Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Saturday, 23 July 2016

Half-Baked Humble Pie?

On 3 June this year the Australian Jewish News (AJN) carried an article by long-standing staff member Peter Kohn concerning cancellation of Its 3 June 2016 issue reported that one of the sessions scheduled for the two-day Limmud Oz's session in June had been cancelled.

The session was to feature a representative of the highly controversial Australian Jewish Democratic Society (seen by many if not most of the mainstream Jewish community as odious in its stance) and Adelaide University Professor Bassam Dally (pictured, forefront, left), an Israel-born Palestinian Arab who's vice-president of the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network.

 He, Kohn''s article (citing the website of the Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine) informed readers, is on record as declaring:
"I support support BDS because, unlike governments, the conscious [sic] of millions of people cannot be bought by rich interest groups.  Without international pressure, Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state."
Having been contacted by the AJN regarding the cancellation, Professor Dally is reported as stating:
"It's ironic that Limmud Oz organisers have decided to disinvite me speaking in a session titled 'Fighting for Coexistence'. The session was never intended to be about BDS and, therefore, the organisers are deciding not only what, but who, their audience may be permitted to hear – in my case, an Israeli citizen of Palestinian heritage.
This shows a contempt for the maturity and intelligence of the Jewish community by preventing them from having these important discussions in an open and civilised manner."
 Kohn's article reported the Limmud Oz co-organisers as explaining:
"On publishing the program, we were alerted to the extent and tone of the position of one of the participants on BDS.  The decision was made on principle, given the goals of global BDS, the damaging effect of BDS rhetoric in the community, and the anti-engagement nature of BDS, to cancel the session in line with our programming policy."
The chairman of the B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation Commission chairman, Dr Dvir Abramovich, was quoted as observing:
"Limmud Oz did the right thing by making it clear that it will not give its endorsement and sponsorship to the session, The BDS movement its corre, is anti-Semitic." [sic: The AJN, for reasons best known to itself, persists in spelling antisemitism the old, discredited, old-fashioned way.]
Dr Colin Rubenstein, executive chairman of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), was quoted thus:
"It is absurd to expect a Jewish community organisation, even one committed to the robust exchange of ideas, to extend the welcome mat to a supporter of the boycotting of Israel, as to do so may confer a degree of legitimacy on someone whose record and views do not further the cause of mutual coexistence, genuine peace or communal harmony."
Evidently, someone felt that the references to Professor Dally in the article reflected him in an unjustly bad light, for in the current issue (22 July), at the end of the correspondence columns, is an ungrammatical and badly-written apology which appears to have been composed in such a panic that even the date of the issue carrying Kohn's article is incorrect.
"In an article that we published on 2 June 2016,some people may have  mistakenly understood it to accuse Professor Bassam Dally of being anti-Semitic."  (Is this what passes for good journalistic English these days?!)
I would not have interpreted the Kohn article as implying that Professor Dally is personally antisemitic, but clearly my perceptions are not shared by everyone.

Certainly not by these two leftist Jewish critics of Israel, Brull and Stillman:

It's a pity, though, that the AJN did not choose a different phrasing and entitle it a "Clarification".  For the trouble with that abject apology, in that particular wording, seems to me to be that
the paper won't be able to argue that BDS is antisemitic without looking like prize shmendricks.   Why the ill-judged prose?  They've set a precedent. They can be seen as endorsing UN resolutions against Israel, however unjust such resolutions, and undermining fellow-Jews and Israel-supporters who insist that BDS is antisemitic.

That's my view, anyway.  Feel free to disagree!

Meanwhile, in the dear old Mother Country, the odious Spinning Jenny has been spreading her poison again.

See, for example, here and here.

Among those liking the Baroness's speech and subsequent defiance are a certain Andy Taylor (whose numerous posts on Facebook leave little doubt of his feelings towards da Joos), as well our old friend the vicar of Virginia Water, Stephen Sizer, as yet, since his return to Facebook following banishment by his bishop over that notorious Israel and 9/11 post of his, venting his hostility to Zionism through pressing the "Like" button on other anti-Zionists' proclamations rather than pontificating himself:

Not that Her Ladyship is getting it all her on way on her Facebook page.  Some dastardly Zionists have the temerity to be fighting back! (And how!)

Thursday, 21 July 2016

David Singer: Abbas Has Sown The Seeds For His Own Political Demise

 First, from Honest Reporting, a not totally irrelevant video:

And now,  here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  It's entitled "Palestine – Abbas Emasculates Quartet, Humiliates United Nations and European Union".

Writes David Singer:

PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to accept the recent Quartet Report has effectively emasculated the role of the Quartet and humiliated the United Nations and European Union in their efforts to resolve the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

The Quartet website points out:
“Established in 2002, the Quartet consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. Its mandate is to help mediate Middle East peace negotiations and to support Palestinian economic development and institution building. It meets regularly at the level of the Quartet Principals (United Nations Secretary General, United States Secretary of State, Foreign Minister of Russia, and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and at the Special Envoy level as well.”
Given the Quartet’s crucial role, Abbas should have accepted the Report with equanimity and pledged his readiness to stamp out reprehensible conduct identified in the Report:
'Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks are often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs.” Many widely circulated images depict individuals committing terrorist acts with slogans encouraging violence. The spreading of incitement to violence on social media has gained momentum since October 2015, and is particularly affecting the youth.'
As Chairman of Fatah – the dominant faction in the PLO – Abbas would not have enjoyed reading the Quartet’s following condemnation of his failed leadership:
'Some members of Fatah have publicly supported attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraged violent confrontation. In the midst of this recent wave of violence, a senior Fatah official referred to perpetrators as “heroes and a crown on the head of every Palestinian.” Fatah social media has shown attackers superimposed next to Palestinian leaders following terrorist attacks'
Abbas was subjected to the following further criticism:
“Regrettably, however, Palestinian leaders have not consistently and clearly condemned specific terrorist attacks. And streets, squares and schools have been named after Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism.”
 Abbas’s pathetic response was to claim that the Report:
"does not further the cause for peace…We hope that the Security Council does not support this report"
Abbas can’t be serious. Asking the United Nations to reject a Report to which it is a contributing party is incomprehensible. Expecting the European Union to act likewise would be irrational.

Abbas joins a long list of Arab leaders who rejected offers made possible by the efforts of the international community to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 1922, 1937, 1947, 2000/1 and 2007.

The conflict could have been ended between 1948 and 1967 with the stroke of an Arab League pen - after six of its member-State armies invaded Palestine in 1948 and forcibly expelled every single Jew living in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), Gaza and East Jerusalem.

United Nations and European Union calls for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – since the 1980 Venice Declaration have been mistakenly construed by the PLO as a licence unrealistically to demand:
* The return of millions of “refugees” to Israel
* Establishment of the prospective State of Palestine in all of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital
 * Non-recognition of Israel as the Jewish National Home
The United Nations and the European Union have gone to extraordinary lengths to continue supporting the PLO despite the continuing terror, hatred and incitement now identified in the Quartet Report.

Abbas fumes and fulminates whilst illegally clinging to power.

Attacking the Quartet – and, by association, the United Nations and European Union – are acts of unbelievable ingratitude and incredible political stupidity.

Abbas has sown the seeds for his own political demise.

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

Joined At The Navel: The ABC BBC of it

Yesterday, in the wake of yet another Islamic atrocity (the Nice tragedy), conservative Australian columnist Andrew Bolt wrote an article in the Herald-Sun which caught the fancy of an Australian television personality named Sonia Kruger (see my previous post).

Note how the BBC has chosen to report this Aussie incident, giving emphasis to Ms Kruger's critics and deriders of her "as a mother" remark in explaining how Islamic terror worries her.   Some examples from the report:

(Who's Pickering? Oh, some comedian or other.)

Hanson-Young is a Greens senator of whom the ABC is inordinately fond, as indicated by the vast amounts of airtime its new bulletins give her to deride the nation's "turn back the boats" policy and other issues connected with asylum:

Among the critics of Ms Kruger highlighted by the BBC,  a discordant voice:

I should have thought that being a mother, and therefore having a stake in the future of this country and what kind of place it will be for her child[ren] makes a mother a very qualified person indeed.

But the opportunity to mock (and demonise) was, after all, the only reason the Corporation, awash with Islamophile leftists, reported the story in the first place, wasn't it?

I'm correct, aren't I, Jon Donnison (here spoon-feeding the not-to-be-trusted viewing public with a propaganda-laden tweet of his own)?:

In the same vein, the Facebook page of QandA, the ABC's equivalent to the BBC's Question Time  (yesterday's show here), is full of leftist partisanship, and its studio audience similarly stacked.

As always, the terrible twosome are in a three-way relationship, the Guardian being their partner in bias.  But at least the Guardian can claim entitlement to vent its propaganda: the ABC and the BBC cannot, since they are public broadcasters financed by the taxpayer.  And obligated by their charters to be objective.

Monday, 18 July 2016

Blonde on Blond: A Blonde's Bombshell

"Why have jihadist terrorists made France Europe’s bloodiest battlefield? Simple answer: Because France let in the most Muslims."

So writes Australia's most-read (and most controversial) columnist, conservative Andrew Bolt (pictured), in the wake of the Nice atrocity.  He goes on, inter alia, in the Herald-Sun:

 "This link between immigration policies and terrorism largely explains why the French are the greatest victims of Europe’s jihadists.

 It also explains why we are fools not to change our own immigration policies to protect ourselves.
No European Union country has a higher proportion of Muslims than France — up to 10 per cent of its population, or six million people, though statistics are vague, and vary.
Yes, numbers don’t tell the whole story, but they do count....
France has the most Muslims, and that is why four people were killed, three of them children, in an Islamist attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse four years ago.
To order click here
That is why 20 people were murdered in Paris in last year’s Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket....
That is why 130 more people were murdered in Paris last November in an Islamic State assault on restaurants, a concert hall and a football stadium.
That is why a policeman and his wife were last month murdered by a jihadist outside their home.
That is why 84 people died in last week’s terrorist attack in Nice, when a Tunisian-born man rammed his truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day....
Japan has strict controls on immigration and its 127 million people include just 100,000 Muslims. Result: zero Islamist attacks.
Contrast that with Australia, which has a population of just 24 million, but 500,000 Muslims. How we’ve paid for leaving our door open....
The mathematics is clear: The more Muslims we import, the more danger we are in...."
One of the readers agreeing with Mr Bolt is television presenter Sonia Kruger, who has become  the whipping girl of the usual suspects of the Left for her remarks during a television news channel today in which Mr Bolt's column was discussed:

The betting seems to be on how much longer Ms Kruger will keep her job.

Meanwhile, on the warpath over free speech regarding Islam is the woman British Home Secretary (now Prime Minister) Theresa May (pictured, in hijab) banned from Britain along with Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer:

Saturday, 16 July 2016

Europe's Islamic Future: "There are reasons to believe ... resistance is building"

In the wake of the recent Australian General Election that has seen Malcolm Turnbull's Liberal Party limp to victory, just avoiding a hung Parliament, and excluding from his Cabinet conservatives such as Tony Abbott (the prime minister Turnbull toppled in a grubby coup some months ago), the latest issue of the Australian Jewish News carries an editorial that observes, inter alia:
"The moderate brand that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has identified with has seen the PM wedged between Labor on the one hand and conservatives within his own party on the other.
In an age of doctrinaire political certitudes on the right and the left, steering the middle course may not be the most fashionable option, but it is the most responsible.
Australians have historically voted for governments of the political centre, and voters have shunned voices closer to the fringes.
In a world that flirts with Donald Trump and embraces Brexit, we hope common sense will prevail in Australia."
 With those words the paper insults not only the millions of decent Australians with views that mirror Mr Abbott's and respected conservative columnist Andrew Bolt's, but the many many millions of decent Britons who voted for their country to leave the squalid bureaucratic tyranny that is the EU.

Going on to deplore the re-election to the Senate of a proven racist fringe party leader who demands a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia, the editorial observes "[A]s Jews, we know what it is like being on the receiving end of such policies in bygone eras."

And a report in the paper quotes a statement by a prominent communal figure that  "vilification of Islam ... must be repudiated".

Such a view threatens to place in the "racist bigot" box women who deplore Islam's misogyny as well as the writings of Australia's leading scholar of Islam, Anglican priest Dr Mark Durie.

 It is untenable that the faults of Islam cannot be discussed without the discussant suffering obloquy.

The paper, which to my certain knowledge once summarily rejected an article (a perfectly reasonable one) by a regular columnist on the grounds that it was "an Islamophobic rant" (the paper has long since adopted "Islamophobia" into its lexicon), has become rather too left-leaning for many readers.  These are people who resent being cast as extremists and lumped in with racists merely because they have the temerity to express disquiet about large-scale Muslim immigration into Australia and its likely effect on government policy towards Israel (we see this trend already in sections of the Labor Party).

As a London reader wrote to the paper in response to a foolish, ignorant and in some ways quite despicable article in the paper by the British principal of an Australian Jewish day school who thundered that Brexit makes him ashamed of his native land,
"Those who voted for Brexit felt this was no longer their country.  Their national identity was denigrated by the EU and their cultural heritage was threatened .... He does not fully understand what is happening here .... If he despairs of us, he is no loss to Britain...."
One man from outside Europe who completely understands what is happening there and elsewhere in Europe is Dr Daniel Pipes, who in this latest Gatestone Institute/The video outlines three possible scenarios for the future of Europe.

See also here
And here

French Jewish reaction here:

Thursday, 14 July 2016

David Singer: China Can Exploit United Nations' Double Standards on Palestine

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.
He writes:

International support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – despite its rejection of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter – could be exploited by China to blunt international action following an unfavourable ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration against China in The Hague.

Having boycotted those proceedings, Chinese President Xi Jinping then immediately dismissed the decision – which denied China had any legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea: 
"China will never accept any claim or action based on those awards” 
His rejection was as peremptory as that of the PLO – which declared in Article 18 of its original 1964 Charter: 
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered fraud.”
This position was revised when the Charter was redrafted in 1968 – Article 20 declaring: 
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”
These provisions have been a major contributing factor in preventing a resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict for the last 52 years.

The international community has not punished the PLO for its unilateral demolition of these international-law building blocks but to the contrary has granted the PLO diplomatic recognition whilst also welcoming the PLO into the United Nations.

Should China be demonised because it also chooses to ignore a determination in international law that it regards as inimical to its national interest?

Does size matter? Can one forgive small players who wilfully shred international law but demand big players conform to legal decisions not to their liking?

The international community has some serious soul-searching to do. Vietnam may now be ruing its welcoming embrace of the PLO by:
* Establishing ties with the PLO in 1968
* Allowing the PLO to open its resident Representative Office in Vietnam in 1976
* Elevating the PLO's resident Representative Office to the status of Embassy in 1982

For further information see here

Clearly concerned by China’s response to The Hague decision – Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh has declared:
"Vietnam strongly supports the resolution of the disputes ... by peaceful means, including diplomatic and legal processes and refraining from the use or threats to use force, in accordance with international law" 
That response is what one would normally expect – but when you have not demanded the same of the PLO for the last 48 years then such statement amounts to an indefensible double standard.

Other countries vitally affected by the South China Sea ruling include the Philippines – the plaintiff in The Hague proceedings – Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia. They may find their long-standing ties with the PLO similarly embarrassing as they confront an angry China.

China on the other hand can argue that rejecting the South China Sea judgement is consistent with China’s recognition of the law-trashing PLO in 1988 – since International law means nothing to China and the PLO.

The Hague ruling is regarded as legally binding – but there is apparently no mechanism to enforce it.  Boycott Divestment and Sanctions programs against China will have little effect.

Rejecting China’s claim to any historic rights in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the acceptance of Jewish historic rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) – recognised by the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter – but erroneously claimed by the UN Security Council to be in violation of international law.

Double standards in the international community have a horrible way of coming back to bite those indulging in such dangerous games.

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

"Curse You, Curse You, Curse You, Mr Blair!"

Just what makes Anthony Charles Lynton Blair tick is very hard to fathom.  Admired by some, and loathed by others, this "all-over-the-place" politician may well be judged by history (as he is judged by many already) the worst prime minister of the British twentieth century.

The usual suspects of the Left view Blair as a war criminal for the "lies" that took Britain into the war that toppled Saddam Hussein, and feel exonerated by the Chilcot Report, but to numerous men and women Blair's crimes are those he committed against his own country during his prime ministership (1997-2007).

In the current issue of the Australian conservative intellectual and literary magazine Quadrant Welshman Christie Davies (author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain) articulates this viewpoint with clarity and passion.

Pointing out the societal, economic, and ecological problems associated with Britain's record high levels of immigration over the last  two decades, with England now the most densely populated country in Europe (419 people per square km) and projected to become even more congested by 2030 (460 people per square km), Davies notes that the warnings of demographers during the 1960s regarding future overcrowding if the birthrate did not fall are never alluded to today.

 (Anyone seen the slogan "Zero Population Growth" lately?  No. Didn't think so.  Since the immigrant population is driving up the birthrate these days it's much too politically incorrect to suggest that the maximum number of babies per family should be two.  Ever seen the Greens arguing that immigration numbers should be restricted, given the fact that swathes of unspoiled countryside and greenbelt land are now being cemented over to meet the need for housing consequent upon today's massive population surge?  Ah, that'll be the day!)

A scene in Birmingham.  Photo: Lee Thomas (see more photos here)

Writes Christie Davies, inter alia:
 'I do not blame immigrants for wanting to come to a country that is far better in all respects than the wretched ones into which they were born.  In their position I would try to do the same.  The real villain is Tony Blair ...  
[In 2004] most of the existing EU countries imposed severe restrictins on migration from the East [of Europe], but Britain under Blair did not and two million immigrants arrived...
Blair also instructed his officials to loosen considerably the rules regarding the checking of those from outside Europe claiming asylum.  Many of the claimants were fakes and they were deliberately allowed to slip through the net so as to avoid the publicity attending an expulsion.
Worst of all, Blair abolished the "primary purpose" rule.  Any British citizen who has married a foreigner is entitled to bring their spouse into the country.... Where the problem arises is when a marriage is arranged or even forced, often in pursuit of some sordid material pay-off, and no such ties exist.  Many of these marriages were simply a trick to evade the immigration rules... and it was perfectly proper to block their entry into the country by means of the primary purpose rule.
Under pressure from British Muslim activists, for many of whom marriage was a way of obtaining a British passport, Tony Blair abolished  the rule, saying it was discriminatory.  
Some Muslims had another reason for seeking an absence of restrictions on imported spouses.  They wanted to use marriage as a means of compelling those of their children who were showing signs of personal independence and assimilation, to marry unreconstructed, uneducated husbands and wives from their original country.  These parents wanted spouses who would bring their wayward offspring back into line and away from the dangers of British freedom.
In approving all these changes Blair should have known that they would destroy Britain.  ... [T]hat might have been his purpose.  He was, after all, the man who began the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, who subordinated our interests to the EU, denied tradition and fostered multiculturalism.   
Curse you, curse you, curse you, Mr Blair!
A mural in Birmingham
Leftists welcome immigrants, whom they perceive as lacking the ties that hold the British people together in a sense of a common history and culture.  The leftists wish to destroy these forms of solidarity, so that they can replace them with their own ideological framework of imposed equality.  That is what the weasel Blair meant by modernity ... Some have also cynically calculated that the new arrivals are more likely to be hungry for benefits and more likely to vote Labour....
Immigration is stealing our land but Islam threatens to steal our soul....
Australia's tough line on immigration including the turning back of boats and building detention centres outside the country is exactly what Britain needs...'
Meanwhile, to judge from her recent naive comments regarding sharia, it appears Britain's new prime minister Theresa May would benefit from a reading of Australian scholar of Islam Mark Durie's latest article here