I’m.. genuinely hoping that Commissioner Bell is being strategic in applying the IHRA definition, and allowing the RC to unfold as it has. She’s laying it out as a Zionist would want it: their framework; the loudest, hurtiest feelings upfront and uncontested - but then after that comes the interrogation. As can be seen in the last week or two, many of the heads of Zionist orgs are explicitly presenting themselves as people who don’t care about the wellbeing of others - in Palestine, or those in Australia. Bell spoke to that when APANs counsel encountered Islamophobic abuse. And the hollowness of the complaints is being shown, highlighted etc - and the position of those who care about human rights only made stronger by recent court findings. Fingers crossed at the end that IHRA etc ends up being the stick to make the point: “we did as you asked. But you were still wrong”. And hopefully the damage can be wound back.
Albanese does not care as long as he removed this issue from the front pages.
Judges don’t seem to have a consistent approach to this matter either , comparing justice Fagan’s decision to the decision in the Gilham case.
Nobody seems to be the advocate for basic human rights in this royal commission; which obviously would protect ALL of us rather than singling out groups for special treatment- which is what Segal seems to want.
The clue to the impact and role of Jillian Segal is in the title bestowed on her - "envoy", which is a person sent to represent the views of a government, organisation, or group. The government tried to represent her as an unaligned, honest broker who'd interrogate a range of people and institutions to ascertain the true extent of antisemitism in Australia and arrive at a concensus and an agreed path forward.
Segal is no mediator, no seeker of truth, not even interested in the truth. She's a shill for Australia's conservative Zionists and the pro Israel lobby. We have to hope that the worst impacts of her role can be mitigated.
As for Virginia Bell, her acceptance of the IHRA definition so quickly could not have been more profoundly disappointing. One can only hope that her findings indicate that she's been led to a different conclusion. The implications for government policy and action could be profound.
I’m.. genuinely hoping that Commissioner Bell is being strategic in applying the IHRA definition, and allowing the RC to unfold as it has. She’s laying it out as a Zionist would want it: their framework; the loudest, hurtiest feelings upfront and uncontested - but then after that comes the interrogation. As can be seen in the last week or two, many of the heads of Zionist orgs are explicitly presenting themselves as people who don’t care about the wellbeing of others - in Palestine, or those in Australia. Bell spoke to that when APANs counsel encountered Islamophobic abuse. And the hollowness of the complaints is being shown, highlighted etc - and the position of those who care about human rights only made stronger by recent court findings. Fingers crossed at the end that IHRA etc ends up being the stick to make the point: “we did as you asked. But you were still wrong”. And hopefully the damage can be wound back.
I hope you're right, but I fear you are just being optimistic.
I’m trying. I recognise it’s clutching at straws but I am trying…
But will she?
Albanese does not care as long as he removed this issue from the front pages.
Judges don’t seem to have a consistent approach to this matter either , comparing justice Fagan’s decision to the decision in the Gilham case.
Nobody seems to be the advocate for basic human rights in this royal commission; which obviously would protect ALL of us rather than singling out groups for special treatment- which is what Segal seems to want.
The clue to the impact and role of Jillian Segal is in the title bestowed on her - "envoy", which is a person sent to represent the views of a government, organisation, or group. The government tried to represent her as an unaligned, honest broker who'd interrogate a range of people and institutions to ascertain the true extent of antisemitism in Australia and arrive at a concensus and an agreed path forward.
Segal is no mediator, no seeker of truth, not even interested in the truth. She's a shill for Australia's conservative Zionists and the pro Israel lobby. We have to hope that the worst impacts of her role can be mitigated.
As for Virginia Bell, her acceptance of the IHRA definition so quickly could not have been more profoundly disappointing. One can only hope that her findings indicate that she's been led to a different conclusion. The implications for government policy and action could be profound.
Excellent points Daniel, thank you.
On the subject of what is rapidly becomming the "Segal State", may I recommend a couple of recent articles in MWM:
(1) https://michaelwest.com.au/the-segal-state-the-office-australia-never-voted-for/
(2) https://michaelwest.com.au/the-segal-state-part-2-the-mask-the-children-the-money-and-the-answer/
Thanks Julian. I missed that. Absolutely on point, devastating opening line:
"Remember the referendum in which Australians voted to create a Voice to Parliament for Israel?"