Dear SUVENDRINI PERERA
Julia Gillard's ''right kind of migrants'' are not people in her own image.
The right kind of migrants are those who will accept the standard of living and quality of life issues existing in Australia.Race is now only a side issue.
As Hirsi Ali said recently in Australia and as she wrote in her book, from bitter personal experience, far too many emigres from African or Asian countries who cross illegally to Europe in search of a better life, later want to change their environment in the new country to suit themselves according to the life they left behind. Just one example:walking around the streets in a burqa is as unacceptable to Westerners as walking around in a bikini in their native land. Why do we have to accept it? Next they’ll demand that all women cover-up for their men!
The racism which is endemic in many countries in the world today, is also being transported to Australia by the new immigrants because they don’t leave behind their feelings of animosity towards certain groups. Sri Lankans should know that best of all.
Australia like any country, has the right to demand that its immigrants know and accept the secular laws of their new country in which they have chosen to live and abide by their new democratic way of life without trying to change it to suit themselves,- claiming often some divine rights guaranteed by the UN. They must be prepared that some of their old customs may not be acceptable in their new homeland,- particularly when it comes to status of women issues, freedom of expression and democracy at work. There is a difference between human rights in Australia and human wrongs towards others as practiced in many parts of the world today and brought into our living rooms on TV nightly.
Governments also have to ensure that immigrants come at a rate at which they can be absorbed and integrated successfully in our society and not be swamped by uninvited masses from any one or more regions with totally different value systems and standards of living.
As a former “new Australian” myself, I know it is not always easy to accept or be accepted into a new society. My parents were brave to make the change when they were young enough to do it. But it is also an exciting challenge to change one’s life and move away from the familiar to the unknown, unless one is desperate to escape from it. The latter type of immigrant is not the problem usually and should be identified and aided as much as possible.They are usually so grateful for the opportunity to be safe that they just want to get on with their new lives as quickly as possible.
It is the economic migrants looking for a ‘better life’, perhaps looking to ‘make money quickly’ who invariably want to do it their way and often to transfer the customary life-styles from their previous country, instead of adapting to their new one.Western Europe is a bad example of uncontrolled immigration which we must try not to have imposed on us in Australia.
MM-------------------------------------------------------------
THE AGE.
Population debate hides an ugly racism
Suvendrini Perera
July 30, 2010 - 9:01AM
Julia Gillard's ''right kind of migrants'' are people in her own image.
Nearly all commentators see the current ''population'' debate as confusing or conflating a number of issues: environmental sustainability, overcrowding, failing infrastructure - and the arrival of asylum seekers, despite their admittedly small and unthreatening numbers. However, there is an underlying coherence to these issues, one that emerges in the numerous images of Julia Gillard cuddling carefully selected babies.
Although politicians and babies are a well-worn feature of elections, the images in the opening days of the 2010 campaign carry a particular ideological charge. The Prime Minister is not only the first woman to hold the position, but one who is unmarried, in a de facto (heterosexual) relationship and childless by choice - as well as being a self-declared ''atheist''.
The irony of the transparent appeal to the institutions of family and marriage by a PM who presents herself as the ultimate contemporary woman has not gone unnoticed - Samantha Stevenson's recent opinion piece points out the contradictions between Gillard's progressive self-presentation and her retrograde stance on gay marriage. What remains less publicly commented upon are the widely circulated pictures of Gillard with babies, and the way in which they fit into her broader platform.
In the context of the prime ministerial dog whistling (or, as Michelle Grattan puts it, wolf howling) about the ''right kind of migrants'' and a ''sustainable'' Australia, the baby pictures send very potent signals.
The day after the election announcement, several newspapers featured front-page photos of the Prime Minister, garbed all in white, and her (male) deputy - each bearing an exceptionally robust looking, if slightly bemused, white infant in their arms. If the central issue of the election is population, these images of the - reconstructed and thoroughly contemporary - white heterosexual family underscore that the lowering of the birth rate is off the agenda.
The images are a powerful reminder of the importance of the ''natural'' reproduction of the nation, marking the limits of this ''debate'' on population. In fact, of course, far from being simply natural, or a matter of individual choice, the manipulation and regulation of women's fertility - through policies relating to subsidies (the ''baby bonus''), maternity leave, childcare, educational allowances as well as the broader social web of attitudes to sexuality, family and marriage - are all part of what Michel Foucault dubbed biopolitics. The biopolitical, being that which shapes and orders the life and health of the population, is always explicitly or implicitly about shaping and maintaining its racial composition.
The ideal of the remade white heterosexual Australian family represented by Gillard and Wayne Swan at a baby welcome ceremony reaffirms the way in which the reproduction of the population is inextricably bound up with the reproduction of an established political and social order. The image stages an unspoken but unmistakeable return to the defining characteristic of Australia as a nation-state built on whiteness, and dedicated to the reproduction of the racial order established at Federation. Within this order, non-white bodies may be present, and even attain positions of relative power and prominence; however, their presence is one that must remain subject to continuing containment, subordination or assimilation.
Although population has been explicitly identified as the defining issue of the 2010 campaign, it is somewhat misleading to assume that this is a first: historically, official inquiries, debates and policies of successive governments have directly and indirectly addressed the issue of population as a question of the racial reproduction of the nation. In 1903, two years after Federation, the NSW Commission into the Decline of the Birthrate linked concern for falling births with the racial ''threat from the north''. In succeeding years, Australia defined itself by practices of social engineering designed to ''breed out the colour'' of certain Aboriginal groups and by programs to promote the fertility of white women while discouraging that of Aboriginal, Asian and Pacific Islander women.
In the postwar period, slogans such as ''populate or perish'' encapsulate the linkage between race and reproduction. These years were marked also by prohibitions against the circulation of racially marked goods and peoples across national borders. Labor's history of protectionism and racially exclusive trade unionism is one part of this story that has been conveniently forgotten, yet such histories return in contemporary form in the restrictions on temporary work visas and international students, as well as the frenzy over boat arrivals.
Make no mistake: there is a deep internal consistency to the population ''debate''. Beneath the facade of a thoroughly modern, optimistic and relentlessly ''forward-moving'' Prime Minister is a campaign that returns us to the ''race election'' threatened by John Howard in the 1990s.
Can Australia move forward from the exclusionary politics of race? Certainly not with a Prime Minister whose ''right kind of migrant'' is a reproduction of her own image.
Suvendrini Perera is associate professor of cultural studies at Curtin University. This is an extract from her introduction to the forthcoming book Enter at Own Risk: Australia's Population Questions for the 21st Century.This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/population-debate-hides-an-ugly-racism-20100729-10xx2.html
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
KEVIN RUDD;PM- no longer: a failed leader
A LESSON IN LEADERSHIP.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-one-assassinated-rudd-he-simply-topped-himself/story-e6frg6zo-1225897188218
NO ONE ASSASSINATED RUDD, HE SIMPLY TOPPED HIMSELF.Barry Cohen.
The AUSTRALIAN. 27/7/2010.
Barry Cohen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attached article about what happened to Kevin Rudd, why it happened and how it happened is an example of a failed leader with a flaw in his leadership style which can happen to anyone in any organization and at any time.
One of the most telling aspects in Barry Cohen’s article is where he asks,- why didn’t people tell Kevin that his style is unacceptable?
As Barry explains, SOME people just don’t seem able to do it,- they fear retribution,- they found him unaccepting of criticism,- he surrounded himself with inexperienced young staffers who thought they could tell the seniors in the Party if and when they could see the PM,- in short, Kevin Rudd the PM thought he was above everyone else! And he showed it!
He wasn’t! No one is irreplaceable! The grass-roots abandoned him and the Party.
In the end, the Party is more important than the individual who, like all leaders who are democratically elected, they only temporarily hold the top spot!
So while the Liberal Party voted to replace the leader who was also electorally not so popular, with another supposedly even less popular, because of differences in policy,- Kevin Rudd was replaced mainly because of his leadership style.
Now I wonder if we’ll see a gender-difference in Australians’ voting patterns at the next election!
M.M.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-one-assassinated-rudd-he-simply-topped-himself/story-e6frg6zo-1225897188218
NO ONE ASSASSINATED RUDD, HE SIMPLY TOPPED HIMSELF.Barry Cohen.
The AUSTRALIAN. 27/7/2010.
Barry Cohen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attached article about what happened to Kevin Rudd, why it happened and how it happened is an example of a failed leader with a flaw in his leadership style which can happen to anyone in any organization and at any time.
One of the most telling aspects in Barry Cohen’s article is where he asks,- why didn’t people tell Kevin that his style is unacceptable?
As Barry explains, SOME people just don’t seem able to do it,- they fear retribution,- they found him unaccepting of criticism,- he surrounded himself with inexperienced young staffers who thought they could tell the seniors in the Party if and when they could see the PM,- in short, Kevin Rudd the PM thought he was above everyone else! And he showed it!
He wasn’t! No one is irreplaceable! The grass-roots abandoned him and the Party.
In the end, the Party is more important than the individual who, like all leaders who are democratically elected, they only temporarily hold the top spot!
So while the Liberal Party voted to replace the leader who was also electorally not so popular, with another supposedly even less popular, because of differences in policy,- Kevin Rudd was replaced mainly because of his leadership style.
Now I wonder if we’ll see a gender-difference in Australians’ voting patterns at the next election!
M.M.
Refugees testing should be changed urges Hirsi Ali.
(N.B. For years, even on this blog long ago, I have advocated for an information and 'affirmation' booklet for all prospective settlers in Australia,- whether immigrants, refugess or asylum seekers coming to Australian shores illegally! These booklets should be written in many languages and they should be signed by the individuals that they have read, understood and will abide by the laws and the cultural norms of this country over and above their native customs,- should they be in conflict.
Otherwise they should not remain here. This is particularly important in the areas of family, gender and personal status issues.
Now Hirsi Ali advocates for the same instead of the old-fashioned questions the refugees are being asked and which are meaningless to their resultant ability to integrate successfully into their new environment in a new country which is often completely different to the one they left behind, possibly simply for economic reasons.
MM)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hirsi-ali-urges-refugee-testing/story-fn59niix-1225896772924
Hirsi Ali urges refugee testing
Rebecca Weisser
From: The Australian July 26, 2010 12:00AM
AYAAN Hirsi Ali has called for a radical change in the way refugees should
be assessed.
Ms Hirsi Ali, arguably one of the most high-profile asylum-seekers in the
world, believes the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees is out of
date and unable to cope with the scale of migration, and says Australia is
well-placed to lead moves to replace it.
Ms Hirsi Ali, a prominent critic of Islam, said it was futile for countries
to attempt to establish the bona fides of would-be refugees, not least
because many asylum-seekers will say anything in order to qualify for
asylum.
She said refugee claims should be rigorously assessed on the applicant's
ability to make a contribution to the host nation and to accept its values
and culture.
"Everybody lies," she told The Australian yesterday.
"So what I am trying to say is that we have to change the paradigm. You have
to say, 'You're welcome, we need immigrants but there are many conditions.
Here is the law, the culture, the customs. Here is what you agree to, and in
exchange you get to live in a peaceful, prosperous society where you have
all this opportunity. If you don't agree we will just return you'."
Ms Hirsi Ali speaks from first-hand experience. She successfully sought
asylum in The Netherlands in 1992, escaping a marriage arranged by her
father against her will. At the time, she told the Dutch authorities she was
fleeing the war in Somalia but later publicly admitted she had lied.
Ms Hirsi Ali speaks from her experience working as an interpreter with Dutch
immigration and naturalisation services investigating applications for
asylum from Somalis.
"The authorities wasted days trying to figure out if somebody actually came
from Somalia, and had not lived in Kenya, and had not stayed in Germany. And
ultimately these people stayed because Germany wasn't willing to take them
back, Kenya wasn't willing to take them back," she says.
Ms Hirsi Ali has called on Australia to begin an international dialogue on
the need to rewrite the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees.
"The convention is not the Koran," she said.
"The convention is man-made, it's a secular convention, and the convention
can be changed."
Ms Hirsi Ali says: "Australia should start the conversation that everybody
wants to have. You can take the leadership saying, 'This convention is from
a different era. It doesn't work for our time'."
Ms Hirsi Ali is in Australia to promote her latest book, Nomad, which
follows on from her first autobiographical book, Infidel.
"Since I wrote Infidel, many people have asked me about what happened to my
family. Nomad answers those questions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Hirsi Ali is accompanied by her partner, economic historian Niall
Ferguson, a professor at the Harvard Business School.
Otherwise they should not remain here. This is particularly important in the areas of family, gender and personal status issues.
Now Hirsi Ali advocates for the same instead of the old-fashioned questions the refugees are being asked and which are meaningless to their resultant ability to integrate successfully into their new environment in a new country which is often completely different to the one they left behind, possibly simply for economic reasons.
MM)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hirsi-ali-urges-refugee-testing/story-fn59niix-1225896772924
Hirsi Ali urges refugee testing
Rebecca Weisser
From: The Australian July 26, 2010 12:00AM
AYAAN Hirsi Ali has called for a radical change in the way refugees should
be assessed.
Ms Hirsi Ali, arguably one of the most high-profile asylum-seekers in the
world, believes the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees is out of
date and unable to cope with the scale of migration, and says Australia is
well-placed to lead moves to replace it.
Ms Hirsi Ali, a prominent critic of Islam, said it was futile for countries
to attempt to establish the bona fides of would-be refugees, not least
because many asylum-seekers will say anything in order to qualify for
asylum.
She said refugee claims should be rigorously assessed on the applicant's
ability to make a contribution to the host nation and to accept its values
and culture.
"Everybody lies," she told The Australian yesterday.
"So what I am trying to say is that we have to change the paradigm. You have
to say, 'You're welcome, we need immigrants but there are many conditions.
Here is the law, the culture, the customs. Here is what you agree to, and in
exchange you get to live in a peaceful, prosperous society where you have
all this opportunity. If you don't agree we will just return you'."
Ms Hirsi Ali speaks from first-hand experience. She successfully sought
asylum in The Netherlands in 1992, escaping a marriage arranged by her
father against her will. At the time, she told the Dutch authorities she was
fleeing the war in Somalia but later publicly admitted she had lied.
Ms Hirsi Ali speaks from her experience working as an interpreter with Dutch
immigration and naturalisation services investigating applications for
asylum from Somalis.
"The authorities wasted days trying to figure out if somebody actually came
from Somalia, and had not lived in Kenya, and had not stayed in Germany. And
ultimately these people stayed because Germany wasn't willing to take them
back, Kenya wasn't willing to take them back," she says.
Ms Hirsi Ali has called on Australia to begin an international dialogue on
the need to rewrite the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees.
"The convention is not the Koran," she said.
"The convention is man-made, it's a secular convention, and the convention
can be changed."
Ms Hirsi Ali says: "Australia should start the conversation that everybody
wants to have. You can take the leadership saying, 'This convention is from
a different era. It doesn't work for our time'."
Ms Hirsi Ali is in Australia to promote her latest book, Nomad, which
follows on from her first autobiographical book, Infidel.
"Since I wrote Infidel, many people have asked me about what happened to my
family. Nomad answers those questions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Hirsi Ali is accompanied by her partner, economic historian Niall
Ferguson, a professor at the Harvard Business School.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Open letter to Israeli Minister of Education.
------------
DIVIDED we FALL-UNITED we STAND to WIN!
Rise And Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions--
-----
July , 2010
To: Gideon Sa`ar, Israel Minister of Education
Dear Mr. Sa'ar
For a long time we have been following, from the USA and Australia, with much trepidation, the very unfortunate development of an Israeli academia 5th column phenomenon. This disastrous phenomenon appears to have no boundaries, until, as it appears, its participants see the demise of the Jewish state that pays their salaries.
We understand that following the organization Im Tirtzu report, you are going to take measures to fight, correct and even stop this phenomenon. We wish to support and applaud your stance.
You have made a public statement that it is “unacceptable” for Israeli academics to call for an academic boycott on their own country. We agree with you completely. You further stated that you have already spoken about this matter with the chair of the Committee for Planning and Budgets in the Council for Higher Education (CHE) and you will move on this issue with heads of institutions. We support this development as well.
In today's news, 500 Israeli academics demand the right to boycott selves. We, the supporters of Israel, demand to eradicate any element in Israel that call to boycott the state, or deny the Jewish people the right to their land.
As Israel's minister of education, it is your job to put order into what we see as acts of treason among Israeli academia.
Please do not cave in under the pressure of those who threaten to counteract your proposed measures.
Let those who oppose your actions resign. They can be replaced with good Israeli citizens of equal academic qualifications.
This type of 5th column must end before too many Israeli young minds lose the perspective of what is good citizenship, nationalism and know right from wrong.
You have our (Diaspora's) full support to take all required measures to stop Israeli academia members from propagating, inside Israel and from abroad, to boycott the state. This is unheard of in any nation on earth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stalinism at Ben-Gurion University
by Isi Leibler
July 10, 2010
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2283
Just a few weeks ago, Professor Neve Gordon, head of Ben-Gurion University's department of politics and government, was again challenged for continuously engaging in initiatives calling for a global boycott of Israel including his own University.
The Rector of the University, Professor Jimmy Weinblatt, once more rejected efforts to discipline Gordon, insisting that he would retain his position despite the fact that he was using the University as a launching pad to demonize Israel. To do otherwise, he said, would be an infringement on academic freedom. Weinblatt was conscious of the problems he would face from faculty if he acted against Gordon.
On a previous occasion when this issue had arisen, the head of the Sociology and Anthropology Department, Professor Uri Ram warned:
"Should he be fired as head of the Political Science department due to his political opinions, I shall call on all department heads in the University to resign as well, in support of Gordon and in protest of the violation of his rights, civil freedom and the University establishment in Israel."
A few days ago, an extraordinary event occurred at Ben Gurion University which barely caused a stir amongst the public or the media. Dr Yeruham Leavitt, a professor emeritus who has conducted a bio-ethics course over many years, was sacked from the University for having opined at a lecture, that homosexuality could be "contained", and that children of same-sex couples were being deprived of a "normal" upbringing.
One may of course dispute such an assertion. Yet the remark was not intended to offend. In fact, Dr. Leavitt stated:
"I have nothing against the gay and lesbian community. Moreover during my years at the university, I always instilled the values of tolerance and liberalism."
However, Professor Riad Agbaria, head of the clinical pharmacology department, insisted that Leavitt's employment be terminated. "There is no room for personal opinions that offend some of the students", he wrote. The university responded with a statement emphasizing that "Ben-Gurion University sanctifies freedom of expression, but the lecturer blatantly crossed the red line." News reports also noted that Dr. Leavitt was a settler who resides in Kiryat Arba, presumably implying that this had relevance to his dismissal.
The firing of Dr. Leavitt exemplifies the absurd and obscene double standards being imposed by Israeli academic institutions. Universities are willing to sack a lecturer for expressing a view not considered politically correct by dominant academic establishment. Yet the same authorities insist on retaining tenure for a senior academic like Gordon, described by Alan Dershowitz as a man "who has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites... a despicable example of a self-hating Jew, and a self-hating Israeli."
Gordon has actually endorsed terrorist attacks, described a convicted Fatah terrorist as a role model for his children and called for a boycott of Ben-Gurion University as well as "apartheid" Israel. Yet the university administrators repeatedly reiterated that even if Gordon continued to use his position to undermine the state and collaborate with those seeking to boycott his own university, he would not be disciplined because that would represent a breach of academic freedom. Whilst the University did not consider that "red lines" were being crossed by Gordon, Dr Leavitt was sacked for having made a remark about problems facing children growing up in a homosexual household - surely a legitimate viewpoint worthy of consideration.
This episode demonstrates how a cabal of post-Zionist and far left academics have succeeded to create an environment in which tenured staff are conscious that they have a license to debase the State - and even call for the destruction of their own University in the name of academic freedom - whilst suppressing any views that are politically incorrect from their bigoted perspective. It is truly reminiscent of the universities in the former Soviet Union approved by Stalin.
The government and donors to Ben-Gurion University and other academic institutions should have their heads examined if they continue providing funds which can be exploited in such a degenerate manner.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post
DIVIDED we FALL-UNITED we STAND to WIN!
Rise And Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions--
-----
July , 2010
To: Gideon Sa`ar, Israel Minister of Education
Dear Mr. Sa'ar
For a long time we have been following, from the USA and Australia, with much trepidation, the very unfortunate development of an Israeli academia 5th column phenomenon. This disastrous phenomenon appears to have no boundaries, until, as it appears, its participants see the demise of the Jewish state that pays their salaries.
We understand that following the organization Im Tirtzu report, you are going to take measures to fight, correct and even stop this phenomenon. We wish to support and applaud your stance.
You have made a public statement that it is “unacceptable” for Israeli academics to call for an academic boycott on their own country. We agree with you completely. You further stated that you have already spoken about this matter with the chair of the Committee for Planning and Budgets in the Council for Higher Education (CHE) and you will move on this issue with heads of institutions. We support this development as well.
In today's news, 500 Israeli academics demand the right to boycott selves. We, the supporters of Israel, demand to eradicate any element in Israel that call to boycott the state, or deny the Jewish people the right to their land.
As Israel's minister of education, it is your job to put order into what we see as acts of treason among Israeli academia.
Please do not cave in under the pressure of those who threaten to counteract your proposed measures.
Let those who oppose your actions resign. They can be replaced with good Israeli citizens of equal academic qualifications.
This type of 5th column must end before too many Israeli young minds lose the perspective of what is good citizenship, nationalism and know right from wrong.
You have our (Diaspora's) full support to take all required measures to stop Israeli academia members from propagating, inside Israel and from abroad, to boycott the state. This is unheard of in any nation on earth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stalinism at Ben-Gurion University
by Isi Leibler
July 10, 2010
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2283
Just a few weeks ago, Professor Neve Gordon, head of Ben-Gurion University's department of politics and government, was again challenged for continuously engaging in initiatives calling for a global boycott of Israel including his own University.
The Rector of the University, Professor Jimmy Weinblatt, once more rejected efforts to discipline Gordon, insisting that he would retain his position despite the fact that he was using the University as a launching pad to demonize Israel. To do otherwise, he said, would be an infringement on academic freedom. Weinblatt was conscious of the problems he would face from faculty if he acted against Gordon.
On a previous occasion when this issue had arisen, the head of the Sociology and Anthropology Department, Professor Uri Ram warned:
"Should he be fired as head of the Political Science department due to his political opinions, I shall call on all department heads in the University to resign as well, in support of Gordon and in protest of the violation of his rights, civil freedom and the University establishment in Israel."
A few days ago, an extraordinary event occurred at Ben Gurion University which barely caused a stir amongst the public or the media. Dr Yeruham Leavitt, a professor emeritus who has conducted a bio-ethics course over many years, was sacked from the University for having opined at a lecture, that homosexuality could be "contained", and that children of same-sex couples were being deprived of a "normal" upbringing.
One may of course dispute such an assertion. Yet the remark was not intended to offend. In fact, Dr. Leavitt stated:
"I have nothing against the gay and lesbian community. Moreover during my years at the university, I always instilled the values of tolerance and liberalism."
However, Professor Riad Agbaria, head of the clinical pharmacology department, insisted that Leavitt's employment be terminated. "There is no room for personal opinions that offend some of the students", he wrote. The university responded with a statement emphasizing that "Ben-Gurion University sanctifies freedom of expression, but the lecturer blatantly crossed the red line." News reports also noted that Dr. Leavitt was a settler who resides in Kiryat Arba, presumably implying that this had relevance to his dismissal.
The firing of Dr. Leavitt exemplifies the absurd and obscene double standards being imposed by Israeli academic institutions. Universities are willing to sack a lecturer for expressing a view not considered politically correct by dominant academic establishment. Yet the same authorities insist on retaining tenure for a senior academic like Gordon, described by Alan Dershowitz as a man "who has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites... a despicable example of a self-hating Jew, and a self-hating Israeli."
Gordon has actually endorsed terrorist attacks, described a convicted Fatah terrorist as a role model for his children and called for a boycott of Ben-Gurion University as well as "apartheid" Israel. Yet the university administrators repeatedly reiterated that even if Gordon continued to use his position to undermine the state and collaborate with those seeking to boycott his own university, he would not be disciplined because that would represent a breach of academic freedom. Whilst the University did not consider that "red lines" were being crossed by Gordon, Dr Leavitt was sacked for having made a remark about problems facing children growing up in a homosexual household - surely a legitimate viewpoint worthy of consideration.
This episode demonstrates how a cabal of post-Zionist and far left academics have succeeded to create an environment in which tenured staff are conscious that they have a license to debase the State - and even call for the destruction of their own University in the name of academic freedom - whilst suppressing any views that are politically incorrect from their bigoted perspective. It is truly reminiscent of the universities in the former Soviet Union approved by Stalin.
The government and donors to Ben-Gurion University and other academic institutions should have their heads examined if they continue providing funds which can be exploited in such a degenerate manner.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Michael Galak in QUADRANT articulates my thoughts exactly!
Quadrant Online
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/6/monologue-of-a-jewish-peacenik
June 2010
Volume LIV Number 6
Quadrant magazine is the leading general intellectual journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia.
Politics
Monologue of a Jewish Peacenik
Michael Galak
Being nice to my enemies is a pet temptation of mine. I just cannot resist the wonderful feeling of being good--as really good and nice person as I can be--for everyone to see. I want to be nice to everyone, because I am a nice person and I need to be loved by everybody. I would love to be nice to my Arab friends but I don’t need to be because, as far as I know, I have none. I have decided, nevertheless, to be nice to my genetic cousins, so they will not miss out on my being nice to them. It feels like an unrequited love, because those Arabs who say they are my friends are mostly either economical with the truth, or have missed taking their anti-psychotic tablets, or are recovering from a hashish-induced delirium.
Sometimes I cannot help but marvel--isn't it nice that Israel has so many friends? It makes me feel good to know that every one of Israel's friends knows what Jews have to do in order to make peace with Arabs. Not a single friend hesitates to be blunt and unceremonious while telling Israel their opinion. Real friends insult each other sometimes, but Israel's friends do not like being insulted. They prefer to do the insulting themselves. I guess that if we want to have friends we have to forget about insulting others and learn not to notice being insulted by our friends. We have to be wise, tolerant, patient, civilised and forgiving. We do want to keep at least some friends, don't we?
That's where I come in--my peacenik friends and I will show everyone that there are some good and nice Jews, who can be frankly talked to, admonished and chastised without answering right back. Most importantly, we, the good Jews, can be made to feel guilty about the world's ills, and we are always ready to accept that it is all our fault. Isn't it amazing that every friend of Israel knows precisely what Israel has to do in order to make peace with Arabs? Israelis and Arabs don't but Israel's friends do. If, perchance, as a result of such a peace, Israel would be no more--that would not matter. The important thing is that the Arabs would be at peace.
So many people believe Israel is the root of all the evil in the world! They believe that Israel's existence harms Muslims so much that these poor souls cannot sleep at night, cannot eat, cannot breathe, cannot learn how to read and write, cannot work, and cannot let their women use contraceptives. It is the fault of the Israelis that they cannot live in peace with the world or with themselves. As a true peacenik, I think I have discovered the root cause of Arab troubles! Why didn't I think of it before! A billion and a half Muslims are oppressed by 18 million Jews. That is so obvious!
Being a nice and a good Jew, I think I ought to feel guilty about the Arabs being oppressed. Perhaps we Jews should do something about it. After all, the Egyptians oppressed the Jews for a while but were gracious enough to let the Jewish slaves go, after they had built all their pyramids. I think it was very nice of them (the Egyptians, not the Jewish slaves).
What could we, the 18,000,000 Jewish people left on the planet, do to improve the lives of the long-suffering 1,600,000,000 Muslims, oppressed by this handful of Jews? I remembered the old psychiatric method of loving a distressed and unloved patient back to health. Those patients who were loved back to health by their male psychiatrists were mostly young and pretty girls. Somehow, there were no volunteers to love the old and the ugly grannies. Anyway, if we can love and respect our distressed, oppressed and dispossessed genetic cousins to ensure they have a better life, a better mood, better Arab governments and better schooling, then perhaps, just perhaps, they could live in peace and quiet, and produce something useful besides petrodollars and terrorism? They might then even start publishing scientific papers in international journals? They might even start winning Nobel prizes for physics, medicine and other sciences, instead of cheating in negotiations or blowing things up. Or they might stop using their genitally mutilated women as baby factories and let them be free. Oh, the power of love! It could change the world.
I really feel sorry for the Arabs--every time a Jewish scientist wins a Nobel Prize, they must feel outraged and insulted. And what do Arabs do when they are outraged and insulted? They scream on the streets and explode themselves and others!
Here's another good idea for improving Arab lives. What if we, the Jews, all went quietly away? What if all the world's Jews could pile up on spaceships and go to another planet, preferably in another galaxy, far, far away. The friends of the Jews would surely feel that the improvement in the lives of one and a half billion Muslims would be immediate, huge and lasting. It is so simple. Let's consider this idea seriously.
Being a nice and understanding Jew, I am happy to see the advantages of a world without Jews--Judenrein, as the Arabs' close friend Adolf tried to achieve. First of all, of course--no more gefilte fish. Its smell (it's made of carp, can you imagine? Oh, the Jewish temerity to eat a fish nobody else wants!) would not assault the delicate sensibilities of the friends of the Jews. Then, with the Jews gone, nobody would answer a question with a question, or interrupt a polite conversation, or wave both hands in the air while speaking, or limit human follies with the Ten Commandments, or claim the status of the chosen people. Besides, the sons of Ishmael could, at last, redeem the honour of the simpleton Esau, who did not realise that he had surrendered his birthright to the devious and cunning Jacob.
However, there might be some drawbacks in a total absence of Jews. Importantly, there would nobody left to envy, to hate, to assault, to accuse of being wicked; there would be no more of the pleasant glow of self-righteousness, standing on the high moral ground, head and shoulders above the crowd, no more reassuring feeling of being victimised by those who are the root of all evil.
Since I have decided to be nice to those who hate me, this consideration is important--how could I leave Arabs without the Jews to hate? It might be too traumatic for them. They need someone to hate and to blame for their wretched lives. Without the Jews, Arabs might start blaming themselves or, even worse, their governments! Then it dawned on me that all is not lost, because as soon as the Jews disappeared, the Arabs would simply start hating someone else.
I really should be ashamed of myself, suspecting Arabs of exclusively hating Jews. I am relieved to report, dear reader, that nothing could be further from the truth. It is just a culture thing, accepted good manners, that's all. Being politically correct and nice, as I am, to those who hate me, I would never denigrate another national culture. For example, if anti-Semitism and genital mutilation of their own women are part of Arab culture, then we must respect this and love Arabs back as intensely as they hate Jews and their own mothers and daughters. So, on a practical level: if an Arab throws a brick at you--give him a flower. We also must learn how to be friends. Arabs should be invited to Jewish weddings and Jews should be frequent guests at Arab funerals. This is an important principle of reciprocity, an issue of balanced inter-communal relations.
Being a believer in the better qualities of human nature, I have come to the conclusion that Arabs hate everybody equally, on a non-discriminatory basis. I am, therefore, relieved to know that the disappearance of the Jews due to interplanetary migration or mass suicide would not deprive my genetic cousins of people to hate with equal venom. The stakes are very high here--the good cheer and happiness of one and a half billion Muslims versus the continued existence of a mere 18 million Jews worldwide. Therefore, mass Jewish suicide or interplanetary migration as a means of improving Arab lives is not out of the question. Altruistically speaking, we should give it a second thought. Still, it's good to know that Arabs, like an equal opportunity employer, do not discriminate against Jews when it comes to hating other people.
Now we have to ask ourselves--what is the root of the Arab anti-Jewish hatred? Using empathy as my principal tool, I can see clearly that Arabs have every reason to hate us. I think it is totally our Jewish fault. You ask me why? You still ask me why? Who repeatedly kicked the backsides of all Arab countries in several wars? Who gets awarded Nobel prizes with depressing regularity? Who taught everyone in a culturally imperialistic manner in those Ten Commandments--interfering with the most sacred cultural traditions of the Arab world--not to cheat, not to kill and not to steal? Who, in a mere sixty years, turned a piece of swampy desert into a garden? Who took an impoverished little country to First World prosperity? Got the picture? And you want Arabs, who have produced nothing, invented nothing and improved nothing in the last several hundred years, not to hate us Jews? If that's what you want, then you have no empathy or solicitude towards your enemy and you cannot be nice to them. Ergo, it is your own fault--I think.
I am very much concerned that after many years of electing leaders who were determined to be nice to our enemies, Israelis voted into office people with no empathy towards Arabs. The new Israeli government simply does not care how the Arabs feel. Just as importantly, they do not listen to the world, which is so concerned with the well-being of our enemies that they would help the Jews to disappear in the most humane and painless way so the Arabs could take over. That is what I call empathy, that is what I call being nice. Perhaps the rest of the hand-wringing world would send a couple of cruise ships to evacuate the Jewish remnants from the beaches of Tel Aviv to, say, Greenland. If Denmark would agree.
The un-empathic Israeli government does not give a toss about Arab sensibilities and dismisses all the good advice from all the friends of the Jews. I reckon that most of those friends could say that some of their best friends are Jews; that's why they are called friends of the Jews. How could the Israeli government go so low as to insist on Arab compliance with treaties? Don't they know that cheating has been a time-honoured Arab tradition since Mohammed double-crossed the Qurayshi? Naturally, Arabs are upset and want to blow up something. So there! Why? Do you still ask me why? Because they feel victimised by the cultural insensitivity of the right-wing Israeli government, that's why. And whose fault is this? The Israeli government's. They are not being nice.
Now, following the example of Barack Obama, I am putting the Israeli government on notice. Empathic man, Obama, so full of empathy for the oppressed Arabs that he has put the Israeli government in the naughty corner. He does not approve of their building cubby houses in Jerusalem. Imagine what chutzpah this Israeli government has! They want to build houses in their own capital without first asking for permission! Unforgivable! I decided to follow Barack Obama's example and tell the Israeli government what they must do to get back in my good books. If they don't do as they are told I will not love them. Ever.
First of all, they should remove the wall between the West Bank and Israel, so the suicide bombers can have a fair chance to release their repressed memories, repetitive strain, post-traumatic stress and inner child, or a child smeared on the asphalt after an explosion, whatever the case may be. Building a wall under the flimsy pretext of protecting Jewish lives is just not good enough. It is culturally offensive. It is not therapeutic. This wall stops the circulation of ideas and friendly contacts. It is not nice. The wall has to go.
They also should stop interfering with the free and unfettered exercise of the culturally determined expression of masculinity and bravery of the Arab warriors when they fire Qassam rockets to Israel from Gaza. To start a war against Gaza only because some 8000 teeny-weeny rockets-shmockets were fired on Israel! Imagine that! It is a gross violation of the human rights of the nice and inquisitive Palestinians. All they wanted was to find out what colour Israelis are from the inside. How could the Israeli Army shoot at these nice young men? It is not nice. It is way over the top, disproportionate and brutal. Let them shoot those Qassams and dig tunnels. What else could they do--they are mostly illiterate and bored. All they can do is to dig tunnels, squeeze triggers, push buttons and blame the Jews for their misfortunes. We must be compassionate and learn to live underground. I say--live and let live. Let the Gazans live in their underground tunnels and the Jews in their underground shelters. Now that's symmetrical. Now that's proportionate.
It is a similar story with Iran. We are being scared by some alarmist right-wing capitalist warmongers about the nuclear danger coming from this peace-loving, democratic and tolerant state. I say: nuclear-shmuclear. Forget it! Take a lead from the outstanding peace-maker of our time--Barack Hussein Obama. He is reaching out his hand to the Iranians in friendship, brotherly love and niceness. He is reaching out his hand to the Iranians … He is reaching out his hand to the Iranians …
In conclusion, I implore you all--be nice to your enemies, whoever they are, be polite to them, be humble and inoffensive. Most importantly--be submissive. That's all they want. Always agree with whatever they say. Respect their culture as superior to your own, be empathic and see things from their point of view--that’s not too much to ask, is it? They might say nice things about you, after they kill you. Be nice to your enemies.
And now, children, let's all sing "Puff, the Magic Dragon".
Dr Michael Galak has written several articles for Quadrant.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/6/monologue-of-a-jewish-peacenik
June 2010
Volume LIV Number 6
Quadrant magazine is the leading general intellectual journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia.
Politics
Monologue of a Jewish Peacenik
Michael Galak
Being nice to my enemies is a pet temptation of mine. I just cannot resist the wonderful feeling of being good--as really good and nice person as I can be--for everyone to see. I want to be nice to everyone, because I am a nice person and I need to be loved by everybody. I would love to be nice to my Arab friends but I don’t need to be because, as far as I know, I have none. I have decided, nevertheless, to be nice to my genetic cousins, so they will not miss out on my being nice to them. It feels like an unrequited love, because those Arabs who say they are my friends are mostly either economical with the truth, or have missed taking their anti-psychotic tablets, or are recovering from a hashish-induced delirium.
Sometimes I cannot help but marvel--isn't it nice that Israel has so many friends? It makes me feel good to know that every one of Israel's friends knows what Jews have to do in order to make peace with Arabs. Not a single friend hesitates to be blunt and unceremonious while telling Israel their opinion. Real friends insult each other sometimes, but Israel's friends do not like being insulted. They prefer to do the insulting themselves. I guess that if we want to have friends we have to forget about insulting others and learn not to notice being insulted by our friends. We have to be wise, tolerant, patient, civilised and forgiving. We do want to keep at least some friends, don't we?
That's where I come in--my peacenik friends and I will show everyone that there are some good and nice Jews, who can be frankly talked to, admonished and chastised without answering right back. Most importantly, we, the good Jews, can be made to feel guilty about the world's ills, and we are always ready to accept that it is all our fault. Isn't it amazing that every friend of Israel knows precisely what Israel has to do in order to make peace with Arabs? Israelis and Arabs don't but Israel's friends do. If, perchance, as a result of such a peace, Israel would be no more--that would not matter. The important thing is that the Arabs would be at peace.
So many people believe Israel is the root of all the evil in the world! They believe that Israel's existence harms Muslims so much that these poor souls cannot sleep at night, cannot eat, cannot breathe, cannot learn how to read and write, cannot work, and cannot let their women use contraceptives. It is the fault of the Israelis that they cannot live in peace with the world or with themselves. As a true peacenik, I think I have discovered the root cause of Arab troubles! Why didn't I think of it before! A billion and a half Muslims are oppressed by 18 million Jews. That is so obvious!
Being a nice and a good Jew, I think I ought to feel guilty about the Arabs being oppressed. Perhaps we Jews should do something about it. After all, the Egyptians oppressed the Jews for a while but were gracious enough to let the Jewish slaves go, after they had built all their pyramids. I think it was very nice of them (the Egyptians, not the Jewish slaves).
What could we, the 18,000,000 Jewish people left on the planet, do to improve the lives of the long-suffering 1,600,000,000 Muslims, oppressed by this handful of Jews? I remembered the old psychiatric method of loving a distressed and unloved patient back to health. Those patients who were loved back to health by their male psychiatrists were mostly young and pretty girls. Somehow, there were no volunteers to love the old and the ugly grannies. Anyway, if we can love and respect our distressed, oppressed and dispossessed genetic cousins to ensure they have a better life, a better mood, better Arab governments and better schooling, then perhaps, just perhaps, they could live in peace and quiet, and produce something useful besides petrodollars and terrorism? They might then even start publishing scientific papers in international journals? They might even start winning Nobel prizes for physics, medicine and other sciences, instead of cheating in negotiations or blowing things up. Or they might stop using their genitally mutilated women as baby factories and let them be free. Oh, the power of love! It could change the world.
I really feel sorry for the Arabs--every time a Jewish scientist wins a Nobel Prize, they must feel outraged and insulted. And what do Arabs do when they are outraged and insulted? They scream on the streets and explode themselves and others!
Here's another good idea for improving Arab lives. What if we, the Jews, all went quietly away? What if all the world's Jews could pile up on spaceships and go to another planet, preferably in another galaxy, far, far away. The friends of the Jews would surely feel that the improvement in the lives of one and a half billion Muslims would be immediate, huge and lasting. It is so simple. Let's consider this idea seriously.
Being a nice and understanding Jew, I am happy to see the advantages of a world without Jews--Judenrein, as the Arabs' close friend Adolf tried to achieve. First of all, of course--no more gefilte fish. Its smell (it's made of carp, can you imagine? Oh, the Jewish temerity to eat a fish nobody else wants!) would not assault the delicate sensibilities of the friends of the Jews. Then, with the Jews gone, nobody would answer a question with a question, or interrupt a polite conversation, or wave both hands in the air while speaking, or limit human follies with the Ten Commandments, or claim the status of the chosen people. Besides, the sons of Ishmael could, at last, redeem the honour of the simpleton Esau, who did not realise that he had surrendered his birthright to the devious and cunning Jacob.
However, there might be some drawbacks in a total absence of Jews. Importantly, there would nobody left to envy, to hate, to assault, to accuse of being wicked; there would be no more of the pleasant glow of self-righteousness, standing on the high moral ground, head and shoulders above the crowd, no more reassuring feeling of being victimised by those who are the root of all evil.
Since I have decided to be nice to those who hate me, this consideration is important--how could I leave Arabs without the Jews to hate? It might be too traumatic for them. They need someone to hate and to blame for their wretched lives. Without the Jews, Arabs might start blaming themselves or, even worse, their governments! Then it dawned on me that all is not lost, because as soon as the Jews disappeared, the Arabs would simply start hating someone else.
I really should be ashamed of myself, suspecting Arabs of exclusively hating Jews. I am relieved to report, dear reader, that nothing could be further from the truth. It is just a culture thing, accepted good manners, that's all. Being politically correct and nice, as I am, to those who hate me, I would never denigrate another national culture. For example, if anti-Semitism and genital mutilation of their own women are part of Arab culture, then we must respect this and love Arabs back as intensely as they hate Jews and their own mothers and daughters. So, on a practical level: if an Arab throws a brick at you--give him a flower. We also must learn how to be friends. Arabs should be invited to Jewish weddings and Jews should be frequent guests at Arab funerals. This is an important principle of reciprocity, an issue of balanced inter-communal relations.
Being a believer in the better qualities of human nature, I have come to the conclusion that Arabs hate everybody equally, on a non-discriminatory basis. I am, therefore, relieved to know that the disappearance of the Jews due to interplanetary migration or mass suicide would not deprive my genetic cousins of people to hate with equal venom. The stakes are very high here--the good cheer and happiness of one and a half billion Muslims versus the continued existence of a mere 18 million Jews worldwide. Therefore, mass Jewish suicide or interplanetary migration as a means of improving Arab lives is not out of the question. Altruistically speaking, we should give it a second thought. Still, it's good to know that Arabs, like an equal opportunity employer, do not discriminate against Jews when it comes to hating other people.
Now we have to ask ourselves--what is the root of the Arab anti-Jewish hatred? Using empathy as my principal tool, I can see clearly that Arabs have every reason to hate us. I think it is totally our Jewish fault. You ask me why? You still ask me why? Who repeatedly kicked the backsides of all Arab countries in several wars? Who gets awarded Nobel prizes with depressing regularity? Who taught everyone in a culturally imperialistic manner in those Ten Commandments--interfering with the most sacred cultural traditions of the Arab world--not to cheat, not to kill and not to steal? Who, in a mere sixty years, turned a piece of swampy desert into a garden? Who took an impoverished little country to First World prosperity? Got the picture? And you want Arabs, who have produced nothing, invented nothing and improved nothing in the last several hundred years, not to hate us Jews? If that's what you want, then you have no empathy or solicitude towards your enemy and you cannot be nice to them. Ergo, it is your own fault--I think.
I am very much concerned that after many years of electing leaders who were determined to be nice to our enemies, Israelis voted into office people with no empathy towards Arabs. The new Israeli government simply does not care how the Arabs feel. Just as importantly, they do not listen to the world, which is so concerned with the well-being of our enemies that they would help the Jews to disappear in the most humane and painless way so the Arabs could take over. That is what I call empathy, that is what I call being nice. Perhaps the rest of the hand-wringing world would send a couple of cruise ships to evacuate the Jewish remnants from the beaches of Tel Aviv to, say, Greenland. If Denmark would agree.
The un-empathic Israeli government does not give a toss about Arab sensibilities and dismisses all the good advice from all the friends of the Jews. I reckon that most of those friends could say that some of their best friends are Jews; that's why they are called friends of the Jews. How could the Israeli government go so low as to insist on Arab compliance with treaties? Don't they know that cheating has been a time-honoured Arab tradition since Mohammed double-crossed the Qurayshi? Naturally, Arabs are upset and want to blow up something. So there! Why? Do you still ask me why? Because they feel victimised by the cultural insensitivity of the right-wing Israeli government, that's why. And whose fault is this? The Israeli government's. They are not being nice.
Now, following the example of Barack Obama, I am putting the Israeli government on notice. Empathic man, Obama, so full of empathy for the oppressed Arabs that he has put the Israeli government in the naughty corner. He does not approve of their building cubby houses in Jerusalem. Imagine what chutzpah this Israeli government has! They want to build houses in their own capital without first asking for permission! Unforgivable! I decided to follow Barack Obama's example and tell the Israeli government what they must do to get back in my good books. If they don't do as they are told I will not love them. Ever.
First of all, they should remove the wall between the West Bank and Israel, so the suicide bombers can have a fair chance to release their repressed memories, repetitive strain, post-traumatic stress and inner child, or a child smeared on the asphalt after an explosion, whatever the case may be. Building a wall under the flimsy pretext of protecting Jewish lives is just not good enough. It is culturally offensive. It is not therapeutic. This wall stops the circulation of ideas and friendly contacts. It is not nice. The wall has to go.
They also should stop interfering with the free and unfettered exercise of the culturally determined expression of masculinity and bravery of the Arab warriors when they fire Qassam rockets to Israel from Gaza. To start a war against Gaza only because some 8000 teeny-weeny rockets-shmockets were fired on Israel! Imagine that! It is a gross violation of the human rights of the nice and inquisitive Palestinians. All they wanted was to find out what colour Israelis are from the inside. How could the Israeli Army shoot at these nice young men? It is not nice. It is way over the top, disproportionate and brutal. Let them shoot those Qassams and dig tunnels. What else could they do--they are mostly illiterate and bored. All they can do is to dig tunnels, squeeze triggers, push buttons and blame the Jews for their misfortunes. We must be compassionate and learn to live underground. I say--live and let live. Let the Gazans live in their underground tunnels and the Jews in their underground shelters. Now that's symmetrical. Now that's proportionate.
It is a similar story with Iran. We are being scared by some alarmist right-wing capitalist warmongers about the nuclear danger coming from this peace-loving, democratic and tolerant state. I say: nuclear-shmuclear. Forget it! Take a lead from the outstanding peace-maker of our time--Barack Hussein Obama. He is reaching out his hand to the Iranians in friendship, brotherly love and niceness. He is reaching out his hand to the Iranians … He is reaching out his hand to the Iranians …
In conclusion, I implore you all--be nice to your enemies, whoever they are, be polite to them, be humble and inoffensive. Most importantly--be submissive. That's all they want. Always agree with whatever they say. Respect their culture as superior to your own, be empathic and see things from their point of view--that’s not too much to ask, is it? They might say nice things about you, after they kill you. Be nice to your enemies.
And now, children, let's all sing "Puff, the Magic Dragon".
Dr Michael Galak has written several articles for Quadrant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)