First of all, this talk about what radio national broadcast was just an excuse to get on your high horse Amanda Vanstone style.

"When one selects out a particular people as ineligible for the right of self-determination, one is engaging in active racism."

This is true, but Jews in Israel have been doing exactly the same thing against Palestinians.

"But distinguish these from the critics of Israeli policies who genuinely address harsh realities and suggest better ways to achieve Israel’s goal of peaceful coexistence with her neighbours, including a new Palestinian state, without the overhanging threat of daily terrorism."

I see no distinction.

"Israel of course is the only operative democracy in the Middle East."

The fact that it is a democracy is what gives Israel the international legitimacy to commit terrorist attacks against their poor Palestinian Neighbours, It may be a democracy, but like Australia it isn't a liberal democracy.

You mention that Israel gives full rights to Arabs to live within her borders but by doing so you completely miss the point that zionists proclaim self-determination for jews but deny it for Palestians. So you have missed the mark.

In summary you are a hypocrite and the Israeli government are hypocrites and the Australian and U.S. governments and most of the international community are gutless cowardly hypocrites.

It is not unusual for a link to be asserted between antisemitism and criticism of Israel's Zionist policies. Sometimes it exists, but increasingly often it is missing. I'm reminded of the "Snow White" art exhibit that an Israeli minister attacked -- it was immediately assumed to be antisemitic, but was created by an anti-Zionist Jew. Claims such as these weaken the meaning and power of the word.

Heywood didn't say that Zionism "reeks" of inhuman "racism", he said that "[t]he Zionist catch-cry 'God gave us (the Chosen) the whole of this land', reeks with inherent racism."
There is quite a difference, and according to the transcript, Heywood then began talking about how Israel's policies implement that statement and the negative results. Racism isn't the best word for it though and Heywood is wrong to deny that Israel is a democracy.

"Zionism is no more than self-determination for the Jewish people."
The way it was accomplished did not involve mere self-determination, because the Jewish people did not create their state in a uninhabited or all Jewish area. I would have no problem with Israel's pro-Jewish policies in the latter situation, but the creation of Israel involved the rights and property of other people and it's actions continue to involve them. No doubt the creation of settlements on Palestinian land has nothing to do with self-determination.

Some of this ground has been covered before, in the discussion following Philip Mendes' essay earlier in the year on Zionism and anti-Zionism.

Charges and counter-charges of anti-Semitism, or racism, of the type Mr. Lapkin and Mr Heywood-Smith have traded on "Perspective" have a tendency to devolve in to unwinnable "pissing contests." The claim that "Zionism is racism" is one that even the UN (aren't we all supposed to defer to this international body?) has dropped. Mr. Heywood-Smith perpetuates this position by his unequivocal statement "The real problem for apologists of Israel is that Israel is a racist state." He further says "Now supporters of Israel appear intent on using defamation themselves to counter legitimate criticism of their racist and expansionist State."

He can't wiggle out of these accusations. Whether Mr. Heywood-Smith is anti-Semitic or not I can't say. So the question is, do the decriptions of Israel as "racist" and "expansionist" qualify as "legitimate criticism?" Their "legitimacy" as statements therefore is fair game for debate.

For an "expansionist" state, Israel sure has been shrinking. Starting with the withdrawals from the Sinai and Lebanon, and now the planned withdrawal from Gaza, and proposed handover of security control to the Palestinian Authority in several West Bank towns, the only places Israel could be argued to be "expanding" is in some of the West Bank settlement blocs.

Is there racism in Israel? Yes - just as there is racism here in Australia against Asians and Aborigines. Could Israel do more to fully integrate its Arab citizens? Perhaps. But Arabs do have the vote, and the right to form political parties, and indeed they have representation in the Knesset (including an Arab woman MK) and on the Supreme Court. If the inequalities between Arabs and Jews in Israel make Israel a "racist state" as Mr Heywood-Smith claims, then the world is full of racist states, starting with our own Australia.

To read exactly what Heywood-Smith said on ABC's Radio National Perspectives program go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1360904.htm

David Knoll makes some extraordinary claims:

“Each year the commemoration [of the Holocaust] is designed to educate, so that never again will any people be the victims of genocide”

Is that right? Perhaps Mr Knoll can tell us what the Jews did to save the Cambodians or Rwandans or Bosnians from genocide? There were over 20 million Russians killed in the Second World War but they don't have museums and commemorations in every major city in the world. If it wasn't for their sacrifice millions more Jews undoubtedly would have been killed. The fact is Holocaust commemorations have never saved anyone nor prevented anything.

“Jewish people continue to search for peace, despite existential threats far from abating”

Who's going to attack a country that has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Is building nuclear bombs the way Israel searches for peace? They may want to prevent another Holocaust but obviously not if it's a nuclear one and Arabs are doing the dying.

“Zionism is no more than self-determination for the Jewish people. Regrettably, opponents of Zionism suggest that of all people on this earth only Jews are not entitled to self-determination. They portray the Jewish nation as perpetrators of some ongoing evil. Their tune has its obvious historical forbears.”

The last sentence sums things up nicely. Lets see.. a state where citizenship is religiously and ethnically based. Which has attacked its neighbors numerous times and is illegally occupying their land. Which has herded a despised minority into ghettos and deprived them of rights. Which openly talks of population 'transfer' as a 'solution' to the 'problem'. Which openly talks of a “Greater Israel” I see his point about 'historical forbears'.

“When one selects out a particular people as ineligible for the right of self-determination, one is engaging in active racism.”

This will be music to every Palestinians' ear. By preventing Palestinian self-determination Mr Knoll admits that Israel has been engaging in active racism for the past 60 years.

continued...

“Israel of course is the only operative democracy in the Middle East. It is the only nation in the region whose very declaration of independence guarantees rights for Arab and Jew alike. Both Hebrew and Arabic are official languages. Both Jew and Arab can and do own property, operate businesses, enjoy healthcare and public education, and importantly exercise the right to vote.”

Israel has a two tiered society where there is a legal difference between citizenship and nationality rights. All citizens can vote but nationality rights are exclusively for Jews. These provide for better class health care, priority university education, jobs, low rate loans etc and the right to buy land. 93% of Israeli land is reserved for Jews only. See:

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=584

I'm sure Mr Knoll in his capacity as President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies has already picked up the phone and spoken to relevant ABC Board members and probably notified the Premier's and Prime Minister's offices too. If only all persecuted minorities had such access....

Right with you Josh.

The only racist genocide condoning hypocrite here is the author. Especially about all of that stuff about the Jews being special, as you point many many other peoples have suffured the same but they don't hold international clout with buisness and government around the world.

But as to the solution to the problem at hand which is what to do with the whole middle east and the people in it. Apart from the obvious initial steps I don't know, does anybody else?

The complaints aired in this article can be reduced to a simple response based on one short statement made by the author

Quoting from the article -
"The role of Radio National in airing important issues for public debate is a vital one. ......

In this instance, regrettably what was being aired was the promulgation of recognisable anti-Semitism."

The first part of the quote may well be appropriate and pertinent

however

the second part of the quote "...the promulgation of recognisable anti-Semitism."

Is simple subjective opinion viewed from someone with, possibly, a less than objective interest in the proceedings.

I ask, would what was aired have been "recognisable anti-Semitism" if it had been aired at any other time or just because it was aired at this particular time?

If it were because of "timing" - I suggest Radio National should be a predominantly secular institution with no duty or responsibility to observe the particular significance of any religious calendar.

If it was not timing but the content which the author claimed as "recognisable anti-Semitism", we enter the arena of subjective opinion.

The "price" of censorship is far more expensive in terms of both individual and social degeneration than any individual expressing a personally held view or opinion.

It is in the interests of everyone to hear the views which oppose their own and make no attempt to suppress the free expression of that view - regardless of "timing" - certainly if the listener wishes to be better equipped to deal with the consequences of that opposing view and, of course, one is never sure when "our view" will be the "opposing view" required to be suppressed.

To quote Voltaire - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire got it right - either way, David Knoll - you have it wrong!

I really hate to have to repeat this type of rebuttal. But again "Josh" and "Penekiko" trot a lot of old tired rhetoric about "the Jews" having some kind of special power in business and the media.

If we applied this type of (il)logic to the Palestinians, we'd have to come to the conclusion that _THEY_ run the international media and financial systems, given the attention to their issue by the media, far out of proportion to their numbers, and far and away greater (proportionally) than that given to the plight of other refugee groups with legitimate nationalist aspirations. This applies to to the international aid they receive, pre-capita far higher than many other needy groups. Where is the aid and media stories for Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco for decades in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions? Tibet, occupied by China for 50 years? I could cite numerous other examples, but I think you get my point.

The other libelous slur (I'm sorry, but this is what this type of lie is) is the one about "what have the Jews done for victims of other genocides?" It doesn't take much digging to learn that Jewish organisations and politicians have taken leading roles in trying to achieve action to relieve the suffering of Muslims and others in the manmade tragedies of Bosnia and Sudan and in the natural disaster of the Asian tsunami. Where were their Arab brethren during their suffering? Why is it that Christian and Jewish NGO's, and Western infidels in general, have done more for these people than the extremely-wealthy Arabs?

The Palestinians have a legitimate right to self-determination, enshrined in many of the same UN resolutions that affirm that right for the Jews of Israel. But remember too that between 1948 and 1967 Eqypt and Jordan occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively, and never once even talked about granting the Palestinians a state in these zones in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Or did I miss something?

I am not a conspiracy theorist for Jewish people having disproportional control over the world. But, it is historical fact that many Jews became weathly and this is what makes them relevent in the eyes of governments. So when they wanted to reclaim their land (self determination) they had the resources and political leverage to do it. I am not denying them their right to self determination by any means possible, just pointing out that out of dozens of similar cases only the Jews are allowed by the international community to be resettled in such a dramatic fashion. What about the Kurds, the Palestinians and plenty of other races who have collectively suffered genocide and occupation. Either genocide is still occuring or occupation is still occuring or occupation is over but their country is ruined.

That is the main point. I made a point before which has probably been thought of as racist. The sentiment was "All jews in Israel are responsible for their government's action" I still believe this but I will explain as well.

Jews in Israel and some other non Jewish Israelis fall into one of three camps:
A) They actively support their Government's actions
B) They are silent (one of the elements which made Nazi Germany so strong)
C) They ineffectually actively oppose their Government's policies. In this hats off to them, but by remaining in the country they contribute to the government's revenue and therefore should leave.

As an Australian citizen living in a non-liberal 'democracy' (it doesn't have Condorcet voting) I am partly responsible for their evil actions. But I try to be not all that hypocritical about it and the evils of the goverment I live under are much smaller to those of most other countries.

Running around crying that the sky is falling whilst crying wolf just makes people stop listening and quite skeptical about one's credibility.

Funny, how one can call an arab Semite an anti-semite. Ahhh... Anti-semtitic Semites. And Isreali's who call for a moderate policy toward Palestinians are labelled as 'self hating' Jews.

What a big yawn. Many of us don't care and when you are really under threat you will find it very difficult to get us to start believing you.

Fundamentalism is the last resort of the desparate and morally corrupt.

In the words of Zionist political thinker Moses Hess, “Jews are not a religious group, but a separate nation, a special race, and the modern Jew who denies this is not only an apostate, a religious renegade, but a traitor to his people, his tribe, his race.”
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/israel/zionism.html

Hitler uttered similar words.

I hardly think the ABC or the rest of the Left have any genuine love for Islam or The Palestinians, who hate the Infidel Left as much as they hate all the favourites of the Left like homosexuals, but are just engaging in Jew bashing by proxy. According to Left orthodoxy anti-semitism is outlawed since that would be racist, but it is OK to vent your spleen against Jews by calling them Zionist. Keith

1) The timing of the Heywood-Smith piece was rather rude. If a commentary criticising the theocratic nature of Saudi Arabia were broadcast on the eve of Ramadan, imagine the (justifiable) outcry. Imagine if an opinion piece blasting the Catholic Church as sexist and homophobic were released on Good Friday. Catholics would be offended and rightly so.

2) Although charges of anti-Semitism may be overused, the claim that "to criticise Israel is to be accused of anti-Semitism" is sometimes used as a pre-emptive rhetorical strike before the "A" word is ever brought up. In this way challenges to the criticisms of Israel are discredited before they (the challenges) can be made. So here's a deal for Mr. Heywood-Smith and others:

I won't accuse you of being anti-Semitic if you don't accuse me of accusing you of being anti-Semitic. OK?

3) The Knoll essay is not a call for censorship, as some have claimed. Whether you agree or disagree with Lapkin, Heywood-Smith, or Knoll, no one has denied them the right to say their respective pieces. All of them have the right to put forward their points of view, and all indeed have been given platforms to do so by Radio National or Online Opinion. They may have the right to express their opinions, but they do not have the right to have those opinions go unchallenged.

W_Howard,

Are you serious? Go to google and type in 'jewish media ownership', or 'jews in the media'. How could Jews continue to portray themselves as victims if they admit to being the wealthiest, most well organised, well-connected and powerful minority in the world? Can you seriously suggest another minority that even comes close?

You seem to be asking why countries like Morocco and China can 'get away with' human rights abuses but Israel can't. You seem to be complaining about double standards. Well, China and Morocco don't claim to be democratic or pretend to defend human rights. They're not America's closest ally; nor do the Chinese or Moroccans have a Board of Deputies (among other lobby groups) in Australia which they can use to intimidate opponents of their regimes. The Chinese and Moroccans don't strut the world stage portraying themselves as the greatest victims in the world and spend millions building monuments to their victimhood. They don't sanctimoniously claim to be the moral guardians of the world while they abuse human rights. In short, the problem is we should be treating the Israelis like the Chinese and Moroccans but we don't.

Your assertion about Palestinians receiving aid is mind numbing. Israel is the single largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world. That's right, something like 20,000 people worldwide die each day from preventable diseases but the US taxpayer supports Israel to the tune of around US5 billion per year so they can kill Palestinians.

That total doesn't include the regular interest free 'loans' Israel receives. For your information WRMEA estimates Israel received US91 billion in US aid from 1949-1997. That doesn't include the billions Israel got to build the wall. But get this - NOT ONE US LOAN HAS EVER BEEN PAID BACK.

See http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

To compare the abject squalor of the Palestinians with the wealth of their Israeli neighbors and then to complain about the Palestinians receiving aid!! You must be Jewish..

continued...

You do save the best for last..

“But remember too that between 1948 and 1967 Eqypt and Jordan occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively, and never once even talked about granting the Palestinians a state in these zones in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Or did I miss something?”

Did you miss something? You must be a bit slow. You missed the fact THE ARABS WITHDREW almost FORTY YEARS AGO. If only Israel had done the same.

David,
is it possible that the issue (one of them) which drew attention to Jews in the first place (in Europe) is not so much that they wished to achieve racial domination over others but perhaps economic ?

Can you see any reason for people to feel slightly suspicious about how Jews organize themselves in relation to the rest of society ?
How about the way Mel Gibson was treated ? Hollywood is quite top heavy with Jewish people who have not the slightest hesitation to use the influence and power to 'stifle' and control those who they don't like. George Soros has enough economic power to bring nations undone, and has he been dabbling in such exercises ?

Do you recall David, the enterprising Sassoons of bombay ? how they (along with the British) treated the Chinese, degrading and destroying the social fabric, using their close ties with the British Crown to force opium into china against the wishes of the Chinese government ?

Without qeustion, Jews tend to rise to the top in professions and banking, because of a cultural pre-disposition towards these areas of life. This in itself is not bad, but it does create some serious 'power' available to them.

Does it concern you that something like 8 out of 12 of Victorian federal court Judges are Jewish ? does this sound like ethnic over-representation ? How would this effect decisions concerning prominent Jewish Identities (who mingle on the cocktail circuit with those Judges) who had issues in the federal court ? Would Jews of Melbourne have any concern if those Judges were in fact of Arab/Muslim decent ? (of course not, they are totally above such feelings ....right ? )

Do Jewish groups like the AIJIC seek to influence legislation (like the RRC 2001) and other political areas to their own ethno/religious benefit ?

It would not matter if we are referring to Italians, Aborigines,Greeks or calathumpians, the result would still be the same. People notice, and ask how this might effect them.

Wow, it is really funny to read of perversion of democracy and discrimination of the non-Jews in Israel as assured by

the A u s t r a l i a n s. In a political entity established by land-grabbing far-away from a historical cradle of the folks known to a world as the “Anglo-Saxons”, where a biological background constitutes EVERYTHING (possibility being qualified at local universities, further employment opportunities, etc., not talking of a social status and fulfilling professional dreams and inspirations).

Blabbing of a right of the Arabs of Palestine on own state is synonymous to arranging a “mutual obligation” system, where really professional educated not being intentionally taken on employment non-Britons-linked have been pushed into as a cattle to destroy their intelligence and to save work places for a master race local Aussie-Aryans.

This next puppet Arabic state is a necessity to isolate the Islamists in a particular area where actions against them would very much be backed with an international reality rather than attracting outbreacks of an anti-Semitic hysteria at Israel and Jews worldwide.

MichaelK.

What is sad here is that nobody has written anything very intelligent.

So why do you, Penekiko,write here?

Because I have delusions of personal well-consideredness and in the hope that someone will write something intelligent and considered at some point. Most of the time while on line I just shut-up, but this issue interests me and while I try to make it simplistic and a-historical like most people here, I know it should be treated better.

Penekiko is right. No one knows how to discuss racism rigorously here and indeed, its an intellectually retarded trait of Australian debate.
Yawn...

Waiting for a bossy opinion as usual…..

Well, I have a hint: a meaning of “racism” in Australia is more close to features described with “Nazism” in Europe and the US.

Racism has many forms, or perhaps better described as nepotism and discrimination based on religion or race. Any group, whether they be high profile retailing identities who masquerade as the Messiah of the people by calling for the re-introduction of a money losing customer card, purely to gain support for re-election to a board, where previously he had channeled buyers into his own supplier network undoubtedly populated heavily with his own ethnic/religious lackeys, or whether its the Italian concreter who only used his own race as suppliers, laborers, and other sub contractors. Or whoEVER it may be, its still the same grubby racism in embryonic form.

The main problem with people carrying on this way is that they seem to regard the wider Australian populace as being BOTH blind AND stupid. Well, I for one am not. I see it and note it.
Anyone wondering why his /her race or religion gets singled out for public condemnation need go no further than this type of activity to find out WHY.

BOAZ_David, are you suggesting that you base opinions about a whole racial/cultural group on the actions of individuals from that group (and that based on your own observations)?

I guess we are all tempted to do that to some extent but it is an easy ride from there to overt racism.

-- Most of the bankers you deal with are jews and you are pushed financially etc so jews are bad and to blame for your financial probems.

-- The aboriginal people I see on the streets are dirty drunks so therefore aboriginal's are dirty drunks.
The list can be extended to pretty much forever.

Somehow we need to find more objective ways of dealing with racial and cultural issues.

I am not accusing you of being racist (that does not seem to fit with your expressed values in other posts), rather commenting/questioning on the issues raised in your most recent post on this thread

MichaelK wrote:
Well, I have a hint: a meaning of “racism” in Australia is more close to features described with “Nazism” in Europe and the US.

Perhaps, maybe? Is Naziam merely a political cultural import and therefore substitute to explain what is inherently a specific and Australian discourse of racism that developed from this nations own history of colonialism and importantly, its disremembering. Benedict Anderson called nationalism a "imagined community".
So when the national broadcaster (ABC Radio) is accused of broadcasting anti-semitic views, is this in reference to the Holocaust of 50 years ago or is this a broader reading of racial conflict here in this country?
I think its the former rather than the latter......

Peniniko and Rainier,

"noboby has anything intelligent to say"

"intellectually retarted"

"Yawn"

I know what you mean. Everytime I hear the words 'anti-semitism' or 'holocaust' I feel the same way.

To Rainier et all:

It sounds as a broad instant not-perishing problem constituting all local existence, with a undisputedly significant reference to and a fresh reminder of a Holocaust occurred 60 years ago.

what's with you all? do you really think right is entirely with one side, whichever it may be? the comments range from mild criticism to to racial hatred. let go of the anger and try to be constructive.
zigger

The problem zigger is that everyone who has commented so far are against the article, some strongly. Yes a good discussion would be good but so far we haven't achieved the right mix of commentators. We all disagree on how to agree with each other.

I've just finished reading a book/biography about a young girl who surived Auschwitz and makes the diary of Anne Frank sound like a walk in the park. An ex neighbour and I were once talking (about 10 years ago) about why the jews seemed to be so money orientated, and she said to me, they have always had to have their money on the run, ie: sewn jewels in dresses, given to extended families, because they were always anticipating being run out of town. After WWII, and the way jews were singled out (albeit along with other minorities, but they were a majority!) I think we should cut them some slack. Who wouldn't be paranoid. They've been blamed for everything since JC was crucified. However, call me naive, but not every jew is an activist Zionist or related to a Rothschild. (just like all Muslims - apparently! are not anti-Christian terrorists) And all Aussie blokes aren't lazy, safari suited bums (homage to you Robert!) I find it ironic and tragic that the alleged holy site of Bethlehem is the hot bed of racial/religious war when most people just want to observe their everyday freedom and religious rights without wanting to rule the world. Stereotyping is our biggest enemy toward each other.

Robert.
Please read my posts carefully mate, I make so suggestion of wiping a whole 'race' because of the antics of some. But I make the observation that by and large, my comments apply to ALL groups, including our own. Hence, my vilification as such is directed against racially discriminative behavior, not against any race.

Some people have this 'art' fine tuned to the nth degree, and so it is more noticable than with other groups.

I have as much problem with a Chinese working with others 'because' they are chinese as I do with an Irish or Scottish or English person doing the same thing. Our dealings should be based on competitive merit and professional results.

But really I'm kinda living in a non existent utopia in suggesting this. In reality its more like I've described. I think there is more security and comradery within a familiar group. I guess one has to look at the motivation as much as anything. But its a reality also that in business, people usually forge ahead as though no one else is playing the game and if they (due to our actions) are wiped out its like 'ho hum, next move'.

When it comes to Jews, there are some noticable trends which could be worrisome, the disproportionate number of Jewish federal court Judges would be one of them. To suggest they are immune from ethnic/religious loyalties is a tad naive I feel. The same worry would apply if they were of any other minority group.

Two comments

1 Boaz referred to a disproportionate number of Jewish Federal Court judges because of concern they will favour their ‘own’ people. Isn’t it just as possible they could favour non-Jews so they won’t be seen as biased? To me it makes sense that the best people are appointed to all positions in any industry, public or private, and if they are disproportionately represented, well tough. Just make sure there are safeguards to prevent that happening.

2 Re Jews/Palestinians, I believe that all peoples are determined to self-determination and that should be the starting point of any discussion, not slagging off or claiming special privileges for either group. Then the discussion has to centre on how an equitable outcome can be reached.

By ‘safeguards to prevent that happening’ in my previous post, I meant in relation to favouritism, corruption etc.

Zigger... I take you by the hand, and lead you gently into the REAL world.

Does it not occur to you, that there is a lot which goes on behind closed doors, political deals, for donations, etc etc, which you should be fully aware of. The idea that the 'best people' get such jobs is outright hogwash. People in the real world get jobs because of deals, influence, relationships, and networks. Would you like to know how some of the top bods in the NAB got their jobs ? well, I can tell you on very good authority, that it was through relationships.

Pull your head out of the sand my boy :) and wake up, and smell the networks.

If you doubt my assertions, read up just for a starter on the history of Hawaii, many places and examples could be chosen, but the true nature of the human heart is demonstrated there in vivid social technicolor.

So, I suggest at an over representation of ANY ethnic or religious group in our legal system IS something to be concerned about.

I wonder what name I will now attract ? "Anti-human" ?

In my admittedly limited experience of the legal profession in two states of Australia, I've noticed an enormous majority of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men.

I think old B-D is finally on to something real here...

BOAZ_David, if I got the tone of that post wrong please accept my apologies. I think I got where you were coming from and tried fairly hard to not make it sound like an attack but rather bringing some issues up for discussion.

I think we all do what you refered to to some extent. The issues I raised are about what happens when that goes too far. Good for us all to think about.

Likewise most of us probably favor people with similar "somethings" when we want to do business be it language,culture, beliefs etc. That can be a healthy thing but it can also stifle our exposure to others. Again a hard mix to get just right.

Lucking of a national integrity but “proud of their backgrounds” hardly finds much common in a same group supposed being a team. That is why employment on biologically motivated grounds leads to eventual misunderstanding in more abstract issues as geopolitics is.

"Josh" writes:
"To compare the abject squalor of the Palestinians with the wealth of their Israeli neighbors and then to complain about the Palestinians receiving aid!! You must be Jewish.."

1) Is that important, "Josh?" Whether I'm Jewish or not?

2) I have no "complaints" about the aid the Palestinians get. I think they should get even more help to build a decent state of their own. Unfortunately too much of the money intended to help them has been diverted to their corrupt leadership, or is in the form of pledges never been acted upon.

Donor nations pledged over $1 billion to the Palestinians late last year, and so far have delivered only about $100 million. Much of these pledged funds are from oil-rich Arab states whose oil revenues have INCREASED in the past year by some $50 billion. They could probably afford $1 billion for aid to the PA.

The Bush Administration has requested ~ $350 million from Congress for aid to the Palestinian Authority, and Mahmoud Abbas came away from his meeting last week at the White House with a pledge for another $50 million.

The Palestinians have a whole UN agency devoted solely to THEIR refugee issues. See

http://www.un.org/unrwa/
The UNRWA has a staff of ~25,000, and budget of ~$340 million this year.

The Palestinians are not "ignored."

Per-capita aid to Palestinian refugees is quite high compared to other refugee groups. Whether it has done much to improve their living conditions is another question.

Aid to Israel is also quite high but is nearly matched by aid to Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and Turkey. The Bush Admin's budget request for FY2004 included

$2.3 billion for Israel
$1.3 billion for Eqypt
~ $450 million in combined economic and military aid for Jordan (plus about a dozen F-16s)
$25 million in military aid for Bahrain.
Several hundred million for Turkey (sorry I don't have the figures).

As I've said earlier, I (and most Israelis actually) think the Palestinians deserve and should get their own state, and to have their legitimate grievances addressed.

"Josh" further writes:

3) "Did you miss something? You must be a bit slow. You missed the fact THE ARABS WITHDREW almost FORTY YEARS AGO. If only Israel had done the same."

The Arabs were DRIVEN out of Gaza and the West Bank in the June 1967 War by Israeli forces. I suggest you start with Michael Oren's excellent book on the June 1967 war: "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East."

4) Be careful getting your information from Google searches of the type you suggest, as this yields links to a lot of Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist web sites. If this what you consider reliable information, you won't get far debating these topics.

These are serious issues, and they require serious, mature, intelligent consideration, not bigoted tirades. I look forward to you joining the club.

Everyone: feel free to refute anything I've written with credible facts and reliable information. I'll stand corrected.

I went to Israel once. In 1988.
I saw the Church of the Nativity.
I saw soldiers.
I saw the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
I saw hate, suspicion and superstition.
I saw the Temple Mount (complete with mosque).
I saw fear.
I saw the Western Wall.
I saw hypocrisy.
I arrived on a bus as an atheist.
I left on a plane as something else.

Is there a word for "Beyond Atheism"
How about Meta-atheism? Mega-atheism?
Anybody else got a suggestion?

Priscillian,

I believe the disease you picked up while there was the same disease they all had.

I suggest we not add to the problem of hate in the world but determine to show some compassion to those who live on a diet of fear and hate. I realise a man 2000 years ago tried healing and forgivness to these same people only to be crucified. But at least in his dying breath forgave his tormentors. Spread a little love around and someone one day might forgive and smile.

Philo,
Where on earth did you get the idea that I hated anybody or showed no compassion? Your hasty words cut me to the quick. I'm hurt.

A life without a god does not create an insensitive hateful person .....despite what you might think.

I did not leave with their disease.
Their disease is religion.
Their hate is born of this. Would the middle east have the problems it has without religion?

Show me I'm wrong. Please.
I feel sorry from them.... Really I do. If only they could be cured of this malady.

The only disease I picked up in Jerusalem was a really bad case of the flu.

p.s. Jesus' dying words seem to vary depending on the gospel you are reading but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do not agree with your particular version of His last expiring words. If you are going to quote this stuff then please try and get it right or you will confuse us even more.

There is no such thing as “Palestinians” but the Arabs of Palestine, many of them are the Christians and some converted into a Jewish faith as well.

No such a thing as a “Palestinian statehood” exists there upon all the history at all, but need to disintegrate felt with hatred and religious bigotry groups of populations, well supported by different forces round a globe.

Although creating the Arafatia will only alter the mishmash there, it is a right step as a world will see the exhausting of efforts in this direction and make a right conclusion at the end.

Priscillian,
You are right. Jesus spoke seven phrases or sentences post his crucifixion, and the one I mentioned was not the very last.

Quote, "Their disease is religion.
Their hate is born of this. Would the middle east have the problems it has without religion?"

Religions are a world-view like any philosophy or ideology, even as atheism. The problem is the passion one has for exclusive territory where their own particular world-view is totally adopted. The communist party in the USSR tried to eradicate religion by torture, imprisonment and death. They taught the children atheism and had the children dob in parents to the police if they taught them religion. They adopted atheism with equal passion and forbade the teaching of religion. This did not stop the problem of hatred and killing of millions of religious people it is just that it happened in the name of Atheism. In fact Russia is a much more peacful place since religion has been allowed and Christian ethics are taught in school.

Peace

Philo,
I've heard this accusation often, as if the excesses of the communists was spurred on by their rampant and passionate atheism.
If you care to read some Marx then you will realise why the church was on the nose with the communists, and they had good reason for this. This does not of course excuse the treatment of believers of which you describe. Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao et al were all homicidal maniacs, I agree. But I maintain that the "raison d'etre" of communism was to institute a political system. Atheism was a side issue, a by product of a flawed political belief system. I'm am not an apologist for atheism. It is simply an absence of a belief in a god. Nothing else than that, no stance on any other issue. Communists may have been atheists but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Religion however, claims to hold higher ideals. It is entwined in morality, law, belief, faith, the after life. Religion has abjectly failed on all accounts to bring about the kind of world it promises to deliver even though it does encourage "goodness". The middle east mess is of course an extreme example of this failure.
Please don't blame atheism for failing to deliver what it hasn't promised. By all means criticise its fundamental assertion. That there is no credible evidence for the existance of a god.

Priscillian,
The problem that raises your anger is based in human passion, and in an exclusive belief system related to race or territory. Atheists are equally as passionate about their belief system, just try to enforce a law that forbids the propagation of atheism, they will wage an equally hostile war.

Quote, "as if the excesses of the communists was spurred on by their rampant and passionate atheism."

It is apparent you have no personal knowledge of role of the religious police in USSR and the persecution of those who practised their faith. Children hacked to death in front of their parents because they would not denounce their faith in God. I have personal friends imprisoned for years in China and others sent to Siberia for no other reason than they were Christian. Atheism is not the answer to the problems of the world, it is equally the problem

The society that accomodates democratic world-view are less likley to wage civil war on their citizens. When those who believe one belief system must be enforced by law is the problem. Enforced belief systems that violate personal conscience and convictions are the problem.

A personal relationship that desires to emulate the character of a God who loves and forgives, is other than a licence to hate and kill.

Philo,
I say again, I am not an apologist for atheism.
A basic human right is freedom of religion and freedon from religion.(although they tried their damn hardest to shove the meme in my head...and obviously failed!)
Chopping up believers babies and putting people in prison because they have religious delusions is definitely NOT on.

Fine, then we are all agreed on this.

Why do Jews and Muslims in the middle east hate each other then?
How is one to know "the character of god" if one can't detect this god?

Scriptural references welcome. I have my Gideon's bible at the ready.

Priscillian, from an Israeli point of view, the ME conflict is about nationalism/land, not religion.
zigger

Agree with Zigger.
The ME conflict is a 'post 1948' conflict on land, legal right, etc..
and have nothing to do with religion.
I grew up in Egypt (Majority muslims) and jews used to own most successful retail business and media all around north Africa.

Jews lived in all middle eastern countries for the last few thousands
yeasr including Medina (in Saudi Arabia) during the time of Prophet Mohammed.

Ash

Zigger,
I've heard this before and it is a valid point, but is not Israeli national identity so closely entwined with Judaism that the two become almost inseperable?.
Israel as a nation exists:-

a. Because of unerring belief in literalist scripture that places Jews traditionaly at this location.

b. The Balfour declaration eminating from the British Empire that had 19th Century Christians firmly believing that there was an actual historical tie between Jesus (as a Jew) and England.
Hence a series of questions by William Blake in his famous poem:-

" And did those feet in ancient times, walk upon England's mountain green?.

And was the Holy lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the countenance divine, shine forth upon these clouded hills

And was Jerusalum builded here, among these dark Satanic Mills?

I recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The Bible and the Sword" for an insightful look at this question.

c. The strong support of America via its influencial Jewish lobby group.

d. The Holocaust, which produced an overwhelming desire for a secure homeland for Eurpoean Jews.

All of these reasons for existance have their bases in religion.
Israel is correctly called the "Jewish state".
Israel calls itself a democracy, albeit one that would only exist in the context of being a "Jewish democracy". Could you imaging a really secular Israel? or one dominated by, say, Catholics?

I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, just that to descibe the conflict as based on nationalism is not really that accurate.

Posted by Priscillian, "I'm not saying any of this is good or bad, just that to descibe the conflict as based on nationalism is not really that accurate."

I agree!

When Jews constantly recite the Torah and the poetry with reference to Jerusalem as the beloved homeland, it is more than territory and nationalism that divides these cultures. I ask what is the prayer of the wailing wall?? My own Orthodox relatives speak out against the secularisation of Israel.

It is a pity they cannot be as aimable as Abraham who allowed Lot to choose his parcel of land with courtesy. (Note a parcel of land is now called a Lot)

I do not want to criticize the Jews too much as I really love their culture and admire their history and tenacity. I went to a high school in Melbourne that was primarily Jewish (around 90%). I made some good Jewish friends then and today have long term Jewish friends who have stuck by me through thick and thin.
I get annoyed by people who accuse others who criticize Israel or Zionism as being anti-semites. Nothing could be further from the truth with me. I am not anti-semite, the opposite is true. I do however have a problem with literalist religion of any sort.
In the Melbourne Age today (Sat 3rd) Page 16 in an article by Ed O'laughlan.

" The religious Zionists of the settler movement believes that God convenanted the Jews with an exclusive right and religious duty to inhabit all the territories between the Nile in Egypt and the Euphrates in Iraq"

Now either this statement is factual or it isn't. My understanding is that this accurately descibes one belief of the Zionists. This kind of religiously based tosh is what I am talking about. If such a belief is not only stupid in logic but demonstrates a ridiculous adherence to literalist ancient claptrap that renderes a disinterested observer breathless. Most commentators today feel they must pussyfoot around the root cause of the problems in the middle east but a reading of history will enlighten us all the the facts.

When anti-views are expressed about a powerless minority it usually triggers alarms bells and vigilance within this same minority. Is this an accurate understanding of what David Knoll is on about? Who is powerless and who is the minority and how is time, religion and history used to define these qualities?

The whole world is intimidated by Religious Extremists -

Quote of Frida Ghitis,"One day, historians will scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to pass that Muslim extremists managed to intimidate moderates of every religion - including Islam - on every continent on earth. No question, insulting any religion is reprehensible. It appears, however, that nothing is more reprehensible than insulting the Muslim religion. And the extremists now decide what constitutes an insult. Moderates everywhere now seem terrified of making missteps that might upset the extremists, while they obsess over the question, "What can we do to avoid offending Muslims?" Standing Pentagon orders instruct those touching the Koran that "clean gloves will be put on" and that "two hands will be used at all times." (International Herald Tribune)

Palestinian Farmers said to Israeli Settlers in Gaza: Don't Leave - Reports Miri Chason in Ynet News.

Currently, some 3,000 Palestinians are employed in the Gaza settlement bloc of Gush Katif, most of them in agriculture. Mahmoud, 33, a Khan Yunis resident, said, "We hear in the news that in August they will leave Gush Katif, and we pray to God it won't happen." "If they do leave, there will be no food for my children."
Mahmoud has been working at Ganei Tal for more than 18 years and said he is happy with the work and earns as much as three Gaza laborers. "There's no work in Gaza," he said, slamming the Palestinian Authority for its corruption. "Only PLO members, those who work for the government, will get everything (following the pullout)," he said.

Mahmoud said he would be doing better had Israel refrained from signing agreements with Arafat.

I was born in 1948.
Since as long as I can remember I've been hearing this stuff.
Korea came and went, Vietnam came and went, Malaya, Nicarugua, Chile,Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Mao, USSR all came and went but we are still stuck with this crappy, dirty little conflict at the eastern end of the Mediterraean. As I described earlier I even went to see for myself and wasn't impressed. The land around the West bank and Jerusalum is a wasteland, an environmental and social nightmare. Mosques, Synagogues and Churches all wailing to the same god and getting no answers. I have never seen so many people with such miserable looks on their faces.
I can only see one solution.
a. One democratic secular state.
b. Don't call it Israel.(How about Canaan?)
c. Jerusalum an International city run by the U.N.

...complete with flying porkers

yep, like Priscillian,I reckon the whole thing has inhabited too much of the world's attention and intellectual space for too long, its like the world's own unsolvable rubics cube nation where never ending solutions are being put up by people who suffer chronic color blindness. Someone’s red is someone else’s green. Lets call it Rubic!

Priscillian wrote: I see only one solution. One democratic secular state. b. Don't call it Israel.(How about Canaan?) c. Jerusalum an International city run by the U.N.

In the area controlled by the Israeli government and army (noting that the Palestinian Authority only has whatever control the Israeli government and army allows it to have) there are now 5.2 million calling themselves Jews and 5.3 million calling themselves Palestinians. There are a further 4 million Palestinian refugees who are unable to normalise their residency in the countries of refuge. International law upholds their right of return to the villages they were expelled or fled from. I agree with Priscillian that the only solution possible, in that it accords with international law and the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one democratic secular state (whether in federalized cantons, a confederation or a binational state). A concept of citizenship whereby every individual has the same citizen's rights, based not on race, ethnicity or religion, but on equal justice for each person guaranteed by a constitution, must replace discriminatory laws that unequally confer health care, education, freedom of movement, housing, and employment.

Many of the abuses of human rights which have taken place over the past years have even been carried out in the name of "peace". But the suppression of human rights has also been a catalyst in encouraging and facilitating human rights abuses by those who oppose the peace process. The failure to uphold people's basic rights feeds hatred and perpetuates abuses. All those in a position of authority must recognize that the right to life, physical and mental integrity, freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom from fear and want are the inalienable rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. The human rights of one individual can not be founded on the loss of rights of another individual.

See "Ten Principles that Amnesty International Articulated for a Durable Peace based on Human Rights (press release, 26 March 2001) at http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/document.do?id=F631E2C3C616E1FB80256A1C003D4C41

It is a pity that the Eastern mind does not think the same way as our Western cultured mind - then a solution would easily be resolved. It is obvious we on this forum have the answers but are they able to comprehend or willing to trust each other?

RayBer, totally agree with the international law quotes etcetera.
But citing international law in this country is as useful as backing England in a test match. Its just not seen as relevant and or 'Australian' . Sad but true.

Rainier, BayBer, and others,

In relation to international law and the rights of refugees, note the text of UN General Assembly Resolution 194:

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/194.shtml

In particular read Item 11:

"11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations; "

Note that this resolution was passed in December 1948, after most hostilities in the 1948 war had ended, and at least several hundred thousand Jews had been driven from their homes in Arab countries, their homes, businesses, and assets confiscated, and their citizenship stripped. Note that this resolution doesn't specify only Arab refugees.

My point: if we really want to get serious about the Palestinian "right of return" issue, we will have to talk about the nearly equal number of Jews who were made refugees and perhaps should be offered the right of return to their homes in Amman, Baghdad, Damascus, etc. No such offer for return or compensation has ever, to my knowledge, been made to these Jews. Iraqi Jews, who were stripped of citizenship by the parliament of the day in the early '50s, in particular, had been in Iraq since it was Balylonia.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

In addition to my post above
In the Amnesty Int'l "Ten Principles" document that RayBer referred to, Point 7 says:

"7. Everyone has the right to return to his or her country. The right to return is an individual human right which cannot be given away as a political concession. Palestinians in exile should be given the choice to exercise such a right and return to Israel, the West Bank or Gaza Strip as appropriate. Palestinians should also be allowed to choose other durable solutions, such as integration in their host country or resettlement in a third country. Those who choose not to return are entitled to compensation. Those returning should also receive compensation for lost property. The same rights relating to return and compensation should also be given to Israelis who fled or were forced out of Arab and other countries."

So OK, let's talk about "right of return." While we're at it, since the Europeans are such staunch supporters of the Palestinians and critics of Israel, they could really show their solidarity with their Palestinian brethren by helping them get Jews out of Palestine. The Europeans could offer Jews the homes and property that were confiscated by the Nazis and their supporters. There are probably lots of nice houses in Berlin, Munich, Prague, Cracow, Budapest....

The Arabs of Palestine are not refugees: they had left on their own will as their tribe leaders promissed a quick victory over the Jews in a war called by Israelis " A War for Independence".

They had lost. No right for return applies to them-at least not much, than for the Jews being expelled from Afghanistan,Iraq, Iran,Middle Eastern countries generally,Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailan, Japan, Singapor, China, the then former USSR -and non-Jews: Polish Ukrainians and Germans to return into contemporary Poland,Ukrainian Poles-into the Ukraine, a number of Dutchmen - into Belgium,the Frenchmen and Jews-into Algeria. A list can be extended all around a world, and broadened much with stories dealt with different folks.

History has happened-and let it rest as it is.

A great theory MICHAELK but I dare you to take it into the streets of Gaza. I'm sure they'll all suddenly see the light and call off the whole thing.

Fatuous platitudes.

Howard,

Actually your question as to why Europe didn't give a part of Europe to the Jews rather than Palestine was first asked by the Saudi King in 1948: "why can't Israel be in Germany, it was Germany who massacred Jews, not arabs or muslims" he said.

Actually or surely, I did not question Europe's obligation to place a Jewish state inside as such an attempt was made in the USSR already by creating a Jewish Autonomy Region in Siberia at the time.

What is quite sure to me is that a most of these discussion participants has never been to places where the UN sucks international funds for “peacekeeping”. And Gaza is not a most for me to go to find the same, which is a local mafia perfectly doing business round the glob with Israeli counterparts inclusively, and killing everybody questioning necessity of “no peace-no war” situation.

What did I provide is that this situation is not unique (Kosovo is in the supposed being more tolerant and civilized part of a world which is Europe itself), and changing the status quo on a basis of a simple majority of an ethnic population or strength of arms is blooding rather than grateful project as history testified.
With unpredictable further outcomes wherever around a globe.

Ranier noted: "But citing international law in this country is as useful as backing England in a test match. Its just not seen as relevant and or 'Australian' . Sad but true."

Quite sad and quite true, but it's a situation that needs to struggled against:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3418
(The US, Australia and South Africa were the only nations that) voted against a resolution on human rights and transnational corporations (TNCs) adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

Australia has often siding with the US to oppose a resolution that represented by and large an international consensus on an important issue.

More often than not, human rights become an issue for the US and Australia only when they are likely to promote the interests of their businesses, but not otherwise. It is hypocritical for the US and Australia to decry the abuses of other countries when their own corporations violate these same human rights in the backyards of developing countries. This selective reliance on the slogan of human rights only demonstrates that there is a difference in how people’s lives are valued across the world. Aparently, whether human rights and their violations are to be taken seriously or not depends on whose human rights are violated and by whom.

Australia regularly and mindlessly votes with the US in the UN General Assembly to shield Israel from criticism for human rights abuses. They are often joined by Nauru, Guam, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands to vote against UN Resolutions even when almost the whole of the rest of the international community supports the resolution. This was the case in the resolution supporting the ruling of the International Court of Justice that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law. Apart from this ocurring innumeral times in the General Assembly the United States has cast its veto 40 times to shield Israel from Security Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, demanded, affirmed, endorsed, called on and urged Israel to obey the world body. They are listed at:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html

Well, the USSR did everything opposite, and really oppressed Jews even at then local level there had got higher education degrees and professional careers.

Free and democratic, as it told from inside, Australia provides a different politics towards the Middle Eastern issues-and it is more easy for some local Jews become the World Bank director, than get qualifications and being locally employed out of own
c o m m u n i t y….

Which stuff is better ?