for all appearances was an “Old Left,” short-haired “suit,” yet he and his Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) (CPA (ML)) keenly supported and encouraged our rebellion and revolutionary politics. This made him and his party all the more attractive.

We were aware that we were doing something new because the Old Left leaders usually opposed us, ostensibly on tactical grounds but essentially because they opposed revolutionary politics. This became clearer through debate with them during practical struggles and campaigns.

How was this task transmitted and transformed?

In a couple of words: by direct confrontation with the Old Left revisionists and developing our own positive policies and strategies that bypassed them. There is such a thing as the spirit of the times, a Zeitgeist, and we helped create it, along with all the other rebels around the world. We developed ways of doing mass work and promoting actions that were based on our own self-reliant organizations, with our own printing machines, etc.

On the campus where I was active, we often bypassed the official Students Representative Council (SRC) and held unofficial mass meetings. These were usually larger in attendance than the official SRC general meetings and the SRC general meetings might just have a quorum of about 300 and that meeting would supposedly speak for all students. Yet our unofficial meetings made no claim to speak for anyone other than those who attended and voted. Our biggest unofficial general meeting was more than a thousand students, at a time when the campus student population was 2,500.

Which forms of theory and practice did you reach for and why?

Most of us embraced Marxism, but there was a smorgasbord of groups offering different takes on it. In Melbourne, the most influential for a few years was an orthodox Marxism that had been developed through China’s revolutionary experience and leadership into a Maoist position.

The notion of “cultural revolution” and “bombarding the headquarters” resonated with those of us who came to understand the dead-end that was revisionism and who felt the “deadening conformity and alienation” of life under capitalism, as panelist Alison Thorne described it.

There were academic Marxists who had done heaps of reading but they tended to be disconnected from actual struggle. We understood that “If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality.”^[2] The forms of our practice were varied — street theater, leaflets, banners, graffiti, general meetings, fund-raising for bail funds, and, of course, constant arguing with those in the movement with whom we disagreed. We spent a lot of time organizing and participating in rallies and street marches.

For those who identified with Maoism, such as myself, the notion of mass work was important. We wanted to be integrated with everyday life and people while also being revolutionaries. We wanted to learn from the people who weren’t like us, and we felt that we could better convey our politics and views to them. The theory and practice of mass work differentiated us from the counter-culturalists who, while sharing our alienation from capitalism, sought to opt out by building communes in the bush or smoking dope and, in my experience, they tended to regard the working class people with disdain.

Did the following decades vindicate your choices or were you proven to be mistaken?

A favorite quote of mine from Karl Marx is “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”^[3]

Those who understood the dialectical materialist approach were able to come to terms with new circumstances arising from the decline of the movement, which happened around 1972 in Australia (see below). I was one of those who could not understand the new circumstances; indeed I was completely tossed by them. This reflected both my weakness in Marxist theory, my dogmatism, and my disconnect from social life beyond university and Left circles. The balance for nearly all of us had been toward practice, daily action, and organizing. It was all intense and activism-based. I describe it as living and breathing political activism.

For those who did have a stronger theoretical understanding, and who were much better at undertaking investigation of reality, some progress was made. The publications of the Red Eureka Movement (REM) in the late 1970s and early 80s stand up well today and are in the spirit of the 1968 rebels. I was opposed to REM, not due to their politics but because of an obedience and blind loyalty to the leaders of the CPA (ML) who assured us, among other things, that one of the REM leaders was a CIA agent. (I regret going along with that, but the bigger problem was that I had stopped thinking. I wasn’t alone, unfortunately.)

We weren’t entirely “mistaken” but there must be a reason as to why 1968 Marxism has not led to anything in the same spirit for about 50 years. It’s not just about the spirit but also the Marxist approach and politics. Postmodernism and “identity politics” seem to have won the day quite easily — for now.

How are today’s Left still tasked by the unfinished work or the new work handed on by the New Left?

The question assumes that there is a Left today. One of the things that attracted me to the Platypus Affiliated Society was an early item I received that declared: “The Left is dead! Long live the Left!” That’s spot on.

There are people calling themselves Marxists all over the place but few who are consistent with Marx’s enthusiasm for expanding human potentialities, for unleashing the productive forces from the constraints of capitalism, and for reaching for the stars. I read something by David Harvey some years ago, and he shocked me by claiming, on one hand, to be a Marxist, yet, on the other, advocating for “zero growth.” What a strange Marxism. No wonder Marx said, in 1862, that he was not a Marxist.

A Marxism that does not support material progress is hardly Marxist; so too with a Marxism that fails to unequivocally take the side of people who are fighting fascist regimes and imperialist aggression. In 1968, we celebrated the Vietnamese victory of the Tet Offensive. Today, Leftists support the Ukrainian resistance to Russian imperialism, and we support the Russian people in their struggle to overthrow the Putin regime. There is no need for “mental gymnastics” that on one hand support the Ukrainian people but on the other hand demand that NATO, their most effective military ally, gets out of Europe. This is not “nuance” or dialectical thinking. It’s bizarre and reactionary. It effectively allies with Putin, with the Russian fascist regime, who would love to see NATO withdraw from Europe.

Perhaps a real Left will be built from the solidarity with Ukraine around the world and through the struggle against those who claim to be Left but cannot bring themselves to support Ukraine’s democratic revolution and the only military force that can effectively assist the Ukrainians to victory.

The Ukrainian people are fighting for democracy — bourgeois democracy. They are not fighting for socialism. I refer again to the terrific point made by Marx about how people don’t make history according to their wishes. The Left is unequivocal in its support for democratic struggle against fascist and autocratic regimes. It always has been and always will be.

Does the task of social emancipation today appear more or less obscure as it did in the 1960s and 1970s?

I don’t know what is meant by “social emancipation.”

Politics generally is depressing today, but I find hope in the amazing scientific and technological advances that are being made. They transform the way we live and help create preconditions for something better. Arthur Dent mentioned how the internet was created on the basis of a communist mode of production.

Another strange quality to what passes for Left-wing today is the caution and concern about new technologies. Apparently, like the women in the communist party who were told they’d have to wait until after the Revolution, humanity is supposed to wait until after the Revolution before encouraging further research and development in technology.

Marx said that “the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist.”^[4] What does the internet bring? Or, for that matter, AI?!

In the “Critique of the Gotha Program,” Marx described the organizing principle of the communist society of the future: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^[5] That was in 1875. We are now in 2024. We need to add “and dreams and fantasies” after “needs.”

There is much more I could say, especially about the period of decline in the mid and late 1970s and 80s, but I will leave it there. My thoughts on the legacy of 1968 are below.

On 1968

Thanks to the Platypus group for organizing the discussion of the legacy of 1968. Good to have different perspectives and a debate that was structured in such a way as to ensure that each person had a fair say and could respond to one another, with time for questions from the floor too. The latter is especially important.

A similar thing was attempted in 2010 and 11, initiated by a few “unreconstructed Maoists” in Melbourne. It was called “The Monthly Argument.” The best exponents of opposing sides to an issue were brought together to argue their case, respond to one another, and then face the floor. The debates ranged from free speech to Syria and nuclear energy.^[6]

The masthead for The Monthly Argument website has a quote from Christopher Hitchens: “The progress that’s made in any argument or in any discussion is by confrontation.”

It’s important to have a culture in which confrontation, debate, and argument can happen freely and without persecution. An expression of how the culture has changed since 1968 struck me when, during the 80s, people became more interested in consensus than in argument. Fundamental disagreement was seen negatively, something to smooth over, rather than a healthy way of challenging ideas and having one’s ideas challenged. This was a profound change, and, in Australia, it was represented well by the Labor government headed by Bob Hawke whose main objective was “to bring everyone together” in a type of corporate state.

Back in 68, at our best, it was different: lots of debate and argument between us and the overt reactionaries or within and among the broad Left and the communists. This dynamic pushed things forward, and, in Melbourne where I was active, allowed for good revolutionary politics to be heard and to exert significant influence at a critical time.

***

I agree with Andy Blunden’s skepticism about vanguard parties. This is largely born of my own experience in one of them — the CPA (ML). I roll my eyes when I hear people talk today about how their particular small group — or sect? — is building a new party, linking internationally with other small sects, but it will all work out because of “our Marxism.” It is delusional, dogmatic (non-dialectical) twaddle. Sorry, but “committees for revolutionary international regroupment” strike me as Monty Pythonesque. We need fresher thinking than that.

I am aware of how the comrades at Monash University in Melbourne operated, and they were an inspiration to those of us making revolution on the campus I attended, La Trobe University. We were not as good at it — we lacked the deep theoretical understanding and the charismatic leaders — but things moved forward, for a few years, because our party organization, our cell, encouraged argument and wider debate in the Labour Club, which was the main Left organization. We never took militant action without the endorsement of a general meeting of all students, where further debate occurred outside the club. And, most importantly, like the Monash comrades, we put forward demands that were winnable. We were out to win, not just protest.

It all went wrong when dogma set in and we stopped thinking and became followers of the Party leaders, the old veterans like Ted Hill and Ted Bull. The worst part was that some of us, myself included, started to ingratiate ourselves with the leaders, as happens in a religious organization with members of the inner sanctum of the congregation wanting the reward of a blessing for obedience and good works. It was the opposite of a Maoist approach.

Another example of the quasi-religious nature of the Party was its insistence on collective study of Marxist classics. I agree with Arthur that it needs to start with individual reading/study, but this isn’t what happened in my party branch, at least not during the second half of the 1970s. Rather, we would sit around with the selected text and go around the room with each person reading a few paragraphs, sharing the reading. We could discuss it afterwards, which was a saving grace, but I regret to say that there were some works that I never read for myself, and I learned very little from “collective study.” (I don’t recall how we collectively studied in the late 60s / early 70s, but I do recall doing a lot of my own reading and then discussing with comrades informally).

***

The comfort of dogmatism started, I think, around 1972 when key demands of the movement were being met and the movement declined: the Australian government withdrew its ground troops from Vietnam at the end of 71 (following the process of U.S. withdrawal under Nixon) and, for those of us on campuses, universities had agreed to demands for things like greater student representation on governing bodies. Moreover, the remnants of the old “Victorian Era” culture were being overtaken by a new, permissive, youth-consumerist one. Nonetheless, for many of us who embraced revolutionary politics, the new situation was incomprehensible. How could it be that after such an exciting and rapid building of a movement, of such intense, always-upward activism, it all suddenly changed? The spirit of the times transformed, it seemed, from one where revolutionary politics were taken seriously to one in which people were pinning all their hopes on the election of a Labor government.

Most of us were frustrated and confused, but the ready-made dogma, the formula-thinking, brought comfort and allowed us to pretend otherwise. On the front page of Vanguard, the newspaper of the CPA (ML), for each year of the 70s, the headline assured us that “Revolutionary struggle reaches new heights,” or words to that effect. But the frustration was still there. This disconnect from reality grew worse, though there were notable individuals who did seem to understand the change and its process. By the late 70s, some of these people had grouped together as the REM.

Another terrible outcome of this dogmatism and obedience was that we became cynical. It was the opposite of our genuine commitment, our investigation of reality, our arguments, and optimism of 68. It’s what happens when you stop thinking critically, stop thinking dialectically, drop the willingness to “bombard the headquarters” and just go along with what the leaders tell you. Its consequences are not pretty. It’s easy to keep identifying as being Left-wing, or Marxist, or Maoist, or whatever, but I learned that it is also easy to slip into a type of Left-fascism.

There’s an excellent article “Fascism and the Left” (1980) by Arthur that I shared at the C21st Left blog.^[7] I’m embarrassed to admit that I can identify with what he describes; at least where I had ended up by the mid-1970s. Some of my old comrades, who were so good in the late 60s / early 1970s, today openly take the side of the Assads and Putins and, of course, Xi Jinping, just as they took the side of the fascist Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

When women rose up recently in Iran, an old former comrade shared a post on Facebook pointing out that U.S. imperialism was behind the “uprising” – with “uprising” in inverted commas. The reason for this, he said, was because Iran has joined the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation, thus challenging “U.S. hegemony.” Conspiracy theories flow naturally from formula-thinking, because such dogmatism tries to force the world into an ideological schema. When the world doesn’t cooperate with the schema, there must be a conspiracy involved.

So, it wasn’t a case of the “1968” leaders being “tamed” by cushy jobs, though Alison makes a valid point that what were previously voluntary movements became professionalized as NGOs. This too is not straightforward, though, as some of the NGOs allowed for good work to continue and for some of the leaders / activists to earn a living for doing good stuff.

The late Jim Bacon was a comrade of mine. We went to China as part of an Australian delegation in May 1971. He was a very effective Maoist leader. He then became an official in the Builders Labourers Federation and moved from Melbourne to Tasmania, where he became prominent in the Australian Labor Party. In 1998, he was elected Premier of Tasmania. Some old comrades regarded this as selling-out, but Jim never reneged on his past, and simply pointed out that he became sick and tired of waiting for the revolution. He did some good things as Premier and showed that “we” can govern.

