Miriam's Topical Topics.

DANIEL PIPES ON FORT HOOD MASSACRE, JIHADISM, ME

2009-11-10T05:28:00.000-08:00

Dr. Daniel Pipes PhD spoke to the Zionist community in Melbourne.
November 11, 2009.

Pipes is a Ph.D. in ME history, author of many books, articles and commentator on news media.

He is adamant that no one in history ever won against ideologues by appeasements and discussions. WW2 was fought against Fascism,- it took years and tens of millions dead and plenty of hardware to squash it. Communism was dismantled after the Cold War. Islamism needs a similar will and war-to-win.iSRAEL BNEEDS TO HAVE A TACTIC TO WIN AND CONQUER, NOT TO APPEASE. It hasn't worked for them since their unilateral withdrawals. The USA talks about winning the war against terrorism,- no one talks about Israel winning the war against those who want to annihilate it.

He is convinced that the Palestinians have no intention of being satisfied with a State alongside Israel, only one instead of Israel. Therefore he feels that the Israeli Government has lost its way in strategic-deterrence thinking and has erred in unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza. These are signs of weakness against the intransigent ideological enemy.

Israel tries too hard to appear sensitive to public opinion and the saving of enemy lives to the detriment of its own people and soldiers, but to no avail. Public opinion is now stacked against it anyway. What is the point? One may as well be blamed for something real. Let the punishment fit the crime and act as a deterrent to its enemies until it says 'enough is enough.If we can't destroy them, let's join them!'

Islamism has become very cunning and subtle,- e.g. in Turkey, while in Iran, there are positive signs that the resistance is strong enough to one day overthrow the terrible regime of the Ayatollahs. If and when this will happen, it will help the rest of the Islamic world to escape from its yoke of Jihadism.

Re the Zionist Christians of America,- Pipes feels it is only second to the IDF in the war against the Jihadists on Israel’s side. Too many Jewish groups however steer clear of them,- he feels that’s a pity.

He spoke about the enemies within the USA as happened in Texas (below). Time to call a spade a spade, by calling it what it is,- not something it isn’t. It’s Jihad and Jihadism,- whether one likes it or not. The murderer called out Al Akhbar,- what more is needed to prove what it was?
MM

Daniel Pipes November 9, 2009-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sudden Jihad or "Inordinate Stress" at Ft. Hood?

by Daniel Pipes

FrontPageMagazine.com

November 9, 2009

http://www.danielpipes.org/7737/sudden-jihad-inordinate-stress-ft-hood

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft. Hood jihadi, in a picture from 2000.
When a Muslim in the West for no apparent reason violently attacks non-Muslims, a predictable argument ensues about motives.

The establishment – law enforcement, politicians, the media, and the academy – stands on one side of this debate, insisting that some kind of oppression caused Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, to kill 13 and wound 38 at Ft. Hood on Nov. 5. It disagrees on the specifics, however, presenting Hasan as the victim alternatively of "racism," "harassment he had received as a Muslim," a sense of not belonging," "pre-traumatic stress disorder," "mental problems," "emotional problems," "an inordinate amount of stress," or being deployed to Afghanistan as his "worst nightmare." Accordingly, a typical newspaper headline reads "Mindset of Rogue Major a Mystery.".

Instances of Muslim-on-unbeliever violence inspire the victim school to dig up new and imaginative excuses. Colorful examples (drawing on my article and weblog entry about denying Islamist terrorism) include:
• 1990: "A prescription drug for … depression" (to explain the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane)
• 1991: "A robbery gone wrong" (the murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney)
• 1994: "Road rage" (the killing of a random Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge)
• 1997: "Many, many enemies in his mind" (the shooting murder atop the Empire State Building)
• 2000: A traffic incident (the attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris)
• 2002: "A work dispute" (the double murder at LAX)
• 2002: A "stormy [family] relationship" (the Beltway snipers)
• 2003: An "attitude problem" (Hasan Karim Akbar's attack on fellow soldiers, killing two)
• 2003: Mental illness (the mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam)
• 2004: "Loneliness and depression" (an explosion in Brescia, Italy outside a McDonald's restaurant)
• 2005: "A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member" (a rampage at a retirement center in Virginia)
• 2006: "An animus toward women" (a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle)
• 2006: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed" (killing with an SUV in northern California)

Sgt. Hasan Karim Akbar, convicted of the 2003 murder of two fellow soldiers.
Additionally, when a Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American crashed a plane into a Tampa high-rise, blame fell on the acne drug Accutane.

As a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation, I reject these explanations as weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic. The jihadi school, still in the minority, perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law. We recall a prior episode of sudden jihad syndrome in the U.S. military, as well as the numerous cases of non-lethal Pentagon jihadi plots and the history of Muslim violence on American soil.

Far from being mystified by Hasan, we see overwhelming evidence of his jihadi intentions. He handed out Korans to neighbors just before going on his rampage and yelled "Allahu Akbar," the jihadi's cry, as he fired off over 100 rounds from two pistols. His superiors reportedly put him on probation for inappropriately proselytizing about Islam.

We note what former associates say about him: one, Val Finnell, quotes Hasan saying, "I'm a Muslim first and an American second" and recalls Hasan justifying suicide terrorism; another, Col Terry Lee, recalls that Hasan "claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans"; the third, a psychiatrist who worked very closely with Hasan, described him as "almost belligerent about being Muslim."
Finally, the jihad school of thought attributes importance to the Islamic authorities' urging American Muslim soldiers to refuse to fight their co-religionists, thereby providing a basis for sudden jihad. In 2001, for example, responding to the U.S. attack on the Taliban, the mufti of Egypt, Ali Gum'a, issued a fatwa stating that "The Muslim soldier in the American army must refrain [from participating] in this war." Hasan himself, echoing that message, advised a young Muslim disciple, Duane Reasoner Jr., not to join the U.S. army because "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims."

If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it's also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army's "unforgivable political correctness" will officially ascribe Hasan's assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned.
And thus will the army blind itself and not prepare for its next jihadi attack.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Related Topics: Muslims in the United States, Radical Islam, Terrorism To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php

(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 1-2 times a week.)
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles)
Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases)
at http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.phpYou may post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date, publication, and original URL.
DanielPipes.org

DR. FELIX ZANDMAN- Bio.: AN INSPIRATION

2009-11-03T04:40:00.000-08:00

Felix Zandman Biography

[N.B.I WAS FORTUNATE TO SEE A DVD DEPICTING THE LIFE STORY OF THIS REMARKABLE MAN.
The following is extracted from thousands of references about him available on the internet.]

Survivor Triumphant: Felix Zandman's life story is a saga of success in the face of some of this century's greatest evil. Jew. Survivor. Physicist. Entrepreneur. Industrial magnate.

Felix Zandman's life story grows like a blossoming tree from gnarled roots in Grodno, Poland.

There he was raised in a comfortable home, and from an early age given Jewish, Zionist and secular educations.

At 15, with the Nazi extermination campaign in full swing, he had the good fortune to be able to hide for 17 months in a tiny pit dug under the floorboards of a house of righteous Gentiles in the Polish countryside, along with four other Jews.(This is reproduced in a Holocaust Museum in Florida).

Whilst hidden, his engineer uncle continually educated him in higher maths and physics and as he describes it in his DVD-life story, his brain absorbed it all like a sponge. After their harrowing escape from the grave-like hiding place, they eventually made their way to Paris after liberation where he was immediately able to continue his education at The Sorbonne, to Ph.D. level.

His ability to think ‘outside the square’ he attributes to his amazing problem-solving skills, such as inventing the tiny resistors and other scientific innovations now used in the aircraft industries, in every electronic device in the world.

Dr. Felix Zandman is Chairman and CEO of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (NYSE: VSH). In 1962, Dr. Zandman, with the financial help of the late Alfred P. Slaner, founded Vishay to develop and manufacture Bulk Metal foil resistors. The Company was named after Dr. Zandman's and Mr. Slaner's ancestral village in Lithuania, in memory of family members who perished in the Holocaust.

Dr. Zandman holds a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Paris, Sorbonne. He has received numerous honors throughout his life, including the Musser Award for Excellence in Leadership, the Order of Merit for Research and Invention (France), the Distinguished Contribution Award from the American Society of Stress Analysis, the Franklin Institute Medal for Science, and the Legion of Honor (France).
Dr. Zandman speaks Russian, Polish, Yiddish, German, Hebrew, French, and English. He has also published three textbooks and holds 39 patents.

Dr. Zandman´s autobiography, Never the Last Journey, recounts his story from Holocaust victim to head of Vishay.

EXECUTIVE PROFILE*
Felix Zandman
Founder, Executive Chairman, Chief Technical & Business Development Officer and Chairman of Executive Committee, Vishay Intertechnology Inc.

Age 80.
This person is connected to 14 board members in 4 different organizations across 1 different industries.
BACKGROUND*
Felix Zandman founded Vishay Intertechnology Inc. and has been its Chief Technology Officer and Chief Business Development Officer since January 1, 2005. Dr. Zandman serves as Chief Technical and Business Development Officer of Vishay Israel Ltd. Dr. Zandman founded Vishay Semiconductor Gmbh and serves as its Chief Technical Officer. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Vishay Intertechnology Inc. since 1962 until January 1, 2005. He served as President of Vishay .

HONORARY DOCTORATE CITATION TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY>

At its session on the 2nd day of March, 2005
the Senate of Tel Aviv University resolved to honor
Felix Zandman
in recognition of his indomitable spirit and resourcefulness in transforming himself from Holocaust refugee tosuccessful industrialist, physicist, inventor and philanthropist; his remarkable entrepreneurial and leadership ability in building up his company, Vishay, into one of the world’s largest electronic
manufacturers; his creative scientific vision and numerous patents
and publications, for which he has won accolades worldwide; and
in special recognition of his pioneering contribution to the Israeli high-tech industry, which has also helped to advance the
absorption of immigrants and the strengthening of development towns in the country; his steadfast support of Tel Aviv University; and his establishment at the University of projects in Holocaust studies
as well as the Zandman Graduate School of Engineering,
by conferring upon him the degree of

Doctor Philosophiae Honoris Causa
• of Tel Aviv University.

The new boat-people invasion.

2009-11-03T04:32:00.000-08:00

There are some 40 million people in the world who are classed as UNHCR refugees, asylum seekers, displaced persons or illegals of one kind or another. How many of those should or can Australia take in? The more Australia is seen as being a 'soft touch', the more will try to risk making their way directly to our shores, one way or another.

A country is supposed to grant refugee status to people coming across from their neighbouring borders. Australia is usually reached by people fleeing over many borders across continents like Asia. if genuine asylum seekers, why were they not granted asylum in any of those other countries? Did they even seek it anywhere else?

Comparing the current situation with our Jewish experience, the proportion of those who are actually fleeing persecution and extermination as when we European Jews tried to escape the Holocaust in the 30s, or other Europeans escaping from Communism after the war, is relatively small. Western European nations as well as the Anglo-world closed their doors in our faces before the war, while survivors after the war fared little better. There were also Jewish 'boat people' trying to reach pre-Israel Palestine, most ending in the British detention camps in Cyprus.Everyone knew who we were and why we were there,- unlike today.

Nowadays, all of us fair-minded Australians would like to help those who make the dangerous trek to our shores by sea, especially families with women and children. But most are single males looking for a better life, hoping to bring their families later while paying a lot of money to the traffickers in the meantime. If the latter would at least put them on to safe boats, one could even forgive them,- but they don't.

I think that the Government does have a responsibility to assess fairly whom to help first, whom and how many to give priority for the right to become Australians eventually, in order to ensure that we can sustain the fragile Australian environment and maintain the quality of life which is so eagerly sought by all these others.

There were few of these concerns necessary when we Jews were in that situation, but we know that they were still considered by the Governments of the day.America had a quota system for immigrants from each European country. Our turn arrived some 10years after we applied while in a DP camp in Italy. We had resettled in Australia by then of course and were no longer interested.

It is important to thoroughly vet who is allowed in these days given the variety of reasons for those leaving their native countries.Some are genuinely fleeing fot their lives and if they pay the people-smugglers, so be it. But then they should have their papers, showing who they are and from where they come,- not throw away their IDs as they are told to do by the traffickers! At least those who arrive by air and overstay their visas,do come with valid passports, visas and all kinds of IDs to support their claims when they are caught and have to be assessed.

How do we know who these boat people are then? After WW2, plenty of Nazis escaped even to Australia, while I heard a victim of Cambodian atrocities complaining that the torturers are living in their vicinity right here in Australia.How can the government assess whether among the arrivals there aren't straightforward criminals, let alone various war criminals and fanatics of all kinds trying to escape their own justice systems? Do we really want to attract them to Australia?

That is the dilemma PM Rudd is facing,- he knows that we, the people do worry about being flooded by too many extremists, as well as by many others who may not integrate easily into our Western way of life.

Jewish Internet Defense Force: Small Victory for the Good Guys: Pro-sharia law march cancelled in UK

2009-11-02T02:03:00.000-08:00

Jewish Internet Defense Force: Small Victory for the Good Guys: Pro-sharia law march cancelled in UK

On the Trail of our True Believers.

2009-10-30T04:52:00.000-07:00

RE: The Encyclopedia of Religion in Australia.
(Ed. James Jupp. Cambridge University Press.)

[The immigration debate in Australia is hotting up. Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor of The Australian published an article (29/10) "Uncontrolled Muslim influx a threat". The article is important, but the headline is alarmist and sounds racist.
James Jupp is much more specific about from where the immigrants originate being more important than their religion per se. It is true that devout Muslims will pursue their way of life wherever they are,- but like the Jewish religion and devout Jews, they will be accommodated within Australia's multicultural society, while the more secular Muslims will have and be no trouble at all. However, James Jupp does point out that there is a violent thread within the Islamic religion with which people from some parts of the Islamic world may identify. They are already in the UK and parts of Europe,where they are becoming far too strong and militant, having originated in some fundamentalist regions. They are a threat to the Judeo/Christian Western nations' way of life and to our democracies.
For intending immigrants from all parts of the world,legals, illegals, even visitors in case they decide to stay,- if they would be given an information booklet on the Australian laws regarding human rights, freedom of expression, status of women and family law,- then made to read and sign that they understand them,- perhaps many who prefer Sharia laws, would reconsider Australia as their chosen destination!
It was Lybia's President Ghaddafi who is reported to have said:'we don't have to fight in Europe. In a few decades they will be overtaken naturally by Islam.']
MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26267903-25918,00.html

Jill Rowbotham |

October 28, 2009

Article from: The Australian. Higher Education.

JAMES Jupp survived the Blitz as a child living in south London. He remembers the fear and the danger, although his family emerged unscathed from their preferred refuge under the bed, and his father, an officer in the merchant navy, also made it through the war.

Perhaps that early shave with a world imperilled by war set the tone for the blunt realism of the editor of Cambridge University Press's The Encyclopedia of Religion in Australia. So, when asked if concern about the potential for militant Islam in Australia is justified, he doesn't fudge or baulk.

"In my view Islam is an aggressive religion. When people say it is a religion of peace, I have serious doubts. Islam was spread in its original period, for two or 300 years, very largely by military conquest."

But, he adds, fears about militant Islam in Australia are out of proportion. There are only about 380,000 Muslims and the most are law-abiding peace lovers. Even so, he says, there is more risk in accepting some migrants as opposed to others. It is not just their country of birth that matters but their region of origin.

