Perhaps your readers might like to read the letter sent by Colonel Kemp to the Vice Chancellor concerning the events that took place during his address.

http://jewsdownunder.com/2015/03/14/letter-from-colonel-richard-kemp-to-vice-chancellor-usyd/

I note that the CV of the author of this article - Paul Duffill - contains the following information:

"Paul Duffill is a part-time lecturer at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney. His research and teaching focuses on peacebuilding and dialogue, evaluation, pedagogy and non-violent civil society initiatives in response to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He has worked as a trainer in inter-cultural communication and dialogue in Japan, Australia and the West Bank in Palestine. He is also project manager of a human rights curriculum development project headed by the University of Sydney’s human rights program and carried out in partnership with several other universities across Australia."

Does Mr Duffill view what happened at Colonel Kemp's address as a "non-violent civil society initiative"?

Do Mr Duffill's lectures teach that such behaviour as that detailed in Colonel Kemp's letter to the Vice Chancellor represent a "non-violent civil society initiative"?

How many staff members of the Centre for Peace and Conflict studies were present to hear Colonel Kemp? Do they consider the actions of those protestors who silenced Colonel Kemp as "a non-violent civil society initiative"?

It appears from the available evidence that The Department of Peace and Conflict Resolution inculcates the following basic principles in its adherents:
1. to resolve conflicts and achieve peace on your own terms, total victory is essential. No compromises.
2. to achieve victory, blitzkrieg tactics are a must. Overwhelm the enemy by means of a lightning invasion involving maximum brutality.
3. as ancillary means to demoralise the enemy, incorporate propaganda and racist taunts in the onslaught.
4.when the tide of battle turns against you, plead victimhood.

In the Soviet era, many totalitarian front organisations in the West, used the word, "peace" in their names.
Deja vu.
Nowadays, similarly motivated front organisations piggyback on the global jihadist movement. Collaborators.
Israel represents for the front organisations and the jihadists an obstacle to world revolution of one sort or another, hence the terrorism, physical and verbal that is directed against it.
Peace!

Like totalitarian front organisations of the past, The Department of Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies at The University of Sydney makes intensive use of what has been called "Newspeak."
That is, inverting the meanings of words.
The invaders who shut down Colonel Kemp's talk blitzed him and the audience with thunderous amplified shouts of "you support genocide,"referring to the jihadist myth that Israel perpetrates it in Gaza.

In fact, Gaza's population in 1967, when Israel assumed control, was about 300,000. Today it is about 2 million.
In the Peace Department's newspeak, "genocide" means "exponential population growth."
What genuine academic institution would dare to shoot itself in the foot by uttering such a transparent lie?
Answer: an institution that is not a bona fide academic one, but merely a miserable jihadist front.

I was a student at the University of Sydney in the 1970s and saw many examples of student protest, particularly over South Africa. In more recent times I have been a postgraduate student in the Department of Jewish, Hebrew and Biblical Studies. I firmly believe in Freedom of Speech including the removal of section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act. I am not Jewish.

Professor Jake Lynch and his students have every right to their beliefs, have every right to express those beliefs and have every right to peaceful protest. They do not have the right to violently disrupt an academic lecture contrary to the by laws and regulations of the University of Sydney. They do not have the right to interfere with the right of Colonel Kemp's audience to hear his presentation in a peaceful environment. The correct and proper procedure for Professor Lynch and his students would have been to sit quietly in Colonel Kemp's lecture and then peacefully asked him questions at its conclusions.

While I personally disagree with violence, Professor Lynch and his students can hardly complain, given their performance at Colonel Kemp's lecture, if they were subject to violence. Just as the Jews are perfectly entitled to fight back against Palestinian aggression towards their people, the audience at Colonel Kemp's lecture are perfectly entitled in my view to fight back against Professor Lynch's aggression.

The greatest irony of the entire episode is the name of Professor Lynch's centre: The study for peace and conflict. It is quite clear that Professor Lynch has little interest in peace, but most certainly promotes conflict. If he and his students are indicative of the current Palestinian attitude, it is hardly surprising that the Jews are loosing patience. It is PEACE Professor Lynch that the world wants in Palestine, not CONFLICT.

Paul Duffill has attempted to defend the unjust treatment of Israel (elsewhere) by arguing that Israel "Illegally occupies" territory.
He is mistaken.
The basis in international law for Israel's territorial rights is the 1922 League of Nations-endorsed and UN re-endorsed Mandate for Palestine, according to which the entire "West Bank" and Gaza Strip were to be part of the evolving renascent Jewish nation-state.
Duffill refers to an International Court deliberation in support of his spurious claim but fails to mention that Israel did not present its case there, and that the court issued a mere advisory opinion, that is far from definitive or authoritative unless, of course, one agrees with Duffill that only one side has the right to put its case.
He would do well to consult the opinions of far more qualified jurists than he such as Lauterpacht, Riebenfeld, Stone and a myriad others.
Sincerely

Leon Poddebsky

In a previous post I referred to the Mandate for "Palestine."
It is relevant to note that Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan are all products of that mandates system which supplanted the defeated Ottoman Empire post World War One.
Jordan is purely a creature of British imperialism, which transplanted Arabs from the south of the Arabian peninsula to "Palestine" and created for them a "state" called Transjordan (later renamed Jordan.) 66% of the populace there call themselves "Palestinians," and the former King of Jordan, Hussein, said"Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan."
But for Duffill ideologues, that is kosher.

In June 1967, when Israel repulsed "Palestinian" Arab / Jordanian/ Egyptian aggression, it took control of what had been illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt since 1949, namely the west bank and gaza, respectively. In those territories there had never been a sovereign nation-state since the ancient Jewish Kingdoms.
There had certainly never existed even in imagination a mythical entity called a "Palestinian state."

Duffill and co-ideologues approve of Arabs enjoying national self-determination in 99% of the Middle East, but begrudge Jews a country which pre-1967 was one-third the area of Tasmania.
That is known as socialism and communism.

Leon Poddebsky.