Yes Johnathon, Fairfax's seemingly incoherent incomprehensible current editorial policy, is perplexing, to say the least.
Just what did they expect Israel to do, when fired on by literally thousands of Hamas's rockets?
Parade up and down like sideshow alley targets? (Ha missed again!)
The Butcher of Baghdad pales into insignificance, beside the millions being systematically butchered by Isil, and or the atrocities committed against Christian minorities and others, in Syria and elsewhere, all in the name of Islam!
And we know what we did to the Butcher of Baghdad, in the name of final deserved justice!
The saddest part Johnathon, is that the world still possesses nuclear weapons, none of which will be scrapped/rerouted into civilian service, before we use them just one more time!
And given the current circumstances, probably in the middle east?
Justifiable? Possibly?
And before an incomprehensibly evil Isil, can recruit a civilian population to hide behind!?
Rhrosty.

Jonathon
There is an old adage in our Christian based secularised western liberal Democracies.
'Two wrongs don't make a right.'

You should bear in mind even minded Australians deplore the advocating, rationalizing and use of violence by all the dark age based religions of the middle east. We see right through and continually suffer the narrow focused propaganda blokes like you and Singer keep trying to inflict upon us. We have eyes and minds of our own.
Our underlying philosophies are of forgiveness and peace.
What does your writing show are your underlying philosophy. Vengence and violence?

Vot with Ariel and Singer featured today the humour is more than voyth a shekel.

Time likes this the oh too pretty Shiri Maimon should sing her hottest number http://youtu.be/biQtrQpyJGo .

The Left still haven't forgiven Israel for siding with the U.S over the Soviets.

I doubt that ten years ago there were many Australians who cared much or thought much about Islam. Getting to know Islam has been a very slow process for many.

Today our knowledge is much greater in spite of the PC movement’s activities throughout western democracies. Our progressive media has used PC to restrict, modify and excuse what we now know and censor the development of our understanding.

The UN and EU have “dined out” for a very long time on their preoccupation with Palestinian issues but this is now coming unraveled. Not because they have eased up on their rhetoric but because they haven’t.

Recent ugly Islamic events made public, predominantly on social media, are in the process of isolating the vocal progressive minority for whom the grand narrative of Islamic enlightenment and peace is so important.

As Islamic reality is exposed to the public, questions are asked, they investigate more, they seek even more examples, they share and they talk. As progressive media counters the growing understanding of Islamic deeds, they put before us even more of their views, comments and opinions of Islam. They peddle even more of the rhetoric that is now exposed for what it really is. But in doing so they are highlighting the fact that this is precisely what they have been doing to Australian’s for a very long time.

We are expected to swallow their grand narrative. After all they are the media and can control what information we get?

Not any longer. Sure we get a disproportionate volume of progressive N&CA fed to us and they seem to think that their view is a majority view. Certainly they would be correct if this were measured by quantity and volume.

This Morgan Poll from 2013 also confirms that progressives are now a minority. I have to wonder what these figures would look like in 2014 after recent revelations of medieval barbarism across so many Islamic nations, by so many different types of Islamists against so many different types of victims for so many different reasons?

http://sheikyermami.com/morgan-poll-70-of-aussies-say-australia-is-not-becoming-a-better-place-because-of-islam/

Getting to know you Islam!

How odd. I mainly read independent/left newspapers. I avoid the Murdoch holdings like the plague and most right wing propaganda sources as well. And have done for years. Yet I'm very informed regarding the Armenian genocide. I wonder how I know about it?

I thought the 'right' always accuses the 'left' to be bleeding heart do-gooders who want to rescue everybody. It stands to reason the left would be the first to hone in on horrors visited upon people somewhere, remember, the left is generally against military strikes, being peace-niks and all.

That's where the focus on what is happening in Gaza stems from.

Oh, and here's a link from a 'left' wing source in Israel. On what the Israelis think of the Armenian genocide. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/israel-armenian-genocide-turky-prime-minister-erdogan-moral.html#

Weird. The left calling for recognition. The current right's darling 'fence-sitting'.

Imajulianutter you say your philosophy is one of “peace” and “non violence”.

Well let me remind you that sometimes those two wonderful values alone do not yield a satisfactory outcome. Sometimes one has to speak in an evil way to evil if one wants one’s civilisation to remain in existence.

Do you recall what Winston Churchill replied when do-gooders asked what his goal was in the fight with Hitler? No, he wasn’t after a cease fire. And he certainly didn’t want to negotiate. His goal was:

“ victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival“.

You are aware that Churchill in an effort to create maximum chaos and not in an effort to degrade the Nazi war machine in February 1945 flattened Dresden, killing up to 25,000 German civilians.