"Islamic fundamentalism varies a lot around the world and some countries like the UK drew a problematic lot, the Pakistanis from the rural areas. The core of the problem in Australia is among those who came from the Lebanon, which is a very disturbed society because of the civil war based on religious adherence, but it depends where the migrants come from in Lebanon and their background.

"As long as you have a religion that contains a violent element, that can be used and developed, but it is much more likely to be so among people who come from countries like Somalia because of its war-torn history."

Jupp, an adjunct professor in the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute at the Australian National University and director of the Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies there, is a political scientist who has studied his adopted country and its immigrant populations in depth. At 77, he is quietly chuffed at bringing off the great feat of research, co-ordination, commissioning, editing and extensive writing the 700-page book required.

Jupp trained at the London School of Economics in the 1950s, and has taught at the universities of Melbourne, York, Waterloo (Canada) and Canberra. His scholarship in and service to immigration and multicultural studies was recognised with an Order of Australia in 2004.

He tackled the research for his latest project aided by a three-year Australian Research Council grant. The brief was to pursue the cultural, social, political, educational and welfare services dimensions of religion in Australia. The book roams widely, covering about 100 faiths and denominations, from mainstream Christianity to the Mandaeans and the Russian Old Believers.

"I think the majority of the articles have been written by members of or supporters of that particular religion and I'm the exception to that because I have written about a number of religions, some of which I regard as completely bizarre."

He has contributed many chapters, including those on religion, immigration and refugees, and fundamentalism in modern society. "It's not concerned with theology because that's the area I did not wish to get involved in.

"I am not a person of faith," he declares, but denies he is an atheist and won't wear the term agnostic. Educated at a Church of England school, he shrugged off Anglicanism when he discovered socialism in his teens. Pressed to name other allegiances, he offers: "I am a life member of the ALP in the ACT."

But Jupp is critical of academic neglect of religion, as opposed to theology, in Australia. "Obviously there is a big overlap between politics and religion. The idea that they are two separate spheres is mistaken and increasingly so in many ways. Very few political scientists have looked at religion except in terms of the Labor Party split. I think one reason I got the grant from the ARC is that hardly anyone puts in for that section."

Exponents and scholars of multiculturalism have also failed to recognise religion's relevance. "One of the things multiculturalism has overlooked in this country and many others is that it is not folk dancing and ethnic food only. Religion is an extremely important element that will outlast some of those other manifestations. In an immigrant culture it helps to maintain ethnic variety."

Virtually all religions in Australia were founded somewhere else except for the indigenous ones, he says, but generally, these days, Australians wear their religion lightly. "I think one of the things, not unique but fairly noticeable, is that it is not a deeply religious society. There is a substantial degree of scepticism and even indifference, but everyone, at some point in their life, has had contact with religion."

Part of the reason for that is the general affluence of the society makes an interest in an afterlife less intense.

"People think in terms of satisfying their material wants, which they can in Australia. The ones who are mostly dissatisfied are the youth, who are dissatisfied anyway because they don't know who they are or where they are going. Then they settle down."

His general view of religion's influence is cautiously favourable. "If you go through the whole book the general message is that religion in Australia is fairly benign. Most of the things the religions do here are socially desirable and relatively benign." But their social power, what he calls their "institutional force", particularly of the mainstream Catholic and Protestant denominations, is largely gone: "The dark ages ended in 1960s and 70s, that was the last stuttering of repressive religions in Australia." Most people feel free to believe or not, to practise a faith or not. And there is a rise in ecumenism he thinks will make the book useful in a practical as well as an historical way.

Before this encyclopedia, Jupp's most recent book was the edited collection Social Cohesion in Australia. "Australia is probably the most socially cohesive community in the world," he says. "Most of the discussion in Australia about social cohesion centres (on) Muslims, who are about 1.5 per cent of the population and most of them are practically hiding under the bed. They're the ones who have to apologise for their existence. The whole thing has been distorted.

"Most of the Muslims I know are university-educated and a lot of women come to conferences we have and are active participants in the discussions. Headscarves are common but it's very rare to see burkas."

So his unease about Australian society centres on other issues. Organised crime and drugs are a threat, including bikie gangs. Then there is what he calls "the youth problem", gangs that congregate at night, violent and very drunk.

"I'm not just saying this because I'm old," he adds. "The social tensions among the less educated, less skilled, working-class young in the outer suburbs, there is probably more threat from them than from the Muslims."

IS REAL PEACE POSSIBLE IN THE ME? Mark Regev.

2009-10-14T03:12:00.000-07:00

MARK REGEV SPOKESPERSON FOR THE NETANYAHU GOVERNMENT IN ISRAEL, ADDRESSED THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN MELBOURNE, 13/10/09.

Mark Regev is an ex-Melbournian who was on a private visit to his family. This was his 3rd consecutive yearly visit and the only speaking engagement while in Australia. Held at the Kew Synagogue with a capacity audience I took some brief notes which are transcribed hereunder. MM.

“What will make a real peace?”

Mark started his topic on the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians with a question:
"Is it possible,- is it probable,- that if Israel undid everything that happened after the ’67 war,- i.e. removed all West bank settlements, divided Jerusalem, returned borders, refugees, etc.,- that there would still not be peace?"

Given the historical decisions taken to date by the various Governments in order to obtain international legitimacy and in the hope of creating some momentum towards peace,- namely in Southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip, it is obvious that the answer is a resounding yes.

The questions that have to be asked, although it goes against the conventional wisdom of today, is:
concentrating on settlements,- why was there a ’67 war?
Refugees? Why was there a ’48 war?
Are the consequences of conflicts, the root causes of the conflict?
No. The root cause for the initial conflicts is still the cause for conflict today.

The Arabs lost the vote at the UN in ’48 for a two-State solution,- result, resorted to violence. They created their own refugee problem; then,- more violence created the ’67 war. They lost out again and the West Bank and Gaza were occupied and had to be settled to stop violence. Hezbollah in Lebanon created the Lebanon war,- all because of one irrefutable fact which is still the real stumbling block to any meaningful dialogue for peace:
Both sides need to accept the legitimacy of the other, but one side refuses to do so.
The Netanyahu government is prepared and has stated that it is ready to accept a Palestinian State alongside Israel, but not for conflict,- for peace. Given past experience,- it has tried once,- failed; tried a second time,- failed. No one is prepared to make the same mistake a third time. Israel must be accepted as the homeland for the Jewish people first and foremost. All other issues can then be negotiated on an even playing field.

Issues of security. These cannot be dismissed. The West Bank must be demilitarized, not in principle, not by resolutions on paper, but in fact. It is not happening now,- too many arms getting through to Gaza and the West Bank, as well as to Hezbollah in Lebanon, irrespective of Un resolutions and paper agreements.

Economic issues. A prosperous Palestinian society is in Israel’s interest as well as in the Palestinians’ interest. Their economy on the West Bank is set by the IMF to grow by 7%, in spite of the world’s economic crisis. Tourism is up; dozens of minor road-blocks have been taken down for ease of movement of the population and of goods and because their security is better and because of the Israeli security fence.

Re US President Obama. In his speech in Cairo he told his Arab audiences in the middle of the Arab world that the US –Israel linkage will remain unbroken. He is looking for a regional peace, but the Arab nations are just spectators, not players in the region.
There are no new settlements,- there is no ‘settlement growth’,- this is just an excuse for Abu Mazen/Abass to find an excuse not to pursue any peace talks. The closer they get to peace, the more reasons they find to widen the gap. Israel has not set pre-conditions for starting peace- talks, but suddenly the Palestinians have set their own.

This is why the only hope is for their people to want to make peace and then for them to find the leaders who can and want to make real peace. If the Palestinians could only get their act together and start building some proper infrastructures for statehood, perhaps their wish for a peaceful resolution of the conflict might finally result. A recent poll suggested that nearly 70% wished to live in peace with Israel. This is a hopeful sign.

RE ‘concessions’. They always want Israel to make concessions and when they get some,- former PM Olmert offered the most wide-reaching concessions they ever received,- they always turn away. The closer the Palestinians get to peace, the wider they claim the gap to be. Instead of having the guts to accept everything in principle and then get on with further negotiations as real-peace partners would do, they prefer to hang on,- to and for,- what?

RE “the West Bank settlements’. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, all Israel is ‘settlements’.
21 settlements dismantled in Gaza,- where did that get Israel? Severe limitations already on settlement growth, to the extent that the political Settler-Movement is daily demonstrating outside the Knesset and has refused to join the Netanyahu Government.
There is no expansion of the settlements outside their borders, the natural growth in infrastructures will continue inside those settlements,- but which ones will remain in Israel and which will not,- will be part of eventual peace negotiations, if and when they will arise.

RE the Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman: what is not well known outside Israel is the fact that his activities are very interesting. He travels to places where no Israeli FM has ventured since Golda Meir’s days,- in Africa, Latin America, this week to Vienna and Kazakhstan. He is developing some very good relations with many countries.

RE the supporters of a “one State solution”. No serious person supports this concept anywhere, except Ahmadinejad, Ghaddafi and their ilk. If you want to support them, then you can go down that path. One either supports the principle of a Jewish Homeland for Jewish people or one doesn’t. Palestinians are not going to be Israelis and Israelis won’t be Palestinians. Each can or could be citizens of the others’ countries, but nothing else.

Re Iran. The Iranian proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are reasonably quiet since the fiasco with the false election results and the resulting protests. They are in defensive mode at present in case they get the same treatment from their own people.
However, if the Ahmadinejad forces succeed to make a nuclear-armed Iran a reality, then these extremists will be re-energized and then the whole ME will be in danger. The Europeans also know only too well what it means for them, because Israel is only the first in the line of fire.

Re “speaking to Hamas”. This is a ludicrous suggestion. Why not speak to Al Queda, Taliban or other terrorists who want to kill you? When the Austrians elected a Fascist Party to government, most Western Nations immediately recalled their Ambassadors from Vienna. One look at the Hamas Charter, their public pronouncements (in Arabic) to their people, or to their continued activities, shows you that there is no one to talk to. The European leaders or others don’t make these demands on Israel. (Only old Malcolm Fraser does!)

Re “Goldstone Report”. Why did Goldstone accept to undertake something that 3 others refused, including Mary Robinson,- no friend of Israel,- who refused to do so because the terms of reference were so one-sided? Why would anyone undertake anything for a misnamed group such as the UN-HRC, led by the likes of Nth. Korea, Lybia, Somalia, Syria & Iran, etc., etc.? They have an anti-Israel obsession as though the human rights in their countries are the best, only Israel’s are the worst. They passed 25 Resolutions, 20 about Israel.

Then Goldstone comes in, gets into Gaza and holds public meetings about the war. What sane person would dare to criticize Hamas publicly in Gaza? Who would dare not to criticize Israelis and the IDF there? Then he has the chutzpah to tell Israel not to charge those who spoke up against the IDF. Who spoke up?- Gilad Shalit’s father He thinks Israel will jail him?

The Israeli army has investigated 100 complaints about the war and 21 individuals are being investigated by the civil criminal justice system. One can just see this happening under Hamas. Where was the UN-HRC when Hamas rained their thousands of rockets over many years into Israel, in direct violation of signed armistice agreements?
The inevitability of war as a result, was obviously instigated by Hamas, yet Israel is not classed as a victim but an aggressor.
USA, Canada, UK, Australia and all the coalition anti-terrorist forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had better beware, because a Goldstone report can happen to all of them!

CONCLUSION:If the Gaza response is illegitimate, how can Israel ever take a risk for peace in the future?

Finally, to a questioner about Gilad Shalit, the answer was,-no comment, nothing to discuss!

Anti-Semitic Boycotters can be Academic Jews too.

2009-10-06T04:44:00.000-07:00

GALUS AUSTRALIS 6 October 2009

Academic boycotts of Israel are part of the problem not the solution
by Philip Mendes

The last few weeks have seen a revival of the previously dormant Australian campaign for an academic boycott of Israel.

Jake Lynch, a former UK journalist recently appointed Director of the Sydney University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), convened a meeting at Sydney University on 15 September to propose an end to institutional ties between the University and two Israeli universities, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Technion in Haifa.

His initiative was supported by 22 signatures from other academics including most prominently Stuart Rees, Director of CPACS; Kenneth McNab, President of CPACS, and retired academic John Docker. Lynch invited Antony Loewenstein and Docker, two anti-Zionist fundamentalists of Jewish origin, to address the meeting in favour of an academic boycott.

Suzanne Rutland, the Head of Jewish Studies at Sydney University, was given a few minutes in question time to speak against the proposed boycott. She was supported by other academics and students. By all accounts it was a fiery and polarized meeting. Lynch later said he would continue to try to persuade Sydney Uni and the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) to endorse a boycott.

He is unlikely to succeed on either count. The Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University, Michael Spence, has stated publicly that “The University does not consider it appropriate to boycott academic institutions in a country with which Australia has diplomatic relations”. The NTEU previously stated in November 2002 that they would not be endorsing any boycott proposal.

The key principles against an academic boycott were recently discussed by Nick Dyrenfurth and myself in The Australian (“Racism risk in calls for Israeli boycott”, 19 September) and will only be rehashed briefly here.

Firstly, an academic boycott of Israelis alone is discriminatory given that it is based on an ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis as exceptionally evil, and is implicitly if not explicitly racist. This was acknowledged by the UK University and College Union in September 2007 when they withdrew their boycott campaign on legal advice that it was an infringement of anti-discrimination legislation. It is only fascists and xenophobes who classify whole peoples as inherently bad or inferior.

Secondly, the UK experience confirms that a boycott campaign will inevitably lead to a demonization of all those who support Israel’s right to exist whatever their political perspective on the West Bank settlements. In practice, this means a boycott of the overwhelming majority of Jews. As the leading left-wing UK philosopher and convenor of the anti-boycott Engage group David Hirsh has noted (here):

The Campaign to exclude Israelis from our campuses brings with it a toxic atmosphere. People who oppose the boycott are portrayed as pro-imperialist, pro-Zionist, pro-apartheid, uncaring of Palestinian suffering…And most of the people thus accused are Jews. With the campaign to exclude Israelis comes a campaign to libel Jewish academics and Jewish union members; Jewish students too.

Thirdly, the key boycotters are not internationalist advocates of Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation. They are rather unconditional supporters of Palestinian nationalism. They favour the dissolution of the existing State of Israel and its replacement with an exclusivist ethno-religious Arab/Islamic state of Greater Palestine.

The key agenda of this paper, however, is not to provide a philosophical criticism of the boycott proposal. Rather, it is concerned with exposing how the boycotters use their one-sided pro-Palestinian bias to misrepresent the reality of the Middle East. For the simplistic construction by the boycotters of all Israelis as evil oppressors (to be blamed and punished) and all Palestinians as innocent victims (to be patronisingly protected from any critical analysis) is completely out of touch with the real events of the last ten years.

Until mid 2000, most of the Israeli Left and the Jewish Left worldwide including myself assumed that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and associated settlements were the key barriers to the implementation of a peaceful two state solution. We might call this the “root causes” of the conflict theory. But that theory was undermined by the following seminal events:

1.The Palestinian Authority’s rejection of the two state proposals introduced at Camp David in July 2000, and subsequently improved on in various forms by US President Clinton culminating in the unsuccessful Taba negotiations of January 2001, and later the rejection of Prime Minister Olmert’s similar proposal in September 2008;
2.Palestinian demands during and subsequent to these negotiations for a return of 1948 refugees not to the proposed Palestinian State, but rather to Green Line Israel, a demand completely incompatible with any commitment to a two-state solution;
3.The outbreak of the violent intifada in September 2000 which was really an undeclared war against the Israeli Green Line civilian population including the long parade of suicide bombings. These bombings reached their apex in March 2002. During that horrible month, there were eight separate suicide attacks resulting in the deaths of 63 people and many hundreds injured. The final straw was the attack on the Passover seder in Netanya’s Park Hotel which killed 30 people and injured 140. This attack provoked the Israeli invasion of the leading West Bank cities in an attempt to destroy the terror networks, and stop the carnage. Yet the first Australian boycott petition was ironically initated by Ghassan Hage and John Docker immediately after this invasion in May 2002. Their clear purpose was to blame the Israeli victims of terror, and defend the Palestinian perpetrators;
4.The ongoing rocket attacks on the Israeli border town of Sderot which only increased in intensity after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
In short, I now believe that the absolutist nature of Palestinian political culture is as significant, if not more significant than the Israeli West Bank settlements, in precluding a compromise deal. And hardly anybody today
believes that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank is likely in lieu of commensurate radical changes in attitude on the Palestinian side to bring peace. To be sure, I still believe that the Israelis should withdraw and eventually will withdraw from most of the West Bank to facilitate a lasting two-state solution, but this will only happen as part of an internationally supported peace package that addresses violence, extremism, and national and religious prejudice on both sides.

Today, the Israelis and Palestinians are sadly engaged in a process of mutual destruction.

The Israelis fear that any political or territorial concessions will only be used by the Palestinians to initiate further violence. They associate the suicide bombings with the Oslo peace process, and link the rocket attacks to the withdrawal from Gaza. Consequently, they have elected a government which is ideologically opposed to real compromise and implicitly acts as the political arm of the settlers movement.

The Palestinians are desperate in that they have gained little from years of political and ideological struggle, and believe that the Israelis plan to take over what is left of their national inheritance. Consequently, they have turned to Hamas and other violent groups which favour terror as the first rather than last resort, and oppose any co-existence with Israel.

In this context, the last thing we need are boycotters who demonise one side of the conflict as if they are Collingwood supporters barracking against Carlton or vica versa. Their infantile slogans will only perpetuate the conflict. Rather, we need dispassionate mediators who can build new bridges between the currently irreconcilable Israeli and Palestinian narratives to find a compromise solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Mendes is an advisory editor of Engage, the left-wing academic group which campaigned successfully against academic boycott proposals in the UK. He is also a long-time member of the NTEU

ANGER AND VIOLENCE RELATED: overcoming hate?.

2009-09-24T03:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2009/09/24/2695036.htm

Anger: taming the fury

by Annabel McGilvray

There's growing evidence anger can be harmful to your health. But what's the best way to manage this fiery emotion?

Published 24/09/2009

[Image source: iStockphoto]Health effects
Psychotherapy
Meditation
Distraction
Redirecting anger
Finding help
More info

We all know anger. It manifests as anything from a toddler tantrum to a family feud and takes place anywhere from the office to the kitchen sink.

For most of us, anger rises and falls relatively quickly – disappearing altogether for long periods, before perhaps returning with momentary vengeance. But for some people, it's never far from the surface and can result in frequent physical and verbal outbursts that wreak untold havoc.

Media headlines regularly holler about out-of-control politicians and athletes letting their fury get the better of them. Then there are reports of high-profile people receiving counselling on how to put the not-so-friendly genie back in the bottle.

For these reasons, managing the anger that disrupts lives has become a small industry and researchers in Australia and around the world are employing everything from chilli sauce to magnetic resonance images (MRIs) to determine the mechanisms behind anger and, where necessary, how to control it.

So when does part of the normal emotional spectrum become a problem? And what can be done to stop it causing physical and emotional damage?

Health effects
Typically, anger arouses the central nervous system, triggering symptoms similar to the 'fight or flight' response in the amygdala region of the brain. When you get angry your blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate all increase; your digestion slows; and you start to sweat.

There is already some evidence that people who experience these anger symptoms regularly may be doing long-term damage to their heart and other organs.

In particular, a US study found one in every 40 heart attacks can be linked to a recent incidence of anger. As well, a 2004 international study linked family conflict and work stress – both common sources of anger – to an increased risk of heart attack.

The bottom line is that learning how to manage anger may not only improve your quality of life, it may also extend it.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychotherapy
Cynthia Morton's life was once a maelstrom of anger. Having been abused as a child, by 16 she was homeless, dependent on alcohol and more serious drugs, and prone to react with angry violence to a whole host of triggers.

She says her nadir came when she regained consciousness after a suicidal overdose and was still angry.

"I was so angry when I woke up in intensive care, that I couldn't even do that [suicide by overdose] properly. I was at war with myself."

But this was the turning point for Morton. While still in the hospital psychiatric ward, and under the guidance of a psychologist, she learned how to defuse some of the destructive thoughts that made her anger snowball.

"It's almost like installing new programs and connecting them up so that you've got access to these resources within.

"The first thing for me was to understand that the anger was a part of me that didn't make me any better or worse than anybody else. It was hardwired."

Today Morton is an ambassador for Relationships Australia and uses her experience to help others whose anger may cause them to hurt themselves.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meditation
An important part of Morton's own anger management is daily meditation, which research has shown to be helpful for a range of conditions including depression, anxiety, and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Morton relies on two different forms of meditation practice – focused meditation and mindfulness meditation.

Focused meditation involves concentrating on an image, a sound or your breath, and gently pushing aside any stray thoughts. It creates changes in the body and mind that are a strong antidote to anger. These include lowered heart rate and blood pressure, reduced stress hormones and a state of mental stillness.

While mindfulness meditation is also calming, it emphasises broadening the focus of your attention rather than narrowing it. Typically it involves practising being aware of everything that passes before your attention – sounds, images thoughts and feelings – and importantly, learning not to judge or evaluate these observations.

It's a way of training yourself to be less reactive to intense feelings, says Dr Belinda Khong, a mindfulness meditation expert and psychology lecturer at Sydney's Macquarie University.

You ultimately learn to become more of a 'detached observer' rather than someone who actively engages with difficult emotions when they arise. "You can still respond with anger, but it would be a response, not a reaction," Khong says.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distraction
But there are many other ways to short-circuit anger's effects.

At the University of New South Wales, where MRIs have been used to map the pathways of anger in the brain, research suggests simple distraction can be an effective tool.

UNSW researcher and psychologist Dr Tom Denson believes distracting yourself works better than trying to analyse what you're feeling.

'It's kind of counterintuitive, because people think that when they're angry, you've got to think your way through it," Denson says. '[But] people who ruminate tend to eventually lose control.

"What we're finding, is that with something distracting – although it's probably not good to go play a violent video game – with a distraction that's neutral and consuming, it's much better for diminishing anger… Distraction allows all of the anger to subside."

Sitting down to read a book, or even cooking a meal, may be enough to allow the height of the emotion to subside and enable you to approach the problem with less aggression at a later stage.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redirecting anger
At Macquarie University however, Dr Wayne Warburton is less sold on the notion of distraction and instead suggests learning to redirect anger to more positive outcomes.

Anger can motivate someone to reach extreme sporting achievements or write beautiful music, he says.

"Some of the great concertos and some of the most beautiful music – Bob Dylan's music, Neal Young's music – is written out of anger, but it helps to make the world a better place.

"I think good anger management helps to harness the energy to look for positive expressions, and focus it so that the expression of anger is related directly to what makes the person angry. That's a helpful way of dealing with anger.

Warburton says we all have different triggers for our anger and we can all express it in a whole range of different ways. But his research suggests that repeated exposure to violent media – including some computer games – can make it much more likely that anger manifests itself as aggression.

He and his colleagues have been gauging the level of aggression triggered by different stimuli using an excruciating method – measuring how much very hot chilli sauce a person is prepared to make an innocent volunteer eat.

"They know that if they put a lot in the cup it's going to make the person's mouth burn, their eyes water, perhaps make their tongue go numb and if they give them too much it will probably put them in hospital. Despite that, you still get people who will put in a whole cup.'

It might seem an unorthodox approach but it's revealing a clear pattern: Expose yourself to violent media regularly and 'each time it happens, you're more likely to respond to triggers with aggressive behaviour.' The take home message is that if rage is a problem in your life, avoiding violent influences may help you keep it under control.

Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finding help
Ultimately, managing anger is not about avoiding anger altogether, but having calming techniques ready for those occasions when it rears its ugly head.

Whether it is you or somebody that you know that struggles with anger, psychologists and counsellors can provide important guidance on which techniques may be most effective in particular circumstances.

The Australian Psychological Society can help in finding a suitable local psychologist and Medicare rebates are available for a series of initial consultations with registered psychologists on referral by a GP. Some health funds also offer rebates for such consultations.

Whichever solution you try, Cynthia Morton warns not to expect a quick fix. It might be a case of 'if at first you don't succeed, try and try again'. But eventually your persistence should pay off and the outcome will be worth the effort.

"It's the old thing of 'what we hope to with ease, we must first do with diligence'," she says.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More info Health Insite
Managing your anger - Australian Psychological Society
Anger - how it affects people - Better Health Channel
Anger and agression - Health Insite

Happy Jewish New Year 5770.

2009-09-18T06:42:00.000-07:00

SHANA TOVA,- HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OUR JEWISH PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ESPECIALLY IN ISRAEL.

Is there any independent nation state other than Israel which creates such negative reactions to every even mildly positive comment about it? It's almost as though Israel is the country which some people most love to hate. Why? Are her enemies so much worthier than the Jewish citizens of Israel?

One glance at the letters pages of the general media, as well as even our own AJN, is enough to make one feel absolute despair if one is part of the 80% of the community of more or less active supporters of this tiny sliver of land which is referred to as "the Jewish homeland" and that is called Israel.

Apparently Israel has all kinds of different supporters, while one wrote to the AJN wondering why anyone would support such a terrible country and thinks that, because of a film he saw called "Defamation", supporting Israel at all is 'irresponsible'. I don't blame him entirely because films can have that effect. When I saw the Australian film "Samson and Delilah', I too felt ashamed of Australia as it is portrayed to the world in that one very moving story.

However, because I know a little more of what lies behind that sorry tale about our Aborigines in the outback, I also know that it is not the whole story, therefore 'those who live in glass houses should not throw stones'.
Making judgments based on knowledge is one thing,- making false assumptions based on ignorance or dogma or inherent bias and then wanting to believe evil propaganda is totally different.

Israeli speakers too should be aware that they face an ignorant and hostile world far too ready to embrace the anti-Zionist, pro-Arab and Islamist view of their country and the Jewish people without the interest to put it all into context. With typical Jewish chutzpah, academics in particular seem to have developed an arrogant disregard for the whole truth and no responsibility towards the security of this nation State. Israeli professors in particular,outside their country cannot claim 'academic freedom' to express their particular brand of nationalism. It does not allow them the freedom to preach 'incitement to hatred', which is only one step ahead of 'treasonous speech' and many steps beneath the 'freedom of speech' which they covet at home.

I wonder why the interest in Arabs vs. Jews among those vociferous critics?
If the Palestinian Arabs would be the bastions of fairness, democracy, human rights, women's rights, progress in some spheres of benefit to humanity or even just to themselves,- if they would do anything worthwhile to help themselves and their own people instead of their perpetual victimhood as 'refugees' and victimization of Israel and Jews,- if only they would have 'taken the bull by the horn' and said to themselselves, let's learn to build like the Jews instead of destroying like the Taliban,- then I would understand feeling for them as being worthy of Jewish and Western support and taking sides against the Israelis.

But who among their brethren cares for them? They obviously don't deserve it.
The Western governments know exactly who they are dealing with,- on both sides. They know exactly who deserves to be treated with respect and compassion,- and who doesn't. They know on whom they can rely in times of trouble and whom they cannot.
They also know who they are dealing with at home!

The only true friends Israel can rely on through thick and thin in this world, is the Jewish world,- the 80% who are organised and are respected and the Israelis had better understand that! Israel is all we've got as a people.

The rest don't care. Love and respect is a two-way street,- nationally and individually. Israel has earned it from us,- others have not,- not those jews who sit in comfort and criticise her from afar, nor those who love to hate her here, nor her enemies over there.

SHALOM,- may peace prevail upon all lands including Israel. May the Almighty save the innocents in all conflicts because humans are not good at it even when they try.
"Look what's happening all over the Islamic world, dear God, even when our Aussie troops try to save them from their own, they get themselves killed and blamed. You dear God are to blame,- do something about it!".MM

HATRED DRIVES TODAY'S VIOLENT WORLD

2009-09-15T00:46:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, especially after WW2, everyone tried to preach 'love',- e.g. love thy neighbour like yourself, love thy mother and father, love thy wife and children, make love not war, etc., etc. At the same time there was a similar sentiment about 'honour',- honour you mother and father, honour women, honour your teachers,,- as well as 'respect',- respect for elders, respect for authority, respect your leaders, etc.

While the majority of people still adhere to these sentiments in their day-to-day lives, others who should know better or for various cultural or other reasons, have moved away from all of these positive life-saving feelings, only to be replaced by the worst negatives like hate and sex replacing love, while honour and respect need to be 'earned',- but how? Laying a gentle hand on one's children is taboo; enforced discipline is frowned upon and 'freedom of speech' is blamed, below,for the racist violence in society today. Why? Because 'hate speech, any speech' has to be tolerated in the same way as truth, tolerance and respectful speech.
"How Can We Fight Hatred When Its Sources Are Being Protected [By The Political System]?" is asked by the editor of 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat' below.
(MM)
---------------------------------------------------

MEMRI
Special Dispatch | No. 2534 | September 14, 2009

U.S. and the Middle East/ Reform Project

'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat' Editor: Bin Laden, Holocaust Museum Shooter Driven By Same Hatred

Following the June 10, 2009 shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, editor of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote an editorial titled "Crime at the Holocaust Museum."

In the editorial, which was published June 15, 2009, Al-Rashed stated that anti-black racism was the same as anti-white racism, said that Osama bin Laden and the museum shooter were driven by the same hatred, and faults the U.S. for allowing such hatred to proliferate by protecting freedom of speech.

The following is the editorial, in the original English.(1)

"The Anti-Muslims Are The Same as the Anti-Semites; Those Who Are Racist Against Blacks Are The Same as Those Who Are Racist Against Whites"

"The body count may not have been large, it was an individual attack, and no organization has claimed responsibility for it. One victim was killed, while the perpetrator ended up in hospital awaiting trial on charges of murder, simply because the [U.S. political] system does not punish hatred or racism. This is just one more racially motivated crime in a multi-ethnic society where cultures are beginning to compete.

"The paradox is that this crime took place at a museum that deals with the history of the Holocaust – a story of racism that many reject, not because it did not occur, but because it is part of an ongoing ideological conflict. Evidence of this is that Holocaust deniers publicly call for getting rid of other ethnic groups and promote white European supremacy.

"The perpetrator of the crime has all the qualities that contradict the stereotypical definition of a racist; he is 88 years old, white – the most privileged racial group of all – and lives in an economically rich country. If one has these characteristics and lives in a country that allows freedom of expression and the right to [political] objection via elections, why would anyone need to take a gun to a museum and kill an African-American guard in order to express their hatred of the Jews?

