Home » Anthony Frosh, Politics and Media, Recent Posts

Julia Gillard – A Jewish Plot

June 29, 2010 – 10:03 pm39 Comments

By Anthony Frosh

The great thing about Facebook is that you learn that you are only two degrees of separation from people for whom The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not a fabrication, but a textbook.

On the very first day of Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership, I happened to catch a rather intriguing thread on my Facebook feed. It included a conversation between two Palestinians, one of whom is a Facebook friend of a Facebook friend.  Part of the conversation was in Romanised Arabic, and the essence of it was that Julia Gillard was not to be trusted, and that her displacement of Rudd as PM was the work of the Jews.

That’s right.  The Elders of Zion were not happy with Kevin Rudd, so they simply had him replaced with Julia Gillard, who would now do their bidding.

I must admit that I found this conspiracy theory more amusing than alarming.  It is well known that in the Arab Middle East, conspiracies about Jews are rampant, and The Protocols are essentially considered a history book by a significant minority.  In some ways it was reassuring to know that Facebook’s algorithm doesn’t always throw material at the user that is consistent with their worldview.

However, there was nothing amusing about the front page of The Age today.  The headline blared out Gillard accused of soft line on Tel Aviv.  You’d think that the editors of The Age would be aware that the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem, and not Tel Aviv – that alone is an appalling error in a front-page headline.

It seems Gillard’s partner, Tim Mathieson, is “employed as a real estate salesman by the founder of the Australia Israel Forum, Melbourne property developer Albert Dadon.”  Just to be clear, he’s not employed by the Australia Israel Forum, he’s employed by the founder of that entity, to sell real estate as part of a completely different entity.

The Age trots out former career diplomat Ross Burns, who has long since been sharing his antipathy for Israel with anyone who will listen (essentially Fairfax and the public broadcasters).  Burns’ central thesis is that Gillard’s partner’s boss will be influencing (or perhaps controlling) Australia’s foreign policy.

So let me get this right: Gillard’s partner is employed to sell real estate. Nothing against being a real estate salesman (my own day job as a consumer researcher is no more important), but it’s a long way from being Prime Minister.  Nevertheless, in order to have her partner ‘get in good with the boss’ down at the real estate agency, Gillard will allow her partner’s boss to determine Australia’s foreign policy?  Hmmm.

As implausible as this sounds, we better check if any other federal parliamentarians have partners employed by, well I don’t know, Century 21 or L.J.Hooker.  Who knows what conspiracies might be uncovered!



Print Friendly

39 Comments »

  • Michael says:

    Ah but you see the media and hence the Age is controlled by the Jews too so obviously they deliberately phoned in the headline and article to throw you off your guard!

    In actuality, TA makes some sense since if they put Jerusalem in the headline most would have read it to refer to her stance on something like the specific role of Jerusalem in a 2 state solution etc etc

  • The Hasid says:

    Spot on, Frosh!
    The fact that it is considered front page news is absurd.

  • Akiva says:

    Oh enough with the paranoia, already. I’ve read just as crazy theories coming out of diehard hasbaran mouths.
    The media jumps on any conflict of interest it perceives – real or imagined – look at Therese Rein being pressured by the media into selling her flourishing Australian businesses because of the perceived conflict of interest with Rudd’s employment regulations. This is the price one pays for the job. It’s not exclusive to Gillard.

  • Ari says:

    Now that we have Gillard in place and the Age article to throw people off, we’ll really be able to influence Obama’s policy once and for all. 
    I’ll see you at the next meeting:  Topic for discussion:  Getting First Lady Obama a job at Moishele’s florist. 

  • Alex says:

    TA is where the embassy is, so that is why it is mentioned instead of Jerusalem. As for the rest of the article, every PM in their first weeks has trash thrown on them. It might not be front page news, but it makes sense to some extent that it is written about. My question is: how would you react if Tim had a job with a real estate agency that was owned by a Palestinian sympathiser and philanthropist? If your reaction would be the same, then fine. If not, then what you say seems a tad hypocritical…

  • frosh says:

    Hi Alex,

    The accusation is NOT that Gillard will be soft on the Australian embassy (if anything, it is to the contrary, if the embassy is staffed by foreign office types like Ross Burns).

    The accusationis that Gillard will be soft on the Israeli Goverment, which (like it or not) is based in Jerusalem.

    To answer your question: Tony Blair’s own family members (as distinct to merely an employer of a family member) were/are pro-Palestinian (or anti-Israel) activists. I don’t think it stops him from being an impartial mediator.

  • mandi says:

    I dont think there are conspiracies afoot @ Fairfax – just bad journalism and general ill will on all things  vaguely related to Israel. Of course the interests and activities of partners of politicians (and the PM in particular) are not beyond scrutiny – and  these things are sometimes unclear and the decision whether there is a conflict involves judgment and common sense. But this is a farce because even when you try to articulate the potential impact of the ‘conflict’ on her ability to govern independently – it just doesn’t compute.  It’s  not her husband’s business (as was the case with Rudd’s wife) , its not the business activity of his employer –  the issue turns on a personal affiliation of the shareholder/director of the company which employs her partner  – if you ‘re going to go down this road you’d have to make a blanket rule that partners of politicians (or PMs anyway) can’t be employed – or have any public interests   – the  Jeanette Howard model.

    And it’s ironic too- a wise man (my husband, a former editor of the AJN – do I need to disclose that?) points out that The Age just doesn’t get  the nuances of the Jewish community. Dadon and his organisation are quite different to – several steps to the left of- and not affiliated with AIJAC, which is self appointed and largely accepted  by the mainstream Jewish community – and therefore the broader community  -as the “premier” public  affairs organisation on all things Jewish and Israel (my words here). AIJAC is much more of a lobby group (by orientation and standing) than Dadon’s Australia Israel Forum. Perhaps we all look the same to Fairfax. Anyway it will be interesting to see how AIJAC respond to this. I suspect that privately they won’t like the idea of having to come out in defence of Dadon! Be nice to find I’m wrong on that.
    So terrible and lazy journalism  – and a shame – there’s enough heat when it comes to the Middle East– we need less distracting, inflammatory and polarising stuff and more considered and truly relevant discussion/dialogue.

  • Might I suggest that the underlying reason behind them using “Tel-Aviv” is because a phrase like “soft line on Israel” LOOKS, prima facie, like more Israel bashing. Using a metonym is more gentle, and underscores the general tendency to let capitals stand for the countries in which they rest. Had they used “soft line on Jerusalem”, the meaning would have been ambiguous, given the issues transpiring within that city and concerning it.

    But that’s just my 2c. I agree with you otherwise: this is sloppy journalism.

  • Akiva says:

    Hmmmm. Perhaps. But personally, I consider the AJN a much larger exercise in sloppy journalism.

  • frosh says:

    Akiva,

    While I would agree that the current standards of the AJN are not that high, apart from the fact that it is a separate issue entirely,I don’t think it is even a fair comparison. The AJN purports to be an ethnic community newspaper. The Age is one of the top three broadsheets in the country.

    To use an Australian Rules Football analogy, it would be like excusing the poor skill level of the West Coast Eagles becuase the kicking skills of the local AJAX side are even worse (Although in season 2010, this probably isn’t even the case :-(.

  • Akiva says:

    Oh, I agree about the Age.

    But I suggest that one should first look the state of one’s own house before one neurotically perceives attack form the neighbours. Any sane person outside the ghetto who picked up the AJN would be excused for thinking us a pack of delusional, propaganda-fed, uncritical, and more importantly, ill-educated and ill-informed bigots. It’s embarrassing, and it certainly doesn’t represent me or mine in any way whatsoever. although it (and others on it’s behalf) often claim to.

    I really don’t think that Gillard’s partner is being subjected to more sinister scrutiny than other PM plus-ones. As noted above, the only exceptions were the ones that didn’t work…..

  • ariel says:

    Sloppy journalism indeed. No wonder Fairfax’s sales are going down faster than a 2-dollar hooker (to paraphrase The 12th Man)…

    I bet you there’s a greater chance Dadon gave Mathieson a job at Gillard’s suggestion, rather than Dadon having any influence on Gillard…

  • SJa says:

    I also find the prominence given by the Fairfax press to this “non-story” pretty poor form. Making the link that somehow because Gillard’s partner is employed by a business, whose owner happens on the side to promote cultural ties with Israel, could somehow affect Gillard’s approach on Israel is a laughable proposition.

  • Akiva says:

    and I’m utterly confused about his employment as a – real estate consultant? – wasn’t he a hairdresser?

  • defensa says:

    Conspiracies by their very notion invite derision and ridicule, but that is not to say that they do not exist. Or to be more accurate, that certain individuals and groups attempt to gain influence over politicians to further their own personal, business or political agendas.

    As far as I know, there has been at least one previous public association between Ms Gillard and Mr Dadon. in June 2009 MS Gillard visited Israel and spoke at a high level function attended by senior Israeli and Australlian politicians – organised by Mr Dadon.

    To then read that Mr Dadon employs Ms Gillard’s partner at his real estate business does begin to smack of something untoward. To argue that its simply a job is absurd. No one employs the partner of a prominent politician, especially one qualified as a hairdresser, because they value their work. They are employed clearly as a way of maintaining a strong relationship with said powerful politician. To believe otherwise is to be utterly naive.

    To what level Mr Dadon may exert influence over Ms Gillard, especially now that she is Prime Minister, is open to any kind of speculation. It may be great, it may be negligible or it may be somewhere in between. That is something that very few people actually know, and might possiibly fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, dependig on the expediences of the day.

    What we do know is that Mr Dadon is clearly a shrewd political operator and in this case, he clearly backed the right horse.

  • ariel says:

    defensa,

    Even if what you say is true, it does not belong on the front page of SMH/The Age. One must ask if the same attention would have been paid if Mathieson was given a job by an Indonesian/Chinese/Indian businessman. Would Gillard be accused of being “soft” on those countries? Perhaps she would be asked to explain the connection, but I doubt there would be such an uproar.

    If you look at the relationship between Dadon and Gillard, it seems more likely that she’s gaining more than him: job for her partner, free trips to Israel, access to communal leaders (and vice versa)…

  • Akiva says:

    Oh yes, I think that the scrutiny and concern would be just as big if her partner worked for a south-east asian country. Or a chinese one. And can you imagine if he worked for a company with Muslim or Arab ties? All hell would break loose.

    If he worked for an American or Western European country it would be less. That’s the Australian populace for you.

  • frosh says:

    Defensa,

    I largely agree with you in that it is a reasonable question to ask if Dadon is trying to have influence over Gillard through the employment of her partner. It wouldn’t surprise many people if that were the case.

    On the other hand, it is an entirely different accusation (and one that Ross Burns makes) to suggest that Gillard would be influenced on foreign policy in order for her partner to maintain the good graces of his boss down at the real estate company. Given the lack of any evidence, and the improbability of it all, such an accusation does not belong on the front page of a major broadsheet.

  • Ittay says:

    Why have the comments stopped on this article “Jewish Knight defends Pius XII”. only 213? Why are people commenting instead about contemporary events that didn’t happen 60 years? Does this have anything to do with Julia Gillard being an atheist? I’m looking forward to reading more about this in tomorrow’s Age.

  • Mandi says:

    @ Akiva – not sure I understand you. is it just me that’s disqualified from commenting because my husband was employed by the AJN? or does it go broader – is the whole Jewish community (whatever that means) to be silent about all media until the AJN gets the tick of approval? Whatever one’s view of the AJN (and I’m not entering into THAT discussion) that’s a strange position…

    In any event while The Age’s piece is indeed a beat up , the VexNews piece makes me want to throw up…

  • Akiva says:

    See, there you go again. If one doesn’t endorse your perspective, one is actively persecuting or silencing you. You have as much right to speak as anyone else, of course. What you do not have – and nor does the AJN have – is the right to speak for the whole community, or to assume that you or it does. Or to behave as if you do. I said nothing about you personally. I abhor the AJN, is mostly it.

    My point about this article is this. Gillard’s polka-dotted dress was front page news that day. Truly. The media are not – in this instance – out to ‘get’ Israel. There is no conspiracy. There is about the same level of scrutiny that there would be regardless of the individuals involved.

    And yes, I really do believe that we as a community should be more careful of our own levels of journalistic integrity before feeling safe to comment on others. Concerning that, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

  • defensa says:

    In a democracy, where the citizenry expects their government to act in their name and their name alone, when a known and prominent political lobbyist employs the partner or spouse of that democracy’s most senior politician, especially in a job for which he is not known to be suitably qualified, then yes, it does deserve to be front page news, whether said politician is Jewish or otherwise.

  • defensa says:

    And to Frosh,

    OF course it is absurd to suggest that Dadon’s influence will stem fro Ms Gillard’s desire for her partner to keep his job. He is the partner of the Prime Minister. Surely there must be a queue of lobbyists waiting to employ him should he fall from Mr Dadon’s graces.

    The point is that the arrangement affords Mr Dadon a level of access that lobbyists would kill for, and with that level of access a lobbyist will attempt to influence policy. That is precisely what lobbyists do; leverage whatever access to a politician that they have to influence policy.

    And yes, when a known political lobbyist gains that level of access to the nation’s most senior politician, it is certainly front page news. That the nature of the accusation itself might not be precisely accurate, the sense of it is fair enough.

    A democratically elected government should, ideally, not be under the influence of lobbyists. However, given that the reality of life is that they are, the least that a democracy can do to protect itself is have a free press to draw the public’s attention to such matters. It will be for the public to decide, through democratic process, what level of lobbying they are willing to tolerate.

    All lobbyists, and perhaps especially ones with pro-Israel or pro-Jewish agendas, must walk a delicate tightrope between gaining the access needed to influence policy, and remaining out of the public eye so the illusion of democracy is shattered.

    Perhaps I was wrong in my earlier assessment of Mr Dadon as a shrewd political operator. Perhaps this time he has bitten off more than he can chew, and the public reaction to the revelation of his activities may force the Prime Minister to terminate the relationship to save her own face.

    Only time, and the level of public outrage, will tell.

  • Mandi says:

    Akiva – perhaps you misunderstand me. I didn’t get why the merits of this argument can’t stand on their – standards at the AJN (while clearly vexing to you) aren’t really relevant. that’s all I’m saying.

    and I agree there’s no conspiracy here, and I certainly don’t see antisemitism hurtling at me from the front page.
    But I think the public interest in publishing this as front page news(at all?)is questionable, and that interest should be balanced against the potential of this to inflame and divide and bring out the haters.

  • frosh says:

    Akiva,

    If no Jew should be entitiled to criticise The Age because of the limitations of the AJN, then by extension would you say that no Australian should criticise Israel, China, or the USA because of the the flaws of this country (such as the appalling difference in average living standard between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians)?

  • Akiva says:

    and again with the exaggerations.

    Frosh – any publication may of course be criticised. However, if you would like such criticism to be taken seriously by both thinking Jews and the wider community, then it must be tempered – demonstrably tempered – by an awareness of the often blinkered mindset, automatic paranoia, and rigid adherence to ideology mandated within Jewish community ‘discussions’. Then the wider audience will listen to you, and tolerance and understanding will grow, which is what you want…..right?

    And,yes, I would expect any criticism of, say, China, to be tempered in a way that could be seen with an understanding that we have serious issues also. Otherwise, it’s just bigoted cant, and I’m not that interested. Unproductive.

    Mandy – since the ‘merits’ of this argument are based on a paranoid bunker mentality, I don’t think that they can stand on their own, no. I think the only thing to do with them is point out how they are created by the stifled and stifling unwritten community ‘rules’ when it comes to this sort of discussion.

  • rachsd says:

    Akiva, I think that you are writing to an audience who largely don’t buy/like/identify with the AJN. Perhaps you have misunderstood the context of this discussion.

  • frosh says:

    Akiva,

    The morning after this Galus article was published, The Australian also derided Ross Burns (see below)- Are they also suffering from “paranoid bunker mentality”?

    In a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, Ross Burns exposes a Zionist plot reaching to the highest levels of government:

    Former Australian ambassador to Israel Ross Burns questioned the propriety of Ms Gillard’s partner, Tim Mathieson, being employed as a real estate salesman by the founder of the Australia Israel Forum, Melbourne property developer Albert Dadon. Mr Dadon is close to prominent pro-Israel Labor MP Michael Danby, who was influential last week in the coup that installed Ms Gillard as Prime Minister. Ms Gillard, was accompanied on the Israel trip by Mr Mathieson.

  • Akiva says:

    Frosh, all I can do is re-iterate my belief that this incident is not evidence of anti-Israel or anti-semitic bias. I think it is about the same level of scrutiny and concern that would be directed to the partner of any new PM.

    And, I would point out that while your opinion piece seems to come from a place of defensiveness, paranoia and fear, the Australian sees the discussion as a thing to ridicule. Which – like the attention paid to Gillard’s polka-dot dress, is an appropriate response, I suppose. Whereas you mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your opening paragraph. Enough said.

    That having been said – I would expect nothing less from the OZ – being the seriously right-leaning, conservative tabloid that it is. Not my cup of tea.
    Maddening when you can predict exactly what a paper will present about a given incident before they write it. Hardly the only one, though.

  • frosh says:

    Akiva,

    I can assure you I was coming from a place of ridicule, and not fear.

    As for your comments about the OZ, it is by far the best broadsheet in this country. I guess that fact that it publishes a broad range of opinion (as opposed to Fairfax) annoys you.

  • Akiva says:

    Most tabloids annoy me, actually.

  • Akiva says:

    because I don’t like spin, and I don’t like spin, and I don’t like the ‘party line’.

    oh and – rachsd – I think your audience is pretty much split on that question. hardly a pack of dissenters.

  • frosh says:

    A writer on a Sri Lankan website stitches together an even more elaborate Zionist conspiracy-theory (concerning the demise of Rudd) than Ross Burns.

    http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2010/06/29/australian-regime-change-hits-a-rough-patch/

    “Any person with average intelligence would be able to see that the unspoken reasons behind his demise have their origins in a number of decisions relating to Israel he took since coming to power, particularly earlier this year.”

  • ariel says:

    “The Jewish community reciprocated to Rudd’s ‘transgressions’ by withholding funds for the upcoming election campaign. When Labor approached key groups to hold fund-raising events, they ignored.”

    Well we may ask whether all this was the reason why the sub-continental and african cricket reps rejected John Howard as presidential candidate for ICC. I believe it was minuted at the last Elders of Zion meeting that JH is “our” candidate so we can control cricket and use JH’s position to spread HIV in Africa…

  • Aussiebattler. says:

    Reply to defensa 30 June 2010. Very interesting comment. Ms Guillard is not married to her partner, so will his business dealings come into question the same as spouses of married politicians, I wonder? News has it that Ms Gillard’s hairdresser/Real Estate salesman, gets up at 5:30am every morning to style her hair… Holy Camole! Has he been grooming her specially for the Israel Zionist lobby? And what of those shadowy blokes, Shorten and Habib – back in 2005 Bill Shorten was tipped to become leader of the Labor party.

  • phelps says:

    Obviously the Jewish lobbyists don’t prefer to invest on the hairdressing business to fit to PM’s partner.

  • Jael Kaye says:

    The Jews may believe that their centre of Government is in Jerusalem, but the rest of the world says pox upon you. I have yet to see a single foreign nation’s embassy established in Jerusalem.

    Might I suggest you get YOUR facts straight.

Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.