By your reasoning Churchill was in the wrong.

fairfax/abc/sbs is more interested in gay marriage than they are anything else. They despise the normal family and funny enough side with Islam in their Christophobic natures. You even had the pathetic Liberal woman on Q&A saying that Islam is a religion of peace. The Canadian theologian made them all including Tony Jones look foolish. Eating humble pie is not really in the recipe for the left even when their policies are shown to be a total failure. Look at their 'border control'. They still take the high ground after thousand plus drownings. As long as they can bang their mantras and pretend to be the compassionate ones they don't care how many deaths. Pretending to care about the Palestinians is just another case of their normal gross hypocrisy. Strangely enough I suspect they really believe by appeasing Islam they won't be in the firing line. No wonder they need gw as a great moral challenge.

The author, perhaps positioning himself for a berth in the Murdoch press, is incorrect.

Overall I think one can pick and choose what to read and what to believe from any mainstream media source.

Both the Murdoch and Fairfax media would be considered variations on Centrist in most countries. The media reflect and influence Australian politics in which the Coalition and Labor are also fairly Centrist.

Such Centrism is the benefit of the healthy skepticism of most in the Australian Electorate who distrust political extremes that purport to know and write the "Truth".

Hence extreme politics is a marginal leaning of only a few - thank goodness.

Pete

Oh runner

There you go about SEX again. Sex, sex, sex. Is it too big, is it too small? Is he up yours, are you up his?

Your father was Roman you know, and none of your cheek. http://youtu.be/pS9UWeoq7W

Dear Jonathon

Not at all. My reasoning is not limited by the circular nature of you philosophical vengeance and violence.

Here is the lesson that shows the difference between the Jews of Israel and the Christian west. It is a difference of philosophy.

Yes the west destroyed cities and killed civilians, but they conducted a just war in pursuit of a just peace. Yes at times we did things we should not have done and there is no real justification for them. At times shallow justifications unaligned with our philosophies are put forward. I reject them.
After the war the west punished war criminals, rebuilt the Cities and economies of our enemies. We encouraged reconnection with the world.
We didn't exact retributions. We learned that lesson after the first war. We learn lessons and try not repeat mistakes. We did not repress with lengthy occupation nor indulge in stealing our former enemies lands. Nor did we use collective punishments and blockades. We did not refuse return of refugees. Because of these we became friends, allies and we traded with our former enemies.

That was consistent with our philosophies of forgiveness and peacefulness.

Now these people you support, can you show me how they emulate our western behaviours?

You can't, you can only show part parallels all of which in isolation are in essence evil, when adopted without the just war, without the consequent forgiving and assistance and without ultimately seeking peacefulness and allowing freedom.

Those you support only seem to continually reek vengeance and retribution. Just look how the west has been peaceful and not surrounded by enemies seeking retribution and vengeance. Surely you'd have to think about that fact?

Now take note, I think in the same vein about extremist and moderate Islam and ask the same questions. What is different with my Muslim friends they never ever equate their behaviours with western behaviours. They have more brains, understand and acknowledge the evil in their scriptures and have great respect for the western values of forgiveness and peacefulness.

Now Jonathon

I do have to ask, was this deliberate and what did you think you would gain?

'Imajulianutter you say your philosophy is one of “peace” and “non violence”.'

I actually had said

'Our (Western) underlying philosophies are of forgiveness and peace.'

That does not preclude the use of violence and before you get all agog and choke with excitement:

We have and apply rules for when it is used and how it is used. See the Geneva Convention especially those clauses Israel would be in breach if it was a signatory.

My God still loves you Jonathon.

So what!
Billions of human beings all over the planet will probably tune in to some kind of "news" media today.
So how consequential are the Fairfax editorial policies in the face of all of that?
Even within Australia where the privately owned "news" papers are dominated by the various Murdoch propaganda rags, how many people even read the Fairfax papers?

And of course the Murdoch media, or more correctly propaganda machine, operates all over the planet too. As such it is widely influential on a world-wide scale. So how much influence or difference will the Fairfax editorial policies make to anything at all?
And remember too that the real in-your-face face of the Murdoch media empire is epitomized in the abomination called the USA Fox (faux) "news" circus.

Jonathon,

Here's what Churchill really thought of Jews, from an article published in 1940 but written in 1937:

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article said. "It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law, and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity. These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

"The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different.' He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/world/europe/11iht-winston.4873300.html?_r=0

It doesn't seem to me like he would regard Israel as a Western state.

I have to disagree with a few points in the article.
While the small history lesson is true and the quotes from Erdogan are also true, I doubt very much that Turkey will start slaughtering Christians any time soon. Having spent some time there, the people are quite friendly, particularly to tourists and Western foreigners (not so much to those to their East). Tourism is a major part of their economy, so "slaughtering" Westerners (the biggest spending tourists) would be idiotic to the extreme.

However, there is another major point to be made. Turks do not think like Westerners in regards to history. The west, thanks to "progressives", is obsessed with apologising over supposed past injustices. This is a Western prejudice. Turks, like normal people, are proud of their history.

Prior to the "progressive" infection in the West, if you won a war you were proud of that victory. The obsession now with a "victim mentality" is to feel sorry for winning and to glorify the achievements of the losers. How silly is that? "We won the war, but we should feel bad for winning it!" Turks do not have this mindset. Western "progressivism" has not (yet) infected their historical outlook. This is why they won't admit to claims of genocide or feel guilty for past supposed injustices.

Dane,
Excellent research. But what would really shown Churchill as not anti Jewish but entirely anti dark age religion or truly anti semitic is his views on Islam. He was quite a bit more scathing in his condemnation of that dark age religion. I believe he despised the dark age nature (the vengeance, violence, arrogance and inability to change) of both religions equally. I have independently come to the same conclusion. Churchill would be more horrified at Western blind support for Israel than horrified at Israel. He would have expected Israel to behave as it does.

Dane,

Just to clarify a misunderstanding: my reference to Winston Churchill was not to insinuate that he was pro Jews or anti Jews.

I have not studied his position on that matter and am grateful to the link offered.

My point, and it may not have been clear in the article, was that once he decided on a mission eg the destruction of Nazi Germany as a threat, he did not wince from that mission. Irrespective of the pleadings and requests made to him by many.

Aristocrat

you say "Turks do not think like Westerners in regards to history. The west, thanks to "progressives", is obsessed with apologising over supposed past injustices. This is a Western prejudice. Turks, like normal people, are proud of their history"

I agree. On that point, in my humble opinion, you are spot on.

'... he did not wince from that mission. Irrespective of the pleadings and requests made to him by many.'

Like to back up the assertion in the second half of that statement Jonathan?

Why have you no comment on his views of all the Semitic peoples and their religions? Too even handed Jonathan?

The following is an exaggeration and has you showing your misunderstanding of western traditions .

'The west, thanks to "progressives", is obsessed with apologising over supposed past injustices. This is a Western prejudice.'

We westerners evaluate our past behaviours and actions. We discuss them and attempt to embark on courses that attempts to ensure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Sometimes we apologise. What we don't have repeated over and over events that hurt us or our descendants. It works well for us and yes it is a uniquely western behaviour. You see it as a prejudice. I see it as a tradition, of which every westerner is proud.

We mostly live in peace and don't continually suffer attempted genocides.

Can you say the same for short-sightedness you champion and of your pride in that?

And mate the Turks religion adheres to dark age beliefs. Fortunately thanks to a bloke called Mustafa Kemal, who we Aussies know well, they long ago adopted western secularism.

imajuianutter "We westerners evaluate our past behaviours and actions. We discuss them and attempt to embark on courses that attempts to ensure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Sometimes we apologise. What we don't have repeated over and over events that hurt us or our descendants. It works well for us and yes it is a uniquely western behaviour. You see it as a prejudice. I see it as a tradition, of which every westerner is proud."

There's a difference between the reflection on past acts for pragmatic change in the present and the all encompassing guilt that "progressives" attempt to introject into the head of every Westerner.

‘morning Jonathan,

Sometimes the most complex and nuanced issues are best interrogated from “outside in” rather than from an internalized perspective. It then becomes much easier to see who is doing what to whom and who the targets are.

There are many entities that share a common enemy, perhaps for different reasons but the focus is still clear. In their most simplistic group forms there are two, the progressive left in western societies who share a common enemy with Islam, that common target is clearly democracy.

To identify the entities that comprise progressive ideology all we have to do is look at their “targets” then we can name them.

Humanities academia, left political elites, much of our bureaucracies, activist NGO’s, trade unions, identifiable sections of our media and the UN.

Fairfax is aligned with the Guardian, the ABC, chunks of 7, 9 and 10, and web based sites such as New Matilda and the Conversation. How do we know this? Because they evidence the shared ideals of that self referential network, the same targets and a common mantra of socialism.

Lock and load. Human Rights, refugee advocacy, gay rights, discrimination, racism, free speech, news censorship, Israel, AGW alarmism, big government, centralized control, banking and open borders.

Line ‘em up. Anything that smacks of centre right, democracy, industrialization, choices, big coal, big business, banking, fossil fuels and just like Islam, those who do not share the ideology and open fire!

That’s all we need to know really

Where do I sit within your analysis.
I'm definitely not socialist and sit with you on most topics except supporting Israeli vengeance and violence?

‘morning imajulianutter,

You ask <<Where do I sit within your analysis. I'm definitely not socialist and sit with you on most topics except supporting Israeli vengeance and violence?>>

I don’t know where you sit, it’s up to you to decide that. Look at the issues and look at your targets and give it some thought.

It is a great question though so I’ll present my position for your consideration as relative to yours.

I didn’t mention “socialists” in my post, I said “progressives”. There was a time when we talked about Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Fabians, Greens and deep Greens. Many are now more comfortable calling themselves progressives because it sounds “nicer” or more “benign”.

It makes no difference because they all use the same ammunition against the same common targets.

A good start in your journey to understand where you sit on the spectrum would be to follow your thinking on your nominated topic, Israel’s “vengeance and violence”.

Firstly I’d like to cover the issue of “relative to”.

During the period of just one month between July 7 to August 8 2014. There were 235 attacks by Islamic fundamentalists, 2,326 killed, 8,962 injured.

These were perpetrated across the entire arc of Islamic conflict from North and sub-Saharan Africa, ME, Pakistan and Sub continent, Indian and Pacific nations.

These acts of barbaric savagery have been committed against other Islamic sects, other religions, minorities, westerners, ethnic groups, men, women and children.

Whilst I’ve summarized these events I offer the link to the full list. If you are a “progressive” you will not visit this link because it is poison and not from your self referential network.

http://pickeringpost.com/story/dear-mr-marles/3653

Next, “context and relevance”.

In the 1950’s the Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt began the Islamization of Gaza, building mosques and supplying Imams. By 1987 the MB had formed Hamas to build on their political and military fortunes in the West Bank and Gaza.

Why Islamization you might ask, were the Palestinians not already Islamic? No.

Cont’d

Cont’d

In 1928 the Palestinians sought “Nationhood” status from the Arab nations. This was rejected by the Arabs on the basis that Palestinians were “of Judeo-Christianic origins” and not Arabs.

Next, “Roles and responsibilities”.

Don’t you find it the least bit curious that the Arab nations have twice raised of armies of 600,000 from the entire Arab world (1948 and 1967) to attack Israel and yet they stand aside whilst their own slaughter there own, the West delivers humanitarian aid, sacrifice our military and take the blame?

It may suit the narrative to focus on Israel and neglect the fact that Hamas is a de facto administration in Gaza, dedicated to the destruction of Israel by the same means as the rest of the Islamic fundamentalists are inflicting upon their own.

Elections are due in Gaza in the next six months and we may well see Hamas emerge as a legitimate authority however, in the meantime there needs to be a suspension of the progressive mantra to allow the political space for a solution, and that includes the UN.

The final test is you are invited to read the following and determine if it accurately reflects your conclusion that it is all about Israel’s “vengeance and violence”.

“You are brought up believing in a great many absurdities that you later find impossible to accept. By the time you're able to start thinking for yourself and discarding what you now know full well to be a lie; you have expended a great deal of emotional energy and are unwilling to admit that you have made a mistake.

There are no good guys in this, the slaughter of innocents is appalling and must be stopped across the entire Arab/Islamic world. That said the focus must be on the causes and not the symptoms.

Your rebuttal would be most welcome.

Spindle
Clearly you have not addressed anything with any balance at all.

I have always maintained there is violence and vengeance embedded in both the Islam and Jewish religions.

You must agree with that.

Both sides have factions dedicated to vengeance. Currently both hold some sway within both populations.
I'd go so far as to say according to polls almost all Israeli Jews support the extreme views of the violence driven government of Israel. See the polls in relation to Gaxa. Yet the vast majority of Muslims abhor the antics of the extremist Muslims and yet support the Gazan's and the Palestinians resistance.

They recognize the difference. Why can't you? Do you have an eye closed?

You seem to think illegal occupations, oppression and land stealing are non violent?
When you start taking those atrocities into account the picture you try to paint of an innocent and peace seeking Israel and an Islamic world riven by violence seems a bit based.

Wouldn't you agree?

It is great you recognize Palestinian's are not Arabs. I've been making that point over and over to the likes of V dub and Singer ad nauseum.
They reject the notion because it undermines their propagandists attempts at demonization of Palestinian's as violent Arabs.
They dare not attack the Palestinians as Muslims because that would be akin to attacking themselves. Islam and Judaism have many similarities. They leave that job up to people like you who think Israel is western. It isn't. They wear our clothes but their hearts wear a dark veil.

Thanks 'nutter,

I rest my case.