Palestine - Rudd Carr And Labor Sink In Silence

[Published 1 September 2013]


Australia’s Prime Minister - Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister - Senator Bob Carr - remain hell bent on consigning the Labor Party to Opposition and the political wilderness in this week’s elections.

This view has been confirmed by Dan Goldberg in an article in Haaretz on 27 August titled “Jewish support swinging towards Liberal Party in Australian election”

” The latest polls predict the Liberal Party will win the September 7 election by 53 percent to Labor’s 47 percent. Voting is mandatory and Orthodox Jews have started to pre-poll because all Australian elections are held on Saturdays.

If the polls are accurate, it would spell the end of a bitter battle between Foreign Minister Bob Carr and Jewish leaders, who were infuriated in January when he joined British Foreign Secretary William Hague in stating that all Israeli settlements are “illegal under international law.”

Carr, a founder of the New South Wales Parliamentary Friends of Israel group in the 1970s, reignited Jewish angst last month in a speech outside Australia’s largest mosque:

“All settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease,” he said. “That is the position of Kevin Rudd, the position of the federal Labor government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

When the inevitable post mortems are written after the elections - Carr’s Lakemba Mosque Declaration tying Rudd and the Labor Party to Carr’s own previously expressed viewpoint will be seen as emblematic of the failure of Rudd and the Labor Party to be honest and upfront with the Australian voters on a range of issues during the elections.

The Lakemba Mosque Declaration came as a complete surprise to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council and the Zionist Federation of Australia - who were quick to voice their disapproval of what was in effect anti-Jewish-policy made on the run on the steps of the Mosque - not by the Prime Minister - but by his Foreign Minister.

Attempts to have Rudd confirm or deny that the views attributed to him and the Labor Party by Carr were in fact their views - have been studiously ignored and still remain unanswered by Rudd.

Instead Carr’s spokesman weighed in with the following mealy-mouthed statement:

“Words are very important and it’s important they are not misrepresented. Yes, we have expressed “concern”, we have expressed “grave concern” and we have expressed “disappointment” in relation to the settlements.This does not amount to a condemnation of Israel or anything like it.”

Who the “we” is and when those words were used was left up in the air.

What was clearly said at the Mosque were the words:

“illegal in international law”, “cease”, ” the position of Kevin Rudd “, the position of the Labor Federal Government” ” and “we don’t make apologies”

Labor Federal MP for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby however was more forthright when telling JWire about Carr’s comments on Israeli settlements:

“Bob Carr’s emphasis on Israeli settlements is ill timed, given the peace negotiations that are currently taking place in Washington. These talks commenced, and are supported by Australia, on the basis that they are undertaken without preconditions.

One of the issues, and it is only one, of the issues being negotiated in Washington is settlements and land swaps. Obviously therefore Australia should not pre-empt negotiations freely entered into by the parties involved.”

Rudd and Carr have failed to respond to allegations that the Lakemba Mosque Declaration was made to attract Moslem voters back to the Labor Party after another disastrous piece of policy on the run - denying future Moslem asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat any right to resettlement in Australia.

Moslem votes are considered to be crucial to Labor retaining a number of narrowly held marginal seats - especially in western Sydney and in Victoria - but the Herald Sun reported on 23 August - confirmed again this week:

“LABOR is facing a wipeout in must-win seats along the eastern seaboard as the federal election campaign enters its final fortnight.

An exclusive Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun reveals the marginal Victorian seats of Corangamite and La Trobe are set to fall to the Coalition on September 7.

Five critical Labor-held seats in western Sydney are also likely to tumble, including heartland seats such as Gough Whitlam’s former electorate of Werriwa.”

Rudd’s continuing refusal to confirm in a one sentence press release that the Lakemba Mosque declaration is Labor Party policy has apparently convinced Moslem voters that Carr’s declaration was only hot air and political grandstanding.

Trying to play the ethnic card has only had the effect of upsetting both Jewish and Moslem voters - as well as other ethnic groups - during this election campaign.

Now facing possible defeat in his own electorate - a desperate Rudd could still be considering breaking his silence to assure Moslem voters that it is his view - and indeed Labor party policy - that Jews have no right to live in the West Bank.

It will be too little and too late - and would anyone now believe him - after refusing for three weeks to clear up the confusion created by his own Foreign Minister.

Trusting your politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say still ranks very highly in securing many peoples’ votes on Election Day.

Rudd and Carr’s sordid saga of deception and confusion in this and many other issues has only succeeded in turning voters away in droves.

Palestine - Rudd And Carr Tight Lipped On Anti-Jewish Policy

[Published 25 August 2013]


Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Foreign Affairs Minister Senator Bob Carr have gone underground since Carr announced on 8 August at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney that Rudd personally as well as the Labor Party had adopted as policy that Jews had no right to legally live in the West Bank.

“I’ve been to Ramallah, I’ve spoken to the Palestinian leadership, and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle East of peace. And that means respect for the right of Israel to exist. But we want that Palestinian state to exist, in the context of a peace in the Middle East, and that’s why we say, unequivocally, all settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease. That is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

Attempts to elicit whether Rudd personally and the Labor Party had adopted this policy prior to Carr’s announcement have ended in total confusion.

Labor’s candidate for the seat of Stirling - Dan Caddy - received no answers from Carr when he asked those pertinent questions.

An embarrassed Caddy wrote to the constituent seeking such information:

“I have received advice from our (Foreign) Minister’s office which I have included below. I appreciate that it does not specifically address the questions you have posed, but I hope it clearly articulates what the position is.”

Caddy’s response was however seriously undermined when sitting Labor Member for Melbourne Ports - Michael Danby - spoke out a few days later:

“There’s a narrow view in the Department of Foreign Affairs, in their legal section, that the settlements are illegal. It’s not the view of the government as I understand it.

“He [Carr] has accepted their [the legal department’s] view. The Prime Minister hasn’t accepted that view as far as I understand it.

“I disagree with the Foreign Minister’s interpretation of this. I was disappointed; of course I was disappointed.”

Rudd could clear up this apparent confusion very easily by issuing a one sentence press release affirming or denying that the Lakemba Mosque Declaration represents his personal view and Labor Party policy.

However Rudd has remained silent in the face of angry protests lodged by peak Jewish organisations and the Opposition spokesperson on Foreign Affairs - Julie Bishop.

One can only conclude in the face of such Prime Ministerial silence that Carr’s Lakemba Mosque Declaration was shoddy policy made on the run without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Prime Minister in an attempt to secure the votes of the Moslem community in the elections to be held on 7 September.

The Moslem vote for the Labor Party is by no means assured following another hastily cobbled together policy announced by Rudd in July regarding asylum seekers - making it clear newcomers would no longer be re-settled in Australia under any circumstances - but would be transferred to Papua New Guinea for processing and re-settlement.

This heartless policy would be anathema to all Moslems already in Australia - especially families of potential asylum seekers dreaming of one day being re-united with other family members.

Predictably one could reasonably expect a backlash in the voting intentions of all ethnic and religious groupings in Australia impacted by this policy reversal.

$3 million dollars had reportedly been spent on an advertising blitz in the Australian media explaining the new refugee plan for six days before any similar ads were placed in the countries-of-origin of asylum seekers.

The advertising campaign is going to cost a staggering $30 million - and will now controversially run at taxpayer cost during the election period.

A Department of Immigration spokesman has confirmed the intention of the advertising.

“The advertisements are aimed to speak to ethnic communities in Australia which are the main boat people source. They include Afghans, Iranians, Sri Lankans, Iraqis and more recently Vietnamese people though there are of course other communities.”

He said the aim was to spread the message through “word of mouth” from Australia back to those communities.

The Labor Party holds a number of seats by very small margins where Moslems and different ethnic groups comprise a significant proportion of the voters.

It is becoming increasingly evident that a bizarre balancing act was performed by Carr at the Lakemba Mosque - announcing unequivocally and without apology as Labor Party policy that Jews are not legally entitled to live in the West Bank - thereby hoping to placate and ameliorate Moslem concerns with another Labor Party policy denying Moslem asylum seekers any legal entitlement to live in Australia.

To further impress Moslem voters - Carr added an assurance that this anti-Jewish policy concerning the West Bank was personally embraced by Prime Minister Rudd and so would remain unchanged if the Labor Party is returned to power.

His assurances seem to have fallen on deaf Moslem ears - if the results of recently published polls in those tightly held Labor marginal seats are any guidance.

Carr - and Rudd - have amazingly managed to alienate Jews, Moslems and other ethnic groups - who will consider as immoral and inhumane - and be motivated to vote against - Labor policies that deny Jews the right to settle in the West Bank or asylum seekers the right to settle in Australia.

Hastily conceived policies drawn up in the heat of an election campaign appear set to hit the Labor Party with devastating effect.

Australia Can Rescue UNESCO From Palestine Decision

[Published 30 March 2012]


Australia’s new Foreign Minister - Bob Carr - needs to urgently review the decision adopted by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO (ANCUNESCO) - that the admission of Palestine as UNESCO’s 195th member State was consistent with UNESCO‘s Constitution and its Rules of Procedure.

Only 107 of UNESCO’s 194 member states voted in favour of the resolution to admit Palestine on 31 October 2011. Australia was one of 14 countries that voted against - whilst 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote including some who were ineligible to vote due to unpaid membership fees.

The consequences of that vote have been catastrophic for UNESCO - and for scores of millions of people around the world dependent on UNESCO’s planned programs during 2012-2013.

22% of UNESCO’s budget has been lost as a result of America immediately suspending payment of membership dues totalling $260 million to the end of 2013 - because of a 20 years old American domestic law mandating such action.

Staff retrenchments are growing and global programs over the next two years - such as literacy, gender equality, water purification, AIDS and HIV prevention - will have to be abandoned or curtailed - unless America resumes its payments or alternative sources of funding are found,

An Emergency Donor Fund set up by UNESCO has not been very successful - with only about $42 million being raised or pledged in the last four months - much of it to be used to alleviate suffering among the populations in the donor or adjacent countries - rather than universally.

In its latest move to get the American funding back - UNESCO will soon be opening an office in Washington to lobby Congress to amend the law so as to enable the American tap to be turned on again.

Such lobbying is extremely unlikely to succeed - since the chances of Congress backing away from the law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepts the PLO as a full member - outside of negotiations with Israel - is doomed to failure.

Those 107 states who voted to admit Palestine were warned by UNESCO Director-General Irina Bukova of the risk of losing the American funding before they cast their votes. Defiantly ignoring her unambiguous message was both irresponsible and reckless and has caused UNESCO to create its own self induced financial and humanitarian crisis.

Australia’s Head of Mission - Ms Gita Kamath - gave the assembled delegates the following reasons for Australia‘s negative vote:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora.

Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

The decision to admit Palestine is open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO and Palestine is not a state,

2. The number of votes required to admit Palestine is 129 - not the 107 received

After initially receiving an irrelevant response from UNESCO and no answer to a detailed submission made by me on the voting requirements of the Constitution - I then wrote to Ms Kamath on 15 January - urging her to press UNESCO to review the adequacy of the vote to admit Palestine to UNESCO - and to approach other member States to do likewise.

Ms Kamath’s initial response was identical to UNESCO’s first response to me..

Undeterred - I then sent Ms Kamath the detailed submission I had given UNESCO. Like UNESCO - neither she nor ANCUNESCO has been prepared to discuss the merits of that submission.

Australia’s former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister - Kevin Rudd - had been actively seeking support for Australia to gain a seat on the UN Security Council. Perhaps he believed that taking a lead role to get UNESCO out of its current woes by promoting Court action that could see Palestine being possibly removed from UNESCO - could have seriously dealt a fatal blow to Australia’s chances of securing that Security Council seat.

There seems to be no other explanation for ANCUNESCO refusing to even consider my submission.

Hopefully Bob Carr will place the looming global humanitarian crisis above the quest for a seat on the UN Security Council. He should take a lead role in getting UNESCO to approach the International Court - as the quickest and best means of restoring the lost American funding.

Australia is perfectly positioned to lobby UNESCO member states to grab this legal lifebelt.

Australia’s support for the creation of a Palestinian State has been long standing - as Ms Kamath pointed out at the time of the Palestine vote:

“Australia strongly supports the aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state and believes a negotiated peace process between the parties is the way to achieve this….

Australia has been a consistent supporter of the peace process. We have provided extensive support and committed to over $300 million in humanitarian and development assistance in the next five years building up the institutions of a future Palestinian state.”

Had the delegates from the 107 pro-Palestine voting states followed Australia’s lead - UNESCO would not be in the sorry position it is today.

If Australia continues to sit pat on its heels - it will be just as responsible for UNESCO’s ongoing problems as those whose votes have put UNESCO in this bind,

Those 87 countries that declined to vote for Palestine’s admission - for whatever reason - should be readily amenable to an approach by Australia to join in urging UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

Whilst these countries can rightly claim to not be blamed for the black hole UNESCO has fallen into because of the intemperate action of 107 of their fellow member states - they cannot also afford to sit back and do nothing to rectify a decision which could be in breach of UNESCO’s Constitution - especially given the global humanitarian problems it has created.

Bob Carr - the former Premier of New South Wales - was parachuted into the role of Australia’s Foreign Minister from political retirement in the space of a few days.

He seems the perfect choice to lobby member States to get UNESCO to beat a path to the International Court.

If Australia is too timid to act - other naysayer countries like Canada, America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway or Germany should take up the lead role to save UNESCO from itself.

Someone needs to act quickly as the global humanitarian crisis adds more victims every day.

Palestine - Abbas Negates Further Negotiations With Israel

[Published 30 April 2011]


The Palestinian Authority (PA) announcement abdicating to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the conduct of any future political negotiations with Israel - effectively sinks any further hope of direct negotiations being resumed with Israel over the future sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

The PA has consigned itself - and 17 years of on and off negotiations - to the scrapheap of history to join previously failed negotiators and negotiations attempting to achieve a peaceful resolution of the 130 years conflict between Jews and Arabs in former Palestine.

This latest demise was made abundantly clear by PA President Mahmoud Abbas - who told the Palestinian News and Information Agency (WAFA) that political negotiations will become the responsibility of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and not of any unity government that Fatah and Hamas might form as a result of their decision to effect a reconciliation after three years of bitter internecine conflict.

Abbas has sought to limit the tasks of any such newly formed government to concentrate on rebuilding Gaza and preparing for national elections in 2012 - although it is most unlikely that Hamas will ever agree with Abbas on these limited objectives.

Abbas has reportedly confirmed to Australia’s visiting Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd that the PLO is the party responsible for the political issues and therefore negotiations will be conducted by the PLO and not the Palestinian government.

This WAFA report - if accurate - is a stunning turnabout and abdication by the PA of its negotiating role with Israel in favour of the PLO. Israel would be reckless in pursuing its national interest if it were to countenance any such change of direction.

The difficulty inherent in dealing with the PLO was foreseen 17 years ago and led to the birth of a new entity - the PA - under the terms of the Oslo Accords.

The PLO was rejected as the appropriate party to negotiate with Israel - because of its virulent and hate-filled Charter. It was at that time but one of many organizations claiming to represent the Palestinian Arabs. Its main constituent member was Fatah - but its rival Hamas had never been a member of the PLO.

The appointment of a new independent democratically elected body by the West Bank and Gazan Arabs - whilst right in theory - went horribly wrong in practice following Hamas‘s surprise win in the 2006 elections over Fatah. The West Bank and Gaza split into two separately administered Hamas and PA fiefdoms - each vying for the allegiance of those not under the political control of the other - but with disastrous results for both populations over the last four years.

Now as a result of the promised reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas - Abbas finds himself terribly conflicted in four pivotal roles as:

1. President of the PA
2. Chairman of the PLO
3. Chairman of Fatah
4. Putative head of a Fatah-Hamas government of reconciliation.

As President of the PA - Abbas is committed to concluding the “two state solution” accepted both by himself and his predecessor the late Yasser Arafat. Such a a solution - in accordance with the American backed initiative proposed by former US President George Bush in his 2003 Roadmap - still remains unimplemented in any of its details - save for Israel‘s unilateral evacuation from Gaza in 2005.

As Chairman of the PLO - Abbas is obligated to observing the provisions of Article 20 of the PLO Covenant which states:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism being a divine religion is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own: they are citizens of the states to which they belong”

As Chairman of Fatah - Abbas is sworn to uphold Article 22 of Fatah’s own separate Charter:

“Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine”

Abbas therefore still continues to head two organizations - the PLO and Fatah - that are hell bent on consigning the six and a quarter million Jews now living in Israel into national oblivion while heading another organisation - the PA - that supposedly seeks to live side by side with the Jews in their own independent state.

Abbas is now talking of heading a Hamas-Fatah government of reconciliation and assigning the conduct of any political negotiations to the PLO - the very antithesis of what was agreed with Israel under the Oslo Accords.

Abbas - while he wears these four hats - is powerless to distance or disassociate himself from various Palestinian Arab factions’ plans designed to eliminate Israel as the designated Jewish National Home for all present - and future - generations of Jews no matter where they might happen to be born or now be residing.

Abbas is certainly frank as to where his loyalties reside.

On April 27, 2009 he told a preliminary conference of the Palestinian Youth Conference at Ramallah:

“A Jewish State, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don’t accept it and I say so publicly. All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter less. Anything else I don’t accept”

Abbas - after this outburst - had no compunction or embarrassment in accepting a large framed map of “Palestine” covering the entire area of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This picture later appeared on the front page of both daily publications of the Palestinian Authority.

Continuing to deal with Abbas while he wore three hats proved to be more than sufficient a recipe - as anyone could reasonably predict - for utter political disaster.

As he now threatens to don yet a fourth hat - any hopes of achieving the peaceful creation of a new Arab state between Israel, Jordan and Egypt for the first time ever in recorded history has become a pure figment of the imagination for those who still think it can ever occur.

The sooner this reality is faced and alternative solutions are explored - such as negotiations between Israel and Jordan - the more chance there is of averting another conflict of massive proportions between Arabs and Jews.

Palestine - Hark The Herald Devil Sings

[Published 23 December 2010]

“The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is a daily broadsheet newspaper published by Fairfax Media in Sydney, Australia. Founded in 1831 as the Sydney Herald, the SMH is the oldest continuously published newspaper in Australia.”

Regrettably the Sydney Morning Herald seems to be going the way of a growing number of media outlets that publish factually inaccurate or misleading statements and analysis on the Jewish-Arab conflict - which still defies resolution after 130 years of trying.

In its recent editorial “Mid East Peace: a time to speak” the Herald has published inaccuracies, innuendo, amateur analysis and comment designed to mislead or misinform.

Take the following:

1. “The Obama administration’s effort to get the Israelis and Palestinians back into direct negotiations, helped with a bribe to Israel of new military gear in return for a 90-day freeze on settlements in the conquered territories, has foundered.”

The suggestion that a “bribe” was offered and accepted is scurrilous. There were negotiations between Secretary of State Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but President Obama nixed those negotiations by refusing to make any offers in writing when confirmation was demanded by Israel.

2. “International patience is fast running out. Brazil and Argentina have recognised a sovereign state of Palestine; the Europeans are threatening to follow.”

It might have helped readers if the Herald had added that Brazil and Argentina’s recognition involved a state of Palestine within the 1967 armistice lines - which means that 500000 Jews will have to leave their homes and businesses. Brazil and Argentina’s endorsement of this Nazi “Judenrein” policy was apparently thought not important enough to point out to its readers.

As for the Europeans - the following news item appeared one week before the Herald’s editorial:

“The EU will not recognise changes to pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than agreed by the parties. “This could include territorial swaps,” it says, without further comment in what a diplomat said was the first such reference by the EU.It also demands that a way be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem ” as the future capital of two states” and calls for a just solution to the refugee problem.'

What source did the Herald rely on for its claim?

3 ."..or Palestinians may give up on the idea of their own state, and insist on a two-nation, single state in the original Palestine mandate.”

The Herald infers the location of the their own State is agreed upon between the Palestinian Arabs - which is inaccurate. The Gazan Arabs want their own state to include Israel, whilst the West Bank Arabs want their own state to exclude Israel and also those 500000 Jews who currently live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The original Palestine mandate contained what is today called Jordan - which comprised 78% of the territory of “Palestine”. Is the Herald privy to information that the Palestinians have designs on Jordan as part of the location for its two-nation single state?

4. “The key blockage, for Israel’s Western friends, is its own politics. Hamas can be tackled further downstream”

What source does the Herald rely on to assert that Israel’s own politics - not the Palestinian Arabs split politics - is the key blockage for Israel‘s western friends?

The Palestinian Arabs do not have a unified Government that can negotiate a final agreement with Israel. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are unable to decide who should govern the Palestinian Arabs after 3 years of internecine struggle. Abbas remains the unelected and unconstitutional President of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Fayyad government of the PA is unelected. Hamas is a declared terrorist organization and has been duly elected to govern in Gaza.

Israel - on the other hand - has a democratically elected Government that can enter into and make binding commitments but has no corresponding entity on the other side that can do the same.

Why should Israel tackle Hamas downstream? Hamas has to be confronted and dealt with in the context of any final settlement or such purported settlement will not be an end to the conflict.

Doing nothing about Hamas now will lead to precisely the outcome the Herald referred to in this very editorial :

“a messy one and two half-states, Israel plus a rump Palestine on the West Bank and a Hamas-ruled Gaza propped up by Iran.”

Is the Herald serious that Israel commit this act of national suicide by dealing with the PA now and put Hamas off for another day?

5. “The debate in Washington is now about how tough to be with Israel, to try to force the mainstream into a consensus decision. A bit of tough support from a key ally might have helped the Americans. Instead, Rudd’s [Australia’s Foreign Minister] public appearances were a feel-good profession of Australian support for Israel.”

A sweeping statement on Washington with not one bit of evidence or analysis to support it.

On the other hand there is clear evidence that the PA and Hamas are unable to settle their differences and steadfastly refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home.

How can Washington - in being tough with Israel - bring any breakthroughs in these Palestinian Arab logjams?

If America is to get tough with anyone surely it would be with the Palestinian Arab side - to get their act together and acknowledge that the Jewish state is a reality and is here to stay.

Good on Rudd. If the Herald’s editorial writer is right on Washington’s current stance - then Australia would be foolish to be part of it.

6. “Rudd made a distasteful joke about Menachem Begin carrying out ‘‘some interior redesign’’ of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel - referring to a terrorist bombing in 1946 that killed 91 people." Has Rudd really has got [sic] it as a diplomat? Perhaps WikiLeaks will one day reveal that he made a more appropriate pitch in private.”

(i) The King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Army - a legitimate target for attack.
(ii) Warnings were given to clear the hotel but were ignored by the British.
(iii) The attack was not a “terrorist bombing” since the civilian population was not deliberately targeted.

I would suggest the Herald not worry about Rudd and Wikileaks.

The Herald needs to worry about its journalists who write such nonsense as this skewed and inaccurate editorial.

Maybe in the spirit of openness and transparency being lately espoused by the Herald in its ongoing exclusive releases from Wikileaks - the Herald might tell us

(i) who wrote the editorial

(ii) the qualifications of the person writing the editorial

(iii) who checked the editorial for its accuracy before publication

At this festive time of goodwill and cheer the Herald has clearly displayed that this editorial is lacking in both.