It’s a telling reflection on the Greens’ woeful campaign at last Saturday’s NSW election that the one politician they may have helped elect is the founder of the One Nation Party, Pauline Hanson.

Victims of the prevailing hegemony, or just a pack of ratbags? Photo: Jeremy Piper

The Greens were meant to cruise into office in the Lower House in New South Wales in at least two seats. Given how badly the former Labor Government had been going, and how strongly the Greens’ primary vote had been standing up in the polls, they could and should have been expected to return more than just a couple of MPs.

Instead, their campaign crashed and burned. And it did so in a way which may have caused enduring acrimony with the Labor Party. Needless to say, with federal Labor having the most precarious grasp on power courtesy of a formal coalition with the Greens, these tensions in our biggest State have the potential to strain this arrangement.

Julia Gillard’s sidekick Bob Brown spent quite a bit of time in Sydney over the past few weeks campaigning for his two most popular candidates, Marrickville Mayor Fiona Byrne in Marrickville and Leichhardt Mayor Jamie Parker. If this pair weren’t hate figures within the ALP before the NSW election, they are now. The Labor MPs who are in coalition with Bob Brown federally are openly cheering the humiliation of these two Greens in last Saturday’s poll.

Ms Byrne was sitting on a primary vote of 45 per cent a few weeks ago and still managed to lose the seat to the incumbent, former Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt. Counting is continuing in Balmain where Jamie Parker as of today’s deadline was 47 votes behind the incumbent, former Education Minister Verity Firth.

There’s one other person who was directly assisted by the Greens at last Saturday’s poll and it’s Pauline Hanson. To the enduring disgust of the Labor Party, the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP, and she may now creep into the Upper House courtesy of their support. A cynic (such as this one) would say it’s only appropriate given the overlap between the Greens and One Nation on economic policies, with their stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off hostility to free trade, tariff cuts and globalisation. The ALP sees it more simply as a total dog act. Ask anyone in the NSW ALP and they’ll tell you that it exposed the Greens – that is, their partner in federal government – for the Trots, wreckers and opportunists they truly are. I’m not paraphrasing, these are the exact words they use.

More interesting than the losses by the Greens has been the reaction of the Greens to those losses. It has shown that this party which wants to be regarded as a serious political force will squeal, whine and moan when things don’t go according to plan, cry media conspiracy when contentious policies are questioned or exposed, claim victim status when they have been felled by problems of their own making.

The biggest problem the Greens had with their campaign was the revelation of the policy championed by Fiona Byrne for Marrickville Council to boycott the Jewish State of Israel.

Proving that offensive ideas are rendered more palatable by an innocuous acronym, this policy is known as the BDS campaign. It stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Tellingly, Ms Byrne and her chums aren’t advocating any BDS action against the more psychotic Islamic states of the Middle East, places where no-one gets a vote and where women are denied an education. Instead, the council has been busily advocating that all Israeli goods and services in the Marrickville Council area (such as oranges from Tel Aviv) be identified and then banned.

I wrote a piece a few weeks ago describing this planned identification of businesses with links to the Jewish state as “a polite modern rendering of Kristalnacht.”  Some Greens were deeply offended by this. Their indignation at protecting the memory of the Holocaust can be easily dismissed as confected. If they regard this period of history as something we should learn from, surely they would baulk at the idea of creating a black list of businesses with links to the Jewish state. Jewish Labor MP Michael Danby was perfectly happy to place this proposal in its proper historical context, saying Marrickville Council could just start painting the Star of David on offending businesses. If every council in the world adopted this policy, the Israeli state would be destroyed economically. It would cease to exist.

The Greens clearly believe they were damaged by sinister coverage of the policy. They weren’t. They were damaged because the policy is sinister.

The paring back of the Green’s primary vote from what had been forecast in the polls suggested two things. It suggested their policies are out of step with the mainstream, and that the mainstream may also be uneasy with the way the Greens have been behaving in coalition with the federal government.

Neither of those messages has sunk in with the Greens, as evidenced by an interesting interview which Jamie Parker gave this week to the left-oriented opinion website New Matilda. The piece was written by the independent journalist Antony Lowenstein, a strident critic of the Jewish state and the author of My Israel Question.

Lowenstein asked Parker about the reaction of Jewish people in the inner-west to the coverage of the Israel boycott. He also spoke to Parker about the fact that his car had been vandalised and that he had received death threats and letters calling him a Nazi and a Jew-hater.

Parker was quoted as saying the following:

“These Jews provide cover for extreme actions if they occur. If there’s a sniff of you being critical of Israel, such Jews will attack you and cut you loose.”
“Lefty Jews told me that you can’t be surprised if extreme people do extreme things but they wouldn’t come out in public and condemn it.”

Parker’s choice of language in this interview has now been picked up by people in the Jewish community, some of them with links to ALP, as further evidence that the Greens have got a few issues they need to resolve here. “These Jews” now believe Parker went close to claiming the Greens had been a victim of some kind of Jewish conspiracy. As Pauline Hanson might say, Jamie, please explain.

247 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • PJ says:

      05:08am | 01/04/11

      ‘It has shown that this party which wants to be regarded as a serious political force will squeal, whine and moan when things don’t go according to plan, cry media conspiracy when contentious policies are questioned or exposed, claim victim status when they have been felled by problems of their own making.’

      So…kind of like a woman really?

    • persephone says:

      06:31am | 01/04/11

      Nah, sounds more like the blokes I know.

      And they always blame the women….when they’ve been felled by problems of their own making.

    • NicoleG says:

      08:27am | 01/04/11

      I’m with you pers. PJ, is Erick on leave and are you 2IC?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:40am | 01/04/11

      Should you really be talking about your coalition partners like that, persephone?

    • PJ says:

      08:57am | 01/04/11

      Ooooh,

      Imma collecting cats!!!  Maybe I should try herding them?

    • LeftRightOut says:

      11:59am | 01/04/11

      Not like any women I know… they appear more like a litigious American, ready to sue at the drop of a hat (or at least threaten to).

      Poor old Penbo and his stable-mate Bolt are both in the Greens’ spotlight for legal action. Of course Penbo/Bolt/News Ltd will demolish them, legally speaking, but their penchant for legal action is quite telling.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:00pm | 01/04/11

      Persephone :  Are y ou going to give Tony of Poorakistan an answer to his most relevant question.  ?

      I note that you seem to avoid the prickly questions. Your archilles heel maybe.  ?

    • Jim says:

      12:17pm | 01/04/11

      persephone is incapable of answering questions when the answers aren’t covered by her daily missives from Labor HQ. You should know that by now!

      She also avoids responding to people who know more than she does…quick way to get her to shut up actually.

    • persephone says:

      12:37pm | 01/04/11

      Wayne

      I’ve said in several posts in the past that I don’t have any time for the Greens.

      I’m happy to repeat that as many times as you like.

      I just don’t agree that the Greens are acting like women - all the sanctimonious people I know who behave in the way outlined are male.

    • Rosie says:

      03:28pm | 01/04/11

      Persetelephone - in case you haven’t heard Gillard & Browne are fighting, lover’s tiff I would say! Shouldn’t you be concerned as Gillard needs Browne to remain in power?

      Oh what irony to have Pauline Hanson back in the political arena aided by none other than Bob Browne’s Greens who are holding up the Gillard Minority Federal Govt. Where does Tony Abbott and the Coalition come into the equation? Oh that is right Gillard Federal Labor is adamant that Tony Abbott is an extreme Liberal and has gone down the Pauline Hanson path!

      One thing many of us are certain of is that Tony Abbott’s Coalition do not need anyone or any party for them to do the job that at least half of the population elected them to do and that is make accountable what MPs that make up the Gillard Minority Govt.

      It seems when the Rudd/Gillard Govt lost its way, it took with them the people of Australia except Tony Abbott and the Coalition.

    • persephone says:

      04:34pm | 01/04/11

      Rosie

      as I’ve pointed out before, the Greens only have power because of the way the Opposition’s behaving. If you don’t want them to have any influence at all, get Tony to negotiate with the government.

      That’d end the Green ‘threat’ overnight.

      Secondly, just because Labor ‘needs’ the Greens to govern (see above) doesn’t mean I - or Gillard - can’t crticise them. After all, it hasn’t stopped the Greens criticising Labor.

      Thirdly, as has been pointed out, Penbo is wrong to say that the Greens preferenced Hanson. They didn’t.

      Given all the concern about ‘lying’ on this site in recent days, you’d that you’d be hoeing into Penbo about this.

      But you’re not, because that doesn’t suit your agenda.

      Oh, and Abbott relies on the Nationals. And if he didn’t need to rely on anyone else, he’d….be in government.

      As it is, Mr People Skils couldn’t persuade two ex Nats to support him - they decided rural Australia would be better served by Labor.

    • Caz J says:

      09:36am | 02/04/11

      I know you love Joe Penbo, so how bout talking about the real conspiracy instead of this lazy lets-go-kick-the-dog or the greens?
      http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/07/waltzing.html
      Is Joe crying conspiracy too? And are you missing the forest in your rush to chop down a tree Penbo or just cos the masses love a simplistic punching bag? Joe is watching!

    • Breach of peace says:

      12:13pm | 02/04/11

      Labor got what they deserved by the lies, scandals and their undemocratic actions towards decision making.  This criminal preferential voting system was not originally established by the founding fathers.  They introduced the proportional representation system which is approximately 5-7% more democratic than our existing scheming exchange by fellow politicians for their preferences.  The democratic process has been truly hijacked by the political parties instead of the electorate where it rightly belongs.  As long as Australians remain docile these politicians will do many things ‘unchecked’ as NSW is notorious for their corruption, sex scandals and bribery.  We often expouse for other countries to accept democratic principles yet we ourselves fall short.

    • PJ says:

      05:15am | 01/04/11

      In all seriousness, the Greens come across as seriously demented people.  That’s the primary issue they need to tackle.  Their public image is one of a bunch of nutters.  They draw votes of protest against the Labor party and whip themselves into a frenzy of self-belief and slap each other on the back with their false belief of validity.  In truth, it was a protest vote against the Labor party, by their very own supporters.  Next election the Greens will return to the fringes they came from and have owned for the last twenty years and we will be reading articles where they wonder where it all went wrong (a media related conspiracy perhaps)?

    • Knemon says:

      07:36am | 01/04/11

      PJ - Don’t mention that the Greens are the only party that seriously cares about the environment and the health of its citizens, something we all should be concerned about, and if not for ourselves, at least for future generations.

      If it takes seriously demented people (as you suggest they are) to care -  then that says more about Australia not being a smart nation than it does about the Greens.

    • PJ says:

      08:08am | 01/04/11

      I should have added delusional…

    • Samuel says:

      08:22am | 01/04/11

      Yeah, they definitely care for the health of our citizens, that’s why they want to knock off all the old people through euthanasia laws.

      The Greens policies are economically catastrophic, anti-human, and now, bigoted.

    • simon says:

      09:33am | 01/04/11

      Knemon, a carbon tax does not help the environment mate, all it does is fill the coffers. Direct investment in R&D of alternate energy has been deemed the most efficient way to go according to Professor Bjorn Lomborg. A Carbon tax is efficient from a government perspective as it costs the government nothing while all the costs are passed onto the consumer. A carbon tax was deemed the most expensive way from a consumer perspective. Yeh mate, that sounds real smart doesn’t it????

    • iansand says:

      09:36am | 01/04/11

      If the Greens were a serious environmental party they should not have opened the Trojan Horse occupied by Lee Rhiannon and her ilk.  That lack of attention will be their ultimate downfall.

    • Knemon says:

      10:38am | 01/04/11

      iansand @ 09:36am. I’m not aware of what you’re referring to.

      As for ” the Israeli state would be destroyed economically. It would cease to exist” - So What? - Palestinians have rights as well, but hey, who cares about them?

    • jf says:

      10:39am | 01/04/11

      “PJ - Don’t mention that the Greens are the only party that seriously cares about the environment and the health of its citizens, something we all should be concerned about, and if not for ourselves, at least for future generations.”

      If that were the case they would have policies that were practical and effective. If that were the case, they wouldn’t propose policy initiatives that hurt the very people that they claim to help. If that were the case, they would put genuine policy ahead of moral vanity. It that were the case they’d understand and be accountable for the policies they promote.

      If that were really the case, they would all resign from politics immediately and disband their bigoted, self-indulgent, self-absorbed, arrogant, close-minded party.

      But it isn’t the case: your typical Greens politician would much rather live a comfortable life of pompous ideological arrogance comfortable in the knowledge that they are likely to be neither scrutinised or held accountable. Just as long as they are able to continue to live a lifestyle which they publicly rage against but privately indulge quitely ignoring the fact that their very lifestyle is funded indirectly by the system that they purport to despise and at the expense of the taxpayers that they have so much “compassion” for.

    • Polly says:

      11:03am | 01/04/11

      The Greens belong in the wilderness PJ and in particular Bob Brown for his ludicrous demand for a carbon dioxide tax.  Gillard, who promised no tax prior to the election,  was in her element recently in Fremantle where there is a Greens sitting member.  I was pleased that mayor Fiona Byrne of Marrickville lost her chance for a seat in the upper house of the NSW State Parliament. Her ridiculous policy of banning Jewish products from Marrickville would suggest the woman is demented and should be sharing offices with Clover Moore. 
      I am sick of people criticising the people of Israel, for taking a stand for their own survival.
      Kristalnacht. (kristallnacht night of broken glass) was the terror in store for the Holocaust of the Jewish people and must never happen again. The Jewish people are survivors and have just as much right to live on this planet as do Muslims that are trying to wipe them out.

    • PatC says:

      11:20am | 01/04/11

      Backing Simon up.
      $1 spent on Kyoto Protocols like Carbon Tax = 2c return to environment.
      $1 spent on alternative energy research = $11.00 return to environment.

      No new technology has ever succeeded because the old one was made too expensive through a tax. All new technologies succeeded because they became cheaper and more efficient than previous technologies.

    • Dan says:

      01:12pm | 01/04/11

      oh Knemon -You are one misguided soul. You’d make a perfect Greens member…......

    • Direct says:

      02:15pm | 01/04/11

      PJ, you and Penbo are spot on. Pip Hinman’s piece on the Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45868.html) blames a media cospiracy, which Labor were in on.

      God forbid they demonstrate a little introspection.

    • Tassie-born says:

      02:52pm | 01/04/11

      The Greens use the word environment to cadge votes from unsuspecting voters. Bob Brown is as political as Gengis Khan and just as determined to rule. And for the first person to claim Brown’s environmental credentials by giving his Tassie acreage and shack to an environment group, keep in mind the tax benefits of such a move.
      Brown has been drawing a super salary and will draw a super pension for the rest of his life. He is a wealthy man.

    • Will B says:

      03:55pm | 01/04/11

      “JF” I agree with you 100%

      I compare the greens to an Enviromental Pirate sailing the high sea’s.

      They hate the Captain because they built the ship out of wood from a forest, but with all there idealogical ranting and raving they forget one very important point.

      It’s the only thing keeping them afloat in the first place.

      Arrrrr the Irony.

    • Andy says:

      05:27am | 01/04/11

      A bit like Labor and their supporters always claiming they are the victims of a Tony Abbott and media conspiracy.

    • persephone says:

      06:34am | 01/04/11

      A bit ironic, Andy, given that there’s a whinge under Tory’s piece saying how the media’s always picking on Tony.

      ....and I’m sure you remember the comments about the Riley interview!

    • knemon says:

      11:41am | 01/04/11

      @ Andy - Is that similar to Mr Robb saying that it is a conspiracy between the Greens and the ALP in relation to Dr Brown wanting no part of the proposed cut in company tax rates?

    • Pamela says:

      05:46am | 01/04/11

      As I was handing out “How to Vote” leaflets for my local National Party candidate on Saturday, the person handing out “How to Votes” for the Greens in the “Senate” (her words, not mine; it should have been “the NSW Upper House”), realising the futility of her endeavours, summoned her two remaining brain cells and loudly proclaimed that it was “the death of democracy”.
      I quickly pointed out that democracy died when “the tail started wagging the dog” - when minority issues are given prominence over the wishes of the majority.
      In a true democracy, the will of the majority is implemented. Sadly, this has not occurred for some time.
      It’s time for these cave dwellers to be eradicated from our society.

    • James1 says:

      10:08am | 01/04/11

      “It’s time for these cave dwellers to be eradicated from our society.”

      Interesting choice of words. 

      Otherwise, the simplistic approach to democracy - this “will of the majority” thing, is not desirable.  You don’t have liberal democracy when you have crude majority rule, you essentially have mob rule.  People can come up with all sorts of crazy ideas, like, say, eradicating a particular sub-section of society, and if the majority supports it (or does nothing), then nothing stands in the way.  The US founding fathers were right to place all of the checks and balances on democratic decision making that they did.  Pure democracy is really not desirable, it is a recipe for disaster. 

      I put it to you that you would love such a system, until you found yourself in the minority on some issue or another.

    • TChong says:

      10:38am | 01/04/11

      Pammy , you see absolutely no irony at all, ,doing the Nationals bidding, then complaining about minor parties. ?
      No hint of insight, ? nothing?
      Cave dwellers from society? thats hash on Wazza , Barnaby et al , isnt it?

    • Ben says:

      10:45am | 01/04/11

      Is it just me, or is there something a little bit wrong about wanting fellow Australians - with different political beliefs to your own - killed en masse?

