Australia will move to recognise a state of Palestine at the next United Nations General Assembly next month, with a condition that terror group Hamas plays no role in its governance.
Well, what are the costs of moves like those. I’m working on a moral and humanist calculus, Albanese may be partially working on that, but he’ll also be working from a political calculus.
The US has made it pretty clear that Israel is their favourite protectorate. If, as you say in another comment, we are owned by the US, then does that mean in the heirarchy of protectorates we are lower than Israel and therefore likely to seriously damage our standing with the US by imposing arms sanctions? And what does that mean for Australian military defence? And technology supply?
For one thing, we’d have to be ready for massive and disproportionate responses from the fascists in charge in the US. Is our defence establishment ready for that? Our population psychologically ready for that?
I’m proposing these, not as my values, but to demonstrate that this is more complicated for the politicians than for ordinary people. PK on Politics Now podcast had a good discussion on this last week.
Yeah, playing realpolitik is an excuse that can only get you so far. When there’s genocide involved, and various other war crimes involved in executing that genocide (including murdering aid workers and journalists), that excuse goes out the window.
Good points, it is easy forget that a lot of the big IR issues are associated with the US and can have significant knock-on effects as a result. I do find realpolitik quite sickening when applied to human rights issues, though.
It is. Theres a point in things where you have to say as a nation we’re willing to wear the consequences of our convictions.
Its a shame that i feel that Australians aren’t willing to accept costs like those for what i still believe are broadly held convictions about how we want to live in the world.
Until a Government actually takes us down that road i suppose we can’t really know what costs Australians would be willing to endure, so i guess its my hunch.
Labor wont take us down that road unless they are forced to.
OK so my memory might be a bit hazy but even so…
In '99 I don’t think anyone knew we’d flip Howard on sending troops to East Timor to stop the massacres. The last rally (or one of the last rallies) we had in Lismore NSW before Howard changed his tune was almost a riot. I think it was Ian Causley, the Nationals member for Page who came to speak at the rally.
He repeated the same thing we’d heard for two or so weeks, something like ‘We can’t go to war with Indonesia’. Someone in the crowd yelled ‘Give me a gun, I’ll go’. Within seconds hundreds of people were chanting and yelling ‘Give us guns, give us guns, give us guns’.
He was fucking SPOOKED. Farmers, hippies, students, workers all chanting to be armed so they could liberate East Timor. I wish I had video.
Anyway, my point is, it has to come from the grass-roots or it wont happen.
Wow. Interesting time for sure. I’s under the impression John Howard’s sudden flip was down to the Americans saying go.
Yep, it will have to come down to grass roots.
Thats how Albanese plays everything. Maybe with the possible exception of the Voice to Parliament, he goes about a bees dick further than the public on everything.
Its a shame that i feel that Australians aren’t willing to accept costs like those for what i still believe are broadly held convictions about how we want to live in the world.
Well I guess that depends a bit on the context, because in this case certainly it seems like most Australians are now quite united in their opinion and its really the politicians who have been dragging their feet. But more broadly I agree, it has been somewhat frustrating to see how willing Australians are to educate themselves on the situation in Gaza and advocate on behalf of Palestinians whilst issues that are actually relevant to the Australian context, like the rights of Indigenous people or asylum seekers, remain areas of widespread ignorance and disinterest. I suppose one of the key differences is that pro-Palestinian advocacy really costs Australians nothing, so for most the opportunity to take a selfish position doesn’t exist. It’s free moral high ground with zero trade-offs.
I’d argue what is happening in Gaza is very relevent to anybody who believes they benefit from a world system that ‘should’ frown upon neighbours attacking each other. Australians in general i argue fit that bill.
I suppose indigenous rights are more relevant to Australians than whats happening in Gaza, although i’m not sure on that. The fundamental right to live in peace within borders of your community, even if un-recognised, seems to me to be a foundational pillar for indigenous rights to stand upon. In this instance if we don’t stand up against genocide and violations of human rights in Palestine, then it seems hypocritical to stand up for indigenous rights at home.
But the above assumes a faith in an internationalist cause, i think there is a stronger argument, without hypocrisy, if a person determines they have more parochial concerns and values.
I’ve left out the asylum seekers because there is always a very clear motivation to demonise and alienate that group in any society. They are targetted because they can be, and at little to no cost for the attackers. Its bullshit that people don’t see through the carousel of propaganda and lies that wheels around endlessly targetting immigrants. So i suppose its a rights issue, but i think its different from Indigenous rights. Their mix of rights are a result of gaslighting and prejudice. I haven’t explained myself well here, sorry.
pro-Palestinian advocacy really costs Australians nothing, so for most the opportunity to take a selfish position doesn’t exist. It’s free moral high ground with zero trade-offs.