"This is proof that hatred has nothing to do with poverty, literacy, political suppression, religion, or even youth; rather, it is tied to culture. This must be understood by those attempting to play down the security threat, as well as those who are searching for scapegoats in Islamic books and Muslim society. It is not difficult to find evidence to implicate the wrong people, which is what happened [initially] with regards to the Holocaust Museum shooting.

"The anti-Muslims are the same as the anti-Semites; those who are racist against blacks are the same as those who are racist against whites. They are all alike."

"Why Does a Young Millionaire Like Osama Bin Laden End Up Fighting Others?... This Is the Same Hatred That Made a White Christian American Head To a Museum" to Commit Murder

"Do not underestimate the power of culture, especially the power of the culture of hatred, and the influence that this can have on an individual. Why does a young millionaire like Osama bin Laden end up fighting others? What transforms an intellectual physician like [Al-Qaeda deputy leader] Ayman Al-Zawahiri into a killer on the basis of religious identity?

"This is the same hatred that made a white Christian American head to a museum with the intention of carrying out an act of premeditated murder in order to express his opinions. Hatred has the capacity to destroy the desire for respect and dialogue; it has the capacity to destroy the desire for coexistence."

"How Can We Fight Hatred When Its Sources Are Being Protected [By The Political System]?"

"According to statistics, the number of websites belonging to racist white supremacist groups has increased by the thousands. This is not because the situation on the ground has worsened, but because the means for spreading racism has become cheaper and more readily available. These websites are full of incitement against Muslims, blacks, and Jews, and are full of myths about Islamic conspiracies to occupy the U.S., or Jewish conspiracies to control the U.S. central bank, and so on.

"These groups operate in the open under the protection of the U.S. [political] system that allows this culture [of hatred] to spread in the name of protecting civil liberties afforded by the U.S. constitution. At the same time, the U.S. government travels around the world and urges others to fight against this same culture of hatred [that it protects].

"In fact, much of the racist literature found on extremist Islamic websites comes from white neo-Nazi websites that have fabricated much of their information. How can we fight hatred when its sources are being protected [by the political system]?"

Endnote:
(1) The text has been lightly edited for clarity.

ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH VIDEO!!
Understanding the Islamic & Arab world from within.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1363wmv&ak=null
================================================

MICHAEL DANBY MHR:"The dark and ugly recesses of the internet."

2009-09-14T02:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.danbymp.com/index.php?article=414&DMAP=467

The Dark and Ugly Recesses of the Internet
by Michael Danby MHR
Monday September 7, 2009

(See also The Australian 12 September, Headlined Creepy vitriolic bigotry of the internet's fringe-dwellers)

House of Representatives, (address to Australian Parliament)

The Dark and Ugly Recesses of the InternetMr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (9.01 am)-

Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, offered the following comment in response to a recent speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad:
There can be no doubt as to the most tenacious ideology of modern times. German fascism came and went. Soviet Communism came and went. Anti-Semitism came and stayed.
Rabbi Sacks went on to note that the re-emergence of anti-Semitism is one of the most frightening phenomena of his lifetime because it is happening after 60 years of education about the Second World War, anti-racist legislation and interfaith dialogue. As a member of parliament in this great democratic country of Australia, I am saddened to have to agree with the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth. Indeed, there is a modern resurgence of anti-Semitism, although Australia, with its unofficial doctrine of a fair go, is perhaps the most tolerant and pluralist of all global societies. Constituent communities contribute to the success of pluralism.

Eric Beecher, owner of Crickey.com
The Australian Jewish community has made a substantial and durable contribution to this country, offering a distinct culture that nonetheless furthers cohesion and the national interest by its commitment to core democratic values, secularist laws and the constraints of our parliamentary system.
As members will no doubt know, the Jewish presence in Australia began with the First Fleet and has grown to some 120,000, according to the authoritative Jewish population survey just published by the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University. Recent generations of Australian Jews have never forgotten the debt to the Australian people who provided refuge to our parents and grandparents, the remnants of European Jewry, during and before the darkest period of Jewish history, the Nazi genocide of the Second World War.
Within this history and context of Australian tolerance and pluralism, I recently spoke of the bigotry that has attended the exponential rise and proliferation of the internet. In particular, I focused on two Australian online magazines, Newmatilda and Crikey, with their slanted commentary on the Middle East which has been used as a cover for unmoderated, unleashed and unhinged comments on their websites.
My analysis prompted an exchange of letters between well-known civil rights organisation the Anti-Defamation Commission and Newmatilda's editor,
Marni Cordell. In April of this year the Anti-Defamation Commission sent Cordell a sober, detailed and careful analysis of the magazines' contents for the first three months of 2009, highlighting ADC's concerns over not its partisan opinion but the broad slabs of hate speak published in the comments section following each article. En passant, Cordell virtually agreed that her online publication presented no semblance of fairness, asserting her publication's role was as a counterweight to the biased, pro-Israel media. One wonders what planet she lived on during the war in Gaza.
Cordell fudged why Newmatilda publishes blatantly bigoted commentary, even though the magazine explicitly reserves the right to moderate that commentary if it is abusive or promotes hate. Only since being exposed has Newmatilda stopped publishing race hate in its comment columns. I seek leave to table some of the comments that followed articles in these two publications during the first three months of 2009:
Comments from Crikey.com and New Matilda.com

"61% of Jews don't live in Israel and they are perfectly safe as they would be if the stupid place ceased to exist tomorrow." -blogger maryj commenting on David Hollier's article ‘Obama can Convince Israel', 25/03/2009 New Matilda
"The racist Zionist(s) are not simply un-Australian in their lying, bigotry, psychotic injustice and racism - they are also anti-Australian and pose a huge threat to not only Australia but the whole World." Blogger DrGideonPolya commenting on Michael Brull's article ‘If Israel Does It Then It Can't be Wrong' 13/1/09 New Matilda

"Nazi German and Israeli policy will herd people into concentration camps, ghettos and other forms of imprisonment whilst simultaneously embarking on a policy of genocide, infanticide, theft of lebensraum, eradication and ethnic cleansing". Blogger Rockjaw commenting on Roland Boer's article ‘The Myth of the Holy Land' 2/2/09 New Matilda

"Only fascist states like Israel today, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and countless non-democratic, tyrannical, thug states like Israel do this in this day and age." Blogger RosRoss commenting on Bruce Riedal's article ‘Palestine: The Ultimate Franchise', 5/2/09 New Matilda

"The greatest difficulty is the level of denial with which most Israelis and all of their supporters live which ranges from delusional dysfunction to the criminally psychotic." Blogger RosRoss commenting on Antony Lowenstein's article ‘An Israel of the Mind', 19/2/09 New Matilda
"Most people find it an increasingly inescapable conclusion that Zionism and Nazism are fundamentally of the same genus: to whit, an attempt to glorify a largely imagined nation-race (a "superior" race to boot) by somehow resurrecting its semi-mythological past in the form of a modern and expansionist nation-state, which in both cases only leads to mass murder." -blogger Rockjaw commenting on the article ‘The Things You Don't Want to See', By Michael Brull 4/2/09 New Matilda
"Society will have to become aware of the structures used by our zionists to effect this dark control over our cultures and to intervene on behalf of both Jew and gentile to free Jews from that inner darkness and Palestinians from racist murdering zionist genocidalism." Blogger Rockjaw commenting on Antony Loewnstein article ‘An Israel of the Mind' 19/2/09 New Matilda
‘The Gaza Ghetto-like shooting fish in a barrel. Don't it make you feel proud?'- blogger Tim commenting on ‘The Gaza Strip: A Crikey ceasefire wrap' compiled by Eleri Harris 8/1/09 Crikey.com
"tell us your last name..or are you just another Zionist coward, barracking from behind your nom de plume for the killing of innocent civilians .....you are full of shit........but of course the Crikey readership had made up its mind in that regard long before this issue arose......ZIONIST COWARD." Blogger Kevin Charles Herbet commenting on Guy Rundle's article "The comic tragedy of Gaza" 13/1/09 Crikey.com
"Sadly the power base of modern Judaism/Zionism, not to mention fundamentalist Jewish Orthodoxy, is a racist, xenophobic group of "Australian Jews," nearly all males, nearly all completely racist in that they view everything in life through the prism of race and tribalism."Blogger Hugh commenting on Greg Barns' article "It's ok to be racist, just not about Israelis" 2/2/09 Crikey.com
"The Zionists exploit the massive racist discrimination and genocide exercised by the Nazis against Jews in general as a means of deflecting criticism from their own racist policies which they pursue with vigour." Blogger Greg Angelo commenting on Greg Barns' article "It's ok to be racist, just not about Israelis" 2/2/09 Crikey.com
"Like any other reasonable person, I know full well that millions of gypsies, disabled, homosexuals, Jews and members of many other minorities were murdered in "The Holocaust", but still, isn't freedom of speech more important? It's also worrying that nobody seems to be speaking for the millions of people other than Jews killed during this time. Are their voices being drowned out by the Jewish and Jewish influenced, media? blogger Bill Malkin commenting on Antony Loewenstein article -"Palestine, Israel and the need for freedom of speech" 18/5/09 Crikey.com
"Zionism and the Zionists which it breeds is a sickness. Zionism is a debilitating fatal disease which has infected this planet for too long and it is encumbent upon mankind to rid ourselves of this disease before it reaches a terminal stage and consumes us all." - blogger Rockjaw commenting on Israelis following Jim Alexander's article ‘Peeking into Gaza'-22/1/09
‘Why does history have to repeat itself? Why does humanity have to go through the pain of having to rid itself of yet another group of sick psychopathic savages hell bent on genocide or suicide?
Clearly this is a disease, an incurable malady. Does the world really want a state set aside exclusively for a nation of psychopaths, pathological liars, genocidaires, killers and empty, backward, soulless non-productive parasites with nothing to contribute to humanity but deceit, suspicion, greed and malice.'-blogger Rockjaw commenting on Israelis following Jim Alexander's article ‘Peeking into Gaza'-22/1/09
"These intellectually & morally corrupt Israeli fascists don't care what the world thinks of their atrocities...just like the Nazis didn't. They expect to get away with it...and why wouldn't they given their jackbooting of the past 41 years. Mugabe has more credibility than these bastards." Blogger Kevin Charles Herbert commenting on Greg Barns' article ‘ Backman column: Israeli lobby censorship', 23/1/09 Crikey.com
"The Zionists exploit the massive racist discrimination and genocide exercised by the Nazis against Jews in general as a means of deflecting criticism from their own racist policies which they pursue with vigour." Blogger Greg Angelo commenting on Greg Barns article ‘It's ok to be racist, just not about Israeli's' 2/2/09 Crieky.com
Crikey and its editor, Jonathan Green, have made no explanation or issued no apology. Eric Beecher, the owner of Crikey, who hails from a similar ethnic cultural background to me, owes an explanation for Crikey's publication of these hate filled comments. Such comments would be suited for publication in Julius

Julius Streicher
Streicher's Der Sturmer.
I take as my guide the definition suggested by former Soviet dissident and human rights activist Natan Sharansky in addressing these issues in total. Mr Sharansky distinguishes the anti-Jewish hatred and legitimate criticism of Israel by his 3D principles. He warns to look for three things: demonisation, delegitimisation and double standards.
Looking at the coverage in Crikey and Newmatilda we see a tiny country of seven million people portrayed as a manipulator of world events, a state engaged in ethnic separation-without any mention of the thousands of civilians murdered by homicide bombers- and an initiator of wars that have no strategic or defensive codex. That is demonisation.
Of course people can be fairly critical of any state in the world and critical of particular actions of any state, but, following the Sharansky model, anyone who looks at Cordell's Newmatilda or Green's Crikey during this period could only conclude that Israel was a country deserving of rocket attacks on its citizens and not entitled to defend its sovereignty. That is delegitimisation. Scant attention is given in the same publications to Burma, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, North Korea, Chechnya, Eastern Turkistan or any other place witnessing gross abuse of human rights. That is a double standard.
I was particularly outraged, however, by the tenor of some readers' comments which followed these articles and contained repeated examples of bigotry. I have tabled a small percentage of these verbatim comments from the Newmatilda and Crikey websites from the first three months of this year. Of course, all members will find these comments as abhorrent as I do. No doubt some members will ask the obvious question: how does this kind of vile commentary following the articles-I am not talking about the actual articles; people are entitled to have different
views on these kinds of things-find its way onto a site that reserves the right to censor such comments?
The editors of Newmatilda were not moved to address this issue until I publicly intervened. Thereafter, on 7 July, they responded by way of an editorial that began:
Regular readers will notice that we have turned off all comments on articles about Israel/Palestine. Predictably, what followed was a long self-justification, which read in part:
Historically, we have erred on the side of free speech-we did not pre-moderate comments on the site, which is rare in this litigious age, because we wanted to promote open and diverse debate. Open and diverse debate is different from publishing unregulated, vile racism.
Again, I repeat that the Newmatilda decision to moderate their own site happened not out of consistency or out of some sense of decency but because the searchlight of public opinion was shone on these dark and ugly recesses of the internet.
Two regular contributors to Crikey and Newmatilda-Antony Loewenstein and his Sancho Panza, Michael Brull-also responded tomy speech in a jointly authored article stating that my criticism could be condensed into the following:
Michael Danby erodes his credibility by accusing two Jews of anti-Semitism because they don't agree with him ...
I am certainly content to reiterate here that, in relation to their commentary of the conflict, the two individuals are guilty of double standards, demonisation and delegitimisation. However, contrary to their response, their ethnicity was not addressed in my speech at all because it was clearly not my principal concern.
Their writing and the editorial bias of the online publications for which they write clearly puts them on the fringe of Australian politics. If one compares the things that they wrote with, say, Labor Party discussions at the recent national conference, one would see that they are completely outside the mainstream of the centre-left party in this country, for instance. For those writers to seek refuge behind their ethnicity is particularly craven. It is dishonest.
The thrust of my previous speech and tonight's lies with the creepier bigotry that their articles and other articles unleashed in these two online publications, which apparently had no problem with publishing them.
I agree with Thomas Friedman, who wrote:
Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East-is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.
In examining the evidence of lopsided coverage of these two internet publications, our toughest critique must be of their unadulterated racism: the perverse nature of their criticisms and the vitriol that is not present in the appraisal of other conflicts; the use of terms such as ‘ethnic cleansing' and ‘Nazi'; and the dropping of all pretence of anti-Zionism by openly discussing Jews and so-called Jewish proclivities.
George Orwell wrote: To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.
Perhaps-but my fear is that the internet is now so pervaded by such views that they can attain a patina of truth and respectability. In many of the articles in both magazines, the ability to link and cross-reference to other sites and commentaries apparently bolsters and legitimises the views of the authors in circumstances where readers cannot vouch for the credibility of the concurring opinion. Opinions and commentary are therefore expressed in an ethical vacuum absent of the strictures which we have come to accept as inherent in the profession of journalism, such as fact checking and peer review.
It is clear in my view that Newmatilda.com and Crikey.com disgraced themselves and the wider circle of Australian journalism-and the tolerant ethos that characterises Australia-by publishing clearly bigoted comments in
the comments sections of their publications in the first three months of this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readers feedback

I am forever being surprised (and delighted) when I hear (often incidentally) that yet another noted person in society, in any one of the countless areas of the arts, the professions and entertainment etc. happens to be Jewish. Then again, I am not really surprised, am I, for yes, without a doubt, the influence, historically, of this most worthy minority is far, far above its numerical strength when compared to other socio-religious groups. Like most others I cannot explain the vitriolic and mindless attacks poured upon it, (ie apart from those who are taught from babyhood to HATE any Jew)other than to believe such rantings are the primal outpourings from crooked (mostly ignorant) souls who basically are envious and jealous of Jewish folk and their achievements .... indeed infected by the "tall-poppy syndrome" if you like. The internet is perfect for such craven uglinessss: unseen and unknown, individuals can type away, press a button and presto, it"s there for the world to see and to give to their anonymous purveyors that momentary gratifying flash of "fame" obviously missing from their own inglorious lives. Thank you Michael Danby for publically naming Crikey and New Matilda and their editors as the trash that they are.
Posted by Annabelle on 2009-09-13 12:26:59 GMT
*******

Before 1967, the widespread anti-Semitism in Australia, as well as many other countries, was simply treading on the Jewish stereotypical, despicable underdog. Since 1967, it has changed in many people to virulent spiteful envy and hatred, because of Israeli and Jewish successes. Jewish non Zionists cannot escape that hatred. Lowenstein and his ilk are seeking publicity and notoriety with their anti Israel statements, and many of the fringe media are only too happy to oblige, and fan the flames of anti-Semitism, by claiming equal exposure for a very minute fraction of the Jewish community. I would like any of the anti-Semites to show what they have done for the advancement of the community. I suggest they look up Jewish Nobel prizewinners, but for their successes, many of these anti-Semites would have been dead by now.
Posted by Harry S on 2009-09-13 11:19:11 GMT
******

Hear, hear!! What a relief to see true leadership displayed in our national Parliament. Thank you Michael!
Posted by Steve Lieblich on 2009-09-13 09:45:25 GMT
********

Thank you Michael for being publicly frank and outspoken. There is an element in Australian society that loves to hate,- they hate us Jews; they hate Israel; they hate every successful person in what’s called the "tall poppy syndrome; they hate each other; their hatred comes out in violence in the streets, in violence against their partners at home in what"s called domestic violence. My bet is that these people also hate animals! What the internet has allowed them to do is to express their hatred on blogs,- if they allow them! The newspapers don"t print these vile comments,- the writers know they won"t print their rubbish, but the internet? It’s a free-for-all for crazies in particular! Thank you for pointing it out that it is our community which is too often targeted,- as for Israel, just because it is a Jewish and very successful nation State, these haters cannot bear it. Do they love its Arab enemies more? I doubt it.
Posted by Malvina on 2009-09-13 07:34:11 GMT
********

Well done, Mr Danby. You are the only effective voice speaking for Jews in Australia at the moment. So dysfunctional is regulation of the Australian media that countless letters and protests against biased and anti-Jewish/Israeli coverage fall on indifferent and callous ears. Fortunately, comments in Parliament have much more effect in rectifying the calumny our haters promote. Bigotry, hatred and their offspring, antisemitism, thrive on the internet and in many media vehicles in this nation, and they seem unstoppable. Cordell of newmatilda, Green of crikey and their execrable cronies have sold out to racism and forfeited their standing as independent sources of reasoned commentary. They are manipulated by bigoted and violent forces, and they seem to revel in their new found readership. The influence of Goebbels resonates in these publications and their modus operandi. Never in his wildest dreams or most fervent hopes would he have expected to be this successful 70 years later, half a world away. Your efforts, Mr Danby, are exemplary and we are truly grateful.
Posted by Dr Barry Walters. Perth on 2009-09-13 06:38:54 GMT
*********

Well done Michael Danby. When are your colleagues in govt going to publicly support you?
Posted on 2009-09-13 04:54:40 GMT
********

Full credit to Beecher for conceding Crikey went too far.You should post on this site. Marked contrast to Lowenstein.
Posted on 2009-09-13 03:13:41 GMT
********

FUTILITY OF BOYCOTTING ISRAEL: it is not an apartheid State!

2009-08-30T06:30:00.000-07:00

I am not usually a fan of Uri Avneri, but he has risen in my opinion as a true 'mensch'. The whole 'peace movement' in Israel of which he is an active member, always seemed to me to be based on idealism without any practical solutions re getting the Arabs to accept the reality of Israel as a Jewish State and the Palestinians to forego conflict and terrorism. Their pressure seemed to be always on the Israeli government, never on the Palestinian Arabs.
In the following article however, after discussions with Desmond Tutu, Avneri explains the difference between the South Africans and Israelis and between the 2 countries and why apartheid is not really the case in Israel,-where the majority are after all the Jews, unlike the whites in Sth. Africa,- while the boycotts will only reinforce their Holocaust mentality re 'the whole world is against us, so what's new?' would be the reaction to boycotts.
(MM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Uri Avnery
29.8.09

Tutu’s Prayer

HOW MUCH did the boycott of South Africa actually contribute to the fall of the racist regime? This week I talked with Desmond Tutu about this question, which has been on my mind for a long time.

No one is better qualified to answer this question than he. Tutu, the South African Anglican archbishop and Nobel prize laureate, was one of the leaders of the fight against apartheid and, later, the chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which investigated the crimes of the regime. This week he visited Israel with the “Elders”, an organization of elder statesmen from all over the world set up by Nelson Mandela.

The matter of the boycott came up again this week after an article by Dr. Neve Gordon appeared in the Los Angeles Times, calling for a world-wide boycott of Israel. He cited the example of South Africa to show how a world-wide boycott could compel Israel to put an end to the occupation, which he compared to the apartheid regime.

I have known and respected Neve Gordon for many years. Before becoming a lecturer at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, he organized many demonstrations against the Separation Wall in the Jerusalem area, in which I, too, took part.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with him this time – neither about the similarity with South Africa nor about the efficacy of a boycott of Israel.

There are several opinions about the contribution of the boycott to the success of the anti-apartheid struggle. According to one view, it was decisive. Another view claims its impact was marginal. Some believe that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that was the decisive factor. After that, the US and its allies no longer had any reason for support the regime in South Africa, which until then had been viewed as a pillar of the world-wide struggle against Communism.

“THE BOYCOTT was immensely important,” Tutu told me. “Much more than the armed struggle.”

It should be remembered that, unlike Mandela, Tutu was an advocate of non-violent struggle. During the 28 years Mandela languished in prison, he could have walked free at any moment, if he had only agreed to sign a statement condemning “terrorism”. He refused.

“The importance of the boycott was not only economic,” the archbishop explained, “but also moral. South Africans are, for example, crazy about sports. The boycott, which prevented their teams from competing abroad, hit them very hard. But the main thing was that it gave us the feeling that we are not alone, that the whole world is with us. That gave us the strength to continue.”

To show the importance of the boycott he told me the following story: In 1989, the moderate white leader, Frederic Willem de Klerk, was elected President of South Africa. Upon assuming office he declared his intention to set up a multiracial regime. “I called to congratulate him, and the first thing he said was: Will you now call off the boycott?”

IT SEEMS to me that Tutu’s answer emphasizes the huge difference between the South African reality at the time and ours today.

The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the Whites amounted to less than 10%. That means that more than 90% of the country’s inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too.

In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80% of Israel’s citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60% throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9% of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel.

They will not feel the “the whole world is with us”, but rather that “the whole world is against us”.

In South Africa, the world-wide boycott helped in strengthening the majority and steeling it for the struggle. The impact of a boycott on Israel would be the exact opposite: it would push the large majority into the arms of the extreme right and create a fortress mentality against the “anti-Semitic world”. (The boycott would, of course, have a different impact on the Palestinians, but that is not the aim of those who advocate it.)

Peoples are not the same everywhere. It seems that the Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Instead of revenge, forgiveness. Those who appeared before the commission and admitted their misdeeds were pardoned. That was in tune with Christian belief, and that was also in tune with the Jewish Biblical promise: “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh [his sins] shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

I told the bishop that I admire not only the leaders who chose this path but also the people who accepted it.

ONE OF the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust.

Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust. Every Jewish Israeli child learns in school that “the entire world was silent” when the six million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it.

(That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.)

It may well be that the Jewish conviction that “the whole world is against us” is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational.

The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime. The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” - don’t buy from Jews.

That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism.

ONE OF the main battlefields in our fight for peace is Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis believe nowadays that peace is desirable but impossible (because of the Arabs, of course.) We must convince them not that peace would be good for Israel, but that it is realistically achievable.

When the archbishop asked what we, the Israeli peace activists, are hoping for, I told him: We hope for Barack Obama to publish a comprehensive and detailed peace plan and to use the full persuasive power of the United States to convince the parties to accept it. We hope that the entire world will rally behind this endeavor. And we hope that this will help to set the Israeli peace movement back on its feet and convince our public that it is both possible and worthwhile to follow the path of peace with Palestine.

No one who entertains this hope can support the call for boycotting Israel. Those who call for a boycott act out of despair. And that is the root of the matter.

Neve Gordon and his partners in this effort have despaired of the Israelis. They have reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the State of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the State of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.)

I do not share either view – neither the despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather world-wide momentum, the US must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse and the morale of the Israeli public must break.

How long will this take? Twenty Years? Fifty years? Forever?

I AM afraid that this is an example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy.

True, the Israeli occupation and the South African apartheid system have certain similar characteristics. In the West Bank, there are roads “for Israelis only”. But the Israeli policy is not based on race theories, but on a national conflict. A small but significant example: in South Africa, a white man and a black woman (or the other way round) could not marry, and sexual relations between them were a crime. In Israel there is no such prohibition. On the other hand, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries an Arab woman from the occupied territories (or the other way round) cannot bring his or her spouse to Israel. The reason: safeguarding the Jewish majority in Israel. Both cases are reprehensible, but basically different.

In South Africa there was total agreement between the two sides about the unity of the country. The struggle was about the regime. Both Whites and Blacks considered themselves South Africans and were determined to keep the country intact. The Whites did not want partition, and indeed could not want it, because their economy was based on the labor of the Blacks.

In this country, Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have nothing in common – not a common national feeling, not a common religion, not a common culture and not a common language. The vast majority of the Israelis want a Jewish (or Hebrew) state. The vast majority of the Palestinians want a Palestinian (or Islamic) state. Israel is not dependent on Palestinian workers – on the contrary, it drives the Palestinians out of the working place. Because of this, there is now a world-wide consensus that the solution lies in the creation of the Palestinian state next to Israel.

In short: the two conflicts are fundamentally different. Therefore, the methods of struggle, too, must necessarily be different.

BACK TO the archbishop, an attractive person whom it is impossible not to like on sight. He told me that he prays frequently, and that his favorite prayer goes like this (I quote from memory):

“Dear God, when I am wrong, please make me willing to see my mistake. And when I am right – please make me tolerable to live with.”
**********

.ADDING INSULT TO INJURY? Freedom of speech vs. hate speech.

2009-08-24T05:10:00.000-07:00

Israelis in public life and various self-appointed Jewish spokespeople in Israeli NGOs seem to relish the freedom of speech which their democracy allows them. But Israel is not a Western democracy in peaceful coexistence with its neighbours, nor are its Jewish citizens accorded the respect in the world that their status as citizens of a democratic country should receive. Why?

Firstly because they are Jews. Secondly because they are Jews in an Islamic neighbourhood. Thirdly because it is a Jewish State which has shown itself to be resilient and successful, in spite of all the odds stacked against it.

Yet there are those Jewish Israelis who still take it all for granted.They practice subversion in their public utterances, giving succour to the traditional antisemites (see below re Sweden) and the current enemies of the Jews. In other words, in the name of 'freedom of speech', or 'academic freedom'(see also Haaretz article re LA OpED),it is allowable to practice incitement: to hatred, to 'divestment', to anti-Israel'boycotts' of all kinds, all of which constitute virtual traitorous behaviour in the eyes of their countrymen and women who value the Jewish ideal of the State of Israel.Do they have to be accepted without question and without repercussion from employers, the state or other responsible authorities in the name of 'freedom of speech'?

Israeli institutions, such as Universities, are very dependent on overseas funding from generous donors who are sympathetic to Israel as a Jewish State. Those are people who are committed to the survival and prosperity of the Jewish State first and foremost and for the purpose of 'the ingathering of the exiles'in the Jewish State. They accept that Israel tries as best it can to be a democracy and to conduct itself according to Jewish values in a sea of nations with totally different standards and values. It will have its weaknesses, but it also has to defend itself from enemies outside its borders,from potential Arab collaborators/5-th columnists within its borders, but it should not need to also put up with its own Jewish and supposed intellectuals as teachers to the young who act in concert with outside enemies, on top of it.

The only reliable supporters of the Jewish State are the Jews in the diaspora. Once it ceases to be 'Jewish', that support can and will cease overnight,- I guarantee it!
Those Israeli citizens (and some diaspora Jews) who think that they can avoid their 'Jewishness' and become just simple 'Israelis' in a State which will demographically change its Jewish status, had better forget the survival of an "Israel'as a state. The notion of a 'bi-national state' of Moslems and Jews will end up in the same way as the previous East Timor, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, the Communist Soviet Union, etc.

'Apartheid' Israel? Who is kidding whom? The whole world is divided in apartheid blocs.Minority South African whites might have tried to rule the majority blacks with apartheid laws,- but now the majority rules. In Israel, the majority also rules,- they happen to be Jewish. Bad luck for those who don't like us Jews! We are a minority everywhere else,- one tiny bit of land we want to claim as our own where we can be a majority and even that sticks in everyone's throat,- including a few stupid Israelis and other Jews!Shame on them!

And pity the Arab Palestinians who are full of hatred instead of a 'love thy neighbour' type of culture. Treat the Jewish State as the 'welcome visitor' to your neighbourhood and share in the common prosperity which would ensue from friendly collaboration instead of inimical confrontation! Enough of the perpetual victimhood of the 'refugees'. We are all former refugees from one country or another,- the West is awash with refugees from the Moslem countries. They run away from there to seek better lives anywhere in the West. Only the Palestinians are kept in perpetual limbo by their own kith and kin. When will they say: 'enough!- let's make peace and start living a normal life?' May it be sooner rather than later for everyone's sake.
MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLOOD LIBEL REVISITED IN SWEDEN.

Honest Reporting released a report entitled: Outrage: IDF Accused of “Harvesting Palestinian Organs”. The accuser was Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. Under the headline “They plunder the organ of our sons”, the report claimed that young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been taken away in the night by the IDF only to be returned later, with missing organs. The families’ claim that the bodies had been completely stitched up and that the Israelis claimed that the bodies had been autopsied.

The article was criticised internally by another major daily newspaper in Sweden, Sydsvenskan, with an opinion piece entitled ‘Antisemitbladet' which exposed the story for exactly what it was:

“We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot… Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes… Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: ‘Anti-Semitism’ No, no, just criticism of Israel”.

Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, issued a press release stating, “The article… is as shocking and appalling to us Swedes, as it is to Israeli citizens… Just as in Israel, freedom of the press prevails in Sweden… However, freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility” (see more).

Regrettably, the Foreign Ministry in Sweden sought to distance itself from Borsiin Bonnier’s comments and refused to condemn the offending article.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated, “It’s a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry doesn’t intervene in cases of blood libels against Jews ... The article published this week is a natural outgrowth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and blood libels in which Jews were accused of adding the blood of Christian children to the Passover matzahs” (see more).

Today’s Australian newspaper ties this whole sorry saga together in an article by Abraham Rabinovich entitled ‘Israel and Sweden in diplomatic crisis over organ claim’. It exposes the double standards of the Swedish newspaper, citing past examples including the issue of the Danish cartoons criticizing Islam a few years ago, where Aftonbladet did not re-publish the cartoons, declaring that on sensitive subjects they must act with restraint to avoid harming segments of the population.

Obviously the publication of unfounded libels about organ theft carried out by the Israeli army is not considered harmful to the Jewish people.

In the meantime, the journalist, Donald Bostrum, acknowledged that the families claiming the IDF had stolen organs never had their own autopsies carried out to confirm these suspicions. So basically, this whole controversy has emerged over an article that claims one thing, but has absolutely no evidence to back it up. This shows that the man knows very little about responsible investigative journalism and is more concerned with his own agenda.

And just to prove the point to those who are more discerning than your average reader of Aftonbladet, that paper has made a second attempt to cover the issue, not backtracking or apologising but rather trying to present “additional information”. The article entitled ‘Mother never stopped suffering, she never stopped wondering’ makes similar claims about an incident from 1992, where a Palestinian man was killed in a clash with Israeli soldiers. His body was allegedly returned several days later, at a cost of NIS 5,000, with a scar running from his neck down to the abdomen (see more).

It was not expected that the issue would go as far as it has between the two countries. In an Op-Ed for Ynet entitled ‘How childish are we?’, Adi Dvir suggests that if the report was initially ignored it would have “passed silently away, like the puff of hot air it so obviously impersonates”. Perhaps he is right, but it is important, no matter how ridiculous a claim may be, to address them. Otherwise, the world will simply continue to perpetuate centuries-old slander relating to the blood libel.

(E.C. SZCV)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109275.html Last update - 01:29 23/08/2009

L.A. Jews mull boycott of Israel university over 'apartheid' op-ed
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Members of the Los Angeles Jewish community have threatened to withhold
donations to an Israeli university in protest of an op-ed published by a
prominent Israeli academic in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, in which he
called to boycott Israel economically, culturally and politically.

Dr. Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, a veteran peace
activist, branded Israel as an apartheid state and said that a boycott was
"the only way to save it from itself."

Gordon, a political scientist, said that "apartheid state" is the most
accurate way to describe Israel today.(see article for more).

Jewish and democratic: is it possible for Israel?

2009-08-17T07:12:00.000-07:00

(From Drt. Zohar Raviv's lecture and published paper for the Florence Melton Adult Mini-School, currently in Melbourne.)

Israel's Declaration of Independence reads:"The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books… We….hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel, to be known as the State of Israel."

Raviv contends that the above is a result of the uniqueness of Judaism which cannot be confined to religious terminologies as are other systems of faith. Judaism is not solely a religious system but rather a religious skeleton fortified by a national backbone whose raison d'etre was and continues to be relationship between the People, the Torah and the Land of Israel,- the first two inextricably entwined with the latter. (The aborigines may be the only ones who feel this connection to their land,- but for the Jewish people it is in the Torah as a covenant with God,-i.e. the land not the people!) He calls it 'theography', not geography being the most important aspect of the Jewish state of Israel!

Can Israel sustain a democracy on the Western model while retaining its unique Jewish character? Raviv contends that it is impossible to superimpose foreign models of democracy, with their separation of religion and state,- over the Israeli conceptual backbone. Rather it should concentrate on articulating and realizing a model that accepts the Jewish skeleton of the state as fundamental to its vision. This debate should be viewed by the Jewish citizens as a healthy part of its trajectory. For non-Jewish citizens, the unique condition of the Jewish state renders them equal in rights, but unequal in standing,- as controversial as this may be.

Raviv explains that (in his opinion),it is not possible for non-Jewish citizens to have the same affinity (cf. patriotism) for the symbols of the Jewish State such as its name, its anthem, its symbols in the flag, with its rights to sustain a Jewish majority, etc.. These are the quintessentials of all Western democracies, where there can be total separation of Church and State, but unrealistic in the Jewish State of Israel. Were these Jewish symnbolisms removed from Israel, then forget it as the Jewish State.

If one needed to choose between democracy and Jewishness in Israel,- some Western Jews would argue for democracy,- while the majority would argue for Jewishnes and democracy, (as long as the notion of equality of rights before the laws of the state are guaranteed and properly applied for all). However, as questioners in the lecturer's audience pointed out, for many Jewish secular Israelis, being an Israeli is enough. The 'Jewish' aspect is passed over as secondary or irrelevant. Raviv put it as a fault of the education system which failed or fails to emphasise Judaism without religious dogma.

What then will the future hold for the "Jewish State" in this case? Raviv has no answer,- he just left it for future researchers to address. In the diaspora communities such as in Melbourne, he feels the people feel more Jewish and connected to the Jewish state of Israel than many secular Israelis. He stated on previous occasions that our diaspora communities should build bridges with Israelis to teach them how to be Jewish in a multicultural democracy, rather than the reverse!

(Dr. Zohar Raviv is an Israel;i, now a resident of Chicago, where he is an author, teacher and academic in Jewish Studies.)

CROSS CULTURAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN MOSLEMS AND JEWS

2009-08-13T04:35:00.000-07:00

Multicultural Australia has many faith communities which have multiculturalism inherent in them. Both our Jewish community and the Islamic community are such examples of multiculturalism within us.Ours are not monolithic communities although we may have roof-bodies representing each one. We also share such issues of concern for our next generations as e.g.racism, remaining 'in the fold', being educated in our faith systems and avoiding assimilation.

There are many groups which engage in dialogue very successfully.By sharing our common concerns locally with like-minded groups, we enrich Australia's multicultural environment for the benefit of all our future generations. The extremes in all faith-groups shun intermixing with all 'outsiders'. They avoid even TV and movies in their own homes so as not to' pollute' the minds of their young, so there is no opportunity for dialogue with them anyway .

On the other hand, as Australians, concern for our relatives in the Middle East, be it in Israel or in the Islamic world, is also a shared issue for intelligent people to discuss rationally and not necessarily to be avoided.Politics is obviously a divisive topic everywhere, but welfare issues should be able to be confronted and addressed civilly without one-sided criticisms and blame-throwing. If the parameters for the discussions are set at the beginning, the rest of the interactions could be very fruitful.

One such example of an international cross-cultural dialogue is described in the August 21 edition of the American Jewish paper, the "Forward", below . The focus was on something other than interfaith work. They talked business. Then they moved on to other topics in their workshops.(MM)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forward.com/articles/111997/
Muslims and Jews: Fostering Respect, Bridging Cultural Differences Education

By Alison Cies

Published August 12, 2009, issue of August 21, 2009.

When a new venture at Columbia University brought together 30 Muslim and Jewish entrepreneurs from the United States, the United Kingdom and France for a cross-cultural dialogue, the focus was on something other than interfaith work. They talked business.

Then, somewhere amid the conversations about best business practices and social entrepreneurship, the difficult issues of religious and cultural identity emerged and were explored more freely. Organizers and participants in the Ariane de Rothschild Fellows Program hailed the two-week seminar in mid-July as a new model for successful Jewish-Muslim discussions.

“Successful and effective Jewish-Muslim dialogue often requires bonding over something else entirely,” said fellow Sam Adelsberg, 22, at the end of the program. “Once there, you can use different experiences as a platform to dive into the hard stuff — antisemitism, Islamophobia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The workshop, which seeks those interested in fostering a culture of mutual respect among Jewish and Muslim communities, was the brainchild of Ariane de Rothschild and sponsored by the Edmond de Rothschild Foundation.

The program sought out social entrepreneurs — individuals committed to solving urgent social problems through creative and innovative market solutions — whose organizations were in the early stages of development. In stark contrast to most programs tackling cross-cultural dialogue, many of the fellows were not involved directly with Jewish-Muslim community relations.

Adelsberg, who co-founded LendforPeace while a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, said he found the diverse backgrounds of the program’s participants to be one of the main highlights. The fellows “had a unique perspective to offer because they were not a self-selected bunch who normally participates in this type of dialogue,” he said.

As a joint effort of Columbia Business School and Cambridge University, the program’s interest in teaching both practical business skills and the theoretical background became evident on the first day. Participants were told that in addition to taking courses on governance, accounting and raising finances, they would be studying how Jews and Muslims have interacted throughout history — starting in the Middle Ages. Courses such as “Islamism and Its Origins in Pakistan,” “Interfaith Dialogue in Pre-modern Times,” and “Dialogue, Debate and Conflict Between Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Islamic World” rounded out the program.

Not all participants were initially thrilled about the prospect of learning the histories of these two communities. This changed, however, when the fellows took a step back and realized the relevance of history to their day-to-day lives.

“You would think that the theological [background] is irrelevant to a businessperson,” said Shawn Landres, 37, who co-founded Jumpstart, a catalyst and think tank dedicated to developing and strengthening emerging not-for-profit organizations. In addition to learning more about the business side, he noted, “the value of the program is that we’re revisiting how we construct religious identity.”

Ruth Friedman, dialogue coordinator for A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe, said she found the program’s combination of social entrepreneurship and cross-cultural dialogue to be “a fantastic mix.” Although Friedman, 45, of the United Kingdom, attended the program for its emphasis on social enterprise, she found the conversations with the American and French participants to be illuminating, both personally and professionally. “It was interesting to hear about what’s going on in the U.S., to hear about the several different projects that participants are involved with,” she said. “I’ll be going back to my organization with recommendations.”

It was the endeavor’s focus on multiculturalism that provided participants with information — and insight.

“The international students added such different perspectives to the program,” Adelsberg said. “There were instances where the French Muslims felt more in common with French Jews than with British Muslims.… It broke the uniformity of traditional Jewish-Muslim dialogue, where Jews are expected to toe one line and Muslims another.”

The light-bulb moment for Landres occurred at the start of the program, when he watched as Muslim participants freely expressed differences of opinion in front of him, an American Jew. “It’s astonishing to hear counterarguments, to have Muslims challenging each other on day one.”

“The most interesting discussion for me,” Adelsberg said, “was of the hijab [headscarf], and how in France you can’t wear it in public schools. It was interesting to see how some of the Muslim-French women didn’t find the law to be necessarily inhibiting; some even found the law to be liberating. But some of the British-Muslim women held an entirely different perspective, that the law was oppressive.”

Bruce Kogut, a professor of leadership and ethics in the business school who conducted the workshop, echoed their sentiments. He said the program’s benefit was its combination of various religions and nationalities. “The participants found so many differences across countries,” he said. “In France, dialogue between groups is not advancing quickly enough. So the French got to see from the U.S. and U.K. participants how they’re making progress.”

As Ariane de Rothschild explained at the program’s outset, participants were there to “address the challenging questions of identity, how society recognizes you, and how to reach out to others who are different.” Her aims were shaped, in part, by her belief that despite the abundance of references to globalization, people actually have become more polarized in their nationalities and religions.

“Dialogue is essential,” she told the participants. “It serves as the essential subtext to change.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Alison Cies at cies@forward.com

IS ISOLATING ENEMIES IMPEDING PEACE?

2009-08-12T05:12:00.000-07:00

12 August 2009

IN REPLY TO FRASER
Yesterday’s Age featured an Op-Ed by former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser entitled ‘The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace’. This piece is yet another installment in a series of misguided Op-Eds from the man who is now an unabashed apologist for the Hamas regime following this offering - ‘Israel’s actions foster extremism’.

Sometimes, a piece of writing comes across my desk that is so erroneous and foolish that I am not even sure where or whether to start. There are too many gaffes in Fraser’s rant to cover them all but here are some:

Fraser asserts that “too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel’s existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel”. The suggestion that this is some sort of abstract paranoia being exhibited on the Israelis behalf belies the existence of the Hamas charter.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”.

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.”

I do not know about Mr. Fraser in the comfortable confines of Australia but when a homicidal manic tells me that I will only exist until I am obliterated, I might tend to believe him.

Fraser then moves on to the nuclear issue. He declares that despite the fact that Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has nevertheless pursued the establishment of its own substantial nuclear arsenal. According to Fraser Israel’s “actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran”. In other words, if Iran could just successful wipe those pesky Israelis off the map, the world would have nothing to worry about and we could all go back to singing “Kumbaya” and not worrying about a nuclear Iran.

But the pièce de résistance is what Fraser has to say about Hamas, the winners of a “legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza”. You see, the Israelis had the audacity to request that the organisation “forswear violence and recognise Israel’s rights before any talks could begin”. Apparently, according to Fraser, because Israel, the US and basically the whole Western world isolated Hamas, “violence – predictably – resumed and the whole region paid the price.” Unfortunately, Mr. Fraser, this is not like the never-ending debate about what came first, the chicken or the egg. Hamas has been violent since its inception and its forebear, the Muslim Brotherhood has been so since time immemorial. Attempts by Mr. Fraser and his buddies to paint Hamas as some sort of Boy Scout group when they are clearly nothing of the sort are becoming more than a little tiring.

No doubt many letters were written far more eloquently than this piece yesterday to refute Fraser’s outrageous claims, but the Age chose to print one letter, unsurprisingly in support of Fraser. (E.C., SZCV.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is in total agreement with my views. I am sorry that after having met Mr. Fraser while PM, so many years ago,- whom I thought at the time as being very understanding about our concerns visi-a-vis Israel's problems,- he should have changed so much in his understanding of the issues about all Islamic militancy, including Hamas, which Israel has been facing for over six decades. As enamoured as he is about Obama's intentions to engage with the enemies of the US,- Israel has been down that road many times , now it's Obama's turn to fulfil his aims.
To what results does Fraser point so far? MM-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=673308

The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace

Malcolm Fraser
August 11, 2009 - 12:00AM

Australia must not be cowed into an uncritical acceptance of Israel’s actions.