    • Suzy says:

      05:39pm | 01/04/11

      I know it’s nit-picking, Pamela, but the Upper House of the New South Wales Parliament is the Legislative Council.  The proper name of the Lower House is the Legislative Assembly.  It’s good to know that you have the courage of your convictions in handing out how-to-vote leaflets.  I keep wondering when the “average Australian” will at last throw off his/her apathy and rise up against crooked career politicians.  Be thankful that you have a House of review.  Here in Queensland we have no-one to rein in the excesses, waste and mismanagement of Captain Bligh and her mealy-mouthed cohorts.  The Go-Anna is National President of the ALP, so those States turning from Labor red to Coalition Blue can throw some of the blame for their failures onto her.  I hope we never see a State or Territory turn green.

    • Nearly stupid says:

      09:17pm | 01/04/11

      To James1..touche’.

      1 Green in federal parliment (lower house) and 1 Bob Katter…wish there were 2…Bob’s that is.

      If we could just get rid of those pesky laws that protect the rights of the terminally stupid to express their opinions however rediculous and self rightous.

      Dipstick, long live the majority.

    • Pamela says:

      06:12am | 02/04/11

      I apologise for the misunderstanding. By eradicated from our society, I meant politically, not physically. The cave dweller term is a crude, but accurate, way of describing the Greens regressive policies. I don’t know who coined the term. but it’s an apt description.

    • Peter says:

      06:18am | 02/04/11

      A similar thing happened to me at my Polling booth. It seems that when things don’t go their way it’s “the death of democracy”. I’m glad that voters are slowly beginning to realise what a vote for the Greens really means.

    • biff says:

      05:49am | 01/04/11

      Why isn’t Fiona Byrne content with her job as our Minister for Foeign Affairs?

    • Timmy says:

      06:06am | 01/04/11

      I am white, middle class, male, Christian, I work as a teacher at an independant school. I am against euthanasia and abortion because I think we should care for the week, not kill them, the gay marriage thing is a non issue for me (unless they try and force it on my church). I care about the environment, but feel that we should make use of it for mutual long term sustainable benefit.

      According to a volunteer for the Greens, I am out of touch, bigoted, homophobic, anti human rights, an environmental vandal and uncaring.

      Why should I or anyone else vot for an organisation that put forward negative reactive policies and use so much ad hominem when arguing the point?

    • Denny Crane says:

      07:14am | 01/04/11

      You are exactly the type of scum that the Greens are trying to weed out. I mean who do you think you are? Your veiws are not reflective of their regressive agenda, sorry I meant progressive agenda. The Greens are so morally and intellectually superior to you and your kind. Just because you work hard and do not rely on government handouts to survive, you somehow think that you have a right to an opinion. You dont because you, for the most part, do not agree with the Green agenda.

      In all seriousness, the greens are the most disgusting despicable group of loons to have graced our political stage. Their policies look like they have been developed by a wet-behind-the -ears 17 yr old who has no understanding of reality other than the soft confortable life his hard working parents have provided.

      It amazes me that 10%-15% of Australians would give these clowns thier first preference, or any preference for that matter. Its a pretty sad reflection on our education system that people would give them any credence whatsoever.

      PS: It is not you Timmy who is scum.

    • TChong says:

      07:33am | 01/04/11

      Timmy - good on you, and what you believe in ..,
      But as a decent christian, why do you seek to judge all Greens by the comment of one supporter ?
      Doesnt a certain MR JH Christ warn against that very thing?
      No conservative volunteer ever done anything sus?

    • L. says:

      08:06am | 01/04/11

      “Their policies look like they have been developed by a wet-behind-the -ears 17 yr old who has no understanding of reality”

      I’m sorry, where exactly is the lack of reality about wanting to allow two people of the same sex who love each other to marry?

      What exactly is “no understanding of reality” about wanting to stop Conroy’s Internet censorship filter or the Gillard Gov’s wishes to keep your email, Internet browsing history of VOIP phone call details for 10 years without warrant..??

      I don’t like the Greens by and large, but they do have some (a few) good policies IMO.

    • dobbieb says:

      08:26am | 01/04/11

      Timmy, If you are a teacher, I hope its not as a spelling teacher.
      Week=weak, vot=vote

    • Tedd says:

      08:29am | 01/04/11

      Timmy,

      It would be unfair for you to be labelled as you say you have been (or might be?)

      Your comment about the environment is contradictory.

      A significant issue with abortion is the position of weakness women are placed in, if they get pregnant in adverse circumstances.

      Euthanasia is an option for those who are in the terminal stages of a terminal disease and are not palliated by optimal palliative care.

      I would fight for you’re churches right to not have to engage in gay marriages, yet would also fight for gays right to marry outside your church.

    • Penelope says:

      08:33am | 01/04/11

      Independent, Timmy, not independant.  I really hate it when teachers get this wrong.

    • Dirk Hartog says:

      08:43am | 01/04/11

      I hope you’re not teaching English at your “independant” (sic) school.

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      10:47am | 01/04/11

      dobbieb - it’s not its in this case.
      Timmy - “organisation that put forward ... and use” - should be “puts forward” and “uses”.
      Don’t we all enjoy nitpicking with a chalkie?

    • Timmy says:

      12:20pm | 01/04/11

      Sorry that I type so poorly and did not review my work adequately before posting.

      @TEDD

      Can you please explain how you see a contradiction with caring about the environment and utilising it in a way that is sustainable?

      A significant issue with abortion is that we are so flippant about it in many cases.

      Euthanasia if allowed, will become an obligation for some, interestingly enough mainly women, and is likely to degrade the quality of palliative care availble.

      Before we advocate for increasing people’s “rights” we need to ask why those limitations are in place. It would be arrogant for us think that we are somehow more enlightened better thinkers than the people of the past. It would be foolish for us to dismiss an idea simply because it is associated with a religious point of view or with the atitudes of a specific decade. It is concerning that public policy could be set on the basis that one side ariculates that the other is uncaring, out of touch etc without ever really discussing the broader implications of the policy.

    • Knemon says:

      12:47pm | 01/04/11

      Denny Crane @ 07:14am. I would argue Denny that the only sad reflection on our education system is you. The same views can be equally directed at red-necks like yourself, except you don’t have any policies or views, other than bigotry.

    • Jimmy says:

      01:24pm | 01/04/11

      The very sad truth is that 90% of the people who vote Greens have little or no understanding of their policies or implications. They see the word “Greens” and think they are voting for the environment.

      This is indicative of Australia now. Plenty of people willing to react to whatever they see in the media with no understanding of exactly what they are talking about. It’s a great shame here that voting is compulsory because a fair percentage of the population shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    • Knemon says:

      01:50pm | 01/04/11

      Jimmy @ 01:24pm. I fully agree with your sentiments.

    • Tedd says:

      03:15pm | 01/04/11

      Timmy,
      Of course the environment must be sustained, but I could see how some would take issue with that.

      It would be great to reduce the abortion rate, but most are not flippant about abortion - most abortions are claimed to be due to contraception failure.

      Euthanasia, if allowed, would not degrade palliative care: in fact it might emphasise it.  Nor is it likely to become an obligation (why women?)

      Yes, policy should be determined on the basis of its merits.

      Enlightened thinking need not be compared to the past - Aristotle had a lot sussed. Perhaps nuanced thinking is the way to go

    • Timmy says:

      04:17pm | 01/04/11

      @TEDD

      Paliative care levels are significantly lower in European states that have Euthanasia. Why would Australia be different? Statistically speaking women “opt out” at a higherr rate than men. The most likely reason is that women do not want to be a burden. My Grandmother hated the idea of euthanasia (interestingly she felt it took her ability to control of her life away from her) and spent much of the last months of her life in hospital, in pain, waiting to die. She got upset with me on two occasions for visiting her, because she felt she wasn’t worth the effort.

      You can attempt to limit the definition of authanasia like so:

      “Euthanasia is an option for those who are in the terminal stages of a terminal disease and are not palliated by optimal palliative care.”

      But the cold reality is, that the definition of Euthanasia in practise WILL be broader.

      My point is, that the Greens support ideas like the “right” to die, and make them sound all noble. They make the alternative seem unreasonable. I am “forcing people to live in pain to satisfy my religious view”. They do not actually discuss the implications of their policies. They do not constructively critique arguments against what they say, they howl them down.

    • jim says:

      08:36pm | 01/04/11

      Funny you say that, I remember almost 4 years ago, on our last election. I knew another Timmy and his gf Sophie(now his wife) whom were both Christians that were voting Green. I asked them, “are you sure you’re voting for the right party” and he replied… “Christians can vote Greens”...

      I left it at that. I don’t think Timmy understood the green party. Needless to say, the Green party are opportunists… did a little further and you’ll see they want to tax everything. Tax people enough times and you can afford everything.

      Bob Brown needs to understand that NSW has the highest Education score in the whole Nation.

      He should get back to uni- statistics to find that there is a “Negative Correlation” with the people that support Greens to Educated citizens.

      The more educated we are, the less we’ll vote for the Greens… smile

    • Davi says:

      01:38pm | 07/04/11

      @Jimmy -
      “The very sad truth is that 90% of the people who vote Greens have little or no understanding of their policies or implications. They see the word “Greens” and think they are voting for the environment.”

      Same could be said for the Liberal Party. It’s a very strange name for a party that leans heavily to the right. I am a Libertarian and could never vote ‘Liberal Party’. What a joke. I see the greens as the only real choice, not because I agree with all of their policies but because of the conviction behind them.

      Abbott IMO is ruining the Liberal Party. He will say anything and kiss every baby and change his stance on everything as long as he scores points against the govt. He has no actual spine and his so called ‘policies’ are often not completely thought through and are rarely backed by fact or funding.

      On the other hand, the Labor party has also lost its way. We all know how and why.

      So what other choices are there? really small wasted vote parties and independents and the Green party. At least the Greens take a scientific approach to their policies. They are not governed by a populist vote but rather cold hard facts. Just because 90% of Australians choose to keep their heads in the sand does not make a vote for the Greens any less relevant.

    • EGGs says:

      06:23am | 01/04/11

      Suddenly Gillard presents the appearance of conveniently distancing herself from the Greens whilst knowing that for politically opportunistic reasons red Labor and Green Brown will not ditch each other.

      Gillard’s sudden burst of loathing for her Green comrades is as deceitful as all her proclamations. She cannot govern without them, and her voter base is deteriorating because of them.  When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

      Extremist Green Government.  EGG all over Gillard’s face.

    • dovif says:

      07:54am | 01/04/11

      well you will have to ask Gillard whether it was real Julia or not, or the fake one

      One minute she was adopting Brown policies and appearing with Brown announcing the carbon tax, then giving NT and ACT the rights to kill people. The next minute, she got shown private polling, and she is calling them extremists.

      Will the Real Julia please stand up, she is lying so much that we do not know who Julia is anymore

    • Your name:Polly says:

      08:17am | 01/04/11

      Your comment: Two faced Juliar was given a welcome in Green Fremantle. Good title EGG all over Gillard’s face wink

    • Bruce says:

      08:53am | 01/04/11

      To save the labor party some one with some balls in the labor party needs to take a serious stand against the greens. Only a new election will fix it. Also, labor must not preference the greens.

    • hermes says:

      09:12am | 01/04/11

      I agree, I find Julia’s hypocrisy much more offensive than the Greens. I don’t particularly like the Greens, mostly because I loathe socialism, but at least they are upfront about their silly policies.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      06:26am | 01/04/11

      Australia and Argentina were among the richest nations on a per capita basis one hundred years ago. But politics failed Argentina and it went down the slippery slope. Australia was lucky to get the British heritage in politics and culture.


      The two-party system is also a British heritage. It served Australia well. But in recent years our two parties system has been hijacked by the Greens. The ALP must wake up and recognize that the Greens are their mortal enemy. Strategically the ALP and LNP can destroy the Greens by adopting a policy of not giving the Greens preference under any circumstances even though it may mean the loss of a current election. The next election without the Greens the ALP can be re-elected.


      Three issues which concern me demonstrate that the Greens are against the strategic interests of Australia.


      Firstly is the issue of Japan’s cull of the overpopulated Minke whales in the Southern Oceans. The Minke whales at more than 500,000 competes directly with the majestic and extremely endangered Blue whales for krill their main food. Historically, the Minke whales increased when the Blue whales were decimated from 230,000 to its present population of 2500, according to IWC data. Thus the only way we humans can do to help the conservation of the Blue whales, the largest whales, is to cull the Minke whales. Australia did the opposite by vigorously opposing the cull of Minke whales by Japan and so we have given the Blue whales a kick towards extinction.

      Secondly is the issue of the boat people. Australia needs to withdraw from the UN Charter on Refugees. MOST of our Asian neighbours are not members of this UN Charter on Refugees. Some of our close Asian neighbours have LAWS which calls for mandatory caning of illegal migrants. The world will experience a critical global FOOD crisis within the next 50 years and we shall not have another Green Revolution in food production which saved us in the past 40 years. When that happens we shall have a tsunami of boat people because of famines and social unrests in Asia.

      Thirdly the proposed carbon tax is an insane policy for Australia. We produce less than 2% of global CO2 pollution and therefore whatever we do on OUR OWN is irrelevant. Carbon tax, ETS and any other methods are useful only if Australia is part of a group of nations which produces more than 60% of the global CO2 pollution and which has an effective action plan. It amazes me that such simple Maths is beyond the grasps of the Greens and some ALP leaders. The proposed carbon tax will disadvantage Australia’s Economy which is only a small part of a global Economy. The Greens and the PM have been seduced by the hocus pocus of Economics Theory which requires the INVALID Assumption that Australia is a stand alone economic system so that companies like an Aluminum smelter will not close shop and move overseas.

    • Jedi_T says:

      07:19am | 01/04/11

      *claps loudly*
      A very well articulated piece. Pity most people will skim this one, or post negative comments against it!
      As for the refugee thing, i’ll step to the side on that one, as I dont have a humane alternative than the current method.

    • Michael says:

      08:29am | 01/04/11

      i would rather see all of the people of Japan and any other nations that kill whales, wiped from the face of the earth and all memory than see another whale harpooned and dragged by the tail into a processing ship, and the young whales also killed for “humanitarian” reasons.

      But that’s just my view smile

    • Brian Taylor says:

      08:47am | 01/04/11

      good post TimB

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      09:09am | 01/04/11

      @ Michael. I understand your views on whaling. I share with you a deep passion to save whales from EXTINCTION.

      I think the Australian public did not understand the best way to save whales from extinction. In this case the only way we humans can do to save the majestic and extremely endangered Blue whales is to cull the overpopulated Minke whales. Michael is probably unaware that the only endangered whales being harvested is the Bowhead whales the second largest whales. IWC allows the natives of USA and Russia to strike 65 times a year. As a population biologist I think this IWC policy on Bowhead whales is wrong as the population is about 10,000 down from an original population of about 200,000. Thus the Australian politics should focus on USA and Russia if we want to conserve whales and not Japan.

      Japan is our No 2 trading partner. The whale issue had affected our relationship with Japan.

      We humans have disturbed our environment and sometimes we have to do the nasty thing of culling some species to help re-balance Nature. We slaughter millions of kangaroos a year. In South Africa after many years of bitter debate they had no choice but to cull substantially the overpopulated elephants in the Kruger Park which were destroying the old trees hundreds of years old. I think elephants are as intelligent as whales and they should not be slaughtered if there is a choice.

    • Kemp says:

      09:40am | 01/04/11

      Excellent post Dr B S Goh! And I don’t see why I have to pay taxes at all - my contribution is 0.0000053% of the total government tax revenue - how could that possibly make a difference to society or the budget?

    • Scott says:

      11:11am | 01/04/11

      @Kemp You do realise you are only proving Dr B S Goh’s point regarding the carbon tax? Your individual tax contribution makes no significant difference to society or the budget. It is only because you are acting in unison with the rest of the nation who contribute the other 99.9999947% of tax revenue that anything is achieved through taxation.

    • Macon Paine says:

      11:28am | 01/04/11

      Interesting comments Doc, Im by no means a greenie (I frown upon their economic policies and despise their totalitarian mind set) but can you just clarify a few points for me:

      “Australia needs to withdraw from the UN Charter on Refugees.”

      You may be correct but why exactly? The fact that our neighbours are almost uniformly non signatories is not really a good reason for us to abandon it, if thats what your saying.

      “Some of our close Asian neighbours have LAWS which calls for mandatory caning of illegal migrants.”

      Of course this is just deplorable utter barbarism, surely it would be in our (and especially the refugees interest) to persuade them to abandone such practices.

      “The world will experience a critical global FOOD crisis within the next 50 years”

      What is this based on? Link if possible please.

      Cheers

    • Ryan says:

      11:32am | 01/04/11

      @Dr B S Goh: if the Japanese were really trying to make the enviornment better for blue whales which face extinction (mainly because of the Japanese in the first place), why is it that they added 50 humpback whales (also facing certain extinction) to their hunt / whoops I mean “research” in 2007.
      The Japanese have proven that they are not to be trusted with regards to whaling, just take a look at the history, excuse me if I find their sudden interest in the conservation of blue whales utterly laughable and about as trustworthy as Juliar Gilliar speaking about a carbon tax during the last election.

      I quote from http://www.awionline.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/11180/pid/716

      “The tragedy of the blue whale is reflected in the utter rapacity of Japan’s whalers even after the IWC adopted a ban on blue whaling in 1964.

      Japanese whaling companies evaded the IWC ban on killing blue whales – and humpback and right whales – by setting up unregulated whaling stations on the southern coast of Chile in the mid-1960’s, according to historical records.

      More than 700 of the highly-endangered marine mammals were harpooned in Chilean waters by Japanese catcher boats over a four-year period between 1964 and 1968, virtually wiping out the remaining stocks in the eastern South Pacific.

      Chile was not a member of the IWC at the time, so any whaling there was outside of IWC quotas or bans.

      The Japanese whalers moved into Chile in 1964 because the IWC that year banned all blue whaling.  For years, Japan had bitterly resisted proposals to halt the killing of blue whales despite the plummeting catches of the huge animal. The Japanese government only acquiesced after the seven Japanese pelagic fleets – including more than 100 catcher boats – could not find a single blue whale in the 1963-64 Antarctic season.

