`Europe died in Auschwitz`
Author: Sebastian Villar Rodriguez
Sept 23,2005
The following is an article written by a Spanish journalist, Sebastian Villar Rodriguez.
Europe died in Auschwitz
"I was walking along Raval (Barcelona) when all of a sudden I understood that Europe died with Auschwitz.
We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!
We burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create. We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the chosen people of God. Because it is the people who gave to humanity the symbolic figures who were capable of changing history (Christ, Marx, Einstein, Freud...) and who is the origin of progress and wellbeing.
We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious cultural relativism, opened its doors to 20 million Muslims, often illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social welfare.
We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition.
We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better peaceful world, for the suicide bomber.
We have exchanged the pride of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our children.
What a grave mistake that we made!!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travelling around Berlin a few years ago, I happily thought that Hitler must be churning in his grave.
The author is scared of "Eurabia"!I don't blame him.
Miriam M.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
US Supreme Court Passes Up PLO Case
The New York Times
_____
November 28, 2005
Supreme Court Passes Up PLO Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:04 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to
overturn a $116 million judgment against the Palestine Liberation Organization in the deaths of a Jewish couple near the West Bank.
The PLO, and its governmental entity, had been sued in
federal court in Rhode Island over the 1996 drive-by
shooting of Yaron Ungar, an American citizen, and his
Israeli wife, Efrat, as the couple returned home from a wedding.
The family's relatives argued that the PLO and Palestinian Authority provided a safe haven and operational base for the Islamic militant group Hamas, which was responsible for the attack. A judge issued a default judgment after the PLO did not respond to requests for depositions from Yasser Arafat and others.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lawyer for the
PLO, told justices in the appeal last month that Ungar relatives have ''commenced sweeping national and international efforts'' to collect the millions of dollars, including an attempt to seize Palestine's U.N. Mission building in New York.
Clark said U.S. courts ''are marching off to the conflicts
of the Middle East and elsewhere carrying with them the integrity of the U.S. judiciary and risking the foreign perception that U.S. courts will extend their jurisdiction globally deciding the most sensitive political questions affecting the foreign policies of the U.S. and other nations as they go.''
The case is Palestine Liberation Organization v. Ungar,
05-510.
_____
November 28, 2005
Supreme Court Passes Up PLO Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:04 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to
overturn a $116 million judgment against the Palestine Liberation Organization in the deaths of a Jewish couple near the West Bank.
The PLO, and its governmental entity, had been sued in
federal court in Rhode Island over the 1996 drive-by
shooting of Yaron Ungar, an American citizen, and his
Israeli wife, Efrat, as the couple returned home from a wedding.
The family's relatives argued that the PLO and Palestinian Authority provided a safe haven and operational base for the Islamic militant group Hamas, which was responsible for the attack. A judge issued a default judgment after the PLO did not respond to requests for depositions from Yasser Arafat and others.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lawyer for the
PLO, told justices in the appeal last month that Ungar relatives have ''commenced sweeping national and international efforts'' to collect the millions of dollars, including an attempt to seize Palestine's U.N. Mission building in New York.
Clark said U.S. courts ''are marching off to the conflicts
of the Middle East and elsewhere carrying with them the integrity of the U.S. judiciary and risking the foreign perception that U.S. courts will extend their jurisdiction globally deciding the most sensitive political questions affecting the foreign policies of the U.S. and other nations as they go.''
The case is Palestine Liberation Organization v. Ungar,
05-510.
Monday, November 28, 2005
16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence
November 25th – December 10th
November 25th is the first day of the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence. This is an annual worldwide campaign to raise awareness about the high prevalence of violence against women around the world, and to encourage the international community to dramatically improve their efforts to protect women and children. The campaign began in 1991 and now includes more than 800 organisations in nearly 100 countries. The time period from November 25 to December 10 encompasses four significant dates: November 25, the International Day Against Violence Against Women; December 1, World AIDS Day; December 6, the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, when 14 women engineering students were murdered by a male student; and December 10, Human Rights Day.
Violence against women is a major cause of death and ill health world-wide (including ‘developed’ countries) and an affront to basic human rights. Amnesty International states that violence against women is the world's most pervasive human rights violation, and the world’s lack of action to deal with it is the greatest human rights scandal of our times. From birth to death, in times of peace as well as war, women face discrimination and violence at the hands of the state, the community and the family. Research from the United Nations shows that a quarter of the world’s women are raped during their lifetime. Depending on the country, 25 to 75 % of women are regularly assaulted at home.
In Australia, violence against women is the major cause of illness for women, exceeding all other causes of ill health. Despite the knowledge we now have, this violence appears to be escalating at a frightening pace. Yet in Australia interventions to deal with violence and its effects have been decreased over the last decade in Australia. It is time the Australian public became more educated and aware of the nature of this violence, which afflicts over a third of Australian women who have ever been partnered, and frequently results in debilitating psychological and health effects.
This year NCJWA will hold events to raise awareness of these issues and involve other women’s organisations from the Australian Coalition of Women.
• NSW Section will hold a forum at Council House on 5 December at which Jane Mulroney, Director of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, and Monica Mazzone from the NSW Women's Refuge Resource Centre will speak.
• In Adelaide Anne Morris has organised for Marie Hume from the National Abuse Free Contact Campaign to speak to members of Zonta.
As Chair of the Portfolio for Socio-legal Issues/Women & Children I urge all members to support these initiatives.
Information from Anne Morris, NCJWA Portfolio for Socio-legal Issues for Women and Children.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Anti-Semitism:the politics of envy!
Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionists have tried and still want to eliminate Israel and the Jews for the last 2 millenia..
It is pure envy of the successes of a minority in the world.
For example:
At least 170 Jews ( inc. 7 Israelis) and persons of half-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize, 1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2005, and constituting 37% of all US recipients 2 during the same period. In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 26% and 39%, respectively. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.25% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)
a.. Chemistry (28 prize winners, 19% of world total, 27% of US total)
b.. Economics (22 prize winners, 39% of world total, 53% of US total)
c.. Literature (13 prize winners, 13% of world total, 27% of US total)
d.. Physiology or Medicine (52 prize winners, 28% of world total, 42% of US total)
e.. Peace (9 prize winners, 10% of world total, 11% of US total)3
f.. Physics (46 prize winners, 26% of world total, 38% of US total)
also:
a.. Jewish Recipients of the US National Medal of Science (156 recipients, 37% of total)
b.. Jewish Recipients of the Kyoto Prize (25% of recipients)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Star November 18, 2005
[Highlight: "We may not like Israeli politics but we should deeply envy
the right of the Jewish state's citizens to influence them.]
========================================================================
Why Arabs should begin practicing the politics of envy Editorial The Daily Star November 18, 2005
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=20126&categ_ID=17&edition_id=10
With the prospect of early elections in Israel by February or March comes the opportunity for pundits to trot out their favorite theories on whether a Likud or a Labor prime minister would be more likely to bring peace to the area, give the Palestinians a hard or a harder time and what would be the reaction from a variety of recumbent and redundant Arab regimes.
It is pure envy of the successes of a minority in the world.
For example:
At least 170 Jews ( inc. 7 Israelis) and persons of half-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize, 1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2005, and constituting 37% of all US recipients 2 during the same period. In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 26% and 39%, respectively. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.25% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)
a.. Chemistry (28 prize winners, 19% of world total, 27% of US total)
b.. Economics (22 prize winners, 39% of world total, 53% of US total)
c.. Literature (13 prize winners, 13% of world total, 27% of US total)
d.. Physiology or Medicine (52 prize winners, 28% of world total, 42% of US total)
e.. Peace (9 prize winners, 10% of world total, 11% of US total)3
f.. Physics (46 prize winners, 26% of world total, 38% of US total)
also:
a.. Jewish Recipients of the US National Medal of Science (156 recipients, 37% of total)
b.. Jewish Recipients of the Kyoto Prize (25% of recipients)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Star November 18, 2005
[Highlight: "We may not like Israeli politics but we should deeply envy
the right of the Jewish state's citizens to influence them.]
========================================================================
Why Arabs should begin practicing the politics of envy Editorial The Daily Star November 18, 2005
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=20126&categ_ID=17&edition_id=10
With the prospect of early elections in Israel by February or March comes the opportunity for pundits to trot out their favorite theories on whether a Likud or a Labor prime minister would be more likely to bring peace to the area, give the Palestinians a hard or a harder time and what would be the reaction from a variety of recumbent and redundant Arab regimes.
Friday, November 25, 2005
ISI LEIBLER in THE JERUSALEM POST
Isi Leibler, former leader of Australian Jewry now resident in Israel criticises an American Jewish leader for lobbying Condoleeza Rice to apply pressure on Israel.
Leibler argues that: "THERE IS obviously something sick in the state of World Jewry when purportedly mainstream leaders feel that they can lobby freely against the security policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. If this sort of behavior is to be tolerated we may as well write off our one remaining ally - Diaspora Jewry."
I agree.MM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Seymour met Condi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISI LEIBLER, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recently, Diaspora leaders all agreed that on matters relating to security, Israel and the Diaspora are not equal partners. It is Israeli citizens who will face the consequences of decisions made by their elected government, whereas Diaspora Jews will not be called to make sacrifices on these issues. Simple morality should therefore presuppose humility and restraint, especially at a time when Israelis face a resurgence of terrorism and when most of the world is critical of Israel for seeking to pro t ect itself from neighbors who shamelessly orchestrate suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
I was therefore astonished to learn that when Seymour Reich, president of the left-leaning Israel Policy Forum, and his associates met with Secretary of State Co ndoleezza Rice, they actually urged her to pressure Israel to make concessions over the Gaza border crossing and other issues. They reportedly told her that by adopting a tough policy against Israel, "she would gain the support of Jewish Americans on both sides of the aisle."
Reich shamelessly told the media that "I have no doubt that we bolstered the secretary of state's instincts and strengthened her opinion that aggressive American involvement was needed to achieve practical results."
Of course Reich's group also added the mantra that the Palestinian Authority should be pressured to meet its commitment to fight terror.
Reich must surely be aware that Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly reiterated his determination not to disarm Hamas, stating instea d that at a later stage, he might even co-opt Hamas to the Palestinian security apparatus so that the terrorists would then also receive salaries from the international funds set aside to promote the Palestinian economy.
We know that Condoleezza Rice and James Wolfensohn subsequently bludgeoned a pliable Dov Weisglass into conceding ground on security issues, despite appeals from Israel's top military echelons not to submit to such hazardous demands. The defense experts had warned that under the new arra n gements Palestinians would be able to smuggle heavy weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles, into Gaza and the entire area could also be infiltrated by terrorists from abroad. The Sharon government's submission to these pressures is unprecedented and c ould exact a heavy price in Israeli blood in the future.
YET A former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who considers himself a Zionist, has the unmitigated gall to boast that he and his group helped to convi nc e the secretary of state to take aggressive action to bring Israel into line; that he assured Condoleezza Rice that exerting such pressure would result in strong support from American Jews.
This is truly a sad day for Israeli-Diaspora relations, especially when in the absence of any meaningful concessions by the Palestinians, the government of Israel should have been able to rely on the support of American Jewry in their efforts to ensure the security and welfare of its citizens.
TWO AND half years ago, I publicly reprimanded Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress, when on the eve of a meeting between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he co-signed a letter with former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburge r c alling on the president to reject Israel's intention to build a "separation wall." Without consulting any of his WJC colleagues, Bronfman also took it upon himself to urge the president to exert pressure on Israel and apply "the same straightforwardne ss i n his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon" as he had with the Palestinian leadership.
A few days later, Bronfman went further and commented that had the Palestinians concentrated exclusively on killing Jews over the Green Line, avoiding attacking Jew s in side Israel proper, they would have achieved a Palestinian state and enjoy the support of the entire world. Jewish outrage forced him to apologize.
This behavior is reminiscent of the exploitation of politically naive liberals by communists during t he Cold War. Like their present-day counterparts, they were flattered, manipulated, and duped into adopting public profiles designed to influence public opinion in the interests of the Evil Empire.
THERE IS obviously something sick in the state of World Jewry when purportedly mainstream leaders feel that they can lobby freely against the security policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. If this sort of behavior is to be tolerated we may as well write off our one remaining ally - Diaspora J ewry.
I can only hope that American Jews will vent their anger at the hutzpa of those purporting to represent the Jewish community who lobby their administration to pressure Israel on security issues.
But the ultimate responsibility for this sorry stat e of affairs rests with successive Israeli governments and the Foreign Ministry which, for over a decade, abdicated its traditional role of liaising and guiding Jewish communities in relation to Israeli affairs.
Today that no longer prevails and, settin g aside the fact that ambassadors are now usually selected on the basis of cronyism or seniority rather than merit, most Jewish community leaders no longer retain the close liaison with ambassadors that was formerly taken for granted. The rot had its gene sis with the Oslo Accords when Israeli leaders told Diaspora Jewish activists that in view of the "irreversible peace process" their unified pro-Israel activities had become virtually superfluous. This void paved the way for partisans on both the right and left to indulge lobby for their narrow causes. Now, in the midst of a new election season - both here and in the US - this partisanship seems to have reached a new zenith as the Israel Policy Forum unashamedly lobbies the State Department to exert pressure to bring Israel to heel even if that entails riding roughshod over our security requirements.
This can still easily be reversed. The reality is that despite the enormous erosion and chaos which has occurred in Israel-Diaspora relations over the past decade, a mainstream Jewish leader is still required by his constituents to be a supporter of Israel - at least on matters relating to its security - and to behave accordingly.
If the government and Foreign Ministry were to vigorously take action to rest ore the relationship with Diaspora Jewish leaders, it would still find highly enthusiastic partners. And leaders like Reich who cross red lines would rapidly discover that most Jews, irrespective of political affiliation, would not tolerate such irresponsible behavior.
There is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security related policies determined by the democratically elected government of Israel.
The writer chairs the Diaspora-Israel relation s committee of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and is a veteran Jewish international leader. ileibler@netvision.net.il
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475610276&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
__________________________________________________________
Leibler argues that: "THERE IS obviously something sick in the state of World Jewry when purportedly mainstream leaders feel that they can lobby freely against the security policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. If this sort of behavior is to be tolerated we may as well write off our one remaining ally - Diaspora Jewry."
I agree.MM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Seymour met Condi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISI LEIBLER, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recently, Diaspora leaders all agreed that on matters relating to security, Israel and the Diaspora are not equal partners. It is Israeli citizens who will face the consequences of decisions made by their elected government, whereas Diaspora Jews will not be called to make sacrifices on these issues. Simple morality should therefore presuppose humility and restraint, especially at a time when Israelis face a resurgence of terrorism and when most of the world is critical of Israel for seeking to pro t ect itself from neighbors who shamelessly orchestrate suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
I was therefore astonished to learn that when Seymour Reich, president of the left-leaning Israel Policy Forum, and his associates met with Secretary of State Co ndoleezza Rice, they actually urged her to pressure Israel to make concessions over the Gaza border crossing and other issues. They reportedly told her that by adopting a tough policy against Israel, "she would gain the support of Jewish Americans on both sides of the aisle."
Reich shamelessly told the media that "I have no doubt that we bolstered the secretary of state's instincts and strengthened her opinion that aggressive American involvement was needed to achieve practical results."
Of course Reich's group also added the mantra that the Palestinian Authority should be pressured to meet its commitment to fight terror.
Reich must surely be aware that Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly reiterated his determination not to disarm Hamas, stating instea d that at a later stage, he might even co-opt Hamas to the Palestinian security apparatus so that the terrorists would then also receive salaries from the international funds set aside to promote the Palestinian economy.
We know that Condoleezza Rice and James Wolfensohn subsequently bludgeoned a pliable Dov Weisglass into conceding ground on security issues, despite appeals from Israel's top military echelons not to submit to such hazardous demands. The defense experts had warned that under the new arra n gements Palestinians would be able to smuggle heavy weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles, into Gaza and the entire area could also be infiltrated by terrorists from abroad. The Sharon government's submission to these pressures is unprecedented and c ould exact a heavy price in Israeli blood in the future.
YET A former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who considers himself a Zionist, has the unmitigated gall to boast that he and his group helped to convi nc e the secretary of state to take aggressive action to bring Israel into line; that he assured Condoleezza Rice that exerting such pressure would result in strong support from American Jews.
This is truly a sad day for Israeli-Diaspora relations, especially when in the absence of any meaningful concessions by the Palestinians, the government of Israel should have been able to rely on the support of American Jewry in their efforts to ensure the security and welfare of its citizens.
TWO AND half years ago, I publicly reprimanded Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress, when on the eve of a meeting between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he co-signed a letter with former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburge r c alling on the president to reject Israel's intention to build a "separation wall." Without consulting any of his WJC colleagues, Bronfman also took it upon himself to urge the president to exert pressure on Israel and apply "the same straightforwardne ss i n his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon" as he had with the Palestinian leadership.
A few days later, Bronfman went further and commented that had the Palestinians concentrated exclusively on killing Jews over the Green Line, avoiding attacking Jew s in side Israel proper, they would have achieved a Palestinian state and enjoy the support of the entire world. Jewish outrage forced him to apologize.
