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)

Wednesday, 17 April 2019

David Singer: Jordan in Denial over Trump Plan for Israel in Judea and Samaria

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

He writes:

In a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee King Abdullah of Jordan reportedly said the White House had given him
“zero visibility into the most fraught part of their peace plan: how it proposes to divide Israeli and Palestinian territory.”

His Majesty – in complete denial – could not bring himself to call that territory “Judea Samaria and Gaza”


Abdullah has seen Trump ditch the Palestine Liberation Organisation financially and diplomatically over its continuing refusal to negotiate with Israel on any Trump proposal to divide sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between Jews and Arabs.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan laid out Jordan’s pivotal role in negotiating any such division in 1980:
“Israel and Jordan are the two Palestinian states envisioned and authorized by the United Nations. Jordan is now recognized in some 80% of the old territory of Palestine. Israel and Jordan are the parties primarily authorized to settle the future of the unallocated territories in accordance with the principles of the mandate and the provisions of Resolutions 242 and 338”
In 1982 duly-elected President Reagan made it clear that peace could not be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state and the United States would not support the establishment of such a state.


Reagan added:
“There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.”

Reagan concluded:
“When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.”

Abdullah’s father – King Hussein – did not take up Reagan’s invitation.


The creation of an additional Arab State between Israel and Jordan – favoured by President Bush, President Obama and ostensibly Kings Hussein and Abdullah – is dead in the water following Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent re-election as Israel’s Prime Minister for another four years.

Netanyahu promised pre-election to apply Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

Having recognised Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights – Trump could do likewise for those parts of Judea and Samaria coming under Israeli sovereignty.


The circle will be completed for Netanyahu who told the United Nations on 11 December 1984:

“Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body's predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate.... It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949.”

King Abdullah should not miss the opportunity his father rejected in 1982.


Zero visibility will disappear when King Abdullah opens his eyes.


(Author’s note: The cartoon—commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators—whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

Tuesday, 16 April 2019

Palestinian Preacher Justifies Violent Jihad (video)

Here's Sheikh Ahmad Al-Khatwani at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, justiying violent Jihad.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQLoR3wBBsM

To quote the translator and uploader, Memri.org
'Palestinian political researcher Sheikh Ahmad Al-Khatwani said in an address he delivered at the Al Aqsa Mosque that Istanbul had been conquered just like the Prophet Muhammad had predicted, and that Rome will also be conquered according to Muhammad's predictions. Al-Khatwani said that Muslims do not hate non-Muslims; rather, he said that all Muslims do "break down the physical obstacles" that prevent the "hateful infidels" from being brought into the light of Islam. He said that Islam is a religion for all of mankind and that the "physical obstacles" will be broken down by "a huge Muslim army that will wage Jihad for the sake of Allah." The video of the address was uploaded to the Internet on March 31, 2019.'