      But the Japanese whalers knew that a remnant population of blue whales survived in the sheltering fjords of southern Chile, the mating and calving grounds for whales. So beginning in 1964 the Japanese government quietly licensed its whaling companies to set up shore stations along the Chilean coast. Sources in Tokyo report that the Japanese government even financed the construction of the factories where whale carcasses were towed for processing.

      A ruthless massacre of 690 blue whales took place over the next four years. Mother blue whales and their calves were pursued deep into the long fjords, where the still, icy blue waters were stained red by the harpooned giants. And even rarer whales were hunted down: 13 humpbacks and 3 Southern Right whales, both species “protected” under IWC rules.

      The outlaw whalers did not limit themselves to highly-endangered species. The Japanese killer boats also harpooned more than 1,600 fin and sei whales, and more than 1,500 sperm whales, all outside the IWC quota system.

      Japanese refrigerator ships transported all the whale meat and oil back to Japan, where government agencies raised no objections to the imports of “protected” species. The Chilean shore stations shut down in 1969 when the local whale populations had reached “commercial extinction,” a coldly economic term used to describe a resource that is too depleted to exploit profitably.

      Tens of thousands of blue, humpback, fin and right whales once populated Chile’s southern waters where they wintered after feeding each summer in the krill-rich Antarctic seas. The vast pelagic whaling fleets of the last century, led by Japan, the Soviet Union and Norway, systematically destroyed the great whale stocks of the Southern Ocean. And then the Japanese whalers finished off the few survivors hiding along Chile’s coast.”

    • kemp says:

      11:48am | 01/04/11

      Exactly, Scott!

    • Michael says:

      12:20pm | 01/04/11

      I don’t have info on any whales i just would rather see humans doing something about their own over population and destruction of the food chain.
      I don’t for one second buy into the line that only we can save the blue whales from the “minke menace”
      I just did a quick google search and it seems the fin whale is more competition to the blue whale than the minke whale.
      Is this the research that Japan has been conducting? can you point me to their science that has been peer reviewed?

      I don’t see the relevance of Japan being our 2nd largest trading partner, they want what we have, if they don’t buy it someone else will, the chinese or indians maybe. Because Japan doesn’t have what they need…see how that works?

      Indigenous peoples should be able to hunt whatever they have always hunted, so long as it is in keeping with tradition. I don’t wanna see the nissin maru or whatever it’s called being manned by innuits or anything lol.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:23pm | 01/04/11

      Dr B S Goh,

      Said “the two part system isalso a British heritage”!
      For as long as I can remember Britain has always had more than two parties. But as always I stand to be corrected.
      The good Dr goes on th suggest Australia has a two party system, when of course we don’t. The two major parties are trying hard to make it so, but to date have failed.

      As far as I’m concerned the wider the choice for the electorate the better, currently the two majors are destroying this country.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      08:23pm | 01/04/11

      @ Ryan

      I agree with you that the Japanese have done many bad things in whaling. I personally would demonstrate against them in Canberra if they would now catch a single humpback whale in the Southern Hemisphere. The humpback whales are of great importance to the Australian tourist industry. IWC data for 1998 says there were 42,000 humpback whales in the Southern Hemisphere.

      My statement is that the cull of the overpopulated Minke whales is the only way we humans can do to help save the Blue whales in Antarctica from extinction. The Japanese has not stated this as the reason why they cull the Minke whales in the Antarctica. My statement is based on the research of myself.

      The reason why I bring this issue up in this political discussion is to illustrate how people in the Greens party continually confuse the issues in scientific matters be it whaling or global warming.

      Whaling issues in public are now fully corrupted by excited non-scientists. In 1993 Dr Hammond the Chairman of the Scientific Committee of IWC resigned because of this, see his letter of resignation at: http://www.highnorth.no/library/Management_Regimes/IWC/le-fr-th.htm

      In Australia we just have seen the resignation of the Chief Scientist because she has not met PM Gillard nor has she received a request from the PM for advice on global warming. She was also not seriously used by PM Rudd on global warming.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      08:59am | 02/04/11

      @ Kemp says:09:40am | 01/04/11
      As a rocket scientist I have some expertise in systems analysis.

      In the case of taxation of your good self you are an integral part of the system, the Australian economy. So all tax payers must agree as we do to form the Australian economy.

      In the case of global warming there is NO Agreement among members of the group of nations which contribute to global human population. Thus the individual subsystem, the Australian Economy, cannot affect the outcome/behavior of the global system as a whole.

      If you want a techical analysis of this I suggest you use the concept of controllability of dynamic systems developed by R E Kalman around 1960. It was a very important tool needed to send man to the moon in 1969.

    • Laurie Williams says:

      11:17am | 02/04/11

      Dr Goh you make some good points against the too easily accepted trendy beliefs, but you have been led by opportunistic journalists, politicians and others to the false belief that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is not and would not be even at many times its present atmospheric concentration.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      10:21pm | 02/04/11

      @ Laurie Williams 11:17am . Thanks for pointing out my sloppy use of language. Yes I should not call CO2 a pollutant like SO2.

      I was the scientist in a very interesting prototype plant to grow vegetables in an arid region under fully controlled conditions in Arizona USA in 1974. Our plants love extra CO2 !!. We produced an incredible three pounds of tomatoes on ten acres of plastic greenhouses. With the technology developed we can actually grow vegetables on the Moon if we ensure we have CO2 !.

      Last few days I read in yahoo an interesting experiment in Spain which uses CO2 output from a factory to grow algae and then biofuel.

      A group of friends had invested millions on biofuel.

      One of my concerns of the proposed carbon tax is the assumption that new technologies can be developed quickly. My friends and I have hands on experiences with developing new technologies and generally it is very very hard. In Australia we have to be patient and wait for a quantum leap in new technologies. It is very foolish of Govt to put in place a very PERVASIVE tax with blue sky assumptions. We must be realistic that we are a very small country.

      PS. I am on holiday in a very cold place and we had big snow falls recently. It is hard think seriously of global warming.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      10:34pm | 02/04/11

      Oops. I made a stupid but comical error in my previous post. It should read: We produced an incredible three MILLION pounds of tomatoes a YEAR from ten acres of plastic greenhouses.

    • Laurie Williams says:

      04:24pm | 15/04/11

      Good responses Dr!

      Hard to believe that after 20 years of sound opposition to the climate scam it’s still going, to the point where the Oz PM can propose a fundamentally baseless tax under a fraudulent name and get loud support for it.

      When was the last time anyone saw a demonstration in favour of a government initiative, particularly a new tax?

      Imagine if the extra revenue were proposed to be rasied by increasing income tax or GST. Very different reaction, but because it’s in the name of Saving Mother Earth the greenies love it and the ALP and even some Libs are too stupid or too weak to oppose it.

      YouTube has some excellent discussions about the scam. Searches there on The Great Global Warming Swindle, Michael Coren Tim Ball and Michael Coren Lord Monckton will provide some sound information.

    • Al says:

      06:44am | 01/04/11

      they ‘crashed and burned’ huh ... despite raising the primary vote from the last state election, in a poll which swung heavily conservative. Slightly overstating to suit your own views there mate.
      There’s more and more seats around the state now where the Greens vote is approaching that of Labor, or surpassing it. On policy ... you know, the important bit ... the Greens are the progressive opposition now. Step up John Kaye, i’ll take u over ‘Robbo’ any day.

    • marley says:

      07:18am | 01/04/11

      Sorry, Al, but when you have a massive protest vote in the State, and ex-Labor voters move en masse to the Libs and Nats rather than the Greens, then yes, it’s a crash and burn.  Given the situation, an intelligent choice of candidates and some realistic policies would have given the Greens a few seats in the lower House.  Instead, nada.  And I expect, next time round, it will be worse, because there won’t be a tidal wave of protest to sustain them.

    • yeah yeah says:

      07:19am | 01/04/11

      Yup. Biggest swing ever. And how much of it did the Greens drag over? A teeny weeny fraction.

      Less than the increase from the drones voting Informal.

      Says something about Green policy and candidates when voters would rather vote *anything*, even Liberal, rather than Green.

    • TimB says:

      07:45am | 01/04/11

      And they achieved…what?

      Sorry, capturing the minority loony vote in each electorate isn’t going to do you any good.

      But by all means spin it as a positive result if you like. Keep talking the Greens up. It just makes it that much more satisfying to watch them repeatedly fail.

      BTW it’s not so much that the Green vote is approaching Labor’s it’s more that the Labor vote is approaching the Greens. A subtle distinction there.

    • Al says:

      11:38am | 01/04/11

      Still see no ‘crash and burn’ ... Better chance of a few Greens in the lower house while when we get some proportional representation there. Give us multi-candidate electorates and maybe even more people would see voting Green in their local electorates as viable. Even still we are seeing their primary vote in the high teens in plenty of electorates.

      The middle vote will always swing Lab/Lib so i doubt they were ever contesting that ‘protest vote’ ... yet on policy (yes that old chestnut) they’re the only place left for anyone serious about a progressive agenda that isn’t watered down.

    • TimB says:

      12:22pm | 01/04/11

      “high teens”

      Oh no! Less than 20% It’s a greenslide! Run!

      Please.

      I also like the bit where you claim the Greens would win more seats if only someone was nice enough to change the rules of the game for you. Too bad, you play with what you’re given.

      And BTW what you call progressive, the majority of us see as dangerously unrealistic.

    • Super D says:

      07:01am | 01/04/11

      So can we expect to see Gillard’s One Nation barbs directed at her coalition partners and supporters of economic hansonism “The Greens”?

      It will be no small irony that allegedly much more compassionate and tolerant Greens are the ones to reinvigorate Pauline Hanson.  From my perspective it just seems to be substituting one extreme nutter for another.

    • Tom says:

      07:41am | 01/04/11

      Great point Super D, such is life in our weaseling post modern society. It turns up some unlikely bedfellows.

      There is also a suspicion in the electorate that Pauline Hanson’s push to end the rorting of “affimative action” was reasonable.

    • Catching up says:

      07:15am | 01/04/11

      “Australia was lucky to get the British heritage in politics and culture.”

      Maybe you are correct to say we are lucky because of our penal past, which our society was built on.

      I would like to acknowledge the input into our society and culture by the millions of refugees and immigrants that have come to our country from many nations and cultures.

      I am fifth generation Australian on all sides with very little English blood in my veins.  Not that means anything, except to point out, we have always been since the First Fleet, a country of many different nationalities.

    • Mark says:

      08:04am | 01/04/11

      You can deny it as much as you like but it is a fact that our political and judicial systems are British in origin, with some early-American influence.

    • dobbieb says:

      08:37am | 01/04/11

      @Catching up, the blood in your veins does not alter the fact that we live under the English Westminster system. With all its faults its way better than most of the other European systems as is evidenced by the relatively stable economy and political system.
      Saying this, we are still way behind technologically in transport, mainly due to the fact that the majority of our popu;lations live in self centered cities. And so the Feds waste the opportunity on NBN

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      08:54am | 01/04/11

      I am a non-white migrant and I certainly would not want to devalue the contributions of millions of migrants and refugees to Australia. I have also lived and worked in other countries like USA, Canada, New Zealand and UK. I think all these countries are lucky to share some core values in politics as their British heritage.

      The penal experiences make Australia’s history colourful but I do think it is so important in the modern Australian political system.

      I have also lived and worked in a number of Asian and European countries.

      My main concern about the boat people is that we need to put a stop to it. In my view as a scientist who had worked hands on in food production I am very concerned about the forthcoming global food crisis. It will generate a tsunami of boat people.

      The New York Times stated that the recent unrests in Tunisia and Egypt were triggered by the sharp increases of global food prices which are at record levels. The current food crisis is manageable but there will be very much worse global food crisis within 50 years. India just announced that it has 1.2 billion people and there was an increase of 180 million people in India in the past TEN years. This is not sustainable and there is little we in Australia can do anything about it.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      09:15am | 01/04/11

      I am a non-white migrant and I certainly would not want to devalue the contributions of millions of migrants and refugees to Australia. I have also lived and worked in other countries like USA, Canada, New Zealand and UK. I think all these countries are lucky to share the core values in politics as their British heritage.

      The penal experiences make Australia’s history colourful but I do think it is so important in the modern Australian political system.

      I have also lived and worked in a number of Asian and European countries.

      My main concern about the boat people is that we need to put a STOP to it as soon as possible. In my view as a scientist who had worked hands on in food production I am very concerned about the forthcoming global food crisis. It will generate a tsunami of boat people.

      The New York Times stated that the recent unrests in Tunisia and Egypt were triggered by the sharp increases of global food prices which are at record levels. The current food crisis is manageable but there will be very much worse global food crisis within 50 years. India just announced that it has 1.2 billion people and there was an increase of 180 MILLION people in India in the past TEN years. This is not sustainable and there is little we in Australia can do anything about it.

    • TQS says:

      02:46pm | 01/04/11

      But only one source of law: English Common Law; and one original source of governance: Westminster.

      Please learn to appreciate the foundation stones of Australian prosperity and success and where they originate from.

    • Edward James says:

      07:25am | 01/04/11

      As a senior politician once told me. Its just politics. There are still 35 Labor politicians left. I wonder how buggered they are? Edward James http://bit.ly/EJ_PNewsAds

    • Gladys says:

      07:36am | 01/04/11

      sidekick Bob Brown

      That’s close to Sideshow Bob. I’ll give you that one.

    • gladys says:

      07:38am | 01/04/11

      I’m keeping this article.

    • C1 says:

      07:42am | 01/04/11

      Did you hear Gillard’s speech last night?

      I know she is trying to distance herself from them (fair enough) but she not only burnt the bridge but sought out the families of those who built it and threw them in the flames as well!!!

      This is going to make for interesting times.

    • Daniel says:

      07:46am | 01/04/11

      As usual Pembo you are totally incorrect. The Greens didn’t preference anyone in this election and they would never have preference Pauline Hanson. That is just not true. if the Greens had preferenced Labor your employer News Ltd would have come out and say “A vote for Greens is a vote for Labor”.

    • Super D says:

      08:59am | 01/04/11

      My understanding is that with above the line voting in the upper house works the same as federal elections and parties direct preferences before the election as they see fit / negotiate with other parties.  Basically there is a lot of head office shenanigans based on getting as many of their own candidates in as possible.

    • TQS says:

      02:40pm | 01/04/11

      There are no secret preferences in NSW Legislative Council Elections. Ballots simply exhaust if the list or candidates numbered by the voter do not qualify for a quota, or are outnumbered by another candidate for the final seat. How you number the ballots is exactly how the preferences will flow. If you just number “1” for a party list, the vote simply exhausts after the last candidate on that list.

      Because the Green’s advised no preferences in their how to vote (except for the Socialist Alliance), and Hanson now outranks them for the final seat, their preferences may exhaust, instead of giving Labor, or somebody else, the boost over Hanson for the final seat.

      FYI: The Socialist Alliance, which The Greens did advise preferences to, scored second lowest in the vote, and will be eliminated before any preference flow could be awarded from The Greens.

    • James Bailey says:

      07:47am | 01/04/11

      The Greens should learn rather than ignore the history of the Australian Democrats. They are a minority party ... what goes up must eventually come down. Rather than joining with the Democrats to form a viable and potential party that could govern, they chose to “eat away” at the Democrats’ base. The euphoria of the last federal election is shortlived as can be seen by the recent “great results” of the Greens in the last couple of state elections.

    • Daniel says:

      04:44pm | 01/04/11

      James you are wrong too. The Greens never ate away at the Democrats base. The Australian Democrats sold out over the GST the membership never forgave them. They therefore withered on the vine. Dont blame the Greens for Democrats mistakes.

    • TQS says:

      11:23am | 02/04/11

      The Australian Democrats actually performed well - admittedly for the last time - in the election after their GST deal and it’s introduction. They got 7.25% and elected four senators in the 2001 Federal election.

      For mind it was their lack of a guiding political philosophy that was eventually exposed. During their subsequent leadership disputes no one could step up and say “this is what we stand for, and this is what I believe”. No Democrat could grab a copy of Hayek, or any book, and thump it into a table like Thatcher did, and use it as a coherent guide to governance. And so the party of nothing saw it’s support evaporate into nothing.

      What can a left-wing party of the centre-right stand for anyway? It’s the wets oxymoron. The Democrats current support of 0.7% of the (NSW) electorate shows the empty nothingness of their position and the death of their incoherent ideology.

    • Kath says:

      10:56am | 04/04/11

      The Greens and Democrats never had and still do not have an overlapping base. The Democrats abandoned their own base when the leaders (Allison and Bartlett) ignored the base to indulge their own ideological whims which are closer to the Greens than Dems founding values. The GST had little to do with it, other than spooking the organisation in to delivering weak leaders to the leadership, and then the continuing internal divide distracting/disheartening the membership so they didn’t do anything about it.

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:52am | 01/04/11

      Here’ some real conspiracy theory espoused by the then Tassie Green Leader, now Climate Change consultant, Pegg Putt at the ‘06 Election Night.

      In-spite of winning any more seats Putt managed a 45 minute speech in contrast with the ALP and Lib leaders who could only manage about 7 minute speeches. The losers!

      This is the first 3:45 minutes http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200603/r78714_225488.mp3, history has lost the other 41 minutes…

      “...forces were at work behind the scenes trying to covertly influence the outcome, [crowd boos] it’s true! [crowd boos] this is true! [crowd boos] it is true, and it must be said! They were specifically targeting The Greens…” etc.

    • TQS says:

      02:44pm | 01/04/11

      Nice find.