***

Andy Blunden says, “The unfinished work of the New Left is to learn how to practice solidarity,” but “Marxists still say ‘Follow us.’” My only disagreement is this: people who say that are not Marxists, and I am more comfortable with those who say, “Question everything!” That is the Marxism that appealed to me back in the late 60s / early 70s, and that needs to be revived.

***

I put “68” in inverted commas because, even though that year was the highlight for the Left internationally and is yet to be matched, the period we’re talking about is roughly 66 to the early 70s. In other words, in Australia and the U.S., the period when Vietnam was the central issue. The system of compulsory military service made Vietnam a life-and-death question for every young man who had to register with the Department of Labour and National Service when they turned 18. While conscription only applied to men, the issue obviously also closely affected women who were mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends. It was no coincidence that “Save our Sons” was the most prominent women’s group opposing the U.S. war at the time.

“Vietnam” quickly became the number-one issue for the Left and no other issue at the time mobilized such large numbers. The secondary issue was probably apartheid in South Africa, around which another mass-based campaign was launched and grew into a mass movement.

The Indigenous Australians’ struggle was perhaps third on the list, and I remember one “black nationalist” being upset with all the activity around South Africa, arguing that we should focus more on what was “happening in our own backyard.” But apartheid took up much more of our time and energy than the Aboriginal issues. It’s interesting that the main issues were internationalist ones, in which we acted in solidarity with people fighting injustice and tyranny a very long way from Australia’s shores.

I’d like to mention, as an aside, that the first Australian history book to offer a nation-wide overview of Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion and settlement of Australia was the work of individuals who identified as or with Maoists. The book, The Black Resistance: An Introduction to the History of the Aborigines’ Struggle against British Colonialism, was published by Widescope International in 1977 and was co-edited by Fergus Robinson and yours truly, with chapters by Fergus, me, and four others. Prior to our book, the widely accepted view was that Indigenous Australians had been passive recipients of the changes wrought by dispossession and massacres.

Another example is the solidarity we showed with the rebellions in the “Eastern bloc” or Soviet satellite countries, especially Czechoslovakia in 68 and Poland in 70. There were pro-Soviet remnants who identified as being on the Left but, in the main, they were marginal and persuaded no one but themselves that they were right. Few young people identified with that line — they were mostly fuddy-duddies, out of touch with the Zeitgeist and with the politics that helped define it.

Of course, the uprisings in Paris in May of 68 were inspirational. I loved the graffiti — “Society is a carnivorous flower,” “It is forbidden to forbid.” My favorite remains “Sous les pavés, la plage” (“Beneath the pavement, the beach”). It was the spirit and style that moved me, and millions of other young people around the world. The Paris uprising indicated that workers and students could unite in struggle. It defined the May rebellion. In Australia, a Worker-Student Alliance was organized in 69. Some of us — “Maoists” — went to work in factories over the three-month university vacation period in order to learn from the workers — and to earn a bit of money! A few even became full-time factory workers (or builders laborers) after graduating from university.

***

The other significant event that had a big influence on the “1968” movement was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in China. The mainstream media reported on it negatively, emphasizing chaos and destruction — much the same as today’s supporters of the dictatorship of the billionaires in China do.

Ted Hill gave a speech about the GPCR at La Trobe University in 69. It was easy for those of us who were rebellious to identify with what was happening — the youthful challenge to old authority and traditional ways that kept people in their place. That this was happening against the bourgeois elements within the Communist Party of China was also something we could grasp. But what really “blew our minds” was that China had a leader who was encouraging rebellion, including against the “new emperor” mindsets and behaviors within the governing party. No other world leader had declared “It is right to rebel.” On the contrary, the others, like the Australian Prime Minister John Gorton, were saying, “We shall tolerate dissent so long as it remains ineffective.”

Today, there is a consistency in the attitudes of some of my old former comrades who once supported the GPCR to identify with the social-fascist regime and other dictatorial and autocratic regimes around the world. They now advocate the line that the GPCR was erroneous and held back China’s progress. There are, however, scholarly books that provide a different view, such as William Hinton’s The Great Reversal: The Privatization of China 1978–1989 (1990), Mobo Gao’s The Battle for China’s Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution (2008) and Dongping Han’s The Unknown Cultural Revolution (2008). I wonder if these make it to the reading lists in universities today.

The Tiananmen Square protests and massacre in 1989 should have left little doubt in anyone’s mind as to the nature of the post-Mao regime but, again, among some of my old former comrades, it was attributable to “foreign agents” who were behind the protests. More recently, they tell me that “errors were made on both sides.” I have no idea how anyone can regard this as “Left-wing.”

***

It puzzled me, given our correct understanding of the Soviet and Eastern bloc satellite regimes as social-fascist back then, that when the “Wall” came down in November 1989, some of my old comrades who had got it right in the late 60s /early 70s were now expressing doubt — or outright angst — about the collapse. Most said they still didn’t like the regimes — but U.S. imperialism would benefit in its quest for world hegemony, and that those social-fascist states, like them or loathe them, were a force against that hegemony. It was weird because we had always been anti-fascists first and anti-imperialist second. After all, the Left supported the anti-working-class, “war monger” (as the Mosleyites^[8] described him) Winston Churchill — a representative of the world’s worst imperialism at that time, namely British imperialism — against the Nazi appeasers like Neville Chamberlain. An anti-imperialism that serves fascist regimes is hardly worth having.

***

None of the speakers mentioned the fact that the Australian economy was doing well in the 1960s. There was economic growth, real wage increases, expansion of infrastructure, plenty of jobs, and big demand, after the War, for Australia’s agricultural produce and mineral resources. We were not rebelling against economic crisis, so it is remarkable that we were questioning and challenging capitalism. We were a product of alienation, an understanding of how capitalism was exploitative, and an awareness of suffering elsewhere in the world, rather than direct economic hardship arising from crisis; though those of us who studied Marx understood the nature of crises as periodic — until the “big one” would come. But we’ve been waiting a long time for the big one. Certainly things are bad at the moment, and most projections by mainstream economists say things will worsen, so maybe the big one really is imminent now.

What would happen if it did come?! Where is the economic understanding, not just of what is happening, but of how to build the new social system? Arthur pointed out that the Left wasn’t interested in economics. That tallies with my experience and, unlike him, I am one of those who had little interest in the subject. Like many of my comrades, I was the “arts” type, interested in ideas, political philosophy, and polemics. I tried reading Capital and I think I waded through Volume 1 (1867), but couldn’t proceed to the other volumes. What I knew about Marxist economics, I really had learned from the lectures we all read such as Value, Price and Profit (1865). In a letter to Engels, Marx had said “You cannot compress a course in political economy into one hour but we shall have to do our best”^[9] — I don’t think he expected so many of us to be satisfied with going no further.

***

Environmental issues were rarely taken up in a significant way. I recall the far-Right League of Rights going on about “the despoilation of Australia’s environment by foreign companies,” but it was rare for the Left to give much priority to those issues. Vietnam, and apartheid were the main issues. The “green” movement didn’t so much arise from the 60s movement as emerge after its decline; though it’s true that many of the activists who, as Alison pointed out, were now becoming “co-opted,” supported the new green movement. Perhaps it’s a case of political philosophy abhorring a vacuum, just as Nature does. By the early 80s, when Graham Richardson, of the Labor government’s Right faction, started to promote a major national green issue to oppose the building of a dam in Tasmania, it was clear that the new, growing, green movement’s leaders were not the people who had put their heads on the line during the Vietnam solidarity period. This was a different leadership and a different kind of politics and political philosophy. The campaign to save the Franklin Dam in 1983 was the birth of the green organizational movement.

It goes without saying that Leftists opposed air pollution, which was a significant environmental issue in the 70s. I recall being involved in a campaign against lead content in petrol. The campaign was successful but did little, if anything, to promote socialism, let alone communism. And lead was removed from petrol by legislative mandate — under capitalism. It’s strange to me — a disconnect from reality — when individuals who identify as Leftists say that something is a product of capitalism, that capitalism needs a particular injustice, but then don’t seem to draw any lesson when the issue or injustice is remedied within the framework of capitalism.

The Left’s problem with green political philosophy was based on the Marxists’ historic and traditional commitment to unleashing the productive forces. “Nature worship” — the idea that humanity should live in harmony, or sustainably, with Nature rather than “conquer” or “decouple” from Nature — was where the line was drawn. Indeed, it was a line of demarcation between a progressive and a reactionary outlook. The Nature worship outlook was, and still is, openly advocated by the princes and popes who have a better understanding of its content and purpose than those who believe one can be a Marxist, in support of progress, while at the same time believing that the planet has already exceeded its capacity for further growth and development.

***

A great progressive movement that can be said to have emerged from the “60s” movement was the women’s liberation movement. It was most notable in the early 70s in Australia, and, indeed, some of its activist women were pissed off with the male chauvinism in organizations of the Left and of being told by men, as Alison points out, that their liberation is something for after the Revolution. It was understandable that women established their own organizations and consciousness-raising groups. However, they had much bigger problems than male chauvinism on the Left, given that our society was still so backward when it came to women.

Helen Reddy’s anthemic song “I am Woman” (1971) sums up all that was great about the spirit of the old women’s lib movement: its rebelliousness, which was very much in keeping with “68,” determination to win, and the absence of any ideology of victimhood. Had anyone dared to tell those women that they were “victims,” the response would have been “Not any more!,” possibly followed by “Go jump in the lake!” Victimized — yes — but victims — no!

Over time, new generations of feminist activists emerged and, it seems, there has been fragmentation, and today it is rare to see or hear the spirit of the 70s women’s lib people. “Identity politics” has taken over, with the support of the institutions of the state (including the universities), and socialist feminists are usually of the older generation, who were steeled in the struggles of the women’s lib period. A worrying aspect of a current significant faction of feminists is what Camille Paglia called “sex-negative feminism.” This is the puritanical streak that wants to ban pornography. The late Right-wing English morality-crusader, Mary Whitehouse, would applaud them but she was a target of much ridicule by “pro-sex” feminists and Leftists generally — those in the 68 tradition, that is.

***

I was lucky to be 17 in 1968; I was able to be a conscious part of the chaos, the dangers, the fun, and the politics that believed in a better, winnable future and that, at its best, questioned everything. It was exhilarating being part of a mass movement that was gaining support, that went beyond reformism and asked why the issues existed in the first place. There was something joyous about challenging nasty authorities, pointing out their hypocrisies and their perpetuation of injustices. When I look back on that period, 1966–1972, I think that while we didn’t overthrow the ruling class, we certainly gave their most reactionary members and representatives a very hard time. That in itself justifies the movement, I reckon.

I was fairly conservative socially but not politically. At the age of 15, in 1966, I’d cycle from my home in Brunswick, Melbourne, to the large front roller-door at the entrance of Pentridge Prison in the adjoining suburb of Coburg, to protest against the death penalty and the hanging of Ronald Ryan. On one occasion, the protest turned violent, and I remember men running at the huge roller-door, leaping up and kicking at it. (Any wrestling fans will be familiar with the flying dropkick maneuver.)

In speaking with other activists of my generation, I’m surprised at how many others also became active as teenagers because of the issue of capital punishment. I’m sure I joined an organization opposed to capital punishment but I don’t recall its name. At this time, I learned how to give out leaflets. I also learned how to argue about an issue. There were key debating points and, on one occasion, I wore a badge that displayed the words “I am against capital punishment. Please talk to me about it.” I nervously wore it on one of my tram rides into the city and was extremely relieved that nobody wanted to talk about it.

***

The counterculture was a significant part of all this questioning. Its members were treated far more sympathetically by the media and the Establishment than we — activists with a political direction and understanding — were. I didn’t agree with the notion of setting up communes in the bush under capitalism, nor with drug taking, but I loved and still love the music of the time: the rock pop songs that we could embrace as anthems, songs like Thunderclap Newman’s “Something in the Air” (1969), Nina Simone’s revolutionary version (1969) of The Beatles’ reactionary “Revolution” (1968), and The Animals’ “We Gotta Get Out of This Place” (1965). The latter was hugely popular with the U.S. and allied soldiers in Vietnam but the lyrics are metaphorical: “this place” can be capitalism, an alienating system that in the advanced industrial societies, in the main, had long outlived any former progressive qualities. In a later version of “We Gotta Get Out of This Place,” the singer ad-libs with “Out of the factory, out of this place, out of the kitchen, out of this place.” Love it. The good music brought “hippies” and Marxists together; though the Old Left was associated more with folk music. I never related to folk music. It seemed too whingey, always complaining, gently melodic without a back beat driving it relentlessly forward.