This behavior is reminiscent of the exploitation of politically naive liberals by communists during t he Cold War. Like their present-day counterparts, they were flattered, manipulated, and duped into adopting public profiles designed to influence public opinion in the interests of the Evil Empire.
THERE IS obviously something sick in the state of World Jewry when purportedly mainstream leaders feel that they can lobby freely against the security policies of the democratically elected government of Israel. If this sort of behavior is to be tolerated we may as well write off our one remaining ally - Diaspora J ewry.
I can only hope that American Jews will vent their anger at the hutzpa of those purporting to represent the Jewish community who lobby their administration to pressure Israel on security issues.
But the ultimate responsibility for this sorry stat e of affairs rests with successive Israeli governments and the Foreign Ministry which, for over a decade, abdicated its traditional role of liaising and guiding Jewish communities in relation to Israeli affairs.
Today that no longer prevails and, settin g aside the fact that ambassadors are now usually selected on the basis of cronyism or seniority rather than merit, most Jewish community leaders no longer retain the close liaison with ambassadors that was formerly taken for granted. The rot had its gene sis with the Oslo Accords when Israeli leaders told Diaspora Jewish activists that in view of the "irreversible peace process" their unified pro-Israel activities had become virtually superfluous. This void paved the way for partisans on both the right and left to indulge lobby for their narrow causes. Now, in the midst of a new election season - both here and in the US - this partisanship seems to have reached a new zenith as the Israel Policy Forum unashamedly lobbies the State Department to exert pressure to bring Israel to heel even if that entails riding roughshod over our security requirements.
This can still easily be reversed. The reality is that despite the enormous erosion and chaos which has occurred in Israel-Diaspora relations over the past decade, a mainstream Jewish leader is still required by his constituents to be a supporter of Israel - at least on matters relating to its security - and to behave accordingly.
If the government and Foreign Ministry were to vigorously take action to rest ore the relationship with Diaspora Jewish leaders, it would still find highly enthusiastic partners. And leaders like Reich who cross red lines would rapidly discover that most Jews, irrespective of political affiliation, would not tolerate such irresponsible behavior.
There is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security related policies determined by the democratically elected government of Israel.
The writer chairs the Diaspora-Israel relation s committee of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and is a veteran Jewish international leader. ileibler@netvision.net.il
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475610276&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
__________________________________________________________
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Israel: Hebron Arabs complain about the behavior of ISM.
Hebron Arabs complain about the behavior of ISM.
.Arab leaders in Hebron have contacted the city's Jewish leaders for help in getting rid of self-proclaimed anarchist volunteers ( ISM ) who, they complain, are destroying their traditional way of life.
The anarchists, many of whom are members of the International Solidarity Movement, flock to flashpoints throughout Judea and Samaria, ostensibly to help PA Arabs contend with IDF closures and protect them from harassment. In actuality, many of the volunteers seek confrontations with IDF soldiers and local Jewish residents, taking advantage of their Western passports to cause havoc - knowing that, at worst, they will be deported, not jailed.
The local Arabs in the Hebron region whom the activists claim to be helping are now complaining that the American and European students behave in a provocative and offensive manner in Hebron's public areas. The Arabs say the activists disrespect the moral norms and standards of the local population.
Several local Arab residents told the Kol Ha'Ir newspaper that the activists have been exposing the local youths to drug use and sexual promiscuity. ..................................... In a bid to rid the region of the anarchists, local Arab leaders approached representatives of the Jewish community in Hebron - a rare, but not unheard of occurrence - in order to find a solution. The two sides agreed to have Arabic-speaking Jewish observers along Hebron's main thoroughfares to replace the anarchists in ensuring calm between the city's Jewish and Arab populations. The left-wings activists would then be informed by the local Arab population that they appreciate their offer to help, but that they are no longer needed. .................He added that the observers end up causing more trouble for the local Arab population, by antagonizing soldiers and brazenly leading local Arabs in between Jewish homes.
(Ignorant Western 'do-gooders' in search of a cause which is anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-American and anti-Western should stay home and look after their own problems!))
.Arab leaders in Hebron have contacted the city's Jewish leaders for help in getting rid of self-proclaimed anarchist volunteers ( ISM ) who, they complain, are destroying their traditional way of life.
The anarchists, many of whom are members of the International Solidarity Movement, flock to flashpoints throughout Judea and Samaria, ostensibly to help PA Arabs contend with IDF closures and protect them from harassment. In actuality, many of the volunteers seek confrontations with IDF soldiers and local Jewish residents, taking advantage of their Western passports to cause havoc - knowing that, at worst, they will be deported, not jailed.
The local Arabs in the Hebron region whom the activists claim to be helping are now complaining that the American and European students behave in a provocative and offensive manner in Hebron's public areas. The Arabs say the activists disrespect the moral norms and standards of the local population.
Several local Arab residents told the Kol Ha'Ir newspaper that the activists have been exposing the local youths to drug use and sexual promiscuity. ..................................... In a bid to rid the region of the anarchists, local Arab leaders approached representatives of the Jewish community in Hebron - a rare, but not unheard of occurrence - in order to find a solution. The two sides agreed to have Arabic-speaking Jewish observers along Hebron's main thoroughfares to replace the anarchists in ensuring calm between the city's Jewish and Arab populations. The left-wings activists would then be informed by the local Arab population that they appreciate their offer to help, but that they are no longer needed. .................He added that the observers end up causing more trouble for the local Arab population, by antagonizing soldiers and brazenly leading local Arabs in between Jewish homes.
(Ignorant Western 'do-gooders' in search of a cause which is anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-American and anti-Western should stay home and look after their own problems!))
Intelligent design: the True Origin of the Internet !!!!
"In ancient Israel, it came to pass that a trader by the name of
Abraham Com did take unto himself a young wife by the name of Dot.
And Dot Com was a comely woman, broad of shoulder and long of
leg. Indeed, she had been called 'Amazon Dot Com.'
And she said unto Abraham, her husband, "Why dost thou travel
far from town to town with thy goods when thou can trade without ever
leaving thy tent?"
And Abraham did look at her as though she were several saddle
bags short of a camel load, but simply said, "How, dear?" And Dot
replied, "I will place drums in all the towns and drums in between to send
messages saying what you have for sale and they will reply telling you which
hath the best price. And the sale can be made on the drums and delivery made by
Uriah's Pony Stable (UPS)."
Abraham thought long and decided he would let Dot have her way
with the drums. And the drums rang out and were an immediate success.
Abraham sold all the goods he had at the top price, without ever moving from
his tent.
But this success did arouse envy. A man named Maccabia did
secrete himself inside Abraham's drum and was accused of insider
trading. And the young man did take to Dot Com's trading as doth the greedy horsefly
take to camel dung. They were called Nomadic Ecclesiastical Rich Dominican
Siderites, or NERDS for short.
And lo, the land was so feverish with joy at the new riches and
the deafening sound of drums that no one noticed that the real riches
were going to the drum maker, one Brother William of Gates, who bought up every
drum company in the land. And indeed did insist on making drums that would
work only with Brother Gates' drumheads and drumsticks.
And Dot did say, "Oh, Abraham, what we have started is being
taken over by others."
And as Abraham looked out over the Bay of Ezekiel, or as it
came to be known "eBay" he said, "We need a name that reflects what
we are."
And Dot replied, "Young Ambitious Hebrew Owner Operators."
"YAHOO," said Abraham.
And that is how it all began. It wasn't Al Gore after all."
IT'S ALL BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
Malvina M.
Abraham Com did take unto himself a young wife by the name of Dot.
And Dot Com was a comely woman, broad of shoulder and long of
leg. Indeed, she had been called 'Amazon Dot Com.'
And she said unto Abraham, her husband, "Why dost thou travel
far from town to town with thy goods when thou can trade without ever
leaving thy tent?"
And Abraham did look at her as though she were several saddle
bags short of a camel load, but simply said, "How, dear?" And Dot
replied, "I will place drums in all the towns and drums in between to send
messages saying what you have for sale and they will reply telling you which
hath the best price. And the sale can be made on the drums and delivery made by
Uriah's Pony Stable (UPS)."
Abraham thought long and decided he would let Dot have her way
with the drums. And the drums rang out and were an immediate success.
Abraham sold all the goods he had at the top price, without ever moving from
his tent.
But this success did arouse envy. A man named Maccabia did
secrete himself inside Abraham's drum and was accused of insider
trading. And the young man did take to Dot Com's trading as doth the greedy horsefly
take to camel dung. They were called Nomadic Ecclesiastical Rich Dominican
Siderites, or NERDS for short.
And lo, the land was so feverish with joy at the new riches and
the deafening sound of drums that no one noticed that the real riches
were going to the drum maker, one Brother William of Gates, who bought up every
drum company in the land. And indeed did insist on making drums that would
work only with Brother Gates' drumheads and drumsticks.
And Dot did say, "Oh, Abraham, what we have started is being
taken over by others."
And as Abraham looked out over the Bay of Ezekiel, or as it
came to be known "eBay" he said, "We need a name that reflects what
we are."
And Dot replied, "Young Ambitious Hebrew Owner Operators."
"YAHOO," said Abraham.
And that is how it all began. It wasn't Al Gore after all."
IT'S ALL BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
Malvina M.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
The sustainable security equation.
Pamela Bone, The Age, on 21 November, wrote an Opinion article on this topic.
I like Pamela's writings and I usually agree with her reasonings and analyses of current events. See:http://www.the age.com.au/pamela-bone
Among her assertions are the following:
"What is the reason for terrorism? We struggle to understand how men, who are to all appearances living harmoniously in Australia, can (allegedly) say that killing our children is not only justified but a religious duty. Whose fault is this war? It's ours, says the left. No it's theirs, says the right."
-------
"Why then? We seem these days reluctant to make the obvious point that people are not equally good. Some people have a greater capacity for cruelty than others. Men have a greater capacity for violence than women. Young men are more violent than old men (though of course not all young men are violent). Nearly all terrorists are young men." (But obviously not necessarily their leaders and recruiters!M.)
---------------
" You could, in fact, solve most of the world's problems by liberating women. Islamic terrorism? It is women who are leading the fight to modernise Islam. (Where is the evidence? M.) Overpopulation? Educated women have fewer children."
(That's a problem for the male religious leadership: therefore they keep their women in the bedroom and the kitchen to populate the world with their co-religionists. M)
"---But liberating women may be the hardest fight of all, because their freedom here is one of the chief reasons the West is detested." (As I have been saying all along.M)
----------
"The leaders of al-Queda could not care less about the people of Iraq, or about the Palestinians. They certainly don't care about starving Africans. But these things makes it easier to recruit the foot soldiers for their insane mission."
-------------
She concludes:"The inequality between rich and poor countries is unsustainable in terms of world security. For those who care about such things, it is also profoundly, inhumanely, unfair."
---------------------------
I say:
How do we address the issue of poverty? By educating and including the women in their countries' governments. She states:"Corruption? Studies show Governments with more women in them are less corrupt (this may only be because women are as yet unused to power,as I don't claim women are intrinsically superior.)"
But I believe they are intrinsically more honest,- naively so perhaps,- and more ethical and conscientious in their approach to helping their people.
If power corrupts amd absolute power corrupts absolutely,- the power of women over men seems to be that which is feared most of all in the religious establishments.
If only the Western nations would concentrate on empowering the women of the Third World, the whole war on terrorism would be over very quickly.
M. M.
I like Pamela's writings and I usually agree with her reasonings and analyses of current events. See:http://www.the age.com.au/pamela-bone
Among her assertions are the following:
"What is the reason for terrorism? We struggle to understand how men, who are to all appearances living harmoniously in Australia, can (allegedly) say that killing our children is not only justified but a religious duty. Whose fault is this war? It's ours, says the left. No it's theirs, says the right."
-------
"Why then? We seem these days reluctant to make the obvious point that people are not equally good. Some people have a greater capacity for cruelty than others. Men have a greater capacity for violence than women. Young men are more violent than old men (though of course not all young men are violent). Nearly all terrorists are young men." (But obviously not necessarily their leaders and recruiters!M.)
---------------
" You could, in fact, solve most of the world's problems by liberating women. Islamic terrorism? It is women who are leading the fight to modernise Islam. (Where is the evidence? M.) Overpopulation? Educated women have fewer children."
(That's a problem for the male religious leadership: therefore they keep their women in the bedroom and the kitchen to populate the world with their co-religionists. M)
"---But liberating women may be the hardest fight of all, because their freedom here is one of the chief reasons the West is detested." (As I have been saying all along.M)
----------
"The leaders of al-Queda could not care less about the people of Iraq, or about the Palestinians. They certainly don't care about starving Africans. But these things makes it easier to recruit the foot soldiers for their insane mission."
-------------
She concludes:"The inequality between rich and poor countries is unsustainable in terms of world security. For those who care about such things, it is also profoundly, inhumanely, unfair."
---------------------------
I say:
How do we address the issue of poverty? By educating and including the women in their countries' governments. She states:"Corruption? Studies show Governments with more women in them are less corrupt (this may only be because women are as yet unused to power,as I don't claim women are intrinsically superior.)"
But I believe they are intrinsically more honest,- naively so perhaps,- and more ethical and conscientious in their approach to helping their people.
If power corrupts amd absolute power corrupts absolutely,- the power of women over men seems to be that which is feared most of all in the religious establishments.
If only the Western nations would concentrate on empowering the women of the Third World, the whole war on terrorism would be over very quickly.
M. M.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
VIOLENCE:decade to overcome:Essay on domestic violence..
"Building a Culture of Peace 2001-2010", an initiative of the UN and the World Council of Churches.
AN ESSAY
Overcoming domestic violence in multicultural Australia.
OR: "SHALOM BAYIT"(Hebrew): peace in the home.
Introduction.
People, cultures and generations who cannot control violence at home cannot successfully promote peace outside.
The current Australian Federal Government's educational campaign "Australia says no to violence against women" is both timely and long overdue. Obviously it is designed to meet a need in the Australian community because the incidence of violence against women has become a serious national concern. Domestic violence is not a new problem in society. It has been of concern to community leaders since biblical times and strategies to counteract it have been devised by the sages of the day. One of these is the concept of "peace in the home" ("shalom bayit" in Hebrew).
As the nationally government distributed pamphlet ( July 2004) explains, fifty-eight percent of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, but only about twenty percent of all assaults are reported to police. This percentage is even lower among members of ethnic and immigrant communities ( Inst. of Family Studies: ACSSA, Issues #1) who quote studies by Easteal (1996) and Thompson (1999) in which "a resounding theme across stories of immigrant women in Australia is the sense of deep isolation they feel at having so few options that they can rely on or trust for support."
Domestic violence in ethnic communities, (using the Jewish community as an example).
Persuading women in general to admit to their suffering at the hands of their spouses has always been and still is a problem to this day and in all ethnic minorities in particular. For example, researchers also have highlighted the relationship between “women's reluctance to report to police and their fears of being treated unsympathetically" (Lievore 2002; 2003), but for migrant women in particular, it is even more difficult. As ACSSA states, studies (in the USA) suggest that recently arrived immigrant women feel the isolation from family and community and from their country of origin, coupled with issues around language proficiency and immigrant status, further "significantly block any pathways immigrant women may contemplate in gaining support (Ho 1990; Sorenson and Telles, 1991)" for reporting male partner sexual abuse.
Australian ethnic communities in general are divided according to one or more shared criteria, namely: religious denominations, countries of origin, language, cultural traditions,- all under the umbrella of "multiculturalism". These may be indigenous, or first and second generation immigrants, or descendants of the 18th Century Anglo/Celtic settlers in Australia. Once organised into a "community", the ethnic group will build various institutions to cater for the needs of its members. However there needs to be a critical mass of people belonging to a community before such institutions can evolve. Hence there are any number of religious edifices such as churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to cater for many denominations and ethnic demographics in all population centres around Australia. Each community, once established, will often set up ethno-specific schools, self-help welfare organizations, 'old-age' facilities, social and cultural organizations,- in short, everything that makes up a "community" sharing some common traditions and traits.
The Australian Jewish communities in each city are no different in this respect. They are usually comprised of most of the above and therefore are themselves multicultural. Welfare services however are handled overall and for everyone who requires them within a Jewish environment. With travel restrictions due to observances of the Sabbath and specific food prohibitions, this faith community will build its particular institutions wherever the people choose to reside in significant numbers. It is not a matter of the overall percentage of the Australian population,( Jews comprise only 0.5% of the Australian population) not even the percentage of a city or State's population, but rather the particular suburban concentrations within a city that makes each ethnic community have an impact on the local demographics. This makes for close-knit communities in which privacy is at a premium.
The role of women in families in each of the 160 or so recognisable ethnic communities in Australia, varies greatly according to culture and tradition. Although everyone must adhere to Australian laws, the treatment of individuals within families is left mostly to the cultural identity, tradition and values of the individual family. Our Australian educational institutions as well as the various religious ones it is hoped, inculcate in our youth the right values of respect for the individual in families as well as in society.
Yet domestic violence is being recognised as an unacceptable, but prevalent form of abuse within many Australian families. In the Jewish communities, as in many other close-knit faith communities, it becomes even more problematic for women to admit to partner violence. As the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia's manual "STOP, Strategies to prevent Domestic Violence", 2002,-
(a publication printed with the assistance of a Commonwealth Government. grant "the prevailing assumption is that violence does not exist in Jewish families. For years, it has been accepted that a Jewish husband would not harm his wife or children. With those beliefs in place, domestic violence in the Jewish community has remained a secret." ( www.ncjw.org.au) This would be an assumption held also in many other faith communities in Australia.
The reality is that domestic violence does happen in Jewish families as in many other individual family situations of all faiths in Australia. What is different about domestic violence among Jewish families, as among most minorities in our country, it is that these women may hesitate longer to ask for help, unless there are ethno-specific and discreet means of accessing assistance.
Why does violence occur in Jewish families is a question with which the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia,- a social welfare women's organization established across Australia since 1923,- has been grappling for many decades. After all, the Jewish religious customs and laws are particularly strong in favouring, even honouring the role of women in the home and family. But perhaps as a result of this, many Jewish women feel a heavy responsibility for "shalom bayit", - peace in the home. They feel as though they have sole responsibility for keeping the peace and promoting love, caring, nurturing and understanding within the family. If women cannot fulfil this role because of an abusive relationship, they may feel inadequate and may not admit to violence. (NCJWA." The Jewish Women's Handbook" 2001-2002). Again, this may be a common feature shared by women of other close-knit faith communities and Government strategies designed to address the issue of domestic violence need to take this problem into account and new methods applied.
War, emigration, displacement and refugee-life, the Holocaust by the Nazis, immigration into a strange new land and the start of a new life are all the experiences of many in the Australian Jewish community. Other immigrant communities fleeing from overseas conflicts may have experienced similar traumas. The stresses on families under these conditions become enormous and can lead to loss of self-control in individuals. Other immigrant communities have similar experiences and therefore may share similar problems.
Rape in marriage is another area which may not be recognised by women in general and Jewish (and other ethnic) women in particular as falling under the realm of "domestic violence", punishable by law. As reported by ACSSA, "the testimonies of migrant (i.e. ethnic!) women further attest to the range of cultural pressures that narrow the scope through which women will feel able to interpret their partner's/husband's abuse as rape. "I thought he had the right to do that……I thought that as I married him it can't be rape." (cited in Easteal 1996; 160.) This too needs to be addressed sensitively in the ethnic communities through general education. (The reverse is also true for males,- they may not touch a female from their own community outside marriage, but may feel no inhibition to even rape a female outside of their own ethnic group!)
The tradition of "Shalom Bayit".
It is important for the Australian multicultural society to compare and study the strategies used by the various ethnic communities to combat domestic violence. Do they admit it exists or sweep it under the carpet ? This is one of the major questions which needs to be answered before the problem can be tackled across the board.
In the Jewish tradition for example, because it recognised the importance of the family unit in the transmission of traditional values from biblical times, many rabbinic regulations are stated to have been made in order to promote "shalom bayit" and to protect the family unit from disintegration. (However it must be remembered that where irreconcilable differences exist, divorce or "get" has always been an option for both men and women within Jewish laws and customs.)
For example, we read : "where there is peace between husband and wife, the Divine Presence dwells among them" (Sotah 17a). In addition, many customs which promote peace in the home environment have evolved, particularly around the observances of the Sabbath. One of the most important traditions centres on the kindling of the Sabbath candles by the women of the home, on the eve of the Sabbath at sundown on Friday evening,-as well as on the eve of a number of other important religious festivals (such as the Passover, New Year, Day of Atonement, and so on).Together with a festive meal, a warm atmosphere is meant to suffuse the family on the eve of the day of rest, of prayer, relaxation and in spiritual contemplation.
The meaning of "shalom" or peace in the context of the family.
Analysing each of the two words brings the phrase peace in the home or "shalom bayit" into sharper perspective and makes it more meaningful. The thesaurus describes 'peace' as meaning any of the following: absence of war; absence of conflict; a truce; a calm, quiet environment; amity; friendship (between people); harmony; tranquillity.
Within the context of family relationships, it is inconceivable that there will be no stress or conflicts of some kind at various times in life. Resolving conflicts amicably and coping with the stresses and strains of life is part of the secret of successful family relationships in which "shalom bayit" can prevail.
So far the word love has not entered the equation. Interestingly, in the book "Weddings and Wives" (Penguin, 1994), where some twenty-seven writers put their thoughts on this topic, Dale Spender, the editor states: "what does emerge from these accounts is that women are not very sentimental these days about being spouses. In 27 contributions and 416 pages the word love barely rates a mention. And extraordinary as it may seem, only one contributor has anything positive to say about the mutual support and companionship of marriage." While the contributors to her book may represent a rather specific group of women, however Spender also found that "wives are not what they used to be is the conclusion of most of the contributors to this volume.- For some of the younger authors wifedom has never been a necessity – just an option – and not a permanent one either."
While these may seem extreme examples of modern Australian women, the number of one-head-of-household families has risen dramatically in the last two decades according to recent statistics, which is testimony of this new reality! According to the Institute of Family Studies' recently published (2004) research papers by David de Vaus, "Diversity and Change in Australian families: Statistical profiles": couple families with dependent children (i.e. younger generation) now form a minority of households, families and couple families represent a declining percentage of families (a 20% decline between 1976 and 2001). In addition, lone parent families, including those with dependent children, are becoming more common (7.1% in '69 and 22.3% in 2003 of families with dependent children). " The reality today seems to be that couples donnot remain together when there is a breakdown in personal relationships.
"Bayit": house or home?
The biggest cause of conflict appears to be over money. Or,- is it about how to allocate the financial resources of the family? Much of today's conflicts arising in families seems to centre also on the area of "home duties", - or in fact housekeeping, - and whose responsibility this is when both partners have to work away from home. "Keeping-house" as it was traditionally known, or the term "housewife", is not the applicable terminology to today's marriage-partners. One must not confuse "housekeeper" with the role of a wife or partner and/or mother, grandmother. A housekeeper is different to a "home-maker" and a "house" is different to a "home"!
Can the family afford to allocate some money for home-help as well as day-care for the children when the woman has to work outside the home?
Just as in Dale Spender's book where all her contributors seemed to refuse to be "wives", what they were really refusing was the role of "housekeepers"! The modern new-age male partner has to accept the fact that maintaining the house is like any business partnership: you pull your weight or pay for outside help,- (if one can afford it. In fact, I have always maintained that the Government should accept such expenses as legitimate joint-income expenses for taxation purposes).The expectation that it is only the wife's duty to "keep house" is no longer acceptable to the independent wife of today , particularly if she is also a "working wife".
Once this source of conflict would be removed, - with its resultant pent-up resentment, - it seems that one would remove many of the conflicts in modern marriages. However, creating the "home environment" is probably still in the realm of female sensitivity and responsibility. The role of the male who is educated in the Jewish-traditions for example, has his role within the family unit also proscribed by custom and tradition,- all aimed at keeping the peace in his home and family. If all males would be so inculcated at school with the notion of shared responsibility at home, then those good traditional values would be reinforced within all the various ethnic communities as well.
Conclusions: inculcating values of "peace" in the family at an early age may prevent domestic violence later on.
Given all the traditions and customs devoted to keeping the peace in the Jewish family, why are there still incidences of family violence in the Australian Jewish community? This occurs probably for the same reasons that it exists in the wider general community. Religion is simply not enough, unless it is also reinforced by the secular society. The NCJWA "STOP" domestic violence kit (and in its 2002 Handbook), in the chapter entitled "The dilemma of the battered Jewish woman", states that " In some cases, women have been ostracized by a close knit community, where both may be well-known, for coming forward. The widespread belief that Jewish men are passive and incapable of violence also contributes to the silence about domestic violence. With these powerful myths in place, it is no surprise that Jewish women are reluctant to come forward with stories of abuse."
Most minority communities in Australia would experience the same lack of reporting by their victims of domestic violence. The spiritual leaders of a community, -for Jews, the Rabbi, - is often the first port-of-call when a woman seeks assistance. This person of authority in the faith community should be able to influence the male perpetrator of abuse towards his wife/partner and/or family. However, too often the anecdotal evidence once again points to the unwillingness of these spiritual leaders to get involved on the side of the women (or the children!). The patriarchal structure of organised religion usually means that the religious leaders side with the males and send the women home with the admonition not to "incite their partners" and in the case of Jews, for the sake of "shalom bayit". Anecdotal evidence suggests that in cases where the husband may be also influential in the community, the religious leader to whom the woman would go for advice would simply be too intimidated to interfere.
Fortunately there are now ethno- specific domestic-violence support groups for these women in most communities in Australia and widely advertised. Other ethnic communities may provide the same service, while the wide publicity given to this issue by the government and the media in 2004, has prompted much more enlightened approaches by all rabbis and other clergy in Australia today.
Violence in the home where children are growing up must lead inevitably to a violent future society in general. The "macho male", explicit sex and images of violence in society, so beloved by the advertising and film industry and the "red-blooded Aussie male" constantly glorified in the media is not conducive to creating the kind of role models who command respect and civility in all male-female relationships among young people.
Training of religious leaders in counselling and referral for victims of domestic violence in their community is another area which the rabbinic community at least, has now taken on board in many of the Jewish denominations. Whether the violence perpetrated by individuals is pathological due to mental illness or dietary causes, such as allergies or abuse of alcohol or other drugs, or whether it is induced by insurmountable environmental conditions which are outside of anyone's control, - children must be and feel protected from it. NCJW in its submission to the Victorian Government Inquiry into Domestic Violence in 1988, recommended that the violent partner should be the one to be removed from the family home and wherever possible, not to uproot the children in order to escape from a violent parent. This was subsequently incorporated into the Victorian legislation that year.
The institution of marriage in general seems to be under threat today although most young women would still romanticise about the wedding (hence the numerous magazines devoted to this topic!)! As the study "Diversity and Change in Australian Families: Statistical profiles, 2004" states: "25% of households consist of a person living alone and almost one in ten people live on their own. Levels of living alone are increasing and the rate of growth is much more marked amongst younger than older age groups. Cohabitation is becoming a more common form of partnering".
Whatever the reason may be for this, for most modern women , staying in an abusive relationship is no longer a necessity. As Dale Spender concludes to her introduction to "Weddings and Wives", the stories in her book record the changing ways of weddings (and marriages) and wives,-from biblical times to the new age. "It is a testimony of the distance (some) women have travelled towards self-realisation. It is a victory even if there are still battles to be won."
One of the battles our Australian society still has to win is to "say no to domestic violence", - or any violence against women, children or towards anyone who is vulnerable. Possibly the men still have a distance to travel to catch up with the wives of today, but they must be taught from a very early age that violence is not the means to resolve personal, or even inter-communal or international conflicts. No matter how well-meaning the traditions some communities may follow or have followed in the past, there needs to be a reinforcement from the government and general secular society as well. When the Australian multicultural community will embrace universally the biblical injunction of 'peace in the home', - for the sake of our children and future generations ,- then we may have a hope of eradicating violence in the world. The physical and mental health of a nation depends on it. Peace in the world must start at and in, the home.
(MM. "miriamdownunder" Melbourne, Australia, November 2005.)
AN ESSAY
Overcoming domestic violence in multicultural Australia.
OR: "SHALOM BAYIT"(Hebrew): peace in the home.
Introduction.
People, cultures and generations who cannot control violence at home cannot successfully promote peace outside.
The current Australian Federal Government's educational campaign "Australia says no to violence against women" is both timely and long overdue. Obviously it is designed to meet a need in the Australian community because the incidence of violence against women has become a serious national concern. Domestic violence is not a new problem in society. It has been of concern to community leaders since biblical times and strategies to counteract it have been devised by the sages of the day. One of these is the concept of "peace in the home" ("shalom bayit" in Hebrew).
As the nationally government distributed pamphlet ( July 2004) explains, fifty-eight percent of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, but only about twenty percent of all assaults are reported to police. This percentage is even lower among members of ethnic and immigrant communities ( Inst. of Family Studies: ACSSA, Issues #1) who quote studies by Easteal (1996) and Thompson (1999) in which "a resounding theme across stories of immigrant women in Australia is the sense of deep isolation they feel at having so few options that they can rely on or trust for support."
Domestic violence in ethnic communities, (using the Jewish community as an example).
Persuading women in general to admit to their suffering at the hands of their spouses has always been and still is a problem to this day and in all ethnic minorities in particular. For example, researchers also have highlighted the relationship between “women's reluctance to report to police and their fears of being treated unsympathetically" (Lievore 2002; 2003), but for migrant women in particular, it is even more difficult. As ACSSA states, studies (in the USA) suggest that recently arrived immigrant women feel the isolation from family and community and from their country of origin, coupled with issues around language proficiency and immigrant status, further "significantly block any pathways immigrant women may contemplate in gaining support (Ho 1990; Sorenson and Telles, 1991)" for reporting male partner sexual abuse.
Australian ethnic communities in general are divided according to one or more shared criteria, namely: religious denominations, countries of origin, language, cultural traditions,- all under the umbrella of "multiculturalism". These may be indigenous, or first and second generation immigrants, or descendants of the 18th Century Anglo/Celtic settlers in Australia. Once organised into a "community", the ethnic group will build various institutions to cater for the needs of its members. However there needs to be a critical mass of people belonging to a community before such institutions can evolve. Hence there are any number of religious edifices such as churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to cater for many denominations and ethnic demographics in all population centres around Australia. Each community, once established, will often set up ethno-specific schools, self-help welfare organizations, 'old-age' facilities, social and cultural organizations,- in short, everything that makes up a "community" sharing some common traditions and traits.
The Australian Jewish communities in each city are no different in this respect. They are usually comprised of most of the above and therefore are themselves multicultural. Welfare services however are handled overall and for everyone who requires them within a Jewish environment. With travel restrictions due to observances of the Sabbath and specific food prohibitions, this faith community will build its particular institutions wherever the people choose to reside in significant numbers. It is not a matter of the overall percentage of the Australian population,( Jews comprise only 0.5% of the Australian population) not even the percentage of a city or State's population, but rather the particular suburban concentrations within a city that makes each ethnic community have an impact on the local demographics. This makes for close-knit communities in which privacy is at a premium.
The role of women in families in each of the 160 or so recognisable ethnic communities in Australia, varies greatly according to culture and tradition. Although everyone must adhere to Australian laws, the treatment of individuals within families is left mostly to the cultural identity, tradition and values of the individual family. Our Australian educational institutions as well as the various religious ones it is hoped, inculcate in our youth the right values of respect for the individual in families as well as in society.
Yet domestic violence is being recognised as an unacceptable, but prevalent form of abuse within many Australian families. In the Jewish communities, as in many other close-knit faith communities, it becomes even more problematic for women to admit to partner violence. As the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia's manual "STOP, Strategies to prevent Domestic Violence", 2002,-
(a publication printed with the assistance of a Commonwealth Government. grant "the prevailing assumption is that violence does not exist in Jewish families. For years, it has been accepted that a Jewish husband would not harm his wife or children. With those beliefs in place, domestic violence in the Jewish community has remained a secret." ( www.ncjw.org.au) This would be an assumption held also in many other faith communities in Australia.
The reality is that domestic violence does happen in Jewish families as in many other individual family situations of all faiths in Australia. What is different about domestic violence among Jewish families, as among most minorities in our country, it is that these women may hesitate longer to ask for help, unless there are ethno-specific and discreet means of accessing assistance.
Why does violence occur in Jewish families is a question with which the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia,- a social welfare women's organization established across Australia since 1923,- has been grappling for many decades. After all, the Jewish religious customs and laws are particularly strong in favouring, even honouring the role of women in the home and family. But perhaps as a result of this, many Jewish women feel a heavy responsibility for "shalom bayit", - peace in the home. They feel as though they have sole responsibility for keeping the peace and promoting love, caring, nurturing and understanding within the family. If women cannot fulfil this role because of an abusive relationship, they may feel inadequate and may not admit to violence. (NCJWA." The Jewish Women's Handbook" 2001-2002). Again, this may be a common feature shared by women of other close-knit faith communities and Government strategies designed to address the issue of domestic violence need to take this problem into account and new methods applied.
War, emigration, displacement and refugee-life, the Holocaust by the Nazis, immigration into a strange new land and the start of a new life are all the experiences of many in the Australian Jewish community. Other immigrant communities fleeing from overseas conflicts may have experienced similar traumas. The stresses on families under these conditions become enormous and can lead to loss of self-control in individuals. Other immigrant communities have similar experiences and therefore may share similar problems.
Rape in marriage is another area which may not be recognised by women in general and Jewish (and other ethnic) women in particular as falling under the realm of "domestic violence", punishable by law. As reported by ACSSA, "the testimonies of migrant (i.e. ethnic!) women further attest to the range of cultural pressures that narrow the scope through which women will feel able to interpret their partner's/husband's abuse as rape. "I thought he had the right to do that……I thought that as I married him it can't be rape." (cited in Easteal 1996; 160.) This too needs to be addressed sensitively in the ethnic communities through general education. (The reverse is also true for males,- they may not touch a female from their own community outside marriage, but may feel no inhibition to even rape a female outside of their own ethnic group!)
The tradition of "Shalom Bayit".
It is important for the Australian multicultural society to compare and study the strategies used by the various ethnic communities to combat domestic violence. Do they admit it exists or sweep it under the carpet ? This is one of the major questions which needs to be answered before the problem can be tackled across the board.
In the Jewish tradition for example, because it recognised the importance of the family unit in the transmission of traditional values from biblical times, many rabbinic regulations are stated to have been made in order to promote "shalom bayit" and to protect the family unit from disintegration. (However it must be remembered that where irreconcilable differences exist, divorce or "get" has always been an option for both men and women within Jewish laws and customs.)
For example, we read : "where there is peace between husband and wife, the Divine Presence dwells among them" (Sotah 17a). In addition, many customs which promote peace in the home environment have evolved, particularly around the observances of the Sabbath. One of the most important traditions centres on the kindling of the Sabbath candles by the women of the home, on the eve of the Sabbath at sundown on Friday evening,-as well as on the eve of a number of other important religious festivals (such as the Passover, New Year, Day of Atonement, and so on).Together with a festive meal, a warm atmosphere is meant to suffuse the family on the eve of the day of rest, of prayer, relaxation and in spiritual contemplation.
The meaning of "shalom" or peace in the context of the family.
Analysing each of the two words brings the phrase peace in the home or "shalom bayit" into sharper perspective and makes it more meaningful. The thesaurus describes 'peace' as meaning any of the following: absence of war; absence of conflict; a truce; a calm, quiet environment; amity; friendship (between people); harmony; tranquillity.
Within the context of family relationships, it is inconceivable that there will be no stress or conflicts of some kind at various times in life. Resolving conflicts amicably and coping with the stresses and strains of life is part of the secret of successful family relationships in which "shalom bayit" can prevail.
So far the word love has not entered the equation. Interestingly, in the book "Weddings and Wives" (Penguin, 1994), where some twenty-seven writers put their thoughts on this topic, Dale Spender, the editor states: "what does emerge from these accounts is that women are not very sentimental these days about being spouses. In 27 contributions and 416 pages the word love barely rates a mention. And extraordinary as it may seem, only one contributor has anything positive to say about the mutual support and companionship of marriage." While the contributors to her book may represent a rather specific group of women, however Spender also found that "wives are not what they used to be is the conclusion of most of the contributors to this volume.- For some of the younger authors wifedom has never been a necessity – just an option – and not a permanent one either."
While these may seem extreme examples of modern Australian women, the number of one-head-of-household families has risen dramatically in the last two decades according to recent statistics, which is testimony of this new reality! According to the Institute of Family Studies' recently published (2004) research papers by David de Vaus, "Diversity and Change in Australian families: Statistical profiles": couple families with dependent children (i.e. younger generation) now form a minority of households, families and couple families represent a declining percentage of families (a 20% decline between 1976 and 2001). In addition, lone parent families, including those with dependent children, are becoming more common (7.1% in '69 and 22.3% in 2003 of families with dependent children). " The reality today seems to be that couples donnot remain together when there is a breakdown in personal relationships.
"Bayit": house or home?
The biggest cause of conflict appears to be over money. Or,- is it about how to allocate the financial resources of the family? Much of today's conflicts arising in families seems to centre also on the area of "home duties", - or in fact housekeeping, - and whose responsibility this is when both partners have to work away from home. "Keeping-house" as it was traditionally known, or the term "housewife", is not the applicable terminology to today's marriage-partners. One must not confuse "housekeeper" with the role of a wife or partner and/or mother, grandmother. A housekeeper is different to a "home-maker" and a "house" is different to a "home"!
Can the family afford to allocate some money for home-help as well as day-care for the children when the woman has to work outside the home?
Just as in Dale Spender's book where all her contributors seemed to refuse to be "wives", what they were really refusing was the role of "housekeepers"! The modern new-age male partner has to accept the fact that maintaining the house is like any business partnership: you pull your weight or pay for outside help,- (if one can afford it. In fact, I have always maintained that the Government should accept such expenses as legitimate joint-income expenses for taxation purposes).The expectation that it is only the wife's duty to "keep house" is no longer acceptable to the independent wife of today , particularly if she is also a "working wife".
Once this source of conflict would be removed, - with its resultant pent-up resentment, - it seems that one would remove many of the conflicts in modern marriages. However, creating the "home environment" is probably still in the realm of female sensitivity and responsibility. The role of the male who is educated in the Jewish-traditions for example, has his role within the family unit also proscribed by custom and tradition,- all aimed at keeping the peace in his home and family. If all males would be so inculcated at school with the notion of shared responsibility at home, then those good traditional values would be reinforced within all the various ethnic communities as well.
Conclusions: inculcating values of "peace" in the family at an early age may prevent domestic violence later on.
Given all the traditions and customs devoted to keeping the peace in the Jewish family, why are there still incidences of family violence in the Australian Jewish community? This occurs probably for the same reasons that it exists in the wider general community. Religion is simply not enough, unless it is also reinforced by the secular society. The NCJWA "STOP" domestic violence kit (and in its 2002 Handbook), in the chapter entitled "The dilemma of the battered Jewish woman", states that " In some cases, women have been ostracized by a close knit community, where both may be well-known, for coming forward. The widespread belief that Jewish men are passive and incapable of violence also contributes to the silence about domestic violence. With these powerful myths in place, it is no surprise that Jewish women are reluctant to come forward with stories of abuse."
Most minority communities in Australia would experience the same lack of reporting by their victims of domestic violence. The spiritual leaders of a community, -for Jews, the Rabbi, - is often the first port-of-call when a woman seeks assistance. This person of authority in the faith community should be able to influence the male perpetrator of abuse towards his wife/partner and/or family. However, too often the anecdotal evidence once again points to the unwillingness of these spiritual leaders to get involved on the side of the women (or the children!). The patriarchal structure of organised religion usually means that the religious leaders side with the males and send the women home with the admonition not to "incite their partners" and in the case of Jews, for the sake of "shalom bayit". Anecdotal evidence suggests that in cases where the husband may be also influential in the community, the religious leader to whom the woman would go for advice would simply be too intimidated to interfere.
Fortunately there are now ethno- specific domestic-violence support groups for these women in most communities in Australia and widely advertised. Other ethnic communities may provide the same service, while the wide publicity given to this issue by the government and the media in 2004, has prompted much more enlightened approaches by all rabbis and other clergy in Australia today.
Violence in the home where children are growing up must lead inevitably to a violent future society in general. The "macho male", explicit sex and images of violence in society, so beloved by the advertising and film industry and the "red-blooded Aussie male" constantly glorified in the media is not conducive to creating the kind of role models who command respect and civility in all male-female relationships among young people.
Training of religious leaders in counselling and referral for victims of domestic violence in their community is another area which the rabbinic community at least, has now taken on board in many of the Jewish denominations. Whether the violence perpetrated by individuals is pathological due to mental illness or dietary causes, such as allergies or abuse of alcohol or other drugs, or whether it is induced by insurmountable environmental conditions which are outside of anyone's control, - children must be and feel protected from it. NCJW in its submission to the Victorian Government Inquiry into Domestic Violence in 1988, recommended that the violent partner should be the one to be removed from the family home and wherever possible, not to uproot the children in order to escape from a violent parent. This was subsequently incorporated into the Victorian legislation that year.
The institution of marriage in general seems to be under threat today although most young women would still romanticise about the wedding (hence the numerous magazines devoted to this topic!)! As the study "Diversity and Change in Australian Families: Statistical profiles, 2004" states: "25% of households consist of a person living alone and almost one in ten people live on their own. Levels of living alone are increasing and the rate of growth is much more marked amongst younger than older age groups. Cohabitation is becoming a more common form of partnering".
Whatever the reason may be for this, for most modern women , staying in an abusive relationship is no longer a necessity. As Dale Spender concludes to her introduction to "Weddings and Wives", the stories in her book record the changing ways of weddings (and marriages) and wives,-from biblical times to the new age. "It is a testimony of the distance (some) women have travelled towards self-realisation. It is a victory even if there are still battles to be won."
One of the battles our Australian society still has to win is to "say no to domestic violence", - or any violence against women, children or towards anyone who is vulnerable. Possibly the men still have a distance to travel to catch up with the wives of today, but they must be taught from a very early age that violence is not the means to resolve personal, or even inter-communal or international conflicts. No matter how well-meaning the traditions some communities may follow or have followed in the past, there needs to be a reinforcement from the government and general secular society as well. When the Australian multicultural community will embrace universally the biblical injunction of 'peace in the home', - for the sake of our children and future generations ,- then we may have a hope of eradicating violence in the world. The physical and mental health of a nation depends on it. Peace in the world must start at and in, the home.
(MM. "miriamdownunder" Melbourne, Australia, November 2005.)
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Worst lawyers' joke! No to racism!
SAY NO TO RACISM AND ANTISEMITISM!
The USA National Lawyers Guild is about to pass (or has passed?) a "Zionism is Racism" resolution. The Lawyers Guild is a "progressive" group, or so they claim. Racism is now progressive it seems. The resolution almost passed their convention with the required 2/3 vote 100 to 47 with 10 abstentions. Now they are polling the members.
The resolution is supported by The United People of Color Caucus (TUPOCC) Co-Chairman and a retired California Bar commissioner.
And you thought you had heard the worst lawyer jokes!
More at: http://www.zionism-israel.com/news/lawyersguild.htm
So why is Zionism NOT racism?Because ZIONISM is Affirmative Action for Jewish nationhood after 2000 years of its people's victimization by OTHER RELIGIOUS DESPOTS and racists' desire to eradicate them.
RACISM is:
Denying only the Jewish people the right to self-determination after 2000 years of dispersal and genocide;the Christian and Moslem world has almost the rest of the world in which to live and practice their religion and culture. THE JEWS HAVE NONE other than Israel, except through the grace and goodwill when present, of fair, democratic peoples and their governments,- but as minorities can never be taken for granted!
RACISM IS:
Age-old discrimination wherever Jewish people settled as minorities,
RACISM is:
still being practiced against the one and only tiny homeland of the Jews, Israel, by being targetted with the worst form of discrimination at the UN and wherever antisemites have power;
RACISM is:
vilification by jealous and envious Israel's Islamic neighbours for its ever increasing accomplishments;
RACISM is:
blaming solely Israel for the suffering of some of the Palestinian people instead of blaming the stupidity and evildoings of the Palestinian leadership!
SHAME ON THOSE RACISTS WHO WANT TO CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE THE AGE-OLD VICTIMS, DELUDING THEMSELVES THAT BY APPEASING THE EVIL ANTI-WESTERN TERRORISTS, just as they tried to do with Hitler, THEY WILL SAVE THEMSELVES!
.
Pity those who don't join the Jewish people of Israel in the search for peace and prosperity for all the peoples in the region!
The Arabs want all that Israel and the Jews have to offer,- as long as the latter are subservient to their indecent human-rights-denying Islamic fundamentalist culture! It's called "dhimmitude".
That won't ever happen again.
If Iran wants to eliminate Israel,- a nuclear holocaust in that tiny, densely populated region will not be able to spare anyone.
Therefore N.B.
Fundamentalists,African Americans, Arabs, Moslem and Islamic people everywhere, - beware your own worst enemies,- it's not the Jews or Israelis! These are mere scapegoats in the grand design to dominate us all and to keep your mind off the real culprits who keep their people in poverty and backward misery.
It's your own leaders you should fear, with other racists and antisemites just helping them along.
Lawyers' Guild,- shame on you!
The USA National Lawyers Guild is about to pass (or has passed?) a "Zionism is Racism" resolution. The Lawyers Guild is a "progressive" group, or so they claim. Racism is now progressive it seems. The resolution almost passed their convention with the required 2/3 vote 100 to 47 with 10 abstentions. Now they are polling the members.
The resolution is supported by The United People of Color Caucus (TUPOCC) Co-Chairman and a retired California Bar commissioner.
And you thought you had heard the worst lawyer jokes!
More at: http://www.zionism-israel.com/news/lawyersguild.htm
So why is Zionism NOT racism?Because ZIONISM is Affirmative Action for Jewish nationhood after 2000 years of its people's victimization by OTHER RELIGIOUS DESPOTS and racists' desire to eradicate them.
RACISM is:
Denying only the Jewish people the right to self-determination after 2000 years of dispersal and genocide;the Christian and Moslem world has almost the rest of the world in which to live and practice their religion and culture. THE JEWS HAVE NONE other than Israel, except through the grace and goodwill when present, of fair, democratic peoples and their governments,- but as minorities can never be taken for granted!
RACISM IS:
Age-old discrimination wherever Jewish people settled as minorities,
RACISM is:
still being practiced against the one and only tiny homeland of the Jews, Israel, by being targetted with the worst form of discrimination at the UN and wherever antisemites have power;
RACISM is:
vilification by jealous and envious Israel's Islamic neighbours for its ever increasing accomplishments;
RACISM is:
blaming solely Israel for the suffering of some of the Palestinian people instead of blaming the stupidity and evildoings of the Palestinian leadership!
SHAME ON THOSE RACISTS WHO WANT TO CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE THE AGE-OLD VICTIMS, DELUDING THEMSELVES THAT BY APPEASING THE EVIL ANTI-WESTERN TERRORISTS, just as they tried to do with Hitler, THEY WILL SAVE THEMSELVES!
.
Pity those who don't join the Jewish people of Israel in the search for peace and prosperity for all the peoples in the region!
The Arabs want all that Israel and the Jews have to offer,- as long as the latter are subservient to their indecent human-rights-denying Islamic fundamentalist culture! It's called "dhimmitude".
That won't ever happen again.
If Iran wants to eliminate Israel,- a nuclear holocaust in that tiny, densely populated region will not be able to spare anyone.
Therefore N.B.
Fundamentalists,African Americans, Arabs, Moslem and Islamic people everywhere, - beware your own worst enemies,- it's not the Jews or Israelis! These are mere scapegoats in the grand design to dominate us all and to keep your mind off the real culprits who keep their people in poverty and backward misery.
It's your own leaders you should fear, with other racists and antisemites just helping them along.
Lawyers' Guild,- shame on you!
Business is business. (Thank the Almighty!)
Pakistan Times.
174-Member Delegation from Pakistan in Israel
Carrying complete official and political blessings, a 174-member Pakistani delegation led by Maulana Ajmal Qadri reached Tel Aviv on Saturday. The delegation is believed to be comprised of religious scholars, businessmen and some officials. Qadri, chief of a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam faction, said early this month that unofficial trade between Pakistan and Israel via Jordan stands at $1 billion a year and Islamabad should officially allow trade with the Jewish state. Qadri told reporters that he had paid several visits to Israel via Jordan over the last 15 years in his capacity as vice president of a London-based Arab NGO. We should not abandon our link with Baitul Maqdas (Jerusalem) and we should visit Israel to see it, he said. Pakistan has begun trade and opened bus links with India and a similar arrangement could be made with Israel. (Pakistan Times)
174-Member Delegation from Pakistan in Israel
Carrying complete official and political blessings, a 174-member Pakistani delegation led by Maulana Ajmal Qadri reached Tel Aviv on Saturday. The delegation is believed to be comprised of religious scholars, businessmen and some officials. Qadri, chief of a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam faction, said early this month that unofficial trade between Pakistan and Israel via Jordan stands at $1 billion a year and Islamabad should officially allow trade with the Jewish state. Qadri told reporters that he had paid several visits to Israel via Jordan over the last 15 years in his capacity as vice president of a London-based Arab NGO. We should not abandon our link with Baitul Maqdas (Jerusalem) and we should visit Israel to see it, he said. Pakistan has begun trade and opened bus links with India and a similar arrangement could be made with Israel. (Pakistan Times)
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Hello everyone on Sunday 13th November
My thoughts of this day are on the topic of TRAVEL!
I am a very new and raw blogger, so am experimenting. Who, why and from where will I get some reactions to my blog?
Having just returned from a brief holiday abroad with a couple of girl-friends ( we are women of a certain age!) we found the transfers from international to domestic to reach our hometown, Melbourne to be less than ideal! Instead of making it as easy for Melbourne travellers as it is for Sydney travellers to travel on Qantas internationally to Hawaii and the USA, they make us go domestic to Sydney and transfer to the international airport,- which is a hassle and time consuming,- particularly on the return journey!
I have just sent-off a blistering letter of protest to The Age Travel Editor . We'll see the reaction!
I am a very new and raw blogger, so am experimenting. Who, why and from where will I get some reactions to my blog?
Having just returned from a brief holiday abroad with a couple of girl-friends ( we are women of a certain age!) we found the transfers from international to domestic to reach our hometown, Melbourne to be less than ideal! Instead of making it as easy for Melbourne travellers as it is for Sydney travellers to travel on Qantas internationally to Hawaii and the USA, they make us go domestic to Sydney and transfer to the international airport,- which is a hassle and time consuming,- particularly on the return journey!
I have just sent-off a blistering letter of protest to The Age Travel Editor . We'll see the reaction!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)