This article says what has not been said enough.
Its a shame, but I don’t think the writer has any evidence of the part below, except that its Shoebridge’s opinion.
However, Greens Senator David Shoebridge told Sydney Criminal Lawyers this week that this reading misunderstands modern Labor”, which is “quite comfortable with Israel behaving like this, with the solid backing of Washington”.
“They have signed onto a global project, while Washington, its allies and proxies, literally do whatever they like, wherever they like,” the lawmaker elaborated on Monday this week. “This is part of modern Labor’s worldview of how the world works.”
Alternatively there is a realist view that requires obedience with the major power’s policy in certain areas, because we are a vassal State.
Theres no evidence that Labor likes this view presented by Shoebridge, or wishes the status quo to continue, likewise theres no evidence the other way as well. The problem is we, and Shoebridge, do not know or can’t provide evidence one way or the other.
If the loss to Australia from speaking out is calculated to be too great to bear electorally then the better of two evils might be to meekly do the minimum demanded.
Too few Australians actually engage with the crimes being committed by Israel, a failure of our media and distracted society writ large. But that means the politics of the matter are tricky. In a media environment dominated by carte blanche support and deference to Israel a word from the PM against this group will be panned across all the Murdoch press et al. Action against Israel could bring retribution from the US. And all that in an environment where the majority of the Australian public don’t see or engage with the war crimes this ally of ours is committing.
Everything else in the article is really strong. Perhaps the PM should read this and consider his own morality in the decision to remain a quiet and meek partner. The leaders that are remembered are the leaders that made bold and rosky decisions.
Just as there is the realist view, there are humanist moral views the PM can consider. Like, will it make the world a more dangerous place in the long run if we allow our allies to commit torture, rape, murder, starvation, societal destruction. What precedent does that set for others. Especially in a world where the US is losing preeminent control.
Bit of realism coming in at the end there again though. The humanist moral view doesn’t need that part.
You might have already this article by now but if you haven’t, take a look when you can and see what you think.: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/modern-labor-is-quite-comfortable-with-the-trump-netanyahu-agenda-says-shoebridge/
Ah, i had a quick look for this interview, after reading the other article, last night but didn’t see it. Thanks for sharing.
I’m a bit disappointed in Shoebridges performance here. But maybe its the interviewers uncritical line of questioning doing the damage.
They move through the topics without assessing why Shoebridge has come to the conclusions he has. The below quote is probably the one I have the most problems with, I spoke about them in the previous coments in this thread.
There are costs to taking a moral stand, that doesn’t mean its not good or the right thing to do, but a government has to weigh up the timing of those moral stands and the likelihood of those stands generating a desired outcome, or how far a government would have to go in order to back up those stances.
If Australia was to demand the immediate release of those civilian prisoners, do we have any leverage over the Israeli’s? Not really, so we can only call for that country to respect our citizens rights under international law. Furthermore the Israelis and US have clearly demonstrated their leverage over Australia, which they can use to exact revenge. This could be targetted against Labor, or it could be targetted against the country in general.
As an example of leverage, the US has been reviewing the AUKUS pact, with one Elbridge Colby. That was a warning as much as anything that the US could tear up Australia’s whole security strategy for the next decade or more. Australia doesn’t have an answer for this at the moment, we are militarily enmeshed with US military architecture for the foreseeable future, which means this action is basically coatles for the US bevmcause we have no choice currently but to carry on being their ally. The security arrangements the Morrison government entered into were a tragedy for Australian sovereignty, and we have snookered ourselves, but we have no other current choices but to continue on.
The quote,
This misunderstands modern Labor. Modern Labor is quite comfortable with Israel behaving like this, with the solid backing of Washington.
They have signed onto a global project while Washington, its allies and proxies literally do whatever they like, wherever they like. This is part of modern Labor’s worldview of how the world works.
They are not willing to fight it. They are not willing to stand up against it on the basis of principle or even basic decency or in this case, to protect the welfare and lives of Australian citizens.