Sunday, 14 April 2019

An Australian Dreyfus? The Cardinal Pell imbroglio

Australia's Dreyfus?
The (left-dominated, politically correct) Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV; formerly the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies), the roof body representing organised Jewish communal life in the Australian state of Victoria, has issued an abject apology to the Jewish gay rights lobby group Aleph, regarding the latter's failure to be admitted to membership two decades ago:
"Aleph Melbourne submitted a valid application for membership of the JCCV in January 1999.  The Executive of the JCCV supported admission of Aleph Melbourne as a member. On 10 May 1999 the JCCV Plenum debated the motion and voted (39 votes in favour and 46 votes against) to deny the application for membership
In the course of the debate, homophobic views were expressed by some delegates which caused long-term harm to members of our LGBTIQ+ community.
Accordingly, this Plenum now apologises unconditionally to all members of our community who were impacted by the rejection of the membership application and for the unacceptable homophobic views expressed during the debate.
We apologise for the deep offence and humiliation caused by the hateful words spoken in the course of the debate. We apologise for the subsequent distress, further marginalisation and stigmatisation caused by the rejection of Aleph Melbourne’s membership application. We now recommit ourselves to welcoming and embracing LGBTIQ+ Jews in all our work, as part of our broader commitment to social inclusion for all members of the Jewish community of Victoria. Through our genuine commitment to equality and diversity we seek to ensure that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated."
Among those resolutely opposing the admission of Aleph to the JCCV in 1999, mindful of such passages as Leviticus 18:22,  was a prominent mainstream Orthodox rabbi in Melbourne, Ronald Lubofsky, well-known and well-remembered in circles promoting Jewish-Christian understanding.  As he afterwards explained on ABC (Australia's equivalent of the BBC) radio:
"The core of the philosophy, the religious philosophy, the political philosophy of being Jewish, is in the written word. The Christians call it the Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures. Some would reduce it to the Ten Commandments etc. and that excludes the notion of homosexuality, and as a consequence it’s a contradiction in terms. You simply cannot consider the two ideals as being compatible. So true enough, the members of this group are Jewish and it may well be that they are secular in their intent, but I’m afraid that as a group, as an organisation, they cannot claim parity as individuals absolutely. This is a point which I and others have made, that Jewish gay people, lesbian people, they can join synagogues, they can join the organisations which are represented under the umbrella of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, they can be the presidents of those organisations, but as an organisation, as an ideology, they’re not compatible.... 
These are individuals who do not produce families, these are individuals who perform sexually in a way which is aberrant, to say the least, with regard to Judaism. It is something which runs counter to the fundamentals of Judaism, that is the family unit..."
This is not unlike Cardinal George Pell's attitude towards homosexuals, to judge by what the cardinal told a reporter:
'How was he to know if someone was gay or not? If someone came before him in Mass with cupped hands of course he would give the bread and wine. He was hardly going to quiz each parishioner.
But if someone came before him in a rainbow sash — as the gay parishioners had — in what he saw as an open act of rebellion against the church, then he was duty bound as a servant of the church to defend its honour.'
Lay Catholics are now copping abuse
As we all know, Cardinal Pell, who is not in good health, has since been convicted of sexually abusing two choirboys in a busy cathedral after Mass 22 years ago, and languishes in a prison cell awaiting the outcome of an Appeal in June against his sentence of six years' imprisonment with no possibility of parole for three years and eight months.  A day of prayer for him scheduled by one Melbourne Catholic institution for Saturday, 9 March, was cancelled owing to an outcry. He's in solitary confinement, for his own protection apparently, is permitted no sacramental wine and no breviary, although he does have his rosary. He's permitted only one visitor a week, few books, and gets to leave his cell for just one hour each day. 

What a victory his fate is for visceral haters of the Catholic Church, for whom the theologically conservative Pell has long been, in his own words (in the course of his interview here with columnist Andrew Bolt) "a hate figure", and which has ensured a "lynch-mob mentality" towards him that included, among an avalanche of prejudicial press items (here's a taster), intemperate comments (taster here), an acclaimed obscene portrait of him and a much-publicised spiteful song, and which now sees Open Season on Australian Catholicism itself in full swing: see, for example, here
 
Many of those ebullient at Pell's downfull undoubtedly see the Church as a relic of the pre-Enlightenment era. Yet, it must be asked, how "enlightened" is it for a court of law to find a person guilty and deprive him of his liberty and his reputation on the testimony of a single plaintiff, uncorroborated by forensic evidence.

In a nutshell: doubting the justice of Pell's conviction (from here)
Does not this have grievous implications for all Australians who find themselves defendants, not just Pell?  The cardinal has not been proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The "guilty" verdict is unsafe.  No wonder that many people are comparing his case to that of the famously wronged Alfred Dreyfus, as well as to such proven miscarriages of Australian justice as the Lindy Chamberlain and Josephine Greensill jailings.

"[T]he boy from Ballarat with the film-star looks."  

In its blurb, that's how Dublin-born lapsed Catholic  ABC journalist Louise Milligan's much-hyped book   The Rise and Fall of Cardinal Pell, now triumphantly reissued with an update following his controversial 11 December 2018 conviction on historic sex abuse charges, describes the big imposing former Australian Rules ruckman (pictured left in his forties).

The book was commissioned by Louise Adler, the  leftwing Israel-critical head of Melbourne University Press, who also commissioned Antony Loewenstein's despicable My Israel Question. (She 'resigned in January following reports of internal conflict over Cardinal and budget subsidies. The university's chancellor, Allen Myers, is one of Pell's lawyers' notes a very recent publicity feature on Milligan in the Financial Review, in which she deplores those who question Pell's conviction.)