BARACK Obama's election as US President was hailed around the world. He gave many people hope that the US would lead all of us to a new age of enlightenment.
Internationally, Obama has to deal with the fallout of Bush administration policies such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also, more vigorously than any other president, tackling problems between Israel and the Palestinians. While the security of Israel must be inviolate, he has also made it clear that expansion of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem must stop.
Too many Israelis believe that Muslims generally will not accept the fact of Israel's existence and that their objective is to establish a fundamental Islamic domination of the entire region, and thus the destruction of Israel. Such arguments exhibit a fatal hopelessness.
Even though Israel has defence guarantees from the US, it has not relied on that commitment and has instead pursued its own substantial nuclear arsenal.
Having refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel's nuclear program is not subject to international inspection, supervision or criticism. But its actions promote proliferation and have clearly influenced Iran.
There is significant debate within Israel itself about policy regarding the Palestinians. However, attempts by others to debate issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and most recently Israel's attacks in Gaza, often lead to a charge of anti-Semitism.
Those who believe Israel's policies are misguided should not remain silent and governments should not be locked into uncritical support of Israel. Let me give one example.
After Hamas won a legitimate democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel and the US led the international community to isolate Hamas and diminish its ability to negotiate by requiring the organisation to forswear violence and recognise Israel's rights before any talks could begin.
Obama has suggested he might have a different approach. He believes that the US should talk to potential enemies to see if some area of agreement can be reached. This is similar to the attitude that president Eisenhower and subsequent presidents took in relation to the Soviet Union. Little by little agreements were reached.
The Baker-Hamilton report in the closing stages of the Bush administration recommended that all parties in the Middle East be involved in a search for a peaceful solution. James Baker himself defended the need to talk to all parties and gave instances from his own experience where that had led to success.
The International Crisis Group, until recently led by Gareth Evans, also believes that the isolation of Hamas should be ended, and that peace will not be advanced under current policies. There are many Americans on the board of the International Crisis Group.
More and more influential people support such views in relation to Hamas. After the election that led to their total isolation, it would have been possible to say: ''From our perspective certain of your views will have to change but you have won a legitimate election, we welcome your participation in the democratic process and therefore we will get into the room with you to see if there are areas of agreement between us.''
But Hamas was isolated, violence - predictably - resumed and the whole region paid the price.
Israel and America also made attempts to strengthen Fatah, to weaken or destroy Hamas. Such attempts have failed. Fatah's leadership was not up to that challenge and too many Palestinians thought that Fatah was self-serving and incompetent.
What happens now? Does Australia have a role? Do we wish to advance the Obama agenda?
Australian governments have paid lip service to even-handedness between Israel and the Palestinians. We have spoken against the expansion of settlements, but along with the rest of the world we have not been effective.
Obama is showing more resolution: can we help him? Should we help him? Cessation of settlement expansion is critical to progress. Can the Palestinians legitimately be expected to negotiate when more of the territory they believe to be theirs is taken month by month?
If there were agreement on the boundaries of a Palestinian state, Israel would have no problem about recognition. If the boundaries that existed before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967 were accepted, negotiations would clearly move forward. But that is not the case. Progress between Israel and Palestinians is critical to peace in the Middle East and important in combating terrorism worldwide.
Australia could urge, as others have done, that Hamas be brought in from the cold. But do we have the courage? In doing so, we would be a real partner of the US contributing to peace in the Middle East and removing an important source and inspiration for fundamentalist terrorists.
Fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby in Australia has so far prevented Australian governments taking effective action. If we want to be a real ally to the US, if we want justice and peace, we have an opportunity.

Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.
This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-isolation-of-hamas-is-impeding-peace-20090810-efj0.html

HATE CRIMES #2. Terror in Mumbai. TV program

2009-08-03T05:53:00.000-07:00

Monday evening, 3/8, Channel 7 (Melbourne) had a program at 7.30pm about the saving of lives from the plane which crash-landed in the Hudson River, New York. An unbelievable story of heroism and skill,- and survival,- some from freezing waters of the river where they jumped in or slipped.

Then at 8.30pm, 4corners, ABC,- "Terror in Mumbai". What a contrast in human nature,- good and evil - in different parts of the world in this 21st Century, all on one night, graphically depicted on our screens.

An unbelievable report of events unfolding during those fateful days in Mumbai. The terrorist handlers in Pakistan are heard directing the terrorists as they watch the drama unfolding on their TV screens at home. They keep ordering their murderers in Mumbai what to do step by step,- all recorded by the Indian Intelligence Services and through the video recorders in the hotels and by the international media. All to no avail.
You can hear the commands to kill the Jews in the Chabad House. "One Jew is like 50 others." they are told.
It's all in the name of Allah. "Imshallah" ,- God willing,- is heard throughout.
They saved a Turkish couple because " you are brothers" as they were saying their prayers for the dead from the Koran.

Unbelievable what these people are capable of. But then, - it's unblievable what the Nazis were capable of,- so no surpise for us Jews, I guess
MM

www.abc.net.au/4corners

This week on the ABC's 'Four Corners' program, TERROR IN MUMBAI, the remarkable story of the terrorist attack on India’s largest city, told through the eyes of the victims and the gunmen who committed the atrocity.

Produced and directed by award-winning filmmaker Dan Reed, TERROR IN MUMBAI, uses taped telephone conversations between the terrorists and their superiors in Pakistan, new footage never seen before and a startling interview with the one gunman who was captured to show a chilling testimony to terror.

*************************************

It was the 26th November 2008 when ten heavily armed gunmen took over a fishing boat in the Arabian Sea and headed for the city of Mumbai on the west coast of India. An hour later their killing spree began.

Their first target was the Leopold Cafe where they killed 11 people. From there they planted bombs inside taxis as the moved across the city. TERROR IN MUMBAI follows the young men every step of the way using telephone calls made between the raid’s masterminds in Pakistan and the gunmen in Mumbai. Those calls combine with the testimony of the captured terrorist Ajmal Kasab, to create an extra-ordinary chronology of the attacks.

The calls reveal how the young men are continually reminded they must kill as many people as possible, making sure that whatever happens they must not be taken alive.

Ajmal Kasab, speaking from his hospital bed tells how he and another man attacked the city’s train station slaughtering more than 50 people. The program then hears from the train station survivors who tell how the gunmen coldly cut down innocent people one after another. A young boy describes how six of his family are killed around him. The security forces admit they were overwhelmed and underprepared. Some hid rather than be killed. Others tried to use weapons that would not work and were slaughtered.

As the film progresses the relationship between the attackers and their controllers at the other end of the phone comes into clearer focus. At times the young men appear utterly ruthless, at other times they break away from their conditioning and register their wonder at the hotel they have taken over. They talk of computers and expensive furniture as if in a wonderland.

As the film progresses the terrorists are told to kill as many people as they can in the Taj Hotel, and then to start a fire. The purpose? To let the world know a symbol of India and the decadent west is being destroyed.

As the phone calls continue it becomes clear the young men are not always willing to kill on command. In one chilling episode one gunman is told to kill a hostage. He stalls for time. Then an hour later he is ordered to shoot. A gunshot is heard.

The calls do not just document the slaughter of innocent people. As Indian commandos close in on the gunmen inside a Jewish school the phone taps record the last moments of the siege and the gunfight between the opposing sides. One gunman says how he is hit, in the leg and the arm. “Do not be taken alive” he is told.

When Lashkar- e-Taiba decided to attack the city of Mumbai they wanted to carry out an attack that would horrify the world. This is the story of that attack from the inside.

TERROR IN MUMBAI went to air on Four Corners Monday 3rd Augist at 8.30 pm on ABC 1 and repeated on 4th August at 11.35 pm.

www.abc.net.au/4corners

HATE CRIME.Young members of the Gay community in Israel targeted.

2009-08-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

It seems that a black-clad, masked gunman shot indiscriminately at a group of young Gays in Tel Aviv where they were meeting at a private club. The gunman has not yet been apprehended and the motive or perpetrator has not been identified, but it seems to have been a homophobic hate-crime rather than a terrorist.
As though Israelis don't have enough to contend with, now it's Jewish religious extremism, not only Islamic incitement to hatred.
As Guest Columnist, Yehuda Avner wrote in the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) we should all pray for Jerusalem, because it is in the grip of ultra-orthodox fanatics.They are not only fanatical but also anti-Zionists. Will the State be strong enough to resist them?
The Progressive Judaism community has responded strongly, as below.
MM

Israel Religious Action Center
of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism

August 2, 2009/ 12 Av 5769

On behalf of the Progressive Jewish family in Israel, we would like to express our utter shock over the recent shooting in Tel Aviv. We bow our heads in condolence for these two young victims whose lives were brutally ended on Saturday night. We join in the deep sadness of the family members and the Israeli GLBT community. The fact that this shocking murder cut short an innocent gathering of youth only deepens the pain and shock.

The possibility that this murder is a hate crime heightens our awareness of discrimination in light of the GLBT community overcoming hateful incitement and primitive opinions in Israeli society. Throughout the moments of great achievements in the struggle to prevent intolerance, the GLBT Community in Israel unfortunately knows countless moments of having to cope with the pains of exposing hate, incitement, and outright rejection. This difficult tragedy has intensified the urgent need for a mutual struggle against these nasty and menacing phenomena.

At this difficult time, the Progressive Jewish communities in Israel proudly stand with the members of the GLBT community in Israel. We are here to provide the community with public, educational, and spiritual support. We call upon our Rabbis and members of our community to take part in the memorials to pay homage to those who have been killed and support those who have been wounded. We will be present at the demonstrations that will follow these tragic murders. We hope that this participation will demonstrate our commitment to building a more tolerant society together, promoting respect of all people.

Our hearts go out to the young people killed and wounded on Saturday night and our lips carry a prayer for the days to come that will embody the verses of the prophet Isaiah: “They shall not hurt or destroy anywhere in My holy mountain.” (11:9)

Anat Hoffman
Executive Director, Israel Religious Action Center

Rabbi Gilad Kariv
Director, Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism

How Kidneys Are Bought And Sold on Black Market Ã¢ÂÂ Forward.com

2009-07-31T05:16:00.001-07:00

How Kidneys Are Bought And Sold on Black Market Ã¢ÂÂ Forward.com

Shared via AddThis

CONDITIONS FOR PEACE SET OUT.

2009-07-28T04:54:00.000-07:00

Israel's Peace Plan Marks a New Era in the Country's History

By Barry Rubin*

July 20, 2009

http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/06/new-era.html

[This article in my opinion, sets out clearly what every Israeli and every supporter of Israel would understand to be the requirements for true peace to exist between Israelis and Palestinians.If the majority of Palestinian Moslems would belong to the middle-stream politically,- the pragmatists,- they would say yes,- let us get on with normalizing our lives in our own State. The Jews in Israel and Moslems in Palestine can then arrange their own and their future generations' lives in peaceful coexistence like intelligent peoples in the 21st century.
The fact that this majority of Palestinians does not exist as yet,- or perhaps it is not vocal enough as yet,- this is the main stumbling block to such an ideal end result to the conflict. When a period of cessation of hostilities will emanate and a Palestinian leadership will be elected with a respectful majority on a platform of peace with Israel with the recognition that it has every right to exist,- then and only then can one finally hope for, and trust in, a lasting peace.]
[MM]

Israel's Peace Plan Marks a New Era in the Country's History
By Barry Rubin*

This could be the most important article I write this year. Israel has entered a new era of thinking and policy in which old categories of left or right, hawk or dove are irrelevant under a national unity government bringing together the two main ruling parties.

How did this new paradigm arise?

Between 1948 and 1992, the Israeli consensus was that the PLO and most Arab states want to destroy Israel. When—or if--the day comes that they’re ready to negotiate seriously we’ll see what happens.

Then came the Oslo agreement and a huge shift. The governing view was that maybe the Palestinians and Arab states learned the cost of their intransigence enough to make peace possible. The left thought a deal could bring real peace; the right thought it was a trick leading to another stage of conflict on terms less favorable to Israel. But both expected a deal to materialize.

The year 2000, the Camp David failure, the Syrian and Palestinian rejection of generous offers, and Second Intifada destroyed illusions in Israel.

Since then, Israel has groped for a new paradigm. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered unilateralism; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni constantly offered more in exchange for nothing. But the more they did so, the more international abuse Israel received.

Now a new approach has finally emerged capable of reversing this situation. It goes like this: Israel wants peace but doesn’t hesitate to express not only what it wants and needs but also what’s required to create a stable and better situation. To ensure that violence and instability really ceases requires:

--Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Without this step, the aftermath of any “peace” agreement would be additional decades of Arab effort to destroy Israel in all but—temporarily—name.

--Absolute clarity that a peace agreement ends the conflict and all claims on Israel. Otherwise, the Palestinian leadership and much of the Arab world would regard any “peace” agreement as a license for a new stage of battle using Palestine as a base for renewed attacks and demands.

--Strong security arrangements and serious international guarantees for them. Have no doubt; these will be tested by cross-border attacks from Palestine.

--An unmilitarized Palestinian state (a better description than “demilitarized”), with the large security forces they already have: enough for internal security and legitimate defense but not aggression.

--Palestinian refugees resettled in Palestine. The demand for a “Right of Return” is just a rationale for wiping Israel off the map through internal subversion and civil war.

If Israel gets what it requires—and what successful peace requires—it will accept a two-state solution, a Palestinian Arab Muslim state (the Palestinian Authority’s own definition) alongside a Jewish state, living in peace.

Part of the new thinking is to understand that precise borders and east Jerusalem’s status, while important, are secondary to these basic issues. If those principles are resolved, all else can follow.

This new posture is not one of desperately asserting Israel’s yearning for peace but rather saying: We’re serious, we’re ready, we’re not suckers but we’re not unreasonable either. We want peace on real terms, not just more unilateral concessions and higher risk without reward. Not experimenting with our survival to please others. Not some illusory celebration of a two-state solution for a week and then watching it produce another century of violence.

Is it really such a brilliant idea to rush into giving a state without serious conditions to a Palestinian regime which has failed to govern competently what it already has, daily broadcasts incitement to murder Israelis, is profoundly corrupt, has already lost half its patrimony to a rival whose goal is a new genocide but whose own most fervent wish is to merge with that rival, and whose program is merely for the world to pressure Israel into handing it everything?

The best outcome would be if this program was met by Palestinian cooperation. If they are suffering so under alleged occupation, if so desperate for their own state, there’s nothing in this offer they can’t accept.

If, however, they prefer rejectionism, exposing their claims as false, that, too, is acceptable. The truth would be known: the Palestinians and much of the Arab world can’t make peace with Israel because they don’t want peace with Israel. And that is because they don’t want Israel to exist. Period.

Around this program, Jews outside Israel should rally, putting aside old conflicts about who’s more passionate about peace, who more concerned about security. The same applies to other countries and those well-intended who want to see a strategic situation more in accord with both their interests and humanitarian considerations.

In this context, there is no more puerile and misleading notion than that Israel’s government has put forth a program encompassing a two-state solution because of U.S. demands or pressures. This is a plan that organically grew out of the country’s situation, experience, and a broad national consensus.

A second notion Israel’s new paradigm rejects is the argument that either Israel is so strong that it can give without receiving or so weak that it must do so. The country simply does not desperately need a deeply flawed "solution" to be grabbed either out of misplaced "generosity" or "fear."

Another mistaken conception is that the status quo is intolerable and that any change would be for the better. More risks, concessions, and the establishment of an unstable and hostile Palestinian state--the most likely outcome at present--would make things worse.

Equally wrong is the notion that time is against Israel, a strong and vibrant society surrounded by weak, disorganized neighbors. Israel’s strategic situation has dramatically improved over the decades. It is a strong, confident society visibly meeting the challenge of the modern economic and technical environment.

Finally, and of the greatest importance, is the fact that Israel’s new policy is truly based on a consensus. It merges both the conservative approach--proper suspicions and demands for security and reciprocity—and the liberal approach--a proper readiness to compromise and desire for true peace--into one package.

Both elements are now blended in the thinking of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. A new national consensus has emerged which will be strong, and durable. If the world pays attention to it, there might actually be some real hope for peace.

But as long as Western governments and media are only interested in two things--what the Palestinians demand and new concessions from Israel--the situation will remain frozen for many years to come.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center

Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel

info@gloria-center.org- Phone: +972-9-960-2736 - Fax: +972-9-960-2736

© 2009 All rights reserved | Terms and

MOROCCO acknowledges the Holocaust vs. ME mindset.

2009-07-27T05:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/25/
AR2009072501360_pf.html

Morocco challenges Mideast Holocaust mind-set
By ALFRED de MONTESQUIOU

The Associated Press
Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:00 AM

RABAT, Morocco -- From the western edge of the Muslim world,
the King of Morocco has dared to tackle one of the most
inflammatory issues in the Middle East conflict - the Holocaust.

At a time when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
dismissal of the Holocaust has made the biggest headlines,
King Mohammed VI has called the Nazi destruction of the
Jews "one of the most tragic
chapters of modern history," and has endorsed a
Paris-based program aimed at spreading the word
among fellow Muslims.