Like others who identified with, and as, Maoists, I was critical of the counterculture, even though some of its members had proven to be reliable comrades in action on the campus of La Trobe University in Melbourne where I was enrolled in 69. So, I concur with the speakers who point to the diverse nature of the “60s movement.” You name it — it was there! The reactionaries were threatened by it and sometimes resorted to state violence to try to curb it and intimidate its leaders, especially those who were effective in encouraging militancy, an anti-imperialist perspective and solidarity with the Vietnamese (rather than an “anti-war” position). The movement’s spirit was vital and summed up by our belief that it was right to rebel; to us, harmony was a reactionary value. The state and its institutions, ranging from churches to universities and prisons, were out to crush that spirit. But, they failed — for a brief few years, at least — and each of those institutions experienced their own internal rebellions.

***

In 1968, I was in my final year of high school in Melbourne and was by that time politically aware and interested in communism. I was a bit of a wannabe communist. After school, still in my school uniform, I made my way to the big demonstration against the U.S. war in Vietnam on July 4 that year. The police rioted. They removed their identification badges and used batons, fists, and boots against us. It was scary. The demonstration included workers and students. The next day at school, one of the teachers claimed to have seen me on TV at the demo, and admonished me in front of the class. I felt embarrassed but also angry and determined to attend the next demo. The teacher’s admonition did not deter my classmates from electing me as class captain, and I was chuffed to see, on reading my old school magazine from 68, that I was described as “the rebel leader.”

Most of the school rebellion was about dress codes and hair length for boys, but there were also a couple of more political actions, such as when three of us decided to stand up and raise our clenched fists at morning assembly in solidarity with the two black American athletes, Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos, who had made the same gesture at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico. They were supported by the third-place getter, an Australian named Peter Norman. On another occasion, I distributed a pamphlet around the school which, from memory, was called “American Atrocities in Vietnam” and had been banned under Victoria’s Obscene Publications Act. I was not part of any high school “underground” or organization but was influenced heavily by my father, Loreto, who had developed strong Left-wing views during his military service in World War II. He was Maltese. Born in Malta in 1918, he had volunteered in 1940 when it was clear that Mussolini’s Italia irredenta^[10] meant that fascism was part of a global threat.

My dad’s influence on my political development means that I can’t really agree with Arthur’s exclamation that “We told our parents to fuck off!” Of course, if by “parents” is meant the older generation, I can see the point. There was much in the culture that had been carried on by the older generation that we objected to, which is why the 68 rebellion was disproportionately a youth rebellion with the “oldies” in the revisionist communist parties trying to curb what they called the “excesses” (but really trying to curb the militancy and revolutionary perspectives).

But, for me, the rebellion was not against my parents because my father, a factory worker, was on the side of the rebels. He was in the Labor Party but identified strongly with communist union leaders such as Clarrie O’Shea and Ted Bull (both of whom were leaders in the CPA (ML), which identified with Maoism). He was skeptical about Labor opportunists, and attended some of the militant Vietnam solidarity demonstrations.

My mother was a sweet, gentle, woman who used to say that she wished she had been born later because she then would have had the advantages of “women’s lib.” She was born in Hackney, London’s East End, in 1916. She was not particularly political but, like most people who had had a poor and very hard life, she understood what Andy Blunden called “solidarity” — the importance of “helping others on their own terms.” She also understood how society was changing for the better, especially for women, and that the “protestors” were helping drive that process as were new technologies like washing machines and vacuum cleaners. For working-class women like my mother, technology was nothing to fear. It was definitely not something to wait for until “after the Revolution.”

***

Growing up in an industrial, migrant, working-class place like Brunswick, from the age of 3 (in 1954) to my early 30s, and with my kind of parents, made it easy for me to develop a socialistic outlook. There were a dozen ethnicities in my street but we all got on well, notwithstanding occasional nastiness. Paying the bills was more important than picking on one another for being different. We were united by two things: our class position and the English language. I grew up immersed in this low-income, working-class milieu.

Television was important in my awareness of world and national affairs. After my parents bought a television set in 1960, the world came into our loungeroom — including, the horror of apartheid in South Africa and the disgraceful treatment of Australia’s Aborigines. Like a lot of my generation, we were frightened when a showdown seemed imminent between the two superpowers in 1962. I still remember the grainy black-and-white imagery on television of the warships which we were told were heading toward one another in confrontation. To this day, I recall vividly the scene on television of the Democrat Police Chief of Alabama setting vicious Alsatian dogs onto black American protestors. It made me angry — and still does.

These images stood in stark contrast to the series like Father Knows Best (1954–60) and Leave It to Beaver (1957–63) that portrayed an unrealistic, idealized, version of American life in which everyone was happy and prosperous. These series rarely featured black Americans, other than in the roles of musicians or servants. But the contrast between the reality shown on news broadcasts and the idealized family series was not lost on me, even though I was young.

I was a big fan of science fiction. This was prompted by exciting “space” adventures in the real world such as the Sputnik satellite in 1957, the first man-made object to orbit the Earth. Four years later, the Soviet Union again led the “space race,” and Yuri Gagarin became the first human to travel into outer space. It was so thrilling and set my young mind racing.

I read sci-fi books, usually collections of short stories, but movies on television and at the cinema showed just how far human beings might go thanks to our ingenuity and engineering skills. I was enthralled by movies that showed spaceships and exploration of other planets. These 1950s films seem a bit naïve today, when we have an actual spacecraft, Voyager 11, traveling beyond our solar system, now into the constellation of Pavo, and still sending the occasional “beep” more than 23 billion (Billion, not million) kilometers back to Earth.

I’m sure, on reflection, that this enthusiasm for space travel and sci-fi helped put me on the path of interest in the political philosophy that advocated for unleashing human potential. And this certainly informed the spirit of “1968.”

***

I’ll leave it there and hope my ramblings are of some use in understanding “1968.”

The period of decline from the early or mid-1970s is just as important in terms of lessons, but I’ll have to leave that for another time. |P

^[1] See the transcript in this issue. Video of the panel is available online at <https://www.youtube.com/live/8KD9AhyUYLU>.

^[2] Mao Tse-tung, “On Practice: On the Relation Between Knowledge and Practice, Between Knowing and Doing” (1937), available online at <https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm>.

^[3] Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1851–52), available online at <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/>.

^[4] Karl Marx, “The Metaphysics of Political Economy,” in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), available online at <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/>.

^[5] Karl Marx, “Part I,” in “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875), available online at <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/>.

^[6] The arguments were documented, and are available online at <https://themonthlyargument.wordpress.com/past-debates/>.

^[7] See <https://c21stleft.com/2021/03/31/fascism-and-the-left-how-do-left-wing-individuals-end-up-fascists/>.

^[8] After Oswald Mosley (1896–1980).

^[9] Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels (May 20, 1865), quoted in “Introduction,” in Karl Marx, Value, Price and Profit (New York: International Co., Inc, 1969), available online at <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/introduction.htm>.

^[10] [Italian] Unredeemed Italy.

Israel and Gaza – holding 3 things at once

Posted on November 29, 2023 by Arthur

1. Attack on Israeli civilians is a crime against humanity. 2. Attack on Palestinian civilians is a crime against humanity. 3. Both are products of Apartheid and forced displacement which are crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity committed anywhere by anyone are punishable in the courts of each State anywhere in the world.

Australian Courts could issue arrest warrants for the criminals in Israel and Gaza without any government decision. Australian lawyers could and should file those charges, under division 268 of the Crimininal Code Act 1995 (vol 2).

That would cut through the “debate” about “who started it” and focus attention on ending it before it becomes actual genocide.

Insisting that Australian courts proceed would be a step towards implementing the “Responibility to Protect” the people of Gaza from further crimes. An EU protection force could be sent more quickly instead of negotiating with the indicted criminals.

Journalists and teachers who have taken some initiatives could help provide a focus by working with lawyers to prepare campaign materials, to collect petition signatures from every household in Australia.

In particular there is an international law obligation to “prevent and punish” the crime of Genocide, including incitement to Genocide.

Here’s a message from an Israeli journalist describing the “direct and public incitement of genocide” that is now routine in Israel.

“Kill today the terrorists of tomorrow” is a direct and public incitement of genocide of children. It is now routine language in Israel but a crime punishable by Australian courts.

Please pass on this post to any contacts, and ask others to do so and especially please add addresses you contacted in comments here and include details of what you sent.

Lawyers assisting the Palestine protests (and other lawyers who might). https://lawyersletter.au/ This is the most important. That letter does not call for the most urgent thing -actually filing charges to issue arresst warrants from Australian courts right now.
Teachers groups organizing in the schools. https://www.aeufederal.org.au/news-media/news/2023/aeu-statement-conflict-israel-and-palestine
Journalists who organized the petition: https://www.meaa.org/
Other groups who might be able to help organize policy discussions and action within the solidarity campaign.

This post also links to all the earlier posts in this series, please read them all, starting from:

Gaza – Send Lawyers, Guns and Money – the shit has hit the fan

Then follow the right pointing article at bottom of post to get the next in series till you get back to this one.

Gaza – act now!—->

This arrest warrants should have been issued weeks ago and the campaign explaining started then. It is very urgent now. The ceasefire could end at any moment.

Tunnels under hospitals

Posted on November 28, 2023 by c21styork

I had an interesting encounter two days ago with a bloke who had worked for 37 years in hospital administration at a major hospital in an Australian city. He said he was puzzled by all the fuss about the tunnels under the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza.

He explained that all major hospitals in Australia have elaborate and extensive tunnel systems and networks under their buildings. I asked him why they had these tunnels and he explained in some detail the various roles they played that were essential to a large hospital’s functioning. You can hear his explanation in the ten minute audio clip below.

The hospital in which he worked in Australia had to link several different hospital buildings and the tunnel network even ran under a major road in order to connect them underground. He said the footage on TV of the tunnels under the al-Shifa hospital was unexceptional, just standard tunnels in any ‘British built’ hospital. (Al-Shifa was originally built by the British).

I recorded him on my mobile phone, elaborating on the many different functions of the hospital tunnels. I’m attaching the audio, which goes for ten minutes.

Perhaps you knew all this already – but I certainly didn’t.

Lessons from 3CR – Jews Against Zionism and Anti-Semitism, late 1970s

Posted on November 25, 2023 by c21styork

I’m reproducing the first few sections of an important document called Nazi-Zionist Collaboration from the late 1970s in Melbourne as it is relevant to, and has lessons for, the current Palestinian solidarity campaign. The document was a submission to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It was first republished in 1981.

The background to the document was a complaint made by the Jewish Board of Deputies which accused community radio station 3CR of being anti-Semitic because of claims of such collaboration. 3CR broadcast a regular program called ‘Palestine Speaks’. The document draws on Zionist and other sources to prove that the claim is historically accurate.

Radio station 3CR is still going strong and exists to give voice on the airwaves to community and progressive activist groups who do not normally have one.

The sections from the document below cover Jewish community reactions, Anti-semitisim and anti-Zionism, how Zionists stirred hostility to 3CR and how they were effective.

The entire document is here.

********

(There is) some interest in describing how a typical Zionist ‘campaign’ works and why many Jews and others are deceived into supporting them. So this submission to the Australia Broadcasting Tribunal is reprinted here unchanged except for minor sub-editing and the addition of reference notes. Community Radio 3CR in Melbourne, Australia is a federation of many affiliates with varying political views. It is biased towards the working class and opposed to imperialism and racism. Therefore, Zionist organizations are refused affiliation or air-time.

Anti-Zionist affiliates such as the Palestine-Australia Solidarity Committee and the Palestine Arab Club are allowed to broadcast their views uncensored. Unable to accept this open reversal of the usual situation, the Zionist movement through the ‘Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies’, (VJBD ) launched an extremely vicious smear campaign against 3CR. This centered on allegations of anti-Semitism, but also ‘terrorism’ and all the rest of it.

Since 3CR is entirely self-supporting and has a public and democratic decision-making process, the normal means of pressure and manipulation did not work, although they did do a great deal of damage and exacerbated the Station’s internal problems.

Consequently, an all-out campaign was launched in the Australian media which resulted in a public enquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal into whether the Station’s license to broadcast should be revoked. The Zionist ‘Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies’, (VJBD) claimed at this enquiry that allegations of ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’ during the Holocaust were the most offensive material broadcast by 3CR affiliates, being simply a paranoid antiSemitic conspiracy theory intended to bait the Melbourne Jewish Community.

The only ‘evidence’ submitted by the VJBD to refute such broadcasts was a brief statement by a Melbourne University academic, Dr. John Foster. We have reprinted this statement in full in Appendix A., (Address deleted for digital reproduction) since reference is made to it in this booklet, and readers should be able to judge for themselves what weighty arguments for censoring radio broadcasts were being replied to.

Although evidence by Rabbi’s Levi and Gutnick, Mr. Bloch and other VJBD witnesses has been referred to in passing, they are not reprinted here as they were simply expressing general outrage and did not even attempt to refute specific allegations. To substantiate the broadcasts ‘Jews Against Zionism and AntiSemitism’, (JAZA) another 3CR affiliate, prepared a detailed study on ‘Nazi-Zionist Collaboration’.

This submission was prepared rather hurriedly, and specifically for the public enquiry into 3CR, rather than as a comprehensive survey of the question. Nevertheless, we are reprinting it here unchanged except for minor sub-editing and the edition of reference notes. Although by no means comprehensive, the evidence submitted by JAZA was apparently sufficient for the VJBD to decide it did not want a public enquiry into these allegations at any cost.

As explained in Appendix B, the VJBD withdrew from the enquiry with none of its demands met, after a unilateral declaration by Radio 3CR, which reaffirmed its original position. (Appendix C).

For more than a year since then, anti-Zionist broadcasts by 3CR affiliates have continued unchanged and Zionists have been given no right of reply. So far, the Zionists have done nothing to resume their media campaign against 3CR, and VJBD President, Arnold Bloch has resigned his position. Since the same allegations have been repeated on the air many times, there is no doubt that Zionists still find them ‘offensive’. But they no longer want a public enquiry into them. Anyone reading this book will understand why.

In addition to the ‘Nazi-Zionist Collaboration’ material, JAZA and other 3CR affiliates presented a good deal of material on other aspects of Zionism, substantiating broadcasts alleging that it is a racist movement and so forth. This included some material on the history of Zionism, and how it came to
dominate Jewish communities, and particular reference to the role played by ‘leftwing Zionism’ in confusing the issues.

Some of this material is being prepared for publication by BAZO-PS and will appear as a separate book.
Many people, both in JAZA and outside it assisted in preparing this material and commenting on it. Most will have to remain nameless for various reasons (including Zionist terrorism).

Mention should be made of the assistance of Frans Timmermann in subediting and preparing the reference notes and, of course, BAZO-PS for re-typing, publishing and distributing. A further edition is planned for wider circulation and dealing with Nazi-Zionist Collaboration in its own right, quite apart from the 3CR enquiry. Any comments and suggestions should be sent to JAZA, Melbourne.

Finally, questions have been raised about reference to Jews as an ethnic or national minority group rather than simply as adherents of a particular religion. These questions come from PLO supporters as well as the usual queries from Zionists as to how some JAZA members can call themselves Jews if they are not
Zionists and not religious. This is an important issue which has a bearing on the future status of Israeli Jews in a democratic solution to the Palestine problem.

Space precludes a proper analysis here, but a few words are necessary. Most of the people in countries like Australia and the USA who are generally called ‘Jews’ are more accurately ‘people of Jewish origin’. Most are already quite fully assimilated into the nations in which they live but they still retain some specifically ‘Jewish’ cultural characteristics which have very little to do with religion. What they have in common is not membership of the mythical Zionist ‘worldwide Jewish Nation’ but parents, grandparents or great grandparents who once spoke the Yiddish language and were part of recognized national minorities in Eastern European countries like Poland and Russia (this, of course, has nothing to
do with ‘race’).

A comparison could be made with people of Gypsy origin (another European minority people who were wiped out by the Nazis). But it is quite misleading, and plays into the hands of Zionism, to define Jews by ‘religion’ as the only alternative to Zionism.

The Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies has emphasized accusations of Nazi-Zionist collaboration as the material it finds most offensive and has claimed that 3CR broadcasters take delight in driving the Jewish community, into frenzy, by making such allegations. We in Jews Against Zionism and Anti-Semitism have made a detailed study of this question and wish to present our findings to this inquiry.

Although we do not even speak the necessary foreign languages to be able to survey the primary sources, we do claim to know a lot more about it than Dr. Foster does, having carefully studied the secondary sources on both sides instead of only one side.

Our evidence will show that claims of Nazi-Zionist collaboration broadcast on some 3CR programs are well founded and thoroughly documented in a substantial literature accessible to non-experts with a bit of hard work. They are not fantasies, let alone anti-Semitic fantasies.

Broadcasts about Nazi-Zionist collaboration are a reflection on the airwaves of Australia of written material long accepted as part of the serious literature on the subject, and which has long been legally available in the State of Israel. Any apparent strangeness and ‘extremism’, of these broadcasts, is not
because they reflect the views of a lunatic fringe, but because this serious literature is not readily available in Australia and is therefore unfamiliar to listeners.

In passing, we should mention that allegations of Nazi-Zionist collaboration do not originate, as is often claimed and widely assumed, from Arab answers to Israel’s use of the Holocaust as a propaganda weapon. Nor, as should be obvious from 3CR’s hostile attitude to the Soviet Union, are they a result of Soviet propaganda on this subject. Nor are these allegations meant to excuse Palestinian Arab collaborators with Nazism, such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Only Zionists, with their fundamentally racialist outlook, imagine that collaboration is an accusation one can level against a whole ethnic group, or that one can refute such accusations by proving that people of the same ethnic origin as the accuser are also guilty of the same crime.

Since Israel’s exploitation of the Holocaust for propaganda is so blatant, the assumption, that accusations of Zionist collaboration must be a propaganda reply, seems fairly natural. But in fact most of the available English language literature on this subject was written by Jews long before the modern Palestinian revolution got going.

The issue was first raised on 3CR, in the second edition of Palestine Speaks that went to air, by two Palestinian Jews, one of whom happened to have worked in the law office that handled the most famous Israeli court case concerning Nazi collaboration. The debate has since escalated, with increasingly hysterical Zionist accusations against 3CR, being used to provoke more comments on this subject in
reply.

Presumably the Zionist assumption was that no hard evidence would be available to back these allegations up. If so, we will now refute that assumption.

In doing so, we have deliberately avoided relying much on the substantial amount of material recently published by the Soviet Union and its supporters for their own reasons. Among the sources we have relied on are the publications of the ‘Guardians of the City’ or ‘Neturei Karta’ – orthodox religious Jews who live strictly according to Torah. These include the book: The Holocaust Victims Accuse by Reb Moshe
Shonfeld, (1) which was first published as a series of articles in the Israeli Hebrew magazine Digleinu in the years 1961 to 1964, and the article ‘Some of my Best Friends are Nazis’ by N. Glaser2, published in the New York Jewish Guardian, Volume 2, Number 2. (2)

We have also used the book Perfidy by Ben Hecht, (3) an extreme Zionist of the Menachem Begin (‘Revisionist’) variety. (4) This was originally published in English in New York in 1961, and has since been reprinted in Hebrew in Israel in 1970. It is now available in an English reprint edition from the Neturei Karta. This material is virtually inaccessible in Australia due to active Zionist suppression, and does not circulate at all, either within the Jewish community or outside it.

We have also made some use of Eichmann in Jerusalem by Dr. Hannah Arendt, (5) who also supports the existence of the State of Israel, and a number of other serious works, generally written from a pro-Zionist standpoint.

None of these writers could be even remotely described as ‘left-wing’, and their books have nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli dispute. So far as Ben Hecht and Rabbi Shonfeld are concerned, there are probably no other subjects we could agree on, except the fact that the top Zionist leadership did collaborate with the Nazis and that this fact should be known to the public.

We have provided copies of these and other related works to the Tribunal and we ask that they be read carefully before any decision is contemplated that might inhibit 3CR from permitting its affiliates to continue broadcasting these allegations.

Before documenting the allegations themselves, we would like to comment on the reactions to them within the Jewish community, based on our own experiences, talking to relatives and friends.

1 Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War
Criminals Part 1, Neturei Karta of USA, New York, 1977.
2 N, Glaser, Some of my best friends are Nazis, Jewish Guardian Vol.2, No. 2 (Nov. 1978), p. 22-24.
3 Ben Hecht, Perfidy, Julian Messner, Inc., New York, 1961.
4 This does not refer to a departure from Marxism. The Union of Zionists-Revisionists was founded in the early 1920s as an extreme right-wing split-off from the official Zionist movement.
5 Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem. The Viking Press, New York, 1965.

********

JEWISH COMMUNITY REACTIONS

There is no doubt that Zionists have become rather frenzied about these allegations of Nazi collaboration and do consider them offensive. Any Zionist who believes the allegations to be false is naturally offended about a movement he or she supports being accused of collaborating with something so vile as Nazism.
Most people who call themselves Zionists see Zionism as just a sort of Jewish cultural and philanthropic movement friendly to the State of Israel, and have very little idea of what it really involves.

The very small number of hard core Zionists who know anything about Zionist-Nazi collaboration also find it offensive to be reminded about this, and are naturally in a frenzy to prevent others finding out about it, although why they imagine that a public hearing will help suppress the information remains a
mystery. Thus there is no doubt that Zionist indignation about these particular broadcasts is quite genuine, even though a great deal of their outrage about other aspects of 3CR programs is somewhat synthetic.

As for the Jewish community as a whole, there is also no doubt a widespread hostile reaction on this question. However, it is not all that widespread, and even more important, it is not a hostile reaction to what is actually broadcast on 3CR, but to what Jews have been told is being broadcast on 3CR.

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism
There are two major anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, which are well known within the Jewish community and give particular offence to Jews. One is that the holocaust never happened and is essentially a ‘Zionist Hoax’, as for example put forward by the neo-Nazi Professor Butz in his book The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century. (6)[note by aaargh: of course, Prof. Butz is not neo-nazi anymore than the leftist authors of the present pamphlet. ] The other is that the Holocaust was deliberately arranged by the Zionists who more or less tricked the Nazis into it in order to win sympathy. This theory, based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (7) has been put forward by the notorious [Australian] anti-Semite Eric Butler in his book The International Jew. (8) Both these conspiracy theories use the term ‘Zionist’ primarily as a code word, or else a euphemism, for ‘Jew’, if they use it at all. Both draw sustenance from reference to some actual facts about connections between Jews, or Zionists and Nazis, but intertwine them with various fantasies, and are quite clearly examples of anti-Semitic paranoia rather than any genuine analysis of Zionism as a specific political movement.

People in the Jewish community are very conscious that the use of ‘Zionist’ as a code word for ‘Jew’ is now quite common in anti-Semitic literature, whether done subtly as, by Professor Butz, and the modern Eric Butler, or crudely as in the old Eric Butler; or in modern neo-Nazi publications such as the newspaper ‘Attack’ which is freely distributed without legal interference in Australia.

This common use of the term ‘Zionist’, has been used, for example in ‘The Australian League of Rights’, (9) by Andrew Campbell, an intelligence officer in the ‘Civil Service’, to suggest that left wing anti-Zionism is strikingly similar to the anti-Semitic views of the League of Rights. In fact some of Eric Butler’s material is strikingly similar, for the simple reason that it is copied directly from anti-Zionist publications, even to the point of enthusiastically endorsing the views of anti-Zionist Jews. No doubt our evidence at this inquiry will also be used by Eric Butler in that way, but this cannot be helped.

The point is that if one wants to discredit Jews as an ethnic group, it makes a good deal of sense to talk about Zionism and the savage atrocities it has committed, just as it would make sense to talk about Nazism if one wished to discredit Germans.

An examination of League of Rights publications shows quite clearly that there is no flow of anti-Semitic ideas into genuine anti-Zionist material, but simply an adoption of some anti-Zionist arguments by anti-Semites. There is a flow the other way in some propaganda from the more reactionary Arab governments a decade or so ago. We have included in our evidence a sample from Israel’s good friend of today, the Egyptian Government, in order to highlight the contrast between this sort of material and the purely anti-Zionist, not antiSemitic material published by the Palestinian liberation forces and used in 3CR broadcasts.

Nevertheless, considerable emphasis has been given in Zionist propaganda, to the existence of such Arab anti-Semitic literature, even years after it stopped coming out. For example see Isi Liebler’s book The Case for Israel, which is virtually a text book at Mount Scopus College. (10)

This does create an atmosphere in which broadcasts apparently attacking ‘Zionists’ rather than ‘Jews’ will be viewed with some suspicion, rather than simply being taken at face value, within the Jewish community. It would not be surprising if some anti-Semites did try to attach themselves to genuine anti-Zionist activities as an opportunity to have a go at Jews, just as anti-Catholics may have tended to line up with the left-wing of the Australian Labour Party (ALP) in the 1955 split.

In fact no such tendency has been observed in Australia to our knowledge, and it would not be tolerated if it ever did emerge. On the contrary, it has always been noticeable that people with anti-Semitic inclinations have tended to favour Zionism, which confirms their prejudice that Jews are somehow alien ‘to Australia and belong elsewhere. Mr. B.H. for example, reflected a much more anti-Semitic attitude than is common in Australia, when as a child he got into a fight with another school student simply because the latter was Jewish, and he also reflects a much more pro-Zionist attitude than is common in Australia. He has admitted publicly that his earlier anti-Semitism is connected with his later pro-Zionism. But most Australians who are not particularly interested in bashing Jewish school students are not particularly interested in sponsoring
Jewish emigration to the State of Israel either.

Another factor relevant to Jewish reactions to 3CR is widespread concern within the Jewish community about allegedly ‘anti-Zionist’ campaigns in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe which appear to have little to do with Middle East politics and have been characterized as essentially anti-Semitic. Despite 3CR’s exclusion of the Australia Soviet Friendship Society in the same way that it excludes ‘Paths to Peace’, there is a lot of Zionist propaganda within the Jewish community about a sort of ‘Soviet, Arab, Left-Wing Conspiracy’, rather like the ‘International Zionist, Communist Conspiracy’. This lends plausibility to Zionist efforts to picture attacks on Zionism in 3CR broadcasts as a form of anti-Semitism similar to the ‘anti-Zionist’ campaigns of Eastern Europe.

