Miriam's Topical Topics.

COUNCIL OF WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS IN ISRAEL PR.

2012-01-25T01:18:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE

Petition to the Ministerial Committee for Legislation:
“Demand for appointment of female representatives to the Committee of Nominations of dayanim”

The Council of Women’s Organizations in Israel calls on political leaders to appoint female representatives to the committee of nominations of dayanim.

The Council of Women’s Organizations Israel is the umbrella organization representing all women organizations in Israel: Emunah, Wizo, Naamat, University Women, Bnot Brit, Ort, Hadassah, Soroptomist and Shedulat Hanashim – with more than one million members from all sectors, acting through educational and social activities, for the advancement of status of women and the family through whole Israel.

Towards the upcoming discussion at the Ministerial Committee for Legislation on the Bill of dayanim (Amendment - appointment of female representatives -2011), the Council of Women’s Organization addressed the Ministerial Committee:

“It is unacceptable that the Committee of Nominations of dayanim should include men only, as it has an influence on the every day life of women.
The absence of a woman in this committee is inappropriate and is against the Law of proper Representation of Women. The purpose of the Bill of
dayanim (Amendment) is to correct this distortion and the Council of Women’s Organizations in Israel demands unequivocally that this bill should be confirmed.”

Letters re WOMEN IN ISRAELI SOCIETY TODAY. (The Australian Jewish News)

2012-01-24T03:32:00.000-08:00

Is it time to speak up?

In the article “Relax Israelis: live and let live” (AJN, 7/12/11) Avi Rath puts it well when he stated that “the last thing Israeli society needs is constant squabbling over religious affairs”.
When Hilary Clinton reportedly expressed concerns about some aspects of domestic Israeli and religious politics, was she so wrong about the women’s issues in particular?
Modern Orthodox, ‘secular’ and Progressive Israeli women are voicing alarm at the intrusion of ‘haredi’ influences on Israeli society which impacts first and foremost on the civic and just plain human rights of girls and women and they are challenging us to help them from the Diaspora. Well known activist, Sharon Shenhav quoted from her article:” as an Orthodox women's rights activist and lawyer, I am very concerned about increasing efforts by religious extremists to remove women from public areas. My friends and colleagues, who include Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and secular (non-observant) Jews are equally concerned about these efforts to silence women's voices. In Jerusalem, we are particularly concerned about the elimination of women's faces and bodies from billboards and public advertisements on buses. As I mentioned in the article I published, I am concerned about the response of secular organizations and companies who have voluntarily agreed to eliminate women from public areas or comply with demands for gender segregation in public areas. These secular organizations include the IDF, Egged Bus company, Magen David Adom, the city of Jerusalem, and private commercial companies.”
The time may have come for Diaspora Jews to also voice our concerns about the circumstances which face many of our Israeli sisters. Women must be permitted to be HEARD as well as to be SEEN -- in Israel and in all other countries. With affiliates in over 40 countries in the world, The International Council of Jewish Women ( ICJW) strongly supports this position to help all women including the Israeli ones with social issues which do not depend solely on throwing money at them. The “squabbling” Rath describes over religious affairs is based on real problems many women and families face.

PM Netanyahu and the Knesset should enforce a Jewish religious edict of “live and let live”.
It is bad enough that the whole Arab Middle East seems to be returning to the Middle Ages religiously, especially vis-à-vis women,-but we do not wish such a fate creeping onto the Israelis.
There is a small minority of Jewish religious extremists,- why give them such influence in a democracy? .
Rath’s “Live and let live” is a wonderful slogan for coexistence. If only her Arab neighbours would also embrace it vis-à-vis Israel as a whole!
Malvina Malinek
( Hon. Life Member of ICJW Executive).

Letter to Australian Jewish News (Published 12/1/2012).

As Jewish women we are deeply concerned about the recent reports of the treatment of women in Israel. There is a disturbing trend in Israel lately to give in to the more extreme elements who do not want women to be seen or heard in the public sphere. This is a disgraceful abuse of human rights and must not be tolerated in any way.

The shameful way a young girl from an observant family has been mistreated by those who believe they are acting according to higher laws, is but one instance of the despicable behaviour of a growing number, albeit a small minority, of ultra-orthodox. We do not lump all ultra-orthodox together as one community. They are many communities with different views, and to their credit ultra-orthodox community leaders have come out strongly condemning the actions of these fanatics as going against Torah values and teaching.
We call on all men and women, including Jewish community leaders here in Australia and in Israel to speak out against the violation of Israeli women’s rights.

Women must not be forced to sit at the back of public buses so that some ultra-orthodox men do not have to look at them.
Women must not be forced to cross a street to walk on the other side.
Women’s faces must not be taken down from billboards.
Women’s voices must not be silenced.

Di Hirsh OAM
President, National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
Australian Affiliate Head of International Council of Jewish Women

Robyn Lenn OAM
Vice President, International Council of Jewish Women

Dr Anne Morris
Chair Status of Women, International Council of Jewish Women
and National Council of Jewish Women of Australia

-----------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER IN AJN 13/1/2012.
(THE CHUTZPAH OF SOME MEN!)

The continuing debate about the treatment of women by and in the Haredi community in Israel is more than timely.
Martin D Stern’s letter from the UK (AJN 6/1/’12) shows up the hypocrisy of the men’s stance supposedly on Halachic grounds.
Women ORDERED to the BACK of a bus?
Why should not the women sit in the front and the men who don’t want to sit next to them go to the back?
The chutzpah of those men is unbelievable!
Are they living in racist segregationist American South or in the South African apartheid era like the Blacks were?

Malvina Malinek

WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN ISRAEL: AN UPDATE

2012-01-24T03:27:00.000-08:00

January 2, 2012

The past month has seen media frenzy on the issue of women’s rights in Israel. Never have the rights of women been such a hot topic, with daily front page articles, editorials, op-eds, radio and television programming. While the media attention began with the “disappearance” of women from bus advertisements and billboards in Jerusalem, several incidents of extremist Haredi (ultra Orthodox men) ordering women to sit at the back of public buses quickly gained national attention. This was followed by the despicable act of some extremist men terrorizing a Modern Orthodox 8 year old girl during her morning walk to school in the city of Bet Shemesh because her clothing was not considered sufficiently modest.

Suddenly, the whole country seems to be concerned about women’s rights, including politicians, rabbis, journalists, lawyers, military leaders, police, and academics. Several citizens’ groups have sprung up using the social network to organize daily demonstrations nationwide on behalf of women’s rights. Participants in these large public demonstrations include religious as well as secular men and women.

While most of the attention has centered on the actions of extremist Ultra Orthodox men, questions are now being asked about discrimination against women in religious courts, commercial enterprises, politics, academics, media, theater, and other aspects of public life. Female university students are pointing out that it is easy to point the finger at the ultra orthodox community, but they are finding it more difficult to combat discrimination against women as they attempt to find jobs and develop careers. Despite that many young women are “post –feminists”, some are calling themselves the “New Feminists”.

While the media blitz continues, I wanted to update my ICJW colleagues on some of the interesting developments that are taking place at this moment in time:

1. Politicians from all political parties, including the religious parties, are competing with each other as to who has done more and who is planning to act more robustly on behalf of equality for women. It is interesting to see the coalitions being formed on this issue, with regular emergency meetings of government ministers, opposition parties and Knesset committees looking into the status of women. Our Prime Minister and our President have made strong public statements, directing the police and the criminal justice system to enforce existing laws while considering new stronger sanctions against those who discriminate against women. Several female MK’s are now riding on former gender segregated buses to show solidarity with those of us who have been doing so for a year.

2. The Police Chief has held emergency meetings with his senior staff regarding enforcement of laws regarding the gender segregated buses as well as the verbal abuse of women by religious extremists. A few days ago an ultra orthodox man was arrested and charged with sexual harassment for calling a girl soldier a whore when she refused to move to the back of a bus. This is the first time that the police have made an arrest for verbal abuse on a public bus and the use of the sexual harassment law in such a case is a precedent. Violation of the law regarding verbal sexual harassment provides for a two year prison sentence. The police are now arresting extremist men in Bet Shemesh who verbally abuse young girls attending Modern Orthodox schools and are providing a regular presence as these girls walk to school each morning. Interestingly, it was pointed out by observers that the police campaign on women’s rights was announced at a meeting attended by senior police officials, all of whom were men!

3. Discrimination against women in the Rabbinical Courts has become a major public issue, with some legal experts calling for women to sit as judges (dayanim) in these courts which have always been male only. Suddenly, there is broad public attention to the absence of women in the rabbinical court system, with discussion of the need for women on the Commission to Appoint Dayanim as well as the possibility of appointing a woman as administrator of the rabbinical courts. The fact that the Israel Bar Association elected two men to the Commission recently (my article was published in the Israeli press and circulated to ICJW members) has come under strong criticism. Surprisingly, an Orthodox political party, Shas (Sephardic Torah Guardians) is negotiating a political deal within the Knesset regarding legislation which would give their faction the power to choose one of the Bar’s representatives to the Commission and they are stating that this representative would be a woman!!

4. Citizens have been forming new NGO’s via Facebook on an almost daily basis and within hours have gathered thousands of demonstrators in Jerusalem, Bet Shemesh and other cities to decry discrimination against women. Most of these demonstrators are young and educated. On January 1st, a nationwide effort had thousands boarding formerly segregated buses in several cities, accompanied by TV cameras and police escorts.

5. The Chief of Staff of IDF has held emergency meetings with military leaders regarding the role of women. He proudly stated that the IDF will not tolerate discrimination against women and pointed to the 5 young women who have just completed the combat pilot’s course of the Israeli Air Force. He stressed the importance of the contribution of women soldiers and stated that all positions are open to women in the IDF.

6. Perhaps the sweetest result of all of this publicity has been the response of my young grandsons. While they have known about my work for many years, it wasn’t a major part of their busy lives. However, now that the subject of women’s rights is being discussed in every school, my 11 year old grandson, Asaf, proudly announced in class that his grandmother has been riding in the front of the formerly gender segregated buses for a year! The teacher had him describe my work to his classmates and he was quite the star! My oldest grandson, 16 year old Yuval has several friends who joined the nationwide bus ride on January 1st and informed them that his grandmother is a regular rider on the front of these buses. As a youth movement leader, he has been leading discussions on women’s rights with his groups (when he’s not practicing basketball as he plays on two teams!).

This is only an interim report as each day brings new action and new media coverage. I will write another report as events develop. As a women’s rights activist for over four decades, I am delighted with this remarkable public interest in women’s issues in Israel. The extremists have done us a big favor as they have brought national and international attention to the issue of status of women. Now we must all harness this public attention and develop programs to ensure that women worldwide will enjoy full equality in every aspect of public and private life. This is a great opportunity for all ICJW affiliates to organize public events on the status of women in their communities.

Sharon Shenhav, J.D.
Director
International Jewish Women’s Rights Project
ICJW

Israelis Facing a Seismic Rift Over Role of Women

2012-01-24T03:15:00.000-08:00

The full picture exposed hereunder!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world/middleeast/israel-faces-crisis-over-role-of-ultra-orthodox-in-society.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2&pagewanted=print

January 14, 2012
Israelis Facing a Seismic Rift Over Role of Women

By ETHAN BRONNER and ISABEL KERSHNER
JERUSALEM —

In the three months since the Israeli Health Ministry awarded a prize to a pediatrics professor for her book on hereditary diseases common to Jews, her experience at the awards ceremony has become a rallying cry.
The professor, Channa Maayan, knew that the acting health minister, who is ultra-Orthodox, and other religious people would be in attendance. So she wore a long-sleeve top and a long skirt. But that was hardly enough.
Not only did Dr. Maayan and her husband have to sit separately, as men and women were segregated at the event, but she was instructed that a male colleague would have to accept the award for her because women were not permitted on stage.

Though shocked that this was happening at a government ceremony, Dr. Maayan bit her tongue. But others have not, and her story is entering the pantheon of secular anger building as a battle rages in Israel for control of the public space between the strictly religious and everyone else.
At a time when there is no progress on the Palestinian dispute, Israelis are turning inward and discovering that an issue they had neglected — the place of the ultra-Orthodox Jews — has erupted into a crisis.
And it is centered on women.

“Just as secular nationalism and socialism posed challenges to the religious establishment a century ago, today the issue is feminism,” said Moshe Halbertal, a professor of Jewish philosophy at Hebrew University. “This is an immense ideological and moral challenge that touches at the core of life, and just as it is affecting the Islamic world, it is the main issue that the rabbis are losing sleep over.”

The list of controversies grows weekly: Organizers of a conference last week on women’s health and Jewish law barred women from speaking from the podium, leading at least eight speakers to cancel; ultra-Orthodox men spit on an 8-year-old girl whom they deemed immodestly dressed; the chief rabbi of the air force resigned his post because the army declined to excuse ultra-Orthodox soldiers from attending events where female singers perform; protesters depicted the Jerusalem police commander as Hitler on posters because he instructed public bus lines with mixed-sex seating to drive through ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods; vandals blacked out women’s faces on Jerusalem billboards.

Public discourse in Israel is suddenly dominated by a new, high-toned Hebrew phrase, “hadarat nashim,” or the exclusion of women. The term is everywhere in recent weeks, rather like the way the phrase “male chauvinism” emerged decades ago in the United States.

All of this seems anomalous to most people in a country where five young women just graduated from the air force’s prestigious pilots course and a woman presides over the Supreme Court.

But each side in this dispute is waging a vigorous public campaign.
The New Israel Fund, which advocates for equality and democracy, organized singalongs and concerts featuring women in Jerusalem and put up posters of women’s faces under the slogan, “Women should be seen and heard.” The Israel Medical Association asserted last week that its members should boycott events that exclude women from speaking on stages.

Religious authorities said liberal groups were waging a war of hatred against a pious sector that wanted only to be left in peace.
That sector, the black-clad ultra-Orthodox, is known in Israel as Haredim, meaning those who tremble before God. It comprises many groups with distinct approaches to liturgy as well as to coat length, hat style, beard and side locks and different hair coverings for women. Among them are the Hasidim of European origin as well as those from Middle Eastern countries who are represented by the political party Shas.

As a group, the ultra-Orthodox are, at best, ambivalent about the Israeli state, which they consider insufficiently religiou s and premature in its founding because the Messiah has not yet arrived. Over the decades the Haredim angrily demonstrated against state practices like allowing buses to run on the Sabbath, and most believed the state would not survive.
The feeling was mutual. The original Haredi communities in Europe were decimated in the Holocaust, and when Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, offered subsidies and army exemptions to the few in Israel then, he thought he was providing the group with a dignified funeral.

“Most Israelis at the time assumed the Haredim would die off in one generation,” said Jonathan Rosenblum, a Haredi writer.
Instead, they have multiplied, joined government coalitions and won subsidies and exemptions for children, housing and Torah study. They now number a million, a mostly poor community in an otherwise fairly well-off country of 7.8 million.

They have generally stayed out of the normal Israeli politics of war and peace, often staying neutral on the Palestinian question and focusing their deal-making on the material and spiritual needs of their constituents. Politically they have edged rightward in recent years.

In other words, while rejecting the state, the ultra-Orthodox have survived by making deals with it. And while dismissing the group, successive governments — whether run by the left or the right — have survived by trading subsidies for its votes. Now each has to live with the other, and the resulting friction is hard to contain.

“The coexistence between the two is breaking down,” said Arye Carmon, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem research organization. “It is an e xtreme danger.”
Mr. Carmon compared the strictly religious Jews of Israel to the Islamists in the Arab world, saying that there was a similar dynamic at play in Egypt, with tensions growing between the secular forces that led the revolution and the Islamic parties now rising to prominence.
“Today there is not a city without a Haredi community,” said Rabbi Abraham Israel Gellis, a 10th-generation Jerusalem Haredi rabbi, as he sat in his home, an enormous yeshiva on a hill outside his window. “I have 38 grandchildren and they live all over the country.”

But while the community has gained increased economic might — there is a growing market catering to its needs — what is lacking is economic productivity. The community places Torah study above all other values and has worked assi duously to make it possible for its men to do that rather than work. While the women often work, there is a 60 percent unemployment rate among the men, who also generally do not serve in the army.

It is this combination — accepting government subsidies, refusing military service and declining to work, all while having six to eight children per family — that is unsettling for many Israelis, especially when citizens feel economically insecure and mistreated by the government.

“The Haredi issue is a force flowing underground, like lava, and it could explode,” Shelly Yacimovich, a member of the Israeli Parliament, and leader of the Labor Party, said in an interview. “That’s why it must be dealt with wisely, helping them to join modern society through work.”

While change has begun — thousands of Haredi men are learning professions, more are getting jobs and a small number have joined the Isr aeli Army — the community is in crisis. Many ultra-Orthodox leaders feel threatened by the integration into the broader society by some of their followers, and they are desperately holding on to their power.

“We have to earn a living,” said Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim, a reformist Haredi leader from the town of Beit Shemesh. “We are a million people with a million problems. The rabbis can shout a thousand times against it but it won’t help them. And so we have the extremism — on both sides.”

Dan Ben-David, executive director of the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, said fertility rates in the Haredi community made the issue especially acute; the very religious Jews are the only group in Israel having more children today than 30 years ago.

“They make up more than 20 percent of all kids in primary schools,” he said. “In 20 years, there is a risk we will have a third-world population here which can’t sustain a first-world economy and army.”

And, Mr. Ben-David added, what children learn in the ultra-Orthodox school system — largely unregulated by the state as a result of political deals — is unsuited for the 21st century, so even those who wish to work are finding it hard to find jobs.

“Their schools do not give them the skills to work in a modern economy and no training in civil or human rights or democracy,” Mr. Ben-David said. “They don’t even know what we are talking about — what we want from them — when we talk about discrimination against women.”

The Haredi community thinks this is a wild misunderstanding of its views.
Rabbi Dror Moshe Cassouto, a 33-year-old Hasid, lives with his wife and four sons in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Mea Shearim, on e of the centers of Haredi life in Israel. He never looks directly at a woman, other than his wife, and he believes that men and women have roles in nature that in modern society have been reversed, “because we live in darkness.”
His goal is to spread the light. “God watches over the Jewish nation as long as it studies Torah,” he said.
Still, the spitting and Nazi talk horrify him. He says hard-liners have caused harm to the Haredim.
Asked about the recent troubles, Rabbi Cassouto shook his head and said, “A fool throws a stone into a well and 1,000 sages can’t remove it.”

Letter in The Australian: CLIMATE SCIENCE NOT BLINDING IDEOLOGY

2012-01-04T23:53:00.000-08:00

There is debate among scientists about everything. “Science is a mystery” especially cosmology, climatology, etc.
The Universe remains mysterious alright! I have always been fascinated by trying to imagine its infinity!

I found this letter below,in The Australian (4/1/'12) referring to this issue as being most interesting. It is consistent with what I heard from the British cosmology lecturer on board our cruise ship ‘Queen Elizabeth’ last March.
Professor Plimer of Adelaide Uni., is answering another letter from a scientist but which I have not seen.
I am reproducing it below as an adjunct to my original post:
http://anivlam.blogspot.com/2011/03/suns-effects-on-earths-climate-weather.html

Prof. Richard Holdaway,Director of Space Science and Technology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, was the lecturer.-

In the end, I agree with Holdaway that Governments will not miss out on a tax if they can help it,- but its effect on climate is purely theoretical and in the minds of the beholders!
Ideology is independent of reality! Big Bang theories or whatever theory,- it is ideology which will prevail in the laymen’s minds! We scientists will remain skeptical,- though the politicians will follow the populist beliefs just to remain in power.The believers will gladly pay for it.

I am all for quality of life though and removing pollution from our atmosphere, plus all ecological systems which need to be preserved.

MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LETTER:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------BASIC SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER. NOT BLINDING IDEOLOGY.

“Rather than an ad hominem attack, Mike Sandiford (“Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth. Inquirer 31/12-1/1/12) should have addressed some basic science to support his case.
Why didn’t he declare that there are some 1500 terrestrial volcanoes that emit small amounts of CO2 (carbon dioxide), yet there are more than 3 million submarine volcanoes that emit huge amounts of CO2?
Why didn’t Sandiford declare that the geological record shows no relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Why did he not acknowledge that there is a close relationship between the Earth’s climate, the sun and the Eartyh’s orbit? (N.B. Exactly what our lecturer told us on the QE!)
Why didn’t he state that there have been 6 major ice ages and all were initiated when atmospheric CO2 was higher than now? Ice core measurements show that after natural warming events, atmospheric CO2 increases 800 years later?
Why did he not declare that the atmospheric CO2 content has been decreasing for millions of years because of natural sequestration in sediments?
Why didn’t Sandiford state that in historical times there have been warmings (Roman, medieval) and cooling (Dark Ages, Little Ice Age) when there was no relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2? Or do we just ignore the past? Why didn’t he declare that for the past 150 years there have been 3 warmings and 3 coolings and that there is no relationship between these events and human emissions of CO2? Why didn’t he show that the effect of a minor greenhouse gas, CO2, is minuscule compared to the massive effect of water vapour? (N.B. Again just as my QE professor said!)

Oceans contain far moreheat than the atmosphere and have a profound effect on climate. Why did Sandford choose to ignore that sea surface temperatures have been delining? He didn’t even call on his area of expertise, tectonics, that heat is also added to the oceans from below and that climates change enormously with shifting continents.
Sandfor was quite happy to quote NASA. He also just happens to omit that in the 20 years since global warming scare was launched, human emissions of CO2 have risen by 50% yet global temperatures measured by NASA satellites are only 0.1C warmer than the average throughout the 32 years since satellite measurements began.

(Signed) IAN PLIMER , Professor of mining geology, University of Adelaide, S.A.
COMMENT FROM DAVID:

Most climatologists discredit Ian Plimer. The most effective article I saw re Ian Plimer was based on two points. He massaged data to fit his conclusions, and he contradicted statements he made in the past. The statement that global temperature has risen only .1 degree in the past twenty years is doubtful.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]

You can go to the site and check the reference. Global temperature has risen about .5 degrees in the last twenty years rather than .1 according to Plimer. Check further before you put Plimer in your blog.

David

FAITH & GENDER EQUALITY. LESLIE CANNOLD

2012-01-02T01:23:00.001-08:00

Faith in equality a must
January 2, 2012
Opinion

Secular authorities need to ensure they win fights with zealots over the rights of women.
LAST week in Israel, a news story shocked the nation. It concerned Naama Margolis, an Orthodox Jewish girl, who was shown crying and quaking at the prospect of taking the 800-metre walk from her home to school. The reason for her distress? The harassment and intimidation she has been subjected to by a roving band of ultra-Orthodox men who felt that her long-sleeved shirt and below-knee-length skirt were insufficiently "modest".
The men called Naama a slut. They spat on her and made her fear for her safety. Naama Margolis is eight years old.
The story has gone global. But so far few of the male "experts" who have been asked to comment appear to have a clue what is truly at stake, not just for women or Israel, but for all pluralist secular democracies.

What Naama's story reveals is the unavoidable clash between the sexist edicts of religious extremists and the state's guarantee of full human rights to all its female citizens.
Behind this clash is a far older and more fundamental one. Namely, who will decide how women will live - the church or the state?
Whatever god or gods they believe in, adherents of orthodox religious sects share the view that they - or their undemocratically appointed male leaders - have exclusive access to the wishes of the one true God.
This absolutist and arrogant view makes them wholly intolerant of fellow citizens of no faith, other faiths and even - as was the case with Naama - those of their own faith whose beliefs or practices differ from their own.
To ultra-orthodox adherents of every religious tradition - Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish - the rest of us are not fellow humans whose beliefs are entitled to the same respect and licence they demand for their own. At best, we are ignorant dolts worthy of pity. At worst, we are sinners deserving damnation or death.
Muslim author Salman Rushdie, well-known atheist Christopher Hitchens and former US president Jimmy Carter have been among those who have noted the persistent relationship between religious extremism and the often violent oppression of women. Of the Islamic republic of Pakistan, Hitchens wrote: "Here is a society where rape is not a crime. It is a punishment. Women can be sentenced to be raped … if even a rumour of their immodesty brings shame on their menfolk.''
Carter, who left the Southern Baptist Church several years ago over its treatment of women, said the ''view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or tradition … The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women …'' He added: ''They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter."
It would be nice to see the men who run the world's religions do an about-face on the gender issue. But forgive me if I don't hold my breath. More disappointing is the refusal of leading liberal men - opinion makers, legislators and adjudicators - to prosecute gender justice with anywhere near the enthusiasm they dedicate to attacking racial inequality.
In Israel, it would be unthinkable for black Jews (known as "Falasha") to be forced to the back of public buses to appease the sincerely held views of ultra-Orthodox men that this is where they belong. Yet, this is precisely what is happening to women. In fact, Israeli legislators have had to pass a special law to overrule Israel's standing requirements for gender equality to ensure the demands of ultra-Orthodox men for segregated buses could be accommodated.
The Americans are no different. In 1983, a US court vindicated the tax office's refusal to give exempt status to Bob Jones University because the Christian college's admission policy was - on what the college deemed the advice of God - racially discriminatory. In contrast, American courts continue to stand by while scripture is cited as justification for the church's refusal to hire women for senior pastoral roles or pay them the same rates as men.
Australian lawmakers are just as supine, something that might surprise those who remember the claim by then treasurer Peter Costello that gender equality was what distinguished Australia from societies governed by sharia law. But Australia's Sex Discrimination Act offers extensive exemptions to religious bodies that wish to discriminate against women for no other reason than that they are women - the very definition of unjust bias.
Whether it is in the training, educating and appointing of senior ministers or "any other act or practice," male church leaders can do as they please when it comes to women, if that's what they claim God demands. Sexism is unjust and unfair. It is as debilitating to the life chances and self-esteem of women - and to the societies that sacrifice the talents of its citizens on the altar of bigotry - as racism.
Secular authorities have been tussling with religious rulers over who makes the rules for a long, long time. To prevail, democratically elected rulers must understand and enforce the limits of a tolerant society. Indeed, in my view, Australia needs a far more militant democracy - one linked to core values such as secularity and equality and buttressed by pre-emptive constitutional protections against such foundational values, or democracy itself, risks being overridden or given away.
These values should apply to all democracies, Israel included. Naama, like all females, whether they be little girls or women, deserves to live in a society that defends her freedom and her opportunities, and insists she be judged on the content of her character.
To achieve this she is going to need political leaders who don't just talk about gender equality to score political points, but in the face of religious bigotry and intimidation, have the balls to defend it.

Dr Leslie Cannold is an ethicist and the author of The Book of Rachael

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/faith-in-equality-a-must-20120101-1ph7l.html#ixzz1iGI21cpy1ph5z.html#ixzz1iGG9dVz8

PREVIOUS POSTS:
http://anivlam.blogspot.com/2008/04/ambiguous-status-of-women-in-religion.html (GESHER)

http://anivlam.blogspot.com/2011/07/across-ultra-religious-divide-between.html (Sharon Shenhav)

Live and Let Live: Israelis are being told not to allow religious extremists to rule their lives!

2011-12-14T04:01:00.000-08:00

Is it time to speak up?
Since writing the item below, another 3 articles have now appeared in our AJN 16/12/11:
1. “Bibi, Peres take a stand”. (Omri Ephraim, Jerusalem). President & PM “ expressed fierce criticism on Monday over issue of exclusion of women in public life.’’ The Ynet Article ended with:” It was likely to assemble representatives from various ministries to weigh options, including issuing sanctions and fines against councils and private companies that permit the segregation of women”.
2. “ Extremism overtakes women’s rights.” Nua Rubistein, Ynet news.
3. “ Don’t turn Israel into Iran” Omri Efraim, Ynet News. “Hundreds of people gathered in Israel’s capital to protest at religious pressure to limit women’s role in the public life in Israel”. And finished with:
“Mickey Gitzin, head of the Free Israel movement, which organized the event, told Ynet: ‘we plan to continue singing every time and every place until this ugly phenomenon of shunning women stops.”
MM

It seems to be time for everyone to speak up now!
Our Australian Jewish News had 2 articles the previous week (AJN, 7/12/11) referring to the problems that Israelis face vis-a-vis the religious extremists,- the 'Charedim' and/or the ultra-Charedim, the Sikrikim!

The religious affairs editor, Yossi Aarons describes what has happened to the religious-texts specialist book-shop in Jerusalem, Manny's. Being near Meah Shearim, the ultra-religious neighbourhood, it should have been in an ideal position. Not so,because it is absolutely horrifying what they did to that shop until they capitulated and now employ a Mashgiach to check what books are stocked so as not to have what they consider 'controversial' texts,- more for the women and girls not to see!,- and that there should be "modesty standards" in dress and similar issues, banning even Zionist books from the shelves,- except English ones!

As Yossi Aron put it:"It is Charedi gone mad- and even the police cannot (or don't want to) stop it.Indeed it is time for Rabbis to speak out- including the Rabbis of the Edah Charedit. For the trend that has led us to this situation is the bane of the contemporary Orthodox world and it cannot be allowed to flourish in any way, shape or form. Censorship of religious tomes and bans on their sale was sadly part of centuries of Diaspora Jewish life. It is the last thing the Orthodox world needs in Israel."

In the second article “Relax Israelis: live and let live” Avi Rath puts it well when he stated that “the last thing Israeli society needs is constant squabbling over religious affairs”.
It seems that as he puts it, "we always speak of love, but in practice we produce hatred." He goes on to tell everyone that they do not have to react to everything,- not the Rabbis, not the journalists to blow it up out of proportion, not the judiciary, leftists do not have to intervene every time against the right on the West Bank, nor the rightists in the repertoire of the national theatre!

What a sensible way to put it.Therefore, when Hilary Clinton reportedly expressed concerns about some aspects of domestic Israeli and religious politics, was she so wrong to speak up,- about the women’s issues in particular?

Modern Orthodox, ‘secular’ and Progressive Israeli women are voicing alarm at the intrusion of ‘haredi’ influences on Israeli society which impacts first and foremost on the civic and just plain human rights of girls and women and they are challenging us to help them from the Diaspora. Well known activist, Sharon Shenhav quoted from her article:” as an Orthodox women's rights activist and lawyer, I am very concerned about increasing efforts by religious extremists to remove women from public areas. My friends and colleagues, who include Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and secular (non-observant) Jews are equally concerned about these efforts to silence women's voices. In Jerusalem, we are particularly concerned about the elimination of women's faces and bodies from billboards and public advertisements on buses. As I mentioned in the article I published, I am concerned about the response of secular organizations and companies who have voluntarily agreed to eliminate women from public areas or comply with demands for gender segregation in public areas. These secular organizations include the IDF, Egged Bus company, Magen David Adom, the city of Jerusalem, and private commercial companies.”

The time may have come for all Diaspora Jews to also voice our concerns about the circumstances which face many of our Israeli sisters in particular. Women must be permitted to be HEARD as well as to be SEEN -- in Israel and in all other countries. With affiliates in over 40 countries in the world, The International Council of Jewish Women ( ICJW) strongly supports this position to help all women including the Israeli ones with social issues which do not depend solely on throwing money at them. The “squabbling” Rath describes over religious affairs is based on real problems many women and families face.

PM Netanyahu and the Knesset should enforce a Jewish religious edict of “live and let live”.
It is bad enough that the whole Arab Middle East seems to be returning to the Middle Ages religiously, especially vis-à-vis women,-but we do not wish such a fate creeping onto the Israelis.
There is a small minority of Jewish religious extremists,- why allow them such influence in a democracy? .
Rath’s “Live and let live” is a wonderful slogan for coexistence. If only her Arab neighbours would also embrace it vis-à-vis Israel as a whole!
Malvina Malinek OAM
Hon. Life Member of ICJW Executive)

SBS TV programs: "The Promise" & "The Bible"

2011-12-11T04:51:00.000-08:00

I wonder if SBS is aware that instead of promoting cohesion and education, they promote divisiveness and bigotry in our multicultural society through their timing and choice of programming?

It's the 64th anniversary of the UN partition plan of 29 November 1947 and as usual, the battle over history and over narratives moves into high gear at this time of the year. The showing of ‘The Promise’ series on SBS at this time was inevitable,- as is ‘The Bible’ series as we approach Christmas.

Thanks go to The AJN for reprinting the excellent review of The Promis by Howard Jacobson, the British author. So far, after 3 episodes I can see why British Jewry would find this dramatised and fictionalised version of the events of 1948 in particular, more problematic than we non-British Jews,- but not more so than the British of Indian and Pakistani descent would feel when films about their 1948 Independence struggles are shown. Not to mention all the other films of independence wars wherever the British Empire reigned in the past,- continuing to this day together with all our soldiers from the West whether in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or even Vietnam before that. A lot of films still to come from those theatres of war, to the discomfort of many future viewers!

As for the portrayal of modern-day Israel and the Palestinians through the eyes of an ignorant, naïve and romantic young English girl who gets very sensitised to dilemmas that Israelis have to face every day,- young and old,- that too is boringly predictable. I am personally glad to see that they show a nice middle-class Western life-style for a change,- instead of the usual festival films we get here which portray only the dark, sordid side of Israeli life. Does that mean that all Israelis are so rich and live such a lifestyle? Of course not,- but some do and why not?

In trying to show also the Palestinian Arab narrative from their perspective,-a narrative which without wars they could have had like Israel’s from 1948,- I find it less problematic than the way they portray it in the other SBS series,- “The Bible”. The former is too contrived while in the latter it is realistic. Each Sunday just before “The Promise” we see a different personality looking at the biblical narratives,- including Howard Jacobson in the first episode on ‘Genesis’ and Gerry Adam, the ex- IRA leader in the latest one I saw.That program’s subtle inclusion of today’s Arab Palestinians’ problems I find far more insidious as propaganda than in The Promise.

For us Jews, it has always been Christmas time which was the worst for pogroms in Christian countries when we would get blamed for the death of Jesus. Now, instead, each episode of The Bible has the presenter travelling through Israel and the biblical landscape in search of clues about the historical truth of “the most widely read book in the world”,- the Old and New Testaments.

You can trust Gerry Adams if no one else, to condone ‘the armed struggle’,- noting that one man’s terrorist, even biblical, is another’s freedom fighter! So why choose someone like him to feature here?

However, we must realize that we as a community do not have a monopoly on deciding what is to be shown and viewed on our screens,- no more than we can do much about what is written in The Age or SMH.

There are always some confronting and uncomfortable truths with which we have to live. As long as the context in which these are shown or written is not always only one sided, then we must accept and argue our case when or if inaccurate information is communicated. In The Promise, all the single terrorist incidents of the Irgun are shown, but not shown against the innumerable ones perpetrated against the Jews and without differentiating the differences between the Hagana & the Irgun.

We can all see the negatives portrayed in The Promise which was written and produced by a Jew,- but how can we call it "antisemitic"? Who at SBS would be convinced of that?

We can look too much into this series!

MM

UN PARTITION PLAN, NOVEMBER 1947. "War & elusive peace."

2011-11-27T00:33:00.000-08:00

What happened in 1947-1948?

The battle of narratives and its impact on future peace.

It's the 64th anniversary this week of the UN partition plan of 29 November 1947. And that means that the battle over history and over narratives moves into high gear. This is a short Beyond Images Briefing highlighting our resources on that batt le of narratives. On the Beyond Images website you can find the following Briefings, which are designed to help you engage in the debates which take place at this time of year on these issues:

For your information, read the following articles at www.beyondimages.com/info

* Where's the Palestinian Arab self-criticism over 1948?.... by Shlomo Avineri

* 1948: how Arab leaders forced Arab civilians to leave their homes in Palestine

* What a real change in Palestinian attitudes would involve.... by Shlomo Avineri

* 'Ethnic cleansing' by Israel in 1948? Benny Morris refutes Arab claims
Arab assaults on the Jews of Palestine following the 1947 UN partition plan
* Inside a Palestinian refugee camp: 'returning to Israel'.... as part of daily life

www.beyondimages.com/info

Supporting balanced Israel advocacy, worldwide
__._,_.___

Lessons of Kristallnacht 1938.

2011-11-11T02:18:00.000-08:00

Kristallnacht: 73 years ago the Holocaust Began --
Is it about to begin again?

Jeff Dunetz - Yid With Lid - November 8, 2011

Do Not Stand Idly By While Your Neighbor Bleeds ~ Vayikra (Levitucus) 19:16
Kristallnacht also known as Night of Broken Glass was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany on November 9th-10th 1938. Kristallnacht was the day Hitler's final solution "came out of the closet" It is viewed by many historians as the beginning of the final solution, leading to the genocide of the Holocaust.

In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 99 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and placed in concentration camps. 267 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked. This was done by the Hitler Youth, Gestapo,and the SS. Kristallnacht also served as a pretext and a means for the wholesale confiscation of firearms from German Jews. Kristallnacht was part of a broader Nazi policy of antisemitism and persecution of the Jews. Kristallnacht was followed by further economic political persecutions and horrible genocide.

Throughout the world we remember Kristallnach, the night the Nazi's began the Holocaust in earnest. Its amazing how little has changed in almost seven decades. In Arab countries children textbooks are filled with anti Jewish hatred while others call them Moderates. Islamic Clerics throughout the world call for the death of Jews. In Venezuela and Iran leaders are whipping the population into Anti-Semitic fervor.

At my dinner table on Friday night, a holocaust survivor admits that she is trying to persuade her son to take his family out of Europe to America, Canada, Australia, Canada, Australia, Israel...’They say they can’t leave me, but I tell them: “Go, get out. My parents left my grandparents behind in Berlin and brought me to safety in England. Now I want you to leave so that my grandchildren will be safe.”’ There is an unbearable desperation in her plea. But she has a point.
As tens of thousands of demonstrators march through the streets of Europe, the chants are modified but the message remains substantially intact: ‘Hamas, Hamas, Hamas — Jews to the Gas’. Or, more simply: ‘Death to the Jews’. Many European Jews, even well-established, affluent Jews, have been checking the suitcase they keep packed under the bed. They have been here before and many are (albeit reluctantly) reading the writing on the wall.

To some extent I thought I was inured. I grew up in postwar apartheid South Africa where a subtle undercurrent of anti-Semitism was a fact of everyday life. So while I was disturbed by manifestations of mob anti-Semitism, I was also less vulnerable to shock. That’s just how people are. Living in genteel, leafy Hampstead Garden Suburb provides an additional layer of protection from such crass outbursts.
But my sanguine state ends abruptly when I am out walking on Saturday. A hundred yards from my front door, I encounter the slogan, freshly painted in yellow, across the pavement: ‘Kill the Filthy Jews’. I am shocked. And shocked that I am shocked. The message is too close for comfort. The leafy gentility is, after all, an illusion.
Source:The terrible warning of a Holocaust survivor

Sadly Davis' tale is not unique, mainstream politicians the United States rail against the "Jewish influence on foreign policy" a meme take from Anti-Semitic texts, TV commentators complain about the number of Jews on the Supreme Court. College campus' have become a safe haven for anti-Semitic professors.

Despite its rampant Antisemitism, Occupy Wall Street protests, supported by the major labor unions, the Democratic Party Leadership in Congress and even the President of the United States.

Today when Israel is attacked by terror, the rest of the world turns their head away just as they did during Hitler's final solution. FDR refused to allow Jews to escape to American shores, the British not only refused them entry into England but also closed down their access to the holy land, they could have saved millions but wouldn't. They were only Jews. Today the president of France calls the Israeli Prime Minister a liar and the President of the United States complains about having to deal with Binyamin Netanyahu for the same reason. They are trying to make the Israeli leader and his country a little less than human, their reason is the same as it was for FDR and Churchill, they are only Jews.

They even got help from the Jews. The Jewish-owned NY Times ignored the Holocaust while it was happening, just as today they extol a bias against the Jewish State today. The AJC discouraged open talk of the Holocaust while it was happening, fearing that activism would create an anti-Semitic backlash. This was documented in Naomi Wiener Cohen’s book Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906-1966, published in 1972. Just as today they work with the ADL to prevent Jews from speaking out against an Anti-Israel President of the United States. Jewish politicians walk blindly behind their party's Anti-Israel President and damn the Jewish people with their silence just to be able to move up the political ladder will not be able to silence us either. We will speak out against your lies and appeasement .

Because as Brutus told Cassius in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar,
You have done that you should be sorry for.
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats,
For I am armed so strong in honesty
That they pass by me as the idle wind,
Which I respect not.
Sorry AJC, Sorry Abe Foxman and NY Times, sorry all of you American Jews who are willing o support a party and a President who will take your campaign donations with one hand and stab you in the back with the other. I will continue to speak out, I will not be silenced. The Jewish People will not be silenced again, Am Yisroael Chai! The Nation and People of Israel, the Children of Jacob live! And will continue to live as long as we speak out against those who will silence us within and outside our ranks.

May the memory of what started 73 years ago today be a reminder of what happens when the world is silent. And may the memories of the victims of the Shoah always be for a blessing.
Link to original article: http://bit.ly/tWBi48

Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors(CJHS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit tax exempt organization committed to the promotion of Western values against the dual threats of complacency at home and political Islam abroad. We believe that a safe and secure Israel, prospering as a Jewish State, is a prerequisite to long-term global peace. CJHS insists that the last Holocaust imposes upon all people of good will a moral and political imperative to prevent the next one.

LETTER TO THE AUSTRALIAN JEWISH NEWS (PUBLISHED 10/11/2011)

RE BDS MOVEMENT HIJACKS PROTESTS.

“Occupy Melbourne” protesters want a voice,- for what?

One can enter protest movements and/or politics with high ideals and an aim to make the world a better place, but the lure of power and the access to deals (on the internet these days) can corrupt one or make one oblivious to the fact they are being played for a fool.

That is what BDS people and their fellow travellers are doing to these movements everywhere because they are too young to remember that this is what Hitler and his minions did in democratic Germany in the early 1930s too: playing the blame-game on the eternal scapegoat,- the Jews.

Yes,- there are causes worthy of civil disobedience, protests and civil demonstrations. This is what is rightfully happening in some of the world’s dictatorships today. But our “Occupy...city ” movement by disgruntled citizens about ‘democracy’ in Australia? Disrupting the CBD’s business and law and order for the population without any aim in sight of gaining anything other than notoriety is hardly an activity worthy of respect.

To paraphrase a headline in the ‘business’ pages: ‘talk about a lucky country, and they still won’t see it!’
Even if there are 1000 “occupy Melbourne/Sydney” protesters, unless they represent the genuinely ‘homeless’,- they are only 0.002% of our populations in the “most liveable cities in the world”, not the 99% of us who they arrogantly claim have ‘no voice’.

Thankfully we do have the Australian Jewish News as well as a robust general media in our democracy with ‘a voice’.

MM (Melbourne)

.

Letter to UNESCO Director General by ICJW President. November 2011.

2011-11-08T18:11:00.000-08:00

TO: Mme. Irina Bokova
Director General
U.N.E.S.C.O.
7 Place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP
FRANCE

Dear Mme. Bokova:

As President of the International Council of Jewish Women, I am writing to express our dismay and disappointment at the recent action taken by UNESCO in granting member state status to the Palestinian Authority.

While we fully acknowledge and applaud UNESCO’s work in overseeing numerous projects or programs which address the educational, scientific,
cultural and educational needs of people around the world, we also fully
acknowledge the fact that UNESCO is a political reality in today’s world.
It is, in our opinion, that political reality which resulted in the regrettable action by 107 member states who voted to accept the Palestinian Authority’s petition and 52 member states who simply chose to “abstain” and remain silent.

Several weeks earlier the Palestinian Authority had failed in its attempt to be admitted as a member state to the full body of the United Nations in New York.

In presenting the same case to UNESCO, the Palestinian Authority has, in
effect, chosen to maneuver around the United Nation’s official position and
seek legitimacy through what might be called the “back door”. Sadly, they
have succeeded and in doing so the face of UNESCO’s “political reality” rather than its humanitarian face has been exposed. At a time when the humanitarian needs of disenfranchised and victimized peoples around the world are greater than ever, more’s the shame that UNESCO has chosen a course which seems to serve only its own political ends.

Further, in seeking to blunt this reality by suggesting that it will be because of the United States’ decision to withhold funding for other UNESCO programs as a consequence of this action, it appears the agency is offering a faintly disguised effort to hold the United States responsible for any reduced humanitarian and educational efforts in the future. Mme. Bokova, we believe this position is patently untrue. It is our understanding that the United States has long affirmed its position that admission of the Palestinian Authority as a member state in UNESCO as a result of bypassing the UN-approved processes, would result in funding consequences. Thus the decision by the 159 member states who voted in the affirmative or chose to simply abstain was taken with full knowledge of the probable consequences of their action. We believe that the responsibility for any untoward results with regard to humanitarian programs and projects fall clearly at the feet of those member states who chose to accept the Palestinian Authority’s application.

The International Council of Jewish Women has long supported the safe existence of the State of Israel and the search for an enduring peace agreement. Consistent with this policy we cannot stand silent when a prominent UN agency allows the peace process to be sidestepped. In permitting the Palestinian Authority to shortcut the acknowledged peace process, UNESCO has done just this. ICJW’s consultative status as an NGO at the United Nations and at UNESCO requires us to speak out when it appears that they are flouting their own rules and procedures.

Mme. Bokova, it is with deep regret that I am sending you this letter. The International Council of Jewish Women values our consultative NGO status at UNESCO and we have no wish to jeopardize our standing with the agency by virtue of speaking out. But the matter is of such significance to our organization that I believe I have had no choice but to state our position clearly and without malice.

Thank you for your kind attention to our statement.

Cordially,

Sharon Gustafson, President
International Council of Jewish Women

WW2 History: Tobruk & the Palestinian Jewish Brigade of the British Army.

2011-10-31T18:48:00.000-07:00

With Libya in the news, it is interesting to revisit some WW2 history about it.

Fox Classics showed an old film late one Monday night called simply “Tobruk”. It starred the late Rock Hudson and several other well-known old time Hollywood film stars. I was not interested to stay up to watch it and was just about to switch off the TV when a Germanic-looking actor said to Rock Hudson: “I don’t look British and my name is Bergman. Yes we are Jews of German origin from Palestine fighting with the British”. I stayed up to the end and saw a very interesting and exciting WW2 story set in Libya.
There were some very telling conversational exchanges between the British commander and his soldiers and the Jewish brigade as they made their way across the Libyan desert to destroy Rommel’s supplies in Tobruk.

As I was interested to check what was real and what was fictionalised in the film,- from Wikipedia, I found this American Jewish historical journal entry about that Brigade below.
www.JASHP.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
“The war was not going well for the British in early 1942. Rommel and his Italian allies were pushing back the British relentlessly. Losses were staggering for the British. They were being decimated in Libya and needed to retreat, to regroup, rest and resupply. British loss, after loss, British defeat after defeat, the ability of retreating in order, without disaster, was very questionable. If the Allied forces could not retreat in an orderly manner, the North African war would be lost. It did not look good. A delaying action was ordered by the British high command.
In a remote area of the Libyan Desert, near an old Turkish fort, the Free French Forces were ordered to stand and fight. The fort was built near an oasis. It was called Bir Hakeim and was the key to the great port city of Tobruk. A line was drawn ahead of the Germans. The First Free French Division, led by legendary General Marie-Pierre Koenig was ordered to hold. The French dug in. Thousands of individual fox holes were dug. Mines were laid in thick fields to slow the Germans. The French waited. A British brigade, unknown at the time to General Koenig, was hastily sent to hold the far end of the French line near Bir-el Harmat. They were a battalion of mine layers, poorly armed and provisioned, without heavy weapons, or anti-aircraft equipment but with a grim, teeth clenched determination. They were a battalion of 400 Jewish Palestinians under the command of Major Liebmann from Tel Aviv. It was May 26, 1942. The Jewish fighters dug in.
A German tank column approached the heavily outnumbered and out gunned Jewish position.
Raising a flag of truce the German commander came near to the Allied position and demanded they surrender or be annihilated. Noticing the strange flag flying, the German asked who they were. To the amazement of the German officer, Major Liebmann told him they were free Palestinian Jews fighting for the British government. They would not surrender. The flag was the flag of the Jewish people. It was June 2, 1942.
German 88mm canon opened up with terrible effect. German Stukas bombed and strafed, and bombed and strafed. Hundreds of sorties were eventually flown. German tanks advanced and attacked ferociously. Several were destroyed in the mine fields. A few penetrated the center of the lightly armed Jewish position. Jewish soldiers jumped on the tanks destroying them with Molotov cocktails, incinerating the German tank crews inside. Without even a radio to contact the French fighting a few miles up the line, the Jews held. Heavy black smoke billowed from the burning German tanks as the Germans retreated; their dead left on the hard, dry desert.
German and Italian armor attacked again and again on June 5 and June 6. The Jewish position held. Daily the Stukas bombed the Jews. German artillery was unrelenting, eventually destroying the Jewish water source. Still the Jewish position held refusing to surrender, even without water. Astonished the Germans continued attacking with no success. The Jews refused to surrender or be conquered.
June 10: Orders from the British 8th Army reached the French at Bir Hakeim and the Jews at Bir-el Harmat: retreat. The British 8th Army was safe. It had retreated in good order with its equipment and supplies. The delaying action could be called off. In the dark of the night of June 11, the French and the Jews slipped away, unbeknownst to the Germans. They had done the impossible.
Over the next few months, the reorganized and reequipped British 8th Army fought and defeated Rommel's famed Africa Corps at El Alamein. It was the beginning of the end for the Germans and their Italian allies in North Africa. The bloody tide of war had changed.
General Koenig watched as the ragged, unknown Allied survivors from the far end of the line staggered in to the French command center at Gasr-el-Abid. They dragged their wounded as best they could. Major Liebmann reported to a concerned General Koenig. Speaking in perfect French, he told General Koenig they were Jewish Palestinian soldiers. Of the 400 men who made up the battalion, over three hundred, 75%, had been killed or wounded. They were the survivors.

General Marie-Pierre Koenig
The General observed their flag flying proudly. It was being taken down and folded by a very tired Jewish soldier.
What is that man doing? Koenig demanded of Liebmann. Liebmann told the French General that British regulations did not let them fly their flag, the blue and white flag with the Star of David. The British did not want to see it. An instant command was barked. General Koenig ordered the soldier to stop folding the flag. Koenig ordered it placed on the front of his Jeep to fly next to and equal to the flag of France.
Turning to his officers, Koenig ordered all his soldiers to stand at attention and salute as the flag of the future state of Israel went by. It was the first Salute.
General Koenig remained a committed friend and advocate on behalf of Israel for the rest of his life. In the lower Galilee, near Nazareth, trees grow in the soil of a free Israel; the Marie-Pierre Koenig Grove.”
________________________________________
Jerry Klinger is President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation
www.JASHP.org

The Perils of Global Intolerance: slavery, tribal genocides in Africa.

2011-10-30T02:07:00.000-07:00

Simon Deng at Stand With Israel Demonstration UN 22 September 2011.

Simon Deng, a former South Sudanese slave taken by a neighbor as a young boy to Islamist Northern Sudan gave this impassioned speech at the Durban Watch Conference in New York. He puts the lie to the Zionism is Racism canard of Durban III painting Israel as a pariah state. Rather as he points out it is the Arab Muslim Jihadis who have engaged in racial genocide of millions of Sudanese, whether Muslim or Christian. As he further points out it is Israel that is the ultimate destination of Sudanese refugees, as Egypt has oppressed them.

What follows is Simon Deng’s prepared remarks before the Durban Watch Conference on September 22, 2011.
_______________________________________________________

I want to thank the organizers of this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance. It is a great honor for me and it is a privilege really to be among today’s distinguished speakers.

I came here as a friend of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. –I came to protest this Durban conference which is based on a set of lies. It is organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

It will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has itself become a tool against Israel. For over 50 years, 82 percent of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state - Israel. Hitler couldn’t have been made happier.

The Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people will know that.
But friends, I come here today with a radical idea. I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

Please hear me out.
By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.
For over fifty years the indigenous black population of Sudan -- Christians and Muslims alike --- has been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.
The UN is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency for them. and they are treated with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the real causes of Sudan’s conflicts. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.” It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism well known in north Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan, everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam. In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And the Darfuris do not want to be Arabized. They love their own African languages and dress and customs. The Arab response is genocide! But nobody at the UN tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The Islamist regime in Khartoum is targeting the black Africans - Muslims and Christians. Nobody at the UN has told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you hear the UN condemn Arab racism against blacks?
What you find on the pages of the New York Times, or in the record of the UN condemnations is “Israeli crimes” and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages because of the exaggerations about Palestinian suffering. What Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin. But the truth is that the real sin happens when the West abandons us: the victims of Arab/Islamic apartheid.

Chattel slavery was practiced for centuries in Sudan. It was revived as a tool of war in the early 90s. Khartoum declared jihad against my people and this legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.
I don’t like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.
I was only nine years old when an Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat. The boat wound up in Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no.” All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”
The United Nations knew about the enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs. Their own staff reported it. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group -- sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening. I want to publicly thank my friend Dr. Charles Jacobs for leading the anti-slavery fight.

But the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, and UNICEF backtracked, and started to criticize those who worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League.
As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. When Egyptian security forces slaughtered twenty six black refugees in Cairo who were protesting Egyptian racism, the Sudanese realized that the Arab racism is the same in Khartoum or Cairo. They needed shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for very long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel’s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

Black Muslims from Darfur chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area. Do you know what this means!!!?? And the Arabs say Israel is racist!!!?
In Israel, black Sudanese, Christian and Muslim were welcomed and treated like human beings. Just go and ask them, like I have done. They told me that compared to the situation in Egypt, Israel is “heaven.”
Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. Israel is a state of people who are the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Beautiful black Jews.

So, yes … I came here today to tell you that the people who suffer most from the UN anti-Israel policy are not the Israelis but all those people who the UN ignores in order to tell its big lie against Israel: we, the victims of Arab/Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab/Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

Look at the situation of the Copts in Egypt, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais who suffer from Islamic oppression. The Sikhs. We – a rainbow coalition of victims and targets of Jihadis -- all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned. So that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor. And then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On January 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. For South Sudanese, that means continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel’s legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I bring you the news that my President, the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir -- publicly stated that the South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built--- not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.
I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its peoples, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth. Our truth.

My Jewish friends taught me something I now want to say with you.
AM YISROEL CHAI!
The people of Israel lives!
Thank you

GILAD SHALIT's unfortunate saga!

2011-10-17T04:23:00.000-07:00

As difficult as it must be for the Israelis to accept the vastly unequal deal for the prisoner exchange in order to secure Gilad Shalit’s freedom, the world should nevertheless congratulate Israel for valuing one of its citizens to such an extent.

It's a vain hope! One does not see any of that in the world’s media of course, but we must accept that everywhere criminals eventually do end up being released,- including murderers. Some unfortunately even reoffend.

Whether Israel can, or cannot afford to pay such a high price for one solitary individual is up to the government to decide. But they must have the backing of the majority of their people for taking such a decision and this they have.

The treatment the Palestinian prisoners apparently receive in the Israeli jails may in fact act as an inducement to "return" into more congenial surroundings than their Hamas-led environment may provide them! The cost to the Israeli people is huge to maintain them.

Should they wish to return to live at the expense of the Israeli taxpayers again, getting free board and lodgings and the best educational opportunities apparently up to university degree level,-then they cannot revert to the homicide bombers that some were before,- at least one would hope not!But fanaticism is difficult to erase from individuals!

However the fear is that the 1000+:1 ratio is an inducement for a repeat kidnapping attempt but we must pray that no other Israeli parents, let alone individuals will have to endure what Gilad Shalit and his parents have had to suffer for so long.

Kidnapping for money, ransom and political gain seems to have become a popular activity in the Islamists' arsenal against Westerners in many parts of the world not only among the Palestinians via Hamas and Hetzbollah.

Where and when will all this madness finally end?
Gilad Shalit made it home this time at last.
MM
POSTCRIPT 18/10:Good to see Gilad Shalit well and back home with his parents. I don’t blame the Palestinians gloating over their people returning home @ 1000+:1, but they have all forgotten the 1000+ dead Gazans and many more injured as a result of their attacks on Israel. They threaten more of the same and if it should happen,- they too will suffer more of the same.

The EMIRATES & DUBAI AS A DESTINATION FOR THE UNCARING!

2011-10-17T03:47:00.000-07:00

Why Dubai? The Wembley Plaza Hotel would have been much nicer, Mr Fox

For every piece of human misery that Dubai offers, the emirate has a wondrous piece of leisure to distract you

Tanya Gold
Saturday October 15 2011
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/14/dubai-liam-fox-fundamentalism-capitalism

One thing confused me about the headlines this week, which were essentially a morality tale about the loneliness of the professional politician. Why did Liam Fox choose Dubai for his mysterious stopovers between London and Afghanistan? Why couldn't it be somewhere else, perhaps the Wembley Plaza Hotel in Middlesex? Four times in 18 months the former defence secretary laid his head there, when Bahrain, or maybe Oman, were the usual options. But it was Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates. Of all the slave states in all the towns in all the world, he walks into mine.

Fox is not alone. In 2010, over 700,000 British tourists stayed in Dubai's hotels, according to the Dubai tourism website. The British are Dubai's best customers, which exposes how much people will collude with, or ignore, evil if their hotel rooms are cheap, sumptuous and have cable TV. Virgin Holidays say on its website: "Dubai is like no other place on Earth. It is a truly fabulous destination where visitors can indulge in top-quality hotels, great shopping, fine dining, state-of-the-art spas and, of course, fantastic beaches. There is, however, more to Dubai than meets the eye ?"

Yes indeed, it is unique, and there is more than meets the eye. That copy could be rewritten to say, "It is a truly fabulous destination where visitors can indulge in top-quality state censorship, great homophobia, fine misogyny, state-of-the-art police brutality and, of course, fantastic indentured servitude," and it would not be libelous ? not in Britain, anyway. Dubai does not impose income tax, so the tourists are joined by an international convention of laughing parasites ? all refugees from tax. I used to hate them, until I realised that any British people who want to live in Dubai, we can probably afford to lose.

I went to Dubai two years ago because a friend was going for work and I am not a woman to let a friend go shopping in a tyranny alone. I knew there would be trouble, reading the guidebook on the plane. Dubai practises religious tolerance towards all religions, it said ? except Judaism. So I knew I shouldn't do anything explicitly Jewish in the UAE, such as complain about the racist cartoons of hook-nosed Jews sitting on the world as if it were a big space-hopper made of gentiles. UAE newspapers think all Jews look like Harvey Weinstein [http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/harvey-weinstein" title="] crossed with Shrek [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek" title="]. But Dubai, owner of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building ? or spike ? on Earth has worse to show us than some casual antisemitism.

Dubai, like the rest of the UAE, is a repressive state, hiding behind religious piety and that dreadful word glitz. If Mickey Mouse is in residence here, he has some of the smartest kids locked up in Space Mountain. Do not dare to be gay, or adulterous, or a democrat in Dubai. Homosexuality will get you up to 10 years in prison ? party on, gays! A group of transvestites got five years in Abu Dhabi for dressing up; two lesbians got a month in Dubai, for kissing on the beach, before being spat out with deportation. I met a British woman in prison in Dubai. She was there for adultery, on the word of her husband ? pale, thin, denied access to her children, almost too atrophied to speak. In the end, I didn't interview her. Appearing in the British media might prejudice her case, and, anyway, she had no words.

It is an authoritarian oligarchy; the face of its ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, smiles from billboards and, sometimes, from our Queen's own carriage at Ascot. There is no press freedom in the UAE, just self-censorship. Insulting the royal family, or the flag, or possibly the architecture, will get you banged up. Everything gets you banged up in Dubai, except conformity and mindless shopping in the malls, one of which has a mountain in a fridge, which you can ski down ? if skiing, rather than shopping in a tyranny, is your thing.

And in neighbouring emirates it is little better. Human Rights Watch is detailing the case of five Emirati reformers, all awaiting trial for talking about democracy. The attorney general, Salim Saeed Kubaish, says they are in prison for "instigation, breaking laws and perpetrating acts that pose a threat to state security, undermining the public order, opposing the government system, and insulting the president, the vice-president and the crown prince of Abu Dhabi".

One, Nasser bin Ghaith, an economist and lecturer at Sorbonne Abu Dhabi, managed to get a statement out from al-Wathba prison this month. "I have reached," he writes, "an unshakeable conviction that this court, measured against international norms of justice, is merely a farce and facade meant to legitimise and make credible verdicts and penalties that may have already been decided. It is purely an attempt to punish me and those with me for our political opinions." They will not get a fair trial.

And who built this city in the desert? There are 250,000 foreign workers in Dubai, drawn mostly from India and Bangladesh. They are indentured servants, that is, slaves. The usual way to recruit them is to draw them a picture of joy ? great wages, fabulous working conditions ? and charge them an enormous recruitment fee. Then, when they arrive, the construction companies often steal their passports, deny them their wages, and say they must work endlessly to pay for their return home, while living 10 to a room and working in the terrible heat. In Dubai, they cannot change jobs, and they cannot strike; those who do face violence, or deportation. Last year 113 Indians committed suicide in Dubai, or one every three days.

And there is no stopping. The recession is a blip as the UAE expands like an octopus. A vast project is afoot to create a new tourist paradise. Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi will be ready in 2020. The Louvre, which should know better, but doesn't, will have an annexe there; so will the Guggenheim, and so will New York ? New York! ? University.

We asked a Welsh couple why they came here. The answer arrived, from the man: the hotel staff would hold my dick if I asked. For me, that is not an advert, but others like to travel where labour is cheap and desperate and therefore loving. In my hotel they styled the ethnic minorities. African men carried my bag (my bag-carrier had a law degree), Bangladeshi men cleaned my room, and Thai women with false names ? who can be bothered to pronounce a Thai name when there are so many of them? ? served my dinner. These were human being beings acting as wallpaper.

It is almost understandable, if you are a psychopath. For every piece of human misery Dubai offers, it has a wondrous piece of leisure to distract you. This is, entirely, its terror. So there are buildings of incredible scope and ugliness, fake islands in the shape of continents, and the Burj al-Arab hotel, which is shaped like a sail and stuck above the Arabian Gulf.

This is all meat for gibbering travel PRs. There are many places on Earth as repressive, but North Korea and Saudi Arabia are not touted as dirty weekend destinations for residents of liberal democracies. Dubai is a place of horror, the land where fundamentalism meets hyper-capitalism. Could anything be worse? So again, Liam Fox, why?

NOBEL PRIZES 2011

2011-10-05T04:23:00.000-07:00

http://www.amanforpeace.net/FeuersteinInTheWorld

Professor Reuven Feuerstein the eminent psychologist from Jerusalem (and my esteemed cousin born 90 years ago in Botosani, Romania, my home town too) is a nominee on the short list for the Peace Prize 2011.We all await anxiously the announcement, but the fact that he was nominated by an esteemed array of his peers around the world, is a sufficient accolade.
His institute in Jerusalem is:

The International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential

When faced with any disability or challenge, one of the primary motivating factors is hope. Hope reflects the fundamental belief that there is a possibility to bring about significant change, which in turn leads to a more optimistic future. True hope can only be achieved if there is solid evidence that real change will actually take place. This is where Professor Reuven Feuerstein’s Theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability comes into play.

The International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential (ICELP) was established with the goal of continuing and expanding the educational and psychological work initiated by Prof. Feuerstein. The work of the ICELP is based on the theories of Structural Cognitive Modifiability and Mediated Learning Experience, which serve as a basis for three applied systems: the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD), Instrumental Enrichment (IE) cognitive intervention program, and Shaping Modifying Environment.

ICELP specializes in providing a wide range of Services, Trainings, Research and Development.

Created By Logic&Design

Land without peace: Why Abbas went to the U.N.

2011-10-05T03:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/land-without-peace-why-abbas-went-to-the-un/2011/09/29/gIQACaoI8K_story.html

By Charles Krauthammer,
Published: September 29

While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.

It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.

To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.

Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:
●Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses. And makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.
●Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.
●Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.
This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.

Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.
So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.

The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.

After all, why did Abbas go to the United Nations last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.

Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the United Nations last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.

Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000 and, in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war — and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.

Israel is prepared to give up land, but never again without peace. A final peace. Which is exactly what every Palestinian leader from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas has refused to accept. Which is why, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.
Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to national suicide.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Greg Sheriden in 'The Australian' on the real issue: Anti-Semitism.

2011-09-26T00:33:00.000-07:00

Anti-Semitism the real issue that dare not speak its name.

Greg Sheriden . (Foreign editor).

The Australian
25 September '11

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/anti-semitism-the-real-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/story-e6frg6zo-1226144877560

A YEAR or two ago, I took a taxi from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. It was a brilliant sunny day and all around me the hills were green, as we passed a prosperous Arab village, a beautiful kibbutz, a bit of jangled traffic.
The taxi driver was English, an English Jew who had found a better life in Israel - better pay, less anti-Semitism, safer streets, an easy air commute to his daughter in England, but close to other relatives in Israel, and lots and lots of sunshine.
That day, a Roger Whittaker song was playing on the taxi radio. This Israel, I thought, there's something beautiful here.
Let me offer you a couple of other images.
On the BBC website, a British journalist, neither Jewish nor Israeli, recounts this experience in Cairo: "While walking in the street, someone pushed me from behind with such force that I nearly fell over. Turning around,
I found myself surrounded by five men, one of whom tried to punch me in the face. I stopped the attack by pointing out how shameful it was for a Muslim to assault a guest in his country, especially during Ramadan.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
"Relieved that the assault was over, I was appalled by the apology offered by one of my assailants: 'Sorry,' he said contritely, 'we thought you were a Jew'."
Here's a third image, this time from outside the Middle East. An acquaintance of mine, an American woman, neither Israeli nor Jewish, nor in any way connected with the Middle East, was helping to run an outreach program in southern Thailand involving Muslim and Buddhist students.
At the end, one of the Muslim students said to her words along the lines of: thank you, that was very nice. Much better than I expected. And the final sentence: "I'd never met a Zionist before."
The key issue in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and in the wider Israeli-Arab dispute, is the issue that dare not speak its name, the pervasive and profound anti-Semitism that permeates the contemporary Islamic world, especially the Middle East.
This is the real barrier to peace, and people who are concerned with peace will try to ameliorate it.
It is analytically false, historically untrue and conceptually impossible that all this anti-Semitism has arisen from Israel's sins, real and imagined.
As Richard Cohen pointed out in The Washington Post last week, when Anwar Sadat was a young army officer in 1953, he was interviewed by Al-Musawwar magazine and asked what he would say to Adolf Hitler. His reply? "My dear Hitler, I admire you from the bottom of my heart".
When he addressed the UN General Assembly in New York yesterday, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd spoke of the urgency of getting a final settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If this did not happen soon, he feared a "spiralling of violence". If a settlement were reached, huge new Arab markets would open up to Israel, it would receive diplomatic recognition from all its Arab neighbours and attention could focus on the real security threat to the region, Iran. If it did not reach a final settlement soon, then the consequences for Israel's security would be dire.
I do not doubt Rudd's goodwill, nor his analytical competence, but I believe this analysis to be profoundly flawed at four levels.
First, Israel cannot will a peace agreement into existence if there is not a partner on the other side both willing and able to make and enforce a peace agreement that provides for Israel's security.
Second, a failed peace agreement, or one not enforced, could gravely compromise Israel's security, in far more damaging ways than exist today.
Third, Israel's security position has grievously deteriorated in recent months, through dynamics that have nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian dispute, but which provide a far more dangerous context in which to ask Israel to take existential risks.
Fourth, you cannot have a lasting peace settlement when Israel's neighbours are consumed with hatred for Jews and contempt for Israel as a political entity.
Here's another thought. Very often, normalisation and a period of non-violence precede a peace agreement, rather than a peace agreement producing normalisation. Israel, and international partners, are working hard to normalise life in the West Bank, so that it becomes prosperous and decent, so that the Palestinians have something to lose, as it were.
It's at least as likely that normalisation could lead to peace, as that a peace agreement would magically produce normalisation.
Rudd is not alone in his analysis. It is conventional wisdom among the international conference-going class that the dispute could and must be settled quickly. But let's take my four analytical objections one by one.
Is there a peace partner for the Israelis? This is not a rhetorical question. It's a practical one. If you make peace with an enemy, you must be confident the enemy can control the forces on his side, that attacks won't continue on you.
Now here is the situation Israel confronts. Nearly half the Palestinian population is controlled by Hamas, designated by Australian and US law as a terrorist organisation. Hamas is also formally part of the broader national Palestinian government. It has not, as Western interlocutors once required, renounced terrorism, accepted Israel's right to exist, nor agreed to abide by any past agreements of the Palestinian Authority. Israel cannot just magically make Hamas into a Kumbaya peace movement. Even in the West Bank, the Fatah-led government promotes incitement and hatred against Israel from earliest school materials through to TV broadcasts and the rest. Every map of Palestine contains the whole of Israel, not just the occupied territories. More importantly, perhaps, the Palestinian government maintains itself in Ramallah only through the force of Israeli arms. It is not unreasonable for Israel to have extreme concerns about the sort of government that would eventually emerge in Ramallah.
The second objection is that a failed peace agreement could be much worse than the situation today. If the West Bank goes like Gaza, there will be a flood of rockets and other weapons into it once Israeli soldiers are gone. No Palestinian national movement is likely to accept indefinite Israeli control of its border with Jordan, yet if that border is not controlled the West Bank will likely go like Gaza. But Israel is a small, skinny nation. A Palestinian state would be within a few kilometres of the main Israeli population centres. Gaza-style rocket launches could cripple the Israeli economy. Even stray mortars would paralyse Tel Aviv airport. What if, as Hamas frequently does in Gaza, a West Bank Palestinian government encouraged such rocket launches, but then said they were really being launched by some shadowy militant group beyond its control?
This is not an argument to say that there can never be a Palestinian state. But it is entirely reasonable to ask that a Palestinian partner be able to ensure that Israel's security will be respected, as it has never been respected in the past.
Some very senior figures say privately that if outrageous attacks occurred Israel could simply re-invade Palestinian territory, but the world would know that Israel had tried to offer an independent Palestinian state.
This is wildly unrealistic. Israel never gets any credit for any offer it makes. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat about 95 per cent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, East Jerusalem and territory from Israel proper to compensate the 5 per cent of the West Bank that would accommodate the major Jewish settlement blocs.
Nearly a decade later, Ehud Olmert made essentially the same offer. In neither case could the Palestinian leadership accept the offer because it would have necessitated an end of claims against Israel and an end of conflict. The Palestinians will never get a better offer than they got from Barak and Olmert, who were prepared to take the enormous risks outlined above.
You are forced to ask in the end whether the Palestinian leadership is even serious about an independent state on realistic terms or whether it is caught up either in mere short-term manoeuvering, with no long-term vision at all, or if the long-term vision is some apocalyptic plan for Israel's ultimate destruction.
The late Abdurrahman Wahid, the former president of Indonesia, once told me of his disgust when Yasser Arafat said to him in private conversation that his ultimate aim was to tip the Jews into the sea. Perhaps the greatest analytical problem with those who urge an immediate solution is their failure to recognise the devastating deterioration in Israel's external security situation. The Israeli diplomats in the embassy in Cairo were nearly murdered by a mob two weeks ago. The Egyptian government declined to take calls from their Israeli counterparts as the mob was struggling to smash down the concrete around the embassy so they could smash to pieces the diplomats inside.
Only when US President Barack Obama personally intervened did the Egyptians dispatch soldiers to save the Israelis' lives.
Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, has in effect decided to end his country's long alliance with Israel. He seeks popularity in the Arab world now by demonising Israel and has threatened to send his navy to confront Israel. These are enormous and adverse changes to Israel's security environment. They were not remotely caused by anything to do with the Palestinian dispute. They both reflect the radical decline of US influence in the Middle East. Those arguing for an immediate Palestinian state say Israel can propitiate these concerns by granting a Palestinian state. But where is there one zot of evidence for this?
Instead, regional powers, if they want to help the Palestinians, would be reassuring Israel. But, as we have seen, Israel's neighbours hate Israel and demonise Jews.
The Palestinian leadership itself has more or less guaranteed there can be no settlement by insisting on the right of return of all Palestinians who ever lived in pre-independence Israel, and all their descendants. This amounts to five million people. It ignores, of course, the millions of Jews, and their descendants, forced to leave Arab lands because of murderous anti-Semitic violence. But in any event, as all senior Palestinian leaders know, no Israeli government will ever commit suicide by inviting five million Palestinians to live in Israel proper.
In previous private negotiations, Palestinian leaders have been willing to give up this preposterous claim. But they have made it such a strong part of their emotional denigration of Israel that to do so publicly will inevitably invite a hostile reaction among Palestinians and within the wider Arab world. Taken all together, this means no permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is possible at present. To pretend otherwise is at the very least irresponsible.

--

The man who could trigger a world war

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/could+trigger+world/5398190/story.html

By David Warren, Ottawa CitizenSeptember 15, 2011

The greatest threat to the world's peace, at this moment, comes from a man named Recip Tayyip Erdogan. He is the prime minister of Turkey, at the head of the Justice and Development Party ("AK," from the Turkish). A former mayor of Istanbul, he was arrested and jailed when he publicly recited Islamist verses ("the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets are our bayonets," etc.), in defiance of the old secularist, Ataturk constitution, which made it an offence to incite religious and racial fanaticism.

Erdogan's credentials as an anti-Semite, but also as an anti-Communist, were established from his school days. He came from an observant Muslim family, and while nothing he says can be taken without salt, he claims an illustrious ancestry, of fighters for Turkish and Ottoman causes.

He is an "interesting case" in other respects. His post-secondary education was in economics; he is a very capable technocrat, and under his direction the Turkish economy was rescued. He is a dragonslayer of inflation, and public deficits; he took dramatic and effective measures to clean up squalor in the Turkish bureaucracy, and as the saying goes, "he made the trains run on time."

Erdogan is also a "democrat," who has no reason not to be, because he enjoys tremendous and abiding domestic popularity. The party he founded came to power by a landslide, and has been twice re-elected. (He had a stand-in for prime minister at first, for he was still banned from public office.) There are demographic reasons, too, why Turkish secularism has been overwhelmed by Turkish Islamism. The Muslim faithful have babies; modern secularists don't.

The "vision" of this politician, which he can articulate charismatically, is to combine efficient, basically free-market economic management, with a puritanized version of the religious ideals of the old Ottoman Caliphate. (Gentle reader may recall that I am allergic to visionary and charismatic politicians, who operate on the body politic like a dangerous drug.)

Erdogan's vision has turned outward. His strategy has been to seek better economic integration with the West, while making new political alliances with the East - most notably with Iran. He now presents Turkey as the champion of "mainstream" Sunni Islamism, while trying to square the circle with Persian Shia Islamism. This could still come to grief over Syria, where the Turks want Iran's man, Assad, overthrown, and the Muslim Brotherhood brought into a new Syrian government.

Turkey's military was the guarantor of pro-western Turkish secularism, under the Ataturk constitution. With characteristic incomprehension of the consequences, western statesmen supported Erdogan's efforts to establish civilian control over the generals - our old NATO friends. By imprisoning several senior officers on (probably imaginative) charges of plotting a coup, Erdogan was able to induce the entire Turkish senior staff to resign, last month.

They did this because they had run out of allies. Hillary Clinton and company hung the only effective domestic opposition to Erdogan out to dry. Turkey's powerful, western-equipped military is now entirely Erdogan's baby, and the country's secularist constitution is a dead letter. Erdogan, the Islamist, now has absolute power.

It was he who sent the "peace flotilla" to challenge Israel's right to blockade Gaza (recognized under international law and explicitly by the U.N.). He made the inevitable violent result of that adventure into an anti-Israeli cause célèbre. He has now announced that the next peace flotilla will be accompanied by the Turkish navy.

This will put Israel in the position of either surrendering its right to defend itself, or firing on Turkish naval vessels. There is no way to overstate the gravity of this: Erdogan is manoeuvring to create a casus belli.

He has made himself the effective diplomatic sponsor for the Palestinian declaration of statehood next week - from which much violence will follow. Every Palestinian who dies, trying to kill a Jew, will be hailed as a "martyr," with compensation and apologies demanded.

He has been playing Egyptian politics, by adding to the rhetorical fuel that propelled an Islamist mob into the Israeli embassy in Cairo last Friday. He is himself in Cairo, this week, on a mission to harness grievances against Israel, in the very fluid circumstances of the "Arab Spring." For action against this common enemy is the one thing that can unite all disparate Arab factions - potentially under Turkish leadership.

The West is just watching, while Erdogan creates pretexts for another Middle Eastern war: one in which Israel may be pitted not only against the neighbouring states of the old Arab League, but also Turkey, and Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah.

This is what is called an "existential threat" to Israel, unfolding in live time. It could leave the West with a choice between defending Israel, and permitting another Holocaust. In other words, we are staring at the trigger for a genuine world war. With Recip Erdogan's twitching finger on it.

David Warren's column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

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

I am tired of not standing up for ourselves!

2011-09-25T02:15:00.000-07:00

"If we are not for ourselves who will be?"

I am tired of the Palestinians' constant claims of victimhood. Why does no one ask them: didn't you have enough time to stop warring and make peace with your neighbours and build your own State by now since '48?

I am tired of the constant finger pointing to the Jewish State of Israel as being an "apartheid State" when it is the Jews who are not wanted by the Arabs in their midst.
Why?
Because they show them up? After a mere 60+ years and the Arabs' constant efforts to defeat them in war after war, Israel is now a booming economic success story. But the cost of keeping vigilant against these enemies surrounding them is at the expense of the standard of living of the average population. They are now saying "we are tired" of bearing this cost!
But they are doing it with civility in their protestations!

I am tired of everyone blaming Israel for the fate of the Palestinians when it is they who refused a State in '48 and when it is the Arabs who went to war and attacked Israel not once but over and over again to this day,- now continuing with daily and constant rocket attacks from the "poor Gazans",- those "Hamasniks" who impose Sharia laws and keep their hapless young people and women and their population under Islamic siege!
The Islamists want it all,- not just alongside Israel!

I am tired of hearing about the 'Palestinian refugees' when it is the Arabs who are keeping their own brethren in refugee camps within the Palestinian territories in the West Bank & Gaza, let alone in Lebanon and Jordan and everywhere else they happen to be in the Arab world!
(N.B. No wonder they prefer to come back to Israel,- in the Jewish State the Israeli 20%Arab population live in comfort and freedom! Those other people do not know the word 'resettlement'!)

Now that Abbass wants to declare for his people their own Palestinian State, will they still claim UNWRA moneys in the billions for their own people and will they continue to keep their brethren in refugee camps at the expense of the stupid Western world?

I am tired of everyone being forced to be 'politically correct' without daring to point the finger at the perpetrators of hatred and intimidation amongst us all, while we in the Jewish communities all over the world have to spend millions to protect ourselves, our businesses, our communal institutions, our Synagogues and schools against possible violent anti-Semitic attacks.

The article below spells it out very well,- David Horowitz is one hell of a brave American doing a splendid job standing up for us among the hate-filled 'intelligentsia' on college campuses,where the Islamists' 'useful idiots' are being indoctrinated!
MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/11/its-time-for-the-jews-to-stand-up-for-themselves/

It’s Time for the Jews to Stand Up for Themselves

Posted by David Horowitz on Mar 11th, 2011

"I was not looking forward to my speech at Brooklyn College last night during “Israel Apartheid Week.” The campus atmosphere was so hostile to Jews that no student organization was willing to host my appearance, not even the Jewish organizations – and with 3,500 Jewish students on campus, there were several. My visit was only made possible by the courage of one professor, Mitchell Langbert, who reserved a room in the school library and the bravery of one student, Yosef Sobol, a Jewish immigrant from Ukraine who organized the event.
The college paper, Excelsior, is edited by a 9/11 “truther” who had declared on the Internet that a memorial should be erected to Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 terrorists and who had turned the Excelsior into an anti-Israel propaganda sheet. Despite the fact that the Jews who attend Brooklyn college are members of a minority who are the victims of eight times the number of hate crimes that are committed against Muslims — let alone Arabs — according to FBI statistics, faculty required all incoming freshman to read a single book – about discrimination against Arabs in America: “How Does It Feel To Be A Problem?” Faculty also hired an instructor who was an activist for Hamas and its terrorist state in Gaza.
For two weeks prior to my arrival an adjunct professor at the college had been calling on students and political radicals to protest my appearance, while denouncing me as a “racist” and “McCarthyite.” This professor is a Muslim member of the International Socialist Organization, a communist party that seeks a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in America. He urged students and outsiders to attack the event both outside the auditorium and inside it during my speech.
My bodyguard – a requisite at any campus at which I speak – called campus security two days before the event and was told the policy of the university was that protesters who tried to obstruct my speech would not be removed from the room. Consequently, I was fully prepared for the fact that I might not be able to speak at all and readied myself for the battle.
But then something totally unexpected happened. A trustee of the CUNY system, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, was aware of Yosef’s efforts decided to intervene. He demanded that the university protect the students who had invited me and to see that their event took place. In all my years traveling to over 400 universities this had never happened before. As a result of Wiesenfeld’s intervention, there were seven armed and imposing guards at the entrance to the hall. They inspected each individual, wanding them and searching their bags before they entered. The campus Chief of Public Safety was there too, along with an official from the university who warned would-be protesters that they would be removed if they obstructed my speech.
And so I was able to speak for an hour in a civil atmosphere, and the students who came were able to hear what I had to say. Let me pause here to say that campus violence which comes exclusively from leftists and Muslim radicals, and the obstruction of speakers, which comes exclusively from the same source, would disappear if university administrators did their job and if university trustees met their responsibility to ensure that an appropriate atmosphere prevails on their campuses. Would that there were a hundred trustees like this one.
Brooklyn College is a commuter school and it was a blustery and rainy evening, but the library auditorium was filled with over 100 people, mainly students, virtually all of them either Jewish or Palestinian, with the Jews representing about 80 percent of those present. I began by asking everyone how it felt to go through a “checkpoint” – the “injustice” of checkpoints being a focus of recent demonstrations by the newly created “Palestinian Club” whose members constituted 20 percent of the audience that night. I said, “Well, our checkpoint made me feel safe, and that is the point of checkpoints – to protect the innocent from attacks by people who want to kill them.”
I then addressed the atmosphere of intimidation that prevailed at Brooklyn College as a result of the attacks by the anti-Israel and pro-jihad left. The Brooklyn College administration had ignored and thereby encouraged these attacks as had university administrations across the country in the face of a nationwide campaign by leftists and Muslim activists to silence those who opposed them. I recalled how Nazis and Communists in the 1930s had conducted a joint campaign to break up the public meetings of their opponents and how that had spelled the end of democracy in Germany and the rise of the totalitarian state.
I said the frontline battle in our present war with totalitarianism was the First Amendment’s right to disagree. When protests were designed to shut down speakers, when speakers were defamed in advance of their appearances, one side of the argument was effectively silenced, and if that were allowed to continue we would soon lose our democracy. I said the attacks on freedom of speech had already gone so far in this country that you couldn’t mention terror and Islam in the same breath without being labeled a bigot or an Islamophobe, accused of labeling all Muslims as terrorists.
Even President Bush who had heroically defended us against the attacks of Islamic terrorists could not identify our enemies by name for fear of offending other terrorists and their sympathizers and allies. He could not identify them as Islamic extremists or Islamic radicals or Islamic jihadist which is what they call themselves. I happened to be speaking on the day Congressman Peter King opened his hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America and had watched the attacks on those hearings on my hotel television screen. I said we had reached a point in our country where we could not even make inquiries about the threat of domestic terrorism posed by militant Islamists who are responsible for 17,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 without being attacked as “McCarthyites” and “bigots.”
This is the primary political strategy of all Islamic terrorists and their enablers – to identify anyone who speaks about Islamic terrorism as someone who is attacking all Muslims as terrorists. The terrorists seek to identify themselves with Islam, to hide themselves and their sinister agendas in the Muslim community and use its numbers as a protective shield. The charge that an attack on one Muslim terrorist is an attack on all Muslims is an insult to the Muslim community and abuse of its members. All Muslims are not terrorists but there are also not enough Muslims coming forward to separate themselves and Islam from the radical jihad, or to condemn organizations like Hamas. Here I mentioned a Muslim, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who had testified that day and who said, “This is our problem, and it is our responsibility to solve it.”
Finally, I praised Wiesenfeld (but did not feel free at the time to divulge his name) who made the evening possible. He had struck an important blow for democracy at Brooklyn college against the jihadist assault.
I then read a series of statements by Palestinian leaders and by the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood each of which promised to finish the job that Hitler started. Here are two:
Mahmoud Al-Zahar, founder of Hamas said in 2007: “There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world. You are headed to annihilation.”
In that same year, Ahmad Bahar, Acting Chairman of Gaza Parliament said:
“Be certain that America is on its way to disappear,… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who these people are, I said. “They are Nazis, and they want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. Their goal is not peace but to push the Jews of Israel into the sea. On campuses all across America, I said, the Muslim and socialist left are chanting “From the river to the sea…” I was then interrupted by a voice from the audience who turned out to be the Muslim Marxist organizer of the protest, who completed the chant “…Palestine will be free.” I pointed out that the eastern boundary of Israel is the river and the western boundary is the Mediterranean sea, and that this was just another way of saying we want to kill you Jews and destroy your state and push you into the sea. They are Nazis.
I said the embargo on free speech is already so far advanced in America that we speak of a “peace process,” as though there was one. There is not a single Palestinian leader willing to recognize the Jewish state. Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority want to “liberate” Palestine “from the river to the sea.” How can you make peace with people who don’t want you to exist? How can you negotiate a peace with Nazis who want to kill you? You can’t. You have to demand that they stop being Nazis or that the people who support them elect other leaders. I said we have to stop capitulating to the censors of our language and call things by their right names. That is the only way to have clarity and to begin to be able to defend ourselves.
I then asked why the left is willing to embrace Hamas Nazis who want to kill the Jews. Leftists would answer this question by claiming that Palestinians are oppressed, and that it is the Jews who are responsible for their suffering. The Jews stole their land and put them under military occupation and have since subjected them to all manner of indignities, like checkpoints. I then said, let’s put off the question as to whether there is any truth in these claims, and just look at the claim that suffering explains their resort to suicide bombings and their desire to kill the Jews and push them into the sea.
For thousands of years nations, ethnic groups, races and religions have suffered. They have been enslaved, they have been occupied, they have been oppressed. But never in the history of mankind until now has their been a people like the Palestinians who strap bombs on their own children and tell them to blow themselves up and kill other children, and that if they do so they will go to heaven and become saints. No other religion besides Islam makes murderers into saints. In the entire history of mankind no people has sunk to such moral depths as the Palestinians in their war against the Jews.
Let’s also look at the claims that Jews oppress Palestinians rather than the other way around. Let’s begin with biggest lie of the entire Middle East conflict — that Israel “occupies” Arab land, let alone “Palestinian” land. To begin with, there hasn’t been a political entity or state called Palestine since Roman times, when Rome affixed the name Philistina (or “Palestine) to the homeland of the Jews which is Judea and Samaria, which is today the Palestinian occupied West Bank. The Romans did this because the Philistines, who were not Arabs, were the Jews’ enemies and they wanted to humiliate the people they had conquered and dispersed to the four corners of the globe.
In the second place the entire region around the Jordan out of which Israel was created was not Arab and had not been for four hundred years. The Arabs’ claim to Israel is about as credible as the Dutch claim to New York. For four hundred years prior to the creation of the state of Israel – not to mention Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq – the land belonged to the Turks who are neither Palestinians nor Arabs.
The state of Jordan was also created out of what was called the Palestine Mandate, when it was administered by the victorious powers in World War I. The majority of Jordan’s population are Arabs who today would be referred to as “Palestinians” – a “nationality” created in 1964 to combat the Jewish state. The “Palestinians” of Jordan are ruled and oppressed by a Hashemite minority. But no one is calling for their liberation. That is because the true goal of the Palestinian liberation movement is not a Palestinian state (which has been rejected by the Arabs as recently as 2000) but to push the Jews into the sea.
I went on to discuss the other indefensible lies that make up the total case against Israel – for example that Jewish settlements are a problem. There are a million Muslim Arabs settled in the state of Israel, who enjoy more rights as Israeli citizens than the Muslims or Arabs in any Muslim or Arab state. If Muslim communities in Israel are not a problem, why are Jewish communities in the Arab world or on the West Bank or in Gaza? Because the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East are racists and refuse to live side by side with any non-Arab or non-Muslim people. That is the straightforward, factually accurate, but politically incorrect answer. There were two democracies in the Middle East after the Second World War: Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon was actually a Christian democracy. Democratic Lebanon has been destroyed by the Islamic jihad and the Christians of the entire Middle East are under the gun or in flight.
I had encouraged the Brooklyn students to erect a “Palestinian Wall of Lies” (www.walloflies.org) that we had created to combat the malignant “Israel Apartheid Wall” that the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish left on campus was going to erect during “Israel Apartheid Week.” When the Brooklyn College administration learned of these plans they banned both walls. This is what a victory looks like in collegiate America today.
“Israel Apartheid Week” is a hate week against Jews, nothing more nothing less. Israel is, in fact, the only state in the Middle East that is not an apartheid state. Jews have created the only multicultural society in the Middle East, the only society that respects the rights of all ethnic and religious groups – and all genders as well. Jews have built the only society that respects women and gays. The very name “Israel Apartheid Week” is thus an obscenity whose only purpose is to demonize the Jewish state and make it vulnerable to the terrorist armies who whose rockets are poised to destroy it and whose goal is to push its Jews into the sea.
If this campaign had been directed against African Americans or any other campus ethnic group – including and especially Muslims – no university community would tolerate it. But because it is directed against Jews, Israel hate week is protected and funded by student governments and protected by university administrators. Moreover, and most disturbingly, the Jewish organizations on campus have been unwilling to stand up for themselves and to claim the same rights and respect as the groups who are attacking them. The Hillel organization on the Brooklyn College campus is 1,000 Jews strong but it would not sponsor our event. The Palestinian Club is 100 Muslims strong, but they came to attack it.
By now you are probably wondering about the reaction of these members of the Palestinian Club who came to protest my speech. You are wondering how they responded to the detailed arguments I made refuting their claims and self-justifications or to my statement that while Palestinians were indeed suffering, the cause of their suffering was their own leaders and the Arab states who for sixty years have rejected peace because they want to push the Jews into the sea. The answer is that they didn’t. It was as though members of the Palestinian Club had not heard a word I said.
I have had the same experience on a score of campuses where I have confronted audiences, which included sizeable contingents from the Muslim Students Association, a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a sister organization to Hamas, along with their leftwing enablers. The reactions at the end of my talks are always the same. The only way I can truly convey what happens is to recount a speech I arranged for the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who is under indictment for “insulting Islam” in the Netherlands. Wilders made very clear that he was not opposed to Muslims but to an intolerant and totalitarian ideology that demanded total submission to its doctrines and oppressed minorities whom it regarded as “infidels.”
During his speech Wilders turned to address directly the two dozen leftists and Muslims in the audience. He appealed to them saying “Look, I am doing your work. You say you are for the rights of women and gays. Under Sharia law and in many Islamic countries gays are hung from cranes and women are treated as chattel, denied education, and beaten with impunity by their husbands. I oppose the version of Islam that oppresses women and homosexuals. You need to do so as well.”
As soon as Wilders had finished his speech, the Muslims and leftists in the audience stood up en masse and started chanting “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Geert Wilders go away!” and marched from the room.
So it was with the Muslims who came to protest my talk. When they went to the microphones to ask questions after the speech they all had one talking point and it was the strategic talking point of the jihadists: “Mr. Joe McCarthy” (this is how the leader of the protest actually addressed me, “you said that all Muslims are terrorists….” Others before him had made the identical charge bolted from the room. None had even made a pass a questioning the history I had reviewed or the facts I had presented.
What struck me afterwards was this. Every Muslim in the room was a member of the Palestinian Club; most I was told afterwards were from Ramallah. But not one of them spoke as a Palestinian. I had said that Palestinians had elected two terrorist governments to rule over them, that Palestinians were willing to kill their own children in order to kill other children, that their schools taught their children to hate and kill Jews, that as a people they had sunk to the lowest moral level in history. I had said that they were indistinguishable from Nazis. And not one Palestinian in that room stood up to defend themselves as Palestinians. To a man and woman they said, “You are accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.
I said to them, you are acting as foot soldiers for the terrorists – which provoked an outraged cry. I confronted the professor ringleader and said: “Will you condemn Hamas?” He hemmed and hawed and stuttered, and then began his evasion of the question, but everyone in the room who was not a member of the Palestinian Club knew they already had their answer. Yes these Muslim students from the “Palestinian Club” were all supporters of the terrorist war against the Jews.
There was one questioner who actually did offer an intellectual challenge to an argument I had made, and did make an attempt to defend Palestinians as an ethnic group – as opposed to a religious sect of Islam. This person was a Jew from Hillel who suggested that Japanese kamikaze pilots were akin to suicide bombers and therefore Palestinians were not the only people in history who had sunk so low. But, of course, kamikaze pilots were soldiers not civilians, and they targeted battleships and aircraft carriers not women and children in pizza parlors.
When it was over, I was glad I had come. I was proud of the small vanguard of Jewish students who had invited me and arranged my appearance, and come to my speech. I was proud of Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the Jewish trustee who had gone out of his way to protect me, and the students who came to hear me. And I was gratified that they understood my message and would take it to the rest of the Jewish community at Brooklyn College: If we are not for ourselves who will be?
It is the same message I take to other campuses where my audiences are mainly non-Jewish. Israel is the canary in the mine. The chant of the Islamo-Nazis in the Middle East – shouted by millions – is, “Death to Israel! Death to America!” If we in America do not stand up for ourselves now, there will be no America tomorrow.

LEADERSHIP (continued): the CEO or President/PM and their teams.

2011-08-02T06:16:00.000-07:00

From: TheAustralian
August 01, 2011

Boards lash weak leadership

"DIRECTORS on boards overseeing companies ............believe the poor state of the current public policy debate and a perceived lack of political leadership are directly affecting consumer confidence and damaging the nation."
“Adding to recent concerns expressed by senior business leaders, a new survey covering directors of large publicly listed companies, large public sector organisations, small privately operated businesses and charities in the retail, resources, infrastructure, property and services sectors identified a lack of authoritative leadership as their single biggest concern about the future.”

{Another article pointed to the perennial complaints of politicians about media bias: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” quoting an American President who also said “the buck stops right... here”!}

Far too often it seems that those who seek leadership are not necessarily the best equipped, even if well qualified to lead an organization, board or company. The main complaint in the above article in the business pages of The Australian is that there is little understanding between the business community and the Government. Politicians are not business people, while business people are not politicians. The needs of each and the understanding between them are not sufficiently well developed through lack of experience. This leads to lack of confidence between each group, but a good leader can overcome such obstacles. It is only when ambition and ego overtake the intelect that trouble can develop.

However, big business leaders do have political-style interests within their companies, while politicians may also have their own business talents and/or interests which they pursue alongside their political careers and responsibilities. But in each case, it may be an individual's ability to understand the other's problems, not necessarily the whole group's dynamics such as the Party or the Company Board's cultures which will alow them to formulate the right policies for electoral or business success.

Politicians undergo much scrutiny by the media and they are mercilessly criticised and satirically lampooned and caricatured by the press. Hence politicians must have a strong sense of their own abilities and a 'thick skin' to withstand 'the heat from the kitchen'. Decision making in politics is very difficult and time consuming. It takes many small teams reaching a consensus after teams of advisors have studied policies to propose to the electorate. But in the end it is the Prime Minister or a Minister in charge who will take responsibility for the whole because that is where the 'buck stops'.

In small organizations, the hierarchical structure is not much different. The president of the organization will have to take ultimate responsibility for whatever decisions that organization makes for the benefit of its members or in the undertaking of their projects. A good president/leader will also work with committees, advisors, experts in various fields in order to realize their organization's objectives.Our roof bodies in the Jewish community work in similar fashion,- for better or worse!

The problem in small voluntary-type and communal organizations (NGOs) is the fact that leadership and leaders are not necessarily elected or selected from among a pool of able and willing candidates. Usually it is a matter of 'the willing' rather than the most able who is available to take on the responsibilities of leadership. In addition we must be aware that, as in politics, there are people who are not just willing but also ambitious to move up the leadership ladder and will push competitors out of the way just to get to the top,- sometimes even at all costs. These are the 'control freaks' invariably and their leadership style is not conducive to good working relationship anywhere( but especially not on a volunteers' committee in a not-for-profit community NGO).

THE VOLUNTEER.

Volunteers on committees who are willing to give their time do so out of altruism because they believe in the cause or objectives of that group.The common good is their first aim and their own sense of satisfaction is secondary. The ambitious volunteers who harbour leadership ambitions will usually think of themselves and their needs first and try to impress the rest of the team with their abilities.

The group needs both kinds, or there would be no leaders willing to take on those responsibilities involved in leadership.But one needs to beware the egoist whose intelect is not up to it!

THE COMMITTEES AND THE VOLUNTEERS.

The style of leadership then becomes paramount in determining the effectiveness of any committee and the organization as a whole. Hence those who feel they are engaged in the running of the committee and the organization will happily stay on it and contribute their time, skills and expertise. But those who are determined to be authoritative, will act as bullies and intimidate the committee's members who are too shy or too insecure. This is not a good working environment and eventually the able volunteers will move on.

THE VOLUNTEER LEADER OR PRESIDENT OF THE ORGANIZATION.

Selected, elected, appointed or anointed, the new leader takes over.After the shouting and the clapping, the expectations between leader and the team takes over. If popularly elected, most will be happy to welcome and promises of help and cooperation are in order.

The leader with less appeal and support will need to prove him/herself by using everyone's abilities to their utmost capabilities.This is evident in our hung Parliament!

Then there is the leader who meddles too much in everything that other committee members work on; or the one who will delegate all responsibilities
for a project to an individual without ensuring that there is consultation also with others. If all goes well, the leader takes responsibility but if there is failure, then the other will be blamed!

Sometimes people with ability and ambition will gravitate towards a political Party or particular organization which is sufficiently successful and prestigious in the hope to attain status in their community through it. They may then aim for leadership, but need to offset whatever deficiencies they have, say in people-skills, by teaming up with others who are better at it. It is interesting to watch how these dynamics work within groups in some top organizations or even in political Parties all the way to Parliament.

Some leaders whose egos are bigger than their intelect will surround themselves with those who will massage their egos but meanwhile pursuing their own agendas,- for better or worse!

This is, in general, the most dangerous of the leadership styles for any organization,- political or voluntary because they will resist all forms of criticism and dissent in their organization.

Janet Albrechsten in The Australian argued that "political correctness" stifles free speech in a country and therefore dissent. This is, in extremes, dangerous for democracy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/stop-the-mad-march-of-political-correctness/story-e6frgd0x-1226106958791

There are many other combinations and permutations in leadership alignments,- some working better than others depending on the inviduals. Standing up to bullying tactics and the ability to withstand and adapt to criticism,- fair or unfair- are the criteria for good team building and democratic leadership models in a successful organization.But communities also expect strong leadership when the need arises or in crises. The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh showed that during the recent Queensland floods and she was greatly admired and praised for it.
In the USA, it was President Obama who promised such leadership strength, but the jury is still out whether he has delivered on his promises.
We still await the verdict on our first female PM, Julia Gillard.

MM
INFORMATION: 2011.

The Perils of Global Intolerance:
The United Nations and Durban III

A conference presented by The Hudson Institute and
Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Go to www.DurbanWatch.com.

ARE THERE GENDER OR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP?

2011-07-20T00:08:00.000-07:00

DICTATORSHIPS, AUTOCRACY and DEMOCRACY: LEADERSHIP STYLES IN EVERY SPHERE OF LIFE: from the family to the government level.

HOW DO THE MALE AND FEMALE LEADERS AT EVERY LEVEL COMPARE?
.
“Q. Are you truly optimistic when you awaken to a work day or do you feel the dread of another day of battle? The choice is not only yours. It is that of the people you work with.”

From the micro-leaders in our family structures to the macro on a grand national and international scale, everyone has a leadership role to play in life. HOW THOSE WHO HAVE TO OR WANT TO FOLLOW THEM JUDGE THEM DETERMINES WHO HAS A MOST SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP STYLE IN HIS OR HER SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.

We all climb up the leadership ladder according to needs as they arise in life as parents,as children in the classroom, at work. Opportunities, ability, talent, desire and ambition moves us up the ladder. But there are different styles involved in leadership and in dealing with the leaders.
In the business and professional world, people are paid,- the better they are in their professional skills, the more they will be paid, but in addition, the better leaders they are, the more they will earn in comparison with their peers.
Then there is the voluntary and not-for-profit sector, including participation in political organizations.All depend on good leadership to encourage memberships and/or followers of their political goals.

RE STYLES OF LEADERSHIP'
Below is a quote (with my comments in italics) from Herb Kelleher the Chairman, President, and CEO of Southwestern Airlines. Fortune magazine named him "Perhaps the best CEO in America" at the time.

Q: Can an organization succeed with a RUDDERLESS LEADERSHIP OR "no style" favoured by Kelleher?

Kelleher:"A financial analyst once asked me if I was afraid of losing control of our organization. I told him I've never had control and I never wanted it".
(So who is in control?)
"If you create an environment where the people truly participate, you don't need control. They know what needs to be done, and they do it. And the more that people will devote themselves to your cause on a voluntary basis, a willing basis, the fewer hierarchs and control mechanisms you need."
(Therefore choosing the right people for the right job becomes paramount!)

"We're not looking for blind obedience. We're looking for people who on their own initiative want to be doing what they're doing because they consider it to be a worthy objective."
(This is democracy, but what if it is not considered a worthy but only a personal objective?)
"I have always believed that the best leader is the best server. And if you're a servant, by definition you're not controlling". (If the boss has no control, who has? The rudderless business could be bankrupted!)

"In an organization like ours, you're also likely to be a step behind the employees. The fact that I cannot possibly know everything that goes on in our operation -- and don't pretend to -- is a source of competitive advantage. The freedom, informality, and interplay that people enjoy allows them to act in the best interests of the company."
(But how do you know that they will always act in the best interests of the organization? A leader who does not know what is happening, may find him/herself taken over by inimical events through different agendas and/or ineffectiveness.)

"For instance, when our competitors began demanding tens of millions of dollars a year for us to use their travel agents' reservations systems, I said, forget it; we'll develop an electronic, ticketless system so travel agents won't have to hand-write Southwest tickets -- and we won't be held hostage to our competitors' distribution systems. It turned out that people from several departments had already gotten together, anticipated such a contingency, and begun work on a system, unbeknownst to me or the rest of our officers". ( This is leadership!But how can one be sure of its success?)

"That kind of initiative is possible only when people know that our company's success rests with them, not with me."
(Except that one dishonest employee could have sold it to someone else behind the CEO's back for personal gain.)!

In conclusion, Kelleher must have been extraordinarily lucky in his choice of employees, presumably males and females, but also a masterful leader to enjoy the success for his company that he did.Could a woman have been equally successful? Of course, given the opportunity.
The richest person in Australia at present is a WOMAN CEO of her company.

THE AUTOCRATIC AND/OR DICTATORIAL STYLES OF LEADERSHIP.

A Wikipedia entry defines various forms of dictatorships and their leadership styles.
“In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
For some scholars, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while in other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where does the power comes from). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from the people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions).
• Disparate authoritarian political leaders in various official positions assumed, formally or not, titles suggesting the power to speak for the nation itself. (E.G "King, Emperor, President,")

(By replacing “nations” with GROUPS, be it families, schools, organizations and “people” specifically with parents and children or members, while “governments” with parents,teachers, bosses or committees, the above can apply to any group organized as a socio-economic entity with members and their leaders !)
The power structures are there but are not gender dependent,- only AGE DEPENDENT in families and educational institutions. The leadership styles may have to be more authoritarian, but in modern times,it is certainly not as strictly disciplinarian as in previous generations.

POWER STRUCTURES: here we may find huge differences in the number of males vs. females exercising their need for power in their life, e.g.in schools/organizations/nations/families/workplace!

AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP is a Style of Leadership That Doesn't Create High Performance
http://www.leadership-and-motivation-training.com/principle-centered-leadership.html

Autocratic leadership has a time and place e.g in schools, the defence forces, police, (as do all leadership styles), but mostly it causes under-performance ...
"Traditionally, most organizations were/are run by men. As we are all very aware men and women have been designed very differently. Mens' basic design is for reproduction and survival ... in other words sex and killing - a primal instinct that is steeped in the need for power and control. And, unfortunately in many organizations today we have females feeling they need to mimic their male counterparts in order to succeed!

In most societies it is no longer acceptable for men to rape and plunder ... so, how does this primal instinct manifest itself in today's society? Through the Autocratic Leadership model that we see in 94% of organizations around the world.
And when you get leaders who have spent little time in self-examination you get the behaviors of competition, control and dominance showing up
The Autocratic Leadership Style (telling people what to do, when to do it and running the organization with an iron fist ... ala 'The Apprentice' ... enables the people running organizations to meet their instinctive needs (even though) they may not recognize or admit to them.

Look to any of the truly great High Performance Organizations and you will see that their leaders are men and women who have been able to move away from the Command and Control model - who have successfully removed their egos and their need for Power and Control from the business.
They are people like Richard Branson and Herb Kelleher, who are more concerned about creating a winning team, a happy, cohesive successful team than about being 'Right and in Control'. These are hugely successful businessmen and women who are absolutely focused on the results of the business, but are using styles of leadership that are more inclusive. Moving away from an autocratic leadership style is not about getting all mushy and soft ... in fact, you will be demanding higher standards of excellence from yourself and those around you than you ever have, but it is about doing it in a way that enables people to be nothing but their best.

Your challenge is to decide if the traditional Leadership Style is serving your organization well. Are you truly optimistic when you awaken to a work day or do you feel the dread of another day of battle? The choice is not only yours. It is also that of the people you work with.
Remove yourself from those with Autocratic Leadership ambitions and try something new,-e.g. an inclusive democratic style built around consensus!"

INDIVIDUALS, BE THEY MALES OR FEMALES WILL HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES OF LEADERSHIP. ALL LEADERS HOWEVER NEED FOLLOWERS. THE PRIME MINISTER NEEDS TO BE ELECTED AND REELECTED AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO HAVE EVERY FEATURE NECESSARY FOR BEING A 'POPULAR' KIND OF LEADER IN A DEMOCRACY.BEING FEMALE MEANS BEING JUDGED BY DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAN MALES, (i.e. more 'gender specifics' like looks, dress, hairstyles, demeanour, etc.It may not be fair, but it is reality and she must overcome such disadvantages.)

In communal structures where one is not dependent upon popularity for reelection, one needs respect more than 'love', but a little of both does not go astray in being an effective leader everywhere.

A DICTATOR DOES NOT NEED ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO BE AN AUTHORITARIAN WHO CAN INSTIL FEAR AND OBEDIENCE TO MAINTAIN HIS HOLD ON POWER.
I DO NOT KNOW OF ONE WOMAN WHO IS OR WAS A DICTATOR IN HER OWN RIGHT (EXCEPT CATHERINE THE GREAT OF RUSSIA PERHAPS and some Empresses in the orient?)

Miriam M.

ACROSS THE ULTRA-RELIGIOUS DIVIDE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN in Israel.

2011-07-19T22:16:00.001-07:00

SCREAM, INSULT, EMBARRASS AND HARASS UPPITY WOMEN
By Sharon Shenhav

How should uppity women be treated in Israel today? A few weeks ago, on May 18, 2011 an answer to this question was given in the form of a psak (Halachic ruling) issued by the revered Haredi leader and Gedol Hador (Most Esteemed of his generation) Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv of Meah Shearim. The psak was published in the Haredi newspaper Kikar Hashabat and gives clear instructions as to how Jewish men should deal with women who refuse to conform to the requirements of Jewish Law as interpreted by Rav Elyashiv.

The question arose when a Yeshiva student boarded a public bus which had been a gender segregated bus until the Israel Supreme Court declared that these “Mehadrin” buses were illegal in January, 2011. Since January, all public buses on former Mehadrin routes must post notices that everyone has the right to sit wherever they choose on these buses and that anyone who interferes with that right is subject to criminal prosecution. The Court noted that women could sit in any seat on these public buses, including the front section of the bus. However, our Yeshiva student doesn’t recognize the law of the land as applying to him and his colleagues.
When he boarded the bus he discovered that a woman was sitting in the front of the bus. He informed her that this was a “Mehadrin”bus and that she must move to the rear section of the bus which was reserved for women. The woman refused to move, so the Yeshiva student screamed at her, insulted her in front of all of the other passengers and continued to harass her verbally throughout the journey.

After the incident, the Yeshiva student apparently had some doubts about his behavior and requested a Halachic ruling from Rav Elyashiv. The student thought that perhaps he should ask for forgiveness from the female victim of his attack. No such luck! Rav Elyashiv responded by stating that he had heard the details of the incident and there was no need for an apology to the woman in question. Since the woman should have moved to the rear of the bus, the section which was designated for women, her refusal to do so was a violation of the arrangement on ‘Mehadrin”buses. Obviously Rav Elyashiv does not consider himself bound by Supreme Court decisions either. In the response published in the Kikar Hashabat newspaper, available online, Rav Elyashiv gave the source for his psak by quoting from the Gemara. He quoted the case of Shmuel who saw a woman dressed immodestly in the shuk. Shmuel tore the clothes of the woman off of her. From this story, according to Rav Elyashiv, we learn that a Jewish man can publicly humiliate a woman who violates Halacha.

So now you know how to treat uppity women according to Halacha. The publication of Rav Elyashiv’s psak is a clear message to Yeshiva students and Jewish men worldwide. While the case in question involved a woman sitting in the front of a bus, I have no doubt that Rav Elyashiv’s psak can be applied more broadly to women who do not conform to Haredi standards.
How about women sitting as civil court judges, especially the President of our Supreme Court?
Then there are those women who serve as MKs and Cabinet ministers. Obviously women who are CEO’s of banks and corporations as well as women officers in the IDF. What about female academicians and scientists? Why there’s no end to uppity women today in Israel. They are everywhere, practicing medicine and law, appearing on television as entertainers and as news broadcasters, writing articles in newspapers---the list is endless.

As to the example of Shmuel in the Gemara, one can only imagine the results of this message! During the hot Israeli summer, as well as the warm days of spring and fall, the streets and public places are full of women whose mode of dress does not conform to Haredi standards of modesty.

The question I have is, how are the Yeshiva boys going to find time to study torah if they have to deal with all of the uppity women? Perhaps Rav Elyashiv can issue a psak in response to this question in the near future.

Sharon Shenhav, J.D. is a Jerusalem based lawyer and Director of the International Jewish Women’s Rights Project of the International Council of Jewish Women

“GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM” SBS program on experiment retracing the steps some asylum seekers take to reach Australia.

2011-06-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

SBS reality program “GO BACK WHERE YOU COME FROM” is an experiment re Australians’ perception of asylum seekers.

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback

Over 3 nights, a reality-style program is shown of an experiment where 6 volunteers with preconceived ideas against asylum-seekers and refugees in Australia are exposed to the experiences of the actual refugees coming to Australia or waiting for resettlement in various parts of the world. Over 25 days, 3 females and 3 males, ranging in age from 21 to 61, spent a week living with Australian resettled former refugees from various countries. Then they were put on a (supposedly) leaky old boat out of Darwin where they had to experience what desperation would drive anyone to undertake such a journey. Afterwards they were flown to Malaysia and on the final part of their journey 3 were sent to Jordan and 3 to Kenya, as the first destinations of those fleeing their own countries.

Having seen the expressions on the faces of those inexperienced Aussies who were suddenly transported out of their comfort zones into these dangerous, ugly, crowded, dirty foreign environments into the lives of actual refugees was for me quite funny! They had had no idea what they were in for and no one could blame them for being absolutely freaked out with what they were confronted!

For us older Jews who had had refugee experiences ourselves, none of it was so strange, though nowadays we are thankfully too spoilt not to feel exactly the way these volunteers were feeling. The youngest girl was far too immature and spoilt to be able to feel anything for the refugees anywhere at first. She just seemed to hate everything about them and her part in it. The older women related very sympathetically, particularly befriending the children and feeling very sorry for them and their parents. One of the guys could not understand how anyone would put their women and children onto these dangerous boats, while the others said they would do so, just to get out of the hell-holes they would have found themselves in!

I look forward to the concluding segment and to see if all the volunteers changed their views. Personally, after 2000 years of wanderings and constant feelings of insecurity and history of displacement and expulsions, pogroms and eventually the tragedy of the annihilation attempt of our people in the Holocaust of WW2, thankfully we Jews now know we have one place on earth where we are welcome and from where we will never be turned away. This is why most Jews are and must remain staunch Zionists,- from near and far! The protection of Israel,our eternal spiritual Jewish homeland must be every Jew’s sacred duty and responsibility!

Most of us Jewish people have grown up with the need to remain forever vigilant against racism of any kind,- because anti-Semitism is part of it, if not as usual its first manifestation! For successive Australian Governments, it is a dilemma re what to do about the continuing stream of illegal boat-people arriving unexpectedly on our shores! These days of Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism of all kinds world-wide, they are making Australians very nervous and xenophobic. Governments lose elections, or win them by appearing strong against the flood of leaky boats coming across the oceans to Christmas Island, with many of these hapless people being lost at sea in the process of trying to reach the promised land of Australia. Chasing the people-smugglers on the one hand while on the other they are looked upon as saviours by the desperate,this is also very problematic.

Spreading these refugees out among the Pacific island nations sounds to me a better way of handling them, than just putting them behind bars on Australian shores. What is wrong with Howard’s Pacific solution, apart from it being Howard’s? From there they could apply officially to be accepted into Australia and resettled at a proper rate and probably many would be able to do so,- legally. Some may even choose to settle where they are.

It seems to me that the Australian public and the government acts with more alacrity and humanely to safeguard cattle than they do to help the human flotsam and jetsam that comes ashore in Australia as asylum seekers.
MM

ANTISEMITISM OR ANTI-ZIONISM?

2011-06-03T07:34:00.001-07:00

When does anti-Zionism become anti-Semitism:Address to NCJW
by Philip Mendes
Thursday June 2, 2011

The question as to whether Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are one and the same thing inevitably correlates with attitudes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Those who lean towards the "Greater Israel" end of the spectrum are more likely to answer yes, whilst those who favor the "Greater Palestine" solution are more likely to answer no. As a long-time supporter of Israel but also of two states for two peoples, I sit close to the middle of these two spectrums, and hence my response to the question is necessarily a complex one. That is yes and no.

Historically, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism were two separate ideologies. Anti-Semitism is a racist prejudice that exists independently of any objective reality. It is not about what Jews actually say or do, but rather about what anti-Semites falsely and malevolently attribute to them. As reflected in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it is a subjective stereotyping based on notions of collective Jewish guilt.

In contrast, anti-Zionism (particularly prior to the creation of the State of Israel) was based on a relatively objective assessment of the prospects of success for some Jews in Israel/Palestine. Opposition came from both Jews and the international Left.

However, in recent decades anti-Zionist fundamentalism and anti-Semitism have increasingly converged. Of course, left-wing attacks on Zionism and Israel incorporating anti-Jewish prejudice are different to the traditional anti-Semitism of the far Right. They constitute a form of political, rather than racial anti-Semitism. And most of their key proponents deny being anti-Semites. Nevertheless, this group arguably create an anti-Jewish discourse and the potential for an openly anti-Semitic movement by demonizing all Israeli Jews and all Jewish supporters of Israel as the political enemy.

Three Left positions on Zionism and Israel
Historically, the Australian Left has incorporated a wide spectrum of views on Zionism and Israel ranging from unequivocal support for Israel to even-handedness to hardline support for Palestinian positions. Today, there are arguably three principal Left positions on Zionism and Israel.
One perspective, which can broadly be called pro-Israel, is balanced in terms of favouring a two-state solution, and supporting moderates and condemning extremists and violence on both sides. This is a minority position, but is held by a number of centre-left leaders such as the current Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Julia Gillard and most of her key Ministers, the former British New Labour leader Tony Blair and other prominent New Labour figures, and the former German Greens leader and Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer. It is also supported by a number of social democratic members of parliament in western countries who have formed Friends of Israel groupings, and some social democratic intellectuals and trade union leaders.

Other supporters of this perspective include trade unionists around the world represented by the Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine (TULIP) group, country-specific trade union friends of Israel groups, Left Zionist groups aligned with the Israeli peace movement such as Meretz USA and Ameinu, and the Engage group in the UK which consists of Jewish and non-Jewish academics opposed to proposals for academic boycotts of Israel. In addition, there are a number of small radical pro-Israel groups including the Workers' Liberty group in the UK, and the heterogeneous group of German intellectuals involved in the Anti German Movement.

A second perspective endorses a two-state solution in principle, but in practice holds Israel principally or even solely responsible for the continuing violence and terror in the Middle East. This position, which probably represents the majority of the western Left, is held by many social democrats, Greens and trade unions, and also by some Jews represented in groups such as the Tikkun community in the USA and the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.

This perspective holds that an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the key prerequisite for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation. In general, adherents of this view recognize that not all Israelis are the same, and understand the difference between particular Israeli government policies and the Israeli people per se. Many favour alliances with Israeli Left and peace groups who hold similar viewpoints.
Some components of this second perspective may reasonably be characterized as unbalanced and naïve at best, and as failing to offer a corresponding critical analysis of contemporary and historical Palestinian actions and strategies which have acted as serious barriers to peace. Little reference is made, for example, to the Palestinian rejection of Israeli offers of statehood at Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001, the violence of the Second Intifada directed at mainly Israeli civilians, the 2005 election victory of the extremist fundamentalist group Hamas, and the universal Palestinian demand for the return of 1948 refugees and their descendants to Green Line Israel, rather than the Palestinian Territories. A number of advocates of this view refuse to tolerate viewpoints which defend any Israeli actions, or criticize any Palestinian deeds.

Nevertheless, the rights and wrongs of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories are legitimately subject to a robust international debate. This debate also takes place within the democratic structures of Israel itself. And many of the concerns about either the efficacy or morality of Israeli actions are shared by a significant minority of Israelis and Diaspora Jews.
The third Left perspective I have called anti-Zionist fundamentalism because it is akin to religious fundamentalism. This view, which is held mainly but no longer exclusively by far Left groups, regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist. Adherents hold to a viewpoint opposing Israel's existence specifically and Jewish national rights more broadly which is beyond rational debate, and unconnected to contemporary or historical reality. Suicide bombings and other forms of violence directed specifically against Israeli civilians are viewed as legitimate strategies for eliminating the Jewish state.

This form of anti-Zionism is substantively different to the earlier pre-1948 Left tradition of anti-Zionism. That tradition opposed Zionism as a political movement on theoretical grounds. In contrast, anti-Zionist fundamentalists today wish to eliminate the actual existing nation state of Israel. Israelis and their Jewish supporters are depicted as inherently evil oppressors by the simple process of denying the historical link between the Jewish experience of oppression in both Europe and the Middle East and the creation of Israel. Conversely, Palestinians are depicted as intrinsically innocent victims. In place of the fundamental and objective centrality of the State of Israel to contemporary Jewish identity, anti-Zionist fundamentalists portray Israel as a mere political construct, and utilize ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis and all Jewish supporters of Israel whatever their political views in order to justify their claims.
The purpose of negating the reality of Israel's existence is to overcome the ideological barrier posed by the Left's historical opposition to racism. Any objective analysis of the Middle East would have to accept that Israel could only be destroyed by a war of partial or total genocide which would inevitably produce millions of Israeli Jewish refugees, and have a catastrophically traumatic effect on almost all Jews outside Israel. But advocacy of genocide means endorsing the most virulent form of racism imaginable. So instead anti-Zionist fundamentalists construct a subjective fantasy world in which Israel is detached from its specifically Jewish roots, and then miraculously destroyed by remote control free of any violence or bloodshed under the banner of anti-racism.

Anti-Zionism converges into Anti-Semitism
This fundamentalist discourse is reflected in a number of manifestations of contemporary anti-Zionist rhetoric.
Firstly, there is a pathological and obsessive hatred and demonization of Israel unrelated to the actual actions and reality of that State. These include claims that Israel is the world's worst human rights abuser, or that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. For these critics, Israel becomes a uniquely evil symbol of international imperialism.

Some of this critique seems to be based on the discriminatory notion that because Jews experienced the Holocaust, they have a moral obligation to behave better than any other people. Yet no such obligation is imposed on other historically oppressed groups. Conversely, examples of Palestinian extremism such as suicide bombings and calls for the military elimination of Israel are either denied, or alternatively approved as a rational response to Israeli policies.

Secondly, there are proposals for academic and other boycotts of Israel based on the ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis. The aim of such caricatures is to impose pariah status on the whole Israeli nation. These proposals single out Israelis in that no such boycotts are proposed against other countries or nations involved in territorial expansion or human rights abuses. These campaigns have resulted in a number of examples of discrimination against Israeli scholars and researchers in British academic institutions.

Thirdly, there is the extension of the denunciation of all Jewish Israelis to all Jews - Zionist or otherwise - who are supportive of Israel's existence. These Jews are collectively denounced via group libel as accomplices of racism and genocide whatever their actual ideological and political position on solutions to the conflict.
For example, John Docker, one of the key Australian proponents of an academic boycott of Israel, has attacked all Jews who support Israel.

According to Docker,
The Australian Jewish community lies in moral ruins. Australian Jewish leaders and intellectuals have disgraced themselves, have engaged in written and verbal abuse, misrepresentation, insult and slander, and have lost their honour and dignity due to their implicit support...for the past and continuing genocidal assault on the indigenous peoples of Palestine.
Another Australian academic Ned Curthoys argues that left-wing Jews who defend Israel's right to exist should effectively be excluded from progressive political discourse. A Canadian academic Michael Neumann is even harsher, accusing Jews of "complicity in Israeli crimes against humanity" no different to the complicity of Germans in Nazi war crimes. And Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), has declared that Jews who support Israel are not welcome in South Africa, and should be coerced to leave. He also called on COSATU's members to boycott Jewish-owned businesses.
This collective labelling of all Jewish supporters of Israel as evil inspired a number of UK student unions in the 1970s and 80s to disaffiliate Jewish student societies on the prejudiced grounds that they were Zionist and hence allegedly racist. Similarly, the 2001 United Nations anti-racist conference in Durban was blighted by a hysterical anti-Semitic campaign involving the public vilification, intimidation and harassment of Jews by numerous non-governmental organisations.

And small sections of the German new Left translated their anti-Zionist beliefs into action via violent attacks on Jews. One example was the November 1969 bombing of the Jewish Community Centre in West Berlin during a Kristallnacht commemoration ceremony. The second example was the participation of two West German revolutionaries in the 1976 Entebbe terrorist attack on an Air France plane flying from Tel Aviv to Paris which involved the segregation of the Jews (not just Israelis) from all the other passengers to keep them as hostages.

Fourthly, there are stereotypical descriptions of Jewish behaviour, and attacks on alleged Jewish global power, wealth and influence. Conspiracy theorists accuse Jews of controlling western governments, finance and the media; planning the 9/11 attacks; and responsibility for the US-led war in Iraq.

For example, during the Australian controversy over the awarding of the Sydney University peace prize to Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi, a number of commentators accused the Jewish community of exerting undue financial and political influence. In the UK, the prominent weekly magazine New Statesman published in January 2002 a front cover depicting a golden star of David piercing a union flag. The cover and an accompanying article titled "a kosher conspiracy" implied that a rich and powerful Jewish lobby was unduly influencing media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian issues. And Perry Anderson, the editor of New Left Review, claimed that powerful Jews used their disproportionate influence in business, media and government to control American policies towards Israel.

Finally, deliberate attempts are made to diminish and trivialize the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis. For example, numerous critics have equated the Star of David with the swastika, former Prime Minister Sharon with Hitler, claimed that the Israeli army is the equivalent of the Nazi SS, and argued that the 2009 Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip was reminiscent of the Nazi assault on the Warsaw Ghetto. These analogies do not appear to be used in regards to any other international conflicts, and seem to be motivated solely by a desire to offend and hurt Jews.

According to Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland:
If anti-Zionists wonder why Jews find this anti-Semitic, perhaps they should imagine the Black reaction if the civil rights movement - or any other vehicle of Black liberation - was constantly equated with the white slave traders of old. It feels like a deliberate attempt to find a people's rawest spot - and tear away at it. To put it at its most basic: Jews are being compared with those who murdered our families.
The UK-based Australian journalist John Pilger has regularly used this analogy, arguing, for example, that an Israeli attack on Gaza constitutes a "final solution to the problem of the Palestinians" similar to the "Nazi strangulation of the Warsaw ghetto". In a further article published in 2009, he included eight separate equations of Israel's actions in Gaza with the Nazi Holocaust.

Recent Developments
The convergence of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was particularly apparent during the recent debate over the attempted introduction of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) policy by Marrickville Council. Three particular developments are worth noting:

BDS proponents are dishonest
Firstly, many key anti-Zionist fundamentalists disingenuously deny being anti-Israel, and in some cases, even claim to be pro-peace.
For example, Marrickville Council mayor Fiona Byrne, denied in The Drum 13 January that her BDS proposal was an anti-Israel resolution, or in any way implied support for the abolition of Israel.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42988.html

Elsewhere, she claimed to support a peaceful solution, two states or otherwise. Which means she is not sure whether she supports a peaceful two-state solution, or a genocidal war to destroy Israel.
Lee Rhiannon, the national Greens Senator, also denied on Sky News on 14 April that the BDS campaign was anti-Israel.
Similarly, Mommar Mashni, a representative of the Australians for Palestine lobby group, stated in The Australian on both 16 and 19 April, that the BDS campaign was a peaceful movement dedicated to a two-state solution.
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, a self-described peace researcher and Director of the University of Sydney Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, opined in crikey.com that a BDS would be more successful than the various failed international peace initiatives in promoting a viable two-state solution.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/07/chewing-up-the-greens-the-israel-boycott-backlash/
And Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees from the University of Sydney also asserted that the BDS would be successful in ending decades of Israeli-Palestinian violence.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/boycott-israel-and-do-without-a-host-of-mod-cons/story-fn558imw-1226032253771

The problem with this analysis is that the leading Palestinian proponents of BDS do not seek an end to the occupation to facilitate a peaceful two-state solution, but rather the demonization of all Israeli Jews and the delegitimization of Israel. The key statement distributed by the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in July 2004 is crystal clear that the first and foremost priority is to reverse the events of 1948 that lead to the Palestinian refugee tragedy, whereas ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 is only identified as a secondary task.

http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=869
A recent clarification by Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the global BDS movement in New Matilda 2 May 2011, is even blunter. He claims that the BDS movement has no position on a one or two-state solution. It neither formally supports the existence of Israel, or formally supports its destruction by military or demographic means. But he then admits that his own position favours the abolition of Israel and its replacement by an Arab State of Greater Palestine. For Barghouti, the national rights of the Palestinians take absolute precedence over the rights of what he calls euphemistically the "other inhabitants of the land". So much for the two-state solution.

BDS proponents malevolently exploit the willingness of self-denying Jews to vilify their own people
The BDS campaign has tapped into the long history of radical Left anti-Semitism whereby a small number of unrepresentative token Jews (some would call them "Uncle Toms" but I prefer the term "self-denying" Jews since they deny any feeling of solidarity with other Jews who are oppressed or attacked) are opportunistically encouraged to exploit their own religious and cultural origins in order to vilify their own people. This happened in 1929 when American Jewish Communists were obliged to defend the anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine. It happened again in 1952/53 when Jewish Communists were rolled out to endorse Stalin's anti-Semitic Slansky show trial and Doctors Plot. It has happened many times since 1967 when left-wing Jews are pressured to publicly conform to the anti-Zionist fundamentalism of the far Left.
The radical Left would never employ such techniques against other historically oppressed groups. They would not publish the views of Indigenous Australians who completely oppose land rights, or demand that a feminist journal publish the views of women who totally oppose abortion. They would certainly not publicize the views of Palestinians or Arabs who support Zionism.
But during the BDS debate this offensive and ridiculous misrepresentation of Jewish views was prominent. For example, Lee Rhiannon claimed that "many Jewish communities support this work". In fact, no Jewish communities support the BDS. Rhiannon was referring to a handful of Jewish individuals and tiny Jewish organizations on the far Left. The Jewish community group in Marrickville, the Inner West Jewish Community and Friends Peace Alliance which is left-oriented and strongly supportive of a two-state solution, devoted considerable time and resources to opposing the Marrickville BDS proposal.

Similarly, Fiona Byrne proudly cited support from the NSW Jews against the Occupation group which has about 10 members, and also claimed support from "a growing number of Jews from all over the world". Stuart Rees argued on 2 April that the BDS campaign was encouraged by "many Israeli citizens" (maybe a dozen), and Samah Sabawi argued on the Australians for Palestine website that the BDS campaign has been supported by "a growing number of Diaspora Jews and Israelis".

In fact, the only prominent Jewish supporter of BDS is Antony Loewenstein, the same self-denying Jew who uses the term "Zionist" as a form of abuse, and who has called for a public inquiry into the alleged power and influence of the Jewish lobby in Australia.

The increasing capture of academic and media journals and institutions by the powerful pro-Palestinian lobby
This lobby now controls the Middle East policy of journals such as Overland, Arena, New Matilda (better known as New Palestine) and Crikey.Com, the Sydney University Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the NSW Greens, and a number of trade unions such as the NSW Teachers Federation which support BDS.
These organizations fanatically exclude alternative left-wing Jewish views defending Israel's existence. Most of them have their own self-denying "Court" Jews that toe the party line. Overland use Michael Brull and Antony Loewenstein, Arena use Les Rosenblatt, CPACS use Loewenstein and John Docker, and New Matilda and Crikey.Com both use Loewenstein.

________________________________________
Thank you Philip Mendes for a most lucid analysis to the National Quadrennial Conference of NCJWA in Melbourne this week. My sole consolation re the fundamentalist Far Left is that probably a greater number of fundamentalists of the Far R, for various reasons of their own, prefer the Jewish State to the Islamic ones. In addition, the number of ordinary citizens in the middle who are not high-profile, perhaps the silent majority, are no friends of the Arab States and are inimical to Islamic Sharia laws in those countries,- whether they like Jews or not. In addition,- another thing in favour of the Jewish State is that no Australians or Americans need to go and fight there, nor get killed to protect the Jews as they supposedly are trying to do the Moslems in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Lybia. The do-gooders of the Left who try to help the Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the WBank, supposedly on humanitarian grounds,- these are the true anti-Semites or the Arabs" and Palestinians" "useful idiots" from the naive West!
Posted by MM on 2011-06-03 14:21:56 GMT

MYTHS AND FACTS: The 'Nakba'

2011-05-16T07:15:00.000-07:00

Had There Been No War, There Would Be No Nakba

May 15, 2011 |
Eli E. Hertz

Starting a civil war in 1947 after the Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan, Palestinian Arabs became belligerents in the conflict. Rather than accept a Jewish state after five-and-a-half months of warfare, Palestinian Arabs called upon their brethren from seven surrounding countries to invade and crush the nascent Jewish state.
The Arab League's April 10, 1948 decision to invade on May 14 to "save Palestine,"as the British Mandate ended, marked a watershed event, for it changed the rules of the conflict. Accordingly, Israel bears no moral responsibility for deliberately banishing Palestinian Arabs in order to "consolidate defense arrangements" in strategic areas, as the Jewish people organized to battle seven well-equipped and well-trained aggressor armies. With the pending invasion following Israel' s declaration of independence, it is no exaggeration to say the new Jewish state's very existence hung in the balance.
The new Jewish state found it imperative to eliminate all potential pockets of Arab resistance in key areas if it was to survive. Dislodging all Arab inhabitants from sensitive areas in proximity to Jewish settlements, establishing territorial continuity between blocs under Jewish control, and ensuring control of key transportation arteries were a military necessity. As May 14 approached, Israel could not afford to risk a Fifth Column at its rear to add to all other aspects of its militarily inferior situation. The cost of defeat was hammered home by a stream of dire warnings from Arab capitals, with perhaps the most chilling for Israel coming from Jamal Al-Husayni as vice-chairman of the Arab Higher Committee [AHC], who publicly declared:
"The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the Final Solution of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."
Three years after world Jewry had lost a third of its people in the Holocaust, Israelis were not about to test whether Al-Husayni's words were merely rhetoric or a real threat, and so they prepared for the worst.
The cost to Israel to halt the Arab onslaught and gain the upper hand was horrendous. During the first four weeks following the Arab invasion, 1,600 Israelis were killed - a quarter of all the war's casualties. It was as if on a per capita basis the U.S. military lost 80,000 soldiers in Iraq in one month.
Objectively, the claim that Palestinian Arabs were innocent bystanders ignores the facts: The sides in the conflict were not two rival empires - outsiders, or rival caliphs. It was a conflict between two national or ethnic groups. Palestinian Arabs represented one side in the conflict - and in fact the side responsible for starting the war.
The Palestinians were responsible for escalating the war - a move that cost the Jews thousands of lives and Palestinians their homes. By their own behavior, Palestinians assumed the role of belligerents in the conflict, invalidating any claim to be hapless victims. Explains scholar Benny Morris:
"One of the characteristics of the Palestinian national movement has been the Palestinians' view of themselves as perpetual victims of others: Ottoman Turks, British officials, Zionists, Americans - and never to appreciate that they are, at least in large part, victims of their own mistakes and iniquities."
The United Nations Charter, international law, humanitarian law, and conventions such as the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Victims of War make no mention of a "Right of Return." The claim of innocent refugee status does not apply.

To view this article on the web.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=204
See also: Resolution 194: The Aftermath of the 1948 Arab Invasion.

________________________________________
N.B.1948 was the year when Chinese Communists won over the nationalists. 1948 was the year India won its independence from the British and Partition took place between it and Pakistan, Bangladesh,- much went on at that time,- why is the world only worried about the Palestinians’ ’48 Nakba? There are plenty of other tensions in Asia still going on,- conflicts over borders, ethnic divisions and violence, etc. More Muslims are killing each other over there than anyone else is killing them.
Much of it is the British Empire’s fault in the first place.
The Palestinians have only themselves to blame,- had they not allowed themselves to be the Arab Nations’ pawns after ’48 and instead reached an accommodation with the 'infidels', the Jews, they would be living and laughing today in peaceful coexistence in a modern, democratic-style state alongside Israel.
Now they want to destroy it,- but they won’t,- they will just destroy themselves even more.
Who can trust such people with such inbred hatreds nowadays?
MM
________________________________________

THE SUN'S EFFECTS ON EARTH'S CLIMATE, WEATHER, GLOBAL WARMING

2011-03-27T05:28:00.000-07:00

Looking down on earth from above!
How does the sun affet us directly on earth?

Recent lectures on board the Queen Elizabeth liner cruising from Australia to Asian ports on its maiden world voyage,were excellently delivered by Prof. Richard Holdaway,Director of Space Science and Technology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories,- who explained how space technology via exploratory space crafts and satellites is increasing our knowledge and clarifying much of nature's changes on our earth.

Hundreds of outer space probes have been launched to far away planets and galaxies to the extent that what was once science fiction is now much more in the realms of fact.The instruments which transmit back to earth the information is mind boggling in their complexity and for the detailed information transmitted.

In the 3rd of his 3 lectures he concentrated on the issue of our weather forecasting and aspects of "climate change and global warming,- fact or fiction?"

Infra red technology transmits visually the various heat levels in the oceans and on land. He projected pictures of the warm Pacific ocean showing in red the El Ninio effect for example;plus the same effect as seen on pictures of 500sq. miles of denuded jungle forests (illegally in one month) in the Amazon region of S. America which can have a much more devastating effect on climate change if we denude our forests of trees, than anything else that humans do in industrialized developed countries.

(N.B. We must be aware that we and all living creatures breathe in Oxygen and we breathe out the end product of our metabolic cycles,-as CO2. Photosynthesis in plant life does the reverse,- they use the CO2 and release O2. Population increases require more animal husbandry for food and land clearing for living space and timber for housing.)

The effect of Sulphur dioxide fumes from the volcanic eruptions as e.g. from Mt. Pinantbo of one week which spread over 20 months all over Europe is far more deadly than anything we can do.

The "Ozone hole" expands and contracts with the seasons,- largest over the Antartic where no human involvement occurs, but not worse since the last 200years.

Solar storms are the most important to look out for as they affect our earth the most.(Wikipedia records the effects of the 1859 Solar Storm as recorded at the time). These magnetic effects are seen as aurorae and are deflections of immense solar radiant energy by earth's magnetic field. However they can affect our satellites rotating in outer space through their instruments being flooded by high energy photons, which then affect almost every aspect of our high-tech controlled lives on earth these days. Therefore there is now a stationary satellite (ACE),-one million miles above the earth, magnetically balanced between the earth and the sun so that it does not rotate around the earth as the others do,- which can alert within 10secs. whenever such a solar explosion occurs, allowing monitors to switch-off sensitive instruments in satellites and space crafts before they can affect our e.g. electricity grid, (as happened in Canada in the '90s), telecommunications, etc.

As for CLIMATE CHANGE, Professor Holdaway was adamnant that human-produced CO2 is not the main greenhouse effect causing global warming at present, but it is the water vapour which does that! And humans have no control over it!
While governments and politicians look to raise revenues through taxes,- the real facts are:
1. CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES,- IT HAS BEEN DOING IT OVE MILLIONS OF YEARS.
2. EARTH HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER IN THE PAST.
3. There are 3 causes for global warming and though humans are adding to it, we are just the third part.

a)Solar activity.- We are also getting nearer to the sun until in 5million years we shall disappear altogether!
b)Nature,- e.g. volcanoes;oil fields burn-off; deforestation; ocean evaporation,
c) Human activity.

500 years ago we were much warmer,- there were no cars and factories spewing out CO2.Actually, volcanoes can sometimes cool as well as warm,- i.e. it is not just about us and we must beware the great 'CO2 myth'! At the moment we are in a period of global warming, but it is not just about us. We humans are just part of the equation.

The polar ice is not getting thinner. (He showed a funny cartoon about 2 penguins,- one falls into a hole in the water, the other is quite ok). The temperature on earth is primarily determined by the energy coming to earth via solar radiation and energy leaving the earth through infra-red radiation

Queen Elizabeth maiden world cruise: Syd.-Singapore sector

2011-03-26T20:08:00.000-07:00

Celebrating Ernie's 80th birthday on board the newest Cunard liner QUEEN ELIZABETH was a wonderful experience.
The liner is state-of-the-art latest design luxury cruise liner with some 2000 passengers and nearly as many crew members on board.
The service was 5star, the food was on average 4star quality, the amenities and entertainment 5.5star quality.

An unbelievable number of passengers were on board for the full 105day journey and not for the first time! Most were returning passengers who must be travelling on Cunard world voyages year after year, accumulating points to give them many advantages in cost and special privileges on board.

For those of us with European backgrounds and Aussie egalatirian larrikin bents,the upper-crust English pomp and circumstance is perhaps not as appealing as some of the other cruise liners can provide, but it was nevertheless a very enjoyable and interesting holiday comparable with any 5star resort such as a Club Med, say!

The interesting aspects were the various lecturers on board, classes, theater productions, star entertainers,films and the fantistically well equipped 2 level library!Most lecturers were retired VIPs like politician former FM Alexander Downer (before we boarded, but his lecture was still shown on the internal TV station when we arrived on board)who examined the international political scene as it affects our part of the world in Australia; General (Ret.) Peter Cosgrove who spoke about his experiences leading the Australian army through its various crises; a retired geographer who was the "destinations lecturer"; and the lecturer whom I found themost interesting,- Professor Richard Holdaway, Director (not retired!)Space Science and Technology, RUTHERFORD APPLETON LABORATORIES (see separate blog).

Classes consisted of computer technologies, bridge lessons for beginers andintermediates and various dancing, plus arts and craft lessons. There was certainly something for everyone on every day that we were atsea! Luckily, we had quite a few days on the oceans sailing from Australia to the Asian ports and luckily the seas were kind to us and very calm to keep the ship steady and on course! We avoided the aftermath of the disastrous tsunami after the earthquakes in Japan and except for one day on Ko Samui island, Thailand, we had no bad wether anywhere.

IN CONCLUSION.
The one drawback for large liner cruising is the fact that shore-visits and sightseeing are often too limited. These large liners often cannot berth near the centre of the cities because the ports are not big enough to hold them. They end up being moored at container terminals or anchored far out in the bay and passengers are ferried by tenders to shore. This all takes time, so the sightseeing possibilities are of necessity limited. Therefore cruising is not for the serious sightseer of the various countries or cities where they happen to stop! The attraction has to be the cruise and the ship as a holiday destination per se.
See my web album 1:
Miriam's Topical Topics.: Queen Elizabeth maiden world cruise: Syd.-Singapore sector
View Album2.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=108084405371853566621&target=ALBUM&id=5587852240888193617&authkey=Gv1sRgCL6Pp5WGl_vv7wE&feat=email

GENES AND LONGEVITY.

2011-02-18T05:15:00.000-08:00

Ecuadorean Villagers May Hold Secret to Longevity

[There are some practitioners who believe in injecting patients with Growth Hormone as a preventive of the diseases of the aged and therefore they believe it promotes longevity!The observations described below and the study of a particular group of villagers in Ecuador with stunted growth, may show that in fact it is not the Growth Hormone but it is a genetic defect which prevents the GH from acting which may have such beneficial effects as preventing cancer and diabetes in these people. Their condition is known as the Laron-syndrome and they are presumed to be descendants of Conversos,- Sephardic Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition.]MM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17longevity.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

February 16, 2011
Ecuadorean Villagers May Hold Secret to Longevity
By NICHOLAS WADE

People living in remote villages in Ecuador have a mutation that some biologists say may throw light on human longevity and ways to increase it.

The villagers are very small, generally less than three and a half feet tall, and have a rare condition known as Laron syndrome or Laron-type dwarfism. They are probably the descendants of conversos, Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal who were forced to convert to Christianity in the 1490s but were nonetheless persecuted in the Inquisition. They are also almost completely free of two age-related diseases, cancer and diabetes.
A group of 99 villagers with Laron syndrome has been studied for 24 years by Dr. Jaime Guevara-Aguirre, an Ecuadorean physician and diabetes specialist. He discovered them when traveling on horseback to a roadless mountain village. Most such villages are inhabited by Indians, but these were Europeans, with Spanish surnames typical of conversos.
As Dr. Guevara-Aguirre accumulated health data on his patients, he noticed a remarkable pattern: though cancer was frequent among people who did not have the Laron mutation, those who did have it almost never got cancer. And they never developed diabetes, even though many were obese, which often brings on the condition.
“I discovered the population in 1987,” Dr. Guevara-Aguirre said in an interview from Ecuador. “In 1994, I noticed these patients were not having cancer, compared with their relatives. People told me they are too few people to make any assumption. People said, ‘You have to wait 10 years,’ so I waited. No one believed me until I got to Valter Longo in 2005.”
Valter D. Longo, a researcher on aging at the University of Southern California, saw the patients as providing an opportunity to explore in people the genetic mutations that researchers had found could make laboratory animals live much longer than usual.
The Laron patients have a mutation in the gene that makes the receptor for growth hormone. The receptor is a protein embedded in the membrane of cells. Its outside region is recognized by growth hormone circulating through the body; the inside region sends signals through the cell when growth hormone triggers the receptor.
The Laron patients’ mutation means that their growth hormone receptor lacks the last eight units of its exterior region, so it cannot react to growth hormone. In normal children, growth hormone makes the cells of the liver churn out another hormone, called insulinlike growth factor, or IGF-1, and this hormone makes the children grow. If the Laron patients are given doses of IGF-1 before puberty, they can grow to fairly normal height.
This is where the physiology of the Laron patients links up with the longevity studies that researchers have been pursuing with laboratory animals. IGF-1 is part of an ancient signaling pathway that exists in the laboratory roundworm as well as in people. The gene that makes the receptor for IGF-1 in the roundworm is called DAF-2. And worms in which this gene is knocked out live twice as long as normal.
The Laron patients have the equivalent defect — their cells make very little IGF-1, so very little IGF-1 signaling takes place, just as in the DAF-2-ablated worms. So the Laron patients might be expected to live much longer.
Because of their striking freedom from cancer and diabetes, they probably could live much longer if they did not have a much higher than usual death rate from causes unrelated to age, like alcoholism and accidents.
Dr. Longo said he believed that having very low levels of IGF-1 was the critical feature of the Laron patients’ freedom from age-related diseases. In collaboration with Dr. Guevara-Aguirre, he exposed human cells growing in a laboratory dish to serum from the Laron patients. The cells were then damaged with a chemical that disrupts their DNA. The Laron serum had two significant effects, the two physicians reported on Wednesday in Science Translational Medicine.
First, the serum protected the cells from genetic damage. Second, it spurred the cells that were damaged to destroy themselves, a mechanism the body uses to prevent damaged cells from becoming cancerous. Both these effects were reversed when small amounts of IGF-1 were added to the serum.
Dr. Longo said that some level of IGF-1 was necessary to protect against heart disease, but that lowering the level might be beneficial. A drug that does this is already on the market for treatment of acromegaly, a thickening of the bones caused by excessive growth hormone. “Our underlying hypothesis is that this drug would prolong life span,” Dr. Longo said. He said he was not taking the drug, called pegvisomant or Somavert, which is very hard to obtain.
A strain of mice bred by John Kopchick of Ohio University has a defect in the growth hormone receptor gene, just as do the Laron patients, and lives 40 percent longer than usual.
Dr. Longo said that his report had first been submitted to Science, a better-known journal, which turned down the paper because of an adverse report from one reviewer.
Andrzej Bartke, a gerontology expert at Southern Illinois University, said that the new result was “very important” and that the authors had done a fine job in following the patients and generating high-quality data. “This fits in with what we are learning from studies in animals about the relationship of growth hormone to aging, because both cancer and diabetes are related to aging,” Dr. Bartke said.
The longest-lived mouse on record is one studied by Dr. Bartke. It had a defect in its growth hormone receptor gene, just as do the Laron patients. “It missed its fifth birthday by a week,” he said. The mouse lived twice as long as usual and won Dr. Bartke a prize presented by the Methuselah Foundation (which rewards developments in life-extension therapies) in 2003.
Dr. Guevara-Aguirre said he had been struggling to get sufficient IGF-1 to treat 30 of his patients before they reached puberty, at which point it will be too late. He said his group of Laron patients, the largest in the world, had provided essential data for drug companies making IGF-1, and he chided the companies for not reciprocating by providing the drug for his patients.
Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Florida who has worked with Dr. Guevara-Aguirre, took a similar position. “Considering that the drug companies needed the initial studies to determine dosage and efficacy, it seems ironic that we should have so much difficulty getting the drug,” he said.
Ownership of the drug has passed through several companies’ hands, so any initial obligation may have been weakened. Dr. Guevara-Aguirre also said he believed that the government of Ecuador should do more to help get the drug for his patients.
Dr. Harry Ostrer, a geneticist at New York University who is exploring the Laron patients’ degree of Sephardic ancestry, said that he had seen several of Dr. Guevara-Aguirre’s patients in Quito, Ecuador’s capital, and that they were “remarkably youthful in appearance.”

The Age of Feminism. Marriage and Family: how to make it work

2011-01-31T05:47:00.000-08:00

Misguided feminism is not good for marriage.

We recently celebrated our wedding anniversary which falls on "Australia Day".
Our newly married young niece asked me in wonder: how is it to be married for all this time? We won't get there,- we marry later in life these days.

That is true,- but is that the only reason?

Most of our friends (at least those who have survived), are still married to their original partners after half a century and more of marriage. In one case, after 66 years,- they were teenagers when they tied the knot!How many marriages last past the first 20 years, let alone longer these days?

We then had a heated discussion among us 'oldies',- who was better off,- those of us who did not expect our husbands to do all the things that modern young men do for their babies and families,- or today's families which seem to break up at an alarming rate?

The "LIFE" supplement of this week's Sunday Age had an article about "the marriage mystique" which described a new book by a writer who claimed that feminism is good for marriage. She asked, "who would want to go back to the old-style marriages",- i.e. where the women knew their place,- in the home and nothing else? She stated that feminism is good for marriage because it is based on equality and shared responsibilities.

I wrote in reply:
There is no “marriage mystique” (THE AGE,Sunday Life, 30/1/11). The institution of marriage,- good, bad and indifferent has been around forever.
I was a ‘women’s libber’ as a youthful wife, then a young working mother, a feminist activist and leader. Looking at the younger generation of married couples today, I can foresee whose marriages will last the distance of my generation and whose will not.
It is not about feminism but about the ‘me’ generation. It is about self-centredness not feminism on some young women’s part on the one hand, while on the other their young men are attempting to fulfil the ‘new-age’ man’s expectations as father and partner while pursuing full-time occupations to the level of exhaustion.
True feminism dictates that marriage should be about a relationship-based union between equals who work out how to manage their life together, not only about who has to help whom and do what when.
Home and family is our most important of institutions and it should not fail us,- for the sake of the welfare of our future generations. It has to be managed to the best advantage for all within it. If only the Government would recognise it like any business, then the working marriage-partners could manage to employ home help and enjoy best-practice family relationships,- with the required help as a tax deductible entity. Then the parents could give to each other and to their children quality time, even if not always quantity time,- without the guilt complex.

What I now see among my peer group who like me, are celebrating half a century and more of happy life partnerships, is that some are exhausted caring for the grandkids while their kids are exhausted and stressed parents,- who sadly, too often seem eventually to just walk away from their family responsibilities,- to obtain a bit of ‘freedom before it’s too late’ they say!

I call many of today’s young-marrieds not bad people, just bad managers of their family lives! The government could do more for the institution of “home and family” to help them out,- not only build more day-care centres but more assistance for ‘helpers in the home’ to ease the stress on everyone,- young and old.

How did we manage then?
Firstly, when new babies entered the family, we did not wake up our husbands to feed them because they needed to get up early to go to work.We who stayed home in the early days with a new baby,organized ourselves to take a nap during the day.
(Some grandmothers I knew even paid for a mothercraft nurse for a few weeks to help their daughters with their first babies!)

Eventually, I found part time work and employed a baby-sitter for a few hours,- more to give myself a break from domesticity than for the money, as there was none left over for me.

Later, I returned to my career and could earn enough for better home help. This person was my housekeeper,- not just a baby-sitter. She cleaned the house, picked up the children from the nearby school, fed them so that by the time we came home from work, my husband and I could spend some quality time with the children before putting them to bed. I always prepared our food the night before so that my housekeeper could put it in the oven if necessary and have it ready for us when we got home.She came in the afternoons for a few hours 2-3 times a week, other times we had rosters with friends and sometimes my mother.

My mother and father were our back-up helpers,- they were the grandkids' spoilers!
They could assist us a little financially when we were in trouble,- as most young people can be,- but I never expected them to take over the responsibilities I see grandparents taking on nowadays.

Eventually, I had to retire from full-time work as it became too demanding in my profession and I felt young teenagers needed parents more to supervise their activities.When they were old enough to be independent, then I undertook a full-time workload again,- in another field.

Throughout,my husband like most of his contemporaries was a terrific father and companion for his growing children. Both of us understood the limits of our ability to manage our work-life responsibilities and paid for whatever home-help we needed to ease our burden in the home.

What I always resented was the fact that none of the expenses incurred in making our home and family life more bearable, were included as tax-deductable items from my income. Only when I was a full-time "housekeeper", could the man-of-the-house deduct something from his income. This is the anomaly which was never corrected. The home-help was paid in cash which she never had to declare,- so much so that eventually she could afford investment properties,- while most of my salary went to her.

Did I want to be a "housewife"? No,- I was trained to be more than that and I wanted to use my qualifications as far as I could,- but eventually I had to give up because to me, my family's welfare came first. It was my decision,- nobody forced me to do anything,- it was my choice when I did what, for whom and how.

53 years on, we are still together and I am grateful to be spared to still enjoy our life together.But we still pursue individual interests,- "we married for better or worse, but never for lunch"! My advice to most young people,_ it's a 50:50 chance in the choice for a partner,- 50% in the person and 50% in the training,- of each other!

MM

NCJWA has done it again! OAM recipients 2011.

2011-01-25T15:02:00.000-08:00

Digital ecard customized with Smilebox

After more than 8 decades of service to the Australian community for women and all faith groups, the Honours Secretariat recognises our hard working members' contributions to society!
MM

JEWISH WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS: International Newsletter

2011-01-16T03:22:00.000-08:00

INTERNATIONAL JEWISH WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
NEWSLETTER NO. 1, 1998

Has anything changed since then?

Welcome to the first newsletter of the International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch. In the last decade, there has been increased awareness of human rights violations in every country. Evidence shows that women, particularly, have been denied their basic human rights. Often, the denial of women’s human rights is based on religious law. The declaration that “ women’s rights are human rights” which was made so eloquently at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, should now include the recognition that Jewish women’s rights are human rights. As has been well documented, Jewish women are discriminated against in marriage and divorce under Jewish law. While ancient Jewish Law was designed to protect and support Jewish women, today that same law is being used as a tool to deny her rights to equality in marriage, divorce and the founding of a family. The Jewish community readily admits that the shameful situation of the agunah, a woman chained to an unwanted or non-existent marriage who cannot be released without her husband’s consent, is unjust. It is common knowledge that some Jewish husbands withhold their consent to a religious divorce or get, in order to extort exorbitant sums of money from their wives as the “price” for the get. Nonetheless, the Jewish community, despite a high level of educational attainment, financial success, organizational skills and traditional commitment to social justice, has been unable or unwilling to find solutions to the painful problem of the agunah.

The International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch intends to document the human rights violations of women in Jewish communities all over the world. Thanks to the vision and generosity of the International Council of Jewish Women, we will be establishing a central data base which will include cases of women who have been denied the right to marry and to found a family from every Jewish community. In this first newsletter you will become acquainted with the anguish of Jewish women in the US. England and Israel. These are actual cases with names changed to protect the privacy of the women. Each story cries out for action. Each case is a violation of a Jewish woman’s human rights. As the nations of the world celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the ratifying of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch intends to gather information, research and publicize the infringement of Jewish women’s rights. It is our hope that our efforts will bring about the necessary changes that will eliminate such human rights violations in the Jewish community. The time has come for all Jews to act on the biblical injunction:”JUSTICE, JUSTICE YOU SHALL PURSUE”.

AN ENGLISH WOMAN WAITS 20 YEARS FOR FREEDOM

In 1956, at the age of eighteen, Deborah married Michael in London. From the beginning, it was clear that they came from different backgrounds. Deborah was raised as a traditional Jew, observing mitzvoth while Michael came from a totally non religious family. Born in Holland, he had never had a Bar Mitzvah. In fact, Deborah’s father strongly recommended that Michael study Judaism for a year before the wedding. Michael accepted the suggestion.

The marriage had many problems, but Deborah kept the family intact for the sake of their three children. Finally, in 1975, she could no longer tolerate the suffering, and asked for a divorce. The couple obtained a civil divorce in December, 1975.

However, when Deborah and Michael appeared in the London Bet Din for the get, Michael behaved in a most bizarre manner. He appeared to be severely emotionally disturbed. After the third hearing in the Bet Din, one of the religious court judges known as a “dayan” told Deborah’s family that they should accept the fact that Michael would never give Deborah a get. Claiming that he wanted Deborah as his wife, Michael harassed Deborah’s family on a regular basis with abusive letters and phone calls.

Michael gave up his business and was unemployed for a period of time. Meanwhile, Deborah returned to work in order to support herself and help the children. An attractive woman in her late thirties, Deborah met a wonderful man who wanted to marry her. But without a get, Deborah could not have a relationship with him as she was still considered to be Michael’s wife under Jewish Law. Since both she and her prospective husband were Orthodox, they could not marry so long as Deborah did not have a get.

The years went by as Deborah found herself trapped in a non-existent marriage, unable to be released because Michael refused to give her a get. Rabbis, lawyers, psychologists and family members tried to convince Michael that the marriage was over and Deborah had no intention of returning to him. The Chief Rabbi of England was aware of Deborah’s plight and attempted to intervene. All to no avail. Without Michael’s consent, Deborah could not exercise her right to remarry.

Suddenly, one morning in February, 1995, Deborah received a telephone call from the Bet Din in London. She was told to come to the Bet Din immediately as Michael had agreed to give her a get. Deborah raced home from work, changed her clothes and drove to the Bet Din. After 20 years of waiting, she finally received her get.

A grandmother now, Deborah is bitter and angry. She feels that she was cheated out of her chance for marital happiness with a second husband and a new family. Still an observant woman, Deborah believes that she was punished for being Orthodox. If observance of Jewish law and tradition had not been so important to her, she could have remarried in a civil ceremony without the get. Deborah is angry with a system that permits a man to have so much power over his wife that he can deny her the freedom and right to marry for 20 years. Vindictive men like Michael, although not Orthodox themselves, find that they can use Jewish law as a tool to vent their frustration and disappointment. While Deborah and Michael lived together as husband and wife for 19 years until the civil divorce, Michael wielded his power over Deborah for an additional 20 years- - - successfully preventing her from marrying the man of her choice.

A YOUNG WIDOW IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY

Yvette traveled to Paris last year to receive her freedom. Although the flight was only 5 hours, the right she sought- - freedom to marry - - - has been a process that took almost six years! Yvette’s story is an Israeli Jewish woman’s nightmare, but it could happen to any Jewish woman today.

In February of 1991, Yvette, her husband and young daughter were involved in an automobile accident. The child was killed immediately. Despite the best of medical attention, the husband died several hours later. The 30 year old mother survived serious injuries and mourned her terrible loss.

At the end of the mourning period, as Yvette began to slowly recuperate and attempt to build a new life, she discovered that Jewish Law prevented her from
remarrying until her late husband’s surviving brother, who lived in Paris, performed “Halitza”. According to the Torah, a childless widow was automatically betrothed to her brother-in-law in what was known as “Levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:5 - 6). She was supposed to bear a child by the brother-in-law who would carry the name of the deceased husband, “And it shall be that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Israel”.

This ancient law was modified in cases where the brother- in-law refused to perform his duty. In those cases the brother-in-law could perform the ceremony of “Halitza” in which he released the childless widow to marry another man. In the post-Talmudic period there was a dispute over whether Halitza was preferred over Levirate marriage, with Ashkenazi communities preferring Halitza while the Jews of Spain and North Africa as well as Yemen, Babylonia and Persia gave priority to Levirate marriage. In 1950, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel issued a takkanah (legislative amendment) which completely prohibited the practice of Levirate marriage in Israel while making Halitza obligatory, thus insuring that the law of the Torah would be uniform for all of the communities in Israel. Halitza thus became the only way to free the childless widow to remarry. The Halitza ceremony could take place in any Rabbinical Court in Israel or in a Rabbinical Court abroad which was recognized by the Israeli Rabbinical establishment.

Cases of childless widows occur in every Jewish community. Disease, accidents, war, terrorist attacks and criminal activity can and do take the lives of Jewish husbands. Each case of a childless Jewish widow requires Halitza and each case has its own special brand of pain and suffering. Yvette’s case, however, is unique in that she and her husband had produced a child and only by a cruel quirk of fate, the child died a few hours before Yvette’s husband died. Since there were no surviving children at the time of his death, she was a childless widow. Had the husband died before the child, the need for Halitza would not have arisen.

Jewish law required Yvette to now ask her Parisian brother-in-law to release her by granting Halitza. As has happened in most cases requiring Halitza, Yvette’s brother-in-law (encouraged by his parents who were, of course, the parents of the deceased husband) suddenly saw an opportunity to make a “profit”. He agreed to grant Halitza, but only if the” price was right.” Some might see the brother-in-law’s position as extortion. Yvette’s brother-in-law demanded only $70,000! Since Yvette did not have a sum so large, the brother-in-law and his parents suggested she sell her apartment so that she could pay the price of her freedom to marry. Yvette negotiated for her right to remarry, begging and borrowing money from friends and family to pay off her brother-in-law.

Despite the payments, he remained adamant, refusing Halitza.

An attractive young woman, Yvette has had many opportunities to remarry during the last 6 years. However, so long as the Parisian brother-in-law refused to perform Halitza, she was unable to marry as she was technically married to her brother-in-law.
Yvette asked the Rabbinical Court to order her brother-in-law to grant Halitza, and if he refused, to require him to pay her maintenance in the sum of $1,000 a month. The Court agreed and ordered maintenance retroactive to the date of the husband’s death.
Despite the court order, the brother-in-law held his ground. He refused to perform Halitza and he refused to pay the maintenance, the cumulative arrearage amounting to $60,000 as of last year.

An appeal was made to the Chief Rabbis of France and Paris as well as leaders of the Jewish Community. Israeli religious court judges (Dayanim) and the Director of the Rabbinical Courts used their contacts within the French religious establishment to bring pressure on the brother-in-law.

Finally, after almost six years of waiting and an additional last minute pay-off of several thousand dollars, Yvette was granted the freedom to remarry. Now, in her late thirties, she hopes at last to build a new life and a new family. Sadly, the last six years have taken their toll, emotionally and physically. Dating is not so easy for a woman who has suffered for so long. Furthermore, Yvette’s biological time clock has continued ticking during this long waiting period. Statistically, the chances of her marrying and starting a new family at this age are not encouraging.

Protection for Afghan women a crucial role (THE AGE)

2011-01-10T04:44:00.000-08:00

Author: SARAH SMILES PERSINGER
Date: 08/01/2011
Publication: The Age
Section: Insight
Page: 17

THREE years ago, I visited a hospital in southern Afghanistan renovated by Australian Defence Force engineers. A young, goofy digger showed me proudly around the rebuilt facility, pointing to a muddy yard where quarantined cholera patients once perished in tents.
Despite the revamp, however, the hospital lacked basic supplies, even baby formula. Worse still, there were only a handful of female medics a huge obstacle to fighting shocking rates of maternal mortality in the area. In conservative Oruzgan province, where gender segregation is the norm, many Pashtun families refuse help from male doctors, even if their women are dying in childbirth.

Today, there is a successful midwifery training program in the same hospital in Tarin Kowt. Young girls from the region are learning skills that are saving lives.

The hospital's rebirth and its impact on women is one of the few bright spots in Australia's involvement in Afghanistan. As coalition forces leave the country in coming years, these gains must be preserved. Australia should make supporting women particularly in the areas of health and education a priority of its post-2014 role in the country.

Since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, the plight of Afghan women and girls has in many ways been emblematic of the conflict. While the Bush administration used the claim of "liberating" Afghan women to justify the war, the Taliban have equated women's progress to the corruption of Islamic values by the West.

Caught in the crossfire, Afghan women and girls have nonetheless fought for a new role in public life in the face of rising violence and threats from insurgents. Today, there are 7.3 million Afghan children in school 37 per cent of them girls compared with zero girls in 2002. Hundreds of midwives have been trained in a bid to tackle maternal mortality. Women also enjoy a 25 per cent quota of reserved seats in the parliament.

As the Karzai government pursues a peace deal with the same tyrannical Taliban leaders that banned female education, the need to build on these small successes has never been more critical.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has said that Australia will play a role in Afghanistan beyond 2014, when NATO's mandate looks set to expire. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd says Australia will support development there into the next decade.

Australia should follow the lead of Canada, which is considering numerous measures to help women when its combat troops withdraw next year. These include pushing for women to be represented in any peace talks with the Taliban, expanding literacy programs for girls and providing Afghan security forces with gender-sensitised training.

Aid workers will argue that empowering women is critical to good governance, fighting poverty and creating a healthy, stable society. All of these things are desperately needed in Afghanistan.

As troops are withdrawn in the coming years, the danger exists that humanitarian funding will dry up, given that aid has followed the fighting. Matching troop withdrawals with long-term aid commitments is vital. AusAID would do well to sponsor midwife training programs in the rural south, where the maternal mortality rate is among the highest in the world.

As the Afghan government reaches out to the Taliban a move that many Afghan women fear will endanger their progress there is also a need to support Afghan women in public life. Australia could provide training and exchanges for Afghan women parliamentarians, lawyers, bureaucrats and police. Canberra could also privately insist that any visiting Afghan delegations include women.

Australia should also consider granting asylum to women who face ongoing death threats because of their perceived association with Western interests. Any future asylum program for Afghans much like that established for Iraqis when Australian troops withdrew from Iraq should consider giving priority to vulnerable women.

While Australian troops have by no means won the battle for "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan, their intervention has brought some small improvements on the ground. These should not be squandered as the war comes to an end. Afghan women and girls must not be forgotten.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Smiles Persinger is a research associate at the University of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and a former Age journalist. She recently co-authored the report Afghan Women Speak: Enhancing Security and Human Rights in Afghanistan.

A NEW DARK AGE? Or the death throes of Islamism!

2011-01-05T00:45:00.000-08:00

Don't blame the West

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html

The 'root causes' of Islamist terrorism do not lie in poverty or western imperialism, but an age old conflict between reason and revelation

So writes Robert Sibley, in Ottawa Citizen January 3, 2011
He concludes:
The challenge for Islamists, obviously, is whether they can achieve that transformation better through demographic domination over the next few decades or through violence.
The challenge for Westerners, perhaps not so obviously, is whether they will awaken in time from their multicultural slumbers to protect their cultural heritage and avoid, possibly, a new dark age.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html#ixzz1A94WKLN5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just part of a topic for debate.

Blair and Hitchens debate religion - BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoSoCGu4Rqs&feature=player_embedded

It was a New Year debate in Canada which can be seen with other topics on http://www.intelligencesquared.com/home

There are about 8 U-tube parts to it to see it in full, but the last one featured the questions from the audience and the very last question from a female student was: “if you were in the other’s shoes, what would you agree on?”

Tony Blair answered that he agrees that the challenge for all religions is the need to look at the interpretations of their scriptures, not to try and live according to that time centuries ago when they were written, but bring them into the modern era when e.g. the equality of women is the accepted norm!

Hitchens on the other hand agreed that if there were no religions in the world, human beings would still not behave in a utopian way, (he blames most conflicts in the world to be due to ‘religion’,- the organized variety!) given the frailties of homo-sapiens,- while there are human spiritual needs to e.g. ‘thank God’ if something good happens and when we have ‘God-given’ talents like musical ones, which cannot be explained through science alone.

Both agreed that there is good and bad in organised religion, due to ‘exclusivity’ about ‘our God’ being better than anyone else’s. This is why Tony Blair’s Foundation tries to build bridges across all faiths.

IMHO,- Israel, being a country which has to cater to all its citizens, is the ideal incubator for producing the changes both within traditional Judaism and across the other faiths, particularly in the areas of gender equality for a start.

Secularly they are already doing so,- see the Katsav indictment

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/03/2742387/katsav-rape-conviction-hailed-as-watershed-moment

I believe that we are seeing the death throes of die-hard Islamism,- and of all fundamentalist religions,- succumbing by the middle of this century!

The AlQueda, Taliban, et al. in Iran, Pakistan, Somalia and everywhere else where they terrorise their fellow Muslims who may be of different Sects, let alone the minority Christians amongst them, I believe are individual males fighting to maintain their power over their own,- community, family, women!

These males are frightened of the individual freedoms prevalent in the West, particularly that of women. Gender equality is foreign to the Islamists,- no matter how much their women leaders may claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the fact that throughout the Arab world and among Islamic nations their archaic laws subjugate women.

That is also the problem for Hamas and Hitzbullah vis-a-vis Israel,- no matter how much they may claim that it is about Palestinian land and rights. The Jews are all too near to them, too much democracy and citizens enjoying too much freedom within sight of their own dominated followers of their fundamentalist brand of Islam.

If only the Islamic women would rise up against their own Islamists, perhaps the type of Islamic ‘take-over the world’ mentality of their males might disappear in time.

I don’t see it as a ‘dark ages’ reappearing,- most Westerners are too educated and aware, even the liberals among us in their ‘multicultural slumber’,- but continuing conflicts in the short term will continue.

The Islamic terrorist monster is fighting in its death-throes!
Humanism will triumph in the end over tribalism!

Happy New Year 2011.
MM

WIKILEAKS, SHMIKILEAKS AND ALL THAT ASSANGE JAZZ!

2010-12-09T18:34:00.000-08:00

Disclosure of gossip only so far!Embarrassing, but nothing criminal,- so who cares?
I wish the news media would stop giving him the space in their papers or the time on air!

With all the talk of illegality concerning the leaked USA diplomatic cables, I have been waiting to see and read about all the illegalities, corrupt activities or inappropriate behaviour in which the USA and other countries’ leaderships would be involved. The expose-like Watergate tapes it certainly ‘isn’t’ so far! Gossip,- sure! Personal quotes and innuendos about leaders,-yes. Private chit-chat, ‘confidentially yours’ observations about the leaders of host countries and other similar babble is being promoted by the print media as something of interest to the public at large. But is it?

The concern that what is said in public is different to what is said in private is totally and wholly misplaced! Who is not polite to others in public,- while privately one may feel totally the opposite? What is so surprising about everyone being civil to world leaders at public functions and official meetings, while on a personal level having a totally different opinion of each other? Don’t we all exercise the same right to interaction with people every day of our lives? Who cares what each Ambassador happens to think of our PM or Foreign Minister or of this or that Senator on a personal level?

I take my hat off to anyone who enters the political or diplomatic arena and puts themselves through the constant scrutiny of the media and now also of the public servants on whom one has to rely for correspondence in the internet age. With electronic documentations which are so easily copied and removed without having to do more that press a few buttons, gone are the days when spies had to resort to furtively photographing documents, then using photocopiers in the dead of night after breaking into offices, avoiding the security cameras and guards, etc., etc. Those were the exciting times which provided great fodder for the movie industry. But now? All you need is some wizardry with computers, hacker-know-how, a few floppy discs or data sticks to copy and store the large masses of information like those hundreds of thousands of cables which are supposed to be in Assanges' and Wikileaks’ possession and hey presto, the spy’s work is done in minutes while supposedly just working for the boss,- government or private.

What is Julian Assange’s crime actually? It seems it is not a crime to disclose information,- it is a crime to steal the information. It may be also a crime to distribute stolen information though,- like distributing stolen goods. But as everyone in the free world knows, as long as the media gets hold of information which comes their way, they will use it. It is known as freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Whistle blowers however are prevented from the freedom to disclose information for which they are supposed to have signed a confidentiality agreement. If they have information which they feel very strongly that it should be disclosed, then they have to make some very difficult decisions. How dangerous is it to themselves, to their families, to the company or to their country, to their colleagues, etc. ‘Deep throat’ during the Watergate scandal tried to hide himself to avoid being discovered. Vanunu from Israel also tried, but failed to avoid being returned to Israel and was jailed for some 20 years and is still being hunted down if he makes a wrong move or tries to contact the media. There are plenty of other cases around the world,- the Soviets and others will simply eliminate their whistle blowers!

But what about that American Jewish bumbling would-be-spy cum whistleblower,- Jonathan Pollard? He tried to give some information to the Israelis some 20 years ago, i.e. to a USA ally but failed because they weren't interested. With their high-tech know-how, the Israelis probably already had the info. even then and if not, would have had it by now many times over. So why should the US authorities still keep Pollard in jail?

This brings our countries’ leaderships into focus. “Transparency” seems to be the new buzzword now. How ridiculous such a notion is to the ears of anyone who has had any leadership experience whatsoever at any level. Whether in business, in the local community, in the NGO sector,- in fact anywhere at all,- even within families,- there are certain things which we don’t mind who knows about them and there are others we prefer not to have them widely exposed. Every person decides for him/herself what we want to disclose about ourselves and what we don’t. Not everyone can agree with every decision which we make in our daily lives and which impacts on others within our circle of influence,- so how can the leadership of a country whom only some of us elect to lead us, possibly accommodate all of their citizens’ expectations at any one time? Decisions have to be made by our leaders in spite of some being unpopular with a majority, let alone with a minority in the country! They have to take the risk that these decisions may be wrong in the end, but at any one time they may have to act in whatever way they see fit. What interviewees tell the interviewer for media exposure is probably the opposite to what they would really like to say to and about the interviewers in private!

I think most of us prefer strong, decisive leadership, but leaders whom we can trust and this is the crux of the problem. Are the best people coming forward to be elected to high office? In Australia we have political parties, they select the candidates, then we have to elect them and once elected, they choose their leader who becomes our Prime Minister. In the USA, they have a rigorous pre-selection process for the Presidential candidates from each Party and then, only the people who care enough about the political process bother to register to vote. I am not sure which system is better at selecting our top leaders, but at least in Australia, with my vote, I aim to send a ‘good’ person to become a Member of Parliament. With ‘good’ people in each parliamentary Party, at least you have a hope to end up with a good leadership. It takes a lot of know-how, leadership skills, ability to research, people skills, debating skills and much more for good political leadership. Professionals and lay-people who enter politics are rarely high-profile community leaders for example, or academics, or heads of corporations, that is, people with a proven track record in public life before entering politics. When they are such individuals, they are often fast-tracked up the leadership ladder, but they still need to be accepted by the public at large.

The critical press, the journalists who write up and comment about every decision taken by our leaders have not been leaders themselves, nor politicians and this is where we now find ourselves with the current ‘disclosures’ through Wikileaks. These disclosures so far have really been as petty as they are boring, but obviously embarrassing for the individuals concerned. Is this the aim of Wikileaks,- to embarrass the USA leaders and its allies’ leaderships? If that is the case,- then I think it is in bad taste, it does nothing to promote good relations between countries,- it is nothing more than like, e.g., embarrassing me in front of my friends. I wouldn’t be pleased about that either, but my friends would still stick by me I hope!Similarly, the friendly nations are rallying to the support of the US.

I don’t want Australia’s leadership to be embarrassed and I don’t think that except for the far-left Chomski, et al., neither do American citizens like their country’s leaders to be embarrassed in the eyes of the world.

So what did Assange achieve, except notoriety? What common good has he provided with these embarrassing revelations? If he has more damaging material in his possession, then one would need to consider him a threat to the national security of whichever nation will be targeted in his next revelations. If that will happen, I really don’t think I would like to be in his shoes and his supporters will also feel the icy blasts of governments wherever they will try to set up shop!

I just wish the news media would stop giving him the space in their papers or the time on air!To quote Vaughan Smith, the founder of the journalists'"Frontline Club" in London where Assange was staying (THe Age, 11/12/'10):"There is an interesting relationship between the media and Julian Assange. With Wikileaks, Assange has effectively put up a huge, vast mirror. In it, journalists are looking at themselves and we're not all liking what we see. It's time to think about our trade. We need to have a bit of courage."
MM

Tribute to a 'doer, not just a talker'-a respected national leader of NCJWA, Dr. Geulah Solomon OAM.

2010-11-14T00:23:00.000-08:00

TRIBUTE TO Dr.GEULAH SOLOMON OAM z/l, at a function in front of some 100 members and friends who gathered at NCJWA's Victorian premises together with her family and communal leaders on 14/11/10.

The speakers spoke about Geulah Solomon's many involvements in her professional and communal life,-whether as an academic lecturer at Rusden College, where she lectured in social sciences, or later in the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia, as well as a published historian, teacher and mentor to many.
The following is my personal perspective of her involvement in NCJWA at all levels.
MM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is some 25 years ago that the late Mina Fink first mentioned to me the name of Dr. Geulah Solomon as a prospective recruit for our organization while I was preparing to take on the National Presidency. I kept getting names nearly every day so I did not take much notice until I heard Geulah speaking at the old Beth Weizmann. I was impressed, told Mina to arrange a meeting, but even before that we bumped into each other at the theatre one night and I asked Geulah what she is doing at the moment and her answer looking at me, smiling, was ‘not much, yet!’ OK,- let’s meet I said,-and so we started a partnership and friendship in NCJWA which lasted until her passing this year.

I offered her the position as National Status of Women Chair, as well as Jewish Education Chair on the National Board. Suffice it to say that ours was a very enjoyable and productive partnership, preparing submissions to the Federal Government on numerous topics dealing with family law, domestic violence, women and work, voluntary versus paid work, a position paper on child-care policies and funding,- always receiving praise and organizationally and recognition in the various reports submitted to Government. In fact our submission on domestic violence was later included in the subsequent legislation by the Victorian Government in 1987.It referred to the removal of the perpetrators of the violence from the domestic scene, rather than the victims, usually women and the children having to flee.

Her main interest though was the Status of Women in Jewish Law. She initiated the 'Gett' (Jewish divorce) Petition here which was then adopted by the ICJW, with thousands of signatures collected to present to the leading Rabbis in Israel,- she then led the ICJW delegation to Rabbi Bakshi-Doron, the chief respected authority on interpretations of Jewish Law (Chalacha).

In the meantime back home in Australia, the ECAJ (Executive Council of Australian Jewry) without consultation with NCJWA put in a submission to the Law Reform Commission of Inquiry into Multiculturalism and the Law under Justice Elizabeth Evatt, seeking civil law solutions to the problems arising from Jewish divorce laws. Geula was furious and with my agreement, we put in a counter submission because she believed that we should pursue a policy of finding (Halachic)Jewish Law solutions without resorting to civil law, otherwise women could be doubly disadvantaged by having both civil and religious divorce withheld by a recalcitrant spouse. We both agreed that we need to keep a separation of religion and state, so as not to set precedents of the civil law interfering also in other areas, let alone adopting other religions’ laws and customs!

Her deep interests in everything to do with Israel led her to lead an NCJWA study tour together with Daliah Ayalon Sinclair,- now the NSW Council president, as she had done many times previously for Jewish and non-Jewish academics while a lecturer at the University. (She knew most Israeli academics in the major Universities as well as having a deep knowledge of Jewish history and as one Christian participant described her experiences on a tour led by Geulah, she was most considerate to ensure that everyone's religious interests were catered for during her tours.)

She instituted the Scholar in Residence program for our Council and invited Judith Karp, the Israeli Deputy Attorney General at the time (also her cousin) as our first scholar,- then followed with Leah Rabin, (widow of Israeli PM Itzhak Rabin) raising funds for Haifa University and the first Scholarships for Ethiopian Students, later she invited Professor Alice Shalvi and each time the scholars were very well marketed to the community and to all our Sections interstate, helping us to raise money in the process for our various national and international projects.

While State president in Victoria, the Council House was refurbished. She always spoke of her wish-list for Council,- increasing memberships, starting new groups such as the former Israelis’ TARBUT group of Hebrew speakers with Nili Palti, the young Kulanu group, getting funding from the federal government at the time for our bus for senior citizens to transport them to our various Seniors' Clubs, and starting various educational and social programs at our premises, like the Open Door for seniors,- a drop-in centre, still operating today, with music or films and refreshmentsas well as company,- plus an adult education series of lectures on various current affairs topics.

Geulah Solomon continued to serve women, the community in general and the Jewish community in particular with great enthusiasm and distinction for six years as National President of the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia, 1997-2003.
During this period, in spite of suffering great personal loss with the tragic passing of her only son, Geulah did not waver in her commitment towards her voluntary responsibilities to NCJW and the community. As President of NCJWA, she was particularly successful in putting submissions to and undertaking for the Government major research projects in the areas of "Living in Harmony" in multicultural Australia, through a national pilot project of "building bridges" across many ethnic groups; and an intergenerational project entitled "the Sandwich Generation". In her first three-year term as National President, Dr. Solomon received a federal OSW (Office of the Status of Women) grant for a Capacity Building Project to produce a " Domestic Violence Manual" for the Jewish community and other manuals for the improvement of the NCJWA . A "Handbook for Jewish Women in Australia" was also produced, listing the various communal services available as well as explaining aspects of the Jewish religion.

Geulah Solomon was selected to represent the Australian Jewish community at the NGO Forum in Durban for the UN-Human Rights "Anti-racism" Conference in 2001, as well as the representative of the International Council of Jewish Women (ICJW) and the NCJWA.She was not just an observer of the racism perpetrated by pro-Arab rabble rousers at this supposedly anti-racism conference, but actively tried to counteract the anti-Semitism displayed. She became a staunch activist against the anti-Zionism developing after that experience which she described as the most horrific she had ever seen. (Born in Australia in 1928, she was spared the experiences of those of us born pre-WW2 in Europe! She had experienced some personal anti-Semitism though, at the time when she lived in country Victoria with her parents.)

As Affiliate President, she successfully organised and hosted the ICJW 19th Triennial Convention in Sydney in 2002, which was attended by delegates from 23 countries around the globe. She held many Executive positions on ICJW, the last one being as Australian ICJW Vice President.

For NCJWA, Geulah commissioned and published the history of the organization, "Making a Difference" by Marlo Newton and launched in Melbourne by Rosemary Crowley of the OSW in 2000. The first NCJW website, was introduced during this time. She continued to make a number of submissions to Government Inquiries dealing with the Status of Women. Her experience and wise counsel was sought on all matters, particularly in areas of Status of Women and Status of Women in Judaism.
She was awarded the OAM after long and dedicated service to her community, both Jewish and general even before undertaking the onerous responsibilities of National President of our multifaceted organization, but after completing the 4 volume Caulfield history for the Glen Eira City Council.

Time did not permit me to detail all her work done through and for NCJWA and ICJW. Her capacity to fit in so many activities at an intellectual level not matched by many women or men in any community, made me think that after seeing the heading of 'Modern Matriarchs' where our past leaders came under in the Australian Jewish News (http://jewishnews.net.au/) of a couple of weeks ago, Geulah would have been furious. She like all of our leaders mentioned, may be the matriarch to her family,(a family consisting of Keith her husband of nearly 6 decades, her daughter and family including her 6 grandchildren and one great-grandchild in Melbourne and 2 grandchildren in Canada) but to the Jewish community she and they were activists,- as NCJWA's younger leaders still are to this day!

To the end, while physically rather frail, she still participated in 'Durban2', as the UN second conference on racism was dubbed,- held in Geneva just a couple of years ago. With her grandson to support her, off she went and by all accounts was a very influential participant there. Similarly as only one of two NGO representatives selected to accompany the Australian Government delegation to the New York UN Commission on the Status of Women, reporting to CEDAW, Geulah had the fortitude to still travel and be involved with the bureaucrats, ensuring that Australia was putting its best face forward at the official presentations of our Government’s efforts on behalf of women in Australia.

Geulah Solomon's leadership in NCJWA and the community left a lasting and important impression on our organization and the community. Personally I will miss her wise counsel, our deep mutual understanding of the issues of the day of concern to us as women, Jews and Jewish women in Australia and not having her around to discuss these.

Vale Geulah! You are sorely missed not only by your very devoted and loving family,- but by all those who knew you, respected you and loved you,- even if some admitted to feeling very intimidated by you.

Antisemitic 9/11 Conspiracy theory hoodwinks unionist leader!

2010-10-24T02:23:00.000-07:00

When I heard the trade unionist from the Waterfront Workers' Union and a State Union leader, one Kevin Bracken on a radio program last Monday am, I couldn’t believe my ears re what he was referring to: namely to a circulating e-mail with another of those 9/11 conspiracy theories trying to shift the blame away from the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated it.

When I originally received the email containing that ‘9/11’ conspiracy theory to which Kevin Bracken alluded this week on Jon Faine’s ABC radio program, I too was taken in by the first couple of sentences due to its supposedly “scientific facts”!
I started showing it to my son who happened to be standing nearby and he immediately told me to just delete this ‘crap’!
But knowing how these claims work, I searched for the agenda behind it and soon found it towards the end.
There were billions of double insurance dollars supposedly received by the Trade Centre tenant with a Jewish sounding name.
So what does a far-left unionist need more than a claim targeting US, money and Jews to believe its nefarious claims?What a clever antisemitic ploy by the initiators of that email circulating around the globe!

It’s a worry though when someone in an Australian leadership position in the Trade Union Movement in this day and age is so far hoodwinked that he is prepared to go public and on the record to claim it as a truism. While the Trade Union Movement and the Labor Party distanced themselves from his claims, nevertheless this person remains in his leadership position within it.

Fake claims to put the blame on Jews and victims instead of the perpetrators is the oldest ploy on earth and obviously most profitable too.
Just look at the Holocaust deniers who keep on doing it!

The Jewish State's proposed Loyalty Oath: is it really such a problem?

2010-10-24T02:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-suissa/why-the-loyalty-oath-is-a_b_770299.html

David Suissa

Huffington Post
Founder of OLAM magazine, OLAM.org and weekly columnist for the Los
Angeles Jewish Journal
Posted: October 21, 2010 04:32 PM

*
The Loyalty Oath Is a Good Deal

Maybe it's because I was a Jew in an Arab country that I have a
slightly different take on the loyalty oath controversy. Imagine, for
a minute, that your name is Ahmed and you are a gay Palestinian living
in Ramallah. You live in fear of being outed, ostracized, even jailed
and tortured. A few miles away is a Jewish and democratic nation
called Israel. Your partner, who is Arab and lives there, has been
telling you for years that he suffers no discrimination from being
gay. In fact, a few months ago, he danced in the Gay Pride Parade in
Jerusalem with full protection from the Israeli authorities.

Lately, you've been doing research on Google to find out more about
how Israel treats its minorities. You're doing this because since you
were a child, you have been taught that Jews are the "sons of dogs"
who have no connection to this land and are deserving only of hatred.
How could such "sons of dogs" be so respectful of Arab homosexuals?

You learn in your research that Arabs living in Israel enjoy free
health care and welfare benefits; democratic rights, like freedom of
speech, freedom of religion and freedom to vote; full women's rights;
and opportunities to learn at great universities.

You also discover the following items about Israeli Arabs: the
existence of Arab political parties in the Israeli government like
Hadash, Balad and Ra'amTa'al, which have the right to promote even
incendiary things like the Palestinian "right of return" and the
dismantling of Israel's nuclear arsenal; NGOs like Adalah: the Legal
Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which helps minorities seek
legal redress; Ali Yahya, Israel's Arab ambassador to Greece; Salim
Joubran, Supreme Court justice; and Oscar Abu-Razek, director general
of the Ministry of Interior.

You also learn about Raleb Majadele, the first Arab Cabinet minister
in Israel; Jamal Hakrush, assistant commander in Israel's National
Police; Rana Raslan, the first Arab to win a Miss Israel contest; Bnei
Sakhnin, the first Arab soccer team to win Israel's State Cup; Asala
Shahada, an Arab who won a gold medal at the Maccabiah games; and Majd
el-Haj, an Arab sociology professor at Haifa University who was
promoted to dean of research at the university.

You ask yourself: How could all these Arabs be so successful in a
Jewish state that is supposed to favor Jews and discriminate against
Arabs?

As you research the answer, you come across this finding from a report
of the U.S. State Department: "Most of the Arab states are ruled by
oppressive, dictatorial regimes, which deny their citizens basic
freedoms of political expression, speech, press and due process."
Aha!, you say,maybe that explains why Arabs in Israel are not
clamoring to leave the Jewish state and join their brethren in other
Arab countries.

You then find Israel's Declaration of Independence, which affirms the
full legal and human rights of all its citizens, Jew and non-Jew
alike. Because you have been taught to believe that the birth of
Israel is a "catastrophe" and that Jews have no connection to the
land, you are surprised to discover the 3,000-year connection of the
Jewish people to Israel. This helps you understand Israel's Law of
Return, which states that Jews become automatic citizens when they
"return home" to Israel.

Finally, you read about a recent and controversial amendment to
Israel's citizen loyalty oath. The proposed amendment would require
non-Jewish foreigners wishing to become Israeli citizens to declare
loyalty not just to the State of Israel, but to the "Jewish and
democratic" State of Israel.

So you think: I would be able to live as a proud and free homosexual
and enjoy all the other civil rights and benefits in return for taking
a loyalty oath to a "Jewish and democratic" state? Hey, that sounds
like a pretty good deal to me. What's all the fuss about?

The fuss, Ahmed, is that a lot of people think this initiative is
offensive and discriminatory -- that it is OK for a non-Jew to pledge
loyalty to the State of Israel, but not to the "Jewish and democratic"
State of Israel.

So what do I think?

First, I don't get all the hysterics. I might see the problem if the
oath were only to a "Jewish" state, but to a "Jewish and democratic"
state? Doesn't that addition make all the difference in the world?
Isn't it democracy that enables Arab citizens to become Supreme Court
justices, university professors or the second in command of the
National Police?

A non-Jew gains a lot more by the word "democratic" than he loses by
the word "Jewish." If an Arab man like Ahmed, for example, ever
marries his partner in Tel Aviv and has to make his oath of loyalty to
a "Jewish and democratic" state, he won't be thinking of how Jewish
Israel is, but how democratic it is and respectful of his human right
to enter into a gay marriage.

As a Sephardic Jew, I can tell you that Jews who lived for centuries
as good citizens of Arab countries would have loved nothing more than
to pledge loyalty to a "Muslim and democratic state" in return for the
same freedoms, rights and protections that Arabs enjoy today in
Israel.

But what about the fact that Jews become automatic citizens and don't
have to take this oath? Isn't that a racist idea? Not according to my
friend Yossi Klein Halevi, who writes in an e-mail from Jerusalem:

" There is a difference between an oleh [one who makes aliyah] who
is repatriating home and a foreigner being naturalized. Many
democracies require loyalty oaths of naturalizing citizens. The point
of a Jewish state is that Jews aren't like naturalizing citizens --
they are olim returning home. That distinction is crucial for
affirming who we are. This is not about racism -- it is about a
reaffirmation of our right to define ourselves as a people returning
home.

If and when the Palestinians create a state, the first law they
are likely to pass will be their version of our law of return,
granting automatic citizenship to returning Palestinians. If an
outsider wants to become a Palestinian citizen, he/she would no doubt
have to go through a longer process.

Personally, whether it's part of a citizenship process or not, I'd
love to see a national pledge of allegiance to a "Jewish and
democratic" Israel. In fact, it ought to become a subject of study in
Israeli schools and universities and part of a national conversation
where every group gets to contribute its thoughts to this work in
progress.

Both words -- "Jewish" and "democratic" -- are complicated and
multilayered. Their marriage represents one of the great Jewish ideals
-- the collective project that Jews have come home to after almost
2,000 years.

Featuring this ideal in the loyalty oath reminds Israel of its
obligations to all of its citizens, not just to its Jewish ones. As
much as the applicant makes a formal gesture of loyalty, Israel makes
a formal commitment of its democratic promise. The issue of who is
required to take the oath is a fair one, but it shouldn't cloud the
central fact that the oath itself is an especially good deal for
minorities looking for official protection of their democratic rights.

That's why I can't understand the hysterical reaction of many Jews who
have recoiled in shame and horror at this initiative, as if Israel had
just decided to shut down every Arab newspaper or board up every
mosque.

Yes, Israel could have done a better job of presenting the initiative,
which suffered from awkward timing and its association with Yisrael
Beitenu. But Israel's political clumsiness is even more reason for
Israel supporters to reaffirm and defend the country's moral standing.

Despite all its faults, and despite being in a permanent state of war
with enemies at its doorstep, Israel is still, by far, the most open
and civil society in the Middle East. Think about that. The best place
for an Arab to be free and successful in the Middle East is in a
Jewish state under siege by Arabs. Incredible, no?

If Israel were smart, it would initiate a massive PR effort promoting
the freedoms, rights and opportunities that Arabs get in Israel that
they can never get in other Arab countries. It would show the world
that its loyalty oath is a shining light in the Middle East cesspool.

A good place to start would be with Arabs like Ahmed from Ramallah,
who dreams of signing an oath that would free him to be gay and dance
in public with his Arab-Israeli partner next year in Jerusalem.

Yellow Star of David

2010-10-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

Why did the Nazis choose to make the Star of David yellow?

Of all the numerous laws proclaimed against the Jews by the Germans, one of the most spectacular was the law forcing all Jews, from the age of six, to wear a yellow star on their clothes with the letter “J” or the word “Jood” or the word “Juif”.

My parents and I wore the yellow Star of David when I was a toddler, simply for being Jewish in Romania.

Why did the Nazis choose to make the Star of David yellow?
The yellow Star of David was a cloth patch that we Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis on our outer garments that would mark us in public.

The badge was intended as one more measure to disenfranchise Jews and to reinforce our pariah status.

Less known is the fact that the yellow patch was not invented by the Nazis but resuscitated by them from medieval times.

A degrading yellow badge was introduced by a 9th century Baghdad caliph and subsequently imposed by other Moslem rulers on their Jewish and Christian populations.

When they were in power in Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban religious police asked local Hindus to carry yellow stickers inside their pockets to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population.

The Catholic 1215 Fourth Council of the Lateran also ruled that Jews ought to wear a yellow badge and other discriminatory outer symbols. European rulers intermittently followed this direction until the time of the French Revolution.

For Christians, the yellow colour has generally signified treason. Judas was represented with a yellow robe. Jews wore yellow. During the period of the Middle Ages, yellow was linked to disorder and madness. Buffoons and madmen were dressed in yellow. Yellow was associated with Lucifer, with sulphur and with traitors.

But in 1948, the yellow Star of David, originally prompted by crude anti-Semitism, was transformed and proudly emerged as the blue Star of David on the flag of the State of Israel.

SHIMON PERES, ADDRESS TO UN MDG SUMMIT.

2010-09-29T05:22:00.000-07:00

H.E. Mr. Shimon Peres
President of the State of Israel
at the UN Millennium Development Goals Summit
New York, 20 August, 2010

History was written in blood. Most wars were waged over territory.
Today, science, creativity and knowledge replaced land as the source of wealth. Land can be conquered. Not science. Science is global, borderless. Armies can't conquer it.

Yet, still, Lawless terrorists spread violence caused by ideological differences, social gaps and sheer fanaticism. The new millennium must liberate the world, from bloodshed, from discrimination, from hunger, from ignorance, from maladies.

Modern science is capable to provide new answers. In the coming ten years there will be an explosion of knowledge. Computation power increased a million folds in the last 25 years. Scientists are venturing into the brain.

Mr. President,

I speak on behalf of a small people, and a tiny land. We knew rebirth despite the murder of one third of our people. The Shoah. We were alone. Our land was attacked 7 times in 62 years. Again. We were alone.

Never giving up on hope, we developed science. We found that the future is in our hands. We learned that people can enrich land, no less than land can nourish the people.

Israel is the product of pioneering human spirit – not of financial capital.

In spite of wars, we made peace with Egypt and Jordan. The territorial dispute with Lebanon has ended and acknowledged so by the UN.

We left Gaza on our own initiative. Completely. We are now negotiating with the Palestinians in order to realize the two-state-solution:

A Jewish state, Israel. An Arab State- Palestine. There is no other peaceful alternative. And, I believe that we shall succeed. We are ready to enter in direct negotiations with Syria immediately.

Mr. President

We are committed to the Millennium development goals. We share the burden of saving the world from war and hunger. Without peace, poverty will remain. Without food – peace will not prevail.

Statesmen have to mobilize political power to achieve peace. Scientists can enable the land produce more food. We developed an agriculture based on science.

Our farmers produce 8-folds per acre compared with the nation's early days. The need for water was cut in half. We employed desalination, recycling, drip and electronic irrigation and bio-engineering to create new seeds and richer crops.

Five decades ago, an Israeli farmer produced food for 15 persons. Today, he produces for 120.
The farmer's contribution to the GDP equals that of a high-tech engineer. To cultivate land, you have to cultivate education and improve health.

So we introduced free compulsory education for all, from age 5 to 18. It brought an end to illiteracy and provided us with the highest rate of scientists per square mile in the world. The National health-care system provides world-class treatment for every citizen.

We are also one of the only countries in the world that entered the 21st century with more trees than it had when it entered the 20th century.
Mr. President,
I am confident that our path is available to everyone. Our experience is replicable. We are ready to share our experience as we did already with many countries –– both through UN agencies and bilaterally.
Our call includes also nations that don't have diplomatic ties with us.

Mr. President,

The other day, the formal leader of Iran declared there's no future for Israel in the Middle East. I believe that the Middle East has room for every person, every nation, every religion.

We believe that every person was created in the image of the lord – and there's just one Lord who calls not to hate, not to threaten, not to seek superiority, and not to kill. There is enough room for friendship in the Middle East.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In my youth I was a member of a Kibbutz, cultivating poor land. I owned, like all members, two shirts and two pairs of pants. There was a third pair of pants: made of flannel reserved for grooms only.

I was lucky to wear them for two full days during my wedding. The main dish in the kibbutz was eggplants. Meat was available once a week, but not every week. There was no private money and little collective money.

We were poor and happy. The sort of happiness felt when a person as is turning desert into garden. Today the kibbutz has a thriving agriculture and a profitable guest house. Food is plentiful. It is in the kibbutz, in scarcity, where I learned to respect pioneers. And developed an affinity to creative minds and laborious hands. Actually, my early dream was to see the world as a great kibbutz. Free, peaceful, productive.

Mr. President,

I call upon this gathering to address the two burning challenges: first, to harness science and technology to increase food production. And second, to stand together against terror. A hungry world will never be peaceful.

A terrorized world will never be governable. We should unite around a common hope. The cradle of our children shall be the cradle of our vision.

מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת

FEMINISM HAS FAILED: the live debate of the "Intelligence Square" project.

2010-09-23T04:53:00.000-07:00

INTELLIGENCE 2 . The Australian Forum for Live Debate is a project of the St. James Ethics Centre, Sydney and The Wheeler Centre, Melbourne.

“Feminism has failed” was the topic of the debate at Melbourne Town Hall on Wednesday evening, 22nd September, 2010.

Speakers for the Affirmative:
Virginia Hausagger, award winning journalist; Gay Alcorn, formerly Age Washington correspondent, now Sunday Age Editor; Stephen Mayne founder of ww.crikey.com, who now pursues shareholder activism promoting more women on Boards.

Speakers for the Negative:
Jennifer Byrne, TV personality; Monica Dux, writer for the Age and co-author of The Great Feminist Denial; Wendy McCarthy, founding co-convenor of WEL, corporate advisory practice, mentoring for Government and large corporations on diversity and women’s leadership.

Rules of the debate.
Each spoke for exactly 9 minutes, in turn ‘for’ and ‘against’. At the end, the audience was invited to put questions or comments from the floor for exactly 1 minute each for and against in turn. After 15-20 minutes, the principal speakers were again invited to give us their 2 minute closing remarks.

The audience was individually asked to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ the proposition at the beginning, but also given coloured voting papers to put into ballot boxes collected after the debate. The CEO of the St. James Ethics Centre was the MC, who then announced the results of the voting.

Both before and after the debate, the results were similar: more than half voted for the negative, a quarter were undecided and the rest for the affirmative.

THE SPEAKERS’ COMMENTS.

1st.For.
V.H. drew attention to the miserable plight of women in those countries where they practice ‘honour killings’, ‘stonings’, child marriages, trafficking of women and children and general subjugation, without the feminist movement making any impact on them.

1st. Against. J.B. focused on her own situation, i.e. women closer to home. We have choices which our mothers never had. Education and opportunities for women which came about because of the feminist revolution.

2nd. For.
S.M. pointed out the dismal failure of having women in leadership positions on any major corporations,- with one or 2 exceptions; the small percentage of women lawyers who have senior partnerships in major law firms; the fewer women MPs; the lack of support by women to help them get onto the large Corporate Boards. David Jones has not lost sales in spite of the sexual harassment case against them. AFL has only one woman on any Club Board and if there is one she is usually given the Human Resources portfolio! No major newspaper editor is female; the “faceless men” in politics,- where are the women?

2nd. Against.
M.D. Feminism is not unsuccessful in delivering on its promises, because it is still a ”work in progress”. Gender inequality is complex. It took 8 Centuries for the male conjugal rights over women to be revoked by legislation! Feminism is diverse, complex and often divisive. There were never demands with deadlines, but a continuous battle; there are new words which we now take for granted like sexism, sexual harassment, ‘glass ceiling’, etc. Feminism has not failed: it has only just begun! “Half the sky movement” was mentioned.

3rd. For.
G.A. At daily newspaper conferences re where stories are placed in the papers, items are usually divided up as “feminine” and others! She has ambition for wider general and stronger feminism, rather than the personal satisfaction for a few. There is little difference to the male power structure in our community. Has the real culture changed at all? Hardly, because sexism is so embedded that we hardly notice it,- but if we do, nothing is done about it. Feminism has little impact on e.g. body image. Young men brought up with pornography instead of female sexuality issues. Power distribution has not changed because of feminism in Australia,- most bosses are males, most stressed at work are females. Media covers only 9% of women’s sport; JK Rawlins is actually Joanne, but publishers too nervous to show she is a female author for parents of boys to buy her books about boys! The real world in which we live, feminism has hardly made a dent in it.

3rd Against.
W. McC. As a still working grandmother, she has seen great strides made in her lifetime. But one had to and still have to work at it, not wait like little princesses for equality to happen by itself! The greatest success has been the universal education of women. In the ‘60s, married women couldn’t stay in the education department or in the Public Service! There was no access to contraception,- later the Pill had a luxury tax put on it, but it was the feminist movement that fought to have it removed. There was no access to abortion, even Equal Pay did not have support from the Union Movement,- only the feminists fought for it.
Feminism is the sum total of many parts to effect change for the better. Change doesn’t just happen, you have to make it happen by working at it. Feminism has also created better space for men to ‘grow’ in their relationships at home with their families. The business and public sector is just a bit slower to change. Leadership by women comes in a little later, but a look at the obituaries of important persons in the newspapers, shows that more women are being listed there!
That’s already a good sign!

Q. FROM THE FLOOR.
(Yvonne Allen who runs a relationship business for single people) stated that feminism has failed the successful business and professional women who too often have achieved success at the expense of missing out on successful relationships.

W. McC. Said it is not about the destination, but about the journey. (Gertrude Stein: where is ‘there’? Somewhere!)

Criticism of newspapers focusing on the women at the Brownlow medal night, instead of on the elite athletes that the guys are. As though we are going backwards in feminist ideals!

Topic itself was criticized as being a bit insulting and probably masculine-suggested.

Young women very involved right across the board in various fields.Very encouraging.

Worried about the argument,- must stop congratulating ourselves and patting ourselves on the back as though we have achieved everything.

Most countries will be reporting that they will not be meeting the Millennium Goals for Status of Women by 2015, currently at the UN in NY for UNMDG meeting.

We live in a difficult age and must give men more room, but as women we must not give up our goals.

CONCLUDING REMARKS BY MAIN SPEAKERS.
Most on the affirmative side said that while agreeing that much has been achieved, much more needs to be done.
Those on the negative side, said that it is a ‘work in progress’ and we must not deny the achievements, while striving to keep going ahead.

My conclusion:
I could not decide which side had won, so I tore my voting slip in half to indicate that.
Of course feminism has achieved a lot for the Western woman, but not much for those in the developing world or in the Theocracies of the Islamic nations. Women in all the religious institutions have not yet managed to gain equal status across the board.
But the evening was very enjoyable due to the excellent presentations by the speakers. The fact that it attracted an audience of probably close to 2000, women of all ages plus a sprinkling of men, was incredible. But on the way out, I overheard 2 young women talking: “I like Julia’s white jacket,- it is very well made.”
I would hope that they are students of fashion, or feminism just went out over their heads!
MM

Frontpagemag.com

Polling Feminist scholars, finding women's studies bias: The Trouble With Israel

> THE TROUBLE WITH ISRAEL
>
> September 20, 2010 Posted by Scott at 7:00 AM
>
> Barbara Hollingsworth reports on an illuminating experiment conducted by University of Illinois Professor Fred Gottheil:
>
> Prof. Fred Gottheil told Frontpagemag.com that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, urging the U.S. to abandon its ally, Israel. Prof. Gottheil discovered that six of the signers, who hailed from more than 150 college campuses, were members of his own faculty.
>
> "Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?" he wondered. "I felt it was worth a try."
>
> The results? "Almost non existent," he told Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 "self-described social-justice seeking academics" agreed to sign Gottheil's Statement of Concern - less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.
>
> Like all good experiments, Professor Gottheil's leads to a conclusion:
>
> The refusal of women's studies professors to publicly condemn honor killings, or academic advocates of gay rights to speak out against the treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries, is just about as hypocritical as it gets. Their loathing (dare we call it hate?) of the UN-created Jewish state is so deep that it "trump[s] their professional interests," leading them into a "ideologically discriminatory trap of their own making," Prof. Gottheil added.
>
> Or stated otherwise: "The academic Left may be just a little more sophisticated [than the non-academic Left] in their loathing of Israel, but scratch the surface and it's all the same...It turns out that with all their professing of principle, they are sanctimonious bigots at heart."

ISI LEIBLER RETURNS TO AUSTRALIA FOR A VISIT

2010-09-21T06:35:00.000-07:00

JERUSALEM POST

Jews in the lucky country

by Isi Leibler
September 21, 2010
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2434

I returned with my wife Naomi on the eve of Rosh Hashana from a brief visit to Australia, frequently referred to as Down Under, being the most geographically distant destination from Europe (and Israel).
Besides visiting family and friends, the principal purpose of our visit was to partake in a major fund-raising event in Melbourne, hosted by Australian Emunah, a constituent of the global religious Zionist women's organization which Naomi currently heads as world president. Emunah last year was the recipient of the Israel Prize in recognition of its extensive network of children's homes and welfare institutions catering for all disadvantaged Israelis.
The keynote speaker was former Australian prime minister John Howard and during the evening, we both made reference to his visit to Israel on the eve of the second intifada when he had persuaded me reluctantly to join him when he met Yasser Arafat in Gaza. After the meeting, I expressed reservations about Arafat, suggesting that a duplicitous murderer was unlikely to change his spots. Howard vowed that if Arafat failed to adhere to his commitments "the people of Israel and the Australian Jewish community should rest assured that I will not let them down."
He certainly fulfilled that promise, emerging during the 11 years of his term as one of Israel's staunchest international friends.
During my visit, Australia was undergoing a political crisis. Julia Gillard, who had displaced her Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd a few months earlier, had called for an election. Many traditional Labor voters, angered by the brutal displacement of her predecessor, voted against their party, resulting in a hung Parliament which was only resolved when four independent parliamentarians ultimately endorsed her.
PRIOR TO World War II, Australian Jewry was a decaying Anglo Jewish outpost. It was the flow of refugees and Holocaust survivors which enriched and transformed the community into what is today considered one of the most thriving and dynamic Jewish diasporas. Many who found haven in Australia succeeded and prospered. Today, strengthened by recent infusions from Russia and South Africa, there are approximately 120,000 Jews principally concentrated in three cities - Melbourne, Sydney and Perth.
Australian Jewry is frequently depicted as a role model for other Diaspora communities. Having, aside from Israel, the highest proportion of Holocaust survivors, it is dominated by painful memories but is also a forwardlooking Zionist community.
The community created an extraordinary network of day schools and cultural institutions catering to all Jewish religious and cultural streams. The majority of graduates partake in courses in Israel ranging from three months to a year and more than 12, 000 Australians have made aliya. Intermarriage while growing is much lower than in other Western Jewish communities.
Until the 1950s, Australia was a far cry from the country of today. It was racist, bigoted ,anti-Semitic and notorious for its White Australia policy. However by absorbing migrants from all corners of the world, Australia evolved into a unique multicultural society, open-minded, liberal and tolerant. Yet, today, determined not to follow the disastrous example of Europe which provided free rein to minorities opposing the central tenets of democracy and freedom, many Australians realize that multiculturalism can only succeed if the participants share a commitment to the open society. Today, despite growing anti-Semitism, the standing of the Jews is similar to the US and the influence of Muslim migrants is limited.
Australian Jews are proud that since the birth of Israel, with only one exception, consecutive Australian governments have remained strongly supportive. The links go back to Australian soldiers who served in Palestine in both world wars and developed warm relations with Jews in the Yishuv in 1940-41.
Australia has also been highly supportive of major Jewish global endeavors such as the struggle to free Soviet Jewry. As far back as 1962, it became the first country to raise the issue of Soviet anti-Semitism and the refusal to grant Jews the right to make aliya at the UN. Former refuseniks will recall that the Australian embassy in Moscow was highly forthcoming in extending whatever help and support possible and even held receptions for them. In my visits to the Soviet Union, successive Australian prime ministers, despite incurring the rage of the Soviet authorities, instructed the Moscow embassy to provide me with transportation and support in meeting refuseniks.
The government also played a major role in the struggle to rescind the UN resolution bracketing Zionism with racism and assisted Australian Jewish leaders in their efforts to help pave the way for diplomatic relations between Israel and both India and China.
MUCH OF the credit for this can be attributed to a united Jewish leadership which was never reticent in raising its voice to confront governments displaying bias against the Jewish state or conforming to the anti-Israeli stance of the international community. There was also a longstanding tradition by the Jewish community to facilitate visits to Israel for a wide cross-section of parliamentarians. Likewise, the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce emerged as possibly the most effective and successful of all the chambers of commerce.
The Australia-Israel relationship was strengthened during the 11 years of the Howard government. Over the past year, just prior to the overthrow of prime minister Rudd by his own party, there were concerns that the policy had tilted against Israel because the government was canvassing support for election to the UN Security Council. Following a meeting with the national Jewish leadership, the situation appeared to have been resolved but was never tested because shortly afterward, Gillard displaced Rudd.
It would seem that today bipartisan support for Israel will be maintained. However, there are concerns. Gillard is regarded as being evenhanded and friendly, but the Labor Party was obliged to forge an alliance with the Greens whose attitude toward Israel is highly antagonistic. However, most of her new cabinet is pro-Israel, as is the powerful opposition.
Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears who lived during the Holocaust and witnessed the struggle to establish the State of Israel. The cost of day school education has risen considerably, with many parents unwilling to match the sacrifices of their parents to ensure a Jewish education for their children. The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing.

There is also a discernible change in the political climate. Australian trade unions, traditionally bastions of support for Israel, now even endorse anti-Israeli boycotts. The churches, many of which were previously hostile, have intensified their anti-Israeli approach. Anti-Israeli activity at universities is escalating and encouraged by a number of Jewish academics. Anti-Zionist Jewish splinter groups have emerged although in contrast to the US, they are totally marginalized from the mainstream.
Yet notwithstanding these emerging challenges, if there were more Jewish communities like Australia, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

The 21st Century's Religious Battlegrounds.

2010-09-19T06:59:00.000-07:00

The 20th Century saw the first World War fought on nationalism, the second on a megalomaniacal racist ideology as well as nationalism, then the Cold War on a no less megalomaniacal,now communist-anti-religious nationalism of the East, versus individual freedoms and the free market ideologies of the West.

Where to next? How can the world live in peace for long? Democracies are for the educated, freedom loving, middle classes.
Inevitably, the conflict focus shifted towards the democratic religious freedoms of the Judeo-Christian West being attacked by the poor Islamic theocracies of the ME, Africa and Asia.
In each case,it was and is economic disparity which creates jealousies between warring nations and even between splinter groups within nations. These are the root causes of all wars and conflicts. Is religion the common denominator now (?cosa belli)or the means to an end? For the fanatical Islamists,- it is their Hitlerian or Stalinist aim to rule over an Islamic world. For the Shiite rulers like Iran's Ahmadinejad,Hezbollah, Hamas et al. it is simply to show up to the majority Sunnis and the West that they are as powerful and as good as they are at .....what?

In between,- of course there is tiny Israel,- the perennial Jewish scapegoat,- far too successful at surviving for the other religions to swallow.

Between political repressions, armed conflicts and poverty in the third-world, it is the West, including Australia which is swamped by an exodus of people from those countries.

Their religious customs vary, their cultural backgrounds are different to the European ones and there is not just racism which is feared,(as the 2 articles below show) but a religious and customary intolerance when new minority communities may insist on maintaining ways of life which are totally at odds with the accepting resident majority. Unless the demographics change of course- then all will adapt to the new cultures' way of life as Australia already has since the WW2.

As I keep maintaining,- if we want new immigrants to become accepted citizens in their new countries, there are certain fundamental laws and principles which they must be told about from the beginning. Most come because they think that freedom and tolerance means that they can keep on living and doing everything the way they were used to in their (obviously failed) previous homeland.It is the economic advantages they want, first and foremost. The educated elite would know what to expect and try to integrate, but most refugees are not of that class. They need a lot of help, support, investment in education, absorption and intercultural bridge-building. It usually takes a couple of generations to work themselves in successfully.

Except that now we have the internet and when do we want everything? Now!
Is it timely for the world to prepare for a cyber war next perhaps?
The 'space invaders' may be here already!
MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theage.com.au/national/battlegrounds-for-belief-20100917-15gdx.html

BATTLE GROUND FOR BELIEF
Barney Zwartz

Which groups of Australians most worry other Australians? Muslims, gays and -astonishingly- witches. These apparently anachronistic views appear in a survey of public submissions to a national inquiry into freedom of religion and belief in the 21st century, from which the draft report was submitted last week to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
--(snip)---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Conclusion)
(Professor) Parkinson thinks political correctness has nearly made genuine belief about right and wrong illegitimate.
“What has been an orthodox view for thousands of years is now almost illegal to express.”

He (Professor Patrick Parkinson, Sydney Uni.) says there are legitimate concerns that moves to protect religious freedom might actually limit them. ''The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission is exhibit one. The HREOC [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, now the Australian Human Rights Commission] also got off to a terrible start with Tom Calma. The religious freedom issue was very significant in resistance to a human rights act, because there was a view that the commission was aggressively secular and didn't respect or understand religious rights when in competition with anything else,'' Parkinson says.

''The commission has a lot of bridge-building to do. But the president, Catherine Branson, is very well aware of our concerns and, I think, keen to mend fences.'' Parkinson is less optimistic about the Victorian commission. ''It will need to shed some of its more extreme and dogmatic positions in order to regain the trust and respect of faith-based communities in Victoria.''

Victorian Equal Opportunity Commissioner Helen Szoke says the organisation has spent years painstakingly engaging with religious groups. ''I think everyone is completely respectful of the values and beliefs of Christian organisations, but they are both protected by the human rights and equal opportunity framework and also have obligations under it,'' Szoke says.

Clearly, consensus is a long way off, and the commission will need the wisdom of Solomon if it is to satisfy both those who want religious exemptions reduced, and those suspicious souls who in their submissions called it ''the Freedom from Religion inquiry''

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/religious-intolerance-is-only-for-the-weak-20100917-15g65.html?comments=76#comments

Religious intolerance is only for the weak

Martin Flanagan
September 18, 2010

WHILE appearing to smoke joints rolled with pages from the Bible and the Koran in footage posted on YouTube, Brisbane atheist Alex Stewart had this to say: "With respect to books like the Bible and the Koran, whatever, just get over it.'' This could be a line from a Cheech and Chong movie. Stewart went on: ''Is this profanity? Is it blasphemy? Does it matter?'' Well, it matters to some people.

America right now is in strife in this regard. The issue of a Muslim community centre being built near the Ground Zero site is proving bitterly divisive. President Barack Obama stands in the middle trying to preserve calm, but a recent survey shows more Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim than when he was elected president. That's worrying. Even more worrying is that 60 per cent of those people said they got their idea from the media.

One of Obama's most vocal critics is media "personality" Glenn Beck. Last month, writing about a Beck "Restoring Honour" rally, celebrity journalist Christopher Hitchens said the upsurge in anti-Muslim feeling among white Americans reflected the fact that the day when they no longer constituted the majority of the American population was now within "thinkable distance".

Hitchens is also an atheist. In June, he was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and announced that he was dying. This has led to him receiving a flood of emails from believers offering prayers on his behalf. One emailer called on him to convert to Christianity, saying he would be the biggest recruit to the cause since Saint Paul. Hitchens is the former Trotskyite who ended up championing the invasion of Iraq. Saint Paul is the former tax collector who became the early Christian church's great proselytiser.

The comparison is an intriguing one.

During last month's federal election, a young man told me he was voting for Tony Abbott because Julia Gillard had no family and Abbott did. He added, ''She's an atheist. She doesn't believe in anything.'' As a matter of logic, it doesn't follow that an atheist doesn't believe in anything. Generally, what characterises atheists is a radical disbelief in the story of divine behaviour attributed to the religious entity commonly called God.

In this respect, I am impressed by the Jewish practice of not using the word God. They write G-d and, in so doing, dismantle much of the argument before it begins. Most arguments about God are really arguments about ideas of God; about mental images of God (which might, in turn, be seen as examples of idolatry). It's a lot harder to imagine G-d than it is to imagine God.

During the election, I heard a woman who was against Gillard say that atheists didn't believe in anything outside themselves. But what if they believe, for example, in justice as a basic human right? And what if they believe that, in humankind, there is a capacity for good - along with all the other human capacities - that can be appealed to. These are beliefs in something both outside the individual and greater than the individual.

Debates about atheism tend to be boring. Like all conflicts to do with religion, they seem to end up with kindred spirits in passionate opposition to one another. A recent example was the Florida pastor who proposed burning the Koran because, in his view, it was not a book of peace - without appearing to realise he was committing an act of war. Earlier this week, the number of people said to have died in Kashmir as a result was already 19.

I understand people being attracted to atheism at this time. The great question asked by our age may indeed be: Is religion ultimately a blessing or a curse for humanity? But there is a fundamental difference between religion as an idea and a good person who's religious. I hope I show respect to good people wherever I meet them, and an age-old sign of respect is to avoid giving needless offence.

But there's also an argument here to do with global realpolitik. We have to find a way to live with one another, or what do we honestly expect is going to happen on our already overcrowded planet?

There are intellectuals who argue that conflict is inevitable, but the further such voices of reason live from the places where the conflicts are actually occurring, where thousands of civilians are being blown apart and bereaved, the less persuasive I find them. Some would say the position of tolerance I am arguing for is weak and based on an illusion. I say it is coldly pragmatic and may require all the strength we can muster.

Martin Flanagan is a senior writer.

Fellow Travellers & Useful Idiots.

2010-09-19T05:39:00.000-07:00

[Those of us who survived Hitler and Nazism, Stalin and Communism know all about the dictators' 'fellow travellers' and their 'useful idiots'. But Islamic terrorists claim to be in the service of God screaming 'Allah Akhbar' as they detonate their homicide vests indiscriminately killing their own as well as 'infidels'. As God's 'fellow travellers', what can one call them? Which kind of God would call them 'useful'?
MM]

http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-sept-10-radical-islams-fellow-travellers-nick-cohen-tariq-ramadan
________________________________________
Radical Islam's Fellow-Travellers
Nick Cohen
September 2010

Contemplating with his customary scorn the artists who had embraced the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky wondered what it would take to break their attachment to a cause that would eventually murder many of them ¬ and kill Trotsky too, although he was yet to know it. "As regards a fellow-traveller," he said, "the question always comes up ¬ how far will he go?" Would the barbarism of the dictatorship of the proletariat persuade him to "change at one of the stations on to the train going the other way"? Or would he stay on for the rest of the ride?

As Trotsky implied, fellow-travelling with communism was not always akin to endorsing the creed. Communists accepted crimes committed in the name of the revolution without hesitation. The fellow-traveller looked away from communism's victims and invited others to do the same. Communists damned "bourgeois democracy". It disillusioned communism's fellow-travellers, too, but not enough to persuade them to give up on democratic politics completely and join the revolution. They wished the Soviet Union well and found its experiments on the human race bracing. But in the words of David Caute, the best historian of fellow-travelling, their support was a "commitment at a distance".
The reception given to Tariq Ramadan when he arrived in New York in April showed that today a type of fellow-travelling with radical Islam has spread from Europe to America. From the applause he drew, it seemed to me that no one involved would be changing trains for a while. The willingness of Ramadan's admirers to ignore the victims of totalitarianism was familiar but everything else was different. The readers of the New York Review of Books and the Nation, like the readers of Le Monde Diplomatique and the New Statesman, are not committing to radical Islam, even at a distance. They do not believe in the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals and apostates, the Jewish conspiracy theory and the creation of a theocratic empire in the way that communism's old fellow-travellers in socialism believed to varying degrees. The best they can manage is a feeble relativism. "But it's their culture to oppress women," they insist. "It's imperialist to impose Western human rights standards on others." For good reasons as well as bad, they hate the policies of their own governments. I accept that their denunciations can often give the impression that they want the Iranian mullahs or the Taliban to triumph. But with the exception of the far Left which has merged with the Islamist far Right, most don't think about what Islamism represents, let alone what a victory for Islamist forces would entail.

The absence of a positive commitment sets them apart from the intellectual friends of communism in the early- and mid-20th century. Modern fellow-travellers go along for a ride with ideas they would find repugnant if they could ever bring themselves to confront them.

The contortions the new ideology necessitates were on display at the Great Hall of Cooper Union College in Manhattan. The audience treated Ramadan as if he were a victim of oppression, which in a small way he was. The Bush administration had refused him permission to enter America in 2004. Citing the "ideological exclusion provisions of the Patriot Act", the State Department claimed that he had supported charities linked to Hamas. Ramadan did not suffer greatly. Oxford University, now a home for reactionary causes, made him its Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies, while the Labour government consulted him about how to deal with Islamic extremism. Quite properly, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American branch of PEN successfully lobbied the courts to have his travel ban lifted. They argued that their fellow citizens were grown-ups who were entitled to hear what Ramadan says.

Defending freedom of speech is one thing. Permissively ¬ or passively ¬ agreeing with the speaker is another. At the end of his session, a questioner asked Ramadan for his response to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's feminist critique of Islam. Ramadan was scathing. Hirsi Ali believed that the only way to be a Muslim in an open society was to be an ex-Muslim, he replied. Her assertion that democracy and secularism were incompatible with Islam was very close "to what I get from racists" who target you "because you are a Muslim".

Racism is it now? Well, there's a charge to send a shiver of indignation down the spine of a well-bred liberal. The well-bred crowd in New York duly felt a righteous tingle run down theirs. They did not protest that Ramadan was making the schoolboy howler of confusing ethnicity ¬ which no one can change ¬ with religion, which is a system of ideas that men and women ought to be free to accept or reject. They did not reflect that in many countries dictatorial gangs asserted that because religion was an unalterable facet of a believer's personality, they could sentence to death those who chose of their own free will to change or reject it.

Nor did an angry official from PEN, an organisation dedicated to protecting writers from censorship, march on to the stage to tell Ramadan that if he wanted to talk about "targets" and "racism" then he ought to remember Ayaan Hirsi Ali had been targeted by Islamists trying to inflict the ultimate form of censorship on her. She first received death threats after protesting against the "honour killings" and female genital mutilations inflicted on immigrant women in Holland. She made a short film with the Dutch director Theo van Gogh in which he projected misogynist verses from the Koran on to the bodies of actresses playing abused women. For this, Mohammed Bouyeri slaughtered him in the street. With his dagger he pinned a raving letter to Hirsi Ali on to the bloodied corpse. Over five sheets, he explained that she must die because she was "a soldier of evil" doing the work of her "Jewish masters".

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a Somali asylum-seeker from a Muslim family. By speaking out against the oppression of women, she underwent a supernatural transformation. In the eyes of her potential murderers, she at once became a Jew or a Jewish dupe, the agent of a diabolical, and familiar, conspiracy by the Elders of Zion to annihilate Islam and control the world. Ever since, she has had to live with that threat that other murderers will make good on Bouyeri's promise to kill her. When I last saw her in London, an IRA man who had gone over to the British side was using his knowledge of the terrorist mind to organise her security. No one present thought she was being over-cautious or that he was making a fuss about nothing.

Her plight is well known, even in Manhattan, but not one timorous voice objected to Ramadan accusing a woman whose friend had been murdered by racists and who still needed security guards to protect her from racists, of being close to being a racist herself. The audience instead gave him a hearty round of applause.

The unthinking immorality of their reaction, its parochialism and boorishness, provides a fitting backdrop to the controversy about how Western liberals are responding to the challenge of armed and belligerent reaction. Ramadan and Hirsi Ali both have new books out. Meanwhile, Paul Berman has produced a lucid assault on the double-dealing of the Anglo-American intelligentsia. He weaves its response to Ramadan and Hirsi Ali into the history of how Ramadan's grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, mingled the ideas of European fascism with religion in the early years of the Muslim Brotherhood to produce the one of the first authentically Islamist movements. Berman's Flight of the Intellectuals (Melville House) has in turn provoked a furious and unintentionally revealing reaction from the New York literary press, which I have no doubt will have led a delighted Berman to hug himself and say "I told you so".

When picking your way through the argument, it is as important to keep your eye on the critics of liberal orthodoxy as the orthodox themselves. Unlike many of his opponents, I do not believe that it is now fair to describe Ramadan as an Islamist. Whatever he believed in the past, no militant in the Muslim Brotherhood could have written a book like his latest, The Quest for Meaning (Allen Lane). It does not seek to cast a cloak of academic respectability over the justifications for wife-beating, female genital mutilation, the execution of homosexuals and the mass murder of the Jews that come from the Brotherhood's pre-eminent scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. It does not appear to be the work of any kind of sectarian, but rather of a turgid ecumenicist. Platitudes stumble through its pages like weary travellers looking for rest. "We have to become adults whether we like it or not," he says of growing old. "The first steps are indeed the hardest," he says of the spiritual journey he wishes us to follow. After reading the first chapters, I had to concede he was right. He examines competing religions and finds in true Thought for the Day fashion that what unites them is more important than what divides them. If only everyone recognised the common ground, we would understand "the other as he is, his way of thinking, his emotional and affective reactions from where he stands without prejudging anything". Like Dr Casaubon, Ramadan has produced a Key to All Mythologies, which is as dry and pedantic in life as it was in George Eliot's fiction.

Only if you read him closely do you grasp why so many French thinkers regarded him with suspicion before he moved to Britain. For what does he mean when he says we should not prejudge "the other"? Ramadan studied at Geneva University and the continental school of philosophy rarely teaches its students the virtues of clarity. On one question, however, Ramadan speaks plainly. The religious tolerance of the Enlightenment is not good enough for him. Tolerance means suffering the presence of "the other", he says. Only when we move from tolerance to respect will we "recognise that the other is as complex as we are; he is our equal, our mirror, our question".

Forget the sanctimonious sentiments for a moment. Forget, too, that Ramadan refuses to condemn or even mention the religious oppression and violence in much of the Muslim world, and consider what he is asking us to throw away. Religious tolerance received its classic Enlightenment definition in Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1777: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...All men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion."

Jefferson's key phrase was "by argument". Toleration did not limit debate but removed the barriers of state and church that had stood in debate's way. Argument is not in its nature always respectful of "the other's" point of view. At its best, it is robust and demanding. Ramadan's insistence on "respect" is a way of erecting new barriers in place of old, of ruling debates off limits.

He has been saying throughout his career that we must bite our tongues. He left France after Nicolas Sarkozy challenged him on TV to condemn outright the stoning to death of adulterous women. Ramadan could not do it. The best he could manage was to mutter that he wished to see a "moratorium" on religious murder. The French journalist Caroline Fourest described his tendency to look liberal while refusing come out against anti-liberal causes as "Ramadan's double-speak". He appears not to condone Qaradawi's cruelty, then appears to ally with Qaradawi. He appears to condemn Islamist violence to one audience, but not to another.
The BBC provided an example of what replacing argument with respect means in practice when it invited him to debate the burqa and niqab with the Anglo-Egyptian campaigner for women's rights Mona Eltahawy. She complained that Western governments had abandoned Muslim liberals and allowed Wahhabi and Salafist ideologues to impose their dehumanising ideas on Muslim women. To shroud them in black. To make them invisible. Europe left the public sphere "completely uncontested to the Muslim right wing which does not respect anyone's rights whatsoever except for this one right to cover a woman's face. No one has pushed back against the Muslim right wing. I detest the political right wing [she meant European nativist and racist parties] but I equally detest the Muslim right wing and I will not sacrifice women to it."

Ramadan's response was instructive. He refused to accept that there was a reactionary strain in Islam ¬ the "Muslim right wing" to use Eltahawy's term ¬ and brushed her complaints away with impatience. Some scholars supported covering up women, he said. He disagreed with them. He was, after all, an Oxford don and darling of the ACLU and PEN crowd. However, he insisted that not only was it illiberal for states to legislate against the burqa, a position I have sympathy with, but that it was wrong to take on the "Muslim right wing" or even to admit that a "Muslim right wing" existed. Contrary to Jefferson, Eltahawy could not engage in argument and "maintain opinions in matters of religion". Respect prohibited it.

Accusations of betrayal, of selling out or of becoming a craven compromiser flow too readily from leftish lips. Tony Blair was on the receiving end of this kind of abuse when he was in power. Barack Obama is now getting the same treatment from American liberals. In matters of violent religion, however, large swathes of liberal opinion are desperate to sell out. Ever since Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the murders and atrocious injuries Islamists inflicted on the translators of The Satanic Verses, they have known that standing up for liberal values takes a physical courage they are not sure they possess. Since 9/11, they have noticed how widespread support for elements of Islamism has become not only in the Middle East and Asia but in European immigrant communities too. They know that there are many people out there who might take a shot at them if they stuck their heads above the parapet. They rarely admit it, but they are frightened of what challenging conspiracy theories and the oppression of women might entail.

They welcome Ramadan because he gets them out of the hole. He gives them liberal-sounding reasons in reassuringly clunky PC language to excuse the abandonment of liberal causes. Just as pleasingly, he helps them find novel ways to condemn those who stay true to liberal values as culturally insensitive neo-cons, who are close to being racists.

Berman maps the consequences. With a justifiably brutal relentlessness he shows how fear of Islamism leads liberals to turn on men and women. As a case study, Berman contrasts the indulgence offered to Ramadan with the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Timothy Garton Ash and Ian Buruma in the pages of the New York Review of Books and the New York Times.

Unlike Ramadan, Hirsi Ali is straightforward. You do not have to consult a dictionary or phone a friend before trying to guess her meaning. She is a liberal feminist, and does not attempt to hide it. She has no need for artifice or double-talk. The clarity of her writing reflects the clarity of her purpose.

Her feminism comes from experience. She has described her own genital mutilation and the botched genital mutilation of her sister, her horror, as a girl, at seeing the women of Saudi Arabia for the first time, their faces hidden by veils and their black robes hanging so shapelessly that you had to see which way their shoes were pointing to know which way they were looking. She has written of the shelters for abused Muslim women in Holland, of the terrors of refugee existence and the double terrors of refugee existence for women. "All these passages express something that can never be detected in a certain kind of high-minded cerebral journalism today," says Berman. "It is a visceral anger at oppression...You do not have to wonder: where does she stand on the ques-tion of stoning women to death? Or on the obligation for husbands to beat their wives? Read one page by her and you will know the answer."

Liberals hated her for her moral clarity. Buruma and Garton Ash denounced her for being crude, zealous, strident, humourless, ineffective and contemptuous of others. She was an "Enlightenment fundamentalist", as bigoted in her insistence that women should not be stoned to death as those Islamist fundamentalists who insisted that they should.

Parallels with the 20th century struck me on every page. Susan Sontag, a former president of American PEN who defended Rushdie with a vigour her successors cannot match, scandalised leftish New Yorkers when she addressed a town hall meeting as the Soviet empire was starting to crumble under pressure from Poland's Solidarity trade union. Imagine, she told the assembled fellow-travellers as she tried to dissolve their illusions, "the preposterous case of somebody who read only the Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and somebody else who read only the Nation between 1950 and 1970. Who would be getting more truth about the nature of communism? There's no doubt it would have been the Reader's Digest reader."

Berman pays an unwitting tribute to Sontag when he concludes by noticing that Garton Ash had patronised Hirsi Ali in the New York Review of Books by implying that the attention she received owed more to her striking beauty than the quality of her thought. Why, Garton Ash snickered, Glamour magazine had made her its "hero of the month".

He left an open goal and Berman tapped the ball into the net. "I can't help observing that Glamour magazine nowadays offers a more reliable guide to liberal principles than the New York Review of Books," he replied.
If I were editing the New York Review of Books, I would take a long sabbatical if anyone had been able to say that about pieces I had commissioned. (Even Garton Ash recoiled at what he had done and apologised to Hirsi Ali.) But I would still protest that Ramadan, Garton Ash and Buruma might have a case when they said that only Muslims could reform Islam. It might not be true ¬ wider cultural changes might be more important than disputes among the faithful ¬ but at least it is not a disgraceful viewpoint, and that makes a welcome change. The New York Review of Books maintained that Ayaan Hirsi Ali ruled herself out of the argument because she manifested her intolerant "Enlightenment fundamentalism" by responding to the mutilation of her genitals, the murder of her friend and threats to her life by giving up on Islam and becoming an atheist. Unfortunately for them, at no point did they go on to say that across Europe, there remained avowedly Muslim politicians, writers, artists, journalists and activists who have tried to oppose Islamists and received death threats and physical assaults in response. Their cause ought to be a liberal cause, but the evidence from the New York Review of Books' most recent take on Ramadan, Hirsi Ali and Berman is that liberals have yet to learn that it is their moral duty to support them against their enemies.

Malise Ruthven, who once wrote perceptive books on the sociology of religion, denounces Berman in its pages. (I suppose it was asking too much to expect a rave review in the circumstances.) He has no time for Berman's argument that Islamism was something new in Islam's history because it was an amalgamation of religion with ideas and methods taken from European totalitarianism. And, by extension, no time for the notion that the victims of Islamism are the victims of clerical fascist movements.

Berman is guilty of "ignoring nuances", Ruthven says gravely. He constructs a crude "totalitarian model" to explain the thinking of al-Banna's Muslim Brotherhood and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of Jama'at-e-Islami, the Brotherhood's South Asian sister party.
Ruthven's mention of Jama'at made me pause. I knew it to be the ancestor of the Islamist groups that terrorise Pakistan and India and have a pernicious influence on British Islam. In Dacca, war crimes prosecutors have just reminded us of its dark history in Bangladesh and indicted several of its Bengali leaders on charges of participating in the Pakistani army's campaign of mass murder and mass rape in the 1971 war of independence. I knew I had read a good description of Jama'at's totalitarian nature ¬ but where? I reached for my bookshelf and by good fortune found a copy of A Satanic Affair, Malise Ruthven's 1991 account of the persecution of Rushdie. Jama'at began the bloody riots against The Satanic Verses, he explained. No one who had studied the thought of its founder should be surprised that it attracted know-nothing book-burners to its ranks. "Strongly influenced by the political climate of the 1930s, Maududi cited Italian Fascists, German Nazis and Russian Communists as examples of small, informed and dedicated groups capable of seizing power and exercising it effectively," Ruthven explained. "While disagreeing with their ideologies, he admired their methods."

In 1991, he was able to recognise totalitarianism and call it by its real name. In 2010, he condemns those who follow the example of his younger and better self. Like so many others, he has boarded the train. I hope that a few of his fellow-passengers will jump off soon, while accepting that the lesson of history is that most of them will.

SHANA TOVA. Happy New Year 5771

2010-09-09T03:02:00.000-07:00

On Rosh Hashana it is written:
on Yom Kippur it is sealed:

How many shall pass on, how many shall come to be;
who shall live, who shall die;
who shall see ripe age, who shall not;
who shall perish by fire, who by water;
who by sword, who by beast;
who by hunger, who by thirst;
who by earthquake, who by plague;
who by strangling, who by stoning;
who shall be secure, who shall be driven;
who shall be tranquil, who shall be troubled;
who shall be poor. who shall be rich;
who shall be humbled and who shall be exalted.

Every year as I read these words, I cannot help wondering,- who are those in my family, friends, country,- to whom do these predictions refer for the following year?
We know last year's results:Australians have suffered from fire first and now water; New Zealanders have just overcome the earthquake,- but luckily except for the disastrous fires, no loss of life from the other natural disasters.
Did we think that stoning belonged to the dark ages of the past? Not so for the poor mother awaiting her fate in Iran,who still doesn't know whether she will be strangled or stoned,- but her leaders, Ahmadinejahd doesn't seem to be troubled, nor driven,- hopefully he won't reach his old age! Let G-d smite him with his own sword, sooner rather than later!
Poor Africans are dying of thirst and hunger in droves, women and children are raped daily, - but the evil ones are neither humbled nor smitten in too many parts of the world.

G-d must be very busy keeping up with all the natural disasters on the one hand and all the evils perpetrated by humans' inhumanity to humans on the other!The suffering of the poor trafficked women and children is not ordained,-they are just cruelly taken advantage of, due to their weaknesses. May G-d give them the strength to overcome their miseries and may the free world eliminate this tragedy.

So we continue with our prayer for peace and for humanity:
"Grant peace and happiness, blessing and mercy, to all Israel and all the world.Bless us o G-d, all of us together, with the light of your presence, for in the light of Your presence we have found (or hope to find!)the love of mercy,the law of justice,and the way of peace: for it is ever Your will that the people of Israel shall be (finally) blessed with peace.
Teach us to labour for righteousness and inscribe us in the book of life, blessing and peace."

THE SOUND OF THE SHOFAR HERALDS THE BEGINNING OF A NEW LUNAR YEAR AND THE DAWN OF, HOPEFULLY A BETTER ONE THAN THE LAST ONE, FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

Miriam M.

Welcome first Australian female Prime Minister: Julia Gillard.

2010-09-07T07:48:00.000-07:00

8/9/2010.
Today, caretaker PM, Julia Gillard (Labor Party)was given the mantle to continue as PM and the leader of the minority Government in her own right,rather than one appointed by her Party on the resignation of the previously elected PM, Kevin Rudd.

The required number of Independent MHRs sided with her over the Coalition parties, giving her the barest of majorities,- probably of just one! Will this Government be stable? Will it last the distance,- in spite of all the assurances? Somehow I doubt it!

Given that Tony Abbott is considered the best and most successful Opposition leader ever, now that he will continue in Opposition, I cannot see that he will not use any opportunity that will present itself to create havoc in the government ranks.

The Independents have enjoyed enormous power and media exposure for the last few weeks since the election and no doubt are looking forward to continue being in the limelight. Personally, I am not convinced that if they play upon this new-found power too much, that the major Parties will not combine to thwart them in the end.

Do we the people of Australia really want to be held to ransom by a few individual representatives from the rural areas on the one hand and by the minority Green Party in the Senate after next year on the other,- influencing such issues as Foreign Affairs, defence, immigration, taxes,plus a whole host of important issues which will determine the future stability and security of our Nation?

In the end,- will the Labor Party really want to be beholden to these individuals when going before the people to the next election? It will be the Liberals who will be able to say "we are the only independent Party and we ask for a mandate to govern in our own right!"

PM Gillard being a woman notwithstanding, I am glad that it is Tony Abbott who is in the Opposition. I fear the influence of the Independents and the Greens on the Government of the day and I look to the Liberals to make sure they don't mess us up!

MM

The menace of men who hate women

2010-09-07T07:23:00.000-07:00

* David Aaronovitch
* From: The Australian
* August 16, 2010

IMAGINE for a moment that terrorist violence was, as some insist,
linked to real grievances.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-menace-of-men-who-hate-women/story-e6frg6ux-1225905590147

Think what the women of the world might do to some of the men.

Let's say the Iranian authorities, who insist they will not be "swayed
by the hue and cry in the West", do hang or stone Sakineh Mohammadi
Ashtiani for alleged adultery and murder. Would any Iranian diplomat
be safe from the avenging female army?

Or the husband of Aisha, and the Taliban judge who ordered him to cut
off his young wife's nose and ears after she dared to run away from
her spouse's violence. What might the women's mujaheddin do to them?
Set fire to their beards and cut off slowly the attributes they
imagined conferred on them the right to mutilate another human being?

And the executioners of the nameless woman of Badghis. Or say Mullah
Daoud, the Taliban big cheese who was one of three judges who declared
that a widow who had become pregnant must be an adultress, and should
be flogged in public until nearly dead and then shot in the head. "We
gave this decision so that in future no one should have these illegal
affairs," the mullah said, although no man has been punished.

The "Revolutionary Women's Command", unable to locate the mullah,
would simply target any male in any country with a Pashtun name. "You
must learn to suffer as we have suffered," a video made by a woman in
a burka would say.

The cases are real, the fantasies of revenge are not. In some ways I
wish they were. If only you could take these bearded, yelling, violent
woman-haters and subject them to the same treatment they hand out. But
it would be wrong, counter-productive, and there are so many of them.

Twenty years ago, political philosopher Amartya Sen raised the
relatively undiscussed question of the missing women. In any
population, he pointed out, you might expect slightly more women than
men because of life expectancy. But in some parts of the world this
wasn't the case. In China, there were 107 men to every 100 women. In
India it was 108, and in Pakistan 111.

For whatever reason, this meant something like 100 million women were
simply missing. So where had they gone?

Probably they were killed at birth, died avoidably in childbirth or
were denied the same rights as males to medical care.

In a recent book on women in the developing world, Half the Sky,
American writers Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn write about how
girls in India between the ages of one and five were 50 per cent more
likely to die than their brothers. "More girls have been killed in the
past 50 years precisely because they were girls than people were
slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century," they say.

Kristof estimates there are annually about 6000 "honour killings" (ie
murders of women wanting minimal rights) worldwide. And as many as
three million girls and women have been coerced - as opposed to
recruited - into the Third World sex trade.

Weirdly, when Sen or Kristof and WuDunn or Time magazine point this
out, the reaction of some in the West is to accuse them of a
colonialist mentality.

One female Cambridge academic said last week - from the very belly of
women's free speech and free agency - that the "affluent West" had
"little to offer Afghans other than bikini waxes and Oprah-imitators".
And a British critic of Half the Sky demanded: "Why are we so
wonderful? Our society is still just as sexist, albeit in more subtle
ways, than the burka-enforcing Taliban. Working on a farm and
producing your own food is a far more viable and healthy option than
slaving in a sweat or sex shop."

The dead woman of Badghis is in no position to argue that perhaps the
West might have offered equality before the law, a fair trial, an
absence of overwhelming judicial male violence, and life. She may have
gone to her death with that "stoic docility" noted by Kristof and
WuDunn. She is unlikely to have had any education, and may have
regarded her death as in some way inevitable and necessary. No one
seems to have asked for her views, or to have been interested in them.

And why should we be? We have our own battles to fight. We ought
perhaps to lament the way the world is, the way its different cultures
are, and then move on. It isn't as if we don't have plenty of stuff
left over from our own misogynist past. Take that residual squeak of
what the Iranians call the "golden penis" - the entitlement of the boy
to a greater share - emitted every time girls do better at school. Up
goes the whine that there is "feminisation" of education that
disadvantages boys, who can only succeed when coursework is not
assessed. What utter rubbish!

Here's why it matters so much. Even if we felt no moral imperative to
help (and many do), we have every practical motive. We simply aren't
cut off from the fate of the world's women. A small example surfaced
last week after the shooting of the British couple in Pakistan.

We reported the cases of a number of young British women on the run
from forced marriages and male "honour" violence in this country. As
the Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood explained, when young Asian women
have the chance and the education, they certainly want to exercise
their own choice.

But far more than that, the oppression of women holds back social and
economic development in societies that practise legal misogyny, making
them poorer and more violent.

Birth rates are higher and poverty worse in the world's anti-women
cultures, where girls are usually uneducated.

And where there are more young men than young women, as a result of
polygamy and early death, I bet there is also more violence, more
psychosexual dysfunction, more substitution of the bomb for the
girlfriend. And we all get it in the neck.

The Times

AUSTRALIAN ELECTION 2010

2010-08-23T00:21:00.000-07:00

Lacklustre, dull and boring!
Dangerous times ahead!

“As a feminist, you must be voting for the first woman PM.” I was told by my traditional Labor voting friends.
I said that, “ yes, as a feminist I am always happy to vote for a woman entering Parliament as my local member” because as a feminist, I want to see many more women in Parliament for most Parties to give them plenty of choice to select a woman as PM, in exactly the same way as a male is selected.- i.e. the best person for the job.

However, as a voter I never vote for the leader, only for the best person to represent me in Parliament.
After all, one never knows for how long and who will still be the leader at the end of their term, but at least our local members should last out their term in office.
In addition, as a ‘swinging voter’, I will choose the candidates from either major Party who take the trouble to make themselves known to the electorate, to the community and to the individual electors.

As for my Party or Parties of choice, for me it is only those with a history of experience in managing our country’s ‘big picture’ agendas,- not fly-by-nighters and one-issue groups forming themselves into political Parties for the purpose of seeking power in shaping the nation’s future according to their own narrow philosophies.

The danger from disaffected, ignorant voters in our democratic system, is when we have a most boring and colourless election as this one has been, that they may end up giving them the power to do just that.

Lest we forget: the Nazis came democratically to power in exactly the same way, i.e.in a vacuum caused by lacklustre Parties used to being in power!All it would have taken these days of constant media exposure,is someone with charisma ("chen"in Yiddish)from the Greens to get into an even more powerful position,but luckily,- (or sadly for all Parties)- in short supply this time!
MM.

WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS (WJC) meeting in Jerusalem. Press Release.

2010-08-22T21:46:00.000-07:00

Press Advisory
19 August 2010

World Jewish Congress: Wiesel, Aznar, Join Diaspora Jewish Leaders in Jerusalem to Counter Intensifying Assault on Israel
Ronald S. Lauder: “Defending Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is top priority”

NEW YORK / JERUSALEM –

Heads of Jewish communities from around the world will gather in Jerusalem for a meeting of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) Governing Board on 31 August and 1 September 2010. The gathering will focus on ways to fight the growing threats against Israel. It will be addressed by senior statesmen from Israel and abroad.
Writer and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Professor Elie Wiesel will be presented with the first WJC „Guardian of Jerusalem‟ award in recognition of his lifetime accomplishments on behalf of the Jewish people. Members of the Israeli Haiti emergency rescue operation will receive a special award for their heroic humanitarian efforts in the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, and opposition leader and Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer and Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau also confirmed their participation.
Former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar will give a keynote address to delegates about the recently launched Friends of Israel Initiative (www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org).
Ahead of the Governing Board, World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder said:
“Everywhere, we are witnessing concerted efforts to attack the legitimacy of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Boycott, sanctions and divestment campaigns are becoming prevalent; Israeli academics, authors, artists and sportspeople are being banned from participating in events; the media often presents a one-sided view of developments, and Israel is almost always being singled out for blame. We will be developing proactive initiatives to address these issues, and we will underline the need for Diaspora Jewry‟s continued unwavering solidarity with Israel in a global environment that is increasingly hostile to those positions.”
The WJC meeting will be attended by around 150 leaders representing all major Jewish communities in the world and will adopt the future priorities and action plans of the organization. It will also discuss the difficult situation faced by certain Jewish communities, e.g. in Sweden and Venezuela.
Proceedings at the Governing Board will be open to the media, and interviews with WJC representatives can be arranged; please contact one of the contact persons below. Details regarding press accreditation, the precise agenda and the location will be released closer to the event.

The World Jewish Congress (www.worldjewishcongress.org) is the international organization representing Jewish communities in 92 countries around the world. The WJC serves as the diplomatic arm of the Jewish people to governments, parliaments and international organizations.
Media contacts:
Michael Thaidigsmann Jeremy Wimpfheimer Natalie Kachan-Behar (Media outside Israel) (English & Israel-based media) (Israeli media) World Jewish Congress, Brussels Lone Star Communications Eden Communications, Israel Tel: +32 485 86 95 84 Tel: +972 54 659 77 95 Tel: +972 52 377 3265 Email: press@worldjewishcongress.org Email: jeremy@lonestar.co.il Email: Natalie@edenpr.co.il

BOYCOTTS? WHAT. WHY, WHO BOYCOTTS?

2010-08-15T21:37:00.000-07:00

Boycott? What boycott?

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from around the world that the anti-Israeli ‘boycott campaigns’ have exactly the opposite effect on the public at large.

Even among the Palestinians we read that numbers of Palestinians have abandoned their West Bank Palestinian shops after missing several items and go to stores in Israeli areas instead, like the supermarket in the Etzion and Ram area, which is packed with Palestinian customers, as if nothing has happened. A ‘Boycott Israel’ campaign coordinator in Bethlehem is quoted on a Palestinian website as lamenting this failure, giving the reason for it “that people need to have the will to fast from Israeli products”.

[ Barghouti’s boast that BDS has been widely successful is not matched
by reality. No American university, for instance, which hosts the
largest number of visiting Israeli academics globally, has adopted any
measure of the campaign. And attempts to gain a foothold in the
British academy have likewise been met with resistance. The global BDS
movement hasn’t even made that much headway on the Internet: A Google
search for ‘BDS’ places it below the website for the British Deer
Society. See VIEWPOINT: True colours of the BDS movement
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-true-colours-of-the-bds-movement ]

I am not surprised that the National Council of Churches in Australia passed their resolution of boycotting Israeli goods from the Territories. I do not like it, but I can understand why the hierarchy may have felt compelled to do so.They have Christian minorities under siege in many Islamic countries, including in the Palestinian territories, so they try to appease the anti-Israelis for their sake. After all,- nothing will happen to the Christian community in Israel, will it?

But as Ruth Allison writes (AJN 11/8), our Christian friends will continue to do as they please regardless of any ACC resolutions, our enemies don’t count, while we should double our support for Israeli products.

Thank goodness that there are many prominenet non-Jewish supporters of Israel who understand the complexities of Israel’s existence.
This is their well measured statement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704862404575351430715581608.html

Israel: A Normal Country

Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries.
• The following statement has been signed by Jose Maria Aznar, David Trimble, John R. Bolton, Alejandro Toledo, Marcello Pera, Andrew Roberts, Fiamma Nirenstein, George Weigel, Robert F. Agostinelli and Carlos Bustelo:

Mr. Aznar is a former prime minister of Spain. Mr. Trimble is a former first minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Toledo is a former president of Peru. Mr. Pera is a former president of the Italian Senate. Mr. Roberts is a British historian. Ms. Nirenstein is vice-president of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Agostinelli is managing director of the Rhône Group. Mr. Bustelo is a former minister of industry in Spain.

Israel is a Western democracy and a normal country. Nonetheless, Israel has faced abnormal circumstances since its inception. In fact, Israel is the only Western democracy whose existence has been questioned by force, and whose legitimacy is still being questioned independently of its actions.
The recent flotilla crisis in the Mediterranean provided yet another occasion for Israel's detractors to renew their frenzied campaign. It was so even before the facts of that tragic incident had come to light. Eyes were blind to the reasons why Israel had to respond to the Gaza flotilla's clear provocation.
Because we believe Israel is subjected to unfair treatment, and are convinced that defending Israel means defending the values that made and sustain our Western civilization, we have decided to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative. Our goal is to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel. We are an eclectic group, coming from different countries and holding different opinions on a range of issues. It goes without saying that we do not speak for the State of Israel and we do not defend every course of action that it decides upon. We are united, however, by the following beliefs, principles and aims:
First, Israel is a normal, Western democracy and should be treated as such. Its parliamentary system, legal traditions, education and scientific research facilities, and cultural achievements are as fundamental to it as to any other Western society. Indeed, in some of these areas, Israel is a world leader.
Second, attempts to question Israel's basic legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East are unacceptable to people who support liberal democratic values. The State of Israel was founded in the wake of United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. It also arose out of an unbroken Jewish connection to the land that stretches back thousands of years. Israel does not derive its legitimacy, as some claim, from sympathy over the Holocaust. Instead, it derives legitimacy from international law and from the same right to self-determination claimed by all nations.
Third, as a fully legitimate member of the international community, Israel's basic right to self-defense should not be questioned. Nor should it be forgotten that Israel faces unique security threats—from terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and from an Iran seeking nuclear weapons.
United Nations condemnations of Israel arising from last year's Goldstone Report on the recent war in Gaza, for example, ignore the security challenges that Israel faces. All democracies should oppose such campaigns, which ultimately undermine the legitimacy not merely of Israel but of the U.N. itself.
Fourth, we must never forget that Israel is on our side in the battle against Islamism and terror. Israel stands on the front line of that fight as a bulwark of Judeo-Christian values. The belief that the democratic world can sacrifice Israel in order to placate Islamism is profoundly wrong and dangerous. Appeasement failed in the 1930s and it will fail today.
Fifth, attempts by people of good faith to facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians are always to be supported. But outsiders should beware of attempting to impose their own solutions. Israelis and Palestinians should know how to build a viable peace on their own. We can help them, but we cannot force them.
Sixth, we must be alive to the dangers that the campaign against Israel poses in reawakening anti-Semitism. Hostility to the Jews has been a stain on the Western world's honor for centuries. It is a matter of basic self-respect that we actively confront and oppose new manifestations of an old and ugly problem.
The Friends of Israel Initiative has come together to encourage men and women of goodwill to reconsider their attitudes toward the Jewish state, and to relocate those attitudes inside the best of Western traditions rather than the worst. We urge them to recognize that it is in our own best interests that an increasingly jaded relationship between Israel and many of the world's other liberal democracies is rescued and reinvigorated before it is too late for us all.

On the other hand, the Jewish Left in Melbourne, as represented by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS), thinks differently.
From their website we see that they passed a Resolution based on talking to a Palestinian activist pro-boycotts, while calling Israel an ‘apartheid state’ and only looking at their OWN narrative.

The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity. However, the AJDS does support selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders. Such limited and focused BDS support might include boycotts of settlement products and divestment from military Research and Development (R&D) and boycott of industrial/military activities unrelated to Israel's defence and security. It might also include selected sanctions or boycotts against specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.
The AJDS will make any decisions on these matters on a case-by-case basis, and exercise its judgment as to the political/social cost-benefits of any such actions before granting specific endorsement or approval.

So who cares what their resolution states? Most Jews and others will buy whatever products they need, like and want to buy. Palestinians will buy from Israelis whatever they can and want,- to the detriment of their own Palestinian businesses!
See:
http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/355
PALESTINIANS BOYCOTTING ISRAEL ONLY BOYCOTTS PALESTINIANS
By Walid Shoebat
The Walid Shoebat Foundation Blog
Former PLO Terrorist Now Speaks Out For USA and Israel

Let us hope that our importers, distributors and retailers will assess their products on their saleability not on the political interests of the enemies of the State of Israel and their supporters or their “Jewish useful idiots’!MM

From RubinReports: Explaining Jewish Political Behavior

2010-08-10T01:33:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to copy Barry Rubin's explanation re what is happening in our Jewish communities, including here in Australia. We are fortunate to have a strong and committed community in a free and democratic country whose political leadership values our contribution to this country as well as understanding the problems faced by Israel and our commitment to its safety and security. But there are many so called 'liberals' in our community who are more concerned with appeasing those on the pro-Islamic Left who are a danger to democracy everywhere, than supporting their fellow Jews in Israel.These are more prevalent in UK & Europe where they feel more insecure.No wonder,-Europe is now more appropriately named Eurabia!MM

RubinReports: Explaining Jewish Political Behavior

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Explaining Jewish Political Behavior

By Barry Rubin

The key to understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in Europe and North America is the history of Jewish assimilation strategy. I tell the story more fully in my book, Assimilation and Its Discontents, but here is a short version, adapted for what’s happening right now.

This strategy was developed in Western Europe in the mid-1800s. There was no single theorist, influential book, or coherent doctrine. Rather, it was a pragmatic approach to the issue of how Jews could adapt to the pressures and opportunities of democratic societies. The assimilationist strategy continues to this day though people aren’t aware of it.

There were many—religious traditionalists, Zionists, and leftist revolutionaries—who pursued alternative routes but I’m not going to talk about them here. I am also fully aware of exceptions, such as the Jewish Bund and the post-World War One political situation in Poland, but cannot deal with them in this limited space. Please understand that the following points need to be generalizations but they are accurate ones.

The mainstream assimilationist approach has been as follows:

--Since the Jews were so weak and the surrounding majority so hostile, they would have to beg for equality and prove themselves worthy rather than to agitate or demand. Moreover, since Jews were attacked for allegedly having too much power, even when they had little or none, the emphasis was on being eager to make concessions, not to gain victories through threat or pressure. This was a strategy developed long before the days of majority guilt, multiculturalism, and Political Correctness. The Jewish approach thus contrasts with contemporary movements of minority groups which are more confident, aggressive, united, and demanding.

--How would this strategy try to succeed? By proving Jews were good citizens, by showing they were unselfish and sought nothing for themselves, by demonstrating their willingness to dissolve the bonds and customs of their own community, by becoming exemplars in spreading the values and culture of the country where they lived, and by showing that being nice to them would benefit everyone or almost everyone. In other words, altruism was a central element in the strategy. This, too, contrasts with contemporary practice in which rights are taken for granted and society is expected to adapt to the demands of minorities.

--A key element of the assimilationist doctrine has been to prove that Jews were assimilating as individuals, to deny there was a collective communal interest, and to avoid making collective demands. This, too, is in contrast to the situation of other minorities today, which hold onto their intellectuals and elite members while keeping them in line largely through shame or even forms of intimidation. This approach is totally absent in the Jewish community. On the contrary, large parts of the Jewish elite are proud to stand aloof from their own people and deem it virtuous to abandon it and reject any notion of communal interests (including Israel and religion). Indeed, they think they can best prove their credentials by championing the causes of other groups even--sometimes especially--those in conflict with Jewish interests.

--The elite Jew's emphasis is often to escape identification with the community, proving he is a cosmopolitan with a universalist identity, being the first to demand the dissolution of any community loyalty and viewing the embodiment of Jewish peoplehood—Israel—as an impediment to those goals. While antisemites charge that all or almost all Jews in positions of power pursue a distinctively Jewish interest, the exact opposite is the truth. This explains how left-wing Jews extol multi-culturalism and self-determination for other peoples even as they hold the exact opposite attitude toward their own people, whom they are determined to show are not their own people.

The concept of “self-hating Jew” is totally useless in today’s environment, when the radicals simply have an alternative definition of self, albeit one as destructive as that held by their Bolshevik predecessors who mostly ended up being shot or imprisoned by Stalin. At best, the Jew is assigned the role--in the phrase of the pro-Stalinist Isaac Deutscher, the "non-Jewish Jew"--of being part of a revolutionary vanguard one of whose tasks is to dissolve the Jews as a people and a religion.

--For a variety of the reasons listed above, many Jews, particularly in elite positions, are eager to prove their credentials by criticizing their own people or Israel. (Can you imagine any other group constantly being pressed to do this?) They will fete their enemies and jump at showing sympathy with their grievances. The very concept of "bending over backwards" is a typically Jewish one that simply cannot be applied to any other community.

--Zionism is a threat to the dissolving of Jews as a people as well as a problem for those who oppose the idea of nations. It undermines the interest of the leftist Jew or elite Jew in a dozen different ways. This explains why the opposition to Jewish nationalism is so strong among them and has been for well over a century.

--A number of the above-mentioned weaknesses are balanced out by a high degree of activism and energy, education and articulateness, shown by many Jews, particularly among those not in the intellectual elite or of leftist ideology. History has taught Jews that engaging in politics and intellectual dispute is a matter of survival. Issues involving Jews or Israel are so controversial precisely because many Jews do fight back. It isn't that only Jews (or Israel) are being criticized, it is that other groups and causes let themselves be run over with far less complaint. Having said this, though, one must quickly add that this applies largely to more recent historical times and even then mainly to North America and Australia, far less to Europe where Jewish communities are far more passive and often paralyzed with fear and deference.

--From the mid-nineteenth century through 1945 the main enemy of Jews was on the political right, not only fascists but also traditionalists, nativists, Christian reactionaries, and conservatives generally. As a whole, Jews are unable to make the intellectual or political transition to understanding that the main enemy in the West is from the left. Nor do they understand that Christians, even traditionalists, are not a serious threat while Islamic extremists are. Those on the right are seen as Cossacks, missionaries, and potential Nazis, a theme that the extreme left knows very well how to exploit.

--In addition, Jews succeeded largely by being the bearers of modernism in every respect from science and technology, to marketing techniques, to cultural innovation. Conservatism or traditionalism is thus seen as a threat to this pattern. Of course, the association of Jews with modernism (or leftism) has been a prime cause of antisemitism in modern times. For example, the passionate embrace of German culture, liberal or left politics, and economic life--giving it their own interpretations--was a prime factor in building a mass base for Nazi antisemitism.

--As noted above, Jews want to prove they are good citizens but that has come to be interpreted—once cultural assimilation has been achieved—as those who make society better, who help the poor and downtrodden, who are also seen as potential allies against the suspect elites. This concept remains unchanged even when Jews become key parts of the elite.

Imagination continuing to supply a fantasy, which had a basis in reality during past times, that there is a wealthy reactionary antisemitic blend of aristocrats and capitalists ready to pounce. Or, simultaneously, that the ignorant masses, manipulated by demagogues, will stage a pogrom, presumably nowadays starting with a Tea Party rally. It is easy to make fun of such ideas but they are very deeply embedded in the psyche of many Jews in the West.

--Given these premises, what do most Jews implicitly believe will work for them in the present? To show they are tolerant in order to gain the tolerance of others. It is simply not imaginable for such people that rabbis can demonstrate in favor of the establishment of a (radical) mosque near the World Trade Center attack site then have a mosque established that systematically teaches hatred for Israel and anti-Jewish doctrines. Having succeeded in persuading Western societies that they are nice people worthy of fair treatment, they assume equal success can be achieved with Arabs, Muslims, or various other groups.

-- Not surprisingly, then, a weak spot for Jews has been dealing with situations where hatred for them and an effort to destroy them as a community has been coupled with seemingly humanitarian, progressive rhetoric. Communism, of course, has been the ultimate example up until recently, a cause which attracted many Jews though it killed them or betrayed them. Since the history of this experience is simply not taught anywhere, most have not been learned from it. This story must be told in large part because it bears such relevance to contemporary parallels.

--There is thus an overwhelming, if irrational or outdated, hysterical fear on the part of most Jews (most obviously in the United States) at seeming to behave or as being perceived as reactionary. There is no group against which cries of "racist!" or "right-wing!" or "fascist!" is more effective. Yet there is no equivalent fear of being seen as too "progressive," an implicit admission (which does not penetrate the conscious mind) that the bogey-man of right-wing antisemitism is no longer taken seriously.

Yet to be placed in the position of seeming to be reactionary is not only seen as joining the hated enemy (and thus treasonous) but also as inviting the vengeance of the "masses." To put it bluntly, when a Jew is called a "racist"--and such can be the penalty in the community even for the sin of not voting for Barack Obama--that not only signifies uniting with the historic enemies of Jews but also to tremble (secretly and subconsciously, of course) at a supposed attack of African-Americans against Jews.

The explanation for much of this psychological complex is a community that is objectively powerful and well-off is also subjectively fearful and insecure. Believe it or not, this is true. By overcoming these diaspora complexes (and creating "tough Jews") Israel for these people is somehow betraying what they understand as Jewishness. On some psychological level, a Western Jewish left-leaning intellectual wants other Jews to be victims so that no matter how wealthy or privileged he is it is possible to claim credentials for being a noble sufferer among the non-Western or non-white or non-wealthy people.
As a result of these factors, Jews in the West generally are not going to be won over to conservative views no matter what arguments are used or logic is invoked. The counter-forces of history and self-image are simply too strong. You can argue on this point but those Jews who do so know in their hearts that it is true.

What is possible, however, is to show persuasively and honestly how the contemporary far left and reactionary, radical Islamism are anti-liberal and anti-democratic in nature. They destroy the tolerance of society through which Jews have benefitted and embody dictatorial tendencies. They seek to destroy religion and demonize the embodiment of Jewish peoplehood, Israel. They have made large parts of those institutions responsible for protecting real liberal values--the university and media--into ideological machines for indoctrination into anti-democratic values and slanderers against Jewish interests. They are bad for the countries to which Jews have given their allegiance and to the Enlightenment values which Jews, more than almost any other group in the world, have embraced.

In other words, Jews will not cease to be largely liberal but survival now requires understanding two things.

First, the threat to real liberal institutions and values come from both extremes of the political spectrum.

Second, radicals and anti-democratic revolutionaries can pretend to be liberals, just as Communists once did when it suited them, but nobody should be fooled by this impersonation.

What might be the most adaptable people in world history must continue to adapt to new threats and changing conditions.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Does one need to wear a BURQA anywhere? PRO AND CON

2010-08-07T01:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/19/2987539.htm

Judge orders woman to remove face veil
(The Australian: Ross Swanborough)

A Perth judge has ruled a Muslim woman must remove her face veil when
giving evidence in a fraud trial.

The 36-year-old woman wanted to wear her niqab at the trial of the
head of an Islamic School, who is accused of inflating student numbers to obtain government grants.

However, the defence raised concerns that the jury members would not
be able to assess the woman's evidence properly.

In her decision, District Court Judge Shauna Deane said she did not
consider it appropriate for the woman to wear a niqab.

However, she stressed her judgment applied only to this case.
(Updated 20/8/10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I must wear burqa in court.

AMANDA BANKS LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR,
The West Australian
August 5, 2010, 2:45 am
•http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7710287/why-i-must-wear-burqa-in-court/

The Perth mother who has found herself embroiled in an Australian test case on the right of Muslim women to wear a burqa when giving evidence in court has spoken about her fears of exposing her face in public.

As national debate raged yesterday over the extent of the rights of Muslim women to choose to dress according to their faith, Tasneem said she did not want to be portrayed as a woman who was obstinately trying to "make a point".

Tasneem, who does not want her surname published, said while she would comply with any order imposed by the court, she would feel stressed, uncomfortable and awkward if forced to remove her niqab while testifying in a fraud trial in the Perth District Court.

A niqab is a form of clothing commonly called a burqa.

"For so many years now it is just a part of me," she said yesterday. "I felt that I am just a witness, I didn't commit a crime and if I did, I would have to face the consequences. But I just felt, why must I be exposed in front of all these men when I am just a witness? If I didn't need to be called that would be better for me."

Tasneem is scheduled to be called as a witness in a fraud case against the director of an Islamic college where she had taught. Prosecutors have told the court that Tasneem is reluctant to appear without wearing her niqab.

But defence counsel Mark Trowell has raised concerns that jurors would not be able to make a proper assessment of Tasneem's evidence if they could not see her face.

District Court Judge Shauna Deane will consider the issue today.

Tasneem said that for nearly 20 years she had chosen not to show her face to any men other than her husband and her closest male relatives. She made it clear that her decision to conceal her face was not a compulsory obligation of her faith, which only required that she wear a hijab covering her hair.

Tasneem also spoke of a common misconception that Muslim women were oppressed by their husbands. She said concealing her face with a niqab was not a "restriction" imposed by her husband, rather a personal choice she had made at age 17.

If the court ordered her to appear without her niqab, she would prefer to do so via a video link-up in a closed room with another woman.

Born in South Africa and moving to Australia seven years ago, Tasneem said she had been told yesterday that if she appeared in an Islamic court she would be required to remove her niqab. But she said this did not alleviate her fears of exposure and discomfort.

Tasneem has been forced to remove her niqab for immigration officials when travelling overseas, and she said she recognised this was necessary. But she said these intrusions on her privacy were performed quickly and with respect.

Tasneem said there were rare occasions when she was targeted in public because of her dress, usually with misinformed remarks.
"If I was having a major problem, I would have maybe considered taking it off but it's not like that," she said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RESPONSE WITH WHICH I AGREE.(MM)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A PLEA FOR CLEAR THINKING ABOUT THE BURQA

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/05/2974143.htm

By Abdullah Saeed

ABC RELIGION AND ETHICS | 5 AUG 2010

AS A SOCIETY WE ALLOW BOTH MEN AND WOMEN TO WEAR VERY LITTLE IN PUBLIC. PERHAPS WE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO WEAR MORE IF THEY WANT.
CREDIT: TAUSEEF MUSTAFA (AFP).

SEE ALSO
• Related Story: Burka bandits justify a burka ban, ABC Unleashed, 06/05/2010
• Related Story: Banking without interest, ABC Religion and Ethics, 20/07/2010

The legal status of the Muslim "face veil" is back in the headlines as a Perth judge determines whether a devout Muslim woman is permitted to wear a burqa when testifying before a jury in a fraud trial.

This, of course, is a very mild version of a legal debate that has been very prominent in Europe.

Belgium is the first European country to make it illegal to wear a face-covering veil in public. France is moving in the same direction, and it will likely pass a law banning the "face veil" in public, with penalties ranging from fines to possible imprisonment.

Other European countries are likely to follow Belgium's lead.

There are also some voices in Australian politics - such as Fred Nile and Cory Bernardi - that recently have argued for banning the face veil.

This is a matter that requires careful, clear thinking. But before getting to what I deem to be the heart of the matter, it is necessary to clarify terms in order to avoid unnecessary confusion

There are two types of "veil" that some observant Muslim women commonly wear in public: a full-body covering that includes the face (the burqa), and a partial covering that conceals the entire body except for the face and hands (usually known as the hijab).

Very few Muslim women wear the face veil, while a good number of observant women wear the hijab. In any case, most Muslim women in the West and elsewhere do not wear either the face veil or hijab, but rather choose to wear other forms of modest dress.

Arguments for banning the face veil are often based on a particular understanding of the "full" veil.

In the West, the face veil is often seen as a relic of the middle ages, a sign of women's oppression by Muslim men and a requirement that keeps women completely cut off from the rest of the society.

It is also seen as a major barrier to women's participation in social, political and economic life, and one of the most obvious signs of the growing influence of "extremists" in the public square.

Banning the face veil is thus regarded as a way of upholding Muslim women's human rights, of freeing them from oppression and helping them to integrate into Western society.

Of course, these arguments are not just confined to non-Muslims in the West. There are plenty of Muslims who would see the face veil in exactly these terms.

The reality is that for the vast majority of Muslims in the West and elsewhere, the face veil is not considered an Islamic obligation. Even very observant, practising Muslim women would argue that a women's face need not be covered.

While it is hard to find any accurate data on Muslim views on the face veil, in practice the number of women who wear this covering is very small.

In a country like Australia, only a few hundred women at most would wear the face veil - likewise in several European countries. It is reported that in France roughly 1900 women wear the face veil. Out of the 57 or so Muslim majority countries around the world, the face veil would only have a significant presence in a handful.

For many Muslims, it is simply a cultural practice from the past, justified by some Muslims using a rather restrictive reading of a few Islamic texts But for most mainstream Muslims, there is no explicit obligation in the Qur'an for Muslim women to wear the face veil.

The vast majority of Muslim scholars, past and present, argue that a woman may leave her face and hands uncovered in public, because they are necessary for women to undertake work or to participate in social activities.

Some scholars even see the face veil as a religious "innovation" or introduced practice after the Prophet Muhammad's death, something that should be rejected.

Even during the most important and sacred religious event of the year - the annual pilgrimage to Mecca - Muslim women are specifically commanded not to cover their face.

In the daily prayers - one of the five central pillars of Islam - most Muslim scholars say that a woman is not required to cover her face. Hence, most observant Muslim women either wear the hijab or simply opt for another form of "modest" dress that does not involve even covering the hair.

It is true, however, that during the late twentieth century an ultra conservative expression of Islam has been making its mark on the world, and a component of this movement is a strong emphasis on veiling. The taking up of the face veil has increased among some women largely because of this influence, even in societies that have historically had no attachment to either form of the veil.

Given that most Muslims do not see that face covering veil is an Islamic requirement and thus do not practice it, perhaps one could argue that it should be banned.

While it may be necessary to discourage such forms of veiling in public, my sense is that a ban on the public wearing of the face veil is likely to be counterproductive.

If the motivation for this restriction is to free Muslim women from segregation, seclusion or patriarchal control, a ban is very likely to have the opposite effect.

Any ban could easily be taken by some Muslims as a "war" on their religion, and they would then use the face veil as an "Islamic" symbol to be defended, a kind of rallying point.

In this context, less conservative Muslims would also likely be attracted to the face veil as a symbol of protest, which would only serve to increase its popularity. This appears to be what has happened in France when the hijab was banned in public schools; - its uptake among young women in particular actually went up.

Quite apart from the rhetoric about the face veil and women's oppression, there are some Muslim women - though very few - who sincerely believe that wearing a face veil is their religious duty and they wear it based on their own personal conviction.

For those who hold this view, as a society that respects freedom of religion, Australia should allow people to wear what they want in the name of their religion, as long as it does not affect public safety and morality.

As a society we allow both men and women to wear very little in public. Perhaps we should allow people to wear more if they want.

If there are public safety or security issues related to wearing the face veil in certain environments, then the state can and should take this into account. But this, I would argue, has nothing to do with religion. It would be more analogous to the restrictions that govern the use of appropriate clothing in particular environments (such as the compulsory wearing of helmets in construction zones, and so on).

Equally, there are workplaces where showing a person's face is necessary for carrying out that role competently. In professions such as teaching, nursing, medicine, engineering and the like, there is an expectation that employees should show who they are. The state representing the community may oblige those who are in these professions to show their face.

Similarly, at airports and when entering other sensitive places like certain premises and banks, people are required to show their identity.

Those who wear the face veil perhaps should have the right to wear it in public and private. But they probably do not have the right to insist that they should be allowed to wear it in all workplaces or environments.

If those who wear the face veil argue that it is their right to work in these professions and wear the face veil at the same time, then the community has the right to say no to them.

Even Islamic legal norms dictate that the community has the right to declare certain things unacceptable or acceptable as part of public interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abdullah Saeed is the Director of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne.

POPULATION DEBATE DOES NOT HIDE AN UGLY RACISM.

2010-07-30T06:54:00.000-07:00

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

KEVIN RUDD;PM- no longer: a failed leader

2010-07-26T22:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Refugees testing should be changed urges Hirsi Ali.

2010-07-26T02:26:00.000-07:00

(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.

Open letter to Israeli Minister of Education.

2010-07-11T04:06:00.000-07:00

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