"In the end", Ms Milligan (who since the original publication of her book has been snapped up by the ABC's Four Corners current program along with the ABC's openly anti-Israel Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeill)  told ABC news website readers gloatingly in March, after Pell's sentencing, 
"he was just an elderly, grey-faced man in the dock.
Not a prince of the church, not a cardinal, but a man convicted of and sentenced for terrible crimes against children.
A man who once flew first class will celebrate his 78th birthday in prison, and at the very least, his 79th, 80th and 81st....
We saw a man in a beige jacket and black shirt who seemed to have aged years in a matter of weeks....
Here was the man who dined with prime ministers, who went into battle in the culture wars, who cast an enormous shadow over the Catholic Church and Australian culture life.
He spent his days telling the rest of us how we ought to live our lives, and now, here he was, scratching out his signature on the sex offender register.
He could be on that register for life...."
    In 2015 Pell's successor as Sydney's Catholic Archbishop, Anthony Fisher, identified the reasons for the "unfair"targeting of the cardinal: 
“For so long he was the most prominent churchman in Australia, so people assume he’s in charge of everything and has been since birth,” he said, noting that Pell was never the bishop in Ballarat and had no direct responsibility for [convicted paedophile Gerald] Ridsdale or other priests in the diocese.“Add to that a lot of people didn’t like him for the very strong conservative stand he took on a number of issues, and they would be happy to see him humbled,” Fisher said.
From a vile longstanding anti-Pell Facebook page
Fisher said there’s also a personal edge to the anti-Pell sentiment.
“Probably, some people too are looking for public contrition. They think George looks too self-confident or too gruff, too defiant. There’s a kind of Aussie male macho element about his whole demeanor they don’t like,” he said.
“They’d like to see him crying, they’d like to see him blush … they’d like to see him in some way looking hurt,” Fisher said. “Maybe they’re thinking that by putting him through this again, he’ll finally crack.”
Noting that Pell has responded to most of these charges several times before, Fisher said the experience of having to do it again seems to be taking a toll.
“People think he’s indestructible, but I’ve sensed seeing him this time that it’s getting to him,” he said. “It just goes on and on. No matter how many inquiries there are it just keeps coming back, and it gets a bit more vicious each time.”
(See Louise Milligan's biased piece here, for instance, and the despicable comments about Pell below the line.)