      Did you hear Bob Brown refer to the “hate media”. That’s his codeword paean to this bizarre conspiracy theory of The Greens base.

    • Chris L says:

      07:57pm | 01/04/11

      Little different to the Coalition blaming their 2007 loss on the media. Everyone seeks excuses when they’ve been pwned.

      I’m just hoping that Labor thinks about what happened in the NSW election and learns a lesson from it. Not holding my breath though.

    • Mr Real says:

      07:58am | 01/04/11

      ABC radio is reporting today that Jamie Parker will win Balmain on the preference count. He received 30% of the primary vote, and will pick up enough Labor preferences (another 2-3% probably) to leapfrog the leading Liberal candidate.

      The Labor Party preference card they were issuing up until friday directed preferences to Parker. They withdrew that on saturday because of “adverse publicity” about this man.

      If their votes elect him, this will be Labor’s last insult to the people of NSW

      Do NOT blame the people of Balmain, Penbo. Only 30% of us wanted him, 70% emphatically DIDN’T.

    • Michael says:

      08:05am | 01/04/11

      The “marriage” of the greens and labor is more like “friends with benefits”. labor has no particular platform or belief system left to synergise with anyone - the greens only real platform as a party (some of the individuals have variously scary soap boxes) is opportunism. So I guess the best you could call the labor/greens thing is a “casual hook-up”. F@#k buddies of sorts. labor want votes, greens want power. Nobody really knows what the greens stand for or will do if they get power - but labor are giving us a pretty good idea - and it’s scatty and scary.

      I think people like the idea of being “green” but are too scared of what might happen if they vote green - radical opportunists with no particular adgenda combined with labor who are like a rudderless ship, an impressionable teenager trying to impress and fit-in… Truly frightening!

    • Jeremy says:

      08:09am | 01/04/11

      Where to start? How about this lie?

      “To the enduring disgust of the Labor Party, the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP”.

      Not true. Simply not true.

      Not that we’d expect much else given News Ltd’s outright declaration that it seeks to “destroy” the Greens.

      PS Nice comments you’re publishing: “It’s time for these cave dwellers to be eradicated from our society.”

    • Adam says:

      08:58am | 01/04/11

      PS Nice comments you’re publishing: “It’s time for these cave dwellers to be eradicated from our society.”

      funny thing about free speech. even people who disagree with you are allowed an opinion

    • Michael says:

      09:11am | 01/04/11

      Really, jeremy? Eradicated?

      Simple, you facist, COME AND GET ME, I DARE YOU! Hahahahahaha!

      I’m sitting (very comfortably) in my cave and waiting for you, you scum-sucking low life.

      I we are all cave dwellers, and News ltd are out to get the greens, then you with your clearly supererior intellect must have beter things to do than waste your time on here? So who is forcing you to sully your pure, and amazing mind with this site? Your greens propaganda minister?

      Is the eradication of cave dwellers an offcial greens policy? Do you need to make room so when the greens take control there’s room in the caves for the coming green super-class? Have to get the untermenchen out of the way?

      Slither off, you tool!

    • James1 says:

      10:30am | 01/04/11

      Michael, let me introduce you to a little thing called “context”.  Jeremy was quoting someone else (Pamela, above, who is an agrarian socialist - oops, I mean National Party member).  She said that about the Greens and their supporters.

      As such, your invective should be directed elsewhere, and I believe an apology is in order.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:35am | 01/04/11

      Errr, Michael… I think he’s actually quoting someone else’s comment.

      Back in your… cave?  Calm down. grin

    • David LD says:

      10:38am | 01/04/11

      @Adam - You’ve obviously never had a comment of yours not published on this site. Don’t think for a second that there is actual freedom of speech on this site.

      Comments are chosen to generate the most page hits and to drive a narrative. If your comment doesn’t fit the narrative, or questions the journalistic integrity of the piece, expect to have it edited or simply not posted.

      [Hi Punch moderator(s). Hope you’re having a swell day today.]

    • Macon Paine says:

      12:22pm | 01/04/11

      Ok this has probably been asked before but is the poster “Jeremy” actually Greens candidate for the upper house “Jeremy Buckingham”?

      Can anyone shed any light on this?

    • Edward James says:

      04:28pm | 01/04/11

      @ Jeremy says. Good point. Jeremy!  I recall reading an expression going around back when.  “Is that true or did you read it in the Telegraph?” News Limited has a history of mishandling the truth carelessly. Edward James http://bit.ly/EJ_PNewsAds

    • Seamus says:

      08:10am | 01/04/11

      Greens—dickheads.  Aren’t the words synonymous?

    • Cameron says:

      08:14am | 01/04/11

      There are plenty of us out here that care about the environment, but we just don’t want to be travelling in the same bus as the nutter Greens!

    • John C says:

      08:16am | 01/04/11

      The problem is that the Greens’ better policies - lets call them the Bob Brown policies - such as environmental concern and social rights attract the votes of many genuine and concerned people who support these causes but who are ignorant of the other extreme, socially destructing policies - lets call these the Rhiannon policies - such as extreme anti-Americanism, partisan vilification of Israel and the destruction of capitalism and social order.

      Without going to the extremes of the Murdoch press, in general the media which has failed to put a public spotlight on some of these policies should examine them. When they are exposed, as in the case of the would-be Foreign Minister and present Mayor of Marrickville, the Green vote will suffer.

    • TQS says:

      03:06pm | 01/04/11

      Destruction of Capitalism and social order are the Greens policies John. Sorry if you got fooled by Bob Browns friendly face and pragmatic grin, but they are, and always have been, a party of the hard left.

    • Zeta says:

      08:22am | 01/04/11

      While the central thesis of the article is dead on the money - the Green’s didn’t preference One Nation ahead of the ALP.

      The Greens ran a Vote 1 in the Legislative Council, encouraging the vote to exhaust because they couldn’t in good conscience preference the Coalition, and only a complete dim wit would associate themselves with the Worst Government Since The Rum Rebellion (tm).

      Labor is spitting big ugly chips because the ALP constitution demands reciprication in preference deals. They couldn’t preference the Greens, thus depriving the Libs or a Conservative of the final LC quota if the Greens didn’t preference them. As a result, the Left leaning upper house vote exhausted after just 1 for either the ALP or the Greens, weighting more heavily the preferenced votes of Conservative Parties.

      BUT! There’s a wild card, as there often always is in the Legislative Council. Simon Sheik, that slap headed, bug eyed idiot savant of Australian politics couldn’t sit idly by and watch so many votes go so legitimately to the Evil Conservative Empire that secretly runs NSW, so he ran a highly successful online campaign to encourage above the line preference allocation down to 15.

      This, in the theory, should have insulated the Greens and the ALP from Hanson snapping up that last quota except for two factors.

      1. You don’t encourage full preference allocation where one side of politics has more parties than the other. In the Green corner wearing the red trunks we had the ALP, the Greens, the Socialists, and the Democrats. The four parties most likely to attract high preferences from the Left.

      But in the Blue corner wearing the Right trunks you had the Liberals, the CDP, Family First, the Shooters… and One Nation. A higher volume of parties to cram up into the last 5 spots, not to mention the Fishers, the No Parking Meters looneys, Hatton, The Silly Party, etc.

      Voting in the legislative council is like going to a blood orgy. There’s a big fat corpse on an altar and you crowd around it with goblets. Now if you’re closest to the corpse your goblet fills up first, and the excess blood flows down your bare breasts into the goblet of the next supplicant, and so on and so forth. Maybe that’s the wrong analogy, but it’s my day off and I was going to start re-watching True Blood instead of writing this so deal with it.

      Imagine all those goblets of blood as being the necessary quotas to elect members to the upper house. What the Greens did was try to not even invite Pauline Hanson to the party - but what GetUp did was invite her, but put her last. Which meant she got a trickle of blood/votes she wouldn’t ordinarily have received.

      The other issue is this: One Nation did get a lot of primaries. You can’t deny it. After the quotas were allocated, she had the next highest primary votes and is, therefore, entitled to a seat irrespective of the carping by the Greens and the ALP. Yes, the Left’s mistakes might lead to her getting a trickle of extra preferences - but they have no one to blame but the predominantly rural and regional voters who supported her.

    • Zaf says:

      01:25pm | 01/04/11

      [Now if you’re closest to the corpse your goblet fills up first, and the excess blood flows down your bare breasts into the goblet of the next supplicant, and so on and so forth.]

      How beautifully put!  And I agree that enough voters put Hanson first that she got a bite of the big toe completely fairly.  I think she’s in, and I think that’s an accurate reflection of the wishes of the electorate.

      What I don’t get is the point of the article.  The Greens don’t pander - and the reason they get their core support is precisely because they don’t pander (on the environment, on drugs policy, on gay marriage, on justice issues like Palestine) even when it costs them votes.  The article isn’t going to change the Greens, and it certainly won’t impact on their supporters (who are used to this kind of stuff, and are sceptical about material written about the Greens.) 

      Everybody know that when push comes to shove, if they have to EITHER of the major parties would take the Greens support to form Govt.  So….why write this?  What’s the point in vilifying the Greens?  It won’t change the party.  It won’t impact on their voters.  It won’t impact on any potential power sharing deals in the future.  Can anybody explain?

    • Elphaba says:

      08:26am | 01/04/11

      It was interesting counting votes in my seat, many who preferenced Greens first preferenced Liberal second.  That’s how badly some people didn’t want to vote Labor.

      Like C1 said, interesting times…

    • DJ says:

      08:38am | 01/04/11

      Dead right Penbo .... a bunch of ratbags not to be taken seriously. I can’t believe they can poll 10% to 15% of primary. Who are these piople ?

    • AdamC says:

      08:42am | 01/04/11

      In terms of the Greens pump (by the meeja) and dump (by the voters) electoral trajectory, the NSW experience is simply a repeat of what happened in Victoria. Of course, the Greens weren’t carrying the baggage of a totally offensive thinly-veiled hate campaign (and evey Greens supporter should read your explanation of why the ‘BDS’ program is so outrageous) but they did have the problem that the Liberals preferenced them last.

      There is always an excuse for the Greens failures, but the reality is that the tide has peaked. Without the benefits of bipartisan preference flows and mass ignorance of their actual policy agenda, the Greens simply fail. In other words, they only succeed when nobody (namely voters and other parties) see them as a threat. Which is going to make it hard to grow their electoral influence.

    • malheureuxmaus says:

      08:49am | 01/04/11

      It is a shame that Hanson may return to Parliament and I’ll take your word for it Penbo that it was Green preferences that put her there - but, I fail to see how she could be more damaging than Senator Fielding elected off the back of Labor preferences in an attempt to keep the Greens out of the Senate.

    • Jeremy says:

      12:30pm | 01/04/11

      “I’ll take your word for it Penbo”

      I wouldn’t ,since the claim in question is a lie.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:01am | 01/04/11

      As a right wing environmentalist, I despise the Greens. Still, in the long run the environmental problems are not going to go away and as long as the Liberals and Labor keep making crap environmental policy, the Greens will probably find a niche…

    • Realist says:

      09:06am | 01/04/11

      “the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP, and”

      NO THEY DIDNT - this is a lie… correct and apologise David…!

    • Jason says:

      09:29am | 01/04/11

      Greens didnt preference one nation.. Upto punch to ensure facts are represented.

    • gus says:

      09:37am | 01/04/11

      I bet that the Marickville Green councillors wear clothes made in china despite the oppression of Tibet

    • k.marshall says:

      09:39am | 01/04/11

      Ambitions and capabilities mixed up again.
      Does this mean that greens = racists ?  It would certainly seem so by the action and words of the two greens involved. How disgusting !
      I cannot believe there is a local council in NSW attempting to ban anything jewish.  Why are they , or she, not being taken to court for discrimination ? I would want to know why she is being paid as a council member when she obviously considers she is a member of the federal government. God help us if she was, and back to her sandpits and sewerage .

    • PaulB says:

      09:42am | 01/04/11

      An “anti-Semite” is anyone the Jews don’t like.

    • AdamC says:

      09:58am | 01/04/11

      Is this a joke? Mods?

    • Unprotected Species says:

      10:02am | 01/04/11

      Which is usually anyone who dares speak the truth about savage Israeli foreign policy.

    • mike j says:

      12:40pm | 01/04/11

      Doesn’t look like the mods are coming, AdamC.

      Maybe if you tried yelling for your mother?

    • AdamC says:

      01:46pm | 01/04/11

      Mike J, I think I can handle it by myself. Trolls aren’t paticularly intimidating.

      However, it is a pity when text-book anti-Semitic remarks get published on the Punch.

    • mike j says:

      02:46pm | 01/04/11

      And more of a pity when those remarks are truth.

      As you, yourself, just adequately demonstrated.

    • AdamC says:

      03:08pm | 01/04/11

      AdamC, I don’t believe I need to explain why a remark about ‘the Jews’ (which Jews?) inventing the concept of anti-Semitism to silence debate is, itself, anti-Semitic.

      But then, ‘the Jews’ also invented the holocaust, didn’t they, Mike J?

      In any event, I’m just feeding a troll here.

    • mike j says:

      04:34pm | 01/04/11

      “I don’t believe I need to explain why a remark about ‘the Jews’ (which Jews?) inventing the concept of anti-Semitism to silence debate is, itself, anti-Semitic.”

      Yes, you absolutely do, because that doesn’t follow at all. If I pull you up for using a logical fallacy in a debate, does that mean I hate you? All you’ve done is utilise the very paradigm you’re arguing against.

      Replace ‘inventing’ with ‘invoking’, though. No-one accused the Jews of inventing anti-Semitism.

    • Al says:

      06:42pm | 01/04/11

      I don’t think anti-Semite is the correct term here. The greens (and half of the commenters here) are clearly anti-Israel, but not necessarily anti-Semites (although quite often the two go hand in hand).
      It is quite astonishing how the extreme left (including the greens) do not hesitate to castigate Israel at every opportunity, yet they find no time to criticise any of the harsh Islamic dictatorshps.

    • GB says:

      09:42am | 01/04/11

      I see Gillard chose to again distance herself from them last night during her self-serving tripe fest. Looks pretty clear to me that the honeymoon is over. Good luck passing legislation once the Greens take over the Senate. Be careful Jools, all it takes is Adam Bandt to withdraw his support and those new curtains you just ordered for the lodge will need to be returned. Just remember that. I hope the place you ordered them from has a refund policy.

    • James says:

      09:45am | 01/04/11

      Yeah, when all else fails bash the Greens.  People bitch about politicians being cynical and not putting themselves out there, possibly that they aren’t doing that because they see what happens to the Greens, the amout of shite talked about the greens remindes me of a sort of national office bullying campaign that brings into sharp relief the weak character of the bullies, attack the guy who thinks differently, yeah welcome to the clever country.

    • Vaunted says:

      11:06am | 01/04/11

      James, feel free to stand for public office. However, in a democracy it will make better sense for you to aim to represent the views and interests of the majority, if you’re keen on achieving office and being of any service that is. On the other hand, you could stand with a group that clearly represents extremism, negativity and ratbaggery of the first order, and all you’ll get for your trouble is endless disappointment and frustration. The people may be fooled from time to time, but are not stupid, by and large.

    • James says:

      12:27pm | 01/04/11

      Extremism, negativity are you talking about the Liberal party?  What makes you think the Greens represent the interests of the majority, I’m not talking about the Greens evil twin i.e. they way they are portrayed by Alan Jones, I mean what the actually stand for i.e. A healthy environment and social justice?

    • Laurie Williams says:

      04:45pm | 15/04/11

      That tired abused feelgood term “social justice” gets a run again. From a lefty of course.

      Lefties are the last people who would have a clue about social justice or any interest in promoting it.

      Social justice comes from freedom and opportunity, not self serving socialist repression in Animal Farm style.

      Where’s the “social justice” in the lefties’ global warming scam, with its purpose of destroying freedom, opportunity, prosperity and wealth, particularly in the underdeveloped countries of Africa where the left (Greenpeace, WWF etc) are actively opposing provision of electricity, or of maintaining labour market regulation including minimum wages that permanently price people at the bottom of the pile out of the labour market?

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      09:46am | 01/04/11

      It has ALL been written here so I wont ramble on with the same old same old.

      I agree absolutely with those whose opinions match mine.

      The rest of you are little more than cretins and should keep your opinions to yourselves instead of wasting my time reading through seeking whatever.

      One thing though: Be grateful that we live somewhere where we can spew out whatever nonsense we wish without fear. (so far).

    • Alex Van Vucht says:

      10:05am | 01/04/11

      This article is misleading: “the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP.” This is factually false and is almost libel. If it isn’t corrected within 24 hours, I’ll be lodging a complaint with the press council.

      You got to fight fair, Penbo, and using this website as a podium on which to spread lies and deceit of the Greens is not fair.

    • Zeta says:

      10:14am | 01/04/11

      I think the media can be forgiven for believing the Greens might have been directing preferences to One Nation given it’s all Labor has been saying for six days.

      I’m sure the press council look forward to sending the fork lift down to the sub-basement where they keep the crashed Uluru UFOs, scraps of Harold Holt scuba gear and Penbo’s Press Council file to include your complaint. 

      And besides - can you confirm that out of the 0.42 of a quota Hanson currently has, not 1 vote was from preference flowed out of a Greens primary? By not preferencing Labor, the Greens did allow the possibility of more Greens primaries preferencing the Labor. It’s not untrue.

    • Liz Aitken says:

      10:16am | 01/04/11

      I second that comment Alex. When did printing outright lies become either journalism or opinion?

      Disgraceful

    • Dick J says:

      10:39am | 01/04/11

      Libellous ??!!!.  How can you defame a political party particularly the Greens. An inane notion.