Many in the Islamic world still ignore or know little about
the Nazi attempt to annihilate the Jews during World War II.
Some disbelieve it outright. Others argue that it was a
European crime and imagine it to be the reason Israel exists
and the Palestinians are stateless.

The sentiment was starkly illustrated in March after a
Palestinian youth orchestra performed for Israeli
Holocaust survivors, only to be shut down by angry leaders
of the West Bank refugee camp where they live.

"The Holocaust happened, but we are facing a similar
massacre by the Jews themselves," a community
leader named Adnan Hindi said at the
time. "We lost our land and we were forced to flee."

Like other moderate Arab leaders, King Mohammed VI
must tread carefully. Islamic fervor is rising in his
kingdom, highlighted in 2003 by al-Qaida-inspired
attacks in Casablanca on targets that
included Jewish sites. Forty-five people died.

The king's acknowledgment of the Holocaust, in a speech
read out in his name at a ceremony in Paris in March,
appears to further illustrate the radically different
paths that countries like Morocco and Iran are taking.

Morocco has long been a quiet pioneer in Arab-Israeli
peace efforts, most notably when it served as a secret
meeting place for the Israeli
and Egyptian officials who set up President Anwar Sadat's
groundbreaking journey to Jerusalem in 1977.

Though Moroccan officials say the timing is coincidental,
the Holocaust speech came at around the same time that
Morocco severed diplomatic relations with Iran,
claiming it was infiltrating Shiite
Muslim troublemakers into this Sunni nation.

The speech was read out at a ceremony launching the "Aladdin
Project," an initiative of the Paris-based Foundation
for the Memory of the Shoah (Holocaust) which aims to
spread awareness of the genocide among Muslims.

It organizes conferences and has translated key Holocaust
writing such as Anne Frank's diary into Arabic and Farsi.
The name refers to Aladdin, the young man with the
genie in his lamp, whose legend,
originally Muslim, became a universally loved tale.

The Holocaust, the king's speech said, is "the universal
heritage of mankind."

It was "a very important political act," said Anne-Marie
Revcolevschi, director of the Shoah foundation.
"This is the first time an Arab head of state takes
such a clear stand on the Shoah," she said in a
telephone interview.

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often aggravates Arab
sentiment toward Israel, Morocco has a long history
of coexistence between Muslims and Jews.

The recent Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip has further
inflamed resentment at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. But
Ahmed Hasseni, a Casablanca cab driver, echoes a widely held view
that it shouldn't affect relations with Morocco's Jews.

"We're not dumb," he said. "We don't confuse the Israeli army with
the Jewish people," he said.

Jews have lived in Morocco for 2,000 years. Their numbers swelled
after they were expelled from Spain in 1492, and reached 300,000
before World War II, when yet more fled the German occupation and
found refuge in Morocco, then a French colony.

Today they number just 3,000, most having emigrated to France, North
America or Israel, but they are free to come back to explore their
roots, pray at their ancestors' graves and even settle here.

Simon Levy heads the Jewish Museum in Casablanca, a treasure trove of
old Torah scrolls, garments and jewelry illustrating the rich culture
of Moroccan Jewry.

"That I still run the only Jewish museum in the Arab world is
telling," he said.

Andre Azoulay, a top adviser to the current king, is Jewish and one
of six members of the king's council in a monarchy that oversees all
major decisions. Considered one of Morocco's most powerful men, he
views his country as "a unique case" for the intensity of its Jewish-
Muslim relations. "We don't mix up Judaism and the tragedy of the
Middle East," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

A founding member of the Aladdin project, Azoulay says part of the
program's goal is to show the West that Muslims aren't hostile to
Jews, and that Morocco was among countries that resisted Nazi plans
to exterminate their Jewish populations. He points to king Mohammed
V, the current ruler's grandfather, who is credited with resisting
French colonial anti-Semitic policies.

Such actions were rare, but not unique in North Africa during World
War II. In Tunisia, the late Khaled Abdelwahhab hid Jews from the
Nazis on his farm, and was the first Arab to be nominated as
"Righteous Among the Nations," a title bestowed by Yad Vashem,
Israel's Holocaust memorial, on those who risked their lives to save
Jews in the Holocaust. His case is still under study.

The Aladdin project is only just beginning. Its work has yet to reach
schools or bookstores in Morocco, although the Shoah foundation's
Revcolevschi said Anne Frank's diary is among Holocaust memoirs
available in Arabic and Farsi on the Internet, and is being sold
under the counter in Iran.

"People speak of a clash of civilizations, but it's more a clash of
ignorance," she said. "We're countering this."
Hakim El Ghissassi, an aide to the senior Islamic Affairs official
who delivered Mohammed's speech, said the king is uniquely positioned
to promote Islam's dialogue with Judaism, because his titles include
"Commander of the believers" - meaning he is the paramount authority
for Moroccan Muslims.
"What the king has said on the Holocaust reflects our broader
efforts," said El Ghissassi, listing such reforms as courses to
reinforce Morocco's tradition of tolerant Islam by familiarizing
local imams with Jewish and Christian holy books.
"We want to make sure everybody can differentiate between unfair
Israeli policies and respect for Judaism," he said.

Faith, Inter-faith and Politics: the limits and challenges.

2009-07-26T05:07:00.000-07:00

Limits of interfaith
May. 12, 2009
, THE JERUSALEM POST
(This editorial appeared during the visit of Pope Benedict to Israel)

Perhaps we expect too much of priests, rabbis and imams. We want our clergy to be spiritual beacons, above the temporal fray; and to be politically savvy. Alas, on this earth there is no unscrambling politics and religion. And this inevitable mingling of the holy and the profane sometimes leaves us dismayed that those who claim a deeper understanding of the Creator's will should behave parochially.
(snip)
Still, man is a political animal and in his image did he create religion.
Since there is no separating politics from religion, the best we can strive for is that the spiritual in religion informs our politics more than the worst in our politics informs our religion.
Pray we have the wisdom to know the difference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following letter was sent to the ABC in October 2008 when it was annonounce that the Religion Report was going to be axed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,

I first heard then read with alarm about your intended axing of Mark Crittenden's Religion Report on Radio National.

I am an avid listener to ABC Radio,- RN, 3LO and the News Station. The Religion Report is my regular RN program, as well as the Spirit of Things, Health Report and a few others.

I am not a religious person, but a secular individual belonging to a cultural and an ethnic faith community. This is what I think "Anglo-ethnic Australians" fail to understand in today's Australia. We are so much a whole of a multi-ethnic-multicultural-multi-faith society today, that the word "religion" per se is not the criterion by which many of us as individuals may identify,- but it is the way many of our ethnic communities may be recognised.

We may come from many lands, speak many languages, but there is a unifying bond also via our communities' faith systems, via schools, Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Temples, plus social, cultural and traditional ties. Stephen Crttenden's program I think recognises this and therefore it is interesting for all of us to listen to.

For Australia and Australians to be unified under our secular democracy, we have to be able to understand each others' faith systems as well as each others' values, communal leadership systems and how everybody practices their religions in Australia. It is particularly important, as Christopher Pearson points out in today's 'Weekend Australian', "The war on terrorism is going to take a long time. .....Now is not the time for the ABC to be closing down its religion department or silencing that unit's most accomplished broadcaster."

I heartily endorse those sentiments. Perhaps the time has come to give it another title,- such as "Faith and Australian Society",- because the word "religion" seems to be associated with negative connotations. But we can't eliminate it from our vocabulary as long as there are so many institutions and individuals who cling to it.

Society should then give the program also a sense of responsibility for the faith practitioners to the State, rather than to any particular faith-system alone, which under the guise of religion becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth according to each one's interpretation of "God".

This is what the National broadcaster's responsibility should be,- bring us all closer together,- inform us and unify us!

There will always be room for audio-programming,- too many people may be visually impaired and computer-illiterate to take advantage of all the digital-visual programs available.

Respectfully yours,
MM
----------------------------------------------------

"Breaking the silence" vs. " Soldiers Speak Out" .

2009-07-25T00:34:00.000-07:00

Allegations against the IDF by anonymous individuals and their rebuttal by others who are named and open.

A few weeks ago a fresh round of allegations of misconduct by the Israeli army during Operation Cast Lead were fired, again by (supposed) soldiers of the IDF. On a website called Breaking the Silence, almost thirty soldiers gave testimonies about actions during the war that would constitute as clear breaches of not only Israeli law but the international laws of war (see more). These accusations were made anonymously and their faces were blurred on film. As a response, another group has emerged called Soldiers Speak Out.

Their website states, “Today there is an attempt to defame the IDF through allegations that there were instances of misconduct during Israel’s Gaza operation. The accusations are based on unverified hearsay, and are proving to be false… Many IDF soldiers feel a deep sense of injustice at how some are misrepresenting them and the IDF. We want to tell you, the public, about our personal stories”.

What follows is a number of stories by soldiers who appear on film, completely revealing who they are and telling their stories. The site is supported by StandWithUs. In response to ‘Breaking the Silence’, StandWithUs Israel Director declared, “There is no silence to break. Israeli society is open, democratic and self critical. This one-sided and shoddy report fails to stress the context of the war as a battle against Hamas terrorists hiding behind civilians.” Meanwhile, Ran Goldstein, a spokesman for Breaking the Silence said that they encouraged soldiers to come forth with their testimony, whether it is for Breaking the Silence or for Soldiers Speak Out .

In keeping with the idea of a true democracy, I am sure we will continue to read more about this story in the weeks to come, as was the case with the last round of allegations back in March.
www.honestreporting.com

KOSHER IVF (in vitro fertilization).

2009-07-25T00:26:00.000-07:00

HEALTH AND BIOETHICS ISSUES IN HALACHA.
Kosher IVF.

At the 2007 NCJWA Conference in Sydney, the panel at the Health Forum session included a local Rabbi in charge of supervising the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for Orthodox couples, so that the transfer of sperms from donor to recipient should not be accidentally contaminated IN THE TEST TUBES or mixed up!(Accidents have been recorded in the past all over the world!) Now it seems that there is an organization AND FERTILITY CENTER IN Jerusalem which helps Jewish couples with all their infertility needs.

Founded in 1995, Zir Chemed has helped thousands of Jewish couples resolve their infertility needs by reconciling the complex and sometimes competing demands of science , halacha (Jewish law) and human emotions. The medical staff of nine-- including physicians; research scientist; fertility psychologist and privately trained medical secretaries -- provides medical treatment and emotional counseling within a Jewish framework. Zir Chemed is renowned throughout Israel – and the world – for its high rate of success . Plans are in progress to build a long-awaited state of the art diagnostic center in Jerusalem to better serve the Zir Chemed clients. For more information visit: www.zirchemed.org

MELBOURNE FILM FESTIVAL:political interferences.

2009-07-20T02:36:00.000-07:00

[Films can be controversial and various national interests can be annoyed if their perceived enemies' films are favoured at such a film festival. China therefore can protest, as it did about one film and the festival director can ignore it.Ken Loach is just a British (Londostan) individual and if he doesn"t care whether Australians see or not his films because of his prejudices for another country,i.e. Israel"s participation, he is entitled to remove it and it is his loss and not anyone else"s. Danby is right,- why should anyone bother with his films in the future? He is just another ignorant bigot full of his own self-importance and we can do without him and his films. Posted by MM]
ADDENDUM & CORRECTION. According to a commentator,(Sol Salbe), the comment attributed to Mr Danby below, that claims “Loach demanded the Melbourne film Festival withdraw Israeli films,” is apparently not correct. It seems that this is not what is claimed by Festival Director Richard Moore, or reported in the Australian Jewish News. MM.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=2002

Anti-Israeli Loach / Chinese / interference in film festival
by Michael Danby MHR
Monday July 20, 2009
(from a media release)

Michael Danby, the Federal Member for Melbourne Ports said it is a shame the British film maker Ken Loach has withdrawn from the Melbourne International Film Festival. Loach demanded the Melbourne film Festival withdraw Israeli films. [The British have never forgotten that they were targeted by Israelis in 1946 during the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.ED note] Loach’s move follows an earlier move by the Chinese Consulate General demanding the festival not show a film about the Uighurs.

Danby said that Ken Loach’s behaviour towards Israeli films was reminiscent of the Stalinists portrayed in his film about George Orwell and the Spanish Civil War. Loach sympathetically portrayed the anti-fascist Poum militia, in which George Orwell served and which was destroyed when they were overtaken by the Stalinists.

‘It’s about time that some of these British cultural figures kept their own provincial cultural prejudices at home and stopped acting like colonial, cultural commissars,’ Danby said.

‘I, like thousands of film goers in Australia, will be very reticent to see Ken Loach films again, knowing that he is so prejudiced that he is opposed to Israel encouraging its own creative film industry. Israelis and Australians have always had a lot in common, including amused contempt for the irritating British penchant for claiming cultural superiority. Melbourne is a very different place to Londonistan,’ Danby said.

‘The age when boring British cultural figures, whether they be Tory or Trotskyite, can give orders to the colonial’s are long gone,’ Danby argued.

Mr Danby said he was not surprised that the Melbourne International Film Festival had ignored Loach’s demand to stop showing Israeli films.

‘Mr Loach should stay home in his grim, cold London garret. He and his prejudices are irrelevant to this part of the world,’ Mr Danby said.

Michael Danby has also opposed the Chinese government’s attempt to impose their beliefs in Australia. He said that Loach’s behaviour was similar to the Chinese Consulate General demanding the Melbourne International Film Festival stop screening film’s critical of the Chinese Government.

Danby concluded, ‘Like many Melbournians, I’ll be attending Israeli films like Waltzing with Bashir and the Uighur film, Ten Conditions of Love. We won’t be giving Mr Loach’s film further thought.’

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miriam's Topical Topics.

DANIEL PIPES ON FORT HOOD MASSACRE, JIHADISM, ME

DR. FELIX ZANDMAN- Bio.: AN INSPIRATION

The new boat-people invasion.

Jewish Internet Defense Force: Small Victory for the Good Guys: Pro-sharia law march cancelled in UK

On the Trail of our True Believers.

IS REAL PEACE POSSIBLE IN THE ME? Mark Regev.

Anti-Semitic Boycotters can be Academic Jews too.

ANGER AND VIOLENCE RELATED: overcoming hate?.

Happy Jewish New Year 5770.

HATRED DRIVES TODAY'S VIOLENT WORLD

MICHAEL DANBY MHR:"The dark and ugly recesses of the internet."

FUTILITY OF BOYCOTTING ISRAEL: it is not an apartheid State!

.ADDING INSULT TO INJURY? Freedom of speech vs. hate speech.

Jewish and democratic: is it possible for Israel?

CROSS CULTURAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN MOSLEMS AND JEWS

IS ISOLATING ENEMIES IMPEDING PEACE?

HATE CRIMES #2. Terror in Mumbai. TV program

HATE CRIME.Young members of the Gay community in Israel targeted.

How Kidneys Are Bought And Sold on Black Market Ã¢ÂÂ Forward.com

CONDITIONS FOR PEACE SET OUT.

MOROCCO acknowledges the Holocaust vs. ME mindset.

Faith, Inter-faith and Politics: the limits and challenges.

"Breaking the silence" vs. " Soldiers Speak Out" .

KOSHER IVF (in vitro fertilization).

MELBOURNE FILM FESTIVAL:political interferences.

How Kidneys Are Bought And Sold on Black Market Ã¢ÂÂ Forward.com