Australia will soon have to choose which course to take at the United Nations General Assembly in a vote for Palestine's membership of the UN.

Israel and its influential lobby are pushing hard for the government to vote against Palestine's membership, but the government has a duty to put Australia's national interests, its international standing, values and commitments, above its own narrow party interests and that of Israel's.

Australia should do the right thing and be on the right side of history, not appease the extreme-right Israeli government and its lobby.

Australian support of Palestinian membership will reflect the moral values Australia upholds, serve its standing in the international community and give credibility to the role it is working hard to achieve internationally. It is also a golden opportunity to correct its biased Middle East policy since the creation of Israel in Palestine in 1948.

Australia has a moral and historic responsibility towards the Palestinian people. It played a major role for the proposed partition of Palestine in 1947 and the creation of Israel in 1948, causing al-Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe and dispossession.

Israel, with the crucial support it received from Australia, became the 59th state in the UN; now, 62 years later and the joining of 134 more nations to the world body, it should be Palestine's turn to take its rightful place among UN member states.

During a recent visit to Australia, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, said Palestine's membership was "long overdue".

All international requirements are in place for recognition of the state of Palestine. Palestine has received its independence and birth certificate from UN resolution 181, the UN partition of Palestine, the same certificate which legitimises Israel's existence.

In its 43rd session on December 15, 1988, the General Assembly defined the 1967 occupation of Palestinian territories, as did Security Council resolutions 605, 607 and 608.

Palestine's recognition is a political decision. That is why about 126 countries have recognised the state of Palestine and established full relations with it. The long-standing policies of both Labor and Liberal are for two states, side by side. They supported the state of Israel in 1948; now is the time to support creation of the other state, Palestine.

For internal reasons, the United States may again misuse its veto power, as it has done 43 times previously, to shield Israel's occupation of Palestine. But internal political interests here are served by Australia supporting the Palestinian bid.

While 88,800 Australian Jews can influence three federal electorates, all of which are safe, about 340,400 Muslims including Australian Arabs can influence 19 federal electorate seats, 13 of them marginal, according to my research based on the 2010 federal election results and the 2006 census.

Furthermore, most Australians repeatedly have shown they are on the Palestinian side.

Above self-interest, but not devoid of it, of course, Australia has an international responsibility to play a constructive role in bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

Israel's arguments for not supporting Palestinian membership are unconvincing and contrary to its actions on the ground in the occupied territories.

Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to give a false impression of a peace process, while turning the impression into a process for consolidating and legalising Jewish colonialism and brutal occupation.

Israel was created by the UN unilaterally, not through negotiation with the Palestinian people. Palestinians are going to the UN to get international recognition for their state and to end 4½ decades of bloody occupation.

Palestine's membership of the UN would not be a declaration of war nor a substitute for negotiations.

Palestinians have shown commitment for the past 18 years to solve the issue through negotiation. Israel should make good its claim it also wants to negotiate.

But the difference is that Israel would be accountable under international law as an occupying power. No longer could it claim as ''disputed'' territories Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. And no longer would Israel be able to steal more and more land beyond the UN partition borders.

In 63 years, consecutive Australian governments have played very negative roles and adopted policies biased towards Israel.

An Australian vote in favour of Palestine would serve not only Australia's national interests and put Australia on the right side of history, it would correct this historical record by advancing justice and peace in the Middle East, and therefore throughout the world.

Ali Kazak is a former Palestinian representative in Australia

Vote now to bring Palestine into UN

Clinton says Palestinians must be willing to negotiate, show flexibility

The Palestinians need to show flexibility and get back to the negotiating table, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said in an interview with Egypt's Al-Hayat TV released Saturday.  Asked about the Palestinians' quest for full recognition at the United Nations, the top US diplomat appeared to try to downplay the importance of the ongoing effort, which Washington opposes and has promised to veto. She said the US concern was not what happened or did not happen there - but the need for negotiations to resume for real progress to be made.

meanwhile ....

OCHA Report: "Home Demolitions Doubled in 2011"

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied territories (OCHA) reported that Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes have doubled in 20111 comparing to the figures of 2010.

whilst .....

Israeli parliament approves plans to transfer 30,000 Palestinian Bedouin

While attention is focused on the Palestinian Authority's UN recognition initiative, Israel is quietly taking hugely significant steps to transfer 30,000 Palestinian Bedouin in the Naqab (Negev) desert from their ancestral lands.

Israel doubles rate of Palestinian home demolitions and plans to uproot 30,000 Bedouin. Clinton says Palestinians need to be more flexible.

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a US-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

Lawyers Consulted

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

'From Inspirational to Operational'

Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

"Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound US airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to US investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the US target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a US-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

US officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by US forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.

Secret Panel Can Put Americans on 'Kill List'

Palestinians have won entry to UNESCO, scoring a symbolic victory in their battle for full membership of the United Nations in a move that Israel and the US say harms hopes for peace.

"The general conference decides to admit Palestine as a member of UNESCO," said the resolution that was adopted to loud applause by 107 countries, with 14 voting against and 52 abstaining.

"Accepting Palestine into UNESCO is a victory for (our) rights, for justice and for freedom," Mahmud Abbas' spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina quoted the Palestinian president as saying.

Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki, who was at the UN cultural body's Paris headquarters for the vote on Monday, hailed "a historic moment that gives Palestine back some of its rights", while Israel said it distanced peace.

"This is a unilateral Palestinian manoeuvre which will bring no change on the ground but further removes the possibility for a peace agreement," the Israeli foreign ministry said in a statement.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the move was "premature and undermines the international community's shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East".

But Malki insisted there was no connection between the UNESCO move and the possible resumption of peace negotiations, stalled by Israel's ongoing construction of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

"I don't think that our status at UNESCO will have a negative impact on relaunching peace talks," Malki said. "There is no link between the two issues."

France, which had voiced serious doubts about the motion, in the end approved it along with almost all Arab, African, Latin American and Asian nations, including China and India.

Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada and Germany voted against, while Japan and Britain abstained.

The United States and Israel are set now to withdraw their funding from the UN cultural body, while other UN agencies may have to debate the thorny issue.

Washington has slammed the move as counterproductive and premature, while Israel's ambassador Nimrod Barkan admitted before the vote that he was resigned to the Palestinians gaining entry.

Staunch Israel ally the United States in the 1990s banned the financing of any United Nations organisation that accepts Palestine as a full member, meaning the body would lose $US70 million ($A65.5 million), or 22 per cent of its annual budget.

US ambassador to UNESCO David Killion said after the vote that "this action today will complicate our ability to support UNESCO programs".

Barkan slammed countries that "have adopted a science fiction version of reality by admitting a non-existent state to the science organisation.... UNESCO should deal in science not science fiction".

He admitted the vote, while symbolic, could have a knock-on effect: "There is potential for a cascading effect of this resolution on many other UN specialised agencies and in New York."

Palestinian leader Abbas submitted the request for membership of the UN General Assembly in September, and the UN Security Council is to meet on November 11 to decide whether to hold a formal vote on the application.

As a permanent Security Council member the United States says it will veto any resolution granting full UN membership to the Palestinians, but no one can veto measures at UNESCO.

Arab states braved intense US and French diplomatic pressure to bring the motion before the UNESCO executive committee in October, which passed it by 40 votes in favour to four against, with 14 abstentions.

The Palestinians previously had observer status at UNESCO.

Washington boycotted UNESCO from 1984 to 2003 over what the State Department called "growing disparity between US foreign policy and UNESCO goals".

Despite the 20-year US boycott, President Barack Obama now considers UNESCO a strategic interest and Washington sees it as a useful multilateral way to spread certain Western values.

Palestinians gain UNESCO membership

Decent folk must oppose all racism, including genocidal racist Zionism.  In September 2011 the UN held the Durban III meeting on racism (World Conference on Racism) at UN Headquarters in New York . " Durban I" was the original 2001 meeting and "Durban II" was a review conference in Geneva in 2009, both conferences being subject to boycotts and walkouts by pro-Israel US Alliance members.  179 countries attended Durban III but 14 boycotted in support of genocidal, race-based Apartheid Israel.

The US Alliance-beholden and genocide-ignoring UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon referred to prior "controversy":  "We are all aware that the original Durban conference and its follow-up two years ago caused immense controversy," he said. "We should condemn anyone who uses this platform to subvert that effort with inflammatory rhetoric, baseless assertions and hateful speech" (see " Israel once again accused of "Apartheid" at U.N. racism meeting", CNS News, 23 September 2011: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/israel-once-again-accused-apartheid-un-racism-meeting ).

While racist Apartheid Australia , one of Apartheid Israel 's best friends, boycotted the anti-racism meeting, the Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi attended and referred to the "continuing existence of state-apartheid in the Palestinian occupied territories."

14 Pro-Israel Nations Boycott 2011 UN Durban III Anti-racism Conference

Last night's UNESCO vote, that confirmed Palestine as a full member, showed just how few nations in the world are true client states of America, craven (hello, Australia!) or both:

There were 14 "no" votes, 52 abstentions and 107 "yes" votes (there were also 20 Member States absent):

No: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United States of America, Vanuatu.

Abstentions: Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zambia.

Yes: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sant Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Confederated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan.

Antony Loewenstein

from antony loewenstein …..

Ap­par­ently not, ac­cord­ing to today’s Mel­bourne Age, though one has to won­der; our gov­ern­ment can’t re­ally sup­port Zion­ist oc­cu­pa­tion more than it al­ready does.

Well, I guess she could order an Aus­tralian mil­i­tary in­va­sion of Iran; that may keep Tel Aviv happy for a few min­utes:

Julia Gillard has moved to strengthen her al­ready close re­la­tions with the Jew­ish com­mu­nity by giv­ing her new busi­ness li­ai­son ad­viser, Bruce Wolpe, the spe­cific task of li­ais­ing with it.

Some cau­cus col­leagues think treat­ing the Jew­ish com­mu­nity in this spe­cial way is un­wise, even weird. One called it ”a cu­ri­ous de­ci­sion”. An­other said: ”This is am­a­teur­ish. Sin­gling out the Jew­ish com­mu­nity when there are so many other com­po­nents of Aus­tralian so­ci­ety is hard to com­pre­hend.”

A third said that the level and qual­ity of ac­cess for the Jew­ish com­mu­nity was al­ready seen as su­pe­rior to that of oth­ers and this could fur­ther that per­cep­tion.

Crit­ics ac­cuse Ms Gillard of being too pro-Is­rael on Mid­dle East is­sues, on which she has dif­fered from For­eign Min­is­ter Kevin Rudd’s more even-handed po­si­tion.

While Jew­ish lead­ers are pub­licly wel­com­ing the Jew­ish li­ai­son role, some sources in the com­mu­nity ques­tion why it is needed. One said it was pe­cu­liar and stu­pid – ”the Prime Min­is­ter has a very good re­la­tion­ship with the Jew­ish com­mu­nity. It doesn’t need to be chan­nelled.”

A memo from the PM’s chief of staff, Ben Hub­bard, to of­fice col­leagues, which is cir­cu­lat­ing among Jew­ish lead­ers, said Mr Wolpe, who is Jew­ish, ”will be re­spon­si­ble for li­ai­son with the Aus­tralian busi­ness com­mu­nity and will also have a sub­sidiary role as li­ai­son for the PM with the Jew­ish com­mu­nity”. Mr Wolpe’s lat­ter role was not high­lighted when his busi­ness ap­point­ment was an­nounced re­cently.

At pre­sent Michael Cooney, a speech­writer and ad­viser in Ms Gillard’s of­fice, li­aises with var­i­ous faith and eth­nic com­mu­ni­ties.

Mr Wolpe, a for­mer di­rec­tor of cor­po­rate af­fairs for Fair­fax Media, owner of The Age, is se­nior ad­viser to US con­gress­man Henry Wax­man. He takes up his po­si­tion with Ms Gillard in sev­eral weeks.

Philip Chester, pres­i­dent of the Zion­ist Fed­er­a­tion of Aus­tralia, said while he per­son­ally had not dealt with Mr Wolpe ”my col­leagues [in the Jew­ish com­mu­nity] are very pos­i­tive about the re­la­tion­ship that can be built with him”. So far the di­a­logue with the Prime Min­is­ter had been very ef­fec­tive.

Ike­bal Patel, pres­i­dent of the Aus­tralian Fed­er­a­tion of Is­lamic Coun­cils, said there would not be a prob­lem with Mr Wolpe’s ap­point­ment if there was sim­i­lar li­ai­son from Ms Gillard’s of­fice with other faith commu­ni­ties

Is There Anything Julia Gillard Wont Do To Get Closer To The Zionist Lobby