Gareth Evans, the chancellor of the Australian National University, former head of the International Crisis Group and former foreign minister, is not giving up. He wrote in The Australian Financial Review last year that Australia should vote "yes" in the United Nations to Palestine becoming a full member. He was ignored. Kevin Rudd thought we should abstain but Julia Gillard followed the US-Israeli line and voted "no".

Evans was back in the fight on Australia Day, using an address in Melbourne to lambast the Gillard government for not "repositioning Australia on the global stage" nor being a "decent and committed international citizen" on issues like Israel-Palestine, instead letting "domestic political considerations" rule foreign policy.

Labor's official policy speaks of an "even-handed" approach, ensuring the freedom, security and independence of both peoples. But behind the scenes modern Labor leaders fall over themselves to reassure Israel of their allegiance - from Bob Hawke's "emotional" meetings with Israeli prime ministers to Rudd having Israel "in his DNA" and Gillard's close public association with the new Australia-Israel Leadership Forum.

But polls now show that while Hawke might have reflected Australian attitudes in the 1980s, in the 21st century Rudd and Gillard certainly don't.

Individual polls can be misleading. It's the trend of polls that matters. Occasional polls on Israel-Palestine were conducted by a small number of companies between 1946 and 1990. Over that 40-plus-year period, they tell us that: Australians were evenly divided on whether Palestine should be partitioned at all in the late 1940s; Australians supported Israel by a large majority in 1967 when it defeated Egypt and invaded and occupied the Palestinian territories; and Australians were pro-Israel in 1974, again by a large majority, following the 1973 war with Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

This support continued into the 1980s. A McNair Ingenuity poll in 1981 asked, "Are your sympathies ... mainly with the Jewish people? OR mainly with the Arabic people? OR are they more or less equal?" (Results: Jewish people 28 per cent; Arab people 4 per cent; Equal 55 per cent; Don't know 13 per cent.)

At least seven reputable polls have been conducted in the past decade touching on the question of Australian attitudes to Israel-Palestine.

In 2003, 35 per cent agreed ''with American policy on Israel and Palestine'', while 39 per cent disagreed.

In two polls in 2006, sympathy was almost evenly divided between the two sides, with two-thirds in one poll saying their sympathies were ''equal''.

But in 2007, after the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, 68 per cent had a negative view of Israel and, in 2009, after the war in Gaza, 24 per cent sympathised with Israel, 28 per cent with the Palestinians and 26 per cent with neither.

In 2010, 55 per cent described the conflict as ''Palestinians trying to end Israel's occupation and form their [own] state'', while 32 per cent preferred ''Israelis fighting for security against Palestinian terrorism''.

And last year, while sympathies were almost evenly divided, 63 per cent were against settlers building on occupied land and 51 per cent thought Australia should vote ''Yes'' for Palestinian statehood at the UN, compared to 15 per cent ''No'' and 20 per cent ''Abstain''.

I am listing here only polls from private polling companies with established reputations in the specialist field.

The overwhelming trend shows a sharp swing since the 1980s against Israel's image and actions among ordinary Australians.

The fact of the current disjunction between government policy and public attitudes on the Israel-Palestine issue receives almost no publicity, unlike polls on Afghanistan. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide.

The Gillard government stood against Australian public opinion, against the former Labor foreign minister from the Hawke government, against its own foreign minister's plea to at least "abstain", against the arguments of that conservative bastion of opinion The Economist, and against most of the world, but with the US and Israel in voting "no" to Palestine's entry into the UN.

This snubbing of public opinion cannot last. Once upon a time, before the emergence of the Greens, progressive voters had nowhere else to go. Now they do. If Labor wishes to renew itself, it might start by listening to the views of its voters. And they are increasingly tolling the bell on Palestine.

Political Stance On Palestine Is Out Of Step With Public Opinion 

UN HRC votes 36-1 to probe Israeli Settlements. China & Russia FOR, United States AGAINST

UN rights body launches probe into Israeli settlements. (Reuters) - The
United Nations launched an international investigation into Israeli
settlements in the Palestinian territories, with the United States isolated
in voting against the initiative brought by the Palestinian Authority.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/03/22/un-israel-settlements-idINDEE82L0I920120322

UN Panel uses the strongest language to date to highlight Israeli racism
and system of discrimination

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(CERD), was "appalled" by Israel's racial segregation policies and that an
advanced version of an upcoming CERD report indicates that racial prejudice
can be found in almost every facet of Israeli life.

UN Condemns Israeli Apartheid

Mo’men Shtayeh probably owns a John Cena shirt, the WWE wrestler who the Palestinian kids hero worship, their shrill voices echoing in neighborhood streets of Cena’s catchphrase, “You can’t see me!” accompanied with waving a hand in front of their faces.

Mo’men Shtayeh has seen and knows too much. There is a chance—nay, a probability— that due to witnessing the Israeli army’s brutality and severe oppression in his village of Kufr Qaddoum, Mo’men might have grown up to be a warmongering Islamist (or perveresly, a Tea Partier).

Mo’men Shtayeh represents a threat to the security of the Israeli racist occupying state. Apparently, it is well known that due to his savvy nature, Mo’men has been involved in drawing up specialized blue prints to attack enemy bases.

So it all makes perfect sense that the most moral army in the world, the Israeli Defense Forces, the 4th strongest army, the upholders of the beacon of democracy and godly light, tried to arrest Mo’men on Monday, April 2nd.

