"New Anti-Semitism"? Objections to the policies of the government of Israel are not expressions of anti-Semitism. It is a legitimate political opinion and doesn’t deserve to be smeared as anti-Semitism. Sympathy, even support, for the plight of the Palestinian people does not imply hatred for all Jewish people, or for the people of Israel.
"The new anti-Semitism emanates from elements of the Arab and Muslim community". How can this be? Are not Arabs themselves a Semitic people?

Apparently the ECAJ rates journalists as either supportive of Israeli policies in the Middle East or anti-Semitic "hate mongers". Why should Israel not be held to account for its policies without accusations of anti-Semitism?

Israel is a power. It can no longer claim the role of perennial victim.

Whenever articles referencing anti-semitic behaviour turn up I now look for the inevitable emotional hook: never criticise Jews (or Israel) because of what happened in the holocaust. So here we go again, another article which segues back and forth between Israel and the holocaust, all in the guise of commenting on anti-semitism.

I'm pleased that the author thinks Australia is a tolerant country. I wonder if the Muslim community agree.

So lets look at an intolerant country, Israel where I wonder if "Politicians, civic and faith leaders can speak out when episodes of racial hatred and bigotry occur". It seems many want an each way bet: set up a state based on religion, act with the military force of a nation but then retreat behind cries of anti-semitism when that state is criticised. If a wall is built to remove people from their own land and segregate them then, I believe, comparisons to past action are justified. No one is suggesting Israel is killing Palestinians (en mass, at least) but the Palestinians are being 'ghettoed'.

Lets not try to defend the indefensible by attempting to deamonise the critics.

I agree "authorities need to ensure that curriculum content dealing with Jews and Israel is soundly based..." and not biased to ignore current atrocities in favour of those of the past.

Paul and Manny. I think I escaped accusations of anti-semitism, but only by the skin of my teeth Basil Fawlty style ("I mentioned the war, but I think I got away with it!").

However the specification for "the new anti-semitism" has fairly caught me by the left leg. Guilty as charged.

I think I'll just take a long walk off a short pier.

- happy now?

Anti-Semitic ideological constructions are imbedded in religious doctrine. These ideologies are expanded by academics then reflected in state policy and implemented by state functionaries.

The NAZI process of ‘euthanasia’ began in the psychiatric institutions with people who were considered biologically inferior by way of mental impairment and ended in concentration camps with people who were considered biological inferior due to racial characteristics such as the so called “Jewish race” homosexuals and itineraries known as gypsies.

This is very much about state politics and any suggestion that Israel does not have a right to exist, is simply an elaboration of the NAZI program.

One issue that continues to puzzle me is why the Jews have been so disliked over millennia. As a race, they don't fare well in the Magna Carta, nor in William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.
In a 1886 booked called "Post-Norman Britain" written by H.G. Hewlett and published for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, he writes:

"In connexion with this subject a passing reference must be made to the Jews, who flocked into England in great numbers soon after the Conquest; and, in spite of the severe persecution to which they were repeatedly subjected, remained here until 1290, when they were expelled in a body. During the two centuries of their residence in the chief cities and towns of the kingdom they appear to have occupied the position of capitalists, or money-lenders, without devoting themselves to any industrial calling. They unquestionably performed a useful function in this capacity as commercial intermediaries ; but the religious aversion with which they were regarded by the Christian world, and the complete segregation from social intercourse with it which their creed imposed upon them, precluded their ever becoming incorporated with the body politic. The shrewdness and rigour with which they drove their bargains and enforced the law against their debtors, combined with these causes to render them so generally detested, that the decree for their expulsion was hailed with public acclamation, and its severity aggravated by several acts of barbarity."

Can anyone enlighten me as to why there are so many examples throughout history of the Jews being held in such low esteem?
Bernie Masters

I fail to see why comparing Israel with pre-1994 South Africa is anti-semitic - especially considering many white South African Jews were quite happy living under apartheid. The comparison maybe wrong but I can't see where anti-semitism comes in.

The comparison with Nazi Germany really is anti-semitism because of the implication that Israelis are nothing more than mass murderers. That accusation glosses over the fact that there are Hebrew supremacists/fascists within Israeli politics and should be distinguished from the Israeli left.

As for questioning Israel's right to exist, what does that really mean? Israel's right to exist or Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? I absolutely oppose the latter proposition in the same way I oppose, for argument's sake, Australia's right to exist as an Anglo- Christian state

If you speak up against genocide in Palestine you are anti-semitic?? Like Dylan, I thought that Arabs were also a Semitic people?

There is a difference between being appalled by the gross human rights abuses of the Zionist state and being anti-semitic. Israel has a right to exist but so too does Palestine.

I am non-religious but not anti-religious, I couldn't care less what religion and culture individual's identify with, but I won't be silenced from expressing horror over atrocities for fear of being labelled - that counts for being labelled anti-Semitic for being horrified at the appalling lot of the Palestinian people just as much as it does for being labelled "racist" for speaking out against the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, put it like this:

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest"

BTW 1340 what genocide in Palestine?

can someone explain how an area of land that was 80% moslem came to be a jewish state? the moslems didn't get a vote?

this happened when i was young, and my understanding didn't go past thinking paul newman was great in 'exodus'. but there was a lot more to it, wasn't there?

how can israel have a right to exist, if it was built on theft and murder?

anti-semitism has many causes, but zionism is a real reason to condemn those jews who support it. as long as you condemn non-jewish supporters of zionism, i think you can escape charges of prejudice. so i do: the christian fundamentalists, and the american foothold strategists are rather more despicable, the 1st for idiocy, the 2nd for cynical exploitation of jewish hope in the service of american imperial plans.

DEMOS,

If you don’t believe Israel has a right to exist then you don't. Perhaps neither do Australia or the United States, both of which took the land from the natives.

For what it's worth here is my two cents worth.

No country has a right to exist. There is no such thing as a "right to exist."

In REALITY countries exist only for so long as they have the means and will to defend their territories against those that want to conquer it. If they lose either the means or the ability the country ceases to exist. The strictures of so-called "international law" notwithstanding, thus it has always been.

This has meant different things for different countries at different times. A small country like Belgium is fortunate to be surrounded by neighbours who have no interest in conquering it. But Belgium was not always so lucky. In 1940 the Germans did invade. Had other countries, notably the Soviet Union and the United States, not combined to defeat Germany there may have been no country of Belgium today.

Australia is a vast island-continent which has no land border with any other country. The only country that has the logistic capability to actually invade Australia is the US and the Americans aren't interested. So Australia is about as safe as it is possible for any country to be. (This induces in some Australians a kind of smug self-righteousness. Australians tend to be very critical of the actions of countries in a less fortunate geo-strategic situation).

In contrast to Australia and Belgium, Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies. It will survive so long as it has the ability and will to defend itself. When that ceases so will Israel. Of course so will Middle-Eastern oil supplies. It's difficult to pump oil in a radioactive environment.

Would Australia be different if it had a 1,000 km land border with Indonesia?

steven, you are singing my song. of course 'right' is just the other face of power. if zionist supporters would always be so frank, much time could be saved. neither will i argue for the moral quality of the european conquest of america and australia.

the problem arises in palestine that the conquest is far from over. the losers are neither dead nor resigned. when you consider the number of jews vs moslems in that area, and birth rates, i believe that zionism will be a 'brief' interregnum in palestinian history, in spite of current military superiority.

not only are zionists militaristic thugs, they are also quite likely to lose, as jewish babies don't spring out of the barrel of a gun. once you come to that conclusion, it seems sensible to negotiate a secular 'greater palestine' while you still enjoy a position of military superiority.

As a woolgrower usually found Jewish woolbuyers fair enough to deal with as long as you yourself were up to date with the day's prices.

Also have admiration for Jewish success in business, as well as their talents in the arts, including in the arts of both politics and science.

But do worry about Israel as a small nation with so much mental capacity and the need to still prove herself as a nation.

Further, Israel being so stragically armed by the US, as well as Jewish neo-cons having so much influence in the White House, leaves one with a very uneasy feeling.

bushbred,

Do you fear that Israeli's Jews of some 5 million, or the entire Jewish population of the world of 13 million (which includes the numbers in Israel) are going to take over the world? I think not. You have nothing to fear.

Jews have been subjected continually to pogroms where they were killed and persecuted - occasionally they were recognised - but this invariably gave way to yet another pogrom. World War II, with its huge and very efficient, bureaucratic machinery has been seen as the major pogrom, but it was not the last.

It is imperative that Jews have a homeland where they are welcome and have a place on the world stage of politics.

Jews from Germany and Austria were granted visas from the Australian government to enter this country. These were immediately overturned when Britain entered the war. This was played out elsewhere in the world. However, these Jews were not informed. Still waiting for their entry permits they were rounded up and sent to nazi gas chambers.

During the cold war when Jews were being persecuted and murdered in Russia, no non-communist country would take them in. Australia, like elsewhere, was convulsed with fear of reds under the beds. If it hadn’t been for Israel thousands of Jews would have perished.

No Jew can rely upon entry to another country, no matter how benign that country may appear. Even when being persecuted and killed, their nationality will always supercede Jewish identity. It is imperative that Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend itself, always preferably by diplomacy if possible, but by other means if this fails. Diplomacy only works if the other party is also a willing partner to peace.

Danielle,
Could you please respond to my earlier post which asks why the Jews have been so badly treated by various countries over the centuries?

Bernie Masters asks:

"….why the Jews have been so badly treated by various countries over the centuries?"

If you ever find out let me know.

The writer obviously seems to overlook that the Commonwealth of Australia and all States are “racist” as they voted for and maintained racial discrimination in the Constitution (Section 51(xxvi) and in fact in the 1967 con-job referendum the Aboriginals even supported it to be extended to themselves!
As a “constitutionalist” I am very concerned about this and view that Section 51(xxvi) should be rather deleted from the Constitution as the existence of Subsection 51(xxvi) maintains us to be racist and lawfully do so!
Born with Jewish blood, baptised Lutheren but given away religion sickened with the religion fighting, I for one look at a fellow human as being equal. However,, for example, during the 2001 federal election noted how the Federal government was playing the race card as even to claim “TERRORIST” were coming in with refugees on their (leaky) boats.
In my books I even quoted (at the time) some postings of Australians willing to shoot all refugees. The same with the “CHILDREN OVERBOARD” lies it whipped up racism against races willing to do so. We have now the Federal Government interfering in what Mufti should or should not be representing Muslims! But we were told that Lebanese who had donated $10,000.00 to the Liberal party could get naturalisation, if previously denied so.
As I view it the Federal Government is playing the racist card but pretend not to do so and the Opposition is also now getting involved with seeking to get support of religion, as the Federal Government also does.
When children grow up in this kind of conditions then more then likely they will follow suit.
Weeks before the December 2005 riots I wrote an article “AUSTRALIA IS BURNING” precisely indicating the violence that can eventuate and expecting far worse to come. As long as we have politicians inciting, albeit in a cover up manner, racist and religious issues then don’t expect others to act any better.
Still, personally I deplore any kind of discrimination!
Lets get rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) as a starter!

BERNIE... I can tell you one reason why some Jews may have been treated unkindly. Look up the history of the Sasoon family, and their role in the distribution (in cahoots with the British crown) of the Opium business in China, over which a war was fought, and the Sassoons paid compensation for the losses of the drug incurred when the Chinese said "No..we don't want this, its killing our socieity"....

The Sassoon response was "But it was 'legal' then" huh ? Legal by what means? Legal by BRITISH GUNBOATS ..thats how.

The Sasoons employed a large network of family members right across China, to keep the distribution in Jewish hands, bringing relatives from across the seas.

David Sassoon is described as
1792 – 1864) was a prominent Bombay (now Mumbai) businessman and philanthropist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sassoon
In the same article, further down it states:

In Bombay, David Sassoon established the house of David Sassoon & Co., with branches at Calcutta, Shanghai, Canton and Hong Kong. His business, which included a monopoly of the opium trade in China, (even though opium was banned in China) extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan.

In 1836, the opium trade reached over 30,000 chests per annum and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic.

Then:
In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that the opium smuggling be stopped. He named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-hsu, to lead a campaign against opium. Lin seized and destroyed 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium. An outraged David Sassoon demanded that China compensate for the seizure or Great Britain retaliate. ("Philanthropist"?)

If Sassoon had not specifically made this a 'Jewish' enterprise, by employing only Jews, I'm sure there would not be such anti "Jew-ish" sentiment about the family.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=269&letter=S#897

Reading the above reference, you will not find ANY reference to Opium, but of course..it was written by Jews about Jews.
THIS....is the source of anti-semitism, when people simply don't "get" how they impact on others, and are insulated by a wall of ethno religious steel.

One mans 'philanthropist' is another's drug lord.

CONTINUED.

so.. bottom line, when the Jewish Encyclopedia's begin to admit the sins of the Sassoons, instead of glorifying them, there will be less antagonism against Jews generally.

Similarly, when Muslims begin to condemn the cruelty of MOhammad, and his hoardes, and denounce such abhorrent practices as described in Surah 23:5-6 (authorizing a man to have sex with captive slave girls...ala Bilal Skaff) and to denounce the condemnation of Jews and Christians in Surah 9:30... there will be less antagonizm against Muslims.

But until Muslims and Jews recognize these things.. life will not change for them.

Christians? Well, we have no doctrine of 'world domination' or.. 'family based riches' nor is any particular group singled out for destruction in this world. But we have the problem of dividing the world into 2 categories "Saved"...and "Lost", Sinners and 'saints'.

But if you look at the foundation of this, it becomes clear that at the heart of it, is justice. John the Baptist preached "Repent" and fleshed that out with "Soldiers, be content with your pay and don't oppress the people"

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness"

No one could read Jesus words and then take a 9 yr old girl to bed, nor mistreat captives, or exploit others in a drug trade.

So... we cop it from ALL sides. Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc...

Jesus response ? (Isaiah 53:7)

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

But the message to everyone,Jew, Muslim, Atheist,Agnostic is this:

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all

The authors said:

"While the Australian Communications and Media Authority regulations cover violence and pornography, its policy guidelines fail to mention the promotion of racial hatred and religious bigotry."

Presumably the authors mean all religious bigotry except their own.

The authors also wrote:

"Politicians, civic and faith leaders can speak out when episodes of racial hatred and bigotry occur."

What a strange statement. Tell me, are 'ordinary citizens' also allowed to 'speak out when episodes of racial hatred and bigotry occur'? If so, I would like to do so now, with the following public statement:

"I hereby speak out against this bigoted article."

The authors also said:

"In 2006, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) recorded 442 ('anti-semtic') incidents, 47 per cent above the annual average. Serious or violent incidents were 74 per cent above average."

The above statistics, as well as all the examples of violence against individuals mentioned in the article, make the extremely silly assumption that all attacks on Jewish people are based on religious prejudices. In addition, why does this religion keep statistics on assaults against its members in Australia which, as the authors claim, is 'generally, a peaceful, tolerant and just society,' and where 'anti-Semitism is not a major source of alarm.'?

How many anti-Buddhist 'incidents' did the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils record in 2006?

These authors only care about prejudice against their own mob and magnify it intensely to get maximum mileage.

The authors expect us to throw up our arms in horror because 'early in the 19th Century, a little Jewish boy was insulted and kicked in the streets of Hobart,' while at the same time, just a short distance away from Hobart, the convict settlement of Port Arthur was being established as a brutal torture-hole.

Thanks for the info, Danielle, as well as many thanks for your evenhanded point of view.

I am one who in his old age, gained Honours in the social sciences after studying Third World problems in Sri-Lanka. My degree was mostly based on the colonial Tea Economy and how the Sri-Lankan Buddhist and Janist Sri-Lankans revolted against the East India Company clearing the sacred timbered hillsides to grow tea for the colonialists.

The result was the British bringing Tamils over from colonial India to make way for a forced on economy, which unfortunately the Sri-Lankans still have to rely on.

Such studies have left me with a bitter taste concerning the neo-colonialism that is still going on in the Middle East today, with the mess in Iraq now forced to be fixed by a permanent US imperialist occupation, helped along by its Anglophile cohorts, Britain and Australia.

As also a successful historian having written a trilogy on Westralian history as part of my Post Grad, I have tried to base my reasoning on fair play, or a fair go, which unfortunately is lacking in the Middle East with the Arabs.

After all it is their territory, and it is why most historians have wished that the unfortunate wandering Jewish peoples, rather than arming them with nuclear weapons, would have been far better absorbed into an America, that is already made up with similar greatly talented wandering groups from other nations.

Such was certainly discussed in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, and the Middle East would have been a much more contented place today.

In addition to my previous post, I would like to direct readers to the following homepage of 'The Sydney Eruv':

http://www.sydneyeruv.org.au/index.htm

What's this all about? Well according to website:

"Sydney Eruv Incorporated is the organization responsible for the design, construction, operation, checking and maintenance of the Sydney Eruv. Planning commenced in April 1998 to establish an Eruv initially in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. The committee comprised Rabbinic and lay representatives of most of the synagogues in the Eastern Suburbs."

Design, construction, operation, checking and maintenance of what?:

"The Sydney Eruv is created from a combination of natural walls (the South Head Peninsula cliff faces), existing telegraph poles and cables, golf course and park perimeter fencing, and fencing around Bondi and Tamarama Beaches."

The website then shows a map outlining the boundaries of the Eruv - including Bondi Beach, Vaucluse, and Tamarama:

http://www.sydneyeruv.org.au/boundary.htm

"An Eruv is simply a practical method of denoting the area within which carrying objects and pushing strollers & wheelchairs is permitted on Shabbat.

One of the main qualifications for an Eruv to be effective is its physical boundaries. Ideally they should be walls, but when one is unavailable it is permissable to rely on a 'legal' device recommended by the Rabbis of King Solomon's court known as "Tzurat Hapesach", a community surrounded by door images - 2 sideposts and a lintel above. These can be represented by existing telegraph poles & cables which are attached to them. Assembling such strutures gives the community the status of one big house, inside which one may carry."

So what this is saying is - the physical boundaries around these suburbs defines what they consider to be 'one big house'.

After 4 years these boundaries were completed.

And this mob has the sheer audacity to try to lecture Australians about 'religious bigotry'.

Bernie Masters

You asked why the Jews have been so badly treated over the centuries. As you know, Christian millenarian belief, expressed in New Testament Revelations, prophesied an ultimate struggle between good and evil, with the former triumphant. Not only would God save all good Christians, but also would establish a new Jerusalem. However, Christianity also inherited the Old Testament’s idea of the Jews as the Chosen, which the Christian Messiah had not denied.

The resolution of the Jewish issue became a high priority for the early church fathers. St Paul rejected the idea of Jewish Chosenness and stated that Christ, as God’s son, made a new covenant with his people - thus Christians were the Chosen people - the Jews, by not following Christ, were apostate. In Paul’s letter to the Romans 11:12, he asserted that the Savior’s Second Coming depended upon the conversion of the Jews to Christianity. Not only did Paul deny the Chosenness of the Jews, but also went on to claim that the existense of Judaism would obstruct the attainment of the Christian paradise, implying that as long as there were Jews, there could never be redemption for mankind. The claim that conversion of the Jews would bring with it redemption of Christians profoundly infludenced Christian-Jewish relations for over 1,500 years, with grave repercussions for European Jewry. Christian desire for the end of Judaism, was widespread during the middle ages.

As late as the 18th century, missionaries in America repeated these beliefs in guides for converting Jews in preparation of the Last Days; Gernan Pietist scholars established an institute to promote the conversion of Jews believing that the end of Judaism would coincide with the arrival of paradise.

cont ...

"It is imperative that Jews have a homeland where they are welcome and have a place on the world stage of politics."
Why?
Perhaps it is because of the outrages claims made by them to be "special". Like all religious belief its in one being special, most frequently at the expense of others.
Israel was created at the expense of the Arab who was not then a nationalistic philosophy, my uncle who served in Palestine found the Arab to be amiable and child like.
I'm not anti jewish "some of my best etc etc" I am fiercely against Israel and their separatist philosophies. Why based on religion did they need a separate state, so making an enemy of all Arabs, and people like me. They killed "Brit's" who were there only to see a UN sanctioned takeover. It is a separatist military state that deserves our condemnation if only for the expulsion of the Arabs.
The nations of the world gave them a "state". Born in bigotry and aggression the people who occupied Arab lands were supported by jews around the world, particularly powerful American jews who never have lived there. Zionism is a false prophet and will be their undoing.

I have hosted three Israeli's, one recently discharged from national service a woman and the ugly face of zionism. Another a secret service agent based in Rome, the third a brother and deserter from the obligation to serve in the military. They were brothers and sister.
The deserter was an amiable fellow and is now I believe an Aussie citizen, a dissenter of Israel's policy of Arab exclusion.
fluff

A large proportion of arab moslems are also Semites. Who knew.

Given the rampant anti-moslem sentiment about then clearly anti-semitism is rampant.

It seems that moslems who vilify jews and jews who vilify moslems are likely to be self-hating Semites.

Will the newspeaking wounders never cease.

cont ...

St John, Revelations 2:9 cast the Jews in a more sinsiter role. He believed that Jews had not only rejected Christ, but also were agents of Satan - a powerful idea in Revelation 8:144. St John portrayed them elsewhere in the NT as being children not of Abraham, but of Satan himself. Christian scholars incorporated other biblical prophecies with those of Paul and John, asserting not only would Jews worship the Antichrist, but also the Antichrist would be born of a Jew.

Anti-Judaic sentiment was also attached to certain prophecies predating Christianity, particularly the Tiburtine Sibylle, originating in Greece. These prophecies introduced the idea of the Blood-Libel, that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Christ. This also led to the wide-spread belief that Jews killed and ate Christian children. Whilst this libel was rigorously denied by popes such as Innocent III (1198-1216), Innocent IV (1243-1254), Gregory X (1271-1276) and others, it became imbedded in social thinking leading to pogroms and murders of Jews. Jews were blamed for everthing - even the Black Death.

The book “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which is printed even today under similar titles, carries like horrors. The “Protocols”, originally a satire by Maurice Joly who condemned the political ambitions of Napoleon III, was devoid of any anti-semitism. However, his work was plagiarized, with added fabrications and forgeries, to “explain” Jewish ambitions for world domination. Widely published, it is considered the first of the conspiracy theory literature, and used by anti-semites. Hitler adopted this work to support his policies for National Socialism, and the extermination of Jews.

Unfortunately, we have inherited many of these prejudices, in differing forms, into the collective sub-conscious. Interestingly, where Jews have been permitted to take part in society as equals, they have contributed more in philanthropy, the arts and sciences, and intellectual debate,than any other group per capita of population.

Whilst “semite” refers to a language group shared by Arab and Jew, the word antisemitism relates to Jews only, and first appeared in the 19th century, used noteably by the German, Wilhelm Marr.

"After all it is their territory, and it is why most historians have wished that the unfortunate wandering Jewish peoples, rather than arming them with nuclear weapons, would have been far better absorbed into an America, that is already made up with similar greatly talented wandering groups from other nations."

Bushy - brave, noble, erudite - thankyou!

- I should have added compassionate and wise.

My sympathies are with the Palestinians, based upon the relative quantum of suffering. But you already knew that.

Having said that, you made me think of the suffering of the Jewish people of Israel, who although gifted with political support, money and materiel (stuff, generally) - are lured into living someone else's dream. In a way, their chosen land has become their prison too.

If it were me, I wonder if I might wake up one morning and just feel like throwing the script in the bin. Tired of being an actor. Tired of being typecast.

- who wrote this crappy script anyway?

fluff4,

I knew senior British Colonial officers who had served in Palestine prior - during - and immediately after the war. They regarded those that served under them as the "dregs at the bottom of the barrel", this included Palestian police, whom everyone detested.

Amongst the miriad of faults listed were the servicemen's propensity to pilfer, and waste time waiting in long queues outside brothels for the services of young Arab women who were "amiable and childlike" - it could hardly have been satisfactory. This was confirmed by an Australian ex-serviceman who said: "it was like dipping a piece of string into a well".

I did not like these BCO's - they were duplicitous, albeit for 'king and country'. Whilst importing Arab labour from other parts of the Middle East (the question begs 'why?' when they had local labour), they prevented those arriving in ships - survivors of nazi death camps - from berthing by shooting across their bows; also holding those they permitted to berth, in camps surrounded by barbed wire. What were they expecting these poor unfortunates to do? One of these men admitted to looking the other way when a group of Arabs tore a Jewish youth to pieces.

Yet the British used the Jewish Hagganah to protect their interests against the Arab revolt of 1936-39; when faced with invasion by Rommel's forces, the Brits desparately sought assistance from the Palmach, without whom they would have been defeated. In 1943, the Brits created the Jewish Brigade deploying them in Italy.

I suppose you refer to the the bomb attack by the Irgun on King David Hotel's south wing (British HQ) when mentioning Jews killing Brits. The British HQ received two phone warnings beforehand, but ignored them as “preposterous” - (after all, who would dare attack the might of the British Empire) - and did not evacuate the hotel. The result, ninety one people killed. The arrogance of the Brits themselves was responsible for both the lead-up to and actual attack with resulting deaths

Regarding Arab Palestinians, in May 1947 the representative of the Arab Higher Committee of the UN, in a statement to the General Assembly, reported: "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria ... politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity".

Some years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, who became chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria".

Palestinian Arab nationalism, a post-World War I phenomenon, did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War.

When Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, they introduced immediate improvements in living conditions that Palestinians had endured under Jordan’s 19 year occupation of the West Bank, and Egypt’s occupation of Gaza. Universities were opened, Israel’s agricultural innovations were shared, modern conveniences and modern health care introduced; those working in Israel received exactly the same wages as Israelis in identical jobs. No distinction is made.

Haven't the writers here noticed that there are no Israelis in the Gaza Strip. Israel not only dismantled all its settlements and military and removed them in 2005, but also left industrial complexes for Palestinians to use. Gaza is free of Israeli occupation.

Palestinian camps exist in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria - only in Jordan do these Palestinians enjoy citizenship and health benefits.

'The arrogance of the Brits themselves was responsible for both the lead-up to and actual attack with resulting deaths '

Danielle, are you seriously asking adults to accept that the actual bombers had no responsibility for the bombing?

Such irrational rationalisation also allows a modern day comparison. ie suicide bombers can also blame their victims. Do you accept that particular parallel? Of course you won't and that's reasonable. But don't try and whitewash the atrocities of only one side in the dispute. It only re-enforces readers views of your particular bias and undermines your credibility.

to FLUFF and DANIELLE...

a couple of points.

Danielle first.
Romans 11:11-12

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

(note, 'riches' in the spiritual sense, not economic)

Danielle..I don't see any 'conditional' aspect to this. Its more a statement the God in His sovereignty will include the faithful Jews. But his coming/return is not conditional upon anything 'they' do.

Paul is underlining the fact that the Jews rejection of the Messiah, has in fact brought salvation to the world. but that Salvation, is from God, by sovereign will, not 'because' of the Jewish rejection.

FLUFF. the Jews are only 'special' in terms of them being chosen by God as the vehicle through whom good news of Salvation and restoration of mans relationship with God came. Deuteronomy spefically states "It was NOT because of anything good in you that God chose you"... So, their specialness is based on God, not on them.

It's easy to see how this can be turned around, and twisted to mean 'They' are special in and of themselves because of their race or culture or whatever.. this was not the reason God used them.

I hope this point is taken in, because it is critically important.

Danielle...quoted:

I did not like these BCO's - they were duplicitous, albeit for 'king and country'. Whilst importing Arab labour from other parts of the Middle East (the question begs 'why?' when they had local labour), they prevented those arriving in ships - survivors of nazi death camps - from berthing by shooting across their bows; also holding those they permitted to berth, in camps surrounded by barbed wire. What were they expecting these poor unfortunates to do? One of these men admitted to looking the other way when a group of Arabs tore a Jewish youth_to_pieces.

COMMENT. "All have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God" and that includes the British.

The word 'why' in that part?.. the simple answer is.. that the British crown/government saw such action as ultimately in their financial and security interets, more...than an alternative course of action.

I'll say it again "All" have sinned.

The silly idea that sin is not equally distributed among mankind is simply denial of reality. (I'm not saying thats ur idea, but there are those who seem to have this view in the forum)

Sin is the problem.
Christ is the solution.

As Peter said to the Jews on the day of Pentecost.. not a hint of timidity.

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you;

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead.

Peter didn't mince words. Later he says about Christ "Whom YOU (the Jews) crucified".

Christ unites, and overcomes ethnicity, culture, and race. Humble acceptance of His Lordship over our lives, will transform our land.
But..He forces no one.

Another article that attempts to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I don't have anything against Jews per se, nor do I think their religion is any better or worse than others, but I reject any notion that Israel has any more 'right to exist' than any other nation-state, or that Jews are in any way 'special' or 'chosen by God'. Does that make me anti-Semitic?

Appealing to stories derived from books of myths - no matter how sacred or venerable they are to those who believe in them - in no way increases the 'right' of Israel to exist, nor makes Jews any more 'special' than anyone else. Except of course to Zionists and and their Christian supporters, and that in my opinion is the real source of conflict in Palestine.

Danielle points out the relatively newness of Palestinian nationalism. This may be true but in historical terms so is Zionism. Prior to the late 19th Century, when anti-semitism became resurgent in France, Russia and elsewhere, Zionism was not on the political radar. Indeed, many Jewish people preferred to emigrate to the US and Britain from Eastern Europe rather than form a separate entity in the Middle-East (although some of their co-religionists did live there with Muslim Arabs and a few Christians).

Today we see new states in Europe such as Slovakia, Belarus and Moldova. Is Slovakian nationalism illegitimate simply because it is such a recent phenomenon?

The fundamental problem comes back to the idea of a Jewish state. The outcomes are obvious: non-Jews will never be fully accepted and never allowed a right of return the way Jews are. Imagine if Australia capped the number of Jews coming in because it would "threaten the Australian nature of our country"? You get the idea.

Btw I am also opposed to Islamic states for similar reasons.

Danielle,

I follow your comments with interest sounds you have a good grip and passion for your country. Before I ask my question, my contextual contextual understanding of your country is this:

- The Jewish population in Palestine combined with influx of European jews and escaping persecution wanted to have a independent land where they can feel safe and secure with their own kind. So till now its sounds like a separatist movement given the threats and moods of the time (more or less like srilanka and paksitan to India).
- The original vision (Theodore hertzel) was a secular national jewish home. Not religious (the original plans had other land alternatives to Palestine).

Please feel free to correct any of the above.
As an outsider following the headlines, sometimes it looks like a secular state, Jews only or mainly state, right wing and “God’s plan” (like Boazy wants all Jews there to speed up Armageddon, jews blood, second coming, etc..)

I am assuming you are an average rational Israeli and/ or Jewish person. In your view, what is the purpose, vision and identity of Israel today and who is steering? It seems sometimes your own borders are driven by day to day necessity rather to an agreed vision.

Keith,

The British Colonial Officers had saying: “all wogs east of Callais” ...

Unlike suicide bombers, the British HQ had two warnings beforehand. The arrogance of the Brits lay in their belief that no-one would dare attack them, thus took no evasive action. With all their gingoism, their rank demanded that they had obligations and responsibility to others; they did not fulfill this. The surviving Brits responsible should have been hung out to dry, and many other Brits of high rank expressed this same opinion. Incidentally one known officer excused himself from HQ at the specified time..

As for the bombing itself, the Jewish National Council denounced it.

Unlike this bombing, suicide bombers neither warn nor discriminate.

Like Israel has been forced to do, Saudi Arabia is building a 900 km, high-tech fence along its border with Iraq to improve its security against terrorism and weapons-dealers; also drug-dealers and illegal immigrants. This fence is indeed very high-tech - equipped with command posts, some 15-20 ft high double fences 100 yards apart, ultraviolet night-vision cameras, buried sensor cables and thousands of miles of barbed wire. Certain aspects are top secret with speculation that an automated weapons systems attached to the fence could fire on suspected intruders.

Keith,

I am ignoring your abuse and catcalls from the sidelines, and will not respond. You do not supply specifics, nor are even competently informed about the Palestinians and their situation. You have nothing with which to debate - you are all bluster and prejudice. I am familiar with your writings on the subject; have stated my views of you, which are concretely confirmed. Your issue is more about “Keith and his opinions” than actual concern for Palestinians.

CJ Morgan,

BOAZ_David, has answered your question about Jews being considered anyway “special” or “chosen by God”; and he has referred to Deuteronomy. I think that would satisfy any Christian, Moslem or Jew on this thread.

Danielle

It is really interesting that you see criticism of your views as criticism of yourself.

Really quite telling. You need to get rid of your 'chip' . Now that's abuse.

And just to reveal the bias in your views ... again ... sigh.

Saudi's 'fence' is built on Saudi land, doesn't annex occupied territory or is intended to isolate themselves. But hey little facts like that don't matter do they?

I unlike yourself am truely liberal and democratic in my attitudes and my care for oppressed peoples anywhere is genuine. How can you call that into doubt? Do you have another agenda? Do you think Palestinians neither occupied nor oppressed or do they deserve their occupation and oppression? Do they bring it on themselves?

Tell me does giving warnings justify terrorist acts? Now that would be an nteresting piece of logic Dannielle...don't you think?

The Jewish National Council denounced the bombing. Does that excuse the terrorism? So what? The Palestinian Government denounced Suicide Bombing. Is that a parallel you have overlooked...again...sigh?

Israel has been called many things such as a "terrorist state" (fair enough), a "fascist state" (no, but maybe in the future), an apartheid state (given its history that claim has merits) or the "bludger state". Haven't heard that one? Check this out:

http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

In Israel we have a country that receives enormous amounts of funding, most of it courtesy of the US taxpayer, much of it which doesn't need to be accounted for. Trying doing that in Australia or elsewhere if you're unemployed. Your payments wouldn't last too long.

It's an Australian tradition to bag out bludgers. So Danielle and other Zionists shouldn't think Israel is being singled out. There are plenty of other parasites in my crosshairs.

Part 1
The Bible was put together over centuries where some script were included and then deleted and other never made it as to reflect the views of those who put the bible together. Combined with that those who wrote articles had their own bias views and translation also had an influence in it they question then may be asked what are the true parts of the Bible?

The basic underlying message are, such as “Thou-shall-not-kill”, etc.

Well, Israelis are sending out gun-ships to kill Palestinians regardless if innocent bystanders are being killed. Palestinenians are likewise killing regardless innocent bystanders are being killed. The USA execute in many States prisoners and so there too we cannot find the religious message.
OK they invaded Iraq, bombed innocent children and others of this earth and Iraq back into stone age all seemingly justifiable because they argued the late President Saddam Hussein was a tyrant because torture was under his leadership and so he should be held personally accountable, yet now we discover that people are still tortured to death in their hundreds many times over, but no late president Saddam Hussein in power as to blame and no one is blaming the current Iraqi Government for this mass murder either! And, we find disabled children basically left to rot away on concrete floors and again the Government is not held accountable. Why is it that with the late President Saddam Hussein he was even held accountable for the WMD’s (oops they never existed) but OK he was supporting Bin laden and his bunch of terrorist (oops he didn’t that either) but all we seem to be able to do is to argue about religious protocol rather then to concentrate that fellow human beings are slaughtered ongoing and invading Iraq made out world less safer!

Why-should-God-be-willing-to-forgive-the-sins-of-humans if they themselves refuse to do so? When one of my (maternal) forefathers, Joseph the Lapenda Melhado ventured out into the world he created his own shipping empire by working for it, he did not go and rob others of their land.

Part 2

As a child my parents and grand parents and indeed other family members followed the doctrine that you must appreciate others their rights if you expect them to observe your rights. Their doctrine was also that all humans are equal, regardless of religion, race, colour. The same I have shown to my children and grandchildren. My paternal heritage has the family crest of St Michaels, the dragon slayer, and they too pursued that all people are equal.

Those who argue about certain statements of the Bible just may fail to understand the principle message, even so much argued that to forgive and to be tolerant is what it is really about.
Most religions will have something rotten in it, but just ignore that and go by the good parts!
The argument that Israelis provided certain conditions for Palestinians hardly can be an acceptable deed if they did so having first robbed them of their lands.
Your neighbour might be a better person to look after your animal (assuming you have a pet) but that does not mean the neighbour can simply rob you of your pet on that basis.
The British wrecked it all since the early 1900’s and still have not learned that it is beyond their ability to dictate their kind of JUSTICE and DEMOCRACY.
Indeed, the way Iraq might be ending it may be a lot worse then what was during the reign of the late President Saddam Hussein.
Already women are allowed to be stoned to death, hangings are permitted, and hardly this can reflect “Australian values” politicians so much argue about.
Religious zealots, of any religion, always will find ways to excuse their murderous conduct, and hence we are better to have religion for those who desire to practice but do not bother others about it.
Anyone who somehow seek to justify the robbing of rights and freedoms of others in my view fail to understand the real teaching of the Bible!

Do not onto others you do not desire others to do onto you!

Fellow_Human,

You are correct:

Theodore Hertzel’s vision was of a secular, national Jewish homeland, the final straw being the Dreyfus Affair. Palestine was certainly not the first choice. The British agreed in principle to a Jewish settlement in East Africa.

Late 19th century witnessed the rise of religious and racist anti-semitism and attendent pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, Jews immigrated to Palestine.

Simultaneously, a wave of Jews, unaware of Hertzel’s political Zionism, immigrated to Palestine from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey. Jews always had a noteable presence in the Middle East. They were motivated by the proufoundly, religious, centuries-old dream of “Return to Zion”.

The Seventh Zionist Congress,1905, rejected Hertzel’s program.

Yet, Emir Faisal, leader of the Arab nationalist movement signed the Weizmann-Faisal Agreement with Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, acknowledging: “racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and Jewish people “ ... concluding ... “the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab States and Palestine”. He called for rapid and large scale Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine. This Agreement was congruent on the fulfillment of British wartime promises of independence to the Arabs ... which were not kept. An absolute, terrible tragedy.

Faisal saw the Zionist movement a companion to the Arab nationalist movement in fighting imperialism. In a letter to Harvard law professor, later Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, on March 3, 1919, Faisal wrote “... there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other.”

Colonial powers have no interest in subject countries, other than to self-serving imperialism. Correspondence between Lawrence and Whitehall, regarding the Hashomite family demonstrates clearly “treaties and promises are made to be broken”.

If in 1948, Arab States and Britain had accepted the two-state solution, Palestine would be enjoying its coming 60th anniversary.

Now the Arab League calls on both Hamas and Hezbollah to recognise Israel’s right to exist..

Yasser Arafat, a charamatic leader, betrayed the Palestinians.

cont ...

He was brilliant military and political strategist, yet kept his people in a parlous condition - useful for attracting massive aid and maintaining rage against Israel.

Arafat used this aid for arms, patronage and for lining his pockets . Investigation of Arafat’s finances revealed a secret investment folio valued $US 1 billion, an estimated further $US 0.8 billion in Swiss bank accounts. Sura, Arafat’s widow receives $US 100,000 per month from the PA. Tracfin found further untaxed transfers of $US 1.27 million each regularly going to her Paris accounts.

Anger and disallusionment followed revelation of Arafat’s embezzlement. A Palestinian in Gaza made the ironic, but accurate, comment that if it hadn’t been for Israel and the West’s insistance on democratic elections, Hamas wouldn’t have been elected.

With both leaders in accord, the Riymah summitt created expectations of peace and a Palestinian state. However, unlike secular Fatah, radical, extremist Hamas, swearing Sharia law to every household, refuses Israel’s right to exist. Peace is imperative...

Palestinians have it tough; they must have an independent homeland. The distance between Gaza and the West Bank seems a geo-political nightmare. Egypt could resume control, and in good will, Jordon provide compensatory land to the West Bank. Israel is minuscule compared to its neighbours.

Palestinians should draw up an infrastructure, a blueprint for their coming statehood, with Israeli expertise contributing. Health, education, cultural identity, technology and business investment being priorities.

Regarding Israel’s Law of Return, it grants citizenship to Jews, whatever race or nationality, including dark-skinned Ethiopians, Yeminis, and Indians; and whether secular, atheists, or religious;

Non-Jews are eligible as naturalised citizens, just as migrants are in Australia.

Israel’s population: 7 million

76% Jews;
20% Arab;
4% Druze, Baha’is, Circassians, and other ethnic groups.

Israel, a secular country, celebrates Jewish festivals; we celebrate Christian ...

Zionism is democratic, non-discriminatory, ensuring religious protection and political rights of non-Jews alike. Israel was the first country to offer Bosnian Muslims citizenship.

History has repeatedly demonstrated the Jews need security - a Jewish homeland.

In 1968, Martin Luther observed:

“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism."

Peace

Danielle

Just a couple of points.

You rightly claim 'Israel grants citizenship to Jews, whatever race or nationality, including dark-skinned Ethiopians, Yeminis, and Indians; and whether secular, atheists, or religious;'

But what you overlook is it won't grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees who want to return to their former homes. Of course it's done for security reasons but that doesn't change the fact it is a discriminatory practice. That undermines any claim Israel is non-discrininatory.

And just three small questions.
Does Israel allow immigration of Muslim Arabs from Yemman, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq.
Does it grant them citizenship?
Does it use the same methodology to assess and grant them citizenship as they would Jews from those states?

In one way you quite rightly point out 'History has repeatedly demonstrated the Jews need security ...'
but what you miss is that the militarist, isolationist, occupationist and oppressive solutions offered in the past simply haven't worked and in fact now work to Israels detriment.

Doesn't logic dictate it is time to reassess whether Israel really is benefitting from occupying and creating illegal settlements on Palestinian land? Don't you think if Israel really wants security and peace it is best to accommodate the aspirations of it's neighbouring people. Isn't it time to forget the rantings of the radicals and address in a forthright manner the actual desires of the Palestinians and Israel's other neighbours...as was successfully done with both Jordan and Egypt?

Howeverou your claim 'History has repeatedly demonstrated the Jews need security - a Jewish homeland.' is baseless.

History actually shows Jewish people have greater security in the worlds great Liberal Democracies. You know countries like the US Great Britian, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I'd feel slighted if you'd in anyway suggest Australia doesn't provide security or a fair go for Jewish people living here. Sure there are anti-semities among us but our laws and our decency won't ever allow such ugliness to become the vogue and any discrimination or violence is dealt with in our courts. And no-one here fears suicide bombers or occupations.

By the way... as much as you like to believe the opposite, I'm not anti-semitic. I believe Israel is entitled to security. I simply believe Israel is blindly applying yesterdays solutions to todays problems. As evidence you only have to look at the Israelis recent attack on Lebanon. The Israeli military applied it's traditional methods of attack, occupy and oppress. The Israeli military failed to any attain any of its goals and world opinion not only turned against Israeli aggression for the first time I can ever recall but it also forced a grudging withdrawal.

Haven't you noticed how the world has changed in the last 60 years?

Peace? Yeah sure but a just peace and that wion't occur while the West Bank is occupied and illegal settlements remain.

Oh and Arafat was always a gangster first and second and third ... but he did have the decency to reject that unreasonable Barak proposal that would have ensured the fragmentation of Palestine.

Israel does permit citizenship of Muslims from elswehere -Arab and Iranian Druze have their HQ in Israel; making a large part on the border police.

After the establishment of Israel, a number of Arab States not only expelled 800,000 Jews - but also appropriated their businesses, schools, synagogues and hospitals.

After the 1948 war, Egypt controlled the Gaza strip with its 200,000 inhabitants, but refused them entry into Egypt or let them move elsewhere. Saudi Arabian radio compared Nasser’s regime in Gaza to Hitler’s rule in occupied Europe.

Currently it is virtually impossible to become a naturalised citizen in most Arab states - especially in Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Many Arab states, define citizenship by native parentage;

A number of Arab nations have laws which facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs - with the specific exception of Palestinians. Syria, Iraq and Libya refused to admit Palestinians even when offered international funds to do so.

Arab countries offerring jobs, housing, land and benefits to Arabs and non-Arabs, -excludePalestinians. In 1970’s and 1980’s, Saudi Arabia refused unemployed to Palestinian refugees to alleviate labour shortage - instead recruited thousands of South Koreans and other Asians for these jobs.

In Syria and Lebanon, Palestinian refugees have no social or civil rights, and limited access to public health and education. They are prohibited by law from working in many trades or professions. The UNRWA provide for their social needs.

To this day, Jordan has been the only Arab country willing to grant Palestinians citizenship and health care.

After the Gulf War in 1991, Kuwait who employed large numbers of Palestinians - albeit denied citizenship, then expelled more than 300,000 being possibe “security risks”.

The Palestinian nationalist leader Musa Alami stated: “It is shameful that the Arab governments should prevent the Arab refugees from working in their countries and shut the door in their faces and imprison them in camps.” (Musa Alami, “The Lesson of Palestine,” Middle East Journal (October 1949), p.386.)

In Arab countries, Jews are refused citizenship, this includes Jordan with whom they have a peace treaty. This is Jordan’s perogative.

As for world opinion ...!!

Lebanese journalist Joseph Farah wrote on August 1, 2006.

“You know , it’s funny. For years I’ve been trying to get people to pay attention to the deaths and destruction and injustices being perpetuated on my beloved Lebanon.
And nobody cared.

When Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization tried to take over the country and make it his terrorist playground, nobody cared.

When people were dying in the thousands in the civil war, nobody cared.

When Syria had its boot on the neck of its tiny neighbour for 25 years, nobody cared.

When Iran dispatched Hezbollah terrorists into the country to undermine home rule by the Lebanese, nobody cared.

When Muslims chased millions of Christians from the country, tipping the balance of power, nobody cared.

But now, all eyes are on Lebanon,
Do you know why?

Because Israel has tried to clean up the hornets nest. Yet , all we hear about is how many Lebanese are dying.

Guess what the total death toll is among Lebanese... including Hezbollah terrorists, many ... not Lebanese? ...

... just over 500.

... Even one innocent death is a tragedy. But this is the total - all terrorists, civilians, Lebanese army, everthing ...

.... 1,700 Afghanis have been killed since the start of the year ...

Instead everyone is going ape over Lebanon ...

Do you think those screaming about the bloodshed in Lebanon really give a hoot about Lebanon? If so, where have they been for the last 30 years? ...

... the only difference is who’s doing the butt kicking in Lebanon.

As for me ... I don’t want to see a “cease-fire.” I want to see Lebanon freed of the terrorist blight ... freed from domination by Iran and Syria. I want to see Lebanon be Lebanon ... (not) ... suffer for another 30 years. It’s time to clean up the mess ...

And that means getting rid of the disease of Hezbollah - now.”

Danielle

You originally put forward the idea that Israel in some way doesn't discriminate against people in it's immigration policies.

That's my honest assessment and trust a correct assessment of your position. I don't think I've misrepresented that?

If that's true then I fail to see the relevance of the policies of Israels neighbour in defending your proposition.
I commented and remarked only on actions of the Israeli government that undermined your position. While I abhor the actions nobody claims the Arab states attempt to be similar to Liberal Democracies or claim to have similar immigration policies nor do they deny or hide their discriminatory and unjust actions.

As for Lebanon. I agree we've ignored the plight of the Lebanese for years, just as we have ignored the plight of the occupied Palestinian my point was the world has changed.
I don't know why, but now the world just seems to be more aware and aborrent of violence than previously. To me it seems the Israelis because they applied their tried and proven methods of attack, occupy and suppress, simply haven't recognised the shift in world opinion.

All the conditions that applied in Lebanon before the invasion still exist today. As you point out so graphically Hezbollah is still a threat to Israel and in all likelihood is still supported and re-supplied by Syria and Iran. Political instability is still the case Peacekeepers still patrol the border, the Shaba Farms still cause friction, and that Israeli solder is still a prisoner of war.

Israel did manage to destroy much of Lebanon's infrustructure.

World opinion thought that wanton and pointless. Israel because it thinks those results is ' kicking butt' shows is still out of step with the world view.

Just to correct a little historical oversight the US once became involved in Lebanon and Israel once before occupied part of Lebanon and both left. Both added to the mess.

Israel learned nothing.

regards

ps Israel has made one very significant change. It is negotiating to secure that soldier's release...something the world thought it should have done in the first place.

A Lebanese, not Israeli, journalist wrote the article above.

You seem somewhat confused ...

The AIDRG record that 105,000 Muslim Arabs have migrated into Israel; an Israeli policy to re-unite families. Incidentally, apart from the Bosnian Muslims, Israel also took in Vietnamese boat-people when every other country refused them.

Do you not wish to see Palestinians with a modern, secular democratic state of their own rather than packed into Israel - a minute country?

Re: the Saudi-Arabian fence. It has enraged Yemenis as it includes a 20 km-wide neutral strip of grazing land; and apparently more ...

"A prominent sheik of the Wayilah tribe … told Yemen Times that up to 3,000 tribesmen are preparing to fight Saudi forces unless Saudi Arabia pulls out of Yemen. The sheik claims that Saudi Arabia has already built a security fence 4 to 7 km beyond the neutral zone inside Yemen, stretching from Jabal Hobash to Jabal Al Fara.”

Israel’s security fence goes along the Green Line - the 1949 armistice line. Both Arab and Jew welcome this prevention against suicide bombers and terrorists. A similar fence separates Gaza from Israel. Neither are impregnable. In a 34 month period, 73 attacks killed 293 Israelis (including Arabs and other groups) with 1,950 wounded. Since the fence, terrorist attacks have declined 90%. The fence has improved the life of many Israeli Arab towns, with a significant upsurge in economy.

What specific infrastructures in Lebanon do you refer? Are you referring to Hezbollah actions in using citizens and their residences as shields (a war crime), and UN observer posts; also moving weapons around disguised as red cross vehicles ... all well documented. Or are you referring to the plethora of photographs which when published, Reuters went into spasms either recalling, or retracting them as having been doctored.

The UN confirmed that Israel had completed withdrawl for southern Lebanon (Security Council endorces Secretary General’s conclusion on Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as of the 16th June) (UN Press Release, June 18, 2000)

Shebaa Farms is a 100-square mile, largely uninhabited patch in eastern Mount Dov.

cont...

It has no connection to “farming”. Currently a number of Israeli observation posts sit on strategic hill tops in the area.

Hezbollah stated: “If they (Israelis) go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them.”

January 2005, the UN Security Council reasserted that the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa Farms area is “not compatible with Security Council resolutions” affirming that Israel completely WITHDREW from Lebanon.

The kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers was the catalyst - anti-Israeli activities occurred prior.

“Liberal Democracies ... the US Great Britian, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.”

Have you any idea how hard it is to get residency, let alone citizenship in these countries? Read the various immigration policies ... and conditions ... and quotas ...

Other countries are in line with those of the Middle East.

Germany brought Turks into their country as cheap labour to build post-war Germany. Third generation (German born) Turks have no citizenship, but remain classified as “guest workers”.

“I'd feel slighted if you'd in anyway suggest Australia doesn't provide security or a fair go for Jewish people living here”

We certainly don’t for illegal refugees - an oxymoron don’t you think?
We treat them appallingly. Mental cruelty (an unknown future) and physical cruelty is against all human rights. Let’s not forget the nine Afghanis returned home - executed on arrival.

How many others ...?

Gabriella Blum and Martha Minow, fierce civil libertarians, also Harvard law professors state that Israel (exposed daily to terrorist operations) operate with greater deference to human rights and standards than the USA or elsewhere. These laws apply to combatants such as Hezbolah, non-Palestinians and Gaza-Palestinians detained for terrorist activities.
(Unlawful Combatants Law passed by the Knesset , 2002).

Compare it with our illegal refugee policies.

Let’s not mention aborigines ... !

The world changing ...?

Germany was considered the most civilized country in the world - and look what it threw up ...

Then ... Pol Pot ... the Balkans ... Lebanon still .. Dafur, Iraq.

Iranians detest Hezbollah - a product of their regime ... Iranians warn of the resolute uncoiling of Iran with Russia.

Danielle

There is no such thing as an “illegal refugee”
QUOTE
We certainly don’t for illegal refugees - an oxymoron don’t you think?
END QUOTE

A PERSON IS A REFUGEE (IF THIS STATUS IS CLAIMED) UNLESS HELD NOT TO BE SO.

The appropriate way to establish a person to have entered illegally the Commonwealth of Australia, at least constitutionally, is to have the person formally charged with the relevant offence and then presented before a State court and be given a “judicial determination” to the status of the person to be a “refugee” or being a “person who unlawfully entered the Commonwealth of Australia and/or overstayed his visa permission”
Sure, this due process of law is being ignored, but for the records this is the only legal way to conduct matters.

As for the term “citizenship” it has a different meaning in the Commonwealth of Australia then for example in the USA. While the Commonwealth of Australia now purport to grand “citizenship” it is a political status nothing to do with “nationality”. Constitutionally only a State can grand a person “citizenship” (including franchise”) while the Commonwealth of Australia can only grand “naturalisation for and on behalf of the British Crown.

In The Netherlands for example, at least when I lived there, we didn’t talk about “citizenship” as such but simply as to “nationalitie (nationality) that if you were nationalised then you gained all political rights also.

In the Commonwealth of Australia, its racist Constitution by way of Subsection 51(xxvi) any person of a “coloured race” against which a special race legislation is enacted automatically looses “citizenship” (including franchise) this as to prevent such an “inferior race” as the Framers of the Constitution made known, to overturn a legislation against them. As such they loose “citizenship” but retain their naturalisation. And, constitutionally at least, Australians are “Subjects of the British Crown”, and the Constitution does not permit otherwise. Then again, the Federal Government (whatever political party is in power) could not care less.

You could always check out what I have published on my Yahoo blog;
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and/or my website http://WWW.SCHOREL-HLAVKA.CO

Danielle,

Let me point out your contradictions and errors.

While Israel has allowed the migration of Arab Muslims you mentioned a number but not a time period. You neither mentioned citizenship issues nor the 'Right of Return' of refugees.

Australia was among the first countries to allow the settlement of Vietnamese 'boat people'. Your denigrate Australia and it's immigration policy. Illegal refugees isn't an oxy-moron. International Law and the UN clearly hold a refugee must apply for refugee status in the first counrty they reach that provides safe haven. For all boat people refugees, Australia was a destination arrived at after transiting other countries...all had policies quite different from their departure points and allowed safe haven. It's Australia's policy to accept applications for refugee status from refugees in those states. To stop the flow of illegal immigrants assisted by the people smugglers we implemented the 'Pacific Solution'. We've worked closely with Indonesian to stop that flow. Both actions work. Australia still takes both per head of population more refugees that any other country.

But yet again you deflected my question. It was about Jewish people in Australia and you went off on an irrelevant tangent.

And what was your reference to Australia's Indigenous people all about? I 'd love to see your slant on that issue. Perhaps we'd exchange comparisons.

Only Israel who prevents the establishment of a secure and just Palestinian state. Eplain why Israel doesn't want Palestinian Muslims in Israel? Why does Palestine have to become a secular democratic state? That's for the Palestinians to decide not you Israeli's? You demanding of them what you want isn't what self-determination is about. We in the Liberal Democracies understand that.

A border dispute between Yemen and Saudi Arabia? Is it the result of a war, occupation and illegal settlement, like in Palestine? Why do you try to justify Israel's illegalities by pointing out the wrongs of others?

The security fence doesn't follow the Green line.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

'In February 2005, the route was again modified to take into account the decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to take greater account of the impact of the fence on the Palestinians. The proposed route runs closer to the Green Line than the original plan approved in October 2003 ... This new route will include 7 percent of the West Bank on its “Israeli” side — as opposed to 16 percent in the original plan — and approximately 10,000 Palestinian residents.
One of the most controversial questions has been whether to build the fence around Ariel, a town of approximately 20,000 people, the second largest Jewish settlement in the territories. To incorporate Ariel, the fence would have to extend approximately 12 miles into the West Bank.'

Israel is stealling a further 7% of Palestine.
Why does Israel feel the need to discuss the necessity of surrounding an illegal settlement.

The infrustructure in Lebanon?: Bridges, Power Stations, Communications, TV stations, roads and most of South Beruit. Didn't you see the pictures on TV? They were what disgusted the rest of the world. And of course no mention of the cluster bombs deposited after the ceasefire and during that UN protected Israel flight.

Shabba Farms is uninhabited and has nothing to do with farming but unfortunately it belongs to Lebanon and one does ask why you are defending Israeli occuptation of that area?

Hezbollah is still a threat to Israel, an undefeated threat.

Most of us see that taking prisoners of soldiers isn't kidnapping. It's a prisoner of war thing.

'Germany was considered the most civilized country in the world - and look what it threw up ...'

We went to war to rid the world of the occupation and suppression the Nazis imposed on conquered people. Do you want us to do the same with any people who think they have a right to occupy and suppress by military means?

'Then ... Pol Pot ... the Balkans ... Lebanon still .. Dafur, Iraq.'

You left out a few including Israel and Palestine.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

Thank you, I will read your sites with great interest.

The Netherlands have proven themselves over and over again an extremely humane country.

Keith

The history of Australia and Jews (see my post of 18 June 2007); many were fighting with our allies at the time.

I make analogies with other countries so you can grasp certain concepts.

People who have a grandparent born in England or Ireland - but neither their parents, nor themselves, were born in either of these countries - have “Right of Return” to Britain or Ireland, if they can provide documentary proof of their grandparent’s birth. This gives them residency status - I doubt if it bestows citizenship/nationality.

In the case of Israel, Jews have “Right of Return”. I think that if they want to take up Israeli citizenship they have to apply.

In permitting Arab Muslims to return, they would have residency status unless they wished to take out citizenship - this would have been granted on the same conditions as other groups who wanted Israeli naturalization.

Naturalisation is a fraught issue in many countries. Some countries refuse to let you give up birth nationality to assume a new one. I imagine that most Arab states would not permit an Muslim Arab to adopt Israeli naturalisation.

My mother was Australian, I was born in France; she returned to Australia with me, a toddler. In my early teens I required a passport. The Australian government did not consider me Australian - thus refused a passport; I would have had no voting rights, or any benefits.

The French government refused my need to relinquish my French nationality - if I had been male and older, I would have been conscripted to serve in France’s national service. It was only after my stepfather, a high ranking British official, stepped in and trumpetted “jump”, the Australian government responding “how high” - that this issue was resolved. I received both my naturalisation papers and passport within two weeks.

I hate to think what refugees go through ...

Even today, people are stateless.

cont ...

“Israel is stealing a further 7% of Palestine”

Unless Israel annexes Palestine it does not own this area.

Re: extending fences ... read an analyse the context ...

The Hezbollah use human shields - illegal under international humanitarian law.
Hezbollah launched rockets from certain facilities, thus making them legitimate targets.

State which facilities ... don’t generalise.

Incidentally, IDF forewarned Lebanese areas and villages, such as Marwahin, to evacuate prior to threatened attack. One Lebanese, shown such a pamphlet by an Australian journalist, remarked that, being a non-combatant, it didn’t apply to him.

No country should employ cluster bombs, yet they are legal under international law. Most have them, including Australia. Only Belgium prohibits their use. After the Lebanese conflict, the IDF provided the UNIFIL and Lebanese government with detailed maps as to sites of these bombs so they could be removed.

Already stated: (translation) the UN and Security Council affirmed that whilst Israel had observation posts in Sabaa, it still conformed with the demands of Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon.

However much you dislike the idea, the UN mandated establishment of Israel gave this country the right to defend itself. If Palestine had been allowed statehood by Arab States, it too would be celebrating its coming 60th anniversary.

Palestinians want an independent homeland - their own identity They don’t want to be ruled by other Arab states, nor Israel. Read the report and findings of the Riyadah Summit (March 2007)

EVERY country has its own identity. We should recognise, enjoy, and respect these. All countries have histories, language, culture, and policies which inform their identity; Israel, Arab, European, Asian - even Australia

If Israel wanted to put a stop to all their problems once and for all, don’t you think they could. Being ethical, they don’t.

Israel has made mistakes, and Israeli’s themselves are their harshest critics.

Read Arab, Iranian, and Israeli newspapers, works by their intellectuals; access their TV programs. Analyse ... evaluate ...

(SIGH) ... this assumes, of course ....

You're anti-semitic ... have “issues” with our aborigines ... can’t see our treatment of illegal immigrants as inhumane ...

Keith,

The “Pacific Solution” was unconstitutional as any person accused or charged with offending Commonwealth law must be cared for by a State (Section 120 of the Constitution).
The Minister has no constitutional powers to declare any person to be illegal as that is a function for the Courts. Neither has the Minister any constitutional any constitutional powers to order the deportation of a person, as again that is we have a judiciary. Because people support this kind of unconstitutional conduct the Federal Government gets away with it. Then one day it will be the turn of those who supported unconstitutional conduct that they themselves will be on the receiving end of unconstitutional conduct and then others will likewise ignore it.

Why have a judiciary is some office worker, merely decides (in the name of the minister) to order the deportation of a person, such as the very ill Vivian Alvarez Solon? We have a judiciary who is to determine the innocence or guilt of a person, and we do not have a democracy if that is not provided for.

Dannielle

Of course your snide anti semitic slur is your only recourse.

It simply shows the inherent weakness of your positions and an inability on your part to change from your blinkered and pigheaded prejudices.

It is foolishness and I wont continue a discussion with a fool.

Danielle,

Two points I would like you to clarify:

“No country should employ cluster bombs, yet they are legal under international law”
“Unless Israel annexes Palestine it does not own this area”

Unless I misunderstood, your position seems to be ‘immoral or unhuman is OK as long as it is legal’. Have you actually seen the victims of cluster bombs specially young children? I would advise you to Google it. You can be an Israeli supporter all you want but you have to recognise when those who you cheer for cross the line of human decency.

As for the other comment: The Hezbollah use human shields.

Hezbollah is defined as a guerilla warriors with no regular army (like the IRA, Basque separatists, etc..)
To fight such a formation it requires to engage in ground combat.
Conscious of Israeli military casualty, the IDF took the easier option of aerial bombing. I didn’t not see the Spanish army bombing the houses of the Basque separatists or British army bombing south of Ireland.
It was an IDF ‘informed decision’ to avoid face to face combat and resorted to blanket punishment instead.

Correct me if I misunderstood your position.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

I do not approve of cluster bombs under ANY circumstances. I thought that I made this clear.

Unfortunately, they are legal under international law. Until these laws are changed, countries will use them.

I lived for 7 years in Malaysia during the communist emergency. Friends were killed in horrific circumstances. One friend, a doctor, head of a leprocy team, was ambushed, pumped with bullets and set afire. I have seen cars overturned and doused with petrol and set afire, their occupants still inside. I have witnessed buses packed with people, including children ambushed and machine-gunned.

I knew that we Europeans were the enemy. At the age of 14, I knew how to handle arms including handgrenades. I had to.

However, at the age of 15 I knelt amongst the dead and dying of a cinema packed with families - all locals - (no Europeans), into which terrorists had lobbed hand-grenades,
Many were in such agony they could not utter a sound; many sounds were not human. I held a toddler’s hand, her mother, I presume, was dead beside her. I doubt this toddler was aware I was there - she was silent, her face a mask in agony. The stench of the distinctive smell of blood and opened body cavities and fluids, vomit, detritus and nitrate was overpowering. The few medicos available imposed triage. This tiny tot was passed by - others also passed, were aware that their condition was hopeless and would die. One can’t begin to describe their expressions ...and I don’t even want to go there. The already dead were fortunate. The human body is so very vulnerable - it doesn’t take much to dismember, impale or “shred” it.

Later I stood under a shower fully dressed so that I could peel off my jeans and top, thickly stuck and dried to my body with blood and detritus. Blood and body fluids had seeped into my sandles. Everything was burnt.

cont ...

From that moment on I hated terrorists with a passion; not so much for what they do to their perceived enemy, but what they do to their own.

I really understood what terrorism meant. They were not freedom fighters. They use the carrot and the stick to instil fear and compliance into their own people, and found the stick much more effective.

In combatting terrorism, many villages and kampongs were surrounded by high razor wire. The Brits threw everything they had at the terrorists - including bombing of what they thought were terrorist strongholds.

Fellow_Human,

I truly know what terrorism is. The Hezbollah are terrorists.

The leader of Lebanon stated at the beginning of the Hezbollah/Israeli confict, that it would be suicide to try and disarm them.

The Hezbollah had no right in Lebanon; and they did use human shields, including UN posts.

Fellow_Human,

I agree with you that the IDF should have engaged in face to face combat - and many Israeli’s themselves would agree. There is no question that such combat would have been preferable to bombing them.

I wonder though, how many civilians the Hezbollah would have let survive under these conditions. I suspect that they would have still used them as shields, and indeed, taken as many civilians as they would have taken Israelis. If the Hezbollah
had thought they were losing, civilians would have been the first to be killed, even if only to use the corpses to hinder the oncoming Israelis.

Do you think that the Hezbollah would have granted as cease-fire in which civilians could leave the combat zone. I don’t.

Like all terrorists, the Hezbollah are opportunists and would use whatever means and whatever they had to hand.

I am not a strategist, but I know terrorists, and of what they are capable. The Hezbollah would be no different.

Incidentally, this is in no way a justification of using bombs, but an assessment, born of experience, of an alternate outcome.

Peace as always

Hi Danielle,

Thank you for clarifying your position.
It must have been awful to go through the personal experiences above.

Although I think you agreed with my comment re the IDF: The decision to avoid groud combat directly contributed to larger civilian casualties in Lebanon. Also, the IDF 'weapons of choice' was interesting. Heavy artillery (150mm) and air to surface missiles in largely populated areas is a recipe for disaster.
Its like dropping a car in a swimming pool and saying "it won't splash"

Peace as always..

Fellow_Human,

I don’t know the details of IDF weapons used other than what you have told me - I believe you. I don’t know what alternative weaponary the Israelis had.

Hezbollah deliberately placed their artillery among highly populated civilian areas fully aware of the casualities that would occur. Undoubtedly, many civilians were forced to remain at gun point. In addition, Hezbollah’s weaponary was so mobile that they very quickly would have been able to evacuate areas, leaving citizens to suffer the consequences. Lebanese reported that Hezbollah had arsenals under schools and hospitals.

The Hezbollah’s use of civilian shields, with subsquent deaths and casualties, was also used as a cynical anti-Israel PR exercise. As indeed were the photographs released, which amateur photographers identified as having been doctored with photo-shop. Reuters went into convulsions trying to kill, recall and retract these - yet many got out. It is undeniable that Hezbollah exploited journalists whom they allowed into “certain” areas.

Hezbollah used the Katyusha (122 mm) rocket, having a payload of 20 kg, and a range of 30 km. At full salvo it can deliver 40 rounds in 20 seconds; 10 launchers can deliver 400 rounds in one volley; the exit tubes can be spun, thus their accuracy is reasonably efficient. Importantly, the launcher is also extremely mobile, with an emplacement time of 3 min; a displacement time of 2 min, with a maximum road speed of 75 km an hour.

In 2006, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallay unveiled Khaibar-1 (333 mm) on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV station. A remarkable weapon.

Khaibar-1A, a further generational and greatly improved Katyusha, was also deployed in the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict. The Khaibar-1 (333 mm) had a 75-80 km range, a payload of 100 kg explosives. It pounded Alufa, Beit Shean 70 km south of Lebanon, Hadera, and Haifa (Israel’s third largest city).

I agree with you about ground combat between the Hezbollah and the Israelis. I have also stated what I believed the consequences would have been.

But, would have hand-to-hand combat been logistically possible?

cont...

Lebanon’s own leader thought it impossible to take on Hezbollah this way.

I further believe that the Hezbollah would have taken Lebanese hostages. For every Hezbollah killed, a significant number of Lebanese innocents would have been killed.

Hardly new; this strategy was used by the nazis - even in Denmark. A Danish woman told me what she saw from her apartment overlooking a square. Whenever some infringement against nazi “rule” was made, the nazis would round up citizens (from children to old men), crowd them into the square and shoot them. Even tearing down of a nazi poster could result in this.

We must never forget that nazis emerged from what was considered the most civilized country in Europe. The West has taught well the Middle East all our own sins.

No terrorist group is naive; they are highly sophisticated and unconscionable. Undoubtedly the Hezbollah had plans A, B, C ... if things didn’t go as they intended.

Fellow-Human

I agree with you. None of this excuses the death of one Lebanese civilian.

One’s heart goes out to the Lebanese. Joseph Farah (cited above) wrote so eloquently about his “beloved Lebanon” ... they suffer still ...

Many Arab intellectuals (also Iranian), support the ideas of Egyptian writer, Nonie Darwish, who stated on Al-Arabiya TV on March 23, last:

“We should begin to view the Palestinian Arab cause in a different manner. For 58 yeas we have been fighting Israel... Enough, we must resolve this problem, because it hinders the progess of the Arab peoples ... we must be just and grant them security. There are five million of them, and we are 1.2 [billion] Muslims. What are we afraid of - five million Jews? We must welcome them so they can live in our midst ... we must stop the terrorism in Israel, and we must not encourage Hamas to say it wants to annihilate Israel. Ahmadinejad is not even an Arab - what does he have to do with Israel? Is he acting this way in order to unify his people?”

Peace as always ...

The Arab nations have put forward a peace proposal. All it requires to guarantee Israel security and peace is for Isreal to grant the right of return for refugee Palestinians and for Israel to return to the pre '67 war borders. The greenline.

All the evidence shows Israel chokes the opportunity for it's own peace and security while it refuses to recognise the legitimate claims of the people it suppresses and who's land it steals and occupies.

Anything thing else is mere weasel words and lying propaganda.

Keith,

I am not an Israeli, nor have been there. I am interested in Middle Eastern politics for many reasons, not the least from what I learnt from British Colonial Officers and also about British policies

Happily, I thought you weren’t going to respond.

You’re abysmally ignorant about the Middle East. Your information comes from local TV and newspapers. Or, perhaps you belong to some unsavoury group who are both anti-semite and anti-black.

Some months ago ...

Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute stated:

“How many “peace activists” are responsible for the rise of this (Palestinian) incorrigibly violent culture? Not only are they unapologetic, but they are trying to expand on their achievement and give them a “state.” Factional fighting , political bickering and a failure to establish law and order have turned Gaza into a symbol of Palestinian shame and are pushing the Palestinian national movement toward collapse. “

Khalidi also quoted a prominent Palestinian intellectual:

“It is time that Palestinian leaders looked at their own weaknesses instead of blaming everything on Zionism, imperialism, and other outside forces.”

Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza, said:

“officials with the mind-set of a banana republic are causing tremendous damage to the Palestinian cause.”

A Palestinian academic damning Palestinian violence (which occurred some months ago) stated:

“There is a kind of conspiracy not to punish the criminals. Hundreds were killed in the recent struggle between Fatah and Hamas ... Who will punish those who gave the orders? Who will punish those who committed [the crimes]? Who will punish the people who remained silent?”

Regarding Palestinian Authority leadership, he continued:

“The prime minister and many of his ministers and security apparatuses are the ones who eased and facilitated ... the killing of hundreds of Palestinians ... who will punish those who caused the killing of these children, these women, these men? ... this is a political crime at the highest level.”

I could continue on ...

During these tumultuous events, the only news received here was the kidnapping of a British journalist ...

cont ...

An overseas visitor, here 6 months, is appalled at the quality of our news.

He observed we don’t seem to know much - really anything - even about our own government and its policies; and we care even less - unless it hits our hip pocket ... Our Current Affairs programs - barnies between neighbours!

Colleagues have said Australia needs to fight a war on its own soil to get an idea of international realities.

On average, we’re immature, naive, gullible, determinedly uninformed ... Deeply, Deeply Suspicious of Higher Education .. tinny-in-hand-experts; loud-mouthed “know nothing”. And proud of it.

Whilst liking “some” international food, we’re xenophobic, racist. We refuse to learn about others’ cultures, beliefs, languages or writing systems.
As long as we know where to get the best take-away chop-suey, we're a bloody tolerant country.

...let’s not mention refugees or our indigenous peoples ...

As Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka lucidly explained, racism is imbedded in our Constitution.

You hate the idea of a Palestinian modern, independent state ... Clearly they want one. Re-read their comments - however hard, try and understand. Palestinians don’t want to live in Israel -they want their own country. After-all it is only a short bus trip into Israel, right next door ... even a nice stroll.

Keith, as an expert, send your protest against a Palestinian state to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. He is not Hamas. Remember (as a courtesy) he is Fatah ... he can read English.

In 1967, 565,904 refugees lived in the West Bank. How many of the original 565,904 are still alive, and/or not living in Israel?

In Israel, Palestinian residents (if they should decline Israeli citizenship) have legal permanent residency.

PCBS (2006) report 2.5 million Palestines live in the West Bank.

Understandably, there’s a reluctance to award citizenship to great numbers of a potentially hostile population whose allies are sworn to the destruction of Israel.

Israeli Arabs volunteer for national service. The first few months of 2007 alone, saw a doubling of volunteers from those of 2006. Is the subtext apparent?

Oh Danielle, that's so harsh telling us of our shockingly poor access to news reporting.

Unfortunately it is very, very true. Anybody who can speak and read a language other than English and has access to other news sources knows this to be true.

Not only that, there is a real resistance to the teaching of modern global history here in school. I won't even mention philosophy and/or political science. Those are almost dirty words. Very few Aussies would know and understand their own constitution and the relevance to our laws and governments. Gerrit has been trying to get Australians interested for a while now.

Having been educated outside of Australia I made some presumptions and made my sons do history in High School. It was abysmal. And there is no opportunity to learn about Australian politics/government, something which should be compulsory, seeing voting is.

Consequently, I find many Australians easily manipulated into a particular direction. Intellectual debate is almost non-existent. It is generally simplified into a left vs right stance.

Sorry for having gone off topic. Lately I've just been enjoying some excellent debate between Danielle, Fellow Human and Logic on this thread and another.

Danielle stated;
QUOTE
On average, we’re immature, naive, gullible, determinedly uninformed ... Deeply, Deeply Suspicious of Higher Education .. tinny-in-hand-experts; loud-mouthed “know nothing”. And proud of it.

Whilst liking “some” international food, we’re xenophobic, racist. We refuse to learn about others’ cultures, beliefs, languages or writing systems.

...let’s not mention refugees or our indigenous peoples ...
END QUOTE

I have just added to my blog at
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH correspondence to HRH Queen Elizabet II, and for those interested may just discover that not only Danielle comment was very much to the point, as I view it, but further are like zombies having politicians, who supposingly have to represent us, robbing us ongoing of constitutional rights.

Many people argue that Westerners have a better intelligence then those of Asian, middle east and other countries with coloured races. Well, if that were to be presumed to be so, not that I agree with it at all, then just consider what I have written to Queen Elizabeth II and how foolish (politely stated) Australians are.
If then we cannot even manage to have, so to say, our own house in order, how then can we dictate upon others how they ought to do it?

I have been given the understanding that the Federal Government has black-banned me and the media prohibited to report anything I state, and as such this underlines that people in Australia are deliberately misled and deceived. How then can we expect people in strife torn countries to do better where we cannot even do so in time of peace? Just look at the Aboriginals, how they are again caused to suffer, and this just for scoring politically for a federal-election! Worse, the conduct of the Federal Government may in the long term cause more harm then good and the “show” of service might just be that, a “show” while the children now abused will continue to be so, because of a political driven conduct.
As much as we ourselves cannot manage in Australia we should regrettably acknowledge that strife torn countries likely neither will go any better. Sad but true.

Danielle has been fighting the anti-Israel propaganda on her own. And doing it well.

Firstly Hezbollah and Israel both used cluster bombs. Though the news media put Israel's use in neon lights and Hezbollah's in small print on the centre pages. Why?

Also as Danielle correctly pointed out the there were Jewish refugees from other middle eastern countries. In fact nearly half of Israel's population stems from these people. They were just as numerous as the Palestinian refugees, but are usually ignored in discussion. Why?

AS well as these middle eastern Jews there are Muslim Arabs, Christians, Baha'i and Druze in Israel yet it is wrongly portrayed as a largely European intrusion in the area. Why?

Boaz writes that Jews could be unpopular because the Sassoon family had interests in the Chinese drug trade. There were also Christians involved, would that make people anti-Christian?

As to the comment about Jewish wool buyers being OK as long as you knew the correct prices, surely that is basic business competence in selling anything, what had religion to do with that?

Logic

Danielle hasn't been fighting any propaganda she's been presenting the usual pro israeli drivel and ascusing others who point out her anomolies, contradicyions and outright lies as being anti-semitic ...sigh. You know, all the usual boring stuff.

Oh she doesn't acknowledge any of the peace moves or the establishment of peace by the Arab nations either... but that's not new either...is it?

Keith

I know that you are not antisemitic. However many Arab leaders are openly so which makes their peace proposals just empty rhetoric.

Peace moves which do not acknowledge the right of Israel to exist are just hot air.

Peace moves which do not offer to reform an Arab education system that preaches to children that Jews are evil are not sincere.

And peace moves which ask for right of return for Palestinians and offer nothing to displaced Jews and other non Muslims are empty.

When the Arab leaders make a proper peace proposal they will be met with consideration. What we are seeing is just grandstanding.

Part 1

logic

QUOTE
And peace moves which ask for right of return for Palestinians and offer nothing to displaced Jews and other non Muslims are empty.
END QUOTE

I understood that the Palistinians were driven of their land when Jews took the land of them having first waged a campaign of terrorism against them!

Its like the pot calling the kettle black!

I consider it nonsense for anyone to claim that Jews have a right on land that belonged to the Palistinians. It is an absurdity. I might have Jewish blood flowing through my veins but do not view that I have more right then a fellow human being, and rather take the position that too much death and destruction is occurring because of religion, and those converting to a religion to make it profitable.

Why indeed should Jews coming from other parts of the world have a right to take the land belonging to the Palistinians? I do not accept this to be correct.

Taking the bible too literary means that the meaning of words are twisted to suit whatever anyone desires to make out of it, rather that the real message is coming across.

Last Friday, I happened to be in the bank when I was served by a woman who turned to be a Muslim. I discovered this only after we were talking for over one hour and she suddenly commented I might consider to read the English version of the Koran as she had the view I lived my life as a Muslim. Well, I do not practice religion, as I had told her earlier and had stated my views against violence, terrorism, etc.

As such, call her a moderate Muslim or whatever, she certainly indicated to me to be a devout Muslim and that her view was that the Koran opposed violence/killings!

Part 2

OK, I have never read the Koran, but having attended a religious (Christian) school I am well aware of some of the violence referred to in the Bible and I understand likewise so is it in the Koran.
Hence, you can pick and choose out of either what you desire to use, or you simply take the good and forget about the bad.
The Bible is a randomly put to getter book, where parts were later inserted and others removed or deliberately kept out. As such, one should not rely upon it as being accurate as to what was intended in the past, but again, take the good parts and forget about the bad parts. Forget about taking someone else land and rather seek to live peacefully together. To me that is “logic”.

I have just posted an article about the plight of refugees, see my blog;
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

Now, we can criticise others but take it from me we are in the Commonwealth of Australia in a considerable mesh!

Hi Logic

Nice to see you again. We've been over these things many times...and simply can't agree. However Olmert and the West seemed lately to be considering discussing that Arab League proposal and I do think the right of return a bit over the top.

Regards Keith

ps the Muslims probably think similar about Israel's education system.

Keith

“anomolies (sic)?, contradicyions(sic)? ... and outright lies” ?

Everything I have stated is on record. Read reliable histories of the Middle East, ensuring they are heavily referenced with primary sources. Especially read primary sources themselves.

The past impinges on the present in profound ways and with deep implications ... You just see the “product”, but you need to know the “process”. This is basic education.

Read the Report of the Palestinian Royal Commission quoting an account of the Maritime Plain 1913 (Palestine Royal Commission Report), p. 233.

Read Mark Twain’s description in “The Innocents Abroad”.

Compare it with the State of Israel now. Why do Palestinians want Israel? Not sentimental attachment, but the sight of Israel’s progress.

Leading Arab nationalist Sherif Hussein (father of Emir Faisal ), guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, saw the benefits of Jewish migration into Palestine, very well :

“Palestinians used to leave his country ...His native soil could not retain a hold on him ... At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine. ... The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the field, factories, trades, and in all things connected with toil and labour.” (Al-Qibla, March 23, 1918)

The population of Palestinian Arabs was in steep decline before the 1922 Mandate. It grew expotentially when thousands of Arabs from surrounding countries came to take advantage of the rapid development and improved health conditions.

As for stealing land; the Peel Commission found that Jews paid exhorbitant prices for Arab land. Uncultivated, sand-dunes, or swaps, when purchased, were now Jewish-owned orange groves. (Palestine Royal Commission, 1937); pp.241-242.

Transjordan’s King Abdullah wrote:

“It is made quite clear to all ... that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping.”
King Abdullah, My Memoirs Completed (London, Longman Group Ltd., 1978) pp.88-89.

Read current media from Israel, Palestine, Arab States, and Iran. Read works by intellectuals from these countries.

By 1947, the partition resolution saw Arabs holding the majority in western Palestine - 1.2 million - Jews 600,000.

Jews were the majority in the area allotted them; but had no chance to increase because of the restrictive immigration policy imposed by the British.

Educated Palestinians know the benefit of a Palestinian State.

A Palestinian academic observed:

“The message to Palestinian children is that if you can use violence ... you can achieve influence and you can rule ... a whole generation was raised on the denial of the “other” and erasing him completely, and to the possibility of killing him without restraint or problem.”

An Arab friend said: Palestinian children are fed on hatred, not just at school and in mosques, but also through comic books and TV - against Israel.

Forget that the population of Israel is 20% Arab Muslim - to be killed indiscriminately along with all other groups.

Should Israel admit such people into its country?

(Yet, Palestinians, conditionally, can enter... see: Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law 5763 (2003); amendment of May 8, 2005.)

Is it suprising that Israeli’s take the precautions they do, being constantly under seige, or threat. Have Palestinians bent on terrorist attacks, bombings ... been deterred by a line in the sand ... or the fact they kill brother Palestinians as well?

Until the Palestinians themselves are properly educated, make peace firstly amongst themselves, then with Israel, no amount of conferences, summitts, and talks are going to change the situation. Considering attitudes of Arab States to Palestinians, do you think they really care?

Olmert, the West, and Arab League proposal?

Ignore that armed Hamas and other militant groups deny the right of Israel to exist.

Look what the Palestinians are doing to each other now.

Yet, twelve Arabs serve in the Knesset, two hold full ministerial positions; hold positions in the Supreme Court, the Foreign Service, the IDF, including Major General Hussain Fares, commander of Israel's border police, and Major General Yosef Mishlav, head of the Israeli Home Front Command and current Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories .

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka
"I understood that the Palestinians were driven of their land when Jews took the land of them having first waged a campaign of terrorism against them!"

No that is not correct. The attacks of some Arab groups against Jews occurred before the exodus of Palestinians. The attack on Jews in Hebron for example, in the 1920s. This attack was against long standing ancient Jewish communities. The Arabs attacked first trying to push out the Jews.

The situation was partly a transfer of populations between sections of the former Caliphate. The arrival of European Jews into the Jewish area was an influx of an out of town group, but this was made possible by the introduction of modern agriculture. Before the Europeans arrived the area was only capable of supporting a very small population, it is now able to export food.

It is interesting that those Arabs who remained in Israel have achieved a much better standard of living, a vote and have parliamentary representation. Even in the occupied territories Universities were created which did not exist there before. And women are allowed to attend them.

Gaza is no longer occupied.

Logic

Have the Israeli's stopped that compulsory teaching that educates their Jewish kids how to kill their neighbours. You know that compulsory conscription? Seems every anti-Arab propagandist always overlook that pertinant little fact. Still that exercise seems a bit useless, doesn't work any longer and can no longer be defended as a legitimate defence given the useless application of conscripts in the Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Gaza.

Regards

ps I know your view on the subject.

keith

Stop that nonsense. I am not an anti-Arab propagandist. A lot of countries have conscription for the army. Switzerland for example. I was in the school cadets in Australia and learnt how to use a rifle. I was rather a bad shot anyone killed by me would have to be very unlucky. Israel is under constant threat.

Muslims have a choice as to whether they enter the Israeli army, some actually do. Those who don't do not have to pay any taxes in lieu. Druze through their leaders have chosen conscription. There are also Christians in the Israeli army it is not exclusively Jewish.

Regarding the Hezbollah conflict, the Israelis managed to destroy all of Hezbollah's rocket launchers and get them away from the border regions. Which was not all they hoped to achieve but certainly gave them a respite from rocket attacks.

I pity the poor Palestinians, but they were led down the garden path by some evil rulers. A culture of hatred has developed amongst them with their TV promoting suicide amongst their children. This is well documented. They received billions in aid from the US but this was all spirited away by corrupt leadership and heavy spending on arms, had they chosen to modernize they would have been well off.

There was a high rate of Muslim immigration into Palestine after the Jews had started to transform it, many of the refugees were probably not exactly from that area. If those who left had been accepted back into Jordan the way nearly a million Jewish refugees from Iraq, Morocco, Egypt etc. were we would not be in the mess that we are now in.

If you choose to ignore these points under the smokescreen of Zionist propaganda you will be lazy in your thinking and Danielle will eat you. No I do not know who she is other than she is not Jewish.

Wikepedia;
QUOTE
Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. The unit was known for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, notably in the widely condemned Qibya operation in the fall of 1953, in which 69 Palestinian civilians, some of them children, were killed by Sharon's troops in a reprisal attack on their West Bank village. In the documentary Israel and the Arabs: 50 Year War, Ariel Sharon recalls what happened after the raid, which was heavily condemned by many Western nations, including the U.S.:
END QUOTE

Clearly Sharon was morally bankrupt to kill civilians, including children, as a reprisal attack. And, he also as Prime minister caused to have two Hams political leaders to be killed by a helicopter shooting rockets in to their office. An Israelis intelligent officer made clear (SBS program-Tuesday 3-7-2007) that one of the Hamas political figures that were killed had just published a book OPPOSING any violence and promoting to pursue a POLITICAL resolution.
And he was ASSASINATED by the Israelis for this!

Now it is all very well to concentrate on Hamas or other groups and ignore what Sharon and others did using Israelis forces!

Again
QUOTE
Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image.
END QUOTE

Now, to do that to “BOLSTER Israeli image and fortify deterrent image” hardly appears to be showing a peace loving Israel.

Sure, Hamas and others may not particularly be Angels (other then Angels of Death) but the Israelis using “ASSASINATION” and “EXTERMINATION” instead of the “RULE OF LAW” should be condemned by any peace loving person.
In the many postings little is set out indeed, about, what appears to be to me “GANSTER” conduct by Sharon using the Israelis army

Yvonne,

Thank you for your comments. I agree with everything you say - and you express these so well

If you utter the word “intellectual” in front of the majority of Australians, they immediately search for something nasty smalleing stuck to the soles of their shoes.

As your sons studied history in High School, did they have to learn about the wonders of the stump-jump plough? So very useful and rivetting information ...

BOAZ_David,

At the risk of having great thunderbolts from above levelled at me by yourself, we can’t really isolate and blame the Sassoon family for the opium trade - remarkable as they may have been.

In mid-18th century, the British East India Company pursued a monopoly on production and export of opium in India. The British were selling 1,400 tons annually to China. In 1799, the Chinese Empire tried to irradicate its use, reaffirming its ban on opium imports.

In 1839, Queen Victoria, received a letter from Lin Zexu appealling to against her royal government's moral reasonings for enforcing strict prohibition of opium trade within all Of Britain, while reaping profits from such trade in the Far East.

"Your Majesty has not before been thus officially notified, and you may plead ignorance of the severity of our laws. But I now give my assurance that we mean to cut this harmful drug forever."
(Chinese Repository, Vol. 8 (February 1840), pp. 497-503)

In right regal fashion, she replied: “f... off !”

The mid-19th century, saw Britain continuing thier smuggling of opium from British India into China. China attempted to enforce her laws against the trade- the result an opium trafficking war.

The early 20th century opium trade in Singapore was not only fostered by the British Government, but they also held the monopoly. A Singaporean Chinese told me that they were “often” paid in opium by the Government, which he saw as a way of controlling subject races.

Let’s not blame a Jewish family for the ills of an over 200 year British opium trade.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

As Logic has stated: Frequent Arab rioting directed at Jews began in the 1920’s - the Hebron attack saw viturally the entire Jewish community flee or killed - (133 Jews killed, and 399 wounded). The British who didn’t usally interfere in such matters, decided that after six days of this, that they should present a presence. Common attacks against Jews were not in any way connected with Arab nationalism.

The British, masters of imperialism, preferred that Arab attack Jews ( a diversionary tactic) - rather than Arabs identify their actual oppressors, adopt true nationalism, and turn on the Brits.

Analyses of land plots purchased by Jews from 1880 to 1948 shows that 48% were purchased from large landowners - such as the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, As’ad el-Shuqueiri (a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqueiri; even King Abdullah leased land to them. Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including those of the Muslim Supreme Court sold Jews land.

The height of the 1938 Arab Revolt, whenArab landholders were being terrorised by Arab rebels and fled, they off-loaded their land to Jews - the latter paying exhorbitant prices for small tracts of aid land. In 1944 Jews paid between $1000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine mostly for arid or semi-arid land. That same year, rich black soil in Iowa (USA) was selling for $110 per acre. Jews would not have been able to go to the USA, due to Washington’s immigration quota.

By 1947 Jewish land holdings in Palestine - purchased at exhorbitant prices - amounted to 45,000 acres.

Keith.

If you had your heart's desire, and the Palestinians (Gaza and West Bank) overwhelmed Israel, a country of extraordinary advances in sciences, technologies, arts, philanthropy and education; this modern democratic country, where all are equal, - even inter-marrying, would become a bloody shambles like that seen in Palestinian areas. Sixty years of development would disappear overnight, being replaced by the daily and indiscriminate bloodbaths and mayhem seen in the Palestinian territory today.

Also, every militant murderous group would descend from outside.

My only hearts desire is for peace in the middle east and that will only be secured with the Palestinians having their own state free from the suppression of your war-mongering Israelis . That state will by necessity be set within the '67 borders.

It's seems your sad heart's desire is for a continuation of the violence. You foolishly seem to not to want to open your mind to the possibility of peace and want to cheer on and revel in the ongoing violence.

What a very very sad commentary. You just like the Israelis do not reflect the true values of western liberal democrats and it is good to see you recognise that in your description of Israel as only democratic and modern.

I really wonder what part of Australia you in habit. My Australia is filled with people who can and do discuss many issues. All are well educated abhor violence are sensitive and have great regard for academic achievement, not only in career paths but also in intellectual pursuits. They unlike you are very proud of their homeland and the achievements of it's people. They and I usually seek to praise rather than wallow in the indecent pursuit of a damaging, dishonest and narrow vision that usually results in the types of criticisms against Australians and Australia that you've often levelled during your defence of the ongoing violence.

You should take stock of how your anonymously expessed views reflect upon yourself. Very very sad really.

Danielle was perfectly correct in saying that the violence in Palestine was started by Arabs. In covering the Hebron massacres she neglected to mention that the Jewish community there was an ancient one.

Unfortunately violence begets violence, and a threatened people will always consider their own protection of paramount importance. Why dwell on the wrongs and mistakes of Israel and ignore what the other side did? If the Palestinians would recognise the rights of the Israelis to their choice of a democratic society and admit that Jews were wrongfully treated in Muslim lands a good solution could be found.

As a starter I would like to see the Palestinians treating the remaining Christians as well as Israel treats its Muslims. Christians are leaving the west bank for Israel, we don't hear of Muslims leaving Israel for the West Bank.

Danielle,

My issue is not as to Jews who lawfully obtained their land, for whatever price, my issue is the Jews who used terrorism to push Arabs of their lands and in the process killed some or all of the landowners.

My issue is the conduct of the likes of Ariel Sharon with the unit 101.

While it is proclaimed by Keith that Israel is treating Arabs equally, recent media coverage indicates otherwise. Sure some might be but others aren’t and the fact that it pursues to be a Jewish state rather then a secular state itself may underline this.
Likewise a Islamic dominated country cannot be deemed to provide equality as it dictates Islamic values upon those who are not part of that religion.

I UNDERSTAND THAT A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS SECT OF JEWS DO NOT HAVE TO WORK AT ALL AS THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED AGAINST WORKING.

What is important is to understand that the tit for tat murdering conduct places many on all sides at fault but usually the innocent are the one suffering.

While it was held to justify by mass murder Iraqi’s for allegedly being in breach of about 17 United Nation’s security council resolutions, the fact that Israel is in breach of a reported more then 67 resolutions is another issue, you do not hear Australian politicians to mention as a reason to invade Israel, then again they do not have the “ILLUSIVE” WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION the Late President Saddam Hussein was deemed to have had, as Israel rather have the “REAL” WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Despite that the late President Saddam Hussein had constitutional immunity, he still was unconstitutionally/illegally placed before the Courts and no wonder executed, despite that as a prisoner of the coalition of the willing he was also entitled of Australian law and not to be executed.

Whatever the late President Saddam Hussein may have done wrong, we are no better if we disregard the DUE-PROCESS-OF-LAW!

What we (as a society) have done and still are doing to Aboriginals is a clear example that we are ourselves morally bankrupt.

If you talk about UN derived law that is unfortunately a farce. The system of decision making in the UN gives with a few exceptions a vote to each nation. The large number of small Arab countries are disproportionately represented and vote together against Israel despite the appalling human rights violations of many of them. There is no such thing as a democratic form of international law.

Israel for the last time is a secular nation. Just as Australia gives preference to English speaking Christians Israel does the same for Jews, what is wrong with that? It has complete democracy with one vote for each adult citizen regardless of religion and equal rights for women. Its legal system is the British one not Talmudic law. If that is not secular I do not know what is.

Contrary to some inaccurate reports by some sections of the media (I suggest that the Australian gives the most accurate coverage) the Arabs are treated equally in law. If some sections of the citizens dislike each other that is human nature no law can stop that.

You talk of Israeli terrorism, I have little brief for Sharon, but how do you rate the attacks on long established Jewish citizens in Hebron and elsewhere with axe wielding Arabs, all egged on by the Mufti of Jerusalem? What should the citizens of Hebron and Tiberias have done?

Why is Israel always judged to a higher standard than others. The left gives no space to the complaints about the treatment of Christians in the West Bank. I wonder why.

I do not defend either Israel or Palistinians, merely point out what was reported.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering, Hitlers' Reich-Marshall, at the Nuremberg trials after WW2.

Both sides has faults but for Israel taking a position, as it has done at least since 1974 as I understand it to be, to assassinate people, hardly can be called a democratic society. A democratic society must rely upon DUE-PROCESS-OF-LAW, this cannot be said where the Government authorise killing of people for whatever reasons.

As for the UN, I will not put in words what I think about it, other then to say that the armed invasion into Iraq proved that those obsessed with power, such as the Coalition of the willing, will get away with mass murder regardless of what they did. Hence, not something I can respect.

Why doesn’t the Israelis government deal with those Israelis who illegally obtained land from Palestinians and then a lot of friction may be overcome in that regard. Why indeed should Israelis who legitimately lived in their homes have to suffer because of other Israelis who TOOK THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.
The Israelis Government should move all settles from Palestinian properties (including Gaza and Westbank) and then you might defuse a lot.
It cannot claim to be a DEMOCRATIC country if it endorses or permit Israel’s, such as Ariel Sharon, to terrorise civilians, as then Palestininas will obviously fight back.
How many Israelis who legitimately purchased their land were ousted from it by Palestinians?

Hi Logic,

'Why is Israel always judged to a higher standard than others.'

I liked your question. It is a good one. It's 'cuts to the chase'. It is the crux of our difference.

I will try to answer it as best I can. It is true Israel is held to a higher standard than other (Middle Eastern I assume you mean't) countries. The reason is simple. When Israel proclaims itself as western and democratic it implies it is part of the great western liberal democratic culture. Now that culture, and this may surprise you, demands of it's leadeship and individuals to behave towards and treat others, no matter how different or repugnant, in ways that are consistant with it's basic tenets. The belief all men everywhere (even enemies) are entitled to freedom and to express themselves as they see fit so long as it involves no harm to others are two of the most basic.

Israel proclaims a belief in the tenets when it claims to be western and democratic but she doesn't act in adherence with those tenets towards it's neighbours. The Arab states are not held to the same standard because they don't claim to be or try to adopt or adhere to Western Liberal Democratic culture.

Quite simple really.

Why do you think there is such anger in the west about the US, Britian and Australia's involvement in Iraq? It is because many people in the west don't believe it is consistant with Western values or accepted practise.It is not out of any sympathy for Iraqis or Arabs or Muslims.

Hope that helps.

Regards

Keith,

Don’t you think Israel wants peace - a two state solution. Do you think that Israeli parents
like their children (of both sexes) having to do national service under actual combat conditions. Do you think that Israelis of any ethnicity, or religion, enjoy living in constant fear of attack.

Arab Israelis, not subject to conscription out of sensitivity to their origins, enlisted in the the early part of 2007, in twice the number of that for the whole of 2006.

Until peace is assured, and proven, by the Palestinians, Israel’s fence is an imperative.
It is also imperative that they have the right to defend themselves. Unless you personally experience what they do, Keith, you can't even begin to know...

Fences around the world:

The US is building a fence to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants.

With European Union funding, Spain built a fence to separate enclaves, Ceuta and Melilla, from Morocco - preventing the poor from sub-Saharan Africa from entering Europe.

India has a 460-mile barrier in Kashmir to prevent infiltrations supported by Pakistan.

Apart from the massive 550-mile construction Saudi Arabis is building, it also has a 60-mile barrier along an undefined zone with Yemen.

Turkey has a barrier in the southern province, Alexandretta, in an area Syria claims it owns.

In Cyprus, the UN sponsored a security fence reinforcing the de facto partition.

In Belfast, British-built barriers separate Catholic and Protestant neighbourhoods.
(Wall Street Journal, Sept. 26, 2005)

The UN is building a security fence around its New York HQ.
(United Nations, May 6, 2004)

As for the component of the UN - Arab countries are among the most influencial, and among the most richest in the world. Before assemblies, there must be lines outside loos, as members wash the blood from their hands.

It is because of my loyalty to Australia, that I speak out against those like yourself - monosyllabic, pig- ignorant, bigotted, and racist - who know, and care more about football and cricket, than their own country, our indigenous peoples, refugees, and international affairs.

cont ...

You question my anonymity.... You question my loyalty to Australia ...

My forebear, William Lawson, arrived in Australia in the late 1700’s, a pioneer, who crossed the Blue Mountains (1813.) Many historians claim him significant, being the only one with the necessary experience and qualifications in both geology and surveying. Blaxland - wanted extra land for his cattle, Wentworth, was a young journalist. Lawson was well aware that he was not the first man to cross the mountains; aborigines had been doing it for centuries. However, he was the first to discover a way over that would permit droves of cattle, movement of large drays and equipment. - opening up the country to the west.

When commandant/magistrate of Bathurst the settlers wanted to lynch him. He acquited any black who came before him for stealing stock to feed himself or his familty. The mandatory sentence for blacks doing this was death.

He would be appalled at what we have done to our indigenous people.

Lawson’s son-in-law, NP Whitelocke, my great grandfather, contributed in getting the miners union up. Going to Broken Hill, he spoke to unprecedented crowds; also publishing their plight in the two national newspapers of which he was editor. The miners union, in acknowledgment, officially thanked him. He was asked to stand for parliament by both parties, but refused - he would toddy to no-one. He disliked many items in Australia’s constitution. He referred to the press as “the platform for the people”; whilst writing editorial issues, he also wrote, under a nome de plume in “letters to the editor”, fully presenting the other side.

I could add more ...

My mother lived in Europe for years; witnessed Hitler’s rise, WWII and the Holocaust. She personally knew Australia’s policy, at internal affairs level, to Jewish refugees.

I've travelled; lived in Malaya for seven years during the communist emergency; witnessed “up-close-and-personally” terrorist attrocities - I doubt you have any idea of what it is like to wash human blood and detritus off yourself - I have university degrees and taught there.

Now over to you ... Keith

Danielle,

Your related history of your forefathers shows they, if they were to be consistant, would abhor your support of the occupation and suppression of the Palestinians and especially of your inability to address that issue without bringing to the discussion foolish and irrelevant side issues. They would equally abhor your debating style in the use of character and personal attacks.

They would also see you using your forefathers as justification for your views as somewhat strange.

I do. Why you might ask?

You see my some of my forebearss, both men and woman, were Irish Catholic immigrants to NZ who operated a saw mill on Stewart Island. Some served jail time for fighting, others for rioting and some more for their anti-conscription views. They spread throughout NZ and many of us now reside in Australia. Their activities, politics and views, while I admired their stances which were always based on 'being true to themselves' but thay were quite different to my views. Another side of my family forebears, both men and women, were English, bridgebuilders, drinkers and (many of the men) womanisers. They built most of the steel railway bridges in NZ. They too spread, as did their habits. I share none of their politics, which were quite different to my other forebears, and I share few of their bad habits.

So you see I view my ancestors, good and bad, as in no way representative of my views, attitudes or Australianness. I certianly don't need them to justify me being true to myself. I don't have to. I'm confident enough to know my 'on the public record' views will be heard and evaluated in a level-headed manner by my fellow Australians. I don't have to criticise my fellows in any endeavour to get them to re-assess their views, or to convince others of the justness of mine. I certainly know personal abuse will only make it hard for anyone to put any credence in my views

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

The Wikipedia quotes regarding Unit 101 are an example of the weakness of this open source; it can be edited by anyone. Many anti-Israeli groups manipulate this information online trying to re-write history.

Originally the background part of the Unit 101 - Wikipedia, stated:

"The background to the founding of Unit 101 was the successful attacks on the state of Israel from its Arab neighbors during which hundreds of Israelis were killed."

As a result of this, the IDF adapted this doctrine and a new emphasis on mobility was designed. In accordance with the new doctrine of seeking out the enemy, in the summer of 1953 a special, secret unit was established (unit "101") to retaliate against Arab infiltration across the borders by striking at guerrilla bases inside enemy territory.

Unfortunately, like at present, those guerrilla bases were located within Arab villages. The unit never comprised more than forty-five soldiers, and was integrated into the paratroopers after only five months. Nevertheless, its success in actively dealing with
terrorist infiltrations coming from many Arab villages was incredible high, saving the life of many others of Israelis citizens, while stopping the infiltrations to a very minimum.

Today, an identical policy is carried out by the Dutch army in Afghanistan; I am attempting to obtain the reference if you should want it.

Words like "extermination" and "assassination" are not part of Israel's lexicon neither within its policy; but widely found in Israel's neighboring societies...

"Targeted killing" of terrorists, indeed is a matter of controversy, but fall under the rule of law.

Once considered a maverick, Sharon’s attitudes changed. At Camp David, Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat’s required Israeli settlements in the Sinai be dismantled, Begin called Sharon, who not only agreed, but also implemented this himself, removing settlers, some by force. He also evacuated four settlements in Samaria, and all those in Gaza. Sharon was willing to negotiate peace initiatives, even when Palestinians reacted to one offer with the Passover bombing.

Keith

I tried to show a traditional trait running through my family of being informed, independent thinkers. You found my comments problematic and illjudged. I apologise.

Your debating style:

“anomolies, contradicyions... and outright lies.”

From Israel:

Refugees from Darfur and Sudan.
(04/07/2007)

Israel cannot simply ignore refugees knocking on its gates. It must cooperate with the UN Commission for Refugees to deal with asylum seekers already here. The Israel of today can well afford to give refuge to some of the world's persecuted.

Humanitarian supplies transferred to the Gaza Strip:
(Israel Ministry : Summary June 15-30)

Despite the volatile security situation in the Gaza Strip and the constant threat of attacks on the crossings, food, fuel and other supplies are transported from Israel to the Gaza Strip through the various border crossings on a daily basis.

Food, fuel and other supplies are transported from Israel to the Gaza Strip through the various border crossings on a daily basis, and Palestinians in need of medical treatment are escorted by the Israeli army to Israeli hospitals. All humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip is carried out in coordination with the Gaza District Coordination and Liaison Office.

Following is a summary of the humanitarian aid transferred from Israel to Gaza since June 15:
 
19-30 June
 
Flour & wheat - 18 truckloads
Basic commodities - 51 truckloads
Meat - 4 truckloads
Milk - 30 truckloads
Animal feed - 6 truckloads
Medicines & medical equipment - 6 truckloads
Fruit - 13 truckloads
Other goods - 5 truckloads
 
24-30 June
 
Flour and wheat - 36 truckloads
Rice - 5 truckloads
Cooking oil - 18 truckloads
Beans, etc. - 5 truckloads
Animal feed - 233 truckloads
Milk - 15 truckloads
Sugar, salt - 42 truckloads
Medicines & medical equipment - 7 truckloads
Fruit - 15 truckloads
Other goods - 15 truckloads
 
15 June, the following amounts of fuel to Gaza:
 
Gas - 2,100 tons (84 tankers)
Petrol, private use - 735,000 liters (17 tankers)
Diesel, private use - 4,937,000 liters (107 tankers)
Diesel, power plant - 4,800,000 liters (120 tankers)

Danielle,

I for one do not question your honest intentions but do belief you do come across as being bias towards Israel.
As for your history set out, I found it interesting and did not consider anything wrong with you stating it. I viewed it as being provided as “informative information” or “background information” and as such accepted it.

Having served in the Royal Dutch Armed forces at the then Iron Curtain in (then West) Germany we were trained, and I was a sharp-shooter, to cause minimal injury where possible. Also, to avoid civilians being injured.
If the Dutch army now uses different practices then I regret they do as it would not be as to what I learned and taught my soldiers.

I take the view that every soldier who questions the legal validity of a order of his superior must make this known immediately. Indeed, several British soldiers refused to serve in Iraq because they deemed it to be illegal, and I held they acted appropriate.
After all, if they had been deemed wrong they could at most face a court martial but if they had gone into Iraq killed someone they could have faced murder, as I view every invading soldier should face such charge if they were involved in killing innocent civilians. And, so politicians who authorised such illegal invasion.
I do therefore not accept Moffat for Israel to commit assassinations as no DEMOCRATIC state can authorise this, as no DEMOCRATIC country can have this as DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

I INVITE YOU TO SHOW THE RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR ASSASSINATIONS/EXECUTIONS OF SOLDIERS IN SUCH MANNER TO BE LEGALLY PERMITTED!

Danielle,

Outright lies:

1. 'I am ignoring your abuse and catcalls from the sidelines, and will not respond'
Danielle post Friday 22 June.
Check all my previous posts on this thread. All I'd done was challenge your views... there was no abuse nor cat-calling.

2.'You hate the idea of a Palestinian modern, independent state ... Clearly they want one.'
Danielle post Sunday 30 June.
'I am familiar with your writings on the subject;'
Danielle post Friday 22 June.

My opinions are on the public record. You acknowledge you are familiar with them. You would then know I support the establishment of a Palestinian state, for that is clearly stated.

3.'Israel’s security fence goes along the Green Line - the 1949 armistice line.'

Danielle post Tuesday 26 June.

Refer to my post of 26 June. You've never acknowledged nor retracted your obviously incorrect claim. Since you are obviously unwilling to do that the statement as it stands now is a lie.

Anomaly:

'The UN confirmed that Israel had completed withdrawl for southern Lebanon (Security Council endorces Secretary General’s conclusion on Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as of the 16th June) (UN Press Release, June 18, 2000)'

Danielle Tuesday 26 June.

To be consistant you'd have to agree Israel hasn't complied with numerous UN resolutions requesting it's withdrawal from the West Bank. I await your rectification of this anomaly with baited breath.

Contradictions:

1. 'There is no question that such combat would have been preferable to bombing them.'

'Incidentally, this is in no way a justification of using bombs,...'

Danielle Thursday 28 June.

Now what is it was it ok to bomb Lebanon or not ok to bomb Lebanon?

3. 'Now the Arab League calls on both Hamas and Hezbollah to recognise Israel’s right to exist..

Danielle Saturday 23 June.

'...there’s a reluctance to award citizenship to great numbers of a potentially hostile population (Palestinians) whose allies are sworn to the destruction of Israel.'

Danielle post Saturday 30 June.

Now are those allies the same Arab League nations who call for recognition of Israel's right to exist?

Cont

4. 5. 6. ....
'[Regarding Israel’s Law of Return, it grants citizenship to Jews, whatever race or nationality, including dark-skinned Ethiopians, Yeminis, and Indians; and whether secular, atheists, or religious'

Danielle Satuerday 23 June

'Israel does permit citizenship of Muslims from elswehere...'

Danielle Monday 25 June

'In permitting Arab Muslims to return, they would have residency status unless they wished to take out citizenship - this this would have been granted on the same conditions as other groups who wanted Israeli naturalization.'

Danielle Wednesday 27 June

Except Jewish immigrants.

'In 1967, 565,904 refugees lived in the West Bank. How many of the original 565,904 are still alive, and/or not living in Israel?

In Israel, Palestinian residents (if they should decline Israeli citizenship) have legal permanent residency.

PCBS (2006) report 2.5 million Palestines live in the West Bank.

Understandably, there’s a reluctance to award citizenship to great numbers of a potentially hostile population whose allies are sworn to the destruction of Israel.'

Does Israel discriminate against West Bank Refugee Muslim Arabs who are wishing to return to their Home in Israel or not?
Does Israel allow Citizenship on the same basis as it allows citizenship to Jews emigrating to Israel?

There are many many more in your meanderings but I'd thought I'd show you just how independantly thinking, forthright and informed I am.

BTW in my home we access CNN, FOX and BBC. We access on line the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the South China Morning Post, Haartz Daily and any world class newsservice we like. We read many websites that seeks to inform or pass opinion on world events. I wonder why you think people are authorities, on available news and Australians access to news in Australia, when they show they don't even consider the vast majority of Australians have access to, and do apparently access, all the latest news and opinion on line?
That's the modern trend...didn't you know? That shows that 'traditional trait ... of being informed, independent thinkers' hasn't quite caught up to your generation yet. But ... what negative family traits did you hide?

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

"Having served in the Royal Dutch Armed forces at the then Iron Curtain in (then West) Germany we were trained, and I was a sharp-shooter, to cause minimal injury where possible. Also, to avoid civilians being injured."

I assure you that the Israeli forces try to do the the same. But if Hezbollah fires rockets at Israel from the middle of civilian areas, or next to UNICEF bases, as reported by the UN, what are they to do, other than be as careful as possible? After all Netherlanders are not threatened of being pushed into the sea.

Some Israeli soldiers refuse to serve. They are not popular. anymore than Dutch people who collaborated with the Nazis, but they are able to serve outside the armed forces.

Keith

"The Israel of today can well afford to give refuge to some of the world's persecuted."

It has and does, it has preference for Jews (why not?) but also for Druze Christians Samaritans and Baha'i. It did have to resettle nearly a million Middle Eastern Jewish refugees whose homes were taken from them. Why can't the Arab countries who confiscated Jewish property not assist the Arabs who left the Jewish territories? After all the Germans took in the Sudetenland refugees.

And regarding walls, what about Hadrian's Wall or the Wall of China (though that was for rabbits wasn't it) or the fence between Mexico and the US who are supposed to be free trading partners? Or even the walls around medieval cities, if it saves lives (and it does) why not?

And Keith and Danielle, I appreciate the debate but please no name calling. Although Keith and I argue passionately from opposite sides we have corresponded privately and I can assure you he is OK.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

If you mean by bias towards Israel, that I believe that Israel must be allowed to exist as a Jewish State, yes. I also believe in a Palestinian State alongside Israel, with cross fertilization of ideas, of brotherhood, and of peace. I cannot see why anyone should oppose this idea.

I hadn’t wanted to write this, being particularly sensitive. As you kindly stated that you were not offended by my mentioning my back ground, I write confidently that you will understand.

My Irish Catholic grandfather, a civil engineer, spent over twenty years in Africa building railway systems - often not seeing another white for two years or more. At the instance of his family to marry and have heirs, he came to Australia, married my Anglican grandmother in his mid-forties, after which my mother and her younger brother were born. My grandfather hated “civilization”, and wanted to go to the Sepik River, New Guinea. The marriage foundered, however, it was agreed that as soon as the children finished schooling they would go to the family in Ireland.

On finishing school, my mother went to Ireland. She found her family insufferable - her aunt, attending daily Mass, entertaining senior Church prelates, firmly believed that her class would not have to mix with others in heaven. My mother fled to Europe, witnessed Hitler and his party at close quarters; then studied at the university in Vienna, where she met my father, a Jew. Falling in love, the became engaged. After the Aunschluss, they escaped to Paris, my father entering the French Army. They applied for a visa for him to enter Australia; but it was overturned when Britain entered the war; they were not informed. Waiting for his entry papers, he was arrested, placed in a slave camp, then sent to Auschwitz and gassed on arrival.

My mother and I, a toddler, were arrested by the SS, placed in a camp, then used as exchange POWs. The SS interogated and threatened my mother - that neither

cont ...

of us must ever enter Europe again. My mother admitted that if the nazis had tried to take me, she would have killed me - thus, necessarily, from the very beginning, our relationship formed differently.

On the trip back to Australia, the Brits refused her desire to stay in Palestine.

The Australian Security (FP) met her on arrival; being associated with my Austrian father she was immediately under suspicion. She had a very bad time, interrogated, frequently with: “we don’t like to get rough, unless we have to”.

She always wished modern surveillance techniques were available then. Security harrassed school friends - and anyone with whom she even casually came in contact.

In an early, girlish letter she wrote admiring Italian policemen, and wished she could smuggle one home in her case; this immediately identified her as a fascist.

She was under constant surveillance. Everthing she did, such as job hunting, going to a function, had to be cleared first.

On occasion, the Security broke into our house. Serving in New Guinea, my young uncle’s passion was making radios and record players. They smashed every item.

Neighbours painted swastikas over our fence. When I was old enough for school, their children, aged up to 12 years, would physically attack me, often with stones and sticks. When I arrived home, on seeing my condition, my grandmother would coolly ask: “Did you cry?”, and I always truthfully answered: “No I didn’t cry.” This gave me the resiliance, from my early teens, for coping with terrorist attrocities in Malaya.

My father’s entire family, over 50 members, from babies, small children, to the elderly were gassed.

This is why I believe Jews must have a homeland. There will always be anti-semitism. No matter how benign a country may appear, in times of emergency, one’s nationality becames paramount - albeit minorities are being persecuted.

Australia’s treatment of refugees is a double disaster. As never before, we need such very courageous people.

I hate ignorance and willfull bigottry - selecting incidents out of context; lying, distorting, playing semantics and the walnut shell, denying or ignoring facts.

Danielle

None of us can feel anything but sympathy for you for the personal horrors you have experienced in your life.

I think there are many stories similar to yours to have come out of the holocoust. I have met and listened to the tales of a couple of survivors. Neighbours in NZ.

Obviously you've carried the scars of your tragedy with you for the past 60 years.

My only advice is be strong and move on as best you can. All of us have our own personal horrors and tragedies. I fortunately received some very good advice many years ago that helped me endure and overcome the gripping horror and resulting anger from my own. I thankfully have moved on successfully.

However whatever personal sympathy I hold for you doesn't impinge on my ability to see and condemn the reality of the situation of Israeli discrimination nor it's 40 year occupation and repression of the Palestinians.

As regard personal horrors we and many others have endured ours and the reality of them passed in comparatively short periods. We only have to deal with the scars, the painful memories. The Palestinians horrors continue on a day to day basis and they have to live with not only their painful memories but also the daily ongoing tragedy of their occupation and suppression. That has been ongoing for 40 years.

You know my views. We have similar viewpoints on some issues. You know I believe peace will only come to the mid east with a secure Israel and a Palestinian state within just borders. We differ in how we think that can be achieved. I reject the applied solutions of the past which stand as proven failures and look to other solutions.

I too despise the use of 'ignorance and willful bigotry - selecting incidents out of context; lying, distorting, playing semantics and the walnut shell, denying or ignoring facts.'

Hate, ignorance and bigotry are the shields of the cowardly. The others are simply the apparatus of the propagandist.

We've all seen their use often and recognise them easily enough.

Part-1
Danielle,

Obviously it is terrible what happened to you and if anything I am glad you have put it in the postings for others to read also. As 96 members of my Jewish family were on personal orders of Hitler gassed I am well aware of the horrendous suffering that went on. However, I have lived in Germany as a young man en spoken with soldiers who did barbarous acts during the Second-World-War and albeit I never accepted any justification of their doings have learned also their versions. I did cop a lot for having lived in Germany but I held it was important for me to deal with this by myself and never regretted doing so. For this I never hated Germans, as my family did, and a lot of Dutch people did, because I learned what went on.
Once, I was sitting with a man and as I was at the time dating his daughter he wanted to test me if he could drink me under the table, so to say. He never did as I was smart enough to switch glassed so he had all the time a full one and I took every time his empty glass. In the process of the evening his mates joined in and they told me all the gory details about what they had done during the war, why they did it, etc.
I will spare the details, but I did brake of with his daughter, as I could never accept having him as a possible father in law. Still, I had no hatred or dislike towards him albeit neither wanted having him as a family member. Not because my family would be against it, but because I personally view it is one thing not to hate a person but another thing to get married into such a family.
I did however also learn of the brutality against Germans themselves who had refused to fight.
I have never regretted to have found out what, so to say, made them tick, albeit I would have preferred if it never had happened.

Part 2
Regretfully, what caused the Germans to act as they did I recognise now developing in the Commonwealth of Australia. Hence I pursue so much about the constitution as to seek to get people to open up and to see where they are heading into.

Tome and again am I reminded how the Germans made clear Hitler started his power base and recognise the same in our politicians doing likewise. It make not one of iota difference which political party is in powers because they all will pursue to grab more power and use any excuse to deceive the people.
Regretfully most Australian are to dumb to realise this and rather have a go about a Muslim then to open their eyes to reality.
We murdered civilians in Iraq and so unconstitutionally, yet many Australians are willing to justify this because of the propaganda against the late President Saddam Hussein. To me, what ever evil he might have been, we are no better as a society as we did far worse upon Iraqi’s and it wasn’t even our country!
Yet, again many Australians nevertheless are willing to justify this mass murder and destruction and that the Germans made known to me was the way Hitler started his power base. Getting support of certain elements and later he turned against so many who had first supported him.
I have no doubt that in years from now people will refer back to my books, and point out that I exposed it but most Australians simply couldn’t care. WE JUST HAVE OUR OWN AUSTRALIAN “HITLER” BY WHATEVER NAME HE MIGHT BE KNOWN! Sad but true!

What you and others have suffered, such as my wife, never should be repeated or at least should be sought to avoided but regretfully to many australians supporting this kind of conduct because they see it in their own benefit, unless of course they cop it themselves!

Keith and Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

Thank you very much for your kind words

Keith, I think we are as one in that I do not approve of Jewish settlements on any Palestinian territory.

My way of coping was obtaining degrees. I don’t tell friends - it’s not “social talk”; ... and people can be unpredicable ...Currently I am involved with dissidents against certain regime abuses. Iran has appalling human rights abuses built into their legal penal code - the execution of girls at the age 9 yrs, boys at 12 yrs.

I taught WWII history at university. Hitler commited terrible crimes against his own people. His muderous policy of eugenics; sending children to fight Russian tanks; using rolling stock to send Jews to gas chambers, rather than use it for winter clothing to his men fighting in a Russian winter - with metal studs in their boots, they died in agony where they stood. Even in 1944, public hangings of teenagers were common, judged criminals and “threats to the moral health of the nation’s youth”. Their crime - listening to swing and jazz.

Many Germans seem oblivious to much of what happened ...

A German proudly showed me photographs of family in SS uniforms. Another, a fundamental christian, and pacifist, believes “Jews deserved it”. Her sole and constant complaint: she had to wait until she was 9 yrs old for a proper doll. Speechless, I always sympathise about the doll.

Perhaps anomynity is a good thing ...

Unfortunately, such experiences can affect subsequent generations.

My grandmother forbad me to mention my father to my mother. I had the idea he had committed some terrible crime - neighbours and Security tended to confirm this. My mother never mentioned him other than he died in Auschwitz. Although we lived in the same house, I rarely saw her; when I did, she avoided physical contact; in fact, I felt that in someway I was responsible for her rejection and unhappiness. Things didn’t improve much in Malay. After my marriage, she, literally, disappeared for 25 years. Yet, I adored her.

cont ...

To my great regret, I largely adopted her mothering skills, although without rejection, with my own children. Without a grandmother, they also felt rejected - or, saw it as my fault. When they eventually met, they understood, yet tend to condemn her. I explain: “until you have walked in someone else’s shoes ...”

I managed to obtain some information from her, but she would change the subject: “let’s not talk of sad things.” I gained information from archives in France, Germany and Australia - completing the picture. It was less the SS documents, emblazoned with insignia, than the two casually, hand-written lines by Watson, Australian Dept. of Internal Affairs, overturning my father’s visa - and his death sentence - I found most distressing. By this time, they knew what was happening to Jews - even referring to him as “a Jewish refugee” - unfortunately, an Austrian, thus enemy alien, he was not permitted to enter Australia.

Australian officials tried to deny their knowledge of much happening in Europe, yet a deputation of aboriginal Koories demonstrated against the persecution of Jews (and Christians) as early a December 6, 1938, outside the German Consulate in Melbourne.

Nazi’s kristallnacht, November 1938. heralded an upsurge of violence, intimidation and persecution of Germany’s Jewish population.

“Less than one month later, on December 6th 1938 ... Victorian Aboriginal man, William Cooper, led a deputation of Kooris from the Australian Aborigines League ... to present the German Consulate in Melbourne ... a resolution ‘condemning the persecution of Jews and Christians in Germany’. The Consul-General, Dr. R.W. Drechsler, refused them admittance.”

http://thegroovolution.org/?q=node/42

“Thus, the first group in Australia to try and lodge a formal protest with the German government's representative about the persecution of the German Jewish community, were a group of Koori political activists”

http://www.eteachers.com.au/Samples/int/Sec/Hitler/week12/stim02.htm

In recognition of indigenous support, Jewish university students spend summer holidays working in particular communities.

Some years ago an aboriginal woman told me a major problem today, was the whites had emasculated their menfolk.

Danielle,

Yes we share much common ground. The death penalty in most countries is an abuse of human rights and first among the users are the Chinese. The Chinese carry out 90% of the world's judicial executions annually. I too was until very recently involved in activities protesting the use of the death penalty. The one thing that really appalls me is the executions that take place outside of the court systems. Predominant in that particular abuse are many African nations. While the numbers are unknown, for the obvious reasons, they are regarded as substantial. Israel joins them when they undertake political assassinations.

keith

Whilst being very uncomfortable about political assassinations I personally would place them as different from the death penalty. At least assassinations cam be the lesser of evils if you are removing someone who is pivotal to a campaign of killing. An unrelated historical example is the attempts on Hitler, if any had succeeded many lives would have been saved.

They equate only when punishment is intended rather than stopping a worse problem. Otherwise it could be seen in the same light as soldiers killing each other in battle. A terrorist or militant leader is after all choosing to place them self in a battle situation.

Palestinian Return into Israel

Very few Palestinian refugees are originally from Israel.

The massive discrepancy in numbers of those cited by Israel (from years ago) and those by the current Palestinian Authority are an artifact of their history since 1950.

Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, thereby blocking the establishment of a Palestinian state. Palestinians living there became Jordanian nationals. Initially none of the members of the Arab League recognised Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank, but accepted it as de facto.

The Egyptian government took over the administration of Gaza. However, Palestinian citizenship was withdrawn by Egypt in 1979.

In 1988, the Palestinian National Council was to adopt a  resolution calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza once Israeli occupation was lifted. The late King Hussein of Jordon, surrendered his claim to the West Bank severing all legal and administrative ties with it.

By Royal decree, he revoked Jordanian nationality of over 1.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank..

Article (2) of the royal decree  stipulates: “Every person residing in the West Bank before 31st  July 1988 is to be considered a Palestinian, not a Jordanian citizen”.

Although challenged, the High Court of Justice in Jordan held that the Jordanian monarch's actions were not subject to judicial review because they fell under the rubric of 'acts of state'.

Since 1988, two types of nationality are current in Jordan:

(1) Jordanians – East Jordanians, or those of Palestinian origin living permanently in Jordan.

(2) Palestinians in the West Bank can have a 'Jordanian passport'.

Targeted Killing

Prior to the adoption of targeted killings, the Israeli government went through legal process. Israel’s attorney general reviewed the policy, and determined it legal under both Israeli and international law.

Israel has a history of accuracy in such attacks; when tragic errors do occur - generally the result of flawed intelligence - investigation is undertaken to prevent any recurrence.

cont ...

The British are not averse to targeted killing. They assassinated Nazis after WWII; targeted IRA terrorists in Northern Island, and terrorists in Malaya. I have no doubt that those considered dangerous to national security have been assassinated by Security Services (MI5 and MI6).

In April 1986, after the Libyan terrorist attack on a West Berlin discotheque, the US led a raid
on Libyan targets, including Gadaffi’s home. Reagan defended this: “As a right to self-defence, any nation victimized by terrorism has an inherent right to respond with force to deter new acts of terror.”

After the bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, in 1998, the Clinton administration tried to assassinate Osama bin Laden for his role in these.

Bush’s Administration stated that they would not hesitate to assassinate bin Laden, and other al-Quaeda operatives. Bush, himself, has ordered assassination of political leadership in the 2003 Iraq war. (Incidentally, I am no Bush admirer; and believe the Iraq war wrong)

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

The Netherlands and targeted killing in Afgahnistan.

When Dutch soldiers in the Uruzgan province of Afghanistan identify senior Taliban leaders on the Allied forces’ killing list, they should preferably arrest them. If that is too difficult, they should ask permission from headquarters for their targeted killing even if there is no concrete threat. This has been confirmed by Robin Middel, a Dutch Ministry of Defense spokesman. He mentioned that this concerns, for instance, those who prepare attacks against soldiers. Harry Van Bommel, a parliamentarian of the extreme left wing Socialist party reacted that this is against the agreements between the Dutch government and parliament, as only when Dutch soldiers are attacked they are allowed to use violence.

Peter Wierenga, “Militairen gebruiken dodenlijst,” DePers.nl, (online) 11 June 2007. [Dutch]

“Bot: aanslag al-Rantissi verwerpelijk, Nos Nieuws, (online), 18 April 2004 [Dutch]

Personally, when faced with an either/or situation (without alternatives) I would not hesitate. When subsequent innocent killings resulted from my not acting, I would feel morally responsible, indeed, that I had colluded (albeit unwillingly) with the terrorist.

Danielle,

George W Bush declared “God told him to invade Iraq”. Well he too will argue that the killing of so many innocent people was god’s will.

I do not accept so called targeted killing (assassinations etc) and regardless if others may be injured due to faulty intelligence (don’t we all know this about Weapons of mass Destruction) leaders will always seek to excuse their killings of others.
While you may seek to justify this as for some terrorist to otherwise kill, the truth is that we had a Palestian killed who was opposing violence but nevertheless the Israelis killed him by targeted killing because of was a Member of Hamas.
Criminals of all sort have also their own reason to kill.
Like a rapist not wanting his victim to be able to identify him. Well, from every killers point of view they may have their kind of justification but I do not accept this to be acceptable for target killings, etc.

While opposed to killings, I was trained as a sharpshooter and would have killed when needed while serving in the armed forces, and once nearly did kill my best friend aiming to shoot him, as he was stupidly holding an .50 automatic weapon towards fellow soldiers complaining the weapon wasn’t firing. When he noticed me aiming for him he quick smart then aimed his weapon into the air. He knew that I was a sharpshooter and would have taken him out. However, that was in those circumstances because there was no alternative to avoid him killing fellow soldiers. And, afterwards he agreed that I acted correctly and didn’t hold it against me.
The difference was that it was not that I was seeking to kill him for some “God told me” or other stupid excuse but there was then no real alternative but to do as I did.
However, I would never seek to kill a person as some kind of preventative action as to me that is and remains to be plain murder, no matter if Israel claims it is lawful by them.
No court-imposed-death-sentence either!

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

I truly respect your views and wish more people shared them. I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a very brave and honorable man. It is a shame that many don’t share your ideals.

You wrote:

“He knew that I was a sharpshooter and would have taken him out. However, that was in those circumstances because there was no alternative to avoid him killing fellow soldiers ... there was then no real alternative but to do as I did”.

Isn’t this, as you state, a “preventative action” - an action condemed in your last few lines.

In such a position, I personally, would have thought of disabling him, rather than “taken him out”. Decisions are matters of one’s perception.

I stated:

“When faced with an either/or situation (without alternatives) I would not hesitate. When subsequent innocent killings resulted from my not acting, I would feel morally responsible, indeed, that I had colluded (albeit unwillingly) with the terrorist.”

I no way would justify this by a “g-d’s will” defence. It would be my own decision taking full responsibility for my actions. It would be extremely difficult to do; I would only do it if, as you say “there was no alternative”, and I believed it essential.

I must doubt if was public knowledge that this particular Palestinian, and member of Hamas, opposed violence. I’m sure that if the Israeli’s had known, they would have enlisted him for some service he could provide.

Hamas terrorists avow Israel’s destruction. They as readily kill their own people, as they do their perceived enemy. We have witnessed such terrorists have no regard for the lives of the innocent; they violate international law, specifically Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the Geneva Convention prohibiting the use of civilians to “shield, favour, or impede military operations.”

Walid Shoebat, ex-member PLO, shows what happens to dissidents who oppose terrorist groups.
http://www.shoebat.com/palestinian_justice.php

If Hamas had known this Palestinian’s views, they would have slaughtered him.

I suspect that his stance emerged after his death.

Danielle,

I do not consider it to be a “pre-emptive strike” when it is a mere part of seconds that you have as to try to avoid being killed. That is more like “self-defence” that there is no alternative. A .50 automatic weapon (generally mounted on a tank) is not the kind of weapon that you can ignore to easily! They are rapid firing machine-guns!

I do not consider it to be self defence if a person argues being about attacked and then do a stroll around the block and then return to react.

With the Kovco death, I never held it for real that they argued he shot himself, when it was made known he was a sharpshooter. So to say, the weapons are your “babies”, and you aren’t going to fool around with them as some ordinary soldier might do.

I did write to the Governor-General (as the Chief of the Armed forces) to pass on my correspondence to the Board of Inquiry as to what I viewed may more likely have occurred, knowing from my own army time, but I understood the Governor-General concealed my correspondence from the Board of Inquiry. Yet, later evidence given by others before the Board of Inquiry was precisely of the nature I had set out in my correspondence. As such, where they are covering up matters by concealing material submitted then I view to be justified to consider this was a frame up to blame Kovco for somehow having killed himself. After all he is death and cannot defend himself.
But, for my part, I would like to see his widow to continue to fight for the truth to come out.

In general I oppose killings but accept that at time of being invaded a soldier may need to kill invaders, if no alternative are left available. However, I do not accept for an invading force to kill! That is not having double standards, merely that defence forces are precisely for that “defence” and not to invade

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

Thank you for your comments and I respect your viewpoints, albeit I do not share it. I entirely understand the situation in which you were placed, and recognise that you had no alternative. We do agree on so much else that I hope it will not became a matter of contention between us.

My feelings about terrorists - who are willing to kill and threaten their own in order gain compliance - came about after witnessing an attack on packed cinema of their people.

They used the carrot and the stick, but found the stick more successful in bending people to their will. The cinema had been full of families enjoying themselves - two thirds or more of those there, were children, some babes in arms - and no threat whatsoever. Not only the injuries, but also the grief of the survivors must have been terrible. As I have written about this before, I need not go into it.

Regarding the Kovco affair, I was very surprised that any weapon, let alone a loaded weapon was permitted in barracks. The British insist that weapons have to be unloaded in front of a witness and not kept in quarters with the men. So it would seem that there were
breaches of protocol at many levels; or perhaps the Australian Services are more lax than elsewhere. Under the British, a full enquiry would have been made, and the senior officer in charge would have been court-martialled. It does appear that some cover-up was made.

Danielle,

I deplore any so called “freedom fighters” to go out and kill innocent people. To me, killing innocent people is TERRORISM and cannot be accepted as being freedom fighters against invading armed forces.

Government sponsored terrorism, such as Australian troops unconstitutionally invading a sovereign country is no less TERRORISM then someone else doing the same killings and destruction.

I would regard a person to be a “freedom fighter”, if the person takes on invaders and other armed collaborators, to protect their homeland or those who assist them in it.
Government propaganda is to able anyone a TERRORIST other then themselves being the TERRORIST.

Howard and his cronies deceived the people in going to war and unconstitutional, as I have set out on my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

While Howard is quick to argue about constitutional powers, when he wants to use it, he ignores the Constitution when it goes against him. His TERORISM should be the first issue to address. For that matter of anyone regardless to which political party they belong.

My wife cried because they had killed the late President Saddam Hussein. As she makes clear, whatever he did wrong, we were lied to and had no right to judge him. We had no right to invade Iraq and no right to hand him over to be hanged.
It is not that she supports Muslims or is against the death penalty but that there was no need to kill him.
Under the Iraqi constitution he had immunity, and passing a new constitution to change this retrospective is unacceptable.
If we accept what happened to be acceptable, then no one is safe as whenever retrospective legislation is passed we can all be made into being criminals.
In my view, at the very least, we should hold Howard and his cronies accountable before the Courts.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

I concur with the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists - my comments above relate to targeting terrorists.

I agree 100% about the war in Iraq. We should not be there; our leaders who implicated us should be made accountable and gaoled. But how is this done?
This also requires that people must be well-informed. Unfortunately, we have those on one side who are not informed, and don't want to be; and those on the other side that say we should only go to war if the enemy is in our country - by that time we are in dire trouble.

How extraordinary that Howard and Blair and others didn’t demand to see definitive evidence of then necessity of taking part. There was no justification for our invasion of Iraq.

The CIA warned Bush before invading Iraq about the consequences, and the NIE were coerced into providing evidence of WMD. One of my sons told me this well over two years ago; he will not inform me of his sources.

I just found this, here abstracted. The entire report is online pdf.

“White House Ignored CIA Warnings on Iraq”

“Postwar Projections "had little or no impact on policy deliberations"

The White House disregarded intelligence projections on post-Saddam Iraq according to a newly-declassified CIA report

The currently released Kerr report published by the CIA (Studies in Intelligence, a CIA quarterly - primarily for intelligence professionals) condemns the Bush administration for ignoring prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.

"intelligence produced prior to the war on a wide range of other issues accurately addressed such topics as how the war would develop and how Iraqi forces would or would not fight." ...

"also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda; calculated the impact of the war on oil markets; and accurately forecast the reactions of ethnic and tribal factions in Iraq."

Analysts, including Saud al-Faisal, foreign minister, Saudi Arabia, warned that Iraq could spit into three divisions as a result of conflict between Sunni Arabs against Shiite and Kurdish factions.

cont ...

The Kerr report found weaknesses Intelligence Community's analytical report , particularly the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi weapons programs, which the report says was prepared "under an unusually tight time constraint" and was "the product of three separate drafters, drawing from a mixed bag of analytic product."

There is no doubt that the NIE were coerced to supply the information that the Whitehouse wanted to hear.

Declassified Kerr Report Available on National Security Archive Website (October 13, 2005)
National Security Archive
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20051013/index.htm

Our refugees:

The meanest intelligence would know that a person of security risk doesn’t enter Australia this way. They enter with squeaky clean papers and get the red carpet treatment. People who risk their and their families lives to enter are courageous and informed - people this country desparately needs. Last year nine Afghanis were returned home and executed on arrival - a mere byline in the press. No-one was held accountable, no investigation took place.

Early this year, after being held five years in Baxter, a noteable writer and dissident in his own country, was released. The Australian government should have been aware of his identity on his arrival. One wonders how many others like him a holed up in detention. These are the very people from whom we can gain accurate intelligence about what is happening in their own countries; not by some Australian diplomat swanning around at Embassorial functions. Australians must be aware that many writers and dissidents speaking out about human rights abuses under their regimes are being killed, tortured and gaoled in their own countries.

I was appalled when our two leaders held “hole in the wall” meetings with the Dalai Lama in case it offended China. Since when do we have other countries dictating whom we can recognise and whom we can’t. “Trading partners” is not an acceptable excuse. Trade is always trade. During WWII, some British had investments in German steel.

I will read your blog with interest; I suspect we have gone "off topic" here.

Danielle,

I do not think you went of the topic as it is all interrelated.

As for how to deal with Howard, well while he might still be in power, my legal battles against him finishing at least in court with success on 19 July 2006 (after a 5-year protracted battle) indicates that in time he will be held accountable before the Courts.

If you have information about the 9 Afghanistan’s you belief were executed then can you pass on this information to me? I will then publish it in my next book.

What we had with Howard was that he claims “intelligence’ that he couldn’t disclose to justify an invasion but when it suits him he was willing to “disclose” intelligence. As such, I view he was manipulating it all.
If we were allow John Howard and his cohorts to TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, as they do now also with Aboriginals, then where with it stop?

That is why my books will be excellent reference material as anyone then can trace back certain material and use it in Court against Howard & cohorts.

And, for that matter any politician regardless of which political party they belong to.

We now have this detention with Dr Haneef and again a disregard for DUE PROCESS OF LAW as required constitutionally. They are fabricating their own unconstitutional DUE PROCESS OF LAW where there is none.

Our protection against TERRORISM is to ensure we do have a proper DEMOCRACY as if you allow this kind of TYRANNY/DICTATORSHIP as we are now under then you enhance TERORISM.

A PROPBLEM WITH LAWYERS IS THEY HAVE BEEN EDUCATED ON “LEGAL FICTION” AND WHEN FACED WITH “LEGAL FACTS” RATHER RELY UPON THE “LEGAL FICTION” THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO, AT THE DETRIMENT OF THEIR CLIENT(S).

MAY JUSTIVCE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

I will try and find the referrence about the Afghanis for you. I sent a comment to "letters to the editor" but cannot remember if it was published. However, I was very surprised that there wasn't a flurry of outrage by the public. I couldn't understand this ...

Unfortunately, we get the politicians we deserve. Until more people are willing to stand up and be counted, things will go along as much as at present.

This means that people must want to be educated and keep asking the hard questions; going much deeper than the local media provides. This also means an efficient way of demanding answers from politicians and also getting our own views across.

Aussies often say, they make their views known through the ballot box, or more actively through protest marches. Unfortunately I have known “protest marchers” who were quite ignorant about what they were protesting about. This immediately discredits this form of protest and they are often seen as nothing but yahoo trouble makers.

As you know I belong to a group of online dissidents, FREE IRAN, who want regime change, true democracy in Iran.

They do not want any form of invasion, nor conflict coming from outside. They want the world community to support their petitions and target significant organisations, especially the UN. They want Iran expelled from the UN until such time as the horrific human rights abuses are stopped - such as child execution, and stoning, where children are targeted if their fathers dare go on strike; - whilst those killing the mentally disabled can do so with impunity, as can fathers and grandfathers kill family members - the list goes on.

cont ...

Unlike the Iranian regime, these dissidents recognise Israel's right to exist. They condemn their regime which established, and finance the Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, the UN itself is problematic due to its composition. Arab counries are amongst the most wealthy in the world, and also are among the most influencial at the UN. Whilst Iranians are not Arabs, they are Muslim and some countries would share similiar ideas

These Iranians dissidents are extremely brave - the Iranian regime has very long arms.

Supporters are free to question, and also to decide which petition to put their names; and there is also a discussion group.

FREE IRAN
http://www.activistchat.com/

I am also a member of PEN, a worldwide organisation, which seeks to protect journalists and writers who expose and condemn their countries human rights abuses. Some of these dissidents are often executed, others tortured and gaoled. The aim of PEN is to seek the release of such people. However, I cannot but wonder what happens to these people, once freed.

As security is an issue in Australia, how best would you see security measures taken?
Obviously we can’t be complacent.

French philosopher, Bernard Henri-Levy said - that Europeans do not realize that terrorism doesn't stop on the border of France or Germany, and that to Islamic terrorists Paris and Berlin are capitals of America! This includes Australia.

This has been one of the more interesting debates on OLO.

Thank you for sharing your stories.

My family has been lastingly affected by WWII as well and I grew up with stories. At any family gathering a reference would be brought up.

My mother spent her entire teenage years in a concentration camp in Indonesia. Today, 60+ years later she can still cry on some subjects. Though from both of my parents I have learned to divorce the actions of a nation state from its people. As Gerrit, beautifully quoting Goering, observes, it is not that hard to convince citizens to go to war.

When Iraq was invaded my mother was almost beside herself with anger and grief. She knows what an invasion really means to the ordinary men, women and children.

In regard to Israel. To question what a democratic Western nation like Israel is doing does not equate with Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately Israel is judged to a much higher standard than her neighbours, but rightly so I believe.

Yvonne,
when ever I see a post of you I am thinking of my (step) daughter Yvonne (46). It is just a habit of mine.

Danielle,
I have just made new posting on my blog and you might just discover how the BLACKSHIRTS were going to follow up the Italian BLACKSHIRTS methods, was it not for more then a decade my effort to stop that. It is about the criminal and other inappropriate conduct of High Court of Australia judges!
What the article is about is that people in Australia (nothing to do with religion) are so frustrated with the lack of a proper legal system that they contemplate not just suicide/murder but even mass murder.
This is why I can UNDERSTAND, but do NOT approve of suicide bombers, etc. While I am personally against killing of a human being, I have always sought to be open minded to try to understand why people desire to commit suicide/murder, even mass murder.

That is why I do not hold much sway in the “religion” issue as while some might be Muslims, reality is that they are of all kind of religions and also those who do not have any religion and yet have all the same intentions.

Sure, there are at time religious zealots/fanatics who desire to do it for religion, but they are in all religions.
Our greatest error is to assume that criminals come from only a certain religion and/or group.
When I assist a person as an Attorney in their litigation then I take on the feelings of their religion (any religion), when relevant, and can feel the anger within, yet, as soon as I stop writing the felling is gone. Yet, people tell me that I have written precisely how they would have expressed it from their religious point of view. I find this very helpful to me to understand others what they are on about.

As for freedom of writing. Well, I for one write what I like and no government is going to block my writings!

I may dare to say; No-one-would-be-more-critical-on-Members-of-Parliament/lawyers/judges-as-I-am.

The issue of Australia’s security;

Regardless that I may not agree with all parts of the constitution, as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” my primary issue is the real application of constitutional powers and limitations.

IF PEOPLE LIKE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THEN THAT IS FOR THEM TO DECIDE BUT UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY DO SO I SEEK TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS.

How does this translate in Human Rights, etc?

Well, because I am a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” first, I understand far better what is applicable regarding Human Rights then many if not most Human rights supported do. As I did set out also on my blog, the European Union Human Rights provisions are applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia other then to Subsection 51(xxvi) to some degree.

The locking up of refugees in the Commonwealth Detention Centres is not to me Human Rights as a first priority rather that it is unconstitutional. Again, it is set out on my blog (and also my books)

Why argue about certain Human Rights conditions if you can cover the lot by exposing it is unconstitutional in the first place to put people in the Commonwealth Detention Centre?

If the so called Human Rights advocates were to follow what I have set out then they will give far more weight to their argument and what is better but to use the RULE OF LAW against the Government itself?

Constitutionally, refugees are not “illegal” at all, as unless they have been charged with a Commonwealth offence and been convicted by a State Court by “JUDICIAL DETERMINATION” they are not guilty of any illegal conduct.

Some Refugee lawyers, of the record, gave me the understanding “they do not want to rock the boat” to use constitutional issues. In my view, they are betraying their clients.

Ironically, our best protection against an invasion against refugees, and a lot cheaper, is to use the proper RULE OF LAW as constitutionally permissible! Just that his is not politically desired for a Government for re-election!
That’s-why-I-would-like-all-people-who-do-vote-for-independents-as-to-teach-those-belonging-to-a-political-party-a-lesson, that they are disposable and they better do the right thing to the community.

Yvonne,

I do sympathise with what your mother experienced. It must have been particularly frightening and uncertain for a teenage girl to be imprisoned in a concentration camp in Indonesia.

I was surprised anyone was reading this thread; no comment for quite a while other than between Gerit and myself.

The Riyadh Summit, 27/28 March this year held much promise to a peaceful Palestinian-Israeli solution - and still does. Yet, it is apparent that well financed groups don’t want a peaceful solution ... and “to hell” with their own people.

On the eve of this meeting, Abu Ubaida, the Hamas/Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades spokesman, confirmed they fired dozens of rockets into Israel from north to south, adding a further total of 60 rockets and 61 mortar shells.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees held a public march against any peace moves with Israel.

Delivered two days after the Riyadh Summit, Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan delivered a hate-filled sermon calling for the “liberation of Palestine” through terrorism rather than through inter-Arab and international conferences.

On April 24, Israel 's Independence Day, Hamas operatives launched a large-scale mortar attack in the southern part of the security road surrounding the Gaza Strip. Several Qassam rockets were fired on Israel from the northern Gaza Strip. Hamas wants nothing more than the destruction of Israel.

One spokesman said:

“We support the right of the Palestinian people to choose. They have chosen martyrdom. We support that choice.”

Another cynically added: ... “We support them and we’ll shoot them too.”

Many Palestinians, want peace and a separate Palestinian state. At present many need Israel to survive; they enter Israel to work, for which they receive exactly the same wage as Israelis. Understandably Palestinians are reticent to admit to holding politically incorrect opinions in areas ruled by gunmen.

At the end of the first intifada in the early 1990’s more Palestinians were killed by fellow Palestinians than in classes with Israeli security forces. During the
Palestinian war murder was again used to gag dissent; any who sought peace

cont ...

were labeled “collaborators, often murdered as seen in Shoebat’s site. This sent a message to anyone who dared cross those seeking Israel’s destruction A Palestinian need not be seeking peace, but just express opposition, or challenge an opinion of the ruling party. After student elections at Bir Zeit
University, Ramallah, an Islamic Bloc received more votes; the security forces opened fire on the crowd, wounding more than 100 students. Whilst no exact figures are available for Palestinians killed in internecine war, Amnesty International reported that scores have been murdered, yet none of the pertetrators brought to justice. The Independent Commission for Human Rights, a Palestinian organisation monitoring slayings of Palestinians by Palestinians recorded that by October of the year 2005, 151 Palestinians had already been killed. This was more than had died in clashes with Israeli troops. (Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Palestinian Vigilante Killings on the Rise,” Associated Press, October 6, 2005)

They are not “rag ‘n’ tail” terrorists, but very well financed and organised. Hamas and Fatah both have state-of-the-art, no cost denied, sophisticated communications/media systems such as TV, radio, press etc. Whilst Fatah recognises Israel’s right to exist, Hamas, and a number of other groups don’t. They promote virulent anti-Israeli propoganda. We all know how easily people are manipulated by the media - just look around us.

The Arab League have told these terrorists to recognize Israel, however, know they have no influence. In fact, one of the reasons Saudi Arabia is erecting its massive fence is that terrorists entered and detonated two car bombs in a major city.

When terrorists, sworn to the destruction of Israel, send rockets into Israel, kill fellow Palestinians, and are prepared to take such extra-ordinary actions as blowing up themselves, or their children - taking not only Israeli Jews with them, but also Israeli Muslims, also other Palestinians, extra-ordinary vigilence and measures have to be taken to prevent this.

Don’t you think that if Israel had the will to do so, it couldn’t put a stop to all this once and for all. But it hasn’t, because it acts as a democratic Western nation.

Danielle,

I found your postings very interesting to read but as I have been spending the entire day postings on my blog about CIVIL RIGHTS-DR HANEED-etc I am not going to do any further posting for this night, other then this brief posting.

It is terrible that we are heading for a CIVIL-UNREST if not CIVIL-WAR because the Federal Government is hell bend, so to say, to disregard the RULE OF LAW.

First they hold Dr Haneef unconstitutionally, and then when they no longer can they charge him but fail in their bid to oppose bail, so then they cancel his visa to get him nevertheless incarcerated, again unconstitutional.
Now, as Dr. Haneef by an order of the Court must remain in the Commonwealth of Australia then the cancellation of the visa had no effect as he is lawfully in the Commonwealth of Australia by order of the magistrate!

In any event, constitutionally, without Court order, the Minister for Immigration has no powers to enforce his decision to detain Dr. Haneef.

Not that the minister for immigration seems to care less about this and this is the problem as if a Minister doesn’t care about following the RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW then how can we expect others to do so?

I have added more onto my blog and you may find some interesting reading about this and other matters.

My (late) father used to explain to me that the Dutch were worse then the Germans as the Dutch murdered many, in what is now called Indonesia, just after the Second World War. He didn’t like what the Germans did but he also pointed out that the Dutch were not any better, regardless of having more then a thousand years of Dutch heritage with even a town in the family name (SCHOREL but now for the last 200 years named SCHOORL) with St Michaels the dragon slayer in our family crest.

My (late) father taught me, since childhood, that all people are entitled to the same rights and dignity regardless of race, colour of skin, religion. If-just-this-lesson-was-understood-by-mankind-we-may-have-a-lot-less-killings-going-on.