Both Downer & Howard have emerged over the years as little more than apologists for Israel. This is reflected in our voting pattern in the UN whenever the subject of Israel/Palestine comes up. Israel, the US, Australia and 2 or 3 Pacific micro-states on one side; the rest of the world on the other.

You can make out an (unconvincing) case that our national interest is served by always trailing Uncle Sam, but Israel? What gives here?

With respect Greg I think you should stick to something that you might know something about rather than deliver a spray on a complex foreign policy matter such as the Middle East, which clearly you don't.

In fact this government (I might add I don't support them) knows a great deal about the political reality in the Middle East. It's not just about Lebanon today. There is a much broader strategic threat not only to the democratic nation of Israel but a also a threat against Arab sovereign states. It's not too difficult to work it out!

Phil Bramley

I found this little gem on the Internet:

"On the weekend of June 17-18, 2006, Vice President Dick
Cheney huddled with former Israeli Prime Minister and Likud
Party head Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Israeli Cabinet
minister Natan Sharansky, at a conference in Beaver Creek,
Colorado, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. While
the precise contents of the discussions were never made pub-
lic, Netanyahu loudly advertised that he would immediately
fly back to Israel to meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
and his “ex-prime ministers” kitchen Cabinet group — which
also includes Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres and for-
mer Labor Party Prime Minister Ehud Barak — to deliver the
marching orders from Cheney."

Give me a break. This is all about bringing sweet Iraqi oil to the safe haven of Haifa on the Med.

The proposed 42" pipeline will require a very wide corridor of safety, together with a "friendly" regime in Syria. The Iranians will need to be pushed 'way back from their proximity to the Iraqi oilfields and wellheads. Better they were gone altogether, if possible.

To this end, we are all equally disposable, even Israeli citizens if necessary. Certainly any UN presence will be neutralised, except where they follow the orders of the Bolton brigade.

So why do I want to puke when I see Red Kerry and Downer doing the circular waltz? It's all play acting. They never delve under the surface and we will never be any the wiser.

7:30 Report? Try Dancing With the Stars.

In the SBS news I couldn’t help notice the absurdity of the Liberals spending priorities.

From about the third news story:

“ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN MINISTER: Clearly in emergency circumstances we'll be able to take measures to get additional people out and we'll obviously try our best to do that, and we can of course always go back and charter vessels if the numbers start to grow yet again. But of course it's not practical for us to, if you like, run a transport service day by day for an indefinite period, that would become preposterously expensive.”

The “preposterously expensive” cost is infinitely more important than the loss of human life.

From about the fourth news story:

“BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: I have said repeatedly to the Chief of Defence and also the Chief of the Army, General Lay, that whatever they require for our Australian soldiers will be provided to them, and money is not an obstacle to the provision of it.
The reforms will include a new system for soldiers to provide feedback on the quality of their clothing and equipment.”

Spare no expense there Brendan. For the Liberals- "money is not an obstacle" when it serves their own agenda.

Innocent civilians lose out again.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the priority SBS places on its reports? First report we here of a few Israeli soldiers who have been killed. Then buried in the middle stories we hear of the dozens of civilian deaths. What have the Israelis got influence over SBS too?

Phil, Your final comments concerning the Middle East seem to be so disconcerting. Yes, we do expect trouble in the Middle East, but you do not mention clearly from which side it will come?

As one who has taken a deep interest in Middle East problems as far back as the double-crossing of TE Lawrence by his British compatriots after WW1, coupled with the colonial occupation by the Brits of southern Iraq, especially its Kuwaiti ports, just one of many ME events our public is so dumbed down about.

With your apparent historical knowledge, Phil, you must know it goes on and on? After WW2 in the ME with the US taking over from the Brits to play the same imperial game, even though in the Suez Crisis the Americans did appear anti-imperial and on the side of the Arabs with the British and French booted out. Interesting at the time the Israelis preferred the company of the Brits rather than the Yanks, being the last to take their troops out of Egypt. Notice that the Israelis don't like to back small fry like the Palestinians, soon looking to the US after Britain lost prestige. Notice too how the Israelis though small in number when invited can do the big talk with the best- for admittedly historically, the Jews have proven themselves intellectually.

There they are now in the White House, not quite ruling the roost, but certainly accepted by the GWB' government.

So there above you have the real worry in the ME, Phil, as most uni' PHd's will tell you. Such White House influence along with the born-again US Christian Right, and with our Johnny Howard meekly tagging along, could bring on what we are all so scared about, an attack on Iran, bringing on far more frightening implications than the messed up one on Iraq.

PS. Might also let you know, Phil, that we are a group who humgers fora far more powerful UN, certainly something the US does not want, because a strong and democratic UN will really unseat Pax Americana from her imperial perch.

The implications of our pathetic foreign policy aside, surely any nation that excuses its treatment of its neighbours on the grounds that its country was promised to it by a god has got to be a bit of a worry.