I want to come back to re-read this when i’m in different mental contexts. Its right, but i think it’ll hit different as i consider different actor’s motivations.
Perhaps I should redefine what I mean by “relevant” then, because it’s obviously the case that Australians have far less control over the situation in Gaza than they do over the rights of people suffering under their own democratically elected government. Whilst pushing our politicians to recognise Palestinian statehood or end the shipment of military equipment to Israel is not a complete waste of time and is certainly a good thing to do, the reality is that it will not even go close to solving that problem or ending the pain for Palestinian people. Australia can only offer moderate influence here, it cannot actively change anything by itself. Domestically, we have all the power and can absolutely make meaningful change so what’s the excuse? We don’t stand up for these other things, that’s the point, so to frame this as a hypocritical position misses the point entirely.
Gotchya, yeah in terms of control we certainly have more power over the Indigenous rights and Asylum Seekers.
Time for a hot take: (somewhat unrelated)
I actually have come to really credit Dutton for what he did with the boat people issue.
“We don’t comment on on-water matters.”
With that he killed a line of attack used against progressive parties in this country by conservatives.
And suddenly the conversations around asylum seekers arriving by boat couldn’t be a national pinata for the news.
It hasn’t solved any of the fundamental rights violations, but it did take the politics and grand standing way out of it. But the professionals have to carry out their work, but with less fear of a national outrage campaign against their decisions.
I’m not saying it has lead to better delivery of rights, but i am saying he created a situation where the delivery of better rights is more likely. Away from the culture wars and political grandstanding decision making can be clearer.
Given the experience with Gough Whitlam, the consequences would (presumably) be a near-immediate LNP government that would backtrack on any conviction we demonstrate and further make things worse not just for Palestine but for Australians.
Alternatively the consequences could be being cut out of military supply chains in the future but like … pretty sure America wants to do that anyway so I don’t know if the government would hold out on war-crime sanctions based on that.
If the CIA whispers into the the Green’s ear “it’s not good enough” or something they could probably convince the Greens to topple Labor’s government. The Greens are really dumb.
I don’t subscribe to the theories around CIA grand strategy there, the US has many fingers in many pies doesn’talways mean they’repulling the puppet strings.
I’ve learned a bit about that period, and Kerr really seemed to have a boner for using that power and being the big (conservative) dog.
Also i’m not sure its as simple now for the GG to go ahead and do that, i can’t remember the details but i think the GG’s requirements forbuse of that power were significantly tightened in its aftermath.
Well, what are the costs of moves like those. I’m working on a moral and humanist calculus, Albanese may be partially working on that, but he’ll also be working from a political calculus.
The US has made it pretty clear that Israel is their favourite protectorate. If, as you say in another comment, we are owned by the US, then does that mean in the heirarchy of protectorates we are lower than Israel and therefore likely to seriously damage our standing with the US by imposing arms sanctions? And what does that mean for Australian military defence? And technology supply?
For one thing, we’d have to be ready for massive and disproportionate responses from the fascists in charge in the US. Is our defence establishment ready for that? Our population psychologically ready for that?
I’m proposing these, not as my values, but to demonstrate that this is more complicated for the politicians than for ordinary people. PK on Politics Now podcast had a good discussion on this last week.
I’ll take the US ire over being a spineless shithole country like we are.
Yeah, playing realpolitik is an excuse that can only get you so far. When there’s genocide involved, and various other war crimes involved in executing that genocide (including murdering aid workers and journalists), that excuse goes out the window.
If ever there was a time to not be the US’ lapdog, it’s fucking now.
Good points, it is easy forget that a lot of the big IR issues are associated with the US and can have significant knock-on effects as a result. I do find realpolitik quite sickening when applied to human rights issues, though.
It is. Theres a point in things where you have to say as a nation we’re willing to wear the consequences of our convictions.
Its a shame that i feel that Australians aren’t willing to accept costs like those for what i still believe are broadly held convictions about how we want to live in the world.
Aren’t they? Have they been asked? Labor isn’t willing to accept the cost. That isn’t the same thing.
Until a Government actually takes us down that road i suppose we can’t really know what costs Australians would be willing to endure, so i guess its my hunch.
Labor wont take us down that road unless they are forced to.
OK so my memory might be a bit hazy but even so…
In '99 I don’t think anyone knew we’d flip Howard on sending troops to East Timor to stop the massacres. The last rally (or one of the last rallies) we had in Lismore NSW before Howard changed his tune was almost a riot. I think it was Ian Causley, the Nationals member for Page who came to speak at the rally.
He repeated the same thing we’d heard for two or so weeks, something like ‘We can’t go to war with Indonesia’. Someone in the crowd yelled ‘Give me a gun, I’ll go’. Within seconds hundreds of people were chanting and yelling ‘Give us guns, give us guns, give us guns’.
He was fucking SPOOKED. Farmers, hippies, students, workers all chanting to be armed so they could liberate East Timor. I wish I had video.
Anyway, my point is, it has to come from the grass-roots or it wont happen.
Wow. Interesting time for sure. I’s under the impression John Howard’s sudden flip was down to the Americans saying go.
Yep, it will have to come down to grass roots.
Thats how Albanese plays everything. Maybe with the possible exception of the Voice to Parliament, he goes about a bees dick further than the public on everything.
Well I guess that depends a bit on the context, because in this case certainly it seems like most Australians are now quite united in their opinion and its really the politicians who have been dragging their feet. But more broadly I agree, it has been somewhat frustrating to see how willing Australians are to educate themselves on the situation in Gaza and advocate on behalf of Palestinians whilst issues that are actually relevant to the Australian context, like the rights of Indigenous people or asylum seekers, remain areas of widespread ignorance and disinterest. I suppose one of the key differences is that pro-Palestinian advocacy really costs Australians nothing, so for most the opportunity to take a selfish position doesn’t exist. It’s free moral high ground with zero trade-offs.
I’d argue what is happening in Gaza is very relevent to anybody who believes they benefit from a world system that ‘should’ frown upon neighbours attacking each other. Australians in general i argue fit that bill.
I suppose indigenous rights are more relevant to Australians than whats happening in Gaza, although i’m not sure on that. The fundamental right to live in peace within borders of your community, even if un-recognised, seems to me to be a foundational pillar for indigenous rights to stand upon. In this instance if we don’t stand up against genocide and violations of human rights in Palestine, then it seems hypocritical to stand up for indigenous rights at home.
But the above assumes a faith in an internationalist cause, i think there is a stronger argument, without hypocrisy, if a person determines they have more parochial concerns and values.
I’ve left out the asylum seekers because there is always a very clear motivation to demonise and alienate that group in any society. They are targetted because they can be, and at little to no cost for the attackers. Its bullshit that people don’t see through the carousel of propaganda and lies that wheels around endlessly targetting immigrants. So i suppose its a rights issue, but i think its different from Indigenous rights. Their mix of rights are a result of gaslighting and prejudice. I haven’t explained myself well here, sorry.
I want to come back to re-read this when i’m in different mental contexts. Its right, but i think it’ll hit different as i consider different actor’s motivations.
Perhaps I should redefine what I mean by “relevant” then, because it’s obviously the case that Australians have far less control over the situation in Gaza than they do over the rights of people suffering under their own democratically elected government. Whilst pushing our politicians to recognise Palestinian statehood or end the shipment of military equipment to Israel is not a complete waste of time and is certainly a good thing to do, the reality is that it will not even go close to solving that problem or ending the pain for Palestinian people. Australia can only offer moderate influence here, it cannot actively change anything by itself. Domestically, we have all the power and can absolutely make meaningful change so what’s the excuse? We don’t stand up for these other things, that’s the point, so to frame this as a hypocritical position misses the point entirely.
Gotchya, yeah in terms of control we certainly have more power over the Indigenous rights and Asylum Seekers.
Time for a hot take: (somewhat unrelated)
I actually have come to really credit Dutton for what he did with the boat people issue.
“We don’t comment on on-water matters.”
With that he killed a line of attack used against progressive parties in this country by conservatives.
And suddenly the conversations around asylum seekers arriving by boat couldn’t be a national pinata for the news.
It hasn’t solved any of the fundamental rights violations, but it did take the politics and grand standing way out of it. But the professionals have to carry out their work, but with less fear of a national outrage campaign against their decisions.
I’m not saying it has lead to better delivery of rights, but i am saying he created a situation where the delivery of better rights is more likely. Away from the culture wars and political grandstanding decision making can be clearer.
Given the experience with Gough Whitlam, the consequences would (presumably) be a near-immediate LNP government that would backtrack on any conviction we demonstrate and further make things worse not just for Palestine but for Australians.
Alternatively the consequences could be being cut out of military supply chains in the future but like … pretty sure America wants to do that anyway so I don’t know if the government would hold out on war-crime sanctions based on that.
The coup against Whitlam was made possible by LNP control of the Senate. Right now, Labor can pass whatever it wants if it has Greens support.
If the CIA whispers into the the Green’s ear “it’s not good enough” or something they could probably convince the Greens to topple Labor’s government. The Greens are really dumb.
This is a dumb take
I don’t subscribe to the theories around CIA grand strategy there, the US has many fingers in many pies doesn’talways mean they’repulling the puppet strings.
I’ve learned a bit about that period, and Kerr really seemed to have a boner for using that power and being the big (conservative) dog.
Also i’m not sure its as simple now for the GG to go ahead and do that, i can’t remember the details but i think the GG’s requirements forbuse of that power were significantly tightened in its aftermath.