The reason is, they support and are a part of this project. And I find that an incredibly disturbing conclusion.
The podcast Foreign Exchange by Hugh White and Sam Roggeveen should help explain my points about Australia’s precarious situation as the US begins to retreat from the Asia Pacific. Hugh White is a Realist, so there are other views, but his is a valuable view to consider.
Realpolitik yes, but the situation is worse than that.
What happened to the Middle Powers getting together and making a stand?
I go back to the Spain example. It has been loud to condemn plus not collude in the mess churned up by Israel/US re Iran. PM Sanchez made a very publicised public statement very soon after Saif Abu Keshek (Palestinian who also has Spanish/Swedish citizenship) and Thiago Ávila (Brasilian), organisers of the Sumud Flotilla, were illegally taken to Israel for ‘special treatment’. He said that no Spanish citizen imprisoned illegally would be left at the mercy of Israel. (If you want the original statement I’ll look for it). Thereafter, Spanish newspapers were reporting day by day what was happening to the two hostages. There was additional international pressure and after ten days they were released. That is what self-respecting leaders should be doing when citizens of their countries are apprehended illegally in international waters and bashed - to at least say that it is not acceptable.
Our govt was first cab off the rank to approve the illegal bombing of Iran by US/Israel. It is complicit in approving the breach of international law. This is very serious. If the govt hasn’t got the courage to say no to these breaches will it be able to say no when, very likely, we are asked once more by the US to join in the war, seeing as the war is heating up again? I hope it does find some courage. Australia has lost far too many young men over the years to other nations’ wars.
This is the strategic problem Australia is in.
With the global sumud flotilla, much like Shoebridge’s thoughts they’re based on a feeling from the outside. Nobody knows what the Australian Gov said to Israel behind closed doors on those Australians taken from the flotilla. Its often said that you can do more damage in international relations the louder you are.
Spain is a poor example to keep bringing up. We’re fundamentally different, they’re at the tip of one of the strongest continents, who all share highly similar values abd political traditions to them.
Australia sits alone below a region that knows domination from a major northern power (China) and has far more subtle means of living alongside that power. Those southeast asian mechanisms don’t align well with the European tradition of speaking out. This means we are often/largely alone if we speak out too much for human rights in our own region. With the change in US stance toward the world this problem can be applied to our allies now as well.
With all this, as I said initially, i’m not sure its the right choice, if thats their methodology. What I’m saying is, its too much for Shoebridge to assume because the Australian Government doesn’t speak out like Spain, that they’re “comfortable” with the situation. He and we don’t know what is happening behind closed doors, and without evidence its lazy to conclude what he indicated in that interview, and Shoebridge didn’t present any evidence, only his opinion. Thats not worthless, but its also not everything.
If all or most European governments had such similar values, surely more would have spoken out like Spain did. Spain has one of very few left-wing governments in Europe (I think Norway might also have a left govt) with a relatively young prime minister and that is probably a major reason why they call out fascistic actions when they see them. Aside from this, although the European Union presents as a bloc, each country has a very old, rich and unique history. By no means do they have similar political traditions.
Anyway, governments are firstly responsible for the welfare of their citizens and they are meant to publicly object to their ill treatment by other jurisdictions, especially if their citizens were assaulted for no legal reasons by allies with whom we are supposed to share similar democratic values. The Israeli govt has no qualms in complaining pretty publicly about how we don’t protect Jewish people enough inside our own country and our govt is bending over backwards to accommodate and respond to those complaints, including running an expensive Royal Commission, changing laws and a whole lot of other changes. Our govt also took side with the Israeli govt and more or less said the Australians in the flotilla got what they deserved for getting involved (not as harshly put but meaning the same). This is while Palestinians continue to be killed and seriously mistreated in a supposed ceasefire.