Even before Pell's trial doubts were being expressed that he could ever expect a fair one.  In the conservative Quadrant magazine (3 July 2017) David Flint, an emeritus professor of law, wrote inter alia:
'Without in any way debating his guilt or innocence, like every Australian, Cardinal George Pell is entitled to a fair trial.
If he is denied this, will this be because of the leaks to the media about the police investigation, will it be the failure of the Victorian government to take serious action against this, or will it be because of those in the media who have engaged in character assassination?
Australians may well wonder why the announcement that the police had finally decided to make charges was made by a deputy and not Victoria’s Chief Commissioner Graeme Aston. Was it because he had, in one of his conversations about the case in the media, described  the complainants as ”victims”? Did the police believe that by using his deputy his apparent pre-judgement of the case was somehow extinguished from the minds of potential jurors? 
.... Pell was undoubtedly the pioneer here in dealing with institutional sex abuse. He subsequently cooperated fully with the Royal Commission. Recalled in 2015, the hearing was delayed by curious attempts to force him to fly to Melbourne even when it was revealed his doctors warned that the long flight could be fatal.
Just before he was to appear, the world’s media were filled with well-timed leaks revealing a police investigation about which even the Cardinal had not been informed.... 
In the meantime, the Royal Commission video examination was extraordinarily long and unnecessarily hostile....'
(See also this refutation of misrepresentations regarding the cardinal and the Commission)
In a speech in Hobart in 2017 believing Catholic-turned-agnostic Dr Gerard Henderson, director of the Sydney Institute, made, inter alia, these salient points:
"In its wisdom, the Royal Commission decided not to conduct hearings into institutional responses by the Australian media to instances of child sexual abuse.... The Royal Commission also did not hold hearings with respect to Islamic institutions or government schools.
While the Royal Commission chose not to conduct hearings into the ABC or Islamic institutions or government schools, it focused overwhelmingly on the Catholic Church in general and Cardinal George Pell in particular. This was lapped up by sections of the Australian media—particularly the ABC, Fairfax Media (mainly the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald), the Saturday Paper, the Guardian Australia, Channel 9’s 60 Minutes, Channel 10’s The Project and Sky News’s Paul Murray Live and Hinch Live (the latter program is no longer extant).
While all these media outlets employ objective journalists, it is true that some contain a high proportion of alienated ex-Catholics along with Catholics who disagree with the social conservatism of George Pell. Then there are the atheists, many of a sneering disposition, who resent believers—particularly Christians. In short, sections of the media have used the Royal Commission’s obsession with Catholicism to run campaigns against the Catholic Church....
The Christian tradition today faces two fundamental challenges—from militant Islamists who want to kill Christians and place the so-called Islamic State’s black flag on the Vatican; and from intolerant atheists who hold believers in contempt, particularly Christians, and wish to restrict their freedom of expression and action."
Catholic journalist Michael Warren Davis observed in 2017:
 'Let’s be clear: he’s guilty, as he’s admitted, of not being aware of the abuses by priests under his charge. That’s a serious ministerial lapse ... Yet, somehow, I doubt the anti-Pell crowd is up in arms because he’s an inadequate prelate. One suspects they’re not concerned about a marked aloofness in the Catholic hierarchy. Indeed, as [Julia] Yost points out, Archbishop Frank Little – Pell’s superior when the abuses took place – is known to have actively covered up abuses. Is it worth noting that Little was a progressive, and Pell’s a conservative? Julia Yost makes that transparently clear in [her] First Things critique of ABC operative Louise Milligan’s recent hatchet job.'
Distinguished Catholic scholar Dr George Weigel who happens to be a founder member of the Friends of Israel initiative (part of what he says about Israel has long featured on this blog's sidebar, and the rest can be read here) has known George Pell for 50 years.  (See here too.) He characterises the Pell imbroglio as "this generation's Dreyfus Case".  There are very many, and not all within the Catholic Church, who share that view.

"Look, I know I'm innocent," Weigel quoted the cardinal, on the eve of his sentencing in March,  as telling him, "The only judgement I fear is the Last Judgement."

Added Weigel: "This whole thing had weirdness about it from the get-go ... who put the Victorian police up to this?"

Here's John Macaulay, a prominent Sydney Catholic and conservative, explaining why the cardinal's prosecution and conviction is "extraordinary beyond belief":

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ht7cWkd-KF4

Phillip Breene, writing in The Spectator on 9 March this year ("Prosecuting Pell: Can public hate figures get a fair trial?") observed:
"The important question is not simply whether the verdict in this case is sound but whether a responsible public Prosecutor should have brought the charges...
This is the difficulty with trials in which the defendant is a controversial public figure and has been demonised among the population from which the jury is drawn."
And here's Pell's biographer Tess Livingstone (behind a paywall, I'm afraid) giving her take on the conviction:
Full text available here
'....The guilty verdict was delivered in December by a unanimous jury, in a properly constituted court, after an earlier jury was dismissed on September 20 because it split 10-2 in Pell’s favour. Hence the second trial, in which many people, whether they like or loathe Pell and all he stands for, believe went badly wrong.
If so, the jury were not the only ones to get it wrong, nor the most culpable. Hard questions need to be asked about police and judicial processes, including how and why certain allegations ever made it to court, let alone to trial.
During the first trial, observers in the gallery claimed: “Even if he didn’t do it he deserves to be punished. He was in charge of the whole show’’. How much did such sentiments influence the verdicts, if at all? Australian justice cannot sink so low.
Studied closely, the five convictions of child sexual abuse are grotesque, implausible and break the bounds of credulity. In religious terms, they would be grave sacrileges....
It is extremely unfortunate, some of Pell’s friends believe, that the two juries hearing the case were taken around the cathedral on a quiet weekday when it is usually all but deserted, rather than having the chance to see its hustle and bustle on Sunday mornings....
According to the evidence, Pell was fully vested when he committed the crimes of which he was found guilty. Over his trousers and shirt, he wore an alb — a long, straight white garment, extending from shoulder to the floor, with no openings and no splits at the front or sides that would have allowed the garment to be moved aside, as alleged. Over the alb, Pell wore a cincture — a thick cord tied several times around his waist, and over that a heavy chasuble (the outer robe). Those garments, worn by every priest at Mass, have spiritual significance. The choir boys were also vested in robes over their shirts and trousers.  [This video explains such vestments.]
It's an ill wind that blows nobody good
The timing was odd for another reason. The scandal of clerical abuse was a major issue in the news in late 1996 in Melbourne after the inglorious legacy of Pell’s predecessor, Archbishop Frank Little. Pell had launched the Melbourne Response in October 1996, a system to deal with the problem led by an independent QC and the first of its kind for the Catholic Church in the world. In that atmosphere, the notion of Pell committing grotesque offences in a semipublic place with an open door (a point not disputed by the prosecution) at a busy time defies logic.
During the committal hearing, [magistrate] Ms Wallington dismissed even more grotesque charges against Pell, dating back decades before 1996 to provincial Victoria. As [Pell's lawyer] Richter said in his summing up in the Committal hearing, one charge that was subsequently dismissed owed “more to the watching of Satanist movies’’.
It was extreme, violent and satanic, lending weight to the view that Pell has been the victim of a vile stitch up. If so, it needs to be uncovered. In the committal hearing, Richter said had the police made proper investigations (as the defence did) they would have discovered no evidence that Pell was ever at the institution where the alleged Satanic incident occurred....'
(Curiouser and curiouser: see here)  Any serious student of the Pell imbroglio should also read this article by veteran award-winning Australian crime writer John Silvester.  Inter alia:
"Pell was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour or a confession.
 It is a matter of public record that it is rare to run a case on the word of one witness, let alone gain a conviction....
Pell has become a lightning rod in the worldwide storm of anger at a systemic cover-up of priestly abuses. But that doesn't make him a child molester. If Pell did molest those two teenagers in the busy cathedral, it certainly does not fit the usual pattern of paedophile priests....
He could not have known if one of them was not the son of the chief commissioner, the premier or the chief justice who were waiting outside to collect them. He could not have known if one of them would walk straight out and blow the whistle on him, and with two kids in the room he would have been sunk...."
In this month's issue of the conservative political and intellectual magazine Quadrant, the front cover of which bears the unequivocal headline "The Persecution of George Pell", former Anglican priest Peter Wales puts it  this way:
"... If you wanted to invent a perfect nemesis for Australia's left-wing media, you could not  do better than to come up with an intelligent, energetic, tough-minded, Australian-rules-playing, politically and religiously conservative straight white male.
 The ABC’s almost psychotic obsession with finding something dreadful to report about Cardinal Pell was noted at least as long ago as 2015, when Gerard Henderson suggested the mainstream media had the wrong target, and was focussing on Pell simply because he is a social conservative....'  (See another pertinent Peter Wales article here)
Writes Quadrant editor-in-chief Keith Windschuttle in another trenchant article:  
'The current heroine of the news media pursuing this story is Louise Milligan, who has a best-seller with her book Cardinal, and her own special reports on ABC television’s 7.30 and Four Corners programs. The latest edition of her book lists the number of awards this work has won her: the Walkley Book Award, two Quill awards from the Melbourne Press Club, the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers Law Reporter of the Year award, the Civic Choice award in the Melbourne Prize for Literature. The new edition also carries accolades from an impressive array of left-wing journalists and authors: Annabel Crabb, David Marr, David Armstrong, Peter Fitzsimons, Kate McClymont, Quentin Dempster, Michaela Bond, Derryn Hinch, Yvonne Rance, Gerard Windsor and Anton Rose, plus a foreword by novelist/historian Tom Keneally who says Pell got what he deserved because he was “a notable neo-conservative”, who “had questioned climate change” and “has raised only muted opposition to the  federal government’s heinous asylum seeker policy”....'
Windschuttle places great significance on a case in Philadelphia dating to 1998, involving a boy referred to as "Billy".
See in full context here
'The Philadelphia case was written up in Rolling Stone in September 2011, well before Victoria’s police began what they called their “trawling operation” against George Pell, hoping to find someone to testify against him....
The only difference between the American and Australian evidence was the account of a second alleged meeting, which the boys said took place “a few months later” in Philadelphia and “a month or so later” in Melbourne. In the American version, it was a different priest involved this time, who led the same boy to the sacristy, told him to undress and then fellated him. In the Australian version, Pell allegedly found the boy in the back corridor of the cathedral, forced him up against a wall and fondled his genitals.
Nonetheless, the two accounts are so close to being identical that the likelihood of the Australian version being original is most implausible. There are far too many similarities in the stories for them to be explained by coincidence. The conclusion is unavoidable:
“The Kid” [Louise Milligan's term for the still anonymous Australian testifier] was repeating a story he had found in a magazine – or repeating a story someone else had found for him in the media – thereby deriving his account of what Pell did from evidence given in a trial in the United States four years earlier. In short, the testimony that convicted George Pell was a sham. This does not mean the accuser was deliberately making it up. He might have come to persuade himself the events actually happened, or some therapist might have helped him “recover” his memory. But no matter how sincere the accuser’s beliefs were, that does not make them true, especially when there is so much other evidence against them.
There is little doubt that if members of the jury in Pell’s case had been informed of the surprising similarities between the two versions, some of them must have had serious questions about their witness’s veracity. The result would have been either a second hung jury or a not guilty verdict....'
Surely this not too dissimilar allegation, about the late Rabbi Lubofsky, might not, unwittingly, have been grist to the anti-Pell mill.  It appears to have first surfaced publicly several years ago, when it was referred to on the Facebook page of a well-known victim of paedophilia turned victims' advocate, though without mention of names:


 It was, incidentally, repeated on high-profile Aleph activist mikeybear's blog in this form in January 2018:
"It was alleged by two men in 2012 that the late Rabbi Emeritus Ronald Lubofsky AM [Member of the Order of Australia] of St. Kilda Synagogue masturbated in front of them during their bar mitzvah lessons in the 1970s and 1980s.  These men would have been 12 or 13 years old boys at the time.  So far neither of the men have gone public with the details of the sexual abuse."
And again there, this year, following Pell's conviction:
 "What do Cardinal George Pell and Rabbi Ronald Lubofsky have in common?
What do Rabbi Emeritus Ronald Lubofsky AM and His Eminence Cardinal George Pell AC [Companion of the Order of Australia] have in common? 
Both appointed to the Order of Australia.
 Both revered in their religious circles.
Both vehemently opposed to homosexuality and sexual immorality.
Both sexually abused / predated on young boys."
Rabbi Lubofsky, by the way, died in 2000.

It's not necessary to be convinced of Pell's innocence to deplore his conviction.  The conviction is "unsafe" and that's enough to believe it should be set aside.  To quote Michael Warren Davis again
"Pell’s cause is an unpopular one, to say the least. Our taste-makers decided to destroy this man long ago. But, if his conviction goes uncontested, who will be next? Who else will be condemned in the eyes of law without forensic evidence or corroborating witnesses? Who else will be imprisoned because he fails to conform to fashionable opinion? Me, perhaps. Or you. Mark my words: if the third-most senior prelate in the Roman Catholic Church isn’t safe, we don’t stand a chance. This, in my opinion, is a fight for Australians’ basic civil liberties. I personally believe that, if Cardinal Pell’s conviction isn’t overturned, we’ve already lost."

Saturday, 13 April 2019

In the ALP, Might Melissa's Malignance Mirror Mounting Malice?

She was hoping to get back into the thick of Aussie federal politics, former UNRWA lawyer and unreformed Israel-hater Melissa Parke, who when representing (2007-16) the safe Labor seat of Fremantle, Western Australia, was a junior minister in the latter stages of Kevin Rudd's government, swept from power in 2013.

In selecting the glamorous blonde to run against conservative Celia Hammond in the normally safe Liberal WA seat of Curtin, relinquished by glamorous blonde Liberal former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Labor bigwigs evidently thought her high profile meant Ms Parke had a fighting chance of wresting the seat away from the less stellar Liberal hopeful.