      By the way the Greens did preference One Nation over the ALP. As a political party they only exist as a parasites living off the preferences of the Coalition and the ALP in parliaments. Now Hanson is in because she is the louse of the Greens.
      Fell free to be offended Alex then deal with it.

      .

    • The Original Oz says:

      10:42am | 01/04/11

      Alex Van Vucht - you have just confirmed the whole premise of this article “The Greens: when all else fails cry conspiracy”

    • GB says:

      11:19am | 01/04/11

      @Alex. “This is factually false and is almost libel. If it isn’t corrected within 24 hours, I’ll be lodging a complaint with the press council.”
      Bwahaha. Cry us a river. Maybe while you’re there you can also lodge a complaint on beahlf of the coal miners who Brown blamed for the Queensland floods without a shred of evidence.

    • Zaf says:

      10:45am | 01/04/11

      Mazel tov Penvo, you’‘re featured (deservedly) on Pure Poison. 

      Wrt the alleged anti-semitism of BSD, what do say about the Jewish organisations (there are a few) that support it?

      Over to you.

    • TQS says:

      02:58pm | 01/04/11

      The same thing you would say to any person who denigrates their own race, and publicly calls for the extiction and endangerment of their own peoples nation.

      They are Quislings,  traitors, scum and villainy. In kinder words, they are the useful idiots for Islamist genocide, and foolish adherents of suicidal liberalism.

      Furthermore, they are hypocrites writ large for their failure to support the boycott and embargo of Hamastan in Gaza, let alone the 95% of the world that has worse human rights records than Israel.

      They are rightly held in contempt by all thinking and well intentioned people for their desire to see the destruction of a free nation and its people.

    • Zaf says:

      05:32pm | 01/04/11

      Oh TQS, all this breathless hyperbole is so tiresomely predictable.  And so misguided, if you have any genuine feelings for Israel and the Jewish people. 

      We both know that the settlements are an obstacle for peace in Israel/Palestine, and so is the refusal by Israelis to acknowledge their responsibility in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. (Yes, of course there are other obstacles as well, but right now those two are the most influential.  Hamas’ charter is meaningless because they’ve said that they’ll acknowledge israel without admitting its ‘right to exist’, whatever that means.) 

      You may or may not agree that BDS is a good way to go, but let’s not pretend that all Jews are morally blind to the fact that Israel was born by displacing another people.  They may not be willing to reverse that - I wouldn’t either - but acknowledging it is the basis for any common resolution.  Allow me to recommend a fantastic Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, which would enlighten you greatly.

      Peace

    • Al says:

      06:55pm | 01/04/11

      Zaf:
      “Hamas’ charter is meaningless because they’ve said that they’ll acknowledge israel”. In that case the settlements are meaningless - they can be dismantled in exchange for a real peace deal, as proven by Israel during the peace deal with Egypt. Unlike Hamas - promising they’ll acknowledge Israel at some point in the future, Israel has already proven its willingness to remove settlements.
      “Israel was born by displacing another people” - many of the Arabs who left were either bought out by the Jews (in the early days), left of their own accord (the rich ones or those who were promised to return as victors), and a result of the 1948 war. Let’s remember that the Arabs back in 1948 refused to accept the UN partition - had they accepted in the we might not be in this situation now.
      And finally, TQS’s argument that hypocrites (most of the extreme left) rush to condemn Israel while having no comment on regimes with appaling human rights records is quite valid.

    • Zaf says:

      09:25pm | 01/04/11

      [In that case the settlements are meaningless - they can be dismantled in exchange for a real peace deal, as proven by Israel during the peace deal with Egypt.]

      Abbas has been Israel’s poodle, there’s basically been peace on the West Bank for two years, until recent violence.  How come the settlements are still there and are in fact being added to?

      You may have heard of the Palestine Papers, leaked to al jazeera?  Here’s the Guardian’s assessment of their impact:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-israel-peace-partner

      “…the documents blow apart what has been a staple of Israeli public diplomacy: the claim that there is no Palestinian partner. [the] transcripts [ ] show that there is not only a Palestinian partner but one more accommodating than will surely ever appear again.”

      Iow, if Israel hasn’t made peace with Abbas, it’s because Israel would rather have the settlements than peace.  Cold truth.

      Note the Likud party’s platform that commits the party to work against the establishment of a Palestinian State.  (Are the Palestinians wasting time asking Likud to change its platform before they sit down at talk?  To insist on the equivalent from every Palestinian entity is a dishonest delaying tactic, nothing more.)

      [many of the Arabs who left were either bought out by the Jews (in the early days), left of their own accord (the rich ones or those who were promised to return as victors), and a result of the 1948 war.]

      Well yes, they WERE made refugees during the 1948 war.  That was my point.  It is a war crime (Geneva conventions, etc.) to refuse to allow a civilian population that has fled an area due to fear of violence (please google Stern Gang, Deir Yassin, at your leisure) to return home after cessation of fighting, and it is also against these conventions for a country to replace these refugees (eg the Palestinian refugees) with its own people (eg by putting up settlements).  It’s pretty straight forward.

      Claims that most land was fairly bought from Arabs have been extensively discredited by israeli historians.  Nobody but Americans from the Bible Belt even pretends to believe that any more.

      [And finally, TQS’s argument that hypocrites (most of the extreme left) rush to condemn Israel while having no comment on regimes with appalling human rights records is quite valid.]

      It IS valid to demand consistency in these things – I agree with that point, so I didn’t argue it.  In fact I wish that you would be consistent in your view of Israeli and Palestinian human rights and national aspirations.  How about it?  Wouldn’t that be better for Israel and the Jewish people than this endless warfare and the insidious moral degradation of trying to justify it?  What do you think?

    • TQS says:

      09:37pm | 01/04/11

      Zaf, as you ought to know, a population exchange occurred between Israel and the Arab world. More Jews were forcible expelled from Arab lands, than Arabs left Israel. Population exchanges are a time tested way to keep the peace between fighting neighbours, and whilst ugly, are preferable to ongoing war.

      Turkey and Greece know this, India and Pakistan know this. I do not see your outrage for the Greeks of Smyrna, nor the Muslims of Amritsar. Why the double standard when the population exchange involves Jews?

      Furthermore, more wealth was confiscated from expelled Jews by Arab regimes, than wealth was lost by absentee Arab’s to Israel. The Arab world is in arrears when it comes to compensation to refugees from the creation of Israel and the expulsion of the Middle-East’s Jews to it. Israel has no stain on it’s creation, it saved the Jews of the Middle-East from a second holocaust by providing a place of refuge.

      And if the British had been true to their Balfour Deceleration and created Israel by 1939, there never would have been a holocaust. Unfortunately Arab collaboration and Chamberlain cowardice combined in the 1939 White Paper that condemned European Jewry to Nazi genocide.

      Also, no thanks to your commie rag. You ought to be reading Arutz Sheva, not that Marxist anti-Zionist nonsense.

    • Al says:

      11:00am | 02/04/11

      Zaf, the problem of making peace with Abbas is that you can never be sure whether he is still going to be there next year. He was in charge of Gaza before Hamas came into power, but his policies are no longer followed there now. If you think any peace agreement reached with Abbas will stay in place once Hamas are in power you are deluding yourself. This is why any peace agreement is quite pointless unless most Palestinian entities support it. I should also remind you that it was this same “inflexible” Likud party who in the past removed settlements from the Sinai in exchange for a peace agreement with Egypt.
      As TQS mentions, there were more Jewish refugees fleeing Arab states during the 40s and 50s than Arabs fleeing the Jewish state. Do you think the Jewish refugees were (or are) allowed to return? Why is there no support from the Greens (or others from the extreme left) for those refugees?
      As for the Stern Gang, they were supported by a tiny minority of the Jewish population. Furthermore, the mainstream Haganah were often acting against them, tipping the British authorities about their location and activities, leading to their arrest. We are yet to see the mainstream Palestinian population taking action, not just dubious words, against terrorism.
      You won’t get any arguments from me about Palestinian human rights - they deserve their rights like anyone else. I am supportive of the two-state solution, the sooner it happens the better. As to the extent of human rights a Palestinian is likely to get in Gaza, under Hamas, compared with Israeli rule, where they can choose what religion (if any) they would like to follow, or take the Israeli government to the high court (and sometimes win), I’ll leave it for you to decide.

    • TQS says:

      11:43am | 02/04/11

      Zaf I fully support the right of the Palestinian Arabs to national self-determination, and wish their Hashemite King all the best. I support their states right to continued existence, and applaud the courageous defence of it’s people from terrorist and foreign attack in September 1970. Their King has done well to preserve their people from endless war and accept peace, and the beginnings of economic prosperity that flow from it.

      Sure, they did ethnically cleanse all Jews from east of the Jordan, and Britain did promise the land, in part, for Jewish settlement. But all politics is about compromise, and a population exchange either side of a natural border like the Jordan River is an agreeable deal, even if Arabs got the far better from it - good luck to them.

      Israel is not bitter for the lost bank of the east Jordan, an integral part of ancient and ongoing Jewish nation in Israel. Like any civilised nation, it chooses peace and compromise with its neighbours, not eternal war for the sake of religious martyrdom, as Islamist’s do, since 1917.

    • Zaf says:

      03:28pm | 02/04/11

      Al

      [the problem of making peace with Abbas is that you can never be sure whether he is still going to be there next year… any peace agreement is quite pointless unless most Palestinian entities support it.]

      PRECISELY!!  And for this to happen it has to be seen as a just peace – not a sleazy back room deal made over the heads of the people with a corrupt elite who are only there because they’re supported by external powers.  (And even that Israel couldn’t agree to.  What gives?)

      Real peace has to be made with genuine representatives of the Palestinian people – and these genuine representatives will make genuine demands that address their people’s genuine needs.  They won’t sugar coat it for Israel’s convenience.  Perhaps that’s hard to cope with, but there really is no other way.

      [I should also remind you that it was this same “inflexible” Likud party who in the past removed settlements from the Sinai in exchange for a peace agreement with Egypt.


      Egypt is not Palestine.  It’s not really relevant to Likud’s opposition to a Palestinian state because Egypt wasn’t giving Sinai to the Palestinians, was it?

      Sinai was never broadly perceived as a part of Israel.  (Remember – wandering around in the wilderness of Sinai and THEN entered the promised land etc.) Let’s not kid ourselves – Sinai was a massive bargaining chip that cost relatively little, politically, for Israel to give up.  Gaza was expensive, even with so few Israeli settlers there.  The West Bank is being set up to be so ruinously expensive that it’ll be seen as a real option to just keep it and live with permanent conflict.  Or at least just keep it for a little longer.  And a little longer.

      [As TQS mentions, there were more Jewish refugees fleeing Arab states during the 40s and 50s than Arabs fleeing the Jewish state.]

      Please.  Let’s be factual.  Palestinians were driven out of what became Israel in 1948.  There were no waves of refugees again until 1967 (when most of them refused to leave – learning from experience).  There were NO Arab Jewish refugees leaving their countries of origin for Israel until the early 1950s.  It was not two simultaneous movements of people.  First one happened.  Then the other. 

      Please note: I am not justifying EITHER movement as fair.  Just pointing out the sequence, you can figure out the cause and effect for yourself.

      [Do you think the Jewish refugees were (or are) allowed to return?]

      Don’t you think that they should be able to go back if they want to?  Don’t you think this should be their right?

      Let’s be consistent.

      [As for the Stern Gang, they were supported by a tiny minority of the Jewish population. Furthermore, the mainstream Haganah were often acting against them]

      Words, words, words.  But the Haganah was perfectly happy with the consequences of the Stern Gang’s terrorist actions – a country that had been cleared of its original inhabitants, ripe for settlement by European Jews. 

      If the Haganah had genuinely opposed the Stern Gang they would have allowed the Palestinian refugees (from terror) to return.  That didn’t happen, and that speaks more accurately than all the platitudes in the world.

      [We are yet to see the mainstream Palestinian population taking action, not just dubious words, against terrorism.]

      1   There has been a significant reduction in terrorist attacks.  Whether this is due to additional Israeli security, or to Palestinian actions, is open to debate.  Imho, both.
      2   Palestinians, it is fair to point out, may feel that they have more pressing immediate concerns than reassuring Jewish Israelis about terrorism for little apparent benefit to themselves.
      3   If you look at the relative ‘kill rates’ of Palestinians and Israelis, you’ll notice that there are about ten times as many Palestinians killed in this conflict as Israelis.  Isn’t it a bit grotesque to demand reassurance FROM the Palestinians, given that the violence seems to flow more the other way?

      [You won’t get any arguments from me about Palestinian human rights - they deserve their rights like anyone else. I am supportive of the two-state solution, the sooner it happens the better. ]

      So why support the settlers who make this two state solution increasingly impossible?

      [As to the extent of human rights a Palestinian is likely to get in Gaza, under Hamas]

      I am not defending Hamas.  I do not ask you to defend Lieberman.

      Peace

    • Zaf says:

      03:31pm | 02/04/11

      TQS

      Population exchanges are neat in theory, but very messy in reality – because real life is never that simple.  I am from India, so I do have some familiarity with this issue.  There is never a clean break, and even Greece and Turkey are still at daggers drawn a CENTURY later.  Doesn’t look like such a great resolution to me.  In real life, as opposed to theoretically.

      [Furthermore, more wealth was confiscated from expelled Jews by Arab regimes, than wealth was lost by absentee Arab’s to Israel. ]

      It makes no sense at all to claim that you achieve fairness by giving a Jewish refugee from Iraq (who fled the country in the 1950s) the property of a refugee from Haifa (who fled Palestine in 1948, at least two years earlier) and then blaming the whole thing on Iraq. Did Iraq agree to a population exchange?  Or is that another after the fact platitude, along the lines of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’?

      [Israel has no stain on it’s creation]

      I’m afraid it does.  It displaced unarmed Arabs to replace them with refugees from Europe.  It achieved this aim by terror.  It ALSO did a lot of great things for Jews, but for the indigenous Arab population of Palestine it was an unmitigated and undeserved catastrophe.  It’s just simple truth – and no better or worse than most countries’ history – why not admit it?  I think it’s worth another drop of Passover wine at least.

      [And if the British had been true to their Balfour Deceleration and created Israel by 1939, there never would have been a holocaust.]

      Actually, if the Germans hadn’t been Nazis there would have been no holocaust.  And if there had been no holocaust, there would have been no modern Israel.

      [You ought to be reading Arutz Sheva]

      Fox News for Israel?  Feh!

      Fear God and respect his precious gift of reason!!!

      [I fully support the right of the Palestinian Arabs to national self-determination]

      So long as it’s somewhere else, I get it.  But the Palestinians aren’t from Iraq or Yemen or even the desert East of Amman.  They’re from Jaffa and Bethlehem and Haifa.  That’s the reality of it.  Mouthing platitudes doesn’t really address that – how is it helpful to anybody?  As I said, you don’t convince people who disagree with you by talking rubbish.  How about making a logical argument?

      Regards

    • TQS says:

      04:35pm | 02/04/11

      Zaf, you need to live in the world of imperfect endings. Population exchanges are ugly. Ongoing civil war and communal violence are far worse. We must compromise and accept lesser evils to prevent greater ones. A population exchange works because it better preserves the peace.

      The points of confrontation after a population exchange occurred where the population exchange was not carried out:

      1. Constantinople/Istanbul was exempt from the Turkish-Greek exchange, and saw the Pogrom of 1955 that expelled the leftover Greeks. Cyprus was not part of the original population exchange. Unlike say Crete, it keep it’s large Turkish/Muslim minority. It never worked, and the island is now partitioned and populations have been exchanged. In separation, there is relative peace.

      2. In India as an example, the Muslims of Gujarat as an example. They remained in India, and have suffered pogroms and riots from the Hindu majority, most recently in 2002. Likewise the Hindu Pandits of Pakistan controlled Kashmir, have been massacred and expelled after the first exchange.

      Tell me, what is better, a once-off population exchange, or continual war?

      The Jews of the Middle-East were on the verge of a second holocaust post WW2. In Israel they found refuge. The Arab nation, and yes, they are one nation although divided for now amongst different states, expelled them. They have concentrated in an area, and the smaller population of Arabs once living there have been exchanged back to the Arab nation. Jews are safe from the next Palestinian, Baghdad or Alexandria pogrom, and likewise Arabs and Islamists are free of their hated foes. The Jews of the Middle-East have a right to peaceful co-existence there. The only way that can be achieved is through a Jewish national homeland in the Middle-East and an exchange of population. This has been achieved and won.

      I say to the former Arabs residents of Israel proper: you lost. You have the option of accepting defeat and population exchange to another Arab state, a specificly Palestinian one across the Jordan River. There you can find peace, and build your families economic future and prosperity. Or you can wage eternal war, and suffer ongoing defeat in poverty. Your choice.

      We don’t encourage the Germans to keep waging war so that the post-WW2 expellees can return to the Sudetenland, Danzig, Pomerania & Silesia. Why support Arabs waging an endless war against Israel, than accept a compromise peace between Jews & Arabs on more-or-less equal terms? It’s a much better deal than defeated Germany got.