I do think you are being a bit of an apologist for the Labor govt and I also think Shoebridge knows more about what’s happening in the govt than you and I do. ‘Comfortable’ might be an unfortunate term but it conveys being more than tolerant with the current global status quo and i don’t think that can be denied. I guess what Spain is showing is that it is possible to speak out with some moral and democratic authority and not keep quiet out of fear of trade or other reprisals.
apologist for the Labor govt and I also think Shoebridge knows more
I’ve gone to some length to give credit to Shoebridge and his better placed position to view these things in this thread. That doesn’t take away from the fact he presented only his opinion. He can have an opinion, but that isn’t the definite truth. He could be wrong in his opinion, wholly or partially, and there was no information he gave that rebuts that.
Calling me an apologist means you’ve singularly failed to notice there are often unidentified reasons for policy and decisions.
The unsealing of government records after ~50 years~ is an interesting case. In this case the public can finally match the inside of a story to the outside of that same known event a Government dealt with. This can give better public clarity to how the issue was viewed by the PM or Minister, and why and how they differed to the public narrative of the time.
firstly responsible for the welfare of their citizens… …and they are meant to publicly object to their ill treatment by other jurisdictions
This is two statements that don’t always meet with each other for a Government. The welfare of the mass sometimes has a different need to publicly advocating. In fact publicly advocating can also be deteimental for the individuals involved. It can force the captor party into acting more aggressively. The effective method, often doesn’t suit hollywood heroics.
A recent example is the Government quietly got Julian Assange home. Making a public song and dance could’ve embarrassed the US into keeping him, possibly punishing him more. Make an example. In that case, like many others we don’t hear about, the quiet public diplomacy course was the correct one.
By no means do they have similar political traditions
I mean, this is just incorrect. Of course each have differences, but they have a shared history. South East Asia has shared history with each other, that we don’t share much of, and thus haven’t had many of those cross-cultural influences.
I do understand your viewpoint and respect it but cannot agree.
You could posit that Shoebridge said more than the ‘comfortable’ description of the current govt approach to Israel etc but that this could not be spelled out for fear by the author, Paul Gregoire, of getting into legal trouble, or, that Shoebridge himself did not want to make waves that could damage his Party. We’ll never know but speaking like this is often a sign of a system that is ‘not comfortable’ with openness.
there are often unidentified reasons for policy and decisions
Yes I know but to keep quiet with the bare-faced evidence that your citizens are being assaulted by your ally illegally, to keep quiet about the ongoing murder of Palestinians and the mass destruction of Sthn Lebanon with thousands already killed is very suspect, no matter how hush-hush the reasons might be. The UN has condemned this activity and so should everyone. These are mass crimes. And assaulting foreign nationals on international waters is also breaking the law. Silence is condoning the breakdown of the international order.
Government quietly got Julian Assange home.
We are talking of one high-profile figure and I was overjoyed when our govt finally got him out imprisonment. It saved his life. The above situation is the opposite. Whatever the ‘unidentified reasons’ for the silence and the continued support directly or indirectly of Israeli military action, it has cost at least 100,000 lives and counting. Keeping silent about that but being super public about supporting the illegal bombing of Iran which has caused thousands more deaths and will probably continue on is… what would you say?
Germans and others were castigated after WW2 for turning a blind eye or supporting what was happening to Jews and other minorities in Europe during the war but what many of us are doing now (including our own govt) looks very similar. I am sure they have ‘unidentified reasons’ but the result is still criminal and many lives are being obliterated, including tens of thousands of innocent children. I cannot excuse putting people’s lives behind political expediency.
Meekness or compliance? Taking the easy (more comfortable) way out?
This has turned into more than just ‘doing the bare minimum’: The way our laws are being affected and freedom of speech curtailed, the way some voices are encouraged to express grievance while others are suppressed is a cause for alarm when these changes are being instigated by a foreign country.
Countries like Spain have managed to stand up and say they will not collude despite having a US base on their soil and Trump’s threats to cut trade with them. As far as I know, Trump has not followed through. If more nations did the same we’d have a different scenario. Trump is no longer popular in his own country but I think the international community might be waiting for the mid-term elections. I believe this to be not only meek but cowardly. Thousands of people are being slaughtered.