The thing is, Mo’men is 2 and a half years old.

Murad Shtayeh, the coordinator of the popular resistance committeee in Kufr Qaddoum and the father of little Mo’men, told the Electronic Intifada that heavily armed Israeli soldiers raided his house on Monday at 5:30pm. Two soldiers remained outside, two others went in the house, shouting they were going to arrest Mo’men.

“Mo’men was going inside the house,” Murad said, “when the soldiers suddenly took off from where they had been standing.They came running to the house like they were in a marathon, very fast and urgent, like a bunch of crazies.”

The soldiers claimed that Mo’men had, not a nuclear warhead, or a submachine gun, but the most dangerous item in the world- a slingshot.

“Of course Mo’men didn’t have a slingshot in his hands!” scoffed Murad. “And even if he did, so what? He’s a kid.” For crying out loud.

The soldiers were adamant that Mo’men hand over his slingshot (which he doesn’t own) because he was using it to aim at the soldiers. What’s more, they wanted Mo’men to hand himself over to them too.

Bashar Shtayeh, Murad’s cousin was also present at the scene. “The soldiers in the house drew their weapons and pointed them at the family,” he said, “threatening them that they would not leave unless Mo’men was handed over to them.”

A loud angry arugment persisted for half an hour between Murad, other villagers who had come to see what the commotion was all about, and the soldiers. The soldiers then left, having cemented yet another moral meltdown in the occupation’s history. Not that they had morals in the first place.

But what of the toddler? Needless to say, Mo’men was terrified by the ongoings around him.

“What can I say, of course he’s affected by this,” Murad said. “He was very scared. He’s doing slightly better now.”

Kufr Qaddoum began its weekly popular resistance protests in June 2011, against the encroaching illegal settlement of Qedumim that is built on the village’s land and to open the main village road that leads directly to Nablus.

The Israeli oppression against Kufr Qaddoum doesn’t just happen on Fridays. It occures on a daily basis.

“Obviously, they thought this stunt- whether carried through or not- would serve as a punishment for us, but the truth is that it will not deter us from our protests,”Murad declared.

“Every day and night we have 5 to 7 soldiers in the village harrassing us. Sometimes they come in with their dogs and fetch cars and houses. Yesterday (Tuesday) at 9:30pm the soldiers set up a checkpoint on one of the inner streets of the village.”

Mo’men Shtayeh, your little 2 and a half year old self highlighted the absurdity, the idiocy, the shameful nature of the Israeli occupying army. May the force of John Cena be with you.

Israeli Forces Attempt To Arrest 2-Year-Old Palestinian Child By Linah Alsaafin

The role of mainstream media in the West to shield the public from the realities of Israeli occupation is legendary. Occasionally there is a breakthrough, such as this 2010 piece on American 60 Minutes on East Jerusalem.

60 Minutes Unafraid To Tackle Israeli Apartheid First-hand

The US State Department is circulating a confidential letter urging European Union (EU) members and other "friendly" countries to help block Palestinian attempts to secure non-member Observer State status at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
The memorandum, seen by this writer, falsely asserts that the US and the Middle East Peace Quartet are working toward a two-state solution that envisages "a secure, democratic Jewish State of Israel and a Palestinian State as a homeland for the Palestinian people".

While the Peace Quartet has endorsed the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, it never agreed on defining Israel as a "Jewish state". In fact, this issue was a sticking point leading to the failure of the Quartet's meeting in July last year.
The State Department communique also claims the US continues "to urge both parties to avoid provocative one-sided actions that could undermine trust".

Sadly, the US is conspicuously treating Palestinian diplomatic efforts at the UN as more serious than Israel's interminable breaches of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords.

Phlegmatic on Israeli violations, the US State Department is mobilising its own diplomatic corps on behalf of Israel to undermine Palestinians' basic right to a state of their own.

In the private US document, the administration cautioned that "a General Assembly resolution on Palestinian statehood could also open the door to Palestinian participation as a state in other international forums, including at the International Criminal Court (ICC)".

Why is the US concerned about this?

UN Observer State status will only grant the ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed within the geographical area of the state.

In the absence of war crimes, the ICC's jurisdiction becomes immaterial.

Perhaps US apprehension over Palestinian entry into the UN - with power to adjudicate on matters related to war crimes - is an implicit admission of Israeli culpability in such crimes.

The letter carried an oblique warning to European countries that Palestine joining the UN will have "significant negative consequences" including "our ability to maintain our significant financial support for the Palestinian Authority" - implying that EU countries will be left with the burden of supporting a Palestinian economy strangled by Israeli occupation.

Israel's grip on US foreign policy is bizarre.

Last month, since the Israeli Prime Minister was not there, the US President had to cancel a 20-year-old tradition of meeting world leaders present for the opening of the UN General Assembly session.

To avoid the appearance of meeting world leaders, but not Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama called off his meetings altogether.

This irrational Israeli influence over American foreign policy was investigated at length in a book called The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who argued: "It is time for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country."

In his farewell speech in 1796, the founding father and first American President George Washington presaged these type of relations and forewarned about the danger of "the insidious wiles of foreign influence".

"The jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government," he said.

Indeed, the Israeli lobby's diabolic "influence" over elected American officials is the most destructive threat to US democracy.

War Crimes & US Threats To Withdraw Financial Support  For Palestinians