    • Al says:

      07:32pm | 02/04/11

      Zaf,
      “Real peace has to be made with genuine representatives of the Palestinian people…these genuine representatives will make genuine demands that address their people’s genuine needs”
      Who are these genuine representatives?  The only other major Palestinian entity, Hamas, have no interest in negotiating with Israel.  Their main, “genuine” demand is the elimination of the state of Israel. Is this the real peace you are referring to?  The PA is recognised world-wide as the Palestinian representatives. Are you suggesting that Israel should unilaterally select a different, more genuine group to negotiate with? Or maybe this group should be nominated by the Greens? Or Marrickville council?
      “Egypt is not Palestine. It’s not really relevant to Likud’s opposition to a Palestinian state because Egypt wasn’t giving Sinai to the Palestinians, was it?”
      In 2005 Israel evacuated 21 settlements from the Gaza strip (all the settlements there) and another four settlements in the West Bank. This area was given over to the Palestinians. Settlements in Palestinian areas can, and have been removed in the past. While Likud still officially opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, I think their actions, such as the removal of settlements from areas nominated to a future Palestinian state, proves they are open to compromises.
      “There were NO Arab Jewish refugees leaving their countries of origin for Israel until the early 1950s”
      This is simply wrong. As you say – let’s be factual. Jewish mass exodus from Arab countries began in 1948. But what difference does it make? If it happened at the same time as Arab movement away from the Jewish areas in Israel it’s ok, but if it happened in the 1950s it’s not ok?
      Regarding the Haganah attitude to the Stern gang, it was definitely more than “words”. If you read history books from that period you will realise that. No return of refugees was allowed following the 1948 war FROM EITHER SIDE. Again you are conveniently ignoring the Jews who fled Arab land, leaving their land and property behind. Were they allowed to return? Were they compensated in any way?
      As for the reduction in Palestinian attacks, the only reason for that is the increased security on the Israeli side. If, as you say, the Palestinians have more pressing needs than assuring Jewish Israelis about terrorism – there will never be any peace, as Israelis will never trust them. As for the “kill ratio” you described, Israeli action is always in response to some Palestinian act. If there were no acts of terror there will be no need for Israeli response.
      Contrary to what you might think, I am no great supporter of Israeli settlements, and certainly no supporter of Lieberman. But blaming the settlements as the main obstruction to peace, when in fact they are but one of many items of contention that should be negotiated and overcome is grossly unfair.

    • Zaf says:

      10:54am | 03/04/11

      Al

      “Real peace has to be made with genuine representatives of the Palestinian people]
      [Who are these genuine representatives?]

      The ones they elect.  We don’t always get to choose or define our enemies.

      [The only other major Palestinian entity, Hamas, have no interest in negotiating with Israel.]

      Actually Israel and Hamas HAVE negotiated in the past.  Eg:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7459200.stm
      “Israel and militant group Hamas have agreed to end months of bitter clashes with a six-month ...”

      That’s from way back in 2008.  It’s complicated by the fact that they all pretend not to talk to each other, but they HAVE done it.

      [Their main, “genuine” demand is the elimination of the state of Israel.]

      If you talk to visionaries like TQS their only genuine demand is for the Palestinians to basically disappear.  The leaked Palestinian Papers indicate that this is not so far off from the Israeli Govt’s de facto position.  Does that mean that the Palestinians should stop talking to the Israeli Govt?


      [Settlements in Palestinian areas…have been removed in the past. While Likud still officially opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, I think their actions… prove[s] they are open to compromises.?]

      Correct.  That’s why the Palestinians keep talking to them.  If you look at Hamas’ actions (basically keeping a lid on things in the build up to cast lead) rather than focusing on their more inflammatory words, I think you’d see something similar.

      [ As you say – let’s be factual. Jewish mass exodus from Arab countries began in 1948. But what difference does it make?]

      Arab persecution of Jews is inexcusable, and it was set off by dispossession of the Palestinians.  Palestinians were pushed off their land to create a Jewish majority, not to accommodate Jewish refugees from Arab lands – because there were none at that point.  Retrofitting it as ‘population exchange’ is dishonest and misleading.

      From that Pearl Of Truth (Wikipedia) on Israel’s war of independence

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_War

      “Due to the war, demographic changes occurred in the country. Between 600,000 and 760,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and became Palestinian refugees.[19] On the other hand, around 10,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Palestine.[20] In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel, residing mainly along the borders and in former Arab lands.[21] Around 136,000 were some of the 250,000 displaced Jews of World War II.[22] Around half were part of the 750,000 to 900,000 Jews who left or were expelled from Arab countries between 1948 and the Six-Day War.[23][24]”

      [Regarding the Haganah attitude to the Stern gang, it was definitely more than “words”. If you read history books from that period you will realise that.]

      Hey.  They benefitted from the Stern Gang’s ethnic cleansing, and didn’t do anything to reverse it.  The rest is window dressing.

      [As for the reduction in Palestinian attacks, the only reason for that is the increased security on the Israeli side.]

      Debatable.  Maybe it was Hamas quietly trying to keep the peace?

      [If, as you say, the Palestinians have more pressing needs than assuring Jewish Israelis about terrorism – there will never be any peace, as Israelis will never trust them.]

      Put it into context.  If you had told a Jew being oppressed in some Russian shtetl and dreaming of Zion that no, you must stop and reassure the Palestinian Arabs that you won’t be displacing them would he/she have (1) laughed (incredulously) in your face or (2) said sure, I’ll just tell that Cossack to stop kicking the door down while I compose a moving and convincing letter to the Mufti of Jerusalem?  Who needs safety when we could be reassuring people who are better off than us?

      [ As for the “kill ratio” you described, Israeli action is always in response to some Palestinian act.]

      So how come they’re killing ten times as many Palestinians as Palestinians kill Israelis?  You don’t think that this embitters the population and ratchets up the conflict, making it even harder to resolve?

      [ blaming the settlements as the main obstruction to peace, when in fact they are but one of many items of contention that should be negotiated and overcome is grossly unfair.]

      They are not the only issue, but they are one of the most pressing – not least because they seem, by their existence, to militate against compromise and a two state solution.

      I personally think a one state solution with equal rights for all its inhabitants – the way we have here in Australia – is a better outcome, but I understand people over there aren’t so keen on that.

      Regards

    • Zaf says:

      10:55am | 03/04/11

      TQS

      [Population exchanges are ugly. Ongoing civil war and communal violence are far worse.]

      These are not the only two choices.  In fact I would say that these are the two worst choices out of a range of possible outcomes.

      Re Turkey – your point about Istanbul and its Greeks is well made.  But also consider that Turkey is one of the only Muslim majority countries with a thriving Jewish community that is fully integrated into the country’s economic and social life.  How and why did things go so badly with Ottoman Greeks, but relatively positively for Ottoman Jews in the city? 

      In fact Turkey contains many minorities – Kurds, Lazs, Circassians, Armenians, Albanians…some with very troubled histories with the State, others with no problem.  My point is that things are not always a simple choice between civil war and population exchange – there are better options around. (Look at multiethnic societies like Australia, for example.  Or, indeed, Turkey itself.)

      I also take your point about India.  But consider this: India refused to accept religion as a marker of national identity.  Yes, there have been problems, but there is more success than failure.  Most Muslims in India, despite things like the Gujarat pogrom, don’t want to migrate to Pakistan.  Most of them have no need to go.  Many do well in India.  And Pakistan’s religious homogeneity has not stood in the way of its further division (1971 Bangladesh) and more recent collapse as a functioning state. 

      Diverse India is succeeding, while homogenous Pakistan is failing.  What does that say about your thesis?
      (Btw, the Pandits were expelled from the INDIAN ruled, but Muslim majority, Kashmir Valley by terrorist threat, not Govt fiat.  Just saying.)

      [The Jews of the Middle-East were on the verge of a second holocaust post WW2.]

      What prompted that?  How come things were relatively peaceful, in terms of anti-Jewish feeling, in the Arab world (see Maimonides) until the 1920s and 30s?

      [I say to the former Arabs residents of Israel proper: you lost…]

      Meh, TQS. Again with this unseemly fantasy about “the Arabs” accepting your point of view because you would find that more convenient.  They don’t accept the justice of their dispossession and current occupation and second-class status in Israel/Palestine.  Many Jews (and many Israelis) also question the justice of it.  Deal with their ideas, please.

      Regards

    • Al says:

      04:05pm | 03/04/11

      Zaf,
      “[The Palestinian representatives are] The ones they elect. We don’t always get to choose or define our enemies.”

      Let me remind you that the Abbas was actually elected by the Palestinians as their president, so he is a genuine representative. You might not like him and consider him Israel’s poodle, but it’s not really up to you is it?

      “Arab persecution of Jews is inexcusable, and it was set off by dispossession of the Palestinians”

      Wrong. The main reason the majority of Jewish exodus from Arab countries to Israel only began in 1948 was that prior to that year, there was no state of Israel and they had nowhere to flee to. The persecution of Jews in Moslem countries actually began about 1000 years ago in Baghdad, in Spain (Islamic at that time), and in most other Arab countries. This persecution continued throughout the centuries. It was definitely not triggered by any dispossession of Palestinians in 1948.

      Regarding the Stern Gang, more than half of their political assassination victims were Jews (also from Wikipedia). Many other victims were British. I find it hard to believe that the Haganah benefited from Stern Gang’s assassinations of Jews (or British officials, for that matter). As to the Haganah doing nothing to reverse the alleged ethnic cleansing, remember that the 1948 war ended in a cease fire, not in peace. The state of war between Israel and the Arab neighbours continued. You can hardly expect a country to open its borders and allow citizens of an enemy country into its territory.

      There is actually no doubt that increased security measures (such as the separation fence, for example) lead to the reduction in Palestinian attacks. Prior to that, terrorist attacks continued unabated for years. I would like to believe that Hamas are interested in keeping the peace, as you say, but their daily missile showers into Israel (to which Israel has no response so far) proves otherwise.

      Your example of an oppressed Jew in a Russian shtetl is not valid here. The Palestinians are already on their land, not in some remote Russian village. They are mostly self-governed.  Yes, they do not have their full independence yet, and this is the subject of the current negotiations regarding the establishment of an independent state and its borders. If they cannot be bothered, as part of the negotiations, to assure the Israelis that the terror will stop, then hey, what’s the point of the negotiations? Do they really have any interest in peace? Will you believe Colonel Gadaffi if he says that he is willing to make peace with the Libyan rebels but he can’t promise not to kill them because he has more pressing needs right now? Ridiculous.

      The issue of settlements is the most pressing in your eyes. I’m sure if you talk to any of the civilians living in constant terror in southern Israel their priority would be the cessation of terror attacks. Unfortunately, according to your theory, the Palestinians have more pressing needs than halting these attacks.

      And finally, a one state solution will never happen. This will be the most disastrous outcome for all – Jews, Arabs, and the international community. Such a solution was previously attempted in Yugoslavia, it didn’t work too well. Even in Australia it is debatable whether the multi-cultural model works as well as you might believe. Just look at some of the European countries who are now further down the same path to get a glimpse into a possible future of the multi-cultural experiment.

    • Zaf says:

      05:52pm | 03/04/11

      Al
      [Let me remind you that the Abbas was actually elected by the Palestinians as their president, so he is a genuine representative.]

      But Hamas was elected too, right? 
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

      “In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[30] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party….”

      [The main reason the majority of Jewish exodus from Arab countries to Israel only began in 1948 was that prior to that year, there was no state of Israel and they had nowhere to flee to.]

      I’m not saying that there was no persecution of Jews in Arab countries, I’m just saying that it was sporadic and spotty – Libya was awful, Morocco not so bad, etc.  It is a diverse region, and the Jewish communities in it were also diverse. 

      It’s undeniable that the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs, very UNFAIRLY, made the immediate Jewish situation in the rest of the Middle East much worse. 

      It is hard to make a logical case for penalising Palestinian Arab communities for the wrongs done to Libyan Jews by Libyan Arabs.  EVEN if you decide that in this case collective punishment is moral.  Do you see my issue here?

      [Regarding the Stern Gang, more than half of their political assassination victims were Jews (also from Wikipedia). ]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

      “Lehi…commonly referred to in English as the Stern Group or Stern Gang,[1] was a militant Zionist group … Its avowed aim was forcibly evicting the British authorities from Palestine, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state…

      “Lehi and Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin.
      “… Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel even instituted a military decoration, the Lehi ribbon.[10] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.”

      [As to the Haganah doing nothing to reverse the alleged ethnic cleansing…You can hardly expect a country to open its borders and allow citizens of an enemy country into its territory.]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_absentee
      “A present absentee is a Palestinian who fled or was expelled from his home in Palestine by Jewish or Israeli forces, before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but who remained within the area that became the state of Israel… In 1950 these were 46,000 of the 156,000 Palestinians in Israel.

      “Present absentees are not permitted to live in the homes they were expelled from, even if they live in the same area, the property still exists, and they can show that they own it. They are regarded as absent by the Israeli government because they left their homes, even if they did not intend to leave them for more than a few days, and even if they did so involuntarily.”

      [There is actually no doubt that increased security measures (such as the separation fence, for example) lead to the reduction in Palestinian attacks.]

      Sure, but

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

      “In June 2008, as part of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, Hamas ceased rocket attacks on Israel and made some efforts to prevent attacks by other organizations.[34][35] After a four months calm, the conflict escalated when Israel carried out a military action with the stated aim to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, using a tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence,[35] killing seven Hamas operatives. In retaliation, Hamas attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets.[35][36] In late December 2008, Israel attacked Gaza,[37] withdrawing its forces from the territory in mid-January 2009.[38] ...”

      [Your example of an oppressed Jew in a Russian shtetl is not valid here. The Palestinians are already on their land, not in some remote Russian village. ]

      Actually, most of them are NOT on their own land, hence refugees.

      [The issue of settlements is the most pressing in your eyes. ]

      Settlements just seem to make any hope of a two state solution less likely.  Because they increase the group of Israelis who are invested in remaining in the West Bank.  It just doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do, IF Israel ever intends to leave the West Bank.  Maybe it doesn’t?

      [And finally, a one state solution will never happen. ]

      Probably not, but I think that’s a pity.  It seems the fairest, most moral outcome to me.  If you want peace, work for justice, right?

      Regards

    • Al says:

      08:01pm | 04/04/11

      Zaf,

      Yes, Hamas was also elected. So were the National Socialists in Germany, or the Islamists in Iran. In another similarity, one of their first actions after the elections was to eliminate their political rivals, ie Fatah. Is this what you mean by genuine political representation?

      More about Palestinian human rights under Hamas:

      “Human Rights Watch estimates several hundred Gazans were “maimed” and tortured in the aftermath of the Gaza War. 73 Gazan men accused of “collaborating” had their arms and legs broken by “unidentified perpetrators” “

      About Hamas’ willingness to negotiate with Israel:

      “According to a November 2009 survey conducted by Haaretz, 57% of Israelis support the view of MK Shaul Mofaz of Kadima, that Israel should establish a dialogue with Hamas under certain conditions, for example, that Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nation, and loses its designation as a terrorist organization. Hamas responded to this by labeling it “Zionist vulgarity” and stating that they will never negotiate with or recognize their “enemy”, the state of Israel”

      How Hamas is “basically keeping a lid on things”:

      “According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have launched thousands of rockets into Israel since 2001, killing 15 civilians, wounding many more, and posing an ongoing threat to the nearly 800,000 Israeli civilians who live and work in the weapons’ range”

      All above quotes are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

      “It is hard to make a logical case for penalising Palestinian Arab communities for the wrongs done to Libyan Jews by Libyan Arabs”

      No one is trying to make a logical case for penalising Palestinian Arabs. What is very clear though is that the persecution of Jews in Moslem countries had nothing to do with the Palestinian problem, as it predates it by a millennium. It was definitely not, as you suggested earlier, “set off by dispossession of the Palestinians”.

      Yes, former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir did become Prime Minister of Israel some 35 years after his involvement with the Lehi movement. Mahmud Abbas was heavily involved with the Fatah movement in its early days, and helped carrying out many terrorist attacks. Yet he has shown that he has the flexibility to renounce terrorism and get to the negotiating table, same as Shamir has done when he entered Israeli politics. We are still waiting for Hamas to renounce terrorism.

      “Actually, most of them are NOT on their own land, hence refugees”

      The Arabs had refused the land allocated to them by the United Nations back in 1948. The current areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority ARE the future Palestinian State, subject to some border corrections yet to be agreed on. So they are actually on their land. The vast majority of the current Palestinians were born after 1948, and most were born after 1967 as well. The current Palestinian areas are their place of birth. They have Palestinian institutions governing their affairs. They ARE on their land.

      “Settlements just seem to make any hope of a two state solution less likely”
      Even more so for terrorism. How can you ask the Israelis to trust the Palestinians and make peace with them if they are not willing to make any serious effort to stop terrorism, due to “more pressing needs”?

      As for a one-state solution never happening, I don’t think it’s a pity at all. As I stated earlier it is the worst thing you can possibly do to all the stakeholders involved in this conflict.

    • Zaf says:

      11:02pm | 04/04/11

      Peace Al! 

      I have no interest in defending Hamas - as you say, the Nazis were also elected in Germany, just being elected doesn’t make an organisation moral or upstanding. (Just look at Likud!)  It does, however, give an organisation the authority to speak ‘for’ the people who elected it.  And if you want to speak with the Palestinians, to make peace with them, you need to speak to Hamas.  In their turn they need to speak with Likud - do you think they find it any less distasteful?  I assure you they don’t.

      I’m glad you don’t think that the Palestinians should be penalised for Libyan anti-semitism. (For example).  Similarly….

      [The Arabs had refused the land allocated to them by the United Nations back in 1948.]

      Can you see the moral problem with an International Organisation - consisting mostly of European countries, because Africa and Asia was still largely ruled as colonies - deciding to give away Palestinian lands because of something that had happened in Europe? 

      If an organisation which didn’t include any representative of a Govt that YOU had voted for decided to give away YOUR home to a people who had suffered because of someone else’s actions, how accepting would you be?  Would you think it was fair or justified?  I doubt it. 

      It wasn’t FAIR, and a first step to resolving the issue (without reversing what happened) is to acknowledge that.  The UN acted UNFAIRLY.  How hard is that to say?

