Barry Rubin gets it in one as usual with this piece on his blog - WHAT THREATENS PEACE: A MOUNTAIN OF HATE OR A FEW NASTY WORDS?
Meanwhile, the Israel bashers at Australians for Palestine are already blaming the Israelis for the failure of the direct peace talks between Israel and the PA before they've even started - Actions speak louder than talks for Israel.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Terrorism rules in Brisbane
The BDS people have every right in a free democratic nation to express their views. What they have no right to do is to terrorise and intimidate. These people are the greatest danger to peace and to the prospects that Palestinians have for a better life. They are the ones that goad and egg on the extremists among the Palestinian people to the point where violence becomes the only answer to them.
What these people are saying is simply not true. The BDS campaign will harm the everyday lives of the Palestinain people and their employment and welfare. This is not the peaceful way because it will encourage violent people among the Palestinians and simply harm the prospects for a peaceful resolution of this long and sad conflict.
What these people are saying is simply not true. The BDS campaign will harm the everyday lives of the Palestinain people and their employment and welfare. This is not the peaceful way because it will encourage violent people among the Palestinians and simply harm the prospects for a peaceful resolution of this long and sad conflict.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Welcoming Peace
Speech by the Quartet Representative Tony Blair, Herzliya, 24th August 2010
There are two forms of de-legitimisation. One is traditional, obvious and from the quarters it emanates, expected. It is easier to deal with. This is attack from those who openly question Israel’s right to exist. It is easier to deal with, because it is so clear. When the President of Iran says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map, we all know where we are. This is not to minimise the threat of course. It remains and is profound. It is just to say that were this the only form of de-legitimisation, it wouldn’t warrant a conference of analysis; simply a course of action.
The other form is more insidious, harder to spot, harder to anticipate and harder to deal with, because many of those engaging in it, will fiercely deny they are doing so. It is this form that is in danger of growing, and whose impact is potentially highly threatening, in part because it isn’t obvious.
I would define in it this way: it is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. Note that I say refusal to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. I’m not saying refusal to agree with it. People are perfectly entitled to agree or not; but rather an unwillingness to listen to the other side, to acknowledge that Israel has a point, to embrace the notion that this is a complex matter that requires understanding of the other way of looking at it.
The challenge is that this often does not come from ill-intentioned people; but well-intentioned. They would dispute vigorously such a characterisation of their mindset. They would point to the injustice of Palestinian suffering, acts of the Israeli Government or army which are unjustifiable and they would say, rightly, that you cannot say that to criticise Israel is to de-legitimise it. Such minds are often to be found in the west. They will say they advocate a two state solution and they will point to that as proof positive that they accept Israel’s existence fully.
The problem is that though this is true in theory, in practice they wear Nelson’s eye patch when they lift the telescope of scrutiny to the Israeli case. In a very real sense, they don’t see it.
So, for example, on Gaza they won’t accept that Israel might have a right to search vessels bringing cargo into Gaza, given that even this year over 100 rockets have been fired from that territory into Israel Leave aside the multiple investigations relating to the flotilla, upon which there will naturally be heated debate. I mean a refusal to accept that, however handled, no Israeli government could be indifferent to the possibility of weapons and missiles being brought into Gaza.
I often have a conversation about the West Bank which goes like this. Someone says: Israel must lift the occupation. I reply: I agree but it has to be sure that when it does so, there will be security and a Palestinian force capable of preventing terrorism. They say: so you’re supporting occupation. I say: I’m not: I’m simply pointing out that if Hamas, with an unchanged position on Israel, were running the West Bank, Israel would have a perfectly legitimate right to be concerned about it’s security.
A constant conversation I have with some, by no means all, of my European colleagues is to argue to them: don’t apply rules to the Government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own country. In any of our nations, if there were people firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism and living next door to us, our public opinion would go crazy. And any political leader who took the line that we shouldn’t get too excited about it, wouldn’t last long as a political leader. This is a democracy. Israel lost 1000 citizens to terrorism in the intifada. That equates in UK population terms to 10,000. I remember the bomb attacks from Republican terrorism in the 1970’s. There weren’t many arguing for a policy of phlegmatic calm.
So the issue of de-legitimisation is not simply about an overt denial of the State of Israel. It is the application of prejudice in not allowing that Israel has a point of view that should be listened to.
One thing I state repeatedly in interviews about Gaza – despite disagreeing with the previous policy on it – is to say to western media outlets: just at least comprehend why Israel feels as it does. In 2005 it got out of Gaza i.e. ceased occupying it, took over 7000 settlers with it and in return got rockets and terror attacks. Now I know all the counter-arguments about the unilateral nature of the withdrawal, the 2005 Access and Movement agreement and the closure of the crossings. But the fact remains: there is another point of view and you can’t describe it as illegitimate.
This is then hugely heightened by the way things are reported. Here the televisual images – whether in Lebanon, Gaza or indeed any field of conflict – in Afghanistan for example, are so shocking that they tend to overwhelm debate about how or why conflict began. Because Israel – like the US or the UK – has superior force and because in such situations the horrible tragedy is that the innocent die – these images arouse anger, sympathy and a disgust that at one level is completely understandable but at another obscures the difficult choices nations like ours face, when they come under attack.
The combination of all of this is curious disjunction of perception. I spend large amounts of time in Israel, and outside of it in different parts of the world. To those outside, Israel is regularly perceived as arrogant, overbearing and aggressive. To Israelis, there is a sense that the world is isolating it unfairly and perversely refusing to see they too have a right to have their voice heard. Hence this conference.
The issue is how to respond. First, there is a clear and vital principle that needs to be established: to criticise is not per se to de-legitimise. The fact is there are plenty of Israeli and Jewish voices that passionately disagree with Israeli policy. I am a friend of Israel and openly avow it. I have plenty of criticisms. De-legitimisation is qualitatively different. It can seem the same sometimes. But it isn’t. The one is valid. The other is not. Friends of Israel should be the first to make the distinction.
Having done that, however, we should highlight the fact that de-legitimisation is happening, and be vigilant and vigorous about identifying and countering the instances of it. This needn’t be done stridently. But it should be done insistently. The aim: not to make people agree necessarily with Israel’s point of view; but to insist they listen to it and persuade them at least to the position of understanding. Where there is incitement, expose it. Where there is a one-sided account, argue the other side. Always have a voice out there – and not just the politicians – but the voices of the people. And do it systematically and with unity.
Second, Israel should always be a staunch and unremitting advocate and actor for peace. What I mean by this is not that it should simply be for peace; it should advocate it and act to achieve it. Tzipi Livni’s and Ehud Olmert’s negotiations under the previous Israeli Government and previous US administration, were an immensely important part of showing to the world that whatever else they might say, they had to accept that the Government of Israel was genuinely trying to bring about peace. The re-start of the direct negotiations to be launched next week is important in itself; important because it shows that PM Netanyahu on behalf of the new Government of Israel is an advocate for peace; important because, with a l year time frame being indicated, it shows that there is a sincere yearning on the part of the people of Israel to live in an enduring and honourable peace with their Palestinian neighbours. I know some are cynical. I know some say it’s all for show. I reject that view. I think if Israel can receive
real and effective guarantees about its security, then it is willing and ready to include a negotiation for a viable, independent Palestinian state. This is a brave decision by the PM and the right one.
Third, there will be no successful negotiation unless all the final status issues are on the table. I’m not going to try to negotiate solutions here and now. That is for later. We can think creatively and constructively. Indeed we must do so. But proposals on these issues will be a litmus test of seriousness.
Which brings me to a fourth point. A crucial response to de-legitimisation is to deal with the legitimate criticism. What is it? Let me answer based on my experience. It is that we can and should do more and more quickly to improve the daily lives of Palestinians. Now there has been real progress here in the past year. We should deepen it. I am a convinced persuader for the bottom up approach – I continue to believe that no top-down negotiation will work without it. I also think we have visible empirical evidence to support it: the improvements in Jenin and the opening of the Jalameh crossing to Israeli Arabs; changes to A & M in response to the hugely improved capability of the PA on security; the very successful PIC in Bethlehem that yielded hundreds of millions of dollars of investment; the modus operandi with the new department under DPM Shalom that has resulted in significant gains; and I hope in time a new approach to tourism and to development for Palestinians in Area C.
Such change does not only lead to improvements to Palestinian lives. It also deals with what is the most potent fuel – especially in Arab media – of hatred against Israel. That is the idea that Palestinians suffer not injustice alone; but a form of humiliation. Dignity is a very important concept. Consistent with security, Israel should be constantly looking for ways to compensate for the indignity which inevitably results from the security measures taken and should seek to avoid any unnecessary indignities.
I was pleased and heartened when the Government changed policy on Gaza. The truth is you can justify restrictions in Gaza taken for reasons of security. But with a Gazan population, half of whom is under the age of 18 and 300,000 of whom are under the age of 4, security is the only arguable basis upon which to put such restrictions. Of course Gilad Shalit should be released immediately. His detention is a profound denial of human rights, as is the way he is being treated. But a policy based on threats to Israel’s security is the only one its friends can defend.
This leads me to my final point. It is our collective duty – yours and mine – to argue vigorously against the de-legitimisation of Israel. It is also our collective duty to arm ourselves with an argument and a narrative we can defend and with which we can answer the case against Israel, with pride and confidence.
Let me tell you why I am a passionate believer in Israel. This is a democracy. It’s Parliament is vibrant. Its politics is, well, not notably restrained, let’s say. Its press is free. Its people have rights and they are enforced. I had an argument with a friend about Israel. I said to them: ‘ok let’s assume you are charged with a crime you didn’t commit and the penalty is 20 years in prison. And you’re a critic of the Government. Tell me: under which country’s legal system, in this region, would you prefer to be tried?’ He struggled for a bit and then said: ‘that’s not the point.’ ‘But it is’ I replied.
Look around the world about what we admire about the Jewish people: their contribution to art, culture, literature, music, business and philanthropy. It’s a spirit that is identifiable, open and rather wonderful. Whatever bigotry is, it is the opposite of it. It is a free spirit. On holiday I read the new biography of Einstein. Having in early life taken not much interest in the issue, he became an ardent supporter of Israel. But look at the character of the Israel he supported: like Einstein himself – a free thinker, a rebellious thinker even, but one supremely attuned to the future.
That is the Israel people like me support. So guard it; keep it. I am a religious person myself. But the society I want to live in, is one that treats me no better as a result; makes my view one amongst many; and pursues science, technology and progress with vigour and without prejudice. The best answer to the de-legitimisation of Israel lies in the character of Israel itself and in the openness, fair-mindedness and creativity of ordinary Israelis. That character and those people built the State of Israel. They remain it’s guardians. They are why to de-legitimise Israel is not only an affront to Israelis but to all who share the values of a free human spirit.
Thank you.
There are two forms of de-legitimisation. One is traditional, obvious and from the quarters it emanates, expected. It is easier to deal with. This is attack from those who openly question Israel’s right to exist. It is easier to deal with, because it is so clear. When the President of Iran says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map, we all know where we are. This is not to minimise the threat of course. It remains and is profound. It is just to say that were this the only form of de-legitimisation, it wouldn’t warrant a conference of analysis; simply a course of action.
The other form is more insidious, harder to spot, harder to anticipate and harder to deal with, because many of those engaging in it, will fiercely deny they are doing so. It is this form that is in danger of growing, and whose impact is potentially highly threatening, in part because it isn’t obvious.
I would define in it this way: it is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. Note that I say refusal to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view. I’m not saying refusal to agree with it. People are perfectly entitled to agree or not; but rather an unwillingness to listen to the other side, to acknowledge that Israel has a point, to embrace the notion that this is a complex matter that requires understanding of the other way of looking at it.
The challenge is that this often does not come from ill-intentioned people; but well-intentioned. They would dispute vigorously such a characterisation of their mindset. They would point to the injustice of Palestinian suffering, acts of the Israeli Government or army which are unjustifiable and they would say, rightly, that you cannot say that to criticise Israel is to de-legitimise it. Such minds are often to be found in the west. They will say they advocate a two state solution and they will point to that as proof positive that they accept Israel’s existence fully.
The problem is that though this is true in theory, in practice they wear Nelson’s eye patch when they lift the telescope of scrutiny to the Israeli case. In a very real sense, they don’t see it.
So, for example, on Gaza they won’t accept that Israel might have a right to search vessels bringing cargo into Gaza, given that even this year over 100 rockets have been fired from that territory into Israel Leave aside the multiple investigations relating to the flotilla, upon which there will naturally be heated debate. I mean a refusal to accept that, however handled, no Israeli government could be indifferent to the possibility of weapons and missiles being brought into Gaza.
I often have a conversation about the West Bank which goes like this. Someone says: Israel must lift the occupation. I reply: I agree but it has to be sure that when it does so, there will be security and a Palestinian force capable of preventing terrorism. They say: so you’re supporting occupation. I say: I’m not: I’m simply pointing out that if Hamas, with an unchanged position on Israel, were running the West Bank, Israel would have a perfectly legitimate right to be concerned about it’s security.
A constant conversation I have with some, by no means all, of my European colleagues is to argue to them: don’t apply rules to the Government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own country. In any of our nations, if there were people firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism and living next door to us, our public opinion would go crazy. And any political leader who took the line that we shouldn’t get too excited about it, wouldn’t last long as a political leader. This is a democracy. Israel lost 1000 citizens to terrorism in the intifada. That equates in UK population terms to 10,000. I remember the bomb attacks from Republican terrorism in the 1970’s. There weren’t many arguing for a policy of phlegmatic calm.
So the issue of de-legitimisation is not simply about an overt denial of the State of Israel. It is the application of prejudice in not allowing that Israel has a point of view that should be listened to.
One thing I state repeatedly in interviews about Gaza – despite disagreeing with the previous policy on it – is to say to western media outlets: just at least comprehend why Israel feels as it does. In 2005 it got out of Gaza i.e. ceased occupying it, took over 7000 settlers with it and in return got rockets and terror attacks. Now I know all the counter-arguments about the unilateral nature of the withdrawal, the 2005 Access and Movement agreement and the closure of the crossings. But the fact remains: there is another point of view and you can’t describe it as illegitimate.
This is then hugely heightened by the way things are reported. Here the televisual images – whether in Lebanon, Gaza or indeed any field of conflict – in Afghanistan for example, are so shocking that they tend to overwhelm debate about how or why conflict began. Because Israel – like the US or the UK – has superior force and because in such situations the horrible tragedy is that the innocent die – these images arouse anger, sympathy and a disgust that at one level is completely understandable but at another obscures the difficult choices nations like ours face, when they come under attack.
The combination of all of this is curious disjunction of perception. I spend large amounts of time in Israel, and outside of it in different parts of the world. To those outside, Israel is regularly perceived as arrogant, overbearing and aggressive. To Israelis, there is a sense that the world is isolating it unfairly and perversely refusing to see they too have a right to have their voice heard. Hence this conference.
The issue is how to respond. First, there is a clear and vital principle that needs to be established: to criticise is not per se to de-legitimise. The fact is there are plenty of Israeli and Jewish voices that passionately disagree with Israeli policy. I am a friend of Israel and openly avow it. I have plenty of criticisms. De-legitimisation is qualitatively different. It can seem the same sometimes. But it isn’t. The one is valid. The other is not. Friends of Israel should be the first to make the distinction.
Having done that, however, we should highlight the fact that de-legitimisation is happening, and be vigilant and vigorous about identifying and countering the instances of it. This needn’t be done stridently. But it should be done insistently. The aim: not to make people agree necessarily with Israel’s point of view; but to insist they listen to it and persuade them at least to the position of understanding. Where there is incitement, expose it. Where there is a one-sided account, argue the other side. Always have a voice out there – and not just the politicians – but the voices of the people. And do it systematically and with unity.
Second, Israel should always be a staunch and unremitting advocate and actor for peace. What I mean by this is not that it should simply be for peace; it should advocate it and act to achieve it. Tzipi Livni’s and Ehud Olmert’s negotiations under the previous Israeli Government and previous US administration, were an immensely important part of showing to the world that whatever else they might say, they had to accept that the Government of Israel was genuinely trying to bring about peace. The re-start of the direct negotiations to be launched next week is important in itself; important because it shows that PM Netanyahu on behalf of the new Government of Israel is an advocate for peace; important because, with a l year time frame being indicated, it shows that there is a sincere yearning on the part of the people of Israel to live in an enduring and honourable peace with their Palestinian neighbours. I know some are cynical. I know some say it’s all for show. I reject that view. I think if Israel can receive
real and effective guarantees about its security, then it is willing and ready to include a negotiation for a viable, independent Palestinian state. This is a brave decision by the PM and the right one.
Third, there will be no successful negotiation unless all the final status issues are on the table. I’m not going to try to negotiate solutions here and now. That is for later. We can think creatively and constructively. Indeed we must do so. But proposals on these issues will be a litmus test of seriousness.
Which brings me to a fourth point. A crucial response to de-legitimisation is to deal with the legitimate criticism. What is it? Let me answer based on my experience. It is that we can and should do more and more quickly to improve the daily lives of Palestinians. Now there has been real progress here in the past year. We should deepen it. I am a convinced persuader for the bottom up approach – I continue to believe that no top-down negotiation will work without it. I also think we have visible empirical evidence to support it: the improvements in Jenin and the opening of the Jalameh crossing to Israeli Arabs; changes to A & M in response to the hugely improved capability of the PA on security; the very successful PIC in Bethlehem that yielded hundreds of millions of dollars of investment; the modus operandi with the new department under DPM Shalom that has resulted in significant gains; and I hope in time a new approach to tourism and to development for Palestinians in Area C.
Such change does not only lead to improvements to Palestinian lives. It also deals with what is the most potent fuel – especially in Arab media – of hatred against Israel. That is the idea that Palestinians suffer not injustice alone; but a form of humiliation. Dignity is a very important concept. Consistent with security, Israel should be constantly looking for ways to compensate for the indignity which inevitably results from the security measures taken and should seek to avoid any unnecessary indignities.
I was pleased and heartened when the Government changed policy on Gaza. The truth is you can justify restrictions in Gaza taken for reasons of security. But with a Gazan population, half of whom is under the age of 18 and 300,000 of whom are under the age of 4, security is the only arguable basis upon which to put such restrictions. Of course Gilad Shalit should be released immediately. His detention is a profound denial of human rights, as is the way he is being treated. But a policy based on threats to Israel’s security is the only one its friends can defend.
This leads me to my final point. It is our collective duty – yours and mine – to argue vigorously against the de-legitimisation of Israel. It is also our collective duty to arm ourselves with an argument and a narrative we can defend and with which we can answer the case against Israel, with pride and confidence.
Let me tell you why I am a passionate believer in Israel. This is a democracy. It’s Parliament is vibrant. Its politics is, well, not notably restrained, let’s say. Its press is free. Its people have rights and they are enforced. I had an argument with a friend about Israel. I said to them: ‘ok let’s assume you are charged with a crime you didn’t commit and the penalty is 20 years in prison. And you’re a critic of the Government. Tell me: under which country’s legal system, in this region, would you prefer to be tried?’ He struggled for a bit and then said: ‘that’s not the point.’ ‘But it is’ I replied.
Look around the world about what we admire about the Jewish people: their contribution to art, culture, literature, music, business and philanthropy. It’s a spirit that is identifiable, open and rather wonderful. Whatever bigotry is, it is the opposite of it. It is a free spirit. On holiday I read the new biography of Einstein. Having in early life taken not much interest in the issue, he became an ardent supporter of Israel. But look at the character of the Israel he supported: like Einstein himself – a free thinker, a rebellious thinker even, but one supremely attuned to the future.
That is the Israel people like me support. So guard it; keep it. I am a religious person myself. But the society I want to live in, is one that treats me no better as a result; makes my view one amongst many; and pursues science, technology and progress with vigour and without prejudice. The best answer to the de-legitimisation of Israel lies in the character of Israel itself and in the openness, fair-mindedness and creativity of ordinary Israelis. That character and those people built the State of Israel. They remain it’s guardians. They are why to de-legitimise Israel is not only an affront to Israelis but to all who share the values of a free human spirit.
Thank you.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
AMNESTY SHAMED
This beady-eyed lizard doesn't like Israel. Is there any possibility that the once great human rights organisation will ever regain its former glory or have any credibility when issuing reports while it employs dirtbags like this individual - Amnesty Int'l Finland: Israel scum state?
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
BBC Panorama on the Flotilla - PART ONE
The BBC Panorama programme which is not always particularly favourable to Israel has produced an investigation into the Free Gaza Flotilla.
Here's Part One and I'll follow that up tomorrow with Part Two.
My commentary on the programme will follow next week:
Here's Part One and I'll follow that up tomorrow with Part Two.
My commentary on the programme will follow next week:
Friday, August 20, 2010
Letter of the Week
... in the Australian
Endemic psyche
ALTHOUGH foolish, Eden Abergil wasn't torturing them, she wasn't even touching them. However, the photos of her sitting in front of Palestinian prisoners have, according to your article, "sparked uproar".
Curiously, there's never any "uproar" from the Muslim community every time photos and video are uploaded to the internet of Islamic terrorists sitting in front of blindfolded Jewish or American prisoners, who then have their heads sawn off on camera. I know whose photos I'd prefer to be in.
Daniel Lewis, Rushcutters Bay, NSW
Endemic psyche
ALTHOUGH foolish, Eden Abergil wasn't torturing them, she wasn't even touching them. However, the photos of her sitting in front of Palestinian prisoners have, according to your article, "sparked uproar".
Curiously, there's never any "uproar" from the Muslim community every time photos and video are uploaded to the internet of Islamic terrorists sitting in front of blindfolded Jewish or American prisoners, who then have their heads sawn off on camera. I know whose photos I'd prefer to be in.
Daniel Lewis, Rushcutters Bay, NSW
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Today's quote
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Let's talk some more about Hamas.
The friendly face of Hamas that's only seen in the blank pages - Hamas goes on a killing spree in Gaza.
The Free Gaza people and their fellow travellers including their media urgers don't want to free Gaza from these thugs. They want to make things easier for them to trample over the poor folk of Gaza to fulfil their aim of a holy war against the Jews and the rest of the world.
Peace brothers and sisters.
The Free Gaza people and their fellow travellers including their media urgers don't want to free Gaza from these thugs. They want to make things easier for them to trample over the poor folk of Gaza to fulfil their aim of a holy war against the Jews and the rest of the world.
Peace brothers and sisters.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Moderate Muslims needs to speak out
This insightful article from courageous Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh is featured in today's Australian - Moderate Muslims needs to speak out
It covers some of the crimes that are being committed by extremist Muslims "while a majority of Muslims continue to sit on the fence" and, of course, while the cheerleaders for those extremists try to dress up their behaviour as being excusable and reasonable.
Fact is, that it's not just the moderate Muslims who need to speak out. It's all of us!
It covers some of the crimes that are being committed by extremist Muslims "while a majority of Muslims continue to sit on the fence" and, of course, while the cheerleaders for those extremists try to dress up their behaviour as being excusable and reasonable.
Fact is, that it's not just the moderate Muslims who need to speak out. It's all of us!
Monday, August 16, 2010
How low can McGeough go?
The Brisbane Times is one of the more anonymous members of the Fairfax stable. I've spent plenty of time in Brisbane but I have yet to witness a single person reading the newspaper which makes it the perfect repository for the publication of Paul McGeough's embarassingly propagandist anti-Israel pap.
Here's an example of some of his latest spite laced work - Israel displays the fine art of buck-passing without losing authority
McGeough can't bring himself to mention the real perpetrators of the violence on the I'll-fated flotilla of fraudstera with which he proudly sailed in May of this year. The thugs from the Turkish terrorist group IHH which funded much of this fake peace lovers junket to Gaza.
The man who now finds himself out of synch with other Fairfax journalists who acknowledge the fatal role of those who attacked the Israelis who boarded the Mavi Marmara and that makes him even more perfect for the role of standard bearer for The Blank Pages of the Times.
This is the sort of news this journalist won't dare break for the handful of poor people who might buy the Brisbane Times in the expectation of reading some real news written objectively rather than by a tired hack with an agenda - IHH lauds new Hamas Gaza terror group
Here's an example of some of his latest spite laced work - Israel displays the fine art of buck-passing without losing authority
McGeough can't bring himself to mention the real perpetrators of the violence on the I'll-fated flotilla of fraudstera with which he proudly sailed in May of this year. The thugs from the Turkish terrorist group IHH which funded much of this fake peace lovers junket to Gaza.
The man who now finds himself out of synch with other Fairfax journalists who acknowledge the fatal role of those who attacked the Israelis who boarded the Mavi Marmara and that makes him even more perfect for the role of standard bearer for The Blank Pages of the Times.
This is the sort of news this journalist won't dare break for the handful of poor people who might buy the Brisbane Times in the expectation of reading some real news written objectively rather than by a tired hack with an agenda - IHH lauds new Hamas Gaza terror group
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Lebanon debates giving Palestinians rights
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
ARE THESE GAYS MAD????
According to this Jerusalem Post report, Canada: Gay anti-Israel group to march, the protest group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid will march in Montreal's Gay Pride parade for the second year running.
Apart from being sold a pup and a lie about alleged Israeli "Apartheid" by the racists in the Palestine Lobby, it seems these gay people have no idea how their counterparts are treated by the regimes that run Gaza and the West Bank and the fact that Palestinian gay people feel more comfortable in Tel Aviv than anywhere in the Palestinian areas.
These gays are truly lunatics.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
THE GUARDIAN'S WAR AGAINST THE JEWS
Writing in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, Hadar Sela, an Anglo-Israeli writer, examines the Guardian Newspaper’s influence in distorting perceptions of Israel - ANTI-ZIONIST AND ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE ON THE GUARDIAN'S COMMENT IS FREE WEBSITE.
It's a good read and has some parallels with one organisation that produces broadsheets in Melbourne and Sydney.
It's a good read and has some parallels with one organisation that produces broadsheets in Melbourne and Sydney.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
LEBANON - THE NEXT WAR
War is never far away in the Middle East and this article in today's Australian by
Ronen Bergman looks at the next one - LEBANON A POWDERKEG READY TO BLOW The border incident could lead to war
Of course, the provocations coming from the Lebanese proxies of Iran will all be forgotten when the fighting starts and the usual crowd of Israel bashers accuse it of fomenting the next war.
Ronen Bergman looks at the next one - LEBANON A POWDERKEG READY TO BLOW The border incident could lead to war
LAST Tuesday afternoon, several hours before a highly anticipated televised speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Lebanese army snipers fired at an Israeli military detail that was trimming trees on the Israeli side of the border. The premeditated attack came exactly four years after the end of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The question now is whether this incident could spark a chain reaction that results in another war...
Lebanon is a tinderbox. Whoever gave the command to the Lebanese snipers was playing with fire.
Of course, the provocations coming from the Lebanese proxies of Iran will all be forgotten when the fighting starts and the usual crowd of Israel bashers accuse it of fomenting the next war.
Monday, August 09, 2010
WHO'S TO BLAME?
Jason Kousoukis of the Age has written a badly titled piece which is sure to upset his blinkered fellow journalist, Paul McGeough - Israeli PM set to shift raid blame
Some of the peacenik passengers attacked Israeli soldiers?
So who is to blame and what does McGeough who thinks those passengers who beat up the soldiers with metal pipes, knives and metallic slingshots are as pure as the driven snow?
In the early hours of May 31, Israeli commandos were ordered to prevent a six-ship convoy carrying humanitarian aid from breaching Israel's blockade of Gaza or entering Israeli-controlled waters.
Things began to go awry after several of the commandos who were lowered on to the deck of the convoy's lead ship, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, were attacked by some of the passengers. Other commandos were sent aboard the same vessel with orders to save the lives of their comrades, shooting dead nine passengers and injuring more than 30 others.
Some of the peacenik passengers attacked Israeli soldiers?
So who is to blame and what does McGeough who thinks those passengers who beat up the soldiers with metal pipes, knives and metallic slingshots are as pure as the driven snow?
Sunday, August 08, 2010
don’t f***ing tell me what to do
Great Band - Jethro Tull donates to co-existence
"I didn’t feel the need to make any statement until I started receiving some very hateful communication from people representing different sides of this ongoing issue – from supposed human rights supporters to individuals, bodies and groups… there was some pretty nasty stuff," said Anderson.
"Basically what I wrote was, 'don’t f***ing tell me what to do.' And I have to say that since I posted the letter on my site, over the last two or three weeks, nobody has uttered a peep."
What Anderson actually wrote was his commitment, ala Leonard Cohen’s initiative in 2009, to donate his proceeds from the three shows to "bodies representing the development of peaceful co-existence between Muslims, Jews and Christians, and the fostering of better Palestinian/Israeli relations." The letter added that he didn’t "feel pressured by human rights groups, national interests or any individuals to perform or not to perform in Israel or anywhere else."
There should be a lot more of this!
“I make up my own mind in light of available facts, with my own experience and a sense of personal ethics.”
Friday, August 06, 2010
medicins sans SHAME!!!
I received a copy of the following via email:-
The Chief Operational Officer,
Medcins Sans Frontiers
-Australian Office
-New York Office
Dear Sir/Madam
When my daughter wed in July 2006, in lieu of gifts she asked for donations to be made to Doctors without Borders / Medcins Sans Fontiers as our family had always supported the Group.
Well, I have a regret.
I've just read a presentation by Alan Dershowitz - http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/moonbats_against_israel_posted_by which you too should read and think about.
Doctors Without Borders erected borders when it comes to Israeli doctors who flew to the Congo to treat 50 local villagers who had been severely burned.
The Israeli volunteers worked around the clock, treated the burn victims and trained local doctors to perform skin grafts, and donated tons of medical equipment.
But Doctors Without Borders refused to work with the Israeli medics and para medics and treated them "as though we were occupiers." - quoted one Israeli medic.
Dr. Marie Pierre Allie, President of the French branch of the organization, said that Israel's self defense actions in Gaza were actually worse than the Darfur genocide in the Sudan.
Only a blind moonbat could even make such a comparison!
MSF has an apparent problem with one democratic Jewish State but is quite at ease with the existence and actions of 56 dysfunctional & corrupt Islamic states.
As one critic has put it well, "These are Doctors With Borders - but without scruples."
Perhaps you may wish to check out http://theredhunter.com/2009/04/doctors_without_borders_running_cover_for_terrorists.php . - or just Google <"Doctors without Borders" Israel> and you will get more confirmation of the reactions around the world.
My family will no longer donate to Doctors without Borders ( Medcins sans Frontiers) until this cynical, hateful and bitter culture towards Israel - which obviously emanates from the top, ceases.
I shall disseminate this email as widely as I can and shall ask recipients to forward it on also.
The Chief Operational Officer,
Medcins Sans Frontiers
-Australian Office
-New York Office
Dear Sir/Madam
When my daughter wed in July 2006, in lieu of gifts she asked for donations to be made to Doctors without Borders / Medcins Sans Fontiers as our family had always supported the Group.
Well, I have a regret.
I've just read a presentation by Alan Dershowitz - http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/moonbats_against_israel_posted_by
Doctors Without Borders erected borders when it comes to Israeli doctors who flew to the Congo to treat 50 local villagers who had been severely burned.
The Israeli volunteers worked around the clock, treated the burn victims and trained local doctors to perform skin grafts, and donated tons of medical equipment.
But Doctors Without Borders refused to work with the Israeli medics and para medics and treated them "as though we were occupiers." - quoted one Israeli medic.
Dr. Marie Pierre Allie, President of the French branch of the organization, said that Israel's self defense actions in Gaza were actually worse than the Darfur genocide in the Sudan.
Only a blind moonbat could even make such a comparison!
MSF has an apparent problem with one democratic Jewish State but is quite at ease with the existence and actions of 56 dysfunctional & corrupt Islamic states.
As one critic has put it well, "These are Doctors With Borders - but without scruples."
Perhaps you may wish to check out http://theredhunter.com/2009/04/doctors_without_borders_running_cover_for_terrorists.php
My family will no longer donate to Doctors without Borders ( Medcins sans Frontiers) until this cynical, hateful and bitter culture towards Israel - which obviously emanates from the top, ceases.
I shall disseminate this email as widely as I can and shall ask recipients to forward it on also.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Commercially sized oil field found in central Israel
I wonder whether those divestment nasties realise that every time they step up their useless campaigns against Israel, the Jewish State makes another find whose value far outweighs thir effect.
A little while ago, Israel discovered massive offshore natural gas reserves and now it seems they've struck oil - Commercially sized oil field found in central Israel, firm says.
The number of barrels a day aren't all that much but it's amazing how much more is usually found after the initial discovery.
In any event, the point is that divestment and boycotts aren't going to achieve anything other than make people other than the divesters rich. If these people genuinely wanted peace, they would be encouraging their Palestinian friends to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. That's how peace is usually achieved.
A little while ago, Israel discovered massive offshore natural gas reserves and now it seems they've struck oil - Commercially sized oil field found in central Israel, firm says.
The number of barrels a day aren't all that much but it's amazing how much more is usually found after the initial discovery.
In any event, the point is that divestment and boycotts aren't going to achieve anything other than make people other than the divesters rich. If these people genuinely wanted peace, they would be encouraging their Palestinian friends to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. That's how peace is usually achieved.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Today's Example of Ridiculous Media Bias Against Israel
Barry Rubin reports on Today's Example of Ridiculous Media Bias Against Israel
Along the border with Lebanon, east of Metulla, some bushes were pushing in on the border fence. The fence is set in slightly from the border precisely so that Israeli soldiers can work on it. The IDF called UNIFIL and informed the UN that this work was going to be done today so that they could tell the Lebanese army that there was no aggression going on but just routine maintenance. Soldiers from UNIFIL came to observe and can be seen standing next to Israeli soldiers in the photos. Photographers were also standing by to film the operation.
But Lebanese soldiers opened fire on the Israelis who were working and in no way acting aggressively. The fact that journalists were standing next to the Lebanese soldiers shows that they knew Israel was going to do this maintenance and were observing. After the Israeli soldiers were ambushed, they returned fire. Reportedly, one Israeli officer, three Lebanese soldiers, and a Lebanese (?) journalist were killed.
So how did Reuters and Yahoo using an AP photo report this? By captions on photos saying that Israeli soldiers had crossed into Lebanon and been fired on! Other news agencies merely reported: Israel says the soldiers were inside Israel; Lebanon says they were on Lebanese territory.
Reuters: "An Israeli soldier is seen on a crane on the Lebanese side of the Lebanese-Israeli border near Adaisseh village, southern Lebanon August 3, 2010. Israeli artillery shelled the Lebanese village on Tuesday, wounding two people, after Lebanese Army troops fired warning shots at Israeli soldiers."
Yahoo: "A Lebanese officer spoke on condition of anonymity under military guidelines, said the clash occurred as Israeli troops tried to remove a tree from the Lebanese side of the border." No Israeli is quoted.
AP also missed explaining the story properly: "The violence apparently erupted over a move by Israeli soldiers to cut down a tree along the border, a sign of the high level of tensions at the frontier where Israel fought in 2006 with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah....There was no sign of any extensive Israeli preparations
for a large-scale operation - an early inddication the clash might not trigger a wider conflict."
The truth is easy to ascertain--did Israel announce the maintenance, permit the photographers and UN people to watch and then cross deliberately into Lebanon?--but Israel is being portrayed as an aggressor that caused the outbreak of fighting. So millions of people will either believe that Israel was at fault or that the event is in question.
The narrative, however, is simple: In an unprovoked attack, Lebanese soldiers fired on Israelis and murdered one soldier.
If the mass media cannot get this right how can it report accurately on other situations like the following:
2000: Israel offers to return the entire Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for full peace. Syria refuses.
2000: Israel offers to accept an independent Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip, almost all of the West Bank, and most of east Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority refuses.
2008: Hamas tears up a ceasefire, begins massive mortar and rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel defends itself.
2010: A Turkish pro-terrorist organization trying to help Hamas, a genocidal and antisemitic terrorist group, sends self-described jihadis on a ship who chant slogans about killing Jews and being Jihadi martyrs. When Israeli soldiers land, the Jihad warriors attack them with weapons and kidnap several. Israeli forces rescue the
soldiers, killing nine attackers in the operation.
But if the media cannot even get right a previously announced, UN-approved, maintenance activity on Israeli territory then what hope is their getting right anything more complex?
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), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Along the border with Lebanon, east of Metulla, some bushes were pushing in on the border fence. The fence is set in slightly from the border precisely so that Israeli soldiers can work on it. The IDF called UNIFIL and informed the UN that this work was going to be done today so that they could tell the Lebanese army that there was no aggression going on but just routine maintenance. Soldiers from UNIFIL came to observe and can be seen standing next to Israeli soldiers in the photos. Photographers were also standing by to film the operation.
But Lebanese soldiers opened fire on the Israelis who were working and in no way acting aggressively. The fact that journalists were standing next to the Lebanese soldiers shows that they knew Israel was going to do this maintenance and were observing. After the Israeli soldiers were ambushed, they returned fire. Reportedly, one Israeli officer, three Lebanese soldiers, and a Lebanese (?) journalist were killed.
So how did Reuters and Yahoo using an AP photo report this? By captions on photos saying that Israeli soldiers had crossed into Lebanon and been fired on! Other news agencies merely reported: Israel says the soldiers were inside Israel; Lebanon says they were on Lebanese territory.
Reuters: "An Israeli soldier is seen on a crane on the Lebanese side of the Lebanese-Israeli border near Adaisseh village, southern Lebanon August 3, 2010. Israeli artillery shelled the Lebanese village on Tuesday, wounding two people, after Lebanese Army troops fired warning shots at Israeli soldiers."
Yahoo: "A Lebanese officer spoke on condition of anonymity under military guidelines, said the clash occurred as Israeli troops tried to remove a tree from the Lebanese side of the border." No Israeli is quoted.
AP also missed explaining the story properly: "The violence apparently erupted over a move by Israeli soldiers to cut down a tree along the border, a sign of the high level of tensions at the frontier where Israel fought in 2006 with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah....There was no sign of any extensive Israeli preparations
for a large-scale operation - an early inddication the clash might not trigger a wider conflict."
The truth is easy to ascertain--did Israel announce the maintenance, permit the photographers and UN people to watch and then cross deliberately into Lebanon?--but Israel is being portrayed as an aggressor that caused the outbreak of fighting. So millions of people will either believe that Israel was at fault or that the event is in question.
The narrative, however, is simple: In an unprovoked attack, Lebanese soldiers fired on Israelis and murdered one soldier.
If the mass media cannot get this right how can it report accurately on other situations like the following:
2000: Israel offers to return the entire Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for full peace. Syria refuses.
2000: Israel offers to accept an independent Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip, almost all of the West Bank, and most of east Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority refuses.
2008: Hamas tears up a ceasefire, begins massive mortar and rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel defends itself.
2010: A Turkish pro-terrorist organization trying to help Hamas, a genocidal and antisemitic terrorist group, sends self-described jihadis on a ship who chant slogans about killing Jews and being Jihadi martyrs. When Israeli soldiers land, the Jihad warriors attack them with weapons and kidnap several. Israeli forces rescue the
soldiers, killing nine attackers in the operation.
But if the media cannot even get right a previously announced, UN-approved, maintenance activity on Israeli territory then what hope is their getting right anything more complex?
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), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
THE ONLY STOP
"If you go to the Middle East looking for oil,
you don't need to stop in Israel.
But if you go looking for brains, energy and integrity,
it is the only stop."
Warren Buffet, 2010
Monday, August 02, 2010
IN GAZA, THESE ARE THE GOOD GUYS
This picture taken by Jason Socrates Koutsoukis of the Age shows the parents of Munir Warshara posing with the weapons their son smuggled into the Gaza Strip for Hamas.
Look at the family pictured above and read the the photographer/journalist's portayal of these people and their now dead terrorist son in Besieged Hamas turns on its own
According to Mr Warshara, Munir was executed because he disagreed with the way Hamas was distributing aid money to victims of Israel's Operation Cast Lead offensive in late 2008 and early 2009.
'Munir wanted the money to be distributed equally to all people who needed it,' he says. 'The other Hamas leaders wanted to give the money only to other members of Hamas, or to keep the money for themselves.'
Look at the people, look at the weapons and understand how they are portrayed. Then consider that a rocket landed in Ashkelon, Israel a few days ago and it might dawn as to why Israel is blockading the Hamas ruled fascist thugocracy. The Israelis are under an obligation to look after their citizens and their security. Not easy when you're dealing with cuthroat murderers like Munir Warshara and many a lot worse than him.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
HOW DID THIS GET IN THE AGE?
Last Friday's Israel bashing broadsheet contained a brief piece on the improvement in the quality of the waters of the Jordan River - River Jordan now 'safe' .
The article must have slipped pass the Age thought police because there's no refeence to Israel's illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza that's turned the place into an open air prison or the right wing Netanyahu government's murderous policies.
OK,it doesn't mention the Palestinian Grad rocket that slammed into the earth near Ashkelon but the omission is standard fare as Blank Pages readers would well know by now.
Poor form from the Age to miss an opportunity to dehumanise the Israelis. Surely, those Joos had an ulterior motive in cleaning the place up?
The article must have slipped pass the Age thought police because there's no refeence to Israel's illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza that's turned the place into an open air prison or the right wing Netanyahu government's murderous policies.
OK,it doesn't mention the Palestinian Grad rocket that slammed into the earth near Ashkelon but the omission is standard fare as Blank Pages readers would well know by now.
Poor form from the Age to miss an opportunity to dehumanise the Israelis. Surely, those Joos had an ulterior motive in cleaning the place up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)