Peter Myers Digest Nov 22

(1) World leading Cardiologists Come to the Same Conclusion: Covid-19 mRNA vaccines cause sudden deaths,  especially in young people
(2) Documentary: Died Suddenly
(3) Discussion with Paul Bustion about Freemasonry
(4) The Freemason thing is a distraction, at the top it is controlled by Jews
(5) Hetero 1970s were opposite of Woke LGBT today - Peter Grafström
(6) Gay Marriage bill hides behind innocent, misleading name: 'Respect for Marriage Act'
(7) Transhumanism as Eugenics - Eric Walberg
(8) Transhumanism: how to defend against chips and implants required to make it work
(9) BOB CARR (former Premier of NSW, Sydney): How the Israeli Lobby operates

(1) World leading Cardiologists Come to the Same Conclusion: Covid-19 
mRNA vaccines cause sudden deaths, especially in young people

From: Matthew Mitchell <>
Subject: World leading Cardiologists Come to the Same Conclusion 
Regarding COVID Jab Side Effects 

also at

Two World Renowned Cardiologists independently reach the same medical 

American Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, and British Aseem Malhotra, MD state 
that their medical opinion is that the sudden deaths, especially in 
young people, are caused by the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, until proven 

Cardiologists Come to the Same Conclusion Regarding COVID Jab Side Effects

(2) Documentary: Died Suddenly

From: Matthew Mitchell <>
Subject: Documentary: Died Suddenly

Released about 24 hours ago - 1.6 million views already:

World Premiere: Died Suddenly

Why do we never believe them? For centuries, the global elite have 
broadcast their intentions to depopulate the world - even to the point 
of carving them into stone. And yet… we never seem to believe them.

The Stew Peters Network is proud to present DIED SUDDENLY, from the 
award winning filmmakers, Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer.

They are the minds behind WATCH THE WATER and THESE LITTLE ONES, and now 
have a damning presentation on the truth about the greatest ongoing mass 
genocide in human history.

(3) Discussion with Paul Bustion about Freemasonry

From: Paul Bustion <>
Subject: Re: George Soros is a Freemason of 33rd Degree

Freemasonry proper only has three degrees, these are called the Blue 
Lodge. The third degree is the Master Mason. The Master Mason degree, or 
third degree, is the highest in Freemasonry, all third degree Freemasons 
are equal. The other degrees are all side degrees in appendant bodies, 
not in Freemasonry proper. For example the 33rd degree of the Scottish 
Rite is a side degree. 33rd Scottish Rite Freemasons are not superior in 
Freemasonry to third degree Freemasons. The only possible challenge to 
what I just stated is a specific degree in the York Rite called the Holy 
Royal Arch. It does claim superiority over the three degrees of the Blue 
Lodge. But no other appendant body of Freemasonry claims superiority 
over the Blue Lodge. So either Freemasonry proper only has three 
degrees, as I just stated, or there is a fourth additional degree from 
the York Rite, which would mean that it effectively has four degrees. 
Freemasonry proper does NOT have thirty three degrees. Martin Short 
clarified this point in Inside the Brotherhood: Further Secrets of the 
Freemasons , a sequel to The Brotherhood The Secret World of the 
Freemasons by Stephen Knight. Knight had believed that there were thirty 
three degrees in Freemasonry proper, and Short clarified that Knight was 
mistaken and that the only degree of an appendant body which claims 
superiority over the Blue Lodge degrees is the Holy Royal Arch of the 
York Rite, effectively making the latter degree a fourth degree in 
Short's view.

I am not saying that I support Freemasonry. My point in this email is 
that you are misleading your audience by describing Soros as a 33rd 
degree Freemason, because you are making Freemasonry look like it has 
more of a labyrinthine hierarchy than it really has.

My Reply:
The Supreme Court building in Israel, with Illuminati pyramid on the
top, has 30 steps leading upwards, then 3 levels of the library - 33
levels beneath the Illuminati Pyramid.

This building was designed & funded by the Rothschilds. Why not get
your info from the horse's mouth?

Study the articles at, where you
will find info about this building.

Paul's Rejoinder:

I know that the Supreme Court in Israel was built by Freemasons, and is 
intentionally modeled after a Freemason Temple, and that it looks MORE 
like a Freemasonic Temple than a government office and MORE Freemasonic 
than most Freemasonic Temples do. I know that most of the leaders of 
Israel have been Freemasons, and that Freemasons are a privileged class 
in Israel just like they are in America, the British Isles, and the 
white countries of the former British Empire, such as Australia, and 
just as they are in France and most western countries. I'm not disputing 
any of that. I agree with everything you said in your reply to me. I 
agree with you that Freemasons run the governments of most western 
countries and run the media. I would say that Freemasons are second only 
to Jews in the hierarchy of privilege in most western countries. I'm not 
disputing that Freemasons have enormous power. I'm only disputing your 
view that Freemasonry has an elaborate hierarchical structure. Nothing 
you said in your reply, and nothing in the sources you cite which I have 
read before, contradicts my point. I'm not denying the power of 
Freemasonry. I'm denying the view that 33rd degree Scottish Rite 
Freemasons are higher in Freemasonic rank than 3rd degree Blue Lodge 
Freemasons. Martin Short is anti-Masonic and he has explicitly said that 
the only appendant degree of Freemasonry that might be superior in rank 
to the three Blue Lodge degrees is the Holy Royal Arch of the York Rite. 
So the most that you could stretch it to is Freemasonry proper having 
four degrees.

I want to make sure you understand that I am NOT denying that Freemasons 
control the governments of most western countries, I agree with you that 
they do. I agree with you that the Israeli Supreme Court was built by 
Freemasons and intentionally designed to look like a Freemason Temple. 
It looks more like a Freemason Temple than a government, and more 
Freemasonic than most Freemasonic Temples do. I agree with you that 
Israel was founded by Freemasons. America was founded by Freemasons and 
most of our government officials throughout history have been 
Freemasons. Government offices throughout America often look like 
Masonic Temples. The court where my trial was held looked like a Masonic 
temple. Every British King from George III (reigned 1760-1820) to George 
VI, whose reigned ended in 1952, was a Freemason. Queen Elizabeth II's 
Prince Phillipe was a Freemason. I am not denying or minimizing the 
power of Freemasonry. I am denying your claim that Freemasonry has an 
elaborate hierarchical pyramid structure.

(4) The Freemason thing is a distraction, at the top it is controlled by 

From: david wolf <>
Subject: Freemasonry is a distraction

Hi Peter,

The freemason thing is a distraction, at the top it is controlled by 
Jews so when you are talking about the actions of that organisation it 
amounts to the actions of Jews. There is no other conspiracy it's Jewish 
and everything else is a distraction from the truth.

In Spain in the 14th century the Jews were told to get out or convert to 
Christianity because of all the trouble they were causing. The Jews got 
together and formed a secret society called the Alumbrados, if this name 
sounds familiar it is because it will later make its way northward and 
become known as the Illuminati.
Basically this alumbrados was composed of crypto Jews who would pretend 
to be Christian but secretly had an agenda to destroy Christianity. Some 
of its members even became catholic priests. Same thing is happening in 
America today you have those Baptist pastors who won't shut up about 
Israel and it's chosen people. Those are fake pastor's, JUDAO-christians 
(with an emphasis on the judao component.

Anyway a member of the alumbrados, a crypto Jews called Ignatius Loyola 
was the founder of the Jesuits. So we can say from the very beginning 
the Jesuit inner circle were Jews, members of the alumbrados.

At the end of the 17th century a Jesuit, son of a rabbi called Adam 
weishaupt founded / introduced the Illuminati into Germany. They had as 
one of their main goals the infiltration and takeover of the freemasons, 
which they fully achieved. Jews started entering lodges in mass and 
using the blackballing system to reject non Jews attempting to join 
lodge whilst accepting Jews. In a short time they have lodges which had 
significant Jewish membership and even lodges which were completely 
taken over by Jews with all its members being Jews. They started to 
change masonic rites which became pro Jewish and gave masonary a origin 
story which starts at Solomons temple with Solomon being the first 
master of freemasonry. Prior to this masonary was given a history of 
starting at Nimrod's tower with Nimrod being the first master of 
masonary. Jews were not happy with that history because Nimrod was not a 
Jew and they wanted to be glorified in the rites instead.

Anyway as you can see freemasonry, the Illuminati, the Jesuits can all 
be replaced by Jew

The knights Templar also has its origin with the rex Deus family's who 
are direct descendants of the priests of the second temple in Jerusalem. 
Their forefathers hid the temple treasures in the foundations to save 
them from looting by the Romans and later descendants of Thea's priests 
(again crypto Jews) would travel to Jerusalem to protect Christian 
pilgrims but they instead spent their time excavating under the temple 
mount to recover the temple treasures which were later sent to Scotland. 
The rex Deus are still the head of the knights Templars today and are 
still fake crypto Jews pretending to be Christians.

I looked into all these secret societies years ago because I did not 
want to believe it was the Jews, I wanted to believe it was some secret 
society blaming Jews instead but in the end I had to accept the 
truth...yes it's them.

Same happened when I researched Carrol Quigley's Anglo American secretly 
society only to find it was responsible for handing Palestine to the 
Jews and when Cecil Rhodes died most of his wealth was willed to the 
Rothschild's showing that this Anglo American society was not very Anglo 
and not very American.

(5) Hetero 1970s were opposite of Woke LGBT today - Peter Grafström

From: Peter Grafström <>
Subject: Re: West lectures Qatar on 'Human Rights', LGBT. Muslims and 
Christians unite against the Culture War; why is this anti-Jewish?

Concerning LGBT, I have been trying to confirm something I observed in 
what I believed to be the summer of 1977 in Aarhus, Denmark. It was a 
rock concert and when I perused passed events at Aarhus Idrætspark, a 
sports stadion, I found a hit from 1976 not 77. It was the groups 
Weather Report Billy Cobham and danish Secret Oyster.
I have  a faint recollection of those groups so that would be what I was 
looking for. The reason I bring it up is that what transpired was 
something like the opposite of woke.
More like nature studies of female beauty in masses.
I found a summary from that event where they note in passing that
"Vejret er fantastisk og af de 7.200 tilskuere smider flere tøjet i 
bedste 70’er-stil"
That is the wheather was fantastic and of the 7200 vistors several get 
The girls exposed their bosoms and I mean not just a small number! And 
also I remember one in particular who illustrated the phrase 'secret 
Sitting in a slant and really offering an opportunity for  anatomic studies.
For all to see. And not so secret.
The reason I mention it is I havent experienced such an extensive 
example of exibitionism and long after it happened I wondered whether 
this was just typical 70ies style or whether it was organised.
Maybe it was spontaneous and maybe I just havent been to so many fair 
weather outcoor conserts.
But when the current LGBT phenomenon is so widespread I cant help 
wondering about that 1976 experience.
Could it have been organised mass hetero-education/encouragement (for 
the boys)?
And what happened later when things totally turned around to todays new 
/Peter Grafström

(6) Gay Marriage bill hides behind innocent, misleading name: 'Respect 
for Marriage Act'

if the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act passes enshrining gay marriage 
in federal law

The 'Respect For Marriage Act' Is An Exercise In Tyranny, And Everyone 
Knows It


NOVEMBER 22, 2022

The 12 Republicans who voted to advance the bill last week are 
gaslighting the American public about its real purpose.

It's not hard to game out what happens if the misnamed Respect for 
Marriage Act passes, codifying Obergefell and enshrining gay marriage in 
federal law. Everyone, including the dozen Republican senators who voted 
to advance the legislation last week, knows exactly what will happen. 
It's not some big mystery.

What will happen is this: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who 
dares maintain that marriage is a lifelong conjugal union between one 
man and one woman — the definition of marriage for thousands of years 
until the U.S. Supreme Court descended from Mount Sinai with Obergefell 
v. Hodges inscribed on stone tablets — will be branded a bigot and 
driven from the public square and marketplace.

Anyone who owns a small business related to the wedding industry — 
photographers, bakers, website designers, venue owners, caterers, 
florists — will be sued into oblivion if they refuse services to 
same-sex couples. Religious colleges and universities will lose their 
tax-exempt status. Religious institutions of every kind, if they hold to 
their teachings and traditions about marriage, will face an onslaught 
from the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy.

To paraphrase George Orwell's famous line, if you want a picture of the 
future under the Respect for Marriage Act, imagine a boot stamping on 
Jack Phillips' face — forever.

The untrammeled exercise of power and the vigorous crushing of dissent 
is the entire purpose of the proposed law. There can be no other 
possible justification for it. Michael New, an assistant professor at 
the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America, 
recently told The Daily Signal that Catholic colleges and universities 
in particular might face ruinous lawsuits and loss of federal funding if 
the bill is signed into law.

“Suppose a Catholic college refused to allow a same-sex married couple 
to live in college owned graduate student housing for families, they 
might be subject to all kinds of litigation,” he said. “Such a college 
might lose its nonprofit status. Their students might lose eligibility 
for federal financial aid and their faculty might lose eligibility from 
research grants from government agencies.”

Well, yes. Of course all that would happen. Democrats and left-wing 
activists hear these kinds of concerns from people like New and think, 
“Good. Let them face ruinous litigation. Let them lose funding. 
Ghettoize them. Crush them. Grind their institutions into dust. They 
deserve it, the bigots.”

All the more appalling, then, that 12 Republican senators voted to 
advance the bill knowing full well what it will do. One wishes the 
explanation is just that these lawmakers are too stupid to understand 
what the purpose of the proposed law really is and what its effect will 
obviously be, but that's wishful thinking.

If they're going to support this bill, though, do they have to pretend 
that we're all too stupid to understand how it will work? Does Dan 
Sullivan, the second-worst U.S. senator from Alaska, who once supported 
a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the long-ago of 2014, 
really believe that the Respect for Marriage Act makes “important 
advances” in religious liberty?

Does Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who 10 years ago as speaker of 
the statehouse supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex 
marriage in his state, really think the anemic amendments he and other 
GOP senators offered to the bill will “advance religious freedom” and 
“age well”?

All the Republicans who voted to advance the bill last week issued some 
version of the nonsense Sullivan and Tillis spouted. None of them 
believe a word of it. They just hope you buy it.

But you don't have to. Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation 
helpfully walked through these specious claims one by one, explaining 
why they're wrong. No, the bill won't provide religious institutions 
with meaningful protections. Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a 
basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to 
religious organizations that don't toe the line on gay marriage. Yes, it 
could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak 
language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not 
enough to prevent harm to religious liberty. And so on.

The justification for the bill is just as outlandish and offensive as 
the argument that it presents no danger to religious Americans. In the 
wake of the Dobbs decision this summer, we were warned that some future 
Supreme Court opinion, following Justice Clarence Thomas's logic, could 
overturn Obergefell and other substantive due process rulings such as 
Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial 

The purpose of this claim, in case it isn't bone-crushingly obvious, is 
to lump opponents of gay marriage in with opponents of interracial 
marriage, to smear them as bigots who aren't just on the wrong side of 
history, but who are about to be on the receiving end of a federal 
government empowered to go after them.

And if you think that can't really be how proponents of the Respect for 
Marriage Act think about traditional-minded Americans, go ask Jack 
Phillips how he's faring after winning his Supreme Court case in 2018.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing 
has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, 
The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

(7) Transhumanism as Eugenics - Eric Walberg

From: Eric Walberg <>
Subject: Re: Transhumanism Is Eugenics Rebranded. Whitney Webb exposes
  Intel-Crime links behind Jeffrey Epstein pedophilia

this expose of trans (both meanings) as eugenics is disturbing.

a propos the trans embrace by official canada, this is a screen shot of 
a questionnaire i am filling out for the clinic i go to.  who do you ... 
but then which clinic do they attend for their routine care? it's 
happening with municipal mailings. the infiltrators get in and fiddle 
with the language to see how far they can push it.

(8) Transhumanism: how to defend against chips and implants required to 
make it work

From: Peter Grafström <>
Subject: Re: Transhumanism Is Eugenics Rebranded. Whitney Webb exposes 
Intel-Crime links behind Jeffrey Epstein pedophilia

Concerning transhumanism in the form of wireless connections
There is a lot of talk about it but very little emphasis on how to 
defend oneself against all sorts of chips and implants which are a 
necessary requirement to make it work. All such electronic wireless 
things have nonlinear electronic characteristics and therefore, when 
probed by a suitable monofrequency signal of an acceptable strength, 
will generate harmonic frequencies which will not be present in a 
natural human body.
A population which is technically aware about this can request support 
by engineers who understand the basic idea and they can detect the 
device and its location.
There should be more discussion of this weak spot of big brothers grand 
The technology in itself has multiple uses and as long as everything is 
regulated by a functioning legal arrangement and it is consensual many 
novel types of application are welcome additions to the medical methods. 
For example effective elimination of many kinds of pain is possible 
without having to be dependent on drugs. I suspect that it is profits 
from drugs which has postponed many good uses of the technology. I know 
this happened between 1986 and 2001 in Sweden that they ceased to use 
such methods and according to experts there was no reasonable 
explanation for it.
/Peter Grafström

(9) BOB CARR (former Premier of NSW, Sydney): How the Israeli Lobby operates

 From his memoir Run For Your Life (Melbourne University Press, 2018)

{p. 174} ME AND 'THE LOBBY'

The letter was in the bulging file marked 'Premier's Invites'. The 
invitation was to an annual dinner where a peace prize was presented to 
a person chosen by the Sydney Peace Foundation at Sydney University. 
This year they had decided to present the award to Hanan Ashrawi. I knew 
her from CNN and had been impressed by her dignity.

I didn't want another night at an official function, no matter how 
worthy. Yet in the end I responded to the bugle summons of duty. I felt 
I had to accept. My thinking was that the Western world must reward 
those Palestinian leaders who choose a negotiated settlement with 
Israel. This would cement Palestinian support for a peaceful solution. 
And that would make Israel more secure, my key concern.

I had been a long-term supporter of Israel. In I977, as a young trade 
union official, I had rented a room in the Trades Hall, bought some cask 
wine and invited Bob Hawke to come along and launch Labor Friends of 
Israel. I had remained its token president ever since and was always on 
hand to greet delegations and troop along to the Independence Day 
celebrations. As a young MP I stood on the back of a truck outside the 
Entertainment Centre, which was hosting the Bolshoi Ballet, and 
addressed a small Jewish rally attacking the Soviets for not allowing 
its Jews to emigrate. The same again, outside the Soviet Consulate in 

{p. 175} In I983 I had visited Israel with a delegation of NSW Labor 
people, which included Graham Richardson, and had found it congenial 
enough, if not a revelation, admirable for its strong labour 
institutions. We. met no Palestinians and were not driven around the 
occupied West Bank. At that time no Israeli historians had explored what 
had really happened in I948. That would occur only when Benny Morris and 
others uncovered the story of massacres and expulsions that had forced 
the Arab population to flee. We just accepted the prevailing wisdom. It 
had been 'a land without a people for a people without a land': this was 
the Exodus narrative.

For years after, I had made myself available to meet Israeli delegations 
and visitors, mostly gloomy and dogmatic diplomats, including Mrs Rabin, 
whose haughty brows arched in contempt as she shrugged off questions 
about a two-state solution and the welfare of the Palestinians.

I and my Labor crowd were in the Zionist camp. I remember joking with 
John Wheeldon, a former Labor senator and a minister in the Whitlam 
government, about our special closeness to Israel—with its craggy old 
Labour Party in permanent power, its collectivised agriculture 
kibbutzniks who were Holocaust survivors. I entertained a notion that in 
retirement I might sign up as a volunteer to talk about the history of 
the Holocaust to counter Holocaust denial. It seemed to me self-evident 
that the Jews were in fact an exceptional people who had made a 
contribution to civilisation well above their numbers. I didn't dream 
that in feeding this self-image I might be encouraging a strand of 
thinking that, among other things, had Jews enjoying a view of 
themselves as the 'Chosen People' and therefore entitled to 
uncontestable rights to the land God gave them.

{p. 176} The issue of Israeli settlements slowly wormed its way into my 
consciousness, but not enough to undermine my instinctual support for 
the Jewish state. Which brings me back to the invitation to present the 
peace prize to Hanan Ashrawi. I ticked the box to accept the invitation 
with an air of, 'yet another official function to keep me away from home 
… but it's good for the Jews. My attendance will reward a Palestinian 
leader who has signed up for a peaceful path to Palestinian statehood. 
That's got to be good for Israel.' The storm of criticism that then 
occurred was a shock, and—I will develop this point—an insight.

Soon after my participation was announced, Jewish leaders launched an 
'international petition' to force me to withdraw from the award. Sam 
Lipski, a prominent member of the Jewish community in Melbourne, 
denounced Hanan Ashrawi as a Holocaust denier. There was not a shred of 
evidence, and he was forced to withdraw and apologise. There were 
threats of funding being withdrawn from Sydney University. Its 
chancellor, Justice Kim Santow, barred Ashrawi from even appearing in 
the Great Hall. Letters of protest were dispatched about the awards 
going to a Palestinian, switchboards set aflame with indignation.

This campaign had two objectives: to see that no Australian politician 
attended the presentation of the peace prize and that the peace prize be 

An article in The Australian suggested that by accepting this invitation 
I had damaged the federal Labor leadership of Simon Crean and quoted an 
anonymous member of his staff to that effect.

{p. 177} Just as federal Labor is lifting its game, the NSW premier does 
this unconscionable thing that sets us back—this was the tone of the 
story planted by a member of Crean's staff but not, I am convinced, by 
Crean himself. The day it appeared I received a call from a former 
colleague, Laurie Brereton, now serving in the federal parliament, who 
told me in strong language that I should not back down. He said, 'This 
group [he meant the Israel lobby, especially in Melbourne] is used to 
bullying to get its way…You get nothing by backing off. Stand Firm'

There was always a 'they' in such discussions. 'They', 'the community' 
or 'the lobby'.

I had already reached the same view as Brereton. If I had backed down it 
would have sent a melancholic message to all Australians of Arabic or 
Palestinian background: namely that, through its political clout, the 
other side—'the lobby', 'the community'—will always crush you. I had 
given my word I would present this prize (ironically, because in one 
tiny way it would make a contribution to Israel being more secure). I 
would not back down.

I have never received more support on any single issue in my time in 
public life. I was stopped in the street by strangers who said, 
'Congratulations on not backing down ... ' and seeing me look puzzled 
would add by way of explanation, '... in meeting ... and, not being able 
to recall the Arabic name would add, '... that woman.' It was the only 
controversy I can recall where this continued a month after publicity 

The award dinner was a sell-out full of people from boardroom Sydney, 
who, I realised, had an instinctive understanding of what had gone on 
here: a plain bullying attempt to silence a side in the debate as 
legitimate as its opposite.

I have never received more support on any single issue in my time in 
public life. I was stopped in the street by strangers who 
said,'Congratulations on not backing down ...and seeing me look puzzled 
would add by way of explanation,'... in meeting ... and, not being able 
to recall the Arabic name would add,'... that woman.' It was the only 
controversy I can recall where this continued a month after publicity 

The award dinner was a sell-out full of people from boardroom Sydney, 
who, I realised, had an instinctive understanding of what had gone on 
here: a plain bullying attempt to silence a side in the debate as 
legitimate as its opposite. I was able to deliver a speech written by 
Bob Ellis that among other things said:

I salute tonight one hopeful voice. A voice that calls for peace with 
Justice, and more than the laying down of arms for a new way of 
thinking, a new era of equity, freedom from want and ignorance and disease.

{p. 178} These are these things of which Hanan Ashrawl-risking her life, 
burying her friends, mourning her stricken country and crying with the 
late great Rabin, 'Enough of blood and tears. Enough'-has spent a 
lifetime telling us.

These are the things for which she has been unanimously awarded this 
prize-named after a beautiful city, a city of tolerance, peace and 
diversity-which it is now my honour to confer.

The bullying Jewish leadership began to realise they had gone too far. I 
received a phone call from Frank Lowy, not to threaten or cajole but to 
ask out of curiosity,'I just wondered why you did this?' Looking back 
I'm struck by the assumption there must be something perverse in 
treating a Palestinian with courtesy, as someone who might have an equal 
right to attention. I told him I did it because I believed encouraging 
peaceful Palestinians would be something one might do for a more secure 
Israel. But it dawned on me-with his phone call and the other 
reaction-what had been behind this campaign.

I came to recognise it as a phenomenon that I later saw discussed on 
Mondoweiss, an American Jewish website, as 'Jewish Narcissism'. Maybe 
it's more fairly seen as an acute defensiveness and anxiety about losing 
friends. Whatever, there was a strong tone of 'How dare you'. That is, 
how dare you break ranks with us. How dare you criticise Israel. I later 
encountered this mentality when I was foreign minister.

John Lyons, The Australian's correspondent in the Middle East, analysed 
this phenomenon in his book Balcony over Jerusalem. published in 2017. 
Lyons quoted prominent Israeli Journalist Gideon Levy saying of Israel:

I tell you 'the chosen people' is a key thing here. It explains a lot 
... most Israelis are deeply convinced they stand for the chosen 
people-most Israelis are deeply convinced that after the Holocaust the 
Jews have the right to do whatever they want. Most Israelis are deeply 
convinced that international law applies to any

{p. 179} country in the world except Israel because Israel is special. 
These are all things you get here from childhood.

And Lyons quoted New York Times journalist Clyde Haberman who wrote that 
the verbal attacks on successive NYT correspondents in Israel have been 
because, 'Jews still don't believe that the world won't turn on them. 
It's hardwired into their systems ... and they get upset when they are 
not perceived as perennial victims, even though they hardly look like 
victims anymore.'

In 2012, in my first months as foreign minister, I released a routine 
statement 'expressing concern' at Israeli settlement expansion. I 
received a pained request from Bruce Wolpe, an advisor on Jewish aflairs 
in Julia Gillard's office - effectively a contact person for 'the 
lobby'-to ask me to agree to a telephone hook-up with 'the community'. 
His role in her office was, incidentally, an extraordinary arrangement. 
The implication of his message was that I, in suggesting that Israeli 
settlement expansion was undermining the peace process, had delivered an 
unconscionable breach with a people and nation who could not ever be 
criticised. That tone, again: how dare you. I declined to take the phone 
call and to be set right-but this tone emerged on every other occasion 
there was criticism of settlements. Or support for Palestinian status in 
the UN General Assembly.

How dare you criticise Netanyahu policies. How dare you want to vote 
against Israel in a dispute over an oil spill with Lebanon, even when 
Lebanon was decisively in the right. How dare you step out of line in 
talking about the death of the Israeli-Australian Mossad agent Ben Zygler.

So it had been with my decision to meet with Hanan Ashrawi. The 
indignation and outrage from the Jewish lobby amounted to the question: 
how dare you agree to meet a Palestinian. And, further, how dare you 
justify it by saying that you have met Jewish and Israeli delegations 
all the time and thereby imply that one of 'them' is as good as 'us'. 
How dare you make that equation.

Sometime in the early 2000s I had had another conversation with Frank 
Lowy, who had just returned from Israel. It has stayed

{p. 180} in my mind. Frank emphasised the Israeli longing for peace. 
Yes, I said, but what about all these settlements spreading over the 
landscape. Don't they make a two-state solution impossible? Don't worry, 
was his response, as soon as the Israelis get a peace offer they will 
withdraw the settlements. Well, if we place that discussion in 2002, 
Israeli settler population (excluding East Jerusalem) stood at something 
like 220,000. Right now it stands at 385,900. 'Er, Frank,' I might say 
today, all these years later. 'If there was any notion of withdrawing 
settlements why did they go on being approved? And at this rate?'

Of course, this confirms the great Israeli con, not just coming from 
right-wing politicians including the Likud but from Israeli Labour, 
which also expanded settlements. Yes, they assure with lambent-eyed 
sincerity, we believe in a two-state solution. You bet we do. But 
then-while you are looking the other way-they lay out new settlements 
full of immigrants from the US or Russia, and all of them illegal. They 
are designed to make that two-state solution impossible. Most 
Australians support my interpretation. It's why polling puts support for 
a Palestinian state at 73 per cent and opposition to settlements at 6I 
per cent.

The hold of the Israel lobby over Australian politicians is based on two 
facts: first, donations to the political parties from the Jewish 
community leadership; second, paid trips to Israel extended to every 
member of parliament and journalists. From the Australia/ Israel & 
Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) over 700 trips alone. This political 
influence is particularly noticeable with the Victorian ALP Right and 
deserves some examination by journalistic sleuths, who seem reluctant to 
touch the subject. No other community, in my experience, treats 
politicians as their poodles; even when making a political case-not the 
Tamils or Singhalese, the Chinese, the Macedonians, the Cypriots, the 
Turks nor the Armenians.

Meanwhile, on the West Bank the conditions of the occupation become, as 
they must, more harsh, with I2-year-old Palestinians bundled off into 
military detention, rocks thrown by settlers at Palestinian youngsters 
going to school, Palestinian homes bulldozed

{p. 181} and raided by the Israel Defense Forces on a rolling basis. The 
dour, sometimes fiendishly cruel occupation is why every former head of 
Mossad or Shin Bet, the two Israeli security services, wants Israel out 
of the West Bank. Five former heads of Shin Bet said in the documentary 
The Gatekeepers that the policies of the occupation are not working. One 
of them said his son in the paratroopers had invaded and re-invaded 
Nablus on three occasions and asked, 'When do we call it victory?' If 
anything sustains my fondness for Jewish life and culture, it's the 
robust capacity for self-criticism and dissent like this. Yet it's being 
blotted out, the chauvinism of the settlement movement capturing Zionism 
and compromising judaism itself. Looking at the West Bank and Gaza, one 
is driven to reflect on the idea that those to whom evil is done, do 
evil in return.

'Anti-Semite!' I heard these words ring out as I rounded a corner in 
Sydney. Blinded by the heatwave glare and trying to shelter from the 
sun, I didn't recognise the accuser. But it may have been a Jewish 
medico I had once known well. To which I have a simple retort. If it's 
anti-Senlitic to believe that:

•       the occupation needs to end;
•       the Israelis are conning us by spreading settlements;
•       all of them are illegal under international law;
•       Israel is not a special state but a normal state which can be criticised;

then there will be no cringing, no apologetics, no backtracking rom me. 
I won't plead that I appointed one Jewish Australian as chief justice 
and another as governor. I won't point to' my oratory at Holocaust 
memorial gatherings or support for, Jewish schools and charities. Nor 
will I remind anyone that in my book of book recommendations, published 
in 2008, I said the most important book of the last I00 years was Primo 
Levi's account of Auschwitz survival called YThis Is a Man.

If you want to call me an anti-Semite for making the above criticisms, I 
will regret it but won't be intimidated. Criticism of an Israeli 
occupation, the settlements and the chauvinism of its politicans is not 
anti-Semitic. Only Zionist zealots wish it so. The same

{p. 182} thing was said by Israeli rightists of President Obama and 
Secretary of State Kerry.

And I persist. The Palestinians must have their state, and recognising 
it is the one course of action left to us.

In 2014-nine months after ceasing to be foreign minister-I stood in 
Sydney Town Hall at the ALP State Conference and, as a delegate for my 
local branches, moved a motion that warned if settlements continue and 
there is no progress to a two-state solution, the next Labor government 
should consult like-minded countries towards recognition of Palestine. 
It was to become the basis for a new policy carried at the National 
Conference in 2015, moved by Shadow Minister Tony Burke and Queenslander 
Wendy Turner. My activity generated more narcissistic outrage. One 
member of the pro-Israel community, Alan Gold, wrote a cover story for 
The Spectator that argued my only interest in the subject was to 
increase the Labor vote in Western Sydney where the Arab-Islamic 
populadon was growing: betraying Israel for the Muslim vote. The 
implication was that no person of goodwill could contemplate a spread of 
settlements and the impending death of the two-state solution and arrive 
at my position; there had to be a base political motive. The article was 
illustrated with a cartoon that caricatured me on a camel as a Bedouln 
Arab. No professional politician is entitled to complain about 
caricatures any more than late nights and rubber chicken dinners. 
Imagine, though, how our whole civilisation would have been shaken to 
its foundations-the outrage bubbling volcanically on the opinion pages 
of The Australian-if Green Left Weekly had caricatured a pro-Israel 
politician as a rabbi in a caftan.

In the lead-up to the 2017 ALP State Conference, where I intended to 
move a stronger, simpler motion-one that declared for recognition of 
Palestine-The Spectator returned to this theme with a cartoon that 
showed me at a lectern-this time not dressed as an Arab, the imagination 
of the illustrator having deserted him-with mullahs hovering behind me 
in Arabic dress. No complaint from me.

But imagine if a caricature showed flanks of rabbis standing behind 
Michael Danby-for he, obsessive and splenetic, was the author of

{p. 183} The Spectator article. This mirror image would have set off 
sulphuric gusts of anger and allegations of Jullus Strelcher-style 
Jew-baiting. Render caricatures of the occupied people-indulge the 
stereotypes that demean them. But you can't do it to the occupier, ever.

I had carefully built support in the Labor Party for this next 
step-simple, straightforward recognition for Palestine-and due to the 
quiet resolve of the young NSW party secretary, Kaila Murnain, was 
confident of it being carried at the conference. The small Israel 
faction within Labor was sour. One of their number put to me that, when 
it came time for me to move the motion, I should do so without giving a 
speech. And, he said, their side would do the same. This was a 
proposition as extraordinary as it was ratty: on a matter that had 
produced twenty-five motions from ALP branches, the conference should 
agree to progress the eventual resolution but with a solemn vow no one 
would speak to it. In other words, no hint of criticism of Israel might 
be allowed to be heard under the mock-Renaissance ceiling in the 
woodpanelled auditorium of Sydney Town Hall, lest it horrify the 800 
delegates and the party members in the galleries. Here was the old 
refrain: how dare you-in this case how dare you contemplate voicing a 
criticism of a nation at once so precious and yet so fragile. How dare you.

Nothing doing, to that outrageous proposition. I was proud as a 
rank-and-file member of the party, in the dying hours of the conference 
on a Sunday afternoon, to stand on the floor of the Town Hall and say:

Delegates, as the oldest and biggest state branch, we can't be left 
stranded on the wrong side of history.

It was once time for Whitlam's opening to China. It was once time for an 
independent East Timor.

Time now for another historic shift in Labor Party foreign policy. If 
the late, great Gough Whitlam were here he would intone into this 
microphone, 'Men and women of Australia, It's Time ... to recognise 

{p. 184} It was carried unanimously and made me think fondly of these 
annual winter-time conferences in Sydney Town Hall. I had first looked 
down on a conference from the galleries when I was fifteen, a new member 
of the Malabar-South Matraville Branch. I had addressed them on eighteen 
occasions as leader. They are full of bluster and ritual but yield 
moments of truth that make you love the barnacled old party and its 
grandest forum. The vote to endorse my motion to recognise Palestine was 
one such moment. And Whitlam would indeed have backed it.