      And in honesty, don’t you think that the dispossession of the Palestinians gave anti-Jewish forces in the Arab world an excuse to further persecute local Jewish communities?  It is often (I know from experience) uncomfortable being a minority - but it isn’t always disastrous all the time.  Iraqi jews, for example, were a minority who occasionally faced persecution, but they were also an elite community who have not yet achieved the same status in Israel that they enjoyed in Iraq.  Not saying Iraq was perfect - far from it - just that their situation was not so one dimensional as you imply.

      On the one state solution, let’s agree to disagree.  To be completely honest, I think you and I would probably define a society we wanted to live in very similarly, if we measured things like equality or secularism or women’s rights.  Strange that we can’t agree on these measures in Israel/Palestine.

      Regards

    • Al says:

      05:14pm | 05/04/11

      Zaf,

      There’s just one more thing I would like to mention before concluding (we have already taken up a large chunk of this thread). Your assessment that

      “If an organisation which didn’t include any representative of a Govt that YOU had voted for decided to give away YOUR home to a people who had suffered because of someone else’s actions, how accepting would you be?”

      There was no local government in Israel / Palestine in 1947. It was under the control of the British Mandate.  It can equally be argued that the Jews had no say in the decision since they had no UN representation at all. The Arabs at least had some direct influence on the UN decision through the Arab League states who were UN members at the time (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen) and other Moslem members (such as Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Turkey).

      Also, the suffering of European Jews, while helping with the sympathy vote, was not the main factor for the partition decision:

      - The British authorities already announced their intention to set up a Jewish “national home” back in 1917.
      - In the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), the administration of Palestine was handed over to the British with the understanding they will be responsible for implementing the Jewish national home in Palestine.
      - This was again approved by the League of Nations in 1922.

      These events happened some 20 years before the displacement of Jews from Europe. By 1947 there were already hundreds of thousands of Jews in Palestine. It was their home too. The only fair decision was partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs.

      Both sides of the dispute have certainly been argued here. The problem with the Greens and the rest of the Australian extreme left is that their attitude is uniquely one-sided. While the premise of a political party committed to saving our environment sounds great in theory, the Greens’ obsession with their extreme left political agenda shows where their real priorities are.

      As you say, let’s agree to disagree (on many of the points).
      Peace.  Let’s hope we get there one day.

      Al

    • The Original Oz says:

      10:55am | 01/04/11

      The current state of Government and political parties in Australia is abysmal - I was for many years a Labor supporter, have also voted Liberal in the past when the policies were right and now couldn’t give a crap for either of them - and the Greens are just whackjobs. There is not a single party (and I doubt if there would be more than a handful of individual politicians) in Australia who could give a fig for what is best for the country (Federal, State, Municipality). 

      The Liberals main aim in opposition is to say NO regardless of whether a policy would be beneficial for the country or not - their whole goal is to regain power in order to satisfy their “born to rule” life function.

      Labor have been totally hijacked by the socialists and are running headlong toward destroying anything that could produce wealth in the country - manufacturing, business, individuals with a work ethic.
      Their sole aim is to spend more than they gather in through the tax system and waste it on whatever “cause celebre” happens to pop its head above the hedge.

      The Greens would have us all living in caves, with no industry (dirty, dirty, dirty) no national revenue (can’t have us digging holes and sending rocks ‘n stuff overseas), no defence force (a Greens aim that has been articulated through these forums a number of times), open doors to all and sundry.

      The Greens are one of the most dangerous lunatic fringe parties to ever hold influence over policy in Australia - even One Nation held less threat to the Australian lifestyle, national security, food security, manufacturing industry, etc. There is not a single party (or coalition of parties) currently in Australia that deserves to come anywhere near the keys of the country.

    • SecularHumanist says:

      10:02pm | 01/04/11

      Labor taken over by the socialists? I don’t think so. As a democratic socialist, I find it hard to discover one ALP policy that is humanistic, empowering and strongly democratic, which it would have to be to qualify as socialist in any way. Most of their policies seem to be Liberal policies that are ever so slightly different. Such as Workchoices lite. The ‘Socialist Left’ ALP faction are nothing more than toothless social liberals, never question ‘free market’ orthodoxy, and largely accept the dictates of the dominant Right faction. Most socialists are critical of these policies for favouring the interests of big business, especially transnational corporations, over Australian citizens. It’s hard to even call these policies ‘free market’ when they more closely resemble crony capitalism or corporatism in reality, even with trade liberalisation. Especially in the US. Regarding the Greens, you’re not exactly mounting a well researched and documented argument as to how they will force us all to live in caves. The Swedish Social Democrats and Socialist Left Party in Norway (the latter currently in a coalition government) are considerably more left wing and environmentalist than the Greens. Last I heard, neither the Swedes or the Norweigans are living in caves. In fact, according to the Democratic Index in 2010, Norway is the most democratic country in the world. Sweden was number 1 in 2008. Doesn’t sound too bad to me.

    • unfortunate says:

      10:57am | 01/04/11

      Hi Pembo,  similarly unimpressed by your “preferenced One Nation” comment and your subseqent attempts via Twitter to defend this.  Under no reasonable rationale could the Green’s failure to actively preference Labor be equated to “chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP”.  Like the Australian Newspaper, you’ve pretty much excluded yourself from being taken seriously in relation to any criticism of the Greens.  Unfortunate, Pembo.

    • Twit says:

      01:25am | 03/04/11

      It’s true.

      In trying to mark others extremists, he’s gone and marked himself.

      ‘Tis often the way. Own goal, is it not?

    • Oh really? says:

      11:20am | 01/04/11

      Aww cute, except that the statement “the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP” is completely false!  Just waiting for a retraction…

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:31am | 01/04/11

      Brown’s just had a pretend spray at Gillard:

      “I think that’s an unfortunate and unwarranted and gratuitous insult and it’s not becoming of a Prime Minister to be talking in those ways about millions of other Australians [ie Greens]” he said.

      He said Ms Gillard’s comments were “a mistake”.

      “I’ll talk to her about that,” Senator Brown warned. “She’s wrong.””

    • Patrick says:

      01:04pm | 01/04/11

      It’s laughable isn’t it. They’ll be off for their tea, scones and giggles this arvy!

    • Cillian says:

      11:31am | 01/04/11

      the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP” is completely false!
      This is Right Wing TRIPE trying to protect corporations

    • MarK says:

      01:09pm | 01/04/11

      “This is Right Wing TRIPE trying to protect corporations “

      What the….

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      OMG this is soooo funny seeing all the Crikey kids come running to bash Penbo.

      Love it

    • Pau; says:

      11:43am | 01/04/11

      And I thought journalists always told the truth, checked their sources and remained above the political fray.

      “the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP”

      Is not correct.

      Sigh!

    • T.Williams says:

      11:56am | 01/04/11

      Mr. Penberthy, you have been quite neatly taken apart over at the Pure Poison blog on crikey.com.au
      I think you owe everyone an apology for promoting the falsehood that the Greens preferenced One Nation.

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:02pm | 01/04/11

      Funny, did they “take apart” Farr on his “Holocaust deniers” comments?

      No? Thought not, let’s face it “outrage” and “Green” are kindred spirits.

    • Zeta says:

      12:19pm | 01/04/11

      ‘Taken apart?’ Crikey hasn’t taken apart anything except their phones and lampshades to check for News Corporation bugs since the days of Boiler Maker Bill. Landeryou and the slack jawed miscreants at Vexnews have more credibility and by-lines to rub between them then the poe faced broadsheet fingering malingerers at Crikey. They’re barey a step above a trollopy tights wearing slag at a University of Sydney mixer threatening to write something nasty about you on her ‘blog’. Actually, make that a step below, because you’d at least shag some university bint with a Tumblr account sooner than you would spew on Beecher, Kean and Black if they were on fire.

      If Penbo owes an apology for anything, it’s for writing something that spured the rusty, Left wobbling wheels of Crikey’s bile compactors into action. Every time a Crikey article gets published, a Libyan child is tortured and killed.

    • MarK says:

      01:00pm | 01/04/11

      I love Crikey.

      Whenever I need a laugh I go and view a few stories and comments.

      Taken apart….gosh. If that is taken part then massacred must be akin to being held down by four Playboy Bunnies in appropriate costumes and getting hit with limp celery by another 4 Penthouse Pets.

      Book me up for that.

      Taken apart. ROFLMAO.

      Then again going on Ant’s ICB yesterday they may have a point…..hmmmmmm

    • Tombowler says:

      01:17pm | 01/04/11

      Word Zeta… Word Indeed..

    • Joel B1 says:

      01:18pm | 01/04/11

      @Zeta,

      Congrats, most excellent diatribe of the year!

    • T.Williams says:

      02:08pm | 01/04/11

      Peripubescent humour: always the stock-in-trade of the wit-challenged Right. Try inserting some punctuation, Zeta, it would at least give a semblance of readability to your juvenilia.

    • TQS says:

      03:02pm | 01/04/11

      True the NSW Greens only suggested preferences for The Socialist Alliance in the Legislative Council, which is, ahem, much *cough* better…

      Of course their failure to suggest preferences to any other viable candidate may yet see Hanson elected with less than a fill quotas support.

    • Zeta says:

      03:35pm | 01/04/11

      @ T.Williams - I’d pit my wit or lack thereof against the dreary litigious literalism of the Left any day of week. Maybe if you stopped moving your lips when you read you wouldn’t need punctuation.

    • Amanda says:

      12:10pm | 01/04/11

      I like the Greens as a lobby group but as a party that has political power. They truely are a scary proposition.

    • Fred Firth says:

      12:42pm | 01/04/11

      The Greens alway’s seem to get it wrong!
      This time, Bob Brown really could have blamed man-made Global Warming for the Green’s dismal results.
      Ditto Labour.
      If Tony Abbott slides another inch further towards support for any carbon tax or trading scheme, our next Prime Minister will be Pauline Hanson.

    • Tom Jones says:

      12:47pm | 01/04/11

      This is the political spectrum in Australia From left to right
      Greens-Labor-MIDDLE-Libs-Nats-One Nation. If U want a Socialist, self gratifying party with no regard for the individual but what the State thinks you should have/do, vote for the Greens. They are dangerous and should be put in the same corner as One Nation. The more you research the LEFT side of politics the more scared U should be.  Just wait until the May budget from the Labor party, U will then understand.

    • Phil says:

      12:49pm | 01/04/11

      “To the enduring disgust of the Labor Party, the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP, and she may now creep into the Upper House courtesy of their support. “

      That is just a blatant lie. Yes a lie not an error. Even a child could check out that “fact” and find it is wrong.
      Do you seriously call yourself a journalist?

      I hope the Greens sue News Ltd for clear defamation based on this article. Nothing I like more than seeing News Ltd financially contributing to those it hates.

    • Shane Coghlan says:

      12:52pm | 01/04/11

      Jeez, that’s as bitter an article as you will find. The Greens did not preference Pauline Hanson at all, they ran an open ticket. How that equates to preferencing Pauline Hanson I have no idea. Completely misleading and factually incorrect journalism to further your agenda Penbo. It’s a flat out lie pure and simple and it’s disgusting that someone calling themselves a journalist would stoop to this level to score points for his party of choice. It’s hardly a disastrous campaign when they have recorded a swing towards them and may pick up their first lower house seat.

      Agree with you on some issues. I have no idea why Israel and the importation of its products became an issue in a State Election but unfortunately you really have lost any credibility in being an objective observer of Australian politics.

    • Martin Hopes says:

      11:09am | 02/04/11

      ‘It’s hardly a disastrous campaign when they have recorded a swing towards them and may pick up their first lower house seat”

      Good point Shane…they don’t want to let facts get in the way, as it goes….

    • Mark says:

      01:09pm | 01/04/11

      I’ve got no love for the Greens - I think they’re a fringe party with a very dangerous agenda masquerading as policy. Having said that I don’t think it’s appropriate to fabricate facts - especially when the fabrication is posited as factual journalism from a respected author*:

      Penbo this the second time in just over two weeks that you’ve produced an article with questionable research (the last being your critique of our dumb, webbed up nation and the fat kid….). As I said in response to that article, I usually like you’re work. But you’re seriously doing your audience a disservice when you produce these half-researched articles (I’m presuming all you’ve done is taken the word of a couple of labour staffers at face value instead of the more sinister allegation that you’ve just made all this up on the spot).

      I really think you ought to retract the allegation if it is indeed untrue - it’d be the honourable thing to do….

    • GWS says:

      01:22pm | 01/04/11

      Come back to me when Family First or the DLP become the major balance of power party, then talk about crazy! If you want a responsible party on the cross-bench, vote Democrat. Yes they still exist, and could use a little help!

    • The Original Oz says:

      01:59pm | 01/04/11

      The Democrats gave themselves all the help they could ever need when Meg Lees helped Little Johnny get his GST in. That particular party surrendered any hope of ever again being relevant once Natasha left. They now have, and are, nothing (except maybe a blip in history).

    • TQS says:

      03:17pm | 01/04/11

      Christians Democrats & Shooters & Fishers will hold the balance of power in the NSW Legislative Council.

      Family First holds it, in part, now in the federal Senate, and has over the term ending this June.

      And yet the already irrelevant Democrats vote fell by more than half this NSW election. Yes, your party, and left-liberal ideology, is dead. Back to your grave.

    • Helen says:

      02:00pm | 01/04/11

      The pure poison article proves that the statement that the Greens directed preferences to ON is, to be nice about it, incorrect.

      When is the Punch going to publish a retraction?

    • Zeta says:

      03:39pm | 01/04/11

      All the Pure Poison article proves is that 9 people read Crikey and they all promptly came to The Punch to tell us about it.

      That’s like asking when the Daily Telegraph will publish a retraction for printing all the lies Keneally told about O’Farrell during the election campaign. This is the way the game is played, and if the Greens don’t like it, they should stick to running for the National Union of Students.

    • persephone says:

      04:40pm | 01/04/11

      Zeta

      the number of people who read Crikey or not is irrelevant.

      The issue is whether Penbo is lying.

      Given the angst on this site over the last few weeks, you’d think that people would focus on that, not how many people say he is or what organisation they’re from.

      Simple question, Zeta: did the Greens preference Hanson?

      If they didn’t, then Penbo is wrong.

    • John says:

      02:09pm | 01/04/11

      What an odd, yet predictable, state of affairs we have here? The Greens and Labour suddenly getting a little hot-under-the-collar when they both don’t get what they want? Dread the thought! An issue that I would like addressed at the state and federal caucus and parliamentary meetings and debates is why we have Greens/Labour and Liberal/National coalitions in the first place? After all, aren’t parliamentary seats drawn up with the idea of representing a certain electorate, not a certain interest group? All that this latest fiasco has told me about our political system is that we didn’t have any real control over what government took office after the last federal election. This system of de facto political relationships and de facto partisan rule seems rather a great blight on a country in which I would like to see the people enfranchised by their politicians.
      Was anybody else surprised at the last election that the Greens decided to actually run for the House? Rather than being the oversight group that held the reins at the last minority Senate, the Greens have evolved into a political force of their own. No longer contented by being an interest group in a house of parliament that deals solely with reviewing legislation, the Greens have taken it upon themselves to ally themselves with Labour. Unfortunately, such alliances are not so successfully undone. The Greens, it seems, have thrown Labour into power and are now reeling at the fact that they, themselves, have not drawn up any real policies and Labour (the party of two parties - Gillard’s left and Swan’s right -) is now surprised that the Greens are not towing the party line the way they demand? Is there to be no confidence in a federal coalition which seems to get the job done, or shall we be stuck with not voting the Liberal/Nationals under Abbot in but voting Labour/Greens under Gillard/Swan/Brown out. 

      Concerning the state of New South Wales; I would have to point to the fact that being a resident voter I entered the polling station last Saturday with a rather peculiar sense of disappointment. I pored over the ballot sheet only to see that all the candidates had conveniently forgotten one thing; they represent electors. We never had the luxury to vote the Liberals in, we only had the unfortunate duty of voting Labour out. I stood and asked myself “Who will improve the railways? Who will secure employment? Who will look out for the small businessman?” The answer was simple; not Labour. No one, in fact. Then I asked “Being so unobliging, who will fix the nature of the state debt, restart the economy or restore law and order?” The answer; not the Liberals. No one, in fact. I then asked “Who will restore the environment and look after small communities?” The answer; not the Greens. No one, in fact. You see, it is this disappointing and frankly disgusting state of political affairs which has created the kind of bickering we hear going on between Julia Gillard and Bob Brown on the one hand and (formerly between) Barry O’Farrell and Kristina Keneally on the other. What’s saddening is not that politicians fail repeatedly and then lie about the state of affairs, it’s the fact that they can’t even lie anymore.

      Also, I feel I should mention though that this article seems rather odd; the choice of language describing any action which might be construed as anti-Israeli a veiled version of ‘Kristallnacht.’ After all, aren’t we all moralistic beings? Why is it that ANY state, person or NGO should have the right to do anything which acts in direct detriment to the civil liberties of a people or the collective good of the many (that said, the idea of the Marrickville holding an anti-Israeli campaign seemed as relevant as calling my backyard a nuclear-free zone.) The idea that somebody might take offence at any position contrary to the politically correct one is laughable at best and absurd at worst.

      Just to summarise, the one thing that this devolution of Australian politics at every level over the past ten years has left me asking is this; Is it not the LEAST bit surprising to anybody else that we live in a country in which the government only justifies itself to its cronie supporters and not the electorates? I’m not a Labour supporter nor am I Liberal or Green or anything else other than being frankly anti-partisan. I am not offended by Bob Brown’s comments or Julia Gillard’s or any other debacle; I just question the sanity and loyalty of politicians who demand a kind of sickening “us and them” allegiance. It seems self-evident that as rational, humane beings we should have surpassed this partisan, antediluvian bickering.

    • The Original Oz says:

      02:28pm | 01/04/11

      Bravo John +1

    • TQS says:

      03:30pm | 01/04/11

      It’s not, a mere criticism, or mild action, against Israel that the NSW Greens have adopted as policy.

      It’s a boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) program to destroy the Israeli economy and make the defence of the Jewish nation unviable, so it can be defeated by Hamas and other genocidal Islamists. It is furthermore a secondary boycott on any business or person that does business or interacts with Israel.

      It would also ban on any cultural, sporting or academic exchanges. It would ban any Australian athlete from participating in a sporting event with an Israeli athlete. It would prevent Israeli tourists from visiting Australia or Australian tourists from visiting Israel. It would ban Australian movies from being sold for broadcast in Israel, ban Israeli orchestras performing in Australia, ban Israeli lecturors form teaching Australian students etc…

      It is the modern incarnation of the Arab League Boycott of Israel that formed the economic wing of Arab military invasions of Israel. It is vile and repugnant policy from an extremist party that deserves nothing but contempt from the Australian people.

    • John says:

      04:46pm | 01/04/11

      Well, yes actually, it was a mere criticism. You’re talking about luxury items. Cultural exchange programmes, tourism and the idea that Israel is a supreme state in comparison to its Arab neighbours; the very idea that Islam is something of a lower social order are insane comparisons. The only valid point here is the free exchange of ideas, as in the banning of Israeli lecturers at Australian universities but I fail to see where, one; this was mentioned and two; how a local government could implement such a policy. Also, this is all macro-politics on a global scale. Yes, the Arab states declared an Intifida against the Israeli state some time ago and it continues to be the foreign policy of Syria and the Kingdom of Jordan. Yes, the Israelis have the right to defend themselves, yes Arab politics in the Middle East is often incredibly inflammatory but how is this relevant to New South Wales? New South Wales does not have the constitutional authority to implement foreign policy and much of the insanity of the NSW Greens meanderings was soon dampened by the federal Greens at their caucus meetings. Nobody who has half an inkling of intelligence would demand the Israelis be treated terribly to please the Arabs and vice versa but one thing to research is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not bendable, nor is it malleable. It is not to be muted at any point of disagreement nor is it to be cheapened by those who simply CALL themselves liberals. If we live in a free country, we must advance our opinions and relax our tolerances to the point that we can speak openly of ANYTHING at ANYTIME; including ANY opinion towards Israel or its neighbours or ANYTHING contrary to such an opinion. After all, hasn’t violence in the region been intensified by the fact that the Israelis and Arabs both silence any free thinking and speaking opposition? Have the Israeli’s not bombed their Arab neighbours and deliberately stolen occupied lands and started conflicts for the purpose of ‘security?’ Have the Arab neighbours (or, more poignantly, the Palestinians) not used suicide techniques and artillery barrages to evict the Israelis from the Middle East? I mean, I’m not advocating open violence, I’m advocating open and free speech and thought; which I’m sure is the common opinion here. smile But please do not confuse one for the other.

      To trail back toward the topic, could I point out once more that I’m not sure where either local or state Green movements have the power to implement any anti-Israeli policies and that the federal caucus did not approve of this. I’m not sure where flagrant support for the Israelis and comments on ethnic conflicts really provides any light into the issue of the Greens movement nor does it really reflect this article. That said, thank you for your reply. I’m glad we could disagree in our safe and free country. =)

    • stephen says:

      09:36pm | 01/04/11

      The only Middle East countries which are not signatories to the second intifada are - as far as I know - Egypt and Jordan.
      The ‘right of free speech’, (which is starting to sound like that other tautology : Church and State ) is not covered yet in this country by a Charter of Rights, and is therefore not a lawful right.
      The Greens are not inherently interested in Palestine, or her friends or her enemies, but in Marrickville, they did go fishing. Ms. Byrne wanted her seat and throne in public affairs, and, in full view of cross-cultural Marrickville, (and nearly all, may I suggest, are not from Israel) hooked her line on a snag and wasn’t even close to bagging a Jew.
      Tough.
      And now Bob Brown has some explaining to do.
      And you know what ? The Greens aren’t gonna make it.
      They’re cooked, and with garlic-butter and a steak, can best be served to a hungry Julia.

    • TQS says:

      09:54pm | 01/04/11

      No John, a boycott, divestment and sanctions program is comprehensive, not mere luxury items. All Israeli goods and services are targeted, no matter how small. Their main target of late have been Jaffa oranges, which The Greens and their BDS comrades want banned from sale in Australian supermarkets and groceries.

      The only reason they are unsuccessful is because The Greens extreme economic and social war against Israel is opposed by mainstream Australia, and in Marrickville at the ballot box.

      If they could implement their policy, remember it passed unanimously at their State Council as is official NSW Greens policy, they would boycott all Israeli goods, services, people, sporting & cultural exchanges. The only thing stopping them is the support of the remainder of the Australian electorate, and their political representatives, who are not rabid haters of Israel wishing to see the economic destruction of the Jewish state.

      Remember: No Israeli economy = no IDF to defeat Hamas & Hezbollah = a second holocaust. That is the aim and inevitable result of a successful BDS program, it is that radical and abhorrent. The Greens have well and truly unmasked themselves, and all decent people must oppose their agenda.

    • John says:

      10:23am | 02/04/11

      Hmm…interesting. We have all learned a valuable lesson today; Marrickville oranges fund the IDF’s “defensive war” and “decent” people don’t support the Greens. I will, at this point, refrain from posting any more comments on this story as rational, logical thought will not permit; but first I will lead a conga line of sane people away from these comments.

    • Ben says:

      02:11pm | 01/04/11

      Re: “......with their stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off hostility to free trade, tariff cuts and globalisation.”

      You say that as if unrestricted trade and globalisation were forces for good rather than the destructive, culture-crushing, democracy-crippling, dislocating, inequitable forces that they have proven to be.

    • AdamC says:

      02:38pm | 01/04/11

      ” ... destructive, culture-crushing, democracy-crippling, dislocating, inequitable forces that [globalisation has] proven to be.”

      That’s a big call, especially in light of poverty reduction in China and India as a result of opening up their economies. Not to mention how Australia has benefited from adopting freer trade policies.

    • Ben says:

      04:10pm | 01/04/11

      China:  falling real incomes for much of the rural poor, rapid desertification, growing civil unrest and protests, 60% of river systems considered unsuitable for human contact, 12 hr days 7 days/ week common work conditions, number one greenhouse emitter, rising gini co-efficient.  Yay for free trade !!

    • Andras says:

      02:54pm | 01/04/11

      David why do you call Loewenstein an ‘independent journalist’. He is not. He is a crank who sees conspiracies everywhere. Give him a sliver of info and he weaves up a global conspiracy of Jews ( oops sorry he prefers the fig leaf term Zionist). Why this conspiracy propagandist is given a platform by New Matilda, Crikey and even the ABC, is beyond me.

    • kieran says:

      03:00pm | 01/04/11

      I love the Greens getting the nasty media/conservative voters all riled. Yeah the Greens are such a threat to all things decent and of course our economy is going to blah blah blah. Narrow minds, no heart. x

    • The Original Oz says:

      03:17pm | 01/04/11

      Well Kieran I must say that was quite a decisive, well researched argument you just put forward there - I am now convinced that the Greens are the saviours of all mankind and will transport us all to a magical garden populated by unicorns and fairies. It has nothing to do with having no heart or having a narrow mind. It is about having independent thought, doing some real research and not just believing every little brain fart that dribbles from between the lips of Gurus Brown, Gumnut and Flammery. I suppose you think that the documentary “Inconvenient truth” is a masterpiece. Just how gullible can people be.

    • Pamela says:

      04:58pm | 01/04/11

      I agree Kieran.  It’s madness how people think conservative = intelligent.  You google some big words and put them with some anti-Green sentiments and wa-lah!  you are automatically the most well-read political commentator in Australia’s history.  I find Liberal voters so offensive, all they do is name-call like 5 year olds at a kindergarten.  Scared of people who have a different view to you?  Boo hoo.  Not one of these people can explain what is so terrible about anti-capitalism.  I don’t support the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.  Oh suddenly I am too stupid to form my own view of the world?  Yeah I have two degrees and practice law, I’m a complete idiot and know nothing about the world because I vote for Greens…  <yawn>

    • Martin Hopes says:

      11:13am | 02/04/11

      I agree kieran - and a great response Pamela. Certainly put ‘the original oz’ ‘back in their box.

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      03:40pm | 01/04/11

      After 16 year Smear campaign led by the Daily Telegraph against the NSW Labor Govt…what will those right wing populist jorno’s write about now???

      Oh….the “extreme” Greens…HAHAHAHA

      Oh please.

    • Ray says:

      04:37pm | 01/04/11

      The Left-wing media have a hide to label Pauline Hanson an extremist. Her policies can never be as extreme as those of the Greens.

    • Steve says:

      07:31pm | 01/04/11

      Correct this article please. It is misleading and dishonest. The statement that the greens preferenced Pauline hanson is factually incorrect.

      You have known about this for hours now. Where are your ethics?

    • MarK says:

      12:07am | 02/04/11

      Ethics?

      Oh right. Like the coal miners caused the Qld floods ethics. Them?

      We left all the ethics in the car dude. Can’t find the keys.

      Shame that

    • Twit says:

      03:57am | 02/04/11

      You know, lately I’ve been questioning the ethics of The Punch more than once.

      This is a piece by a man who, it seems, wants to be a player but hasn’t got the guts to get in the ring so instead just yells from the sidelines to try and throw people off course. Perhaps that’s the direction Australian media is heading??

    • persephone says:

      08:00am | 02/04/11

      Oh, MarK, so suddenly lying is OK?

      It’s not that long ago that you devoted reams of text to the evils of lying, saying that there was absolutely no excuse for it under any circumstances.

      Now, all of a sudden, it appears that it’s OK.

      Hypocrite.

    • Jo says:

      09:13pm | 01/04/11

      Penbo. Why haven’t you changed your lie about the greens referencing one nation? Too proud to admit you lied or just hoping people don’t notice?

    • Bleary says:

      02:35am | 02/04/11

      Loving how the green army protest whineingly,with slime oozing out of aggrieived holes,like the sanctimonious,odious pus of a rejected syphilitic lover,cast aside like a soiled and smelly toy that no one wants to play with anymore.
      Suffer in ya jocks fools.

    • Waynevan says:

      06:46am | 02/04/11

      While not really wanting to dignify the Jewish boycott with a response some interesting points have been raised. I need to ask the question is it possible to be at all critical of Israel’s actions without being labelled anti-Semite? As somewhat wrote “an anti-Semite is someone that a Jew doesn’t like”
      Israel is in a unique position being surrounded by nations whose aim is to wipe them from the planet. In this light I believe it’s right to support them in whatever action they require to defend themselves. Trouble is, like any nation Israel gets it wrong some times and we see the retribution out of proportion to the infringement.
      That said, boycotting Israeli business is giving a clear message of support to the likes of Ahmedinejad and Hamas etc.

    • Ben81 says:

      12:04pm | 02/04/11

      That term switches me off too, i’ve been more than annoyed at the anti-Israel bigots and hypocrites for as long as I can remember and I’ve never even used it once.

    • Dan says:

      02:01pm | 03/04/11

      Waynevan, there is a simple test.

      Thomas Friedman wrote, “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”

    • Hamish van says:

      06:20am | 03/04/11

      “the Greens chose to direct preferences to the One Nation founder ahead of the ALP” is not false.

      Why has an article with false statements been allowed to remain on this site for 2 days. It makes the punch and news.com.au looks disreputable.

    • Phil Osopher says:

      07:53am | 03/04/11

      Am I anti-semetic if I chose to dislike the views of anyone who thinks they are one of “the chosen people”, which is what all Jews believe?  Please explain.

    • Dan Lewis says:

      01:59pm | 03/04/11

      Let’s see. Broad and wildly inaccurate statement about Jews, likely to demonise them?

      Yes Phil, you are anti-Semitic (and note the spelling).

      Hope that clears it up for you.

      Of course you clearly have been called it before, haven’t you sunshine? Which would explain why you seem so sensitive.

    • The spiritual view says:

      02:19pm | 03/04/11

      Unfortunately the answer is “Yep”.  You have obviously never met a Jew in your life. Stop looking for people with big noses and horns on their curly heads, and you might discover that Jews are 100% human, just like you.. Sorry you don’t think you’re chosen for anything. Keep looking. Everyone has a talent.that they can contribute to the world.

    • RobJ says:

      03:43pm | 03/04/11

      “Am I anti-semetic”

      well you go on to write:

      “anyone who thinks they are one of “the chosen people”, which is what all Jews believe?  “

      Which is nonsense, there are plenty of secular Jews, so yeah, spreading falsehoods about ALL Jews, that would be anti-semitic.

    • John says:

      12:07am | 04/04/11

      What would your view of me be Phil, if I choose to dislike a group of ppl who belive thier religion is the only true religion and all those who do not convert to this religion should be forced to convert or be killed. Yes I am talking about Islam yet you would call me a racist and a islamaphobe. Why dont the greens also push for a ban on Iranian products as in Iran, unless you are a muslim you are required to pay higher taxes and a death tax?

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      01:10pm | 03/04/11

      How incredibly stupid are the Greens, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Sarah Hanson-Young & their “Best mate” Jooolya Gillard? And for different reasons!
      Jooolya, for purely opportunistic political reasons, aligns herself & the entire ALP with the Greens. The Greens, who have not shied away from admitting they will use their numbers in the Senate to force the ALP to introduce some of their regressive policies, will from July control the Senate - or at least they think they will for the Coalition may decide to support the Government if only to block these stand-over merchants.
      In what must be regarded as either a very brave or incredibly stupid move Jooolya has attacked the Greens & the repurcussions are already being hinted at by the Greens. We all know what that means, don’t we?
      The Greens really are not fit to be in any Parliament. Now I know the Federal Greens are trying desperately to distance themselves from the NSW Greens & that may have worked at the beginning of the 20th Century when communication between cities, let alone other States & the world, took days, weeks or months.
      The trouble for those Federal Greens is that we are in the 21st Century. Communication is instantaneous. The Australian people no longer differentiate as they did between Federal, State & Territory politics & political parties. A Green in SA is no different to one in NSW, Vic, NT,Qld,Tas,WA or the ACT. They are all, & without exception, members of the same Party. They are all judged accordingly. The Greens endorsed, that we know of, at least 3 candidates in NSW all of whom have very publicly backed a blatantly xenophobic, racist group, BDS, one of those three will take her seat in the Senate in July.
      For the Greens to endorse one xenophobic racist can be regarded as a mistake - just as the Liberals endorsed Pauline hanson without being aware of her blatant xenophobia & racism. They very smartly dumped her.
      For the Greens to endorse as second of the same ilk was not a mistake. It was deliberate & they knew what they were doing.
      For them to endorse a third reveals the Greens, for all their alleged beliefs, as being prepared to endorse anyone they think might win them a seat anywhere even if those they do endorse are racists, xenophobes. The old Greens should be very, very careful for when this new lot get control they will come out, in addition to being racist, xenophobic, anti-Semites - particularly anti-Jewish ones -, as being homophobic, anti-all religions, anti the Disabled & Mentally unwell & those politically opposed to them.
      Does that remind anyone of another political party of the 1930s?

    • Bemused says:

      02:11pm | 03/04/11

      Much as I am delighted to see Rhiannon and Byrne hoist on their idiotic and hateful boycott petard, I must say that in Jamie Parker’s case at least, you can look to the serial liar Anthony Loewenstein to blame. The Punch should always check out any comments from him. Loewenstein’s pathological resentment of his own people causes him to dredge up whatever negative rubbish he can find about them, ignore anything positive and cobble the lot together in a fantasy that ensure he gets the adoration he craves from the far left nutzis-in- waiting who just lap his half-truths up. Jamie Parker has told Paul Howes in this newspaper that he didn’t make some of these comments. The Punch should put it to him and if these allegations are false, Jamie should make a public statement distancing himself from them. Meanwhile I suppose Crikey and New Matilda will keep paying out to allow Lowenstein free range with the truth.

    • Rita says:

      02:40pm | 03/04/11

      One may have thought that in Australia we have AUSTRALIAN MPs regardless their origin. They have been elected by the Australian electorate regardless the faith or origin. And they are supposed to represent their electorate here, in Australia , not in Greece or Paris or the UK.
      I have never heard of i.e. Greek MP or Italian MP in Canberra. 
      The way I understand is that i.e. Mr. Abbot is NOT a Catholic MP. He is an Australian MP of Catholic faith. His faith is of no importance to many people he represents.
      Greek MPs are in Greece as they represent Greeks, and Italian ones are in Italy. Catholic MPs may be in Vatican.
      Or is there something I do not understand?

    • J. B. says:

      03:11pm | 03/04/11

      When is David Penberthy going to retract the lie that the Greens preferenced
      Hanson? His friend Albanese has also said much the same thing, maybe they were commiserating at a dinner party last week and decided to smear the Greens yet again? At least people in politics put themselves forward bravely to be hacked down. David Penberthy stands on the sidelines as someone said earlier, hurling lies and smear without a qualm and pretending that it is journalism. I am married to a genuine journalist who believes that independence and a search for the truth is the rule not peddling party political rubbish.

    • Patrick says:

      03:49pm | 03/04/11

      These article seems to be undermined by the inconvenient fact that parties can’t distribute preferences to each other in NSW upper house elections.

    • Jo says:

      04:48pm | 03/04/11

      Cmon penberthy. Writing an inaccurate statement if forgivable if it is retracted or corrected ASAP. Knowing a statement is totally wrong and failing to correct it is inexcusable for a journalist. You are an embarrassment to the whole profession and stand condemned for your lack of action. If news limited want to keep even a shred of credibility, you would be sanctioned and forced to make a retraction.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter