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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Logic,

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

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

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

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

Quite simple really.

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

Hope that helps.

Regards

Keith,

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

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

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

Fences around the world:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cont ...

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

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

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

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

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

I could add more ...

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

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

Now over to you ... Keith

Danielle,

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

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

I do. Why you might ask?

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

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