In fact, anti-Semitic use of the term ‘Zionist’ as a code word for ‘Jew’, has nothing whatever in common with the correct use of this term on 3CR programs dealing with the activities of the State of Israel, and its supporters in Australia, just as normal references to ‘Nazism’ on 3CR and in other media has nothing to do with anti-German hate propaganda.

‘Zionism’, and ‘Zionist’ are simply the only correct terms that can be used in the context 3CR programs use them, and they cannot be avoided simply because anti-Semites also use these terms in a quite different way. All 3CR programs can do about it is repeatedly state that they do not mean ‘Jews’, or ‘Judaism’, which is precisely what those programs do in fact repeatedly say.

6 Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Historical Review Press, Warwickshire, 1976.
7 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an anti-Semitic tract falsely purporting to uncover an international Jewish conspiracy aimed at world power. It was written in the 1890s by an agent of the Russian secret police.
8 Eric D. Butler, The International Jew: The truth about the Protocols of Zion, Adelaide, New Times, 1947.

9 Andrew Campbell, The Australian League of Rights, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1978. 10 Isi Leibler, The Case for Israel, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Melbourne, 1972.

How Zionists stir up hostility to 3CR
The whole difficulty is that this situation is being deliberately exploited by Zionists, who themselves believe that a Jew is or ought to be automatically a Zionist, and who repeatedly confuse the issue by spreading deliberate lies within the Jewish community, saying that this is also the way 3CR programs use the term Zionist. The responsibility for that clearly lies with the people who are doing it, not with 3CR.
Indeed, there is a problem that 3CR broadcasters tend to bend over backwards not to talk about Jews at all when it would be perfectly legitimate to discuss the fact that most Jews tend to be strongly pro-Israel, and to discuss the influence of the Jewish community in Australia, as an important factor biasing public debate against the Palestinian viewpoint.

The distinction between ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’ is perfectly clear when the pro-Palestinian broadcasts talk about Zionism in connection with the activities of the state of Israel and its supporters in Australia, while anti-Semites also talk about Zionism in connection with the fluoridation of water supplies and other related matters.

The distinction is also clear when pro-Palestinian broadcasts talk about the pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian bias of the media in Australia and the various attempts by Zionists to manipulate and control the public debate on Palestine. Nevertheless, this does leave the way open for Zionists to pick isolated phrases out of context and misrepresent the situation to the Jewish community as though 3CR programs were referring to the familiar anti-Semitic fantasies about ‘Jewish owned press’ etc.

This does stimulate some reaction against 3CR, but not a great deal because most people, whether Jewish or not, have at least heard of allegations about the pro-Israeli bias of the media and can understand the distinction between this question and fantasies about ‘Jewish ownership’. Thus, when Rabbi Levi points, out that ‘not one Jew owns or controls a daily newspaper or TV or radio station in Australia’, most people hearing him, are not likely to take it for granted that this is really a refutation of anything said on 3CR.

But when 3CR programs talk about ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration’ during the Holocaust, they are NOT using the term ‘Zionist’ in a similar context to its use in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories well known within the Jewish community, and in a context which has nothing directly to do with the Palestine question, but, which is well known to be a common theme in the propaganda of the Soviet Union, a country whose policies are now widely believed to be anti-Semitic.

Since most people, whether Jewish or not, have never even heard of accusations that there was collaboration between Nazis and Zionists during the Holocaust, except in the context of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or Soviet propaganda, this is a situation where people are far more likely to readily accept that 3CR programs are saying what Zionists claim they are saying, and it is an almost ideal situation for Zionists to exploit.

Naturally Zionists do not wish to have to actually answer accusations of collaboration, and have in fact scrupulously avoided doing so – preferring to set up the ‘expert witness’ Dr. Foster as fall guy instead. They have every reason to wish to create confusion as to what allegations have actually been made on 3CR, and have done so in their usual expert way by quoting isolated accusations without quoting
the supporting evidence. Not only have Zionists managed to create a widespread impression that 3CR
is in some way associated with the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of Professor Butz, in a way documented in Nation Review of 7 June, but within the Jewish community at least, Zionists have been able to create an impression that 3CR is in some way associated with the theories of Eric Butler.

What is really striking however, is that it is the very people who have been quite deliberately confusing this issue in order to stir up hostility within the Jewish community, who now appear before the Broadcasting Tribunal claiming to be offended! Moreover, they are ‘offended’ mainly by broadcasts which have quite clearly been made in direct response to a debate provoked by them, and which are
mainly angry responses to the vicious accusations of anti-Semitism that have constantly been made.
Thus, when Rabbi Levi says, ‘the anti-Semitic content of the 3CR programme has included the theory that the Jews murdered themselves in World War Two’, he is not commenting on the content of 3CR programs, as can be seen from the transcripts, but is simply repeating what he has been telling members of the Jewish community over and over again.

When such lies, supported by quotations taken out of context are circulated widely within the Jewish community over a long period of time, it is not surprising that they can provoke some real indignation which would never have resulted from the actual broadcasts themselves.

Zionists may not be quite as respected within the Jewish community as they like to think they are, but when they loudly and repeatedly claim that 3CR programs are ‘exterminatory anti-Semitism, similar to Nazi propaganda during the holocaust’, that the Station ‘spews forth anti-Semitic material’, and has a ‘ban on Jewish groups affiliating’ and so on; and when these claims are taken up in the national press, people in the Jewish community, like most others, will not readily assume that those making these statements are simply telling breathtaking lies.

We have submitted as evidence some genuine examples of Nazi propaganda and other examples of what Rabbi Levi calls ‘exterminatory anti-Semitism’ so that the Tribunal can see for itself just how much truth there is in his accusations. The extreme viciousness of this accusation may also help the Tribunal to
understand why some 3CR broadcasters have been provoked, unwisely perhaps, into replying with such terms of abuse as ‘lying Zionist’ etc.

How Zionist Misrepresentation of 3CR Can Be Effective
Our main point is that these accusations of Rabbi Levi and company go far to explain whatever hostility there is towards 3CR within the Jewish community. The plain fact is that Rabbi Levi and company have a very much wider audience within the Jewish community than 3CR does, and most people who have heard the accusations against 3CR and signed petitions etc have never even heard the allegedly offensive programs.

Repeated and well advertised statements that 3CR continually ‘spews forth’ anti-Semitic material will not be taken literally by most Jews, any more than it will by most other Australians. But there are substantial numbers of Jewish people in Melbourne, as Mr. Bloch, Rabbi Levi, Rabbi Gutnick, Sam Lipski and company well know, who have lived through a time when radio stations and newspapers really did spew forth
such material, and who will not take such accusations with the necessary grain of salt and will not feel particularly inclined to tune into the station to check it out.

Quite a few such people do not speak English as a first language and are doubly vulnerable to this kind of cynical political manipulation. On tuning in to a pro-Palestinian 3CR program and finding that it does attack ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionists’ in a very hostile and uncompromising way, which unfortunately is sometimes not very sophisticated or persuasive, and is always totally opposed to the thoughts and feelings towards Israel of the large majority of Jews in Melbourne, it is not surprising if many Jewish people in Melbourne assume that they are not being lied to by messieurs Bloch, Levi, Gutnick, Lipski
and company, and that other broadcasts they have not actually heard really do contain the juicy anti-Semitic sentiments they allege.

Since many people cannot distinguish clearly between being strongly opposed to the views someone else is expressing, and being personally insulted and offended by something ‘offensive’, it is really rather surprising that the campaign by Rabbi Levi and company, the ‘well orchestrated campaign’ described by Mr. Bloch, has not been more successful.

Some insight into the way indignation can be provoked by a dishonest campaign of this sort is provided by the evidence of Kim Beazley, of Perth, (Update-2005-leader of the ALP opposition) who would presumably be reliant on the VJBD rather than a radio receiver, for information as to what 3CR broadcasts in Melbourne have been saying, (from some 4500 km away).
According to Mr. Beazley:
‘By the strange perversion of fact which makes the station suggest that Hitler was an instrument of Zionism they would logically have to suggest Arab governments were instruments of Zionism, if persecutions and expulsions are Zionist strategy. With a twisting of fact which is purely startling, they turn the undoubted fact that persecution of Jews has built up the migration flow to Israel into a plot by the persecuted, as if they were responsible for their own persecution.’

Of course, no 3CR program has ever suggested that Hitler was an instrument of Zionism, just as there has been no claim that Zionists welcomed the Holocaust, let alone organized it. That Mr. Beazley should believe these are issues raised by 3CR is testimony to the efficiency of the Zionist propaganda machine rather than the transmitting power of that radio station. Mr. Beazley, may be pleased to note however that Palestinian supporters have denounced reactionary Arab governments for persecuting and expelling Jews, pointing out that this does aid Zionism and has been actively promoted by Zionists.

Let us get it quite clear. The accusation that has been made in some 3CR programs is that some Zionists, including the top Zionist leadership, actively collaborated with the Nazis even to the point of assisting them to exterminate European Jewry. That is a very strong accusation and there is no need to confuse it
with any stronger ones.

****************

Gaza – posturing won’t help

Posted on November 24, 2023 by Arthur

A “Joint statement by Palestine activist groups in Australia” says two things clearly:

A temporary ceasefire is no solution.
Our protests will continue.

Having said the blindingly obvious, it offers no strategy and no proposal to discuss having a strategy.

Instead it claims that:

Our demands are clear:

Israel must end its Genocide in Gaza, stop the bombing, withdraw from the strip and lift the siege.
Israel must release all Palestinian political prisoners.
Israel must end the occupation of all Palestinian territory.
Palestinian refugees must have the right to return to their homeland.
The Australian government should cut off all political, economic and military ties with Israel until these demands are fulfilled.

Ok, at least “Stop the Genocide in Gaza” is a step beyond the previous inspirational posturing:

Ceasefire now!

End US military aid to Israel!

Build an international movement to end the occupation!

But there really isn’t time to wait for people who think such “demands” are “clear” to get to the point of even being able to participate in discussion about strategy.

Only item 5 could conceivably be imagined to be relevant to actually changing reality.

In principle, Australia joining the boycotts etc that have produced so little results for so many decades could eventually contribute to adding some real pressure that results in some actual change.

But does anyone seriously suggest that such long term pressure will make much difference to the catastrophe unfolding right now that has resulted in such a large protest movement?

Items 1 to 4 don’t even pretend to be anything more than posturing.

What is to be Done?

Admit we have not got a strategy.
Open serious discussions on policy and tactics at every protest and other activity.
Exchange written proposals and circulate them widely.
Pay more attention to proposals you don’t agree with than to your own. Take other ideas seriously.

I don’t agree with the 5 demands and am taking them seriously by responding.

What are we up against?

There is no point addressing “demands” to either Israel or the USA. They are the enemy. We are looking for ways to prevent them doing what they are doing.

Protests are intended to result in action that effectively prevents what would otherwise happen and results in something better happening instead.

That should not need saying. It is taken for granted by anybody joining in. Unfortunately it isn’t the way some “veterans” of protest movements think. Some of them don’t see a connection between protesting and winning, so they just posture.

There are several possible outcomes that Australian protests, as part of a global movement could help prevent:

Genocide. As documented in links at end of this article, experts who do not use that word lightly believe the loud expressions of genocidal intent could become actual genocide. The destruction of Gaza’s hospitals and health system has already made it difficult to update the death toll. Many more than the 14,000 listed deaths could be under the rubble. It would not take long for Israel to kill 10% of the 2.2 million population if they decide to do so and there is no force in place ready to actually stop them.
Ethnic cleansing. This is now openly advocated by much of the current Israeli government – for Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Arab citizens of Israel. The most serious danger is in Gaza where the population forced south could now be forced into Egypt. The danger of Genocide arises primarily in the course of the measures that might be taken to force expulsion.
Months, not weeks of mass murder. That is the publicly declared policy which may or may not slide innto Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide. It is clearly explained by former US Centcom commander General Petraeus and confirmed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu backed by US President Biden:

US General Petraeus: Israel’s war on Gaza to last for ‘months, not weeks’

Former CIA Director David Petraeus says Israel will resume the war on Gaza if it doesn’t want Hamas to rebuild itself.

Israel has not explained what it seeks to accomplish in its war on Gaza beyond the destruction of Hamas, according to US General David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Petraeus tells host Steve Clemons that the US has no choice but to remain a “steadfast ally” of Israel, lest China and other countries point to Washington’s abandonment of its friends.

In this wide-ranging conversation, the former CENTCOM commander added that “there are no hands going up in the region” to volunteer to manage Gaza after the war.

Who will manage Gaza after the war?

Even if we complacently assume that “pressure” from the global protest movement will “somehow” prevent the current catastrophe sliding into Ethnic cleansing, Genocide or a wider regional war there is simply no reason to expect that “protests” will prevent Israel, backed by the USA, from continuing the slaughter in Gaza for “months, not weeks”.

Ending the slaughter requires that somebody capable of providing an interim government of Gaza volunteers to do so. Israeli and US waffle about the Palestinian Authority or Arab governments or anybody “in the region” doing so are just to shift the blame. There is no such possibility.

Likewise Hamas and its allies are not going to be capable of governing Gaza.

Only an interim authority from outside the region that has no interest at all in remaining there could credibly govern while Gaza recovers. The humanitarian aid that is being mobilized needs such a government to replace the Israeli occupation force. Otherwise it will be compelled to act subject to directions from the Israeli occupying force whether on orders from occupiers outside the strip or within it.

So any strategy to actually stop the current catastrophe has to include a strategy for persuading somebody to volunteer for the job of interim government of Gaza.

Empty posturing will not persuade anybody to take on that job.

My tentative view on who could do it and how pressure from the protest movement could be effective is explained in the previous two posts:

Gaza – Send Lawyers, Guns and Money – the shit has hit the fan

Gaza – act now!

Briefly:

Only the EU has the resources to do it, whether or not the USA vetoes a UN Security Council resolution to “authorize” it.
Demands, denunciations and UN General Assembly resolutions cannot compel them to do it. They need to understand that it is in their own interest to volunteer.
They know that only a well armed force could exercise a “Responsibility to Protect” in Gaza. Israeli armed forces will give orders to anybody that does not arrive well armed and they will have no choice but to act according to those orders.
The only EU member with an expeditionary capability that could be mobilized rapidly to the Eastern Mediterranean to break the blockade by sea is France.
But non-EU members Britain and Turkey also have serious deployment capabilities that could form a joint military escort for the necessary humanitarian intervention.

Is it possible?

Not if there is no movement fighting for it.

Has anybody got a proposal that offers better prospects?

How could the protest movement contribute?

My suggestion is that instead of pointless “demands” we should have a very clear focus on ending Israel’s sense of impunity and highlighting the positive international duty to intervene.

In Australia’s case the biggest contribution the Australian government could be compelled by public opinion to make would be to actually let charges of crimes against humanity proceed in Australian law courts.

Along with other countries generally friendly to Israel that could have a real impact in speeding up an EU decision to do what must be done.

An inability to even prosecute implies an inability to do anything else. There is no point asking a government that won’t even prosecute crimes against humanity to do anything more serious to prevent them.

Gaza – act now!

Posted on November 23, 2023 by Arthur

Türkiye hosting Eastern Mediterranean-2023 Invitation Naval Exercise

Week-long naval exercise aims to assess operational capabilities of Turkish Navy, civilians teams, NATO units, other nations, says Turkish colonel

Esra Tekin |19.11.2023 – Update : 19.11.2023

MUGLA, Türkiye

The Eastern Mediterranean-2023 Invitation Naval Exercise organized by the Turkish Navy, began in the Eastern Mediterranean, hosted by Türkiye.

Ships, personnel, and observers from nine countries participate in the naval exercise that began Saturday.

A briefing was provided to observers and press members on the Turkish landing ship TCG Sancaktar anchored at Aksaz Naval Base in the Marmaris district of the country’s Mugla province.

Rear Adm. Huseyin Tigli, the fleet commander, recalled devastating earthquakes that hit southern Türkiye earlier this year, underlining that the exercise would involve training and execution in search and rescue missions and the transportation of humanitarian aid.

Tigli also pointed out that the TCG Anadolu would play an active role in the exercise.

Turkish Col. Osman Diler also spoke during the briefing about the definition, participants, and objectives of the exercise.

Diler said Eastern Mediterranean-2023 would continue in the Eastern Mediterranean until Nov. 25 under the command of Türkiye Navy.

He emphasized that the drill aimed to simultaneously assess operational capabilities in the Turkish Naval Forces, as well as civilian and public institutions, NATO’s Permanent Task Force units, and other countries under the command of the Turkish Maritime Force (TURMARFOR) Headquarters.

Diler also said that the naval exercise, planned in accordance with NATO Exercise Planning Procedures, would be directed and managed by a 115-person Exercise Command Center at the Naval Warfare Center.

“NATO Standing Mine Countermeasures Group 2 (SNMCMG-2) elements will also participate in the exercise,” he said, adding that Türkiye’s participating forces would include 24 ships, 10 helicopters, five unmanned aerial vehicles, three maritime patrol aircraft, and four submarines.

Türkiye will also be fielding a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defense team, as well as two submarine defense teams, an amphibious marine infantry battalion, three submarine attack teams, three army helicopters, three airborne early warning and control aircraft, 20 F-16 jets, and coast guard boats.

The country’s Interior Ministry, Health Ministry, Transport and Infrastructure Ministry, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, and the Turkish Red Crescent, will also be attending, he added.

Diler explained that the exercise scenario consisted of main and secondary events, including asymmetric threats, CBRN, regional maritime control, evacuation of non-combatants, humanitarian aid, natural disaster support, maritime piracy, and collaboration and guidance activities for maritime transport.

“From Nov. 19 to Nov. 21, training for asymmetric threat, photex, surface gunfire, land bombardment, surface warfare, submarine warfare, mine countermeasure operations, amphibious operations, and search and rescue, including actual live-fire exercises, will be conducted,” he further said.

Diler added that following the preparation training, from Nov. 21 to Nov. 23, a free-play phase would take place in the Eastern Mediterranean, including scenarios for humanitarian aid and natural disaster support.

*Writing by Esra Tekin in Ankara

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkiye/turkiye-hosting-eastern-mediterranean-2023-invitation-naval-exercise/3058764

Also here:

https://www.trtworld.com/turkiye/turkish-navy-hosts-eastern-mediterranean-2023-invitation-naval-exercise-15893190

ANKARA, Oct 19 (Reuters) – U.S. officials told their Turkish counterparts that aircraft carriers moved closer to Israel in the eastern Mediterranean were sent there for the possible evacuation of civilians, a Turkish defence ministry official said on Thursday.

The U.S. has deployed two aircraft carriers – and their support ships – to the eastern Mediterranean since a surprise attack by Hamas militants on Israel this month.

President Tayyip Erdogan criticised the U.S. for the move, saying that they would commit “serious massacres” in Gaza.

He also said the deployment of U.S. aircraft carriers to the region hindered Turkish efforts to establish calm in the region.

“When we raise this issue with our U.S. counterparts, they tell us that those aircraft carrier groups were sent there as part of non-combatant evacuation operations for civilians in the region,” a Turkish defence ministry official told reporters.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken earlier said that the deployment of aircraft carrier battle groups to the region was “not meant as a provocation, it’s meant as a deterrent”.

Reporting by Huseyin Hayatsever; Editing by Daren Butler and Nick Macfie

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aircraft-carriers-sent-near-israel-possible-evacuations-us-tells-turkey-official-2023-10-19/

1,000 boats said set to leave Turkey for Gaza waters in new ‘Freedom Flotilla’

Reminiscent of infamous 2010 Mavi Marmara protest, large maritime convoy plans to remain in international waters off Ashdod and disrupt sea trade route to Israel

By Gianluca Pacchiani 21 November 2023, 1:07 am

Approximately 1,000 boats will gather in Turkey on Wednesday before heading toward Gaza in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade and disrupt maritime trade coming into Israel during the war with Hamas, in an apparent repeat of similar attempts from over a decade ago.

In an interview with Turkish news website Haber7, Volkan Okçu, one of the organizers of the protest, indicated the boats will carry 4,500 people from 40 countries, “including anti-Zionist Jews.”

…

However, Okçu said in a later tweet that he expected the number of Turkish vessels to be much higher, at least 1,000, and insisted that the initiative is not associated with the Turkish government. He did not explain the discrepancy in numbers.

The activist indicated to Haber7 that the flotilla is scheduled to leave Turkish coasts on Thursday. The maritime convoy is set to make a first stop in Cyprus before continuing toward the Israeli port of Ashdod. Some participants in the flotilla will also reportedly take their spouses and children on board.

…

https://www.timesofisrael.com/1000-boats-said-set-to-leave-turkey-for-gaza-waters-in-new-freedom-flotilla/

A couple of weeks have passed since the conference described below. Events are moving very rapidly.

The agreement to exchange women and children prisoners could result in far more people in Israel understanding that “all for all” is a realistic possibility and insisting on the government accepting it.

But what happens afterwards? There is a fork in the road.

Israel could just withdraw, but not without exacting more revenge first.

Or Israel could continue to expel the Palestinians already forced into Gaza and recently driven from Gaza city in the north to the south further into Egypt and could step up the same process of expulsion in the West Bank that is already being accelerated.

Or it could shift from direct and public incitement of genocide to actual genocide.

Many possibilities are open. But the only sane outcome requires the presence of a large international armed force.

Humanitarian relief requires a functioning government with armed forces that Israel stops bombing. It is still not clear whether anybody will actually take responsibility for governing Gaza.

Or will they just hold war crimes trials afterwards?

Maritime corridor, floating hospitals for Gaza in focus at Paris conference

By Michele Kambas, John Irish and Gabriela Baczynska

November 8, 20232:00 AM GMT+11Updated 15 days ago

Summary

*About 80 countries, organisations invited to Paris Gaza meeting on Nov. 9
* Aim to co-ordinate aid, help for besieged enclave
* Cyprus proposes maritime corridor to get aid into Gaza
* France sees opportunity for naval ships off Gaza coast

NICOSIA/PARIS/BRUSSELS, Nov 7 (Reuters) – World powers meet in Paris on Thursday to coordinate aid and help for the wounded in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, with the possible creation of a maritime corridor, naval medical facilities and field hospitals to be considered, European diplomats said.

A month after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas Islamists that killed 1,400 people in Israel, concern is growing over civilian casualties that have soared under Israel’s retaliatory bombardments, with more than 10,000 Palestinians killed, and many more wounded and forced to flee their homes.

The conference brings together regional stakeholders such as Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf Arab countries as well as Western powers and G20 members – excluding Russia. International institutions and non-governmental organisations operating in Gaza are also due to attend.

The Palestinian Authority will be present but Israel has not been invited, although it will be kept informed of the developments.

The broad aim is to mobilise financial resources and find ways to get aid into the enclave, while also getting those seriously wounded out given Gaza’s medical infrastructure is fast collapsing.

Cyprus, the closest EU member state to Gaza, has put forward an idea to get more aid into Gaza via a maritime corridor.

It would expand the limited capacities beyond the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, but the concept is tricky, four diplomats said.

Israeli officials would also want to check all goods coming from Limassol port in Cyprus, the diplomats said.

Who would receive the aid would also need to be clarified as there are concerns it could fall into Hamas’ hands, two diplomats said. Israel would also want to vet what aid was going into Gaza and opposes supplying badly-needed fuel to the enclave, they said.

There are also technical issues. Port infrastructure off Gaza was started in 2016, but has since been abandoned.

“Gaza doesn’t have a harbour fit for such purpose,” said a senior EU official. “It would require building a floating marina by a country with proper navy experience.”

Should it even go ahead, the mission’s safety would need to be ensured and would be likely to need a pause in fighting.

FLOATING HOSPITALS

On top of the Cypriot proposal, diplomats said France has also suggested taking the idea further and expanding the corridor to evacuating people who are severely wounded onto hospital ships in the Mediterranean off the coast of Gaza.

French officials have said they are discussing the issue with Israeli and Egyptian authorities, but the idea would be to get critical masse from several countries willing to send ships with the necessary medical capacity.

Paris is preparing a helicopter carrier for that purpose including beds, surgical capacities, medication and personnel. It is not expected in the region for another 10 days.

“Regarding the humanitarian corridor with France, there is an idea to bring a ship with some medical capabilities.” Col. Elad Goren, head of Israel’s Civil Department of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), told reporters on Tuesday.

“We are working with the French and with the Egyptians in order to try to build up a mechanism to evacuate wounded people, but it’s still ongoing.”

In a letter sent to European counterparts on Nov. 3, Italy’s defence minister has also said his country is ready to send a ship equipped with an intensive care ward and surgical capacities as soon as possible, two diplomats said.

“But the question is how you would get evacuated from land to ships?” said one of the diplomats. “On the ground first through Egypt or Israel? Directly from Gaza by sea? It’s very complex.”

Either way, three diplomats said that hospital ships were essentially only a temporary solution and that the aim would be to eventually set up field hospitals either close to the border in Gaza or on the Egyptian side.

“The Egyptians do not want multiple field hospitals on their side because it could be used as a pretext to push the Palestinians into the Sinai,” said one diplomat.

Additional reporting by Jonathan Saul in Jerusalem; Writing by John Irish; Editing by Angus MacSwan

A conference to which Israel was not invited was a necessary first step. But two weeks later the medical system in Gaza cannot even keep track of the numbers of deaths.

It would be nonsensical to keep pretending that humanitarian aid can operate along with Israeli occupation and bombing. The “Responsibility to Protect” requires an armed force able to provide an interim government for a “Failed State”. As soon as governments are actually willing to take that responsibility they should of course inform the Israeli government so that it has an adequate opportunity to claim victory and get out.

But they have to offer protection. Not just “aid”.

The first step in making it clear that the responsibility is accepted and draw a sharp line as to who is governing Gaza is to indict those responsible for “crimes against humanity” that have made it necessary to send an armed force capable of protecting the civilian population against further such crimes.

Responsibility to Protect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml

What is R2P?

Gaza – Send Lawyers, Guns and Money – the shit has hit the fan

Posted on November 18, 2023 by Arthur

The fan is rotating rapidly and the shit is spreading fast. Old policies have collapsed and policy makers are still talking incoherent nonsense.

Events are moving too rapidly to keep up and I need to catch up before keeping up.

But here’s a quick preview of my tentative opinions on what must be done, right now.

Somebody has to run Gaza, not just for humanitarian relief, but exercising a “Responsibility To Protect” in what is currently a “Failed State”.
Whoever does take responsibility will need both money and guns. Lots of money and lots of guns.
The only plausible candidate is the European Union, and in particular the two former colonial powers that still have a military capability to launch an expeditionary force and govern an interim civil administration in a foreign country – France and Britain.
They will need to use their navies to break the blockade of Gaza and protect humanitarian workers entering both by sea and by land from Egypt. The Gaza coast does not have adequate ports so floating docks will need to be used. They are not going to fight their way in against Israel. So it has to be from the coast and from Egypt. It is up to the fascist regime in Egypt and the ultra-Zionist apartheid regime occupying Palestine whether they want to fight the military escorts of a humanitarian relief intervention.
Both Egypt and Israel have blockaded unarmed relief convoys. That is a war crime and a crime against humanity. There is no point negotiating with the war criminals. Dealing with it requires a well armed escort. Those forces must be assembled now and must be sufficiently large that their opponents choose to just complain instead of fighting.
The costs will have to be shared widely. Negotiations about that will take time. So Britain and France are stuck with having to act immediately and collect compensation later. Delay will cost each of them more as well as costing the rest of the world more.
They are currently bogged down in negotiations with other countries that are basically irrelevant. Whatever discussions are held with the US and Israel may or may not eventually prove useful but obviously cannot speed up assembling a functional intervention force. Likewise for Egypt and other Arab states.
A short, sharp decision is required to break through the fog and make it clear to the world that the cavalry is actually on the way.

Lawyers?

Not my preference for making things happen quickly. But necessary in the current confusion.
The UN and EU will be central to long term funding and progress from the interim administration of Gaza towards a democratic administration of both Gaza and the West bank and later, for long term solutions affecting the entire region. France and Britain will require a legal framework for their operations.
But instead of delaying things while sorting out the legalities, lawyers should be used to cut through the confusion.

Indict the war criminals NOW

The systematic mass slaughter of civilians is not just a “war crime” it is also a “crime against humanity”. That is a legal term of art which confers “Universal Jurisdiction”. The domestic courts of any country can exercise jurisdiction to prevent and punish such crimes, without regard to the territory or nationality of either the victims or perpetrators.
Lawyers in countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Spain could file charges within days. Getting to trial could take years. But the charges could and should be filed NOW.
Charging both the leadership of Hamas and the Israeli war cabinet with the notorious war crimes the whole world knows they have flagrantly committed could cut through the confusion.
While Britain and France get on with interim administration and protection of Gaza from both lots of war criminals, people delaying things with “noise” about who started it and elaborate explanations of why the mass slaughter of civilians is justified can just be told to submit their arguments to the courts that are trying the cases against the people they are defending.

As background information for above I am relying heavily on the following source, which I strongly recommend to others and should already be familiar to Australian journalists:

For a more balanced approach and some light relief, here’s some arguments for the defendants.

Excerpt from CNN interview of US National Security Advisor 17:50-25:35

Here’s former Hamas leader Khaled Mashal interviewed in Qatar October 19, by Al-Arabiya TV host Rasha Nabil.

For deeper analysis and an understanding of how rapidly and deeply public opinion has already shifted I strongly recommend this long interview with a former Israeli Government negotiator, Daniel Levy:

Cut through the waffle

There is no obligation to condemn either side for anything. Such arguments only delay carrying out the clear obligations every country is under.

The obligation is to prevent and punish. That requires armed intervention NOW.

The defences must be heard at fair trials – after the crime has been stopped. The charges must be laid immediately to speed up stopping the crime. The shouting merely confirms there is a case to be tried.

Enough with the wimpy calls for a ceasefire.

Protests must explicitly demand armed intervention. The charges must be filed now to speed that up.

Here’s the Palestinian response to the UN Security Council’s pathetic resolution, pointing out that Israel Foreign Ministry had immediately announced it would not comply anyway:

At end, 1h18’40” of 1hr35’21” full session of doing nothing much

More legal background:

GENEVA (16 November 2023) – Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation”, loud calls for a ‘second Nakba’ in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.

Statement from UN rapporteurs warning risk of genocide requires immediate prevention – November 16

Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC from Cairo on the situation in the State of Palestine and Israel | International Criminal Court – October 30

1948 Convention imposing duty to intervene and prevent genocide in force as international law binding on all States since 1951

Article I The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article III The following acts shall be punishable:

( a ) Genocide;

( b ) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

( c ) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

( d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

( e ) Complicity in genocide.

Article III ( c ) is key to the obligation to prevent, by imposing punishment before the direct public incitement becomes an actual attempt.

Any competent criminal lawyer should be able to collate the direct and public statements by Israeli cabinet ministers and military commanders that are punishable by the courts of any country. Their consuls and other representatives abroad may be more cautious in their language but that should be carefully checked. There is no diplomatic immunity from charges under the Genocide Convention.

I think it is likely the trials would be transferred to the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute

But the charges should be filed in local courts of as many countries as possible, NOW.

While falling short of genocide, the existing levels of systematic mass slaughter of civilians and other crimes are also sufficient to invoke “universal jurisdiction” as “crimes against humanity”.

Charging both sides immediately could significantly speed up the necessary and inevitable intervention.

In Australia the Criminal Code Act 1995 confers external jurisdiction for “Offences against humanity and related offences” in Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code (in Volume 2), especially Division 268.

Actual prosecution in Australia requires a decision by the Attorney-General:

268.121 ( c ) However, a person may be arrested, charged, remanded in custody, or released on bail, in connection with an offence under this Division before the necessary consent has been given.

If the Attorney-General gets in the way of complying with Australia’s obligations under international law, the rather limp attempt at a privation clause in s268.122 to exclude judicial review would not inhibit the:

Original jurisdiction of High Court

In all matters:

arising under any treaty;

affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;

Constitution of Australia, s75

The Westminster Declaration – struggle for free speech against censorship

Posted on October 20, 2023 by c21styork

The Westminster Declaration

We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms.

Coming from the left, right, and centre, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms.

This abuse of these terms has resulted in the censorship of ordinary people, journalists, and dissidents in countries all over the world.

Such interference with the right to free speech suppresses valid discussion about matters of urgent public interest, and undermines the foundational principles of representative democracy.

Across the globe, government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. These large-scale coordinated efforts are sometimes referred to as the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’

This complex often operates through direct government policies. Authorities in India[1] and Turkey[2] have seized the power to remove political content from social media. The legislature in Germany[3] and the Supreme Court in Brazil[4] are criminalising political speech. In other countries, measures such as Ireland’s ‘Hate Speech’ Bill[5], Scotland’s Hate Crime Act[6], the UK’s Online Safety Bill[7], and Australia’s ‘Misinformation’ Bill[8] threaten to severely restrict expression and create a chilling effect.

But the Censorship Industrial Complex operates through more subtle methods. These include visibility filtering, labelling, and manipulation of search engine results. Through deplatforming and flagging, social media censors have already silenced lawful opinions on topics of national and geopolitical importance. They have done so with the full support of ‘disinformation experts’ and ‘fact-checkers’ in the mainstream media, who have abandoned the journalistic values of debate and intellectual inquiry.

As the Twitter Files revealed, tech companies often perform censorial ‘content moderation’ in coordination with government agencies and civil society. Soon, the European Union’s Digital Services Act will formalise this relationship by giving platform data to ‘vetted researchers’ from NGOs and academia, relegating our speech rights to the discretion of these unelected and unaccountable entities.

Some politicians and NGOs[9] are even aiming to target end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.[10] If end-to-end encryption is broken, we will have no remaining avenues for authentic private conversations in the digital sphere.

Although foreign disinformation between states is a real issue, agencies designed to combat these threats, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States, are increasingly being turned inward against the public. Under the guise of preventing harm and protecting truth, speech is being treated as a permitted activity rather than an inalienable right.

We recognize that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship. Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.

Speech protections are not just for views we agree with; we must strenuously protect speech for the views that we most strongly oppose. Only in the public square can these views be heard and properly challenged.

What’s more, time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom. By labelling certain political or scientific positions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’ our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defence against disinformation.

The attack on speech is not just about distorted rules and regulations – it is a crisis of humanity itself. Every equality and justice campaign in history has relied on an open forum to voice dissent. In countless examples, including the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, social progress has depended on freedom of expression.

We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds. We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly – a world that the founders of our democracies envisioned when they enshrined free speech into our laws and constitutions.

The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law. One need not agree with the U.S. on every issue to acknowledge that this is a vital ‘first liberty’ from which all other liberties follow. It is only through free speech that we can denounce violations of our rights and fight for new freedoms.

There also exists a clear and robust international protection for free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[11] was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II. Article 19 of the UDHR states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression.

As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error.

Censorship in the name of ‘preserving democracy’ inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalization, and de-legitimizes the democratic process.

In the course of human history, attacks on free speech have been a precursor to attacks on all other liberties. Regimes that eroded free speech have always inevitably weakened and damaged other core democratic structures. In the same fashion, the elites that push for censorship today are also undermining democracy. What has changed though, is the broad scale and technological tools through which censorship can be enacted.

We believe that free speech is essential for ensuring our safety from state abuses of power – abuses that have historically posed a far greater threat than the words of lone individuals or even organised groups. For the sake of human welfare and flourishing, we make the following 3 calls to action.

We call on governments and international organisations to fulfill their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.
We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion.
And finally, we call on the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people’s democratic rights. Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many. Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate.

We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all.

Censorship robs us of the richness of life itself. Free speech is the foundation for creating a life of meaning and a thriving humanity – through art, poetry, drama, story, philosophy, song, and more.

This declaration was the result of an initial meeting of free speech champions from around the world who met in Westminster, London, at the end of June 2023. As signatories of this statement, we have fundamental political and ideological disagreements. However, it is only by coming together that we will defeat the encroaching forces of censorship so that we can maintain our ability to openly debate and challenge one another. It is in the spirit of difference and debate that we sign the Westminster Declaration.

Signatories

Matt Taibbi, Journalist, US
Michael Shellenberger, Public, US
Jonathan Haidt, Social Psychologist, NYU, US
John McWhorter, Linguist, Columbia, Author, US
Steven Pinker, Psychologist, Harvard, US
Julian Assange, Editor, Founder of Wikileaks, Australia
Tim Robbins, Actor, Filmmaker, US
Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, NYLS, US
Glenn Loury, Economist, USA
Richard Dawkins, Biologist, UK
John Cleese, Comedian, Acrobat, UK
Slavoj Žižek, Philosopher, Author, Slovenia
Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, US
Oliver Stone, Filmmaker, US
Edward Snowden, Whistleblower, US
Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, USA
Stella Assange, Campaigner, UK
Glenn Greenwald, Journalist, US
Claire Fox, Founder of the Academy of Ideas, UK
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Psychologist, Author, Canada
Bari Weiss, Journalist, USA
Peter Hitchens, Author, Journalist, UK
Niall Ferguson, Historian, Stanford, UK
Matt Ridley, Journalist, Author, UK
Melissa Chen, Journalist, Spectator, Singapore/US
Yanis Varoufakis, Economist, Greece
Peter Boghossian, Philosopher, Founding Faculty Fellow, University of Austin, US
Michael Shermer, Science Writer, US
Alan Sokal, Professor of Mathematics, UCL, UK
Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology, Oxford, UK
Jay Bhattacharya, Professor, Stanford, US
Martin Kulldorf, Professor of Medicine (on leave), Harvard, US
Aaron Kheiriaty, Psychiatrist, Author, USA
Chris Hedges, Journalist, Author, USA
Lee Fang, Independent Journalist, US
Alex Gutentag, Journalist, US
Iain McGilchrist, Psychiatrist, Philosopher, UK
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist, Author, Netherlands
Konstantin Kisin, Author, UK
Leighton Woodhouse, Public, US
Andrew Lowenthal, liber-net, Australia
Aaron Mate, Journalist, USA
Izabella Kaminska, Journalist, The Blind Spot, UK
Nina Power, Writer, UK
Kmele Foster, Journalist, Media Entrepreneur, USA
Toby Young, Journalist, Free Speech Union, UK
Winston Marshall, Journalist, The Spectator, UK
Jacob Siegel, Tablet, US/Israel
Ulrike Guerot, Founder of European Democracy Lab, Germany
Heather E. Heying, Evolutionary Biologist, USA
Bret Weinstein, Evolutionary Biologist, USA
Martina Pastorelli, Independent Journalist, Italy
Leandro Narloch, Independent Journalist, Brazil
Ana Henkel, Independent Journalist, Brazil
Mia Ashton, Journalist, Canada
Micha Narberhaus, The Protopia Lab, Spain/Germany
Alex Sheridan, Free Speech Ireland
Ben Scallan, Gript Media, Ireland
Thomas Fazi, Independent Journalist, Italy
Jean F. Queralt, Technologist, Founder @ The IO Foundation, Malaysia/Spain
Phil Shaw, Campaigner, Operation People, New Zealand
Jeremy Hildreth, Independent, UK
Craig Snider, Independent, US
Eve Kay, TV Producer, UK
Helen Joyce, Journalist, UK
Dietrich Brüggemann, Filmmaker, Germany
Adam B. Coleman, Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing, US
Helen Pluckrose, Author, US
Michael Nayna, Filmmaker, Australia
Paul Rossi, Educator, Vertex Partnership Academics, US
Juan Carlos Girauta, Politician, Spain
Andrew Neish, KC, UK
Steven Berkoff, Actor, Playright, UK
Patrick Hughes, Artist, UK
Adam Creighton, Journalist, Australia
Julia Hartley-Brewer, Journalist, UK
Robert Cibis, Filmmaker, Germany
Piers Robinson, Organization for Propaganda Studies, UK
Dirk Pohlmann, Journalist, Germany
Mathias Bröckers, Author, Journalist, Germany
Kira Phillips, Documentary Filmmaker, UK
Diane Atkinson, Historian, Biographer, UK
Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, Birkbeck, University of Buckingham, Canada
Laura Dodsworth, Journalist and Author, UK
Nellie Bowles, Journalist, USA
Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law, Swansea University, UK
Julius Grower, Fellow, St. Hugh’s College, UK
Nick Dixon, Comedian, UK
Dominic Frisby, Comedian, UK
James Orr, Associate Professor, University of Cambridge, UK
Brendan O’Neill, Journalist, UK
Jan Jekielek, Journalist, Canada
Andrew Roberts, Historian, UK
Robert Tombs, Historian, UK
Ben Schwarz, Journalist, USA
Xavier Azalbert, Investigative Scientific Journalist, France
Doug Stokes, International Relations Professor, University of Exeter, UK
James Allan, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, UK
David McGrogan, Professor of Law, Northumbria University, UK
Jacob Mchangama, Author, Denmark
Nigel Biggar, Chairman, Free Speech Union, UK
David Goodhart, Journalist, Author, UK
Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report, Netherlands
Matt Goodwin, Politics Professor, University of Kent, UK
Alan Miller, Together Association, UK
Catherine Liu, Cultural Theorist, Author, USA
Stefan Millius, Journalist, Switzerland
Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law, Columbia, USA
Rueben Kirkham, Co-Director, Free Speech Union of Australia, Australia
Jeffrey Tucker, Author, USA
Sarah Gon, Director, Free Speech Union, South Africa
Dara Macdonald, Co-Director, Free Speech Union, Australia
Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive, Free Speech Union, New Zealand
David Zweig, Journalist, Author, USA
Juan Soto Ivars, Author, Spain
Colin Wright, Evolutionary Biologist, USA
Gad Saad, Professor, Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist, Author, Canada
Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, USA
Jill Glasspool-Malone, PhD., USA
Jordi Pigem, Philosopher, Author, Spain
Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia
Michele Santoro, Journalist, TV Host, Presenter, Italy
Dr. James Smith, Podcaster, Literature Scholar, RHUL, UK
Francis Foster, Comedian, UK
Coleman Hughes, Writer, Podcaster, USA
Marco Bassani, Political Theorist, Historian, Milan University, Italy
Isabella Loiodice, Professor of Comparative Public Law, University of Bari, Italy
Luca Ricolfi, Professor, Sociologist, Turin University, Italy
Marcello Foa, Journalist, Former President of Rai, Italy
Andrea Zhok, Philosopher, University of Milan, Italy
Paolo Cesaretti, Professor of Byzantine Civilization, University of Bergamo, Italy
Alberto Contri, Mass Media Expert, Italy
Carlo Lottieri, Philosopher, University of Verona, Italy
Alessandro Di Battista, Political Activist, Writer, Italy
Paola Mastrocola, Writer, Italy
Carlo Freccero, Television Author, Media Expert, Italy
Giorgio Bianchi, Independent Journalist, Italy
Nello Preterossi, Professor, University of Salerno, Scientific Director of the Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies, Italy
Efrat Fenigson, Journalist, Podcaster, Israel
Eli Vieira, Journalist, Genetic Biologist, Brazil
Stephen Moore, Author and Analyst, Canada

Footnotes

Pahwa, Nitish. ‘Twitter Blocked a Country.’ Slate Magazine, 1 Apr. 2023, slate.com/technology/2023/04/twitter-blocked-pakistan-india-modi-musk-khalistan-gandhi.html.
Stein, Perry. ‘Twitter Says It Will Restrict Access to Some Tweets before Turkey’s Election.’ The Washington Post, 15 May 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/13/turkey-twitter-musk-erdogan/.
Hänel, Lisa. ‘Germany criminalizes denying war crimes, genocide.’ Deutsche Welle, 25 Nov. 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/germany-criminalizes-denying-war-crimes-genocide/a-63834791
Savarese, Mauricio, and Joshua Goodman. ‘Crusading Judge Tests Boundaries of Free Speech in Brazil.’ AP News, 26 Jan. 2023, apnews.com/article/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-government-af5987e833a681e6f056fe63789ca375.
Nanu, Maighna. ‘Irish People Could Be Jailed for “Hate Speech”, Critics of Proposed Law Warn.’ The Telegraph, 17 June 2023, www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/1 7/irish-people-jailed-hate-speech-new-law/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_psc_ppc_us_news_dsa_generalnews.
The Economist Newspaper. (n.d.). Scotland’s new hate crime act will have a chilling effect on free speech. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/scotlands-new-hate-crime-act-will-have-a-chilling-effect-on-free-speech
Lomas, Natasha. ‘Security Researchers Latest to Blast UK’s Online Safety Bill as Encryption Risk.’ TechCrunch, 5 July 2023, techcrunch.com/2023/07/05/uk-online-safety-bill-risks-e2ee/.
Al-Nashar, Nabil. ‘Millions of Dollars in Fines to Punish Online Misinformation under New Draft Bill.’ ABC News, 25 June 2023, www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/fines-to-punish-online-misinformation-under-new-draft-bill/102521500.
‘Cryptochat.’ Meedan, meedan.com/project/cryptochat. Accessed 8 July 2023.
Lomas, Natasha.’Security Researchers Latest to Blast UK’s Online Safety Bill as Encryption Risk.’ TechCrunch, 5 July 2023, techcrunch.com/2023/07/05/uk-online-safety-bill-risks-e2ee/.
United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948.

There Is No Alternative

Posted on October 9, 2023 by Arthur

“TINA” is the great catch cry of “the powers that be”.

There is some truth to it. But that does not mean there never will be an alternative.

In fact the longer TINA reigns the more obvious it becomes that there MUST be an alternative.

Things simply cannot continue this way.

The necessary alternative in the Middle East is blindingly obvious. Democracy is needed in every country of the region. Israel, Gaza and the West Bank will all have to fight for democracy. So will Iran and every other country in the region. So will the rest of the world. That won’t be easy, but it is both necessary and inevitable.

Here are some pessimistic videos from the middle east that can easily be misunderstood as expressions of despair.

But they all provoke the thought that there MUST be an alternative.

Skipped intro. But worth afterwards watching from earlier start eg from 1’10”

The Palestinian view from the West Bank: my conversation with Palestinian activist and legislator @MustafaBarghoti, who is not connected to Hamas, about the terrorist group’s offensive in southern Israel pic.twitter.com/LYsAI5bFfa
— Fareed Zakaria (@FareedZakaria) October 8, 2023

Skipped start. Watch it after finishing from here. Then watch video below for more detail on the new armed groups.

Also using pessimistic language. But more likely to fight for democracy than previous generations.

Less easy to misunderstand pessimistically. Not just Iran. The whole region will rise.

Spread the WORD – Vote WHY

Posted on September 10, 2023 by Arthur

Don’t vote YES or NO to “the Voice” – it only encourages them.

Both sides have offered no PLAUSIBLE argument for voting either way. Each merely hopes that voters will be more disgusted with their opponents.

The YES camp stresses that the Voice will have no power to do anything anybody might not like but has a really good vibe, is supported by lots of celebrities and anybody not voting as they are told is a racist.

The NO camp pretends that the Voice could do something terribly dangerous and divisive.

Neither side offers any answers to the usual questions anybody should have about their arguments:

What is it that they fear or welcome?
Who is going to do it?
When are they going to do it?
Why are they going to do it?
How are they going to do it?

Apart from a small minority of racists, most Australians think something should be done about the abysmal failures in Aboriginal policy.

Some think a “Voice” would at least be a nice gesture.

Others don’t.

The rest of us are wondering WHY these idiots are bothering us with their ridiculous “controversy”.

The law requires:

35 Vote to be marked in private

               Except as otherwise prescribed, a person voting at a polling booth at a referendum shall, upon receipt of a ballot‑paper:

                 (a)  retire alone to an unoccupied voting compartment at the polling booth and mark, in private, his or her vote on the ballot‑paper;

                 (b)  fold the ballot‑paper so as to conceal his or her vote and place it in the ballot‑box; and

                 (c)  leave the booth.

"Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, Part III

Writing the capital letters WHY in the box complies with this requirement to ensure voters do not leave blank ballot papers for others to complete and that bribed or intimidated voters can easily disregard any unlawful instructions they are given without fear of retribution. It also frustrates any attempt to falsify the voters intention by altering a ballot paper to pretend that it could be a vote for YES or for NO.

Even if a majority in any State or the whole of Australia marks their ballot paper this way those ballot papers will not be counted as formal votes and the result will be determined by those who did vote either YES or NO.

It is highly unlikely that the overall result could be changed if enough people did switch from YES or NO to WHY. There just isn’t enough time or interest to mount a decent campaign.

But if YOU spread the word it might catch on enough so that the current clear majority for NO in every State instead becomes just a majority either way that could have been different if only their opponents had managed to come up with better arguments to persuade people who refused to vote in support of either side.

Then the people smugly convinced that they won because Australians are conservatives taken in by coalition fearmongering about the “dangers” might at least think there could be some other explanation.

Likewise the people smugly convinced that they lost because Australians are conservative and racist unlike the virtuous celebrities might at least become a bit less smug about it.

That could only happen if you also emphasize that the people you are spreading the word to should also spread the word to and convince the people they convince to also spread it.

Many of the people in each camp won’t think even if WHY got a majority.

But there are a lot of people disgusted with “both” sides and likely to not vote for either of them anyway. The more that do so, the more people are likely to start thinking.

Trees have roots, people have legs

Full disclosure: if I did have to vote, I would vote NO rather than appear to join in celebrating the Uluru “Statement from the heart”:

… the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. …

The word “thither” has a sort of Biblical biblical ring to it:

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

At least Lutheran or King James, though even most modern translations don’t use it. Ecclesiastes 1:7

But it isn’t comparing Aborigines to rivers. It is explicitly declaring, as a matter of faith, that Aborigines are part of Australia’s native flora – vegetation.

Even sessile animals such as molluscs that spend most of their lives attached to the land typically have some period of mobility.

Of course a “generous” interpretation would not take the words literally. They are meant to assert the importance of “roots” in the sense of ancestry and lineage rather than a literal claim that indigenous people, like trees, are born from the land, remain attached to the land and must one day return “thither”.

I’m for modernity, and mobility not “roots”.

Australia has one of the easiest to amend Constitutions. We don’t amend it often because the politicians only propose stuff that means nothing.

The last time they offered anything as preposterously silly as this stuff it included “Freedom of Religion” which had been won centuries earlier.

Naturally it was rejected by nearly 70% including majorities in EVERY State and even the ACT from “whence” it came.

This one is also going down. Let’s not give them any excuse for thinking it is due to conservatism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum_(Rights_and_Freedoms)

	Glen ! on A response to “The legacy of…
	c21styork on A response to “The legacy of…
	tedkav on A response to “The legacy of…
	Glen! on If the Dalai Lama is Marxist,…
	Glen! on Israel and Gaza – holdin…
	steve owens on Lest we forget… Bolshevi…
	steve owens on Lest we forget… Bolshevi…
	steve owens on Book review: The Civil War in…
	Glen! on Lessons from 3CR – Jews…
	Bill Kerr on Israel and Gaza – holdin…