Friday, August 30, 2013

Threats to Israel. Threats to the World.


It is good to see that Israel officialdom is now putting a serious effort into countering the anti-Israel hysteria that has been such an integral and sinister part of the "progressive" agenda and mainstream discourse especially in the universities across the West for many years.

Here is a map just put out by the Israeli embassy to the US. Those whose carefully trained reflex to anything to do with the Arab Muslim war against the remaining Jews of the Middle East, is to frame it as:

a)  It is all about the "Palestinians"

and therefore

b) It is all about the "Settlements" and the "Occupation"

and therefore

c) all about international law (and which only applies to Israel) 

should spend a few minutes looking at this map and then perhaps an even larger map that takes in the threats to all the other states and peoples in the region by exactly the same forces that are arrayed against Israel.

A foreign minister in a distant foreign country as safe as any in the world from these threats, who stands before a crowd during an election campaign that includes partisans on all the sides listed in this map (apart from the only universally agreed target of them all), at vicious, inhumane and apparently perpetual war among themselves, and the only thing he can say is to condemn Jews building homes for themselves in Jerusalem as "illegal", really needs to be dragged from office at the first opportunity.  

Australians should be ashamed of this politician.

Meanwhile Israelis are stocking up on new gas masks. Someone should tell Bob Carr. Maybe some one should send him one. Perhaps enough for all his family. I expect nothing focuses the political mind quite like trying on gas masks. 

Excellent question. Just don't ask Bob Carr. He will tell you it is because Jews are illegal in the wrong part of town

One more week

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Standing up for the Jewish people (or: Stuart's Folly)

Mike L.

It has to be understood than one cannot stand for the well-being of the Jewish people if one refuses to stand against political Islam.

The rise of political Islam is the foremost challenge to Jewish sovereignty and Jewish well-being in the world today.  All throughout the Middle East imams and ayatollahs cry out for Jewish blood and tell their people that the Jews are the children of apes and pigs and that we are responsible for all war and that we eat local Arab children like Cheezy-Doodles.

Islamists and anti-Jewish racists throughout the Muslim world and Europe are creating an exceedingly dangerous environment for Jews everywhere and we must acknowledge that fact, particularly since the Jews of the Middle East represent a very tiny minority.  There are sixty or seventy Muslims for every Jew in the Middle East and, for the most part, those Muslims do not accept Jewish sovereignty on historically Jewish land.

Thus political Islam represents a very real danger for Jewish people, but not only Jewish people.  If we honestly believe in universal human rights, than we have to oppose al-Sharia.

That means we need to oppose politicians, like president Barack Obama, who offer moral and military support to enemies of the Jewish people and to enemies of the United States.

Furthermore, this has to be understood as a problem primarily grounded in the western-left.

For a variety of reasons, I have tended not to support the political right-wing in the United States or the Republican Party.  Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that it is the conservatives and the political right within the United States that has, for long decades, been far more friendly to the Jewish people, and the Jewish state, than has the progressive-left.

Jewish liberals may not like me saying so, but I am not saying anything that is not entirely obvious to anyone who is observing American politics with a mind that can comprehend that when an American president pledges F-16 fighter jets and hundreds of Abrams tanks to a country with an Islamist government, that such a president supports political Islam.

This conclusion is obvious on its face and those who deny that conclusion are deceiving themselves.

Some will say that speaking out against political Islam is "racist."  I do not agree.  Standing against political Islam is to stand against racism.  The movement for political Islam is the single most racist political movement in the world today.  Just as we liberals stood against American slavery in the nineteenth-century, and just as we stood against the Klan and the rise of the Nazis and Jim Crow, so we should stand against the rise of political Islam.

Our failure to do so is a moral failure.

What we are seeing today is the abdication of the liberal-left dedication to universal human rights.  The notion of universal human rights is central to western-liberal ideals and the degree to which the western-left fails to stand up for universal human rights is the degree to which it has betrayed its own values and, thus, betrayed its very reason to be.  What is the point of supporting the progressive-left, or the Democratic Party, if neither will stand up for their own alleged values?

There are, it must be admitted, understandable reasons why the progressive-left has failed to stand up for universal human rights throughout the world.  We refuse to stand for universal human rights because the "multicultural ideal" mitigates against it.  Those of us who come out of the left want to respect other cultures and treat them the way that we would like to be treated.  In Europe and the United States we tend no longer to believe in the "melting pot" theory of integration, but in the "salad bowl" idea.  We want people with different languages and clothing and culinary traditions and religious traditions to live cheek-by-jowl and get along in comity.

This also means, within the tension between universal human rights and the multicultural ideal, that we are exceedingly slow to criticize "indigenous" cultures out of a recognition of the history of western imperialism.  Who are we, after all - us allegedly privileged white people - to look down our noses at the off-spring of our former servants and slaves?  By what moral right are we to condemn the children and grandchildren of those who we historically abused and enslaved and persecuted and exploited?

That tends to be the general mind-set of people who think of themselves as "progressive" or "liberal" or "left" and its the tradition that I come out of, as well.  These are people seeking to be fair-minded and who have the finest of intentions.  The problem is that ultimately they have, in an unspoken outplaying of this tension, chosen the multicultural ideal over the ideal of human rights because they do not wish to offend peoples in, or from, other parts of the world.

What this means, sadly, is that women continue to be stoned to death in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran, and we keep our mouths shut.  Not only do we keep our mouth shut about these kinds of atrocities, we even denounce our fellow liberals who dare to speak up as "racist."  Throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East Gay people are treated as something worse than criminals and are summarily murdered and, yet, even the western GBLT community generally remains quiet because it does not want to be thought of as bigoted toward Arabs or Muslims.

The diaspora Jewish community is, to my view, particularly egregious in this regard.  Aside from a few rogue individualists, like activist Pamela Geller, diaspora western Jewry is sticking its head in the sand and refuses to speak out despite the fact that the Jews of the Middle East are a people under siege.  We allow Arab leaders to tell us that any future state of "Palestine" must be Judenrein and we do not forcefully object.  On the contrary, the western Jewish left tends to agree that Jewish people should not build housing for themselves on the traditionally Jewish land which, for some reason, they call by the Jordanian name "West Bank."

The Jews are maybe fourteen million people throughout the entire world.  Our numbers have been kept small by European and Arab-Muslim aggression.  Until we are ready to honestly stand up for ourselves by denouncing our foremost enemies, the Islamists, then we will always be on the defensive and our natural allies will not stand with us, because we refuse to stand up for ourselves.  The western left should stand with the Jewish people because the movement for Jewish self-determination, like  other movements for national liberation, is a movement for social justice among an historically persecuted people.

There will never be peace until the vast Arab peoples, our former rulers, accept Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land and they will never do so until non-Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Australians and non-Jewish Europeans insist upon it.  However, non-Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Australians and non-Jewish Europeans will not do so until we insist upon it and that means that we must stand up to this fascistic movement that is rising throughout that part of the world.

Unless we stand up for ourselves, no one else will do so for us.  And unless we forcefully speak out against the rise of political Islam, we cannot really be said to be standing up for the well-being of the Jewish people, nor even for the ideal of universal human rights, within which contemporary liberalism is grounded.

In this way, the progressive-left betrayal of the Jewish people is nothing less than the progressive-left betrayal of the progressive-left, itself.


Michael Lumish is the editor of Israel Thrives.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Letter From Israel

elinor        אלינור   





Tennis tournaments are hard to follow, these days.  What happens in England is middle-of-the-night fare in eastern Australia, but it’s just right for Israel.  Jerusalem is two hours ahead of London, so Wimbledon  is easy viewing.

There is something very wrong with my left knee.  My total knee replacement of 2005 seems to be slipping, and it’s causing problems.  I fell flat on my face one day and had to have my family doctor declare that I didn’t need a CAT scan; my eyes were not showing any brain damage and my boiling anger at my klutziut convinced him.  The scar healed nicely.

The second, third and fourth times I fell I managed to keep my face off the sidewalk, but I injured my shoulders.  I declined to have them surgically repaired because I kept landing on my hands and re-injuring them, so I was referred instead to Physiotherapy. 

The physiotherapist looked at my knee in passing and said My guess is you’re trying to walk on one leg and no one can do that—even you-know-who might have walked on water, but he used both legs.  Carry your cane and consult a specialist. 

How dumb do you have to be?

The first knee surgeon said he wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. Nice touch.  But he prescribed a costly brace, which covered the knee in both directions by a hand span.  It has a hole over the kneecap and metal hinges on either side that let me bend my knee, which is the last thing I want to do.  There was also danger of muscle atrophy, which led me to use it infrequently.   It worked all right in winter but was deadly hot in summer.  One of the self-praising notes on the package of the brace promised it would ‘gently warm the area’, which I hardly required.  Further, removing it was impossible without its taking a tad of me with it, every time.

The second knee surgeon said he didn’t do that kind of surgery, but I could consult Dr So-and-so in Tel Aviv.  His initial consult costs NIS 750, he did not belong to my health fund so was a private provider, doesn’t operate at my favourite hospital; next available appointment in 4 months.  Goodbye.

When I entered the office of the third knee surgeon carrying a load of attitude, I got right to the point:  Hello, do you do revision surgery?  If not, your next patient will thank me for leaving immediately.  He smiled and said Revision surgery forms the greater part of my practice.  Please sit down.  I sat.

Show me your knee, please.  I raised my pants cuff and showed him the bright blue band around my leg, just below my knee.  What’s that?  Well…

I was watching the Wimbledon tournament.  Rafael Nadal was playing, wearing a band around his knee.  Major knee surgery had kept him away from tennis for many months.  The band must be there to stabilise his leg, I thought, and also Oh, what a lousy shot that was.

Several matches later one of my favourites, Jo Wilfred Tsonga, was down on the famous grass of the court, writhing in pain.  It had rained, he had slipped and a mass of white-coated medical personnel surrounded him.  Several minutes later he rose, unable to continue playing but wearing a band around his knee.  OK, got the idea.

I tried several versions of the tennis-player knee band until a chemist suggested a self-adhesive tape (sticks to itself, not to the limb) and at 20 shekels for 4 meters, a real bargain.  It worked.  I buried my brace and the several other tortures I’d acquired in the back of a closet and have ever since been trying to convince knee sufferers to try the blue band and tell the world about it.  Chicken soup, I reckon.

My surgeon was impressed but as my father used to say, That and 25 cents will get you onto the streetcar.  I’m no closer to repair than I was at Doctor One, but at least I can walk, I’m not in constant pain and my face has stayed off the sidewalk. 

Kudos and thanks to Rafa and Jo Wilfred.  If you see them, please thank them for me.

cross posted  Israel Thrives

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Barack Obama's Support for the Rise of Political Islam

Mike L.

It remains fairly astonishing that most diaspora Jews still do not understand that United States president Barack Obama assisted the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, particularly in Egypt.

One very simple fact needs to be understood by people who care about US foreign policy in the Middle East:

Barack Obama supported the rise of political Islam within that part of the world.


He did so despite the fact that devotees of political Islam (or radical Islam or Islamism) stone women to death for alleged promiscuity, hang Gay people from cranes because Allah apparently does not like Gay people, and calls for the genocide or dhimmitude of the Jews and the Christians because dhimmis, and other non-Muslims, refuse to accept Muhammad as the prophet of God.  How it is that the great majority of American Jews favor a president that supported a political movement that denigrates their own people is a question that future historians and sociologists will spend many, many hours researching and pondering.

When told that Barack Obama favored and assisted the rise of political Islam, however, many western-left Jews simply scoff.  The truth, of course, is that Obama did assist the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East and admitted it, himself.

In his September 25, 2012 speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations he said this:

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.
The United States has supported the forces of change.

These are Obama's own words.  It is he that claims that under his administration the United States supported the so-called "Arab Spring."  So, what was the "Arab Spring"?  It should be entirely clear to everyone by this point that it was not the great up-welling of Arab democracy but the rise of political Islam, which is the theocratic-authoritarian movement to impose al-Sharia on the peoples of the world, starting with the peoples of the Middle East.

That is what Obama supported and claimed to support.  This is not a matter of hyperbole or interpretation.  He said what he said and he did what he did and we need to recognize it.  He may have done so out of either ignorance or stupidity, but that he did so is no longer open to question.  If it was ignorance, then he did so out of a belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and moderate. Perhaps Obama gave too much credence to his National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, who told Congress that "The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

How it is possible that the National Intelligence Director of the United States under Barack Obama could believe such nonsense boggles the mind.  The Muslim Brotherhood, as anyone who has done even a little research into their roots can tell you, is meant to advance Sharia, which is religious law.

It is, therefore, not secular. Furthermore, if you read prominent historical scholars who have written about the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Matthias Küntzel or Paul Berman or Jeffrey Herf, you will learn that the Brotherhood emerged in 1920s Cairo as a theocratic-fascistic movement opposed to modernity, opposed to secularism, in opposition to the west, and in racist opposition to the well-being of the Jewish people.

Although numerous countries throughout the region are falling to political Islam, I will limit my comments to Egypt because that country is among the most geo-politically significant countries in the Arab-Muslim world and because it is in Egypt that Obama has done the most damage in his work on behalf of that movement.

Obama's main efforts in assisting the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East consisted of his efforts on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a violently racist organization that was founded in the 1920s and that, like the Nazis in Germany at that time, or the Ku Klux Klan in the United States at that time, sought to impose its fascistic vision through violence.  The Muslim Brotherhood then, and the Muslim Brotherhood now, is in direct opposition to western values precisely because Sharia is directly in opposition to western values.

That Barack Obama would seek to bolster the fortunes of such a political movement is unconscionable and Jewish people and women and Gay people and all people, who do not wish to live under theocratic dominance, should object strenuously.  Part of the problem that we have, however, is that Obama's Jewish supporters tend to simply turn away their heads.  They refuse to acknowledge that which is directly before their noses.  And what that means is that we must use the evidence before us to encourage them to open their eyes.  

Obama directly claimed his support for the "Arab Spring," which is the rise of political Islam.

He said so in his Cairo speech.

The Cairo Speech:

Prior to helping oust Hosni Mubarak, Barack Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood, over Mubarak's objections, to his 2009 speech in Cairo.  From the 1920s through the demise of Mubarak, throughout the period of Arab nationalism, Egyptian regimes consistently suppressed the Brotherhood and sometimes executed their leadership.  For almost a century the political tension in Egypt has been between racist military dictatorships and racist theocratic insurgents.  With the rise of Arab nationalism in the middle of the twentieth century, with Nasser leading the way, Arab theocracy throughout the Middle East was on the wane until the Iranian revolution of 1979.

By inviting the Brotherhood to the Cairo speech, Obama validated the political movement for Sharia that, in its modern form, began with Hasan Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, was greatly advanced by the Iranian revolution and that is further advanced with the heinous riots and rapes and murders that are collectively known as the "Arab Spring."

Many critics condemn Obama’s Cairo speech for implying a moral equivalence between the European effort at Jewish genocide and al-Nakba (the catastrophe). The “catastrophe,” of course, is that the local Arabs made war upon the Jews of the Middle East, often fighting against women and Holocaust survivors, and lost, despite their great numerical advantage. Thus at the very outset of the Obama administration he assisted in the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt while denigrating the Holocaust by suggesting a moral equivalency between the horror of the genocide of the Jews and the displacement of Arabs who likewise sought the genocide of the Jews.

Ousting Mubarak:

Barack Obama demanded that Mubarak step down knowing full-well that the Muslim Brotherhood was waiting in the wings.  Given the fact that he invited the Brotherhood to his Cairo speech he certainly knew that they were a force to be reckoned with in that country.  Since he knew the Brotherhood was a significant organization surely his advisors must have informed him about the history of the organization, including its connection to Nazi Germany.

This gets to the crux of the matter.  Either Obama knew of the Brotherhood-Nazi connection or he did not.  If he did not, then he is guilty of dangerous and shameful ignorance.  But if he did, it is worse.  If Obama understood the Brotherhood's connection to Nazi Germany then he is guilty of something a tad more serious.

In any case, by calling for Mubarak's ouster Obama helped clear a path for the Brotherhood to come to power in Egypt.

It has to be understood that when Obama called for the ouster of Mubarak he assisted the Brotherhood's rise to power and thereby assisted the rise of political Islam throughout the region.

Ensuring the Ascendancy of a Racist Regime:

The Muslim Brotherhood, after ninety long years in the political wilderness, finally came to power shortly after the election of Barack Obama and partly due to Obama's efforts.  The Egyptian election, and the referendums that followed, were not democratic because Brotherhood thugs prevented Copts from voting.  One cannot claim democratic legitimacy if one suppresses the ability of one's political opponents to express their will at the ballot box.

Nonetheless, directly after the semi-faux-democratic election in Egypt, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, flew to that country on the instructions of Barack Obama for the purpose of advancing relations between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a July 14, 2012, piece written for the New York Times by David Kirkpatrick, he writes:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Egypt on Saturday for meetings with its newly elected Islamist president and the chief of its still-dominant military council, declaring that the United States “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.”
With the rise of political Islam in Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood and now deposed president Muhammed Morsi, what civilian rule entailed was the suppression and victimization of the Copts, an increase in the oppression of women, the institutionalization of a particularly violent form of religious homophobia, and incitement of genocide toward the Jewish minority in the Middle East.

Kirkpatrick's piece emphasizes a certain even-handedness during Clinton's trip, but this does not change the fact that by visiting Morsi after the election she gave the US seal of approval to a political party, and a political movement, entirely at odds with western liberal values.

Furthermore, the United States sent the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt F-16 fighter jets and hundreds of Abrams tanks.  How anyone can claim that the Obama administration has not supported the rise of political Islam in the Middle East when we have it on record that he sent them heavy weaponry is simply irrational.

Why it Matters:

If the Jewish people are not the most persecuted people on the entire planet within the last few mellennia we are certainly among the most persecuted.  From the seventh century until the current moment Arab majoritarian conquerors in the Middle East have kept the tiny Jewish minority in a state of perpetual self-defense.  For thirteen centuries the Jews of the Middle East lived as dhimmis under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperial rule.

In Martin Gilbert's In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands, we learn that for the dhimmi:

There could be no building of new synagogues or churches. Dhimmis could not ride horses, but only donkeys; they could not employ a Muslim. Jews and Christians alike had to wear special hats, cloaks and shoes to mark them out from Muslims... A dhimmi could not - and cannot to this day - serve in a Muslim court as witness in a legal case involving a Muslim... men could enter public bathhouses only when they wore a special sign around their neck distinguishing them from Muslims... Sexual relations with a Muslim woman were forbidden, as was cursing the Prophet in public - an offense punishable by death. (pgs. 32 - 33)
The system of dhimmitude is central to Sharia law and it is a return to Sharia law that is the goal of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Sharia is, obviously non-democratic and thus Obama's support for the rise of political Islam under the cloak of "democracy" was a falsehood from the start, whether he realized it or not.

The question is not if Obama supported the rise of political Islam, but just why he did so?  Some contend that he did so because of a desire to support democracy, but political Islam is non-democratic even if it comes to power through the ballot box.  Others maintain that Obama is actually a crypto-Muslim and that he therefore supports the rise of political Islam because he is in sympathy with that fascistic movement.  My suspicion is that the former explanation carries considerably more weight.

What drives Barack Obama is not malice, nor a desire to see the rise of political Islam or to undermine the United States in the region, but a deep naivety and ideological blinkertude that is exceedingly dangerous to the Jews of the Middle East, if not everyone else in the Middle East.

One can support democracy without supporting any and all political outcomes.  The United States government has an obligation to its citizenry to support their vital national interests.  There was a time when American governments understood this.  Under this administration, however, it is no longer the case.  If you believe that Obama's intentions are essentially benevolent then you must believe that his administration's efforts in that part of the world are intended to foster the greater good for everyone, as well as to support American interests in the region.

In both cases he has failed almost entirely. Thankfully, the Egyptian people and the Egyptian military fought back against political Islam in their country.

Nonetheless, embracing the Muslim Brotherhood was merely one in a string of foreign policy cognitive errors, but it was definitely among the worst and certainly suggested to this writer that this president could not be trusted.

That much is certain.


Michael Lumish is the editor of Israel Thrives.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Why Is Bob Carr Itching For A Fight On the Arab/Muslim/Left Cold War Against Israel?

"All [Jews]*on "Palestinian land" are illegal under international law ... that is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

[*offensive weasel word deleted]


Make no mistake he wants this argument.

 He seriously can not expect the Government to be re-elected so he wants this to be his legacy. He wants to deliver the ALP to the Arab/Muslim/Left side of the cold war against Israel because he thinks that will make this a better world. Then we can expect him to see out the rest of his political career as the Jimmy Carter of the Australian Senate. 

 He locked himself  into the timing of this argument with those who reckon dumping on the only decent humane liberal free productive law-ruled human rights based democracy within a neighbourly missile range and where pretty most everyone else are at bloody war with themselves might be a little on the Bizzaroland end of the Superman comic for even a nerd like him when last year he famously complained to just about anybody who would listen about what he was supposed to say the next time he was speaking in public at the end of Ramadan from ... you know ... those steps. He said it. Not me.

This is one suggestion he received:

"The Arab "right of return" to Israel is the greatest crock in history. You must implore the "Palestinians" to accept Israel, accept Palestine, accept peace and live in security and prosperity in economic union with Israel. And if they do not then they have forfeited all Australian sympathy. Their leaders will forever remain the authors of their own people's misery and to say anything else is to feed a delusion and is anti-"Palestinian" ."

So what did he say? 

Now we know. As you can see he did not take on board all of this blog's advice in anything approaching full measure. 

And we also know that if you want to hear major and emphatic statements on foreign policy concerning Israel and the Jews then you need to know  what this FM says when he is addressing a Muslim audience in Lakemba on Eid al-Fitr.  No need to take a camera. SBS covers it.

This is what he said.

” I’ve been to Ramallah, I’ve spoken to the Palestinian leadership, and we support their aspirations to have a Palestinian state in the context of a Middle East of peace. And that means respect for the right of Israel to exist. But we want that Palestinian state to exist, in the context of a peace in the Middle East, and that’s why we say, unequivocally, all settlements on Palestinian land are illegal under international law and should cease. That is the position, of Kevin Rudd, the position of the Federal Labor Government, and we don’t make apologies for it.”

He also said he was proud about rolling the PM last year and humiliating her because she was showing too much backbone standing up to yet another big push from the tyrannies and the trenblies intent on appeasing and rewarding "Palestine" with an UN vote upgrade for ignoring its own treaties, rejecting Israel with undisclosed contempt and doing its best to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible and a good many more of their own besides. 

Perhaps not in so many words but something is clear. Carr regards this as a highlight of his career and perhaps his greatest achievement as FM.

No one want to fight the Arab/Israel wars all over again least of all during an Australian election campaign except apparently Carr and the ALP. For now they can have that on their own. Even the Greens are doing their best to hide what they are about and to keep the ugliest of their uglies strapped to the walls in an underground basement with ball gags so members of the public don't accidentally see or hear one of them.

Here are a few reasons why this speech is a pretty classless act for an Australian Government at any time but especially right now; apart from the dubious merits of a smelly case. Pick your own order. Some are worse than others. Some are real bad.

  • Claiming that "the settlements" are illegal is not just wrong in law on several levels but deeply offensive at a visceral level. If these people are "illegal" there is no law as we understand it. Instead there are the laws of Nuremberg and Sharia. It is that basic. We are better off without any law than this law. What is at stake is the very concept of law. There is a vast difference between saying that "settlement activity" is unhelpful, or even a tactical or strategic  mistake, and saying that the settlements are illegal. The former is a matter of opinion and as it happens the Israeli Government apparently agrees given there has been  a de facto freeze for some time. The latter is to declare that the Middle East Jews almost all of whom now live in Israel do not have the same basic legal, civil and human rights as everyone else in the Middle East and the world simply by virtue of being Jews. This is the law of dhimmitude. There is a duty to ignore laws like that and take the consequences.
  • The allegation of illegality is directed at civilians and not just a state and has as its object a sham legal justification to dispossess and displace these people, precisely what the Geneva Conventions are meant to condemn. If they are illegally occupying someone else's land then they must go or be evicted as a population. In other words a forced transfer of one ethnic group. Therefore it is an inversion. It is an attempt to apply laws to achieve a result that is the exact opposite of what their framers intended.
  • There are face to face negotiations in progress between the PA and Israel; the first in years and they are about these core issues such as what is "Palestinian land".  No one expects the talks to come to much but an enormous effort has gone into arranging them especially by the US and Israel that has had to pay a terrible price just to get the Palestinians to the table. Carr pre-empts all this with a speech which might not have attracted much attention in the heat of an election campaign, and indeed there is evidence he did not want too much domestic attention, but which you and he can be certain would be all around the clouds from here to Gaza in a flash. Australian FM says the Jews are illegal from outside mosque during Eid al-Fitr.  That is also the prevailing opinion in the Middle East outside Israel and there are other laws around there that could freeze your blood in the arteries. One might have hoped that diplomatic courtesy among friends and the need to be seen to be acting with some sense of propriety would  compel Carr to at least pretend he was taking the Middle East peace process seriously especially now that Australia is on the Security Council.
  • I've  been to Ramallah, ... we support their aspirations ... and that means respect for the right of Israel to exist.... But ...  There is no reassurance in these words. The "moderate Palestinians" have no difficulty mouthing what people like Carr want to hear and Carr and others are certain not to probe. This is because it is code. It is a language with meanings on two planes and no intersection. To the "moderate' enemies of Israel it means the right of Israel to exist but not as a sovereign Jewish state. Not as a sovereign state at all really because it requires Israel to open its borders to five million or more Arabs around the world who claim to be refugees from 1948 even though almost none were yet born. As this can never be accepted by free people it is code for never ending war, or war until there are no free people.  
  • The timing and place even appear to have been calculated to exploit possible ethnic divisions and flame community fears for political advantage. It shows no sensitivity for the very real concerns of Australian Jews and others about the spread of antisemitism including violence around the world and to Australia. What does the Australian government think of Jews and their future in the world? They tell you in a speech to Muslims at least some of whom are pretty clear about what they think about that future. That the government is silent on the systematic racist hate agenda of the "Palestinian" schools, politics, mosques and media compounds this. Just like "Palestinian" intransigence it cannot be acknowledged.
  • It emboldens the existentialist core of anti-Israelism and weakens efforts to nurture a rational new idealism to finding a solution to the condition of "Palestinians" and all other Arabs living under the perverse political cultures of the Arab/'Muslim world. As such it is anti-"Palestinian", anti-Arab and betrays those risking there lives to free the people from Iran to Ramallah. As such it makes war more likely.
  • It adds to the isolation of Israel that knows this is an existentialist struggle even while Carr and Hague are in denial and are mesmerised by the one big lie that this is a rational struggle by a national group for a state of their own despite all the evidence. As such it makes war more likely.
  • This giant policy shift was made at the behest of the UK in a joint communiqué on 18 January 2013. There are very strong historical reasons to regard the UK as in a particularly poor position to assert what is international law when it comes to Israel, Palestine and the Jews. There are also strong historical reasons for Australia to not echo the UK on this.  Not heed the British at all really. Given their record they are disqualified as honest brokers. So is the rest of Europe.

    “All settlements are illegal under international law and settlement activity undermines prospects for peace.”

    George Orwell once remarked that the defining vice of the British is hypocrisy. He would know. Never mind the Israelis. This is offensive to Australians.

    Once again the Australian Government has shown it has no understanding of the Middle East and that it is determined things will stay that way.

    Three more weeks.

cross posted Israel Thrives

Saturday, August 17, 2013

For Malcolm and Eleanor


Now safely back home in Israel after a flying visit.

And especially Eleanor who I helped set up a Google Account to make it easier for her to comment here. And in the grip of a brain snap conflated the Hebrew spelling of her name, elinor, with the English,  Eleanor, and managed to come up with Elanor as her display name.


Nevertheless a beautiful drive in my country.
Emailing some photos soon.  

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Flash! Ape Banned From Conversation


Che has been playing with his intellectuals again here at the Conversation and just got a comment censored for telling the truth about the Greens. That has earned two bans in two days. Echonetdaily just couldn't handle the truth either. This comment too never saw the light of day on this "progressive" site. Same reason. Infested by the Greens and therefore just can't handle criticism. 

But I'll say one thing for the Conversation. They always write a nice note to the Ape whenever they delete one of his spirited contributions to the debate. So here it is with offending comment intact (which I have Greenlighted). I ask you honestly. Would criticism this severe and much worse even attract a raised eyebrow in these circles and at this site if it was directed at the Liberal Party or the ALP (let alone the US, Israel or the Jews)?

Of course not.


Dear Che Gorilla,

Your comment on 'The power of Liberal preferences: how will it impact on the Greens?' has been removed.

There are several reasons why this may have occurred:

1) Your comment may have breached our community standards. For example it may have been a personal attack, or you might not have used your real name.

2) Your comment may have been entirely blameless but part of a thread that was removed because another comment had to be removed.

3) It might have been removed for another editorial reason, for example to avoid repetition or keep the conversation on topic.

For practical reasons we reserve the right to remove any comment and all decisions must be final, but please don't take it personally.

If you're playing by the rules it's unlikely to happen again, so feel free to continue to post new comments and engage in polite and respectful discussion.

For your reference, the removed comment was:

  It is not just Liberal party supporters who have had more than enough of these nasty extremists polluting Australian politics. So have many ALP supporters and even many more who identify as of the political centre. Anyone who believes in democracy and rational policy in government really.

It is not their  policies on conservation or asylum seekers that have made them seriously repugnant even though these look as though they have been hatched in some populist feel good play school rather than the real world.

It is that they have provided a harbour for unreformed Stalinists, racists and haters of liberal democratic values and supporters of gay murdering, women hating, Jew baiting regimes such as Iran, especially in NSW.

It's Rhiannon, stupid. And her supporters who control the "party" including who gets pre- selection. Take a close look at the candidates they are running.

However you vote, put Greens last. It's important.


For more information you can read our standards here:


The Conversation.


Check out the comment in reply to Che's ( and the guy behind it) and Che's reply to him before they ban it too.

Doug Fraser

policy analyst
In reply to Che Gorilla
This posting is not a conversation. This is a shower of toxic spittle of the kind we seem to encounter every time we venture into an online space in this campaign.
Reading between the lines of this particular hate spit, I take it the anonymous poster's real gripe is that some Greens don't support Zionism, or at least don't support the way the current Israeli administration implements it. In which case why not just say so, and we'll know where you stand?
Now fair go. There's not exactly a shortage of right-wing hate sites out there. Why don't you run away, find one of them and enjoy the rest of the morning having a good rant with your soulmates. (I'm sure you and geoffffffff could have a great time together, assuming you're not the same person.) Leave this one to the few of us who are still interested in having a civilised discussion.

Che Gorilla

Human Rights Activist
In reply to Doug Fraser
Doesn't seem to be very much evidence of any interest in a civilised conversation here. None at all really. Depends what you call "civilisation" I suppose. Greens obviously have no problem with the "civilisation" of the thugs who run Iran and Gaza.
You know what you are dealing with when a "conversationalist" starts "reading between the lines" and then deems to speak on behalf of others who can speak for themselves. They can't help themselves. It's the anti - liberal, elitist, authoritarian, reactionary, "leftist" streak that underpins "policy" on this extremist fringe and infests the Greens especially in NSW.
No wonder they hate Israel and want to see it destroyed.
My name is Che Gorilla and I speak only for myself.
So I'm going to put the fair minded moderation at this site to the test on behalf of the ape and do something that I have never done before. That comment by Doug Fraser has to be the clearest breach of their community standards as you can get. Talk about projection.

So what is this? Moderation? Or censorship of criticism of the extreme left during an election campaign?  


Ape misspells "here" in anthropoidist attack on bearded Green voting policy analyst! 

Conversation aghast.

Che Gorila

Human Rights Activist
In reply to Doug Fraser
Anyone interested in free expression and exactly what it was that attracted this comment can see it hear. I will not report this comment for the clear breach of "community standards" it is and I ask others not to. That is not what we are about.
One law for the Greens and another for the rest.
Let the sun shine in.

Further Update

It is not just the Ape who has a here issue at the Conversation. Read the last sentence of this already fine article by this economics professor made much better for it. The icing on the cake as it were. 

Then read this.

Gennadi Kazakevitch

Deputy Head, Department of Economics at Monash University
The post of this sort are published without proofreading by editors. Therefore, all the error/typos are my responsibility. Particularly, the last paragraph should be:
"Any other ideas beyond the three years term of government? I would like to hear from the competing politicians."

The Ape has arrived. 

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Echonetdaily and the Greens Picking Cherries and Dates.


Echonetdaily is the local electronic left wing rag that is particularly strident in its pro-Green tribalism and anti-liberal rage right now given that there is a national election campaign on in Australia and there are excellent prospects that this could herald the beginning of the long anticipated and overdue eradication of the Australian Greens from mainstream politics as the main blocs and the vast bulk of the public that support them realise that it is essential for the health of the country to preference Greens candidates last and into oblivion. 

This is a tiny media outlet with barely a dozen items each post and there are plenty of domestic and local issues but the Greens and their supporters still find space and time for foreign "news" especially when it is about one of the very few foreign matters they really care about. Bashing and blaming Israel for the overstressed plight of the "Palestinians" while excusing and boosting the brutal men who rule over the "Palestinians" and who are responsible for their "plight". 

So Echonetdaily (as did today's Australian but at least it strives for some sort of balance)  picked up an AFP feed sourced in Jerusalem that is very obviously cold war propaganda planted by the "Palestinian" leadership to provide cover for its latest cynical deceit about peace with Israel. Look at this crap:

Palestinian fury over more settler homes

Jerusalem [AFP]
Israeli authorities have announced the approval of 942 new settler homes in annexed east Jerusalem, sparking Palestinian fury on the eve of the resumption of fragile peace talks with Israel.
The Jerusalem municipality said that while it had only now given final approval for the new homes in Gilo, an existing settlement in east Jerusalem, they had been a long time in the planning.
But senior PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo said the announcement, coupled with the weekend approval of about 1200 homes to be built elsewhere in east Jerusalem and in the West Bank, threatened the ‘collapse’ of talks.
‘This settlement expansion is unprecedented,’ Abed Rabbo said on Tuesday. ‘It threatens to make talks fail even before they’ve started.’
The last peace talks broke down in 2010 on the issue of settlement building.
The latest developments come as the Israelis are due to free 26 Palestinian long-term prisoners – the first of a batch of 104 to be released under a deal agreed to get the talks going again.
Read on if you must but you get the picture. This blog's comment has been submitted as follows. 

 What we have here is a classic case of "Palestinian" lying that they know will be grabbed by the Israel bashing MSM with both hands so as to avoid any prospect of a genuine peace treaty.

This is war propaganda and some might wonder why it resonates as far as the Tweed and Byron shires.

Here's the truth.

The Israeli announcement is just that. An announcement by a municipality and it is not even new. The proposed housing is all on land that under all previous negotiations has been accepted by the PLO and the PA as part of Israel under any realistic two state solution. The proposed housing is in existing mainly Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem.   There have been no new "settlements" since the nineties and there has been a de facto freeze on all construction permits for Jews anyway.

Since the freeze does not apply to Arab Muslims (including Israeli citizens) this is an essentially racist policy forced on Israel in another attempt to reach a peace agreement with ruthless men who have violently rejected a separate "Palestinian" state on principle if it means recognising Israel as a free and sovereign state with the right to be left in peace.

They keep on saying this and they say it still even while the MSM and the "progressives" in the West retail the lie that it is Israel and the "settlements" (meaning the right of Jews  not to be herded by"law" into and confined to a 21st Century version of medieval ghettos, including in Jerusalem itself) that is to blame for Arab Muslim intransigence. 

The building of homes in these areas whether by Jews or Muslims (both are subject to planning and construction standards) is not "illegal" and it is an inversion of morality and the rule of law to claim it is. 

That is not to say that the land is not subject to negotiation in exchange for genuine peace and recognition. It is and that is what is supposed to be going on right now. But that is not what is being demanded of Israel. They want Israel reduced to a rump state without sovereignty over its borders and population. As that is never going to happen they want war. This is what the "progressives" are cheering on. 

What we are seeing here is the build up for another "Palestinian" walkout after extracting the release of scores of murderers of innocent people as the price to even sit at the table. 

Then it is just a matter of giving the Western left the tiny flimsy excuse it needs to go on blaming, hating and demonising Israel and the Jews. Anything but face the truth about why there is this hateful and essentially racist cold war against Israel and the West. 

And that is the truth.

[Awaiting moderation. Ahuh]