This is in stark contrast to Danny’s comments here: “To the extent that the New Israel Fund (NIF) strives to achieve these exemplary aims, the Zionist community here has no issue whatsoever. We applaud the work done by many of the organisations supported by the NIF and which Nathan has mentioned. We do not question their legitimacy or the value of their contribution to the nation.”

It is pleasing to see that he has stepped back from his blanket condemnation of the NIF to a more qualified “We are only asking questions that deserve answers”.

But the damage Danny has done both to the standing of the ZCV and by association our community, is the result of jumping in with intemperate comments which effectively condemned Professor Chazan rather than “only asking questions”.

Perhaps, if Danny had thought about the opportunity that the NIF controversy had afforded him, he could have asked his questions in person to Professor Chazan while she was in Melbourne.

As a lawyer who closely followed the legal side of the Goldstone Mission from its very inception, I came to the conclusion long ago that it would not have made one iota of difference to the its outcome whether Israel “co-operated” with the Mission or not.

The whole concept of the Goldstone Report was a miscarriage of justice from its very inception and no self-respecting adherent to the principles of the rule of law should be required to submit itself to what unabashedly proved to be a charade.

Leaving aside the fact that it was the brainchild of the Organization of Islamic States and that its terms of reference were so slanted that they barely required any investigation into Hamas’ role before and during the conflict, the investigators appointed had already shown their bias and their leanings against Israel’s involvement before their appointment. One of its number, Christine Chinkin had already signed a letter in January 2009 accusing Israel of “aggression” and “prima facie war crimes.” In any democracy that values the rule of law such a person would never even be in contention to sit on any judicial or quasi-judicial body carrying out an investigation of this magnitude and importance but this is the modus for the dysfunctional UN Human Rights Council which has established a substantial reputation for doing absolutely nothing for human rights around the globe.

It was no surprise therefore, that Goldstone did not reached a judicial conclusion but a political one that mirrored the pre-existing prejudices of those who were supposedly doing the investigating. His report simply defies logic and bends the rules of evidence so far backward that one wonders why his Mission wasted its time convening and taking evidence in the first place (as it was, it did the work in record time given the serious nature of the allegations put forward in the case). 

Goldstone himself conceded that there was no evidence to support the conclusions reached and this supports my very strong belief that Israeli co-operation with the Mission would be superfluous.

Nathan Cherny recognises the importance of the rule of law (he specifically says so in his original piece) and its clear that the Goldstone Report is an abuse par excellence of that very rule of law he and most of us support.

The Goldstone Report would therefore have reached the same conclusions with or without any information (false or otherwise) supplied by Israeli human rights groups funded or supported by NIF and with or without the co-operation of the State of Israel. 

This of course, does not excuse those groups, if indeed, they provided Goldstone with unreliable or false evidence and that is why I consider that some response from NIF on these allegations would help at least clear the air. 

“I believe in “Zedek, Zedek tirdof” the imperative of actively pursuing justice as a core Jewish Principle. Even in war, I want to be able to take pride in the justice of my country. If, and when, my country or its agencies stray through faulty decision making or command, I want a system that is ready to honestly investigate the claims and to candidly address them. This has been the approach of NIF supported non profit Israeli organizations (such as B’tzelem) calling for Israel to launch fair and independent investigation into some of the accusations arising out of the events Operation Cast Lead. Believe me, I want this, not out of any self hatred, but out of a profound sense of patriotism and love of my country. ”

But Danny Lamm is a Kadimah/Likud Australian Zionist, not a Meretz one like Naomi Chazan, and certainly not sympathetic to the politics of the NGOs and the democratic multiculturalism underpinned by universal human rights protections which the NIF supports.

This makes him so much more vulnerable to the pressures of the Orthodox ethno-nationalists who rely on a mythos of holy warrior nationalism to suppress semblance of a liberally humane civil society. The Iranian mullahs do the same in their country, viciously supressing democratic dissent against monolithic religious nationalism, but fortunately, unlike Iran, the Israeli government is constrained by the structure of a western political/legal system which includes a legislature and judiciary still held publicly accountable thanks to the work of organisations such as the NIF.

Now that Chazan’s visit to Australia has been effectively stopped by removal of sponsorship by the ZCV, who do we see as her replacement speaker to raise money for the UIA, – despite Steve Denenberg’s (Exec Director of Union of Progressive Judaism) pious ‘Viewpoint’ piece in today’s Australian Jewish News
arguing for non-controversial speakers (and supported by the AJN Editorial, also arguing against ‘divisive’ speakers)? None other than the extraordianrily divisive ‘Lioness of Londonistan’ Melanie Phillips to whip up anti-Muslim hatred and fear.

The hypocrisy of this is breath-taking as part of a double snow-job on the melbourne Jewish community by the ‘friends’ of Israel which includes the sponsorship by AIJAC of Gerald Steinberg to whip up a self-righteous militia and lynch mob mentality in the heart of Melbourne’s Orthodox Jewish community, the Caulfield Hebrew Congregation.

Hopefully Shulamit Aloni and Naomi Chazan, before both of them are dead or too debilitated to travel will visit us and provide some relief from the stridency of the elite of militaristic national monopolists foisted on us by the ‘diversity-respecting’ Zionist Council of Victoria and the AIJAC (which no Australian Jews ever voted for).

I’lam has at least been able to resond to the report, “Inside I’lam” written by David Bedein and Samuel Sokol, published in May/June 2009 by the Israel Resource News Agency (IRNA). (http://www.nif.org/media-center/nif-in-the-news/Ilam-Response-to-IRNA-Jul09.doc) They demonstrate the right-wing agenda of both authors, including population transfers and strong affiliation to the settler movement. So much for the non-political stance which Lamm claims in his approach to such matters, presumably based upon such information.

There is a similar report about Adalah by Arlene Kusher, also called ‘Inside Adalah’ by an Arlene Kushner, who claims to be a Middle East expert. By looking at her blog and other sites, it’s clear that in fact, she is a journalist pushing a particular propoganda line. It is not clear if she even knows Arabic.

The author of the Ilam response says–

“It seems that criticism of Israel as not living up to its democratic ideals is what the IRNA report takes most offence with; it has nothing to do with our work, our engagement in human rights promotion, our initiatives towards social equality and justice in Israel. The approach of IRNA resembles that of NGO-Monitor, which describes itself as “promoting critical debate and accountability of Human Rights NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict”. However, IRNA’s research seems even more poorly conducted and executed. Just as NGO-Monitor is keen on vilifying all critics of Israel (including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Ford Foundation, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Caritas, United Nations Agencies and Israeli organizations, including Betselem, Hamoked, I’lam and Adalah) conveniently ignoring Israel’s human rights violations, IRNA seems to operate on similar principle.

This is the sort of ‘deep background’ which forms the opinion of the local Zionist etablishment.

By picking up on the hot and sensisitve topics such as ‘apartheid’ ‘racism’ or Adalah’s ‘Democratic Constitution’ etc, as discussed at Durban, or on websites, NGO watch is able to construct a strong case that Israel is equally hated by all. This of course, ignores the base of the problem–a deep structural problem with how Israel has structured its society, and the occupation. If people want to keep going like that, then they have to live with the consequences. IF they don’t then concessions will ultimately be required, including a reworking of the now hollow ‘Zionist’ dream into something much more practical and secure for Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora.