Pearls and Irritations

About 10 years ago, I found myself in the office of a Coalition Senator in my role as President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. I and my delegation received a generous reception. At that stage the Senator did not hold an office on behalf of the Liberal Party which would now automatically prevent them from seeing us. The Senator recounted back-packing days though Egypt, Turkey and Israel following university, and assured us that the struggles facing Palestinian people did not need to be made any clearer.

I said “that is great, we can obviously rely on you to make a speech alerting the parliament to these struggles and the need for a just outcome.” “No, I won’t”, was the response. “Why not” I asked. “Because it would not be in my political interest to do so”. Despite being kicked under the table by one of my colleagues in a vain attempt to make me back off, I asked, “Is there anything of sufficient moral import which would require you to speak, even if it were not in your political interest?” “No,” was the immediate response.

The Senator, now holding a senior position in the Shadow Cabinet, stands enthusiastically behind the leader, Peter Dutton, nodding approval as he accelerates his remarks about people from Gaza, and Palestinians generally.

There are so many issues to follow through here.

I am not absolving the Labor Party from the same priority, placing the party and personal ambition above everything including truth, morality, and conscience. However, this appears to be the unapologetic and preferred modus operandi of the conservative Coalition. So, why?

Politicians have known for a long time that it is easier to garner votes if you confirm an impending threat in people’s minds. John Howard did it with the children overboard claims. According to Dutton, people arriving from Gaza are automatically a threat to national security and, therefore, should not be processed in the same way that all other refugees are processed, including those from other war zones such as Ukraine, Myanmar and Sudan.

Let us accept, for a moment, that elements of the Hamas military wing have committed atrocities including war crimes, notwithstanding the context of their being a generationally displaced and imprisoned people. Does that mean all Palestinians, or all Gazans, are tainted? If so, the same argument should apply to all Israelis. That Palestinians have been rounded up without charge in their thousands and face terrible torture in Israeli goals is undeniable. That illegal Israeli settlers on the West Bank are carrying out daily attacks on Palestinian villages, resulting in the death of countless Palestinian civilians, is a daily news story. The Israel Defence Force which, by law, must protect Palestinians, passively watches from the shade of olive trees, and sometimes provides armaments. That right-wing elements in the Knesset openly call for the death of Palestinian civilians and that starvation is owned by some of them as a legitimate weapon of war, is on the public record. Therefore, using the same argument, would not a visit by any Israeli to Australia be a threat to our national security based on this behaviour?

There can be no dispute that Dutton uses outrageous language. Why is his use of such language in his political interest?

Sadly, we must admit that many Australians are racist. Dutton is overtly courting such votes. Surely, there are not enough of these votes to make his agenda worthwhile? I may be naïve, but I do not think so. But politics is also theatre. Theatre, like the football (any code), is enhanced through combative behaviour. People are drawn to combatants. Dutton is addicted to the role of a combatant in the theatre of Australian politics. Is he imitating Donald Trump? For Trump, theatre is all there is. Substance or policy is an inconvenient distraction, truth is irrelevant, winning is everything. The late Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke, on the other hand, while masters of theatre, used their skills to achieve groundbreaking reform. Dutton, like Barnaby Joyce, prides himself as a major (if not the main) player in the theatre of Australian politics. However, like Tony Abott before him, he is born to say “No”; to choose, on our behalf, who the bad guys are.

Now let us come back to Israel/Palestine. Dutton has chosen to tell us that Israelis are the good guys and Palestinians are the bad guys. That evidence in international law, in humanitarian need, in human rights, in terms of the oppressed and the oppressor indicate the opposite, is clearly beside the point.

So, what are the other factors?

Is agreeing that Israelis are the good guys while Palestinians are the bad guys the price we must pay for our security pact with the US? This is not the place to be drawn into AUKUS, but clearly our pact with the US has drawn us into wars that we should not have fought and has clouded our choices in strategic alliance-making.

Is agreeing that Palestinians are the bad guys and an existential threat to Israel the price that must be paid on the conservative side of politics for allowing the Zionist Lobby to be the strongest and most effective foreign national lobby group on Australian soil? Dutton, his followers and of course the Lobby, will find this statement outrageous. But it happens to be true. Why it is true is a mystery I have found impossible to solve.

Finally, is money involved? Is Dutton beholden to the wealthy whose place in life is threatened by the thought of equality, fairness, compensation, or simply the right of others to exist, to flourish where they live in the sun? Britain flourished through the wealth harvested from its colonies, as did all the colonial powers of the past. Israel is the latest in a long line of colonial settlements taking that which belongs to others to enrich themselves.

It is clear Dutton is a supporter of the idea that the powerful deserve the rewards of power, regardless of the source.

Dutton’s comments have been outrageous and, in themselves, are a threat to harmony on Australian soil. Hopefully, truth and an inherent belief in fairness will nullify self-serving political aggrandisement.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT