Sunday, October 27, 2013

مؤتمر جنيف 2: انعقاد بين الحقيقة والخيال



المراقب لتسارع الاحداث و "حرد" المملكة العربية السعودية واوامرها الاخيرة للحركات الارهابية التابعة لها من جبهة النصرة الى داعش بالتصعيد وتصفية ما يسمى بالجيش الحر لاضعاف الصفة التمثيلية لائتلاف الدوحة ومجلس اسطنبول, يخيل اليه استحالة انعقاد مؤتمر جنيف 2 للوصول الى تسوية سلمية للصراع في سوريا. واذا اضفنا الى ذلك التصريحات المتشائمة التي يطلقها المسؤولون السوريون عن امكانية انعقاد المؤتمر, هذه التصريحات التي توجتها تصريحات الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد لقناة الميادين عن عدم نضوج الظروف لانجاح المؤتمر, تكون الصورة السوداوية قد اكتملت فصولها.

الا ان الواقع والتحليل المنطقي يودي الى استنتاجات مغايرة تماما.

فمؤتمر جنيف اصبح حقيقة مرتبطة بالقرار الاممي الصادر قبل شهرين بما يخص الكيماوي السوري. هذا القرار الذي جاء لربط مسالة تجريد سوريا من سلاحها الكيماوي بالتسوية الشاملة للازمة وبقرار اممي.

كما ان اندفاعة الجيش السوري الضخمة وعلى كل المحاور واستعادته معظم الغوطة الشرقية والكثير من احياء حمص وحماة وحلب ودير الزور وتقدم الاكراد في معظم المحافظات التي يتواجدون بها, تعطي مجالا ضيقا للدول المشاركة في المؤامرة على سوريا للانتظار اكثر قبل القبول بالتسوية. فان كان هذا المحور المتامر يستطيع التلويح ببعض اوراق سيطرة المعارضة على مساحات من سوريا الان, فان هذا التلويح سيفقد الكثير من قوته بتناقص مساحات المناطق الاستراتيجية التي تسيطر عليها مجاميع ارهابيي المعارضة.

كما ان تغير لهجة الدول المشاركة بالمؤامرة, ومنها اغلاق تركيا لمعابرها مع سوريا واعلان عمان انها لا تؤيد المعارضة السورية وان استمرار العنف سيؤدي الى انتشار الارهاب في الاقليم وبدء الاردن باعتقال افراد المجموعات الوهابية التي تحاول التسلل الى سوريا, يعطي انطباعا قويا عن مرحلة جديدة. كما ان تغير لهجة الرئيس اللبناني وتحرك الجيش اللبناني ضد الجماعات الوهابية في البقاع وطرابلس هو ايضا مؤشر قوي على ادراك دول الاقليم وخصوصا المجاورة لسوريا عن طبيعة المرحلة القادمة.

حتى التشنج الغربي ضد ايران واللهجة المعادية تراجعت كثيرا وحل محلها الكثير من الغزل واللغة التصالحية ووعود بتخفيف العقوبات القاسية, في مشاهد تدل على ان انتصار محور المقاومة في سوريا سينعكس ايجابا على كل دول المحور.

اما ما نراه من تصعيد للجماعات المسلحة لاعمالها الارهابية من قصف بالهاون لمناطق في العاصمة او العمليات الانتحارية في بعض المناطق, فما هي الا محاولات متوقعة ومعتادة في مناطق النزاعات من اجل تحسين شروط التمثيل والتفاوض لمحاولة الحصول على اكبر قدر من التنازلات من الدولة للخروج من هذا المازق ببعض ماء الوجه, وخصوصا انهم وعدوا مشغليهم وجماهيرهم بانهم قادرون على اسقاط الدولة باشهر معدودة.

اما حرد السعودية فهو شيء متوقع لا يجب ان يعطي انطباعات قوية بهذا الاتجاه او ذاك. فالسعودية وضعت كل امكانياتها في تصرف المؤامرة ورسمت مستقبل علاقاتها الاقليمية على اساس ان الدولة السورية ستنهار وتتقسم الى دويلات ومعها سينهار محور المقاومة والممانعة. وهي تدرك تماما ان خروج سوريا من ازمتها, سيؤدي بالضرورة الى ادخال المملكة في اكثر من ازمة.

بالرغم من ان القيادة السورية تدرك تماما ان مؤتمر جنيف سينعقد, فانها لا تريد ان تعول على المؤتمر قبل انعقاده لحل الازمة. ولهذا فان الجيش السوري تلقى اوامر بزيادة وتيرة العمليات لانهاء العنف المتصاعد ولوضع جميع الاطراف امام حقائق الميدان لوضع حد لكل احلام المتامرين بتمرير تسوية على حساب الدولة او بتسوية تمس بخياراتها الاستراتيجية ضمن محور المقاومة. هذا التصعيد والذي يعتبر مهما لمنع محاولة اي من الاطراف المتامرة للمطالبة بتنازلات من الدولة السورية بسبب ضغط الجماعات المسلحة وسيطرتها على مساحات من البلاد.

دول الممانعة متاكدة ان مؤتمر جنيف 2 سينعقد عاجلا وليس اجلا لاكثر من سبب. فكلفة المؤامرة اقتصاديا على الدول المتامرة عالية جدا وبدون ارباح متوقع جنيها في حال عدم سقوط الدولة. والكل متاكد من عدم القدرة على اسقاطها. كما ان الكلف الامنية على الدول المتامرة من حيث انتشار الارهاب الى هذه الدول, تزداد باضطراد مع تزايد امد الازمة.

المؤتمر سينعقد قبل نهاية العام. ومعارضة الخارج من ائتلاف الدوحة ومجلس اسطنبول ستحضر المؤتمر صاغرة وحسب الاوامر الامريكية. وايران ستشارك بفعالية وستكون دولة محورية للقضاء على الارهاب, والذي سيكون مطلبا دوليا ستشارك بتحقيقه كل الدول ومن ضمنها المتامرة.

قلنا وفي اكثر من مقال ومنذ بداية الازمة السورية ان نتائج ما سيحدث في سوريا سيؤدي الى رسم نظام عالمي جديد. وهذا ما سيؤكده مؤتمر جنيف 2 المتوقع انعقاده الشهر القادم. نظام عالمي ينهي احادية القطب المتوحش ويعيد التوازن للعلاقات الدولية.

Thursday, October 24, 2013



For more info: http://resistancepic.com/index.php/en/

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Analysis of Federal Election 2013 results

We expected that in the wake of devastating loss of Labor and Greens in last Saturday’s election, the loss will promote these two parties to admit their failures and work on correcting them. Surprisingly, leaders of both parties resorted to cover-up and hide these devastating results under many arguments. The Labor claimed (maybe rightly) that the loss could have been worse. But they claim that this loss was due to “disunity” in the party over Rudd-Gillard revenge fight over leadership.

On the Greens side, the party could outrageously claim that they achieved “outstanding results” despite the fact that their primary votes collapsed by 30% of their previous results.

The real story behind the loss:

- For Labor:
The Labor was quick to blame the infighting between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard since mid 2010 for the loss of their popularity and scoring the worst results since WWII. This argument can be refuted easily by pointing to the fact that the opinion poll since the beginning of 2010 was worse than what they actually got after the infighting started. This is very clear indication that the real reason behind the loss of popularity was the Labor’s inability to deal with the issue of boat people, at that time. The Labor was quick since April 2010 to retreat on this front. The Labor under Kevin Rudd was quick to cave-in for the Liberals racist attacks by freezing the processing of applications of Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, April 2010. This sent clear sign that Labor is ready to back down on this issue and so cannot offer real alternative to the coalition racist arguments about boat people.

Instead of Labor understanding that Australians expected Labor to act more bravely on this issue, the Labor strategists thought that leaning more right on this issue would bring back to them some of their lost popularity. This is why these strategists thought that the leadership change would fix everything by replacing the PM, change the policy on boat people by adopting the Liberals racist harsh approach and then blame the previous PM for the leniency on boat people issue.

The move back clashed. We can prove this for second time by pointing to the fact that Rudd’s return to PM’ship saw surge in Labor’s popularity. This popularity evaporated the day Rudd announced the very harsh policy of adopting “PNG solution”.

The second most important issue in this election was the economic standstill. The voters saw the deteriorating financial circumstances in Australia and witnessed the Labor’s inability to do anything to try and stimulate the economy.

The third main important issue which lead to these devastating results was the voters’ outrage for the Labor weakness to manage minority government and succumb to Greens “black-mailing”. Many analysts indicated that introduction of Carbon Tax was not major issue in this election on its own. It was important as it was seen to be clear evidence that Labor was under Greens influence, or even control.

The Labor post-election post-mortem did not recognise these issues. And I think that the Labor’s popularity will remain low until they acknowledge these factors and work to correct them.

For the Greens:
The primary votes of the Greens were collapsed in ALL states. Nationally they got around 8.7%, when in fact they got more than 13% in the previous election. This means that the Greens lost around 4.4%, i.e. 33% of their popularity. Yet, the Greens MPs were outrageously claiming that they got “outstanding” results.

We believe that the Greens leadership will justify these disappointing results by resorting to their traditional cover-up argument of “in an election where voters was leaning to the right, it is very good that the Greens could keep the current level of popularity”. They did this to justify their failure to capitalise on the total collapse of Labor popularity in Victoria 2010 and NSW 2011, where the Greens failed to increase their voting base.

I think that the real reasons behind this collapse of voting were the fact that the Greens was seen as the small partner of the Labor government and share many responsibility for its failures. The largest failure attributed to the Greens is the introduction of Carbon Tax and the Liberals continuous link of this to the deteriorating life-style of Australians and the increase of life-costs.

In addition to this, the Greens, a party that controlled on its own the balance of power in the senate and shared in controlling the balance of power in the house of representatives (in addition to the fact that the government was dependent on Greens support of it) for the last three years could not prevent the government from going to the far-right on boat people issue. The Greens was able easily to introduce Carbon Tax, where the previous PM Gillard promised before 2010 as “will never be introduced under any government I will lead”, but was unable to move the government to ease its extreme dealing with thousands of desperate boat people.

Instead of Greens facing these failures, admit them and promise to work on correcting them, they deny that they in fact lost heavily in this election (even if their luck will see their representation stay the same or even increased by one senator). The reason behind this is the fact that the Greens party is still betting on the argument that there is no alternative to them on the left spectrum of the political scene. The Greens will be surprised to realise that this argument is not valid anymore. Many progressive voters are resorting to voting informally (informal voting was increased significantly in the last 6 years). We also believe that many progressive people will be able to create more progressive alternative to the Greens.

SO what is about Liberals?
The Liberals won in increasing majority because the other side failed, and not because any voters were convinced that they would be better government that will find solutions to the Australian challenges. We need to remember that the Labor massive loss in NSW was not because the opposition Liberals had better plan for the state. On the contrary. The Liberal government made more damage to the NSW residents’ lives than ever. The voters just gave up on Labor government, and did not trust the Greens, and wanted to send them strong message.

The Liberals did not present during the course of the election campaign any alternative plan to lift the people’s life-style and financial security. The Liberals campaigned on the failures of the Labor and Greens.

The practical results of the election:
The Labor-Greens after this election became powerless totally. The two parties have no influence (by numbers) in both houses. In the House of Representatives, the Liberals has absolute majority of 88 seats (they needed 76 to govern on their own).

In the senate, the Labor-Greens combined seats won is less than 39 seats needed to be able to stop important controversial legislations. While I do not think that “Balance of power” does exist at all as the majority of legislations (more than 85%) were passed by bipartisan support for the last 2 decades. Even this was lost in the last Saturday’s election. The balance of power is now in the hands of few senators mainly defected from Liberals and Nationals, which would be easier for Liberals to convince them to pass controversial legislations when Labor would not support them. Again, NSW LC is very clear example, where Liberal government did not have any legislation defeated in the LC for the last 2 years, where it depended on MLC from small conservative parties.

We hope that the Labor will admit the real reasons for their defeat last Saturday and start working on correcting them. Without doing this, we believe that Labor is heading for long time in opposition by repeating Beazley’s mistakes on the same issues.

We also understand that the Greens will find serious rivals in the next elections. If the Greens want to increase their voting, I believe that they need to start “putting their mouth where their money is” by acting on issues and not vending rhetoric and lies. We believe that the Greens party is not able to do so, and this is why we expect the Greens to head to more electoral defeats in the next 2 years. The first would be Tasmanian election next year.

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Why lenient sentencing of Wahhabi extremist: poor judgment or "minorities: who cares... kill each other" argument!!!

Imagine that I am WHITE ANGLO-SAXON freelance journalist, blogger, political activist and community leader. Imagine that I am CHRISTIAN or JEW by religious faith affiliation. And then imagine that I was attacked physically in front of hundreds of community members and in front of channel 7 camera. Imagine all this and then imagine what would be the judgment by the judge..

Then imagine how the media will response to such attack. You can guess what kind of description of the attack and attackers...

I remember when member of parliament Belinda Neal was caught threatening (just threatening) staff member at a restaurant. She was enforced to retreat, apologise and quit politics altogether after media made her look as vampire. Imagine if she was caught punching the staff member....
And she was “true” outstanding member of the society.... and “true” community builder... and part of the attack on her that a “community builder” and “community leader” should not act this way....

So do we understand that there is two system of justice in this country: one for White Anglo- Saxon Judo-Christians and other for the rest of “minorities”?!!!

Was the judge given wrong information only, or he was “ignorant”.... Did he tell himself while making the decision “Muslim against Muslim..., who cares, let them kill each other”....

The judge should remember that it is now Muslim against Muslim... But in Britain it was recently “Terrorist Wahhabi against Anglo-Saxon soldier”... And in France, it started to spread to be “Extremist Muslims against the rest of France”... and in Spain, the bombing of trains there did not target Muslims and the bomb killed indiscriminately. So “Muslim against Muslim” argument is immature, as the violence of these “community builders” will spread to reach the judge himself.

I deeply believe that authorities now act on argument of “non-Anglo Saxons: who cares”... Let them kill each other.... We can even encourage them to do so by encouraging “tit for tat” attacks... And they may be right and things could be progressed soon to this...

Racism in our system??? We warned of this for long time... but this time it is very serious and will have great impact...

Justice was not done today.... and I am sure the implications will be dear... Australia should be prepared for the worst...

And listen to this sarcasm: the judge considers holding Al Qaeda flag and follow its teaching of absolute hate towards all “others”, attack police last September, burn down businesses, shooting innocents, spread sectarian hate and threatening Australians are in fact “community building” . If a magistrate in our judicial system has such thoughts, God helps Australia.....

I now understand why Ali (who was shot by Wahhabi extremists and was let down by our judicial system) decided to give up on the system and chose just to isolate himself totally form the community. The system did not protect him because the legal system works on “minorities: who cares... kill each other”....

We will not allow the system to prevail... We will use all available venues to change this argument of “minorities: who cares”...

My statement on the very lenient sentence of Wahhabi extremist: Dangerous message into many directions

Today the judicial system has sent very dangerous message into many directions.

An extremist was not charged for assaulting high profile community member in front of hundreds of community members in the day broad light and in front of the media cameras.

The physical assault was not because of brawl on financial dispute or fight between neighbours because of the behaviour of their children. The assault was to silence high profile community member from criticising radical elements in the society. These radical elements were free in the last 2 years to shoot people in front of their homes, attack businesses and burn them down, set up facebook pages to spread sectarian hate and violence and physically assaulting people in the streets of our peaceful cities. All these based on radical teachings and radical interpretation of Islam.

The devastating impact of such verdict will be seen and felt across Australia almost immediately.

This verdict will give the radical groups inspired by Al Qaeda terrorist organisation teachings green light to intensify their campaign of terrorising community members and business owners that do not agree with their radical views. This verdict will give these radical groups moral boost for their extreme agenda that started few years ago.

This verdict tarnishes community members’ faith in authority’s abilities and will to protect them from religious radical groups.

After this verdict can I ask few questions: who in Australia will dare to come forward and cooperate with authorities on criminal activities conducted by religious radical groups?? After this verdict who in Australia will dare to contact authorities to report suspicious activities by such radical groups??? After this verdict how will authorities expect our cooperation to fight against radicalisation and crimes related to religious extremism???

All this come at a time when our authorities are declaring that there is real threats of terrorist activities in Australia in the awake of the return of hundreds of Australians fighting currently in Syria. Such verdict will leave authorities on their own to stop terrorist activities in Australia conducted by these groups. And this is another and the real victory to these radical extreme groups.

After today’s verdict, I hold authorities and the judge who made this judgment the full responsibility of my safety and the safety of my family’s. After this verdict I hold authorities and the judge that made the judgment the full responsibility of any consequences to the verdict.

We believe that this verdict will send clear message that Australians should not wait for authorities to protect them from radical groups and they should be prepared from now on to take law in their hands.

The judicial system has failed me and my family miserably. It actually failed large section of society who was hoping for harsh decision to stop future similar crimes.

The judicial system has set a precedent in supporting radical groups to terrorise people based on their political views. The judicial system has set precedent to encourage violence based on political views and disagreement. The judicial system today has stood hand in hand with Al Qaeda terrorists teachings by allowing them to bully and physically assault opponents.

This is very sad day for Australia. We, I and my family, believe that all Australians will pay heavy price for this wrong message sent by this unfair decision.

We call on the government and authorities to take all necessary means to correct this fatal mistake. I, and other community leaders and members, will be in contact with our government to explore how to correct this mistake.

The last question to our judicial system: do you want to see ugly action of extremist Michael Adebolajo in London repeated in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne??? Are Australians prepared to see extremists cutting the flesh of fellow Australians (and maybe eat their hearts and livers) in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and other cities???This verdict could encourage extremists groups to carry on similar attacks. They would believe that they have immunity and green light from judicial system to do so...

For the last 2 years, no one extremist was convicted and sent to jail for his crimes related to Syrian crisis and their radical views related to what is happening there.

We have all reasons to suspect that for political reasons, authorities want to cover on these crimes and not making them issue of public interest. During the last few months since the actual assault, I was kept in dark on the progress of this trial. Despite my repeated communications with authorities, including communications with NSW Minister for Police, enquiring about the progress of the case, all these communications were ignored and no reply to them was received. And here we need to know what is Australia’s interest in protecting extremist groups and their horrendous crimes against fellow Australians that do not share their extreme ideology...

And want to thanks all friends and supporters who flooded me and my family with support messages. And I call on all of them to stay calm and do not take any actions in response to this verdict. We still have hope that other levels of authorities will work on turning back this decision.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

The Greens real stance on Palestine: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”

When I joined the Greens in 2001, there was no clear position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The only justification I got from Greens officials and politicians that “the Greens is very small party that did not have a chance to be involved in foreign politics”. This was not accurate, as there was Greens member of Federal parliament (Bob Brown).

The Greens campaign that year was based on one issue: Tampa and boat people, despite the fact that the Greens until that time did not have policy on refugees and boat people. It was popular issue that Bob Brown thought he could capitalise to win more votes. But the Greens discovered from the campaign that there are many issues that form strong basis for their votes. One of them was the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine.

At one campaign gathering the Greens were faced with one question: what is your position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The Greens member referred the voter to Lee Rhiannon (NSW MLC at that time and current senator for NSW). Ms Lee did not find any answer. She referred the public member to me. I made lies on the Greens position on Palestine. Lee and her Greens members were happy that I saved them from very crucial and embarrassing question.

After the election of Kerry Nettle in that election, Australians (including me) was sucked to the Greens lies that it is a progressive party. And they let them down badly.

In 2002 and in the wake of Israeli massacres during Defensive Wall operation, the Palestinian and pro-Palestinians decided to hold a fundraising event to help Palestinian victims of Israeli latest brutality. The organisers of the event (held in Addison Road Community centre) decided that no politician deserves to speak at the event, except the Greens politicians. The organisers decided to invite Bob Brown and ask him to speak at the event. The organisers were shocked when Bob Brown’s office declined the invitation. Not only this. No Greens politician attended the event. It was very clear that the Greens leadership took a decision not to show solidarity with Palestinian people. To be fair, I should mention that 2 Greens council members attended the event in very low profile way.

In the same year, the Australian unions decided to send fact-finding mission to West Bank to investigate what really happened and report back to Australian parliament and people. The same decision was taken: to invite only Greens politicians to head the mission. The organisers were shocked to receive very clear decline of this invitation. The organisers asked me (as Greens member and spokesperson) to explore the reasons behind the refusal. I met Kerry Nettle on 1 May 2002 at the rally for Labor Day. I asked her, on behalf of the organisers, and her reply was deeply shocking. She told me that the Greens cannot do this and face the upheaval of conservative media attack. She told me exactly: “I do not want to be branded as pro-Palestinian politician from the beginning of my term”.

Frankly I was not shocked. The same person (Kerry Nettle) asked me after her election to the senate to provide her with literature on Palestine issue as “I do not know anything about the issue”.

The Greens to date did not do anything significant, apart from rhetoric, to give specific practical support to advance the debate about the issue on the way to change official Australian position on the issue.

Maybe some people will tell me that some Greens former politicians participated recently in solidarity ventures. And the question remains: why they could not participate in such missions when they were members of parliament???

The answer is very clear. This is the heart of Greens deceptive campaign to keep “all sides happy”. When the media asked Greens party about Sylvia Hale (former Greens MLC) participation last year in Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, the answer was very clear. She is former politician and her actions do not represent official Greens position.

Even the latest Greens bid to deceive voters by introducing motion in Marrickville council to adopt BDS, the reasons for this motion and the final result was clear. The majority of Greens politicians retreated and condemned the BDS. And the party governing body met to confirm this. Officially, the Greens rejects the BDS.

My other articles on the issue is on: http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/bds-campaign-in-australia-one-step.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/greens-thirst-for-palestinian-blood.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/10-more-reasons-why-not-to-vote-greens.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/marrickville-council-motion-on.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/how-to-get-greens-attention-to-gaza.html

The Greens real stance on Palestine is simple: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”... And this is the main reasons why I left the Greens in 2006....

Saturday, August 24, 2013

The “turmoil” in Wikileaks over preferecnes: the real reasons and Greens role in its making!!!

I would like to state first that I am not member of any party at the moment. I am also not doing any work for any party, including Wikileaks, at the moment.

In regard to the “turmoil” inside the Wikileaks currently, which resulted so far in resignation of candidate on the second place in Victorian ticket and many National Council members’ resignations, I expect that:
1- The turmoil resulted when Wikileaks party refused to accept to be a “shop front” for the Greens, when they (Greens) asked Wikileaks to run fake tickets under Wikileaks banner to enable re-election of Greens struggling senators. Information emerged that Greens offered to help Wikileaks (which was hesitant to run candidates in Western Australia because of limited resources) run fake ticket to attract voters from both Labor and Liberals and then direct them to the Greens through preferences. The Greens committed to finance the campaign and provide all logistical and organisational support it needs. This is clear bid to rig our electoral system with fake candidates to deceive voters.
After many opinion polls conducted in Western Australia, Wikileaks party came to understanding that good campaign could see Wikileaks candidates get more votes than unpopular Greens senator. So they refused the offer and instead run strong candidates and good campaign.
2- The Greens flooded the Wikileaks party with members at all levels to be able to know all decisions and directions inside the Wikileaks party. The Greens used these “sleeping cells” also to try to destroy the party at the right time (current time). Some Greens members are indeed on the National Council and as candidates. Otherwise, why the main reason for Dr Mathew’s resignation (and the resignation of the other National Council members) was that the preference deals will see Scot Ludlum lose his seat. And how would such high profile officials in any party abandon the party from the first obstacle or debacle they face???
3- The Greens cannot claim high moral ground when it comes to preferences. The Greens entered or tried to enter at many different occasions preference deals with very extreme right parties. This include the preference deal reached with One Nation at 2001 election, which saw the Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, win senate seat in NSW on just 4.5% of primary vote, defeating Democrats on 6.5% and One Nation on 8%. The Greens claimed that there was no deal with One Nation and that One Nation just decided to give the preference to the Greens candidate. This is mere lies, as the Greens entered intense negotiation to convince the One Nation to preference the Greens ahead of ALL other minor and major parties. The negotiation was conducted between Jo Edwards and Geoff Ash form the Greens with One Nation campaign manager. Read my detailed account on this deal on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-did-one-nation-preferecned-greens.html . The Greens also got preference deal with One Nation during Cunningham by-election 2002 that saw Greens candidate win. This is in addition to many secret negotiations between the Greens and Liberals which resulted in deals in Victorian election 2006, but was refused by Liberals in NSW 2007.
4- The Greens themselves, as according to their high profile candidate Hall Greenland, are no more than eco-Fascists and very extreme right. For Hall Greenland, Greens are more right-wing and conservative than Fisher and Shooters party, which is not following any ideological right, apart from fighting to increase recreational hunting sports.
5- This is not the first time the Greens is engaged with this low and cheap politics to destroy rivals that have potential to deprive Greens from seats. In 80s and early 90s the Greens were successful in swamping the Socialists and destroy the movement by spreading division and tactics to destroy morale. We also experienced such dirty tactics for the last 4 years when we tried to expose the real regressive agendas of the Greens. We will keep posting some of these tactics in the next few days.
6- Despite all these, we believe that time is approaching when the Greens will be totally exposed and will pay dearly for such dirty tactics.

Australians should not allow the Greens to rig our political system by resorting to dirty tactics of running fake candidates, spread roumers and lies and hide behind progressive face to achieve destructive agendas.

We do not know what is the urgency of mass resignations of people who were arguing from the first day of the need to make Greens happy, the need of keeping Greens in politics and the need to consult the Greens on decisions. The people who resigned in the last week in mass were in fact citing the Greens interests and not their “own” political party’s. Otherwise, the whole issues raised in their resignations are not urgent issues that require destroying the movement altogether and could wait until the dust of this crucial election settled...


Why did One Nation preferecned the Greens in 2001?

In the mid of October 2001, Jo Edwards (Greens campaign manager in NSW and then media advisor for Senator Kerry Nettle) got on the phone. On the other side of the line was One Nation campaign manager. One Nation was cornered, where all political parties refused to make preference deal with it. One Nation was made to be perceived as the only racist evil. Though other parties, including Liberal party, was more racist than One Nation. Currently, the politics of both major parties were stolen from One Nation policy on refugees and asylum seekers.

The One Nation negotiator wanted to come with clearer picture of the Greens politics to see how close the Greens policy to the One Nation’s. Apparently, One Nation negotiator was contacting all minor parties to put them in order on their Preferences Voting card. One Nation knew that no political party would dare to swap preferences with it. But at least they want to make sure that they give their preferences to the party that have something in common.

One Nation negotiator asked the Greens many questions about their (Greens party) policies on immigration, globalisation, work relations .... The negotiations continued more than once. Only Jo Edwards and Greens power broker Geoff Ash knew the details of the negotiation. No party member (including myself at that time) was aware of these details.

At the end of the negotiations, One Nation was convinced that the Greens was the closest party to them on many platforms. This understanding was echoed in their decision to give their preference to the Greens. The Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, won her seat on One Nation preferences. It was not random preferences. It came after intense and serious negotiations including exchanging documents and policy statements.

This was not the last time One Nation preferenced the Greens and gifted them seats. In the following year and during Cunningham by-election, One Nation took the same decision. They put the Greens second. And the Greens candidate Michael Organ, won the seat for 2 years.

Now we leave it to all of you to think: why did One Nation extreme racist party decided to give preferences to the Greens??? Does this ring bell about the Greens real commitments and politics?? Why the Greens is the only pure White political party in Australia?? Do you know that the Greens want our government to phase-out migration program gradually??? Did this come hand in hand to explain why the Greens did not use the power given to them in the last 3 years to end the suffering of refugees and asylum seekers, despite the big noise against this treatment???

We do not believe that fascist party like One Nation would decide to preference Greens more than once on no basis. For any principled politician, he/she should refuse to negotiate with any fascist extreme racist party like One Nation....

And the story has continuation.....