But it's all gone awry for Parke and her backers, because she's now quit as a candidate in order to save her embarrassed party the "distraction" caused by her loathsome antisemitic slurs on Israel, scathingly compared in today's Melbourne Herald Sun by political commentator James Campbell as "actually manag[ing] to say something new" in the "long history of slanders" of the Jewish people.

A proponent of BDS in its economic and cultural guises, who in 2017 was one of about 60 prominent Australians (including APAN's president, ex-Bishop Browning) publicly opposed to Bibi Netanyahu's visit to Australia, Parke last month told the launch of WA Labor Friends of Palestine (to quote a report in WA Today) that
'Australia should recognise a Palestinian state and likened Israel's settlements to China's island building activity in the South China Sea.
She also took aim at Israel's influence in Australian politics and said there was no doubt Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, while illegal under international law, were "a reaction to and a consequence of decades of brutal occupation".
Ms Parke, a former lawyer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in Gaza, said Australia had to break away from its "strategic dependence" on the United States and recognise Palestine as a state, which is contrary to Labor policy.
"There are already 137 nations that recognise the state of Palestine, that is more than 70 per cent of the world," she said.
"And, inshallah [Arabic for 'God willing'], Australia will join that consensus once we have a Federal Labor government.
An APAN illiterate has his say
"It's also time finally for Australia to support an end to the brutal occupation of Palestine and for the right of return of the Palestinian refugees."
In her speech to Palestinian supporters, which was held in the Perth offices of the United Voice union, Ms Parke said the discrimination experienced by Palestinians in Israel was because of a "fully fledged system of Apartheid"....
"A false narrative sold to the western world is that Israel is a beacon of western democracy and human rights."
Ms Parke said Israel "propagates the myth that it is a small country that just wants to live in peace".'
Moreover,
'WAtoday also revealed earlier this week WA Labor senator and Senate Deputy President Sue Lines told the same meeting of pro-Palestinian activists that a powerful "Israel lobby" had been influencing her party's policy on Palestine and peace in the Middle East.
Senator Lines said policy in the area had stalled because "the Israeli lobby is so powerful within the party and outside of the party".'
 The report quotes Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Alex Ryvchin as follows:
'He said Ms Parke had the "inglorious distinction" of being the first, and only, Labor MP to publicly endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which seeks to force Israel to withdraw from occupied or contested territories and aims at "the complete and total isolation of the state of Israel and to dismantle the national home of the Jewish people".
"BDS was rightly condemned as a form of antisemitism by Julie Bishop, who Ms Parke is now seeking to replace as the federal member for Curtin," Mr Ryvchin said."BDS has also expressly been repudiated by the Australian Labor Party and rejected as national policy even by the Greens."It is regrettable that such an extreme and divisive figure should receive the endorsement of the Australian Labor Party, particularly at a time when it is vital to strengthen the political centre and diminish the appeal of low populism and false and polarising rhetoric."
 Parke also, as widely reported today, for instance the Sydney Morning Herald here, declared:
 "One case I remember vividly, a pregnant refugee woman was ordered at a checkpoint in Gaza to drink a bottle of bleach," she said.
"It burnt out all her throat and insides. Fortunately her baby was saved.
"Another refugee was forced to put her baby through the X-ray machine."
It is that vile canard in particular that disgusts the Herald-Sun's James Campbell, who pointedly observed that another Labor candidate, Josh Wilson, was at the meeting addressed by Parke and did not take issue with her remarks.

Campbell adds that while current federal Labor leader Bill Shorten is committed to friendship with Israel, the fears of pro-Israel Australians that, post-Shorten, the party (remember the lurking presence of Bob Carr and cobbers?) might fall into the hands of a Corbynista-type leadership remains a realistic prospect.

ScoMo for me, I think.

Friday, 12 April 2019

Loving Jihad, Hating Jews & Infidels: A New York mufti tells (video)

Last year Philadelphia-born Mufti Muhammad Ibn Muneer told his faithful:
'that a martyr killed fighting for Allah holds the highest status of martyrdom, and that Muslims should never apologize for speaking the truth about Jihad, the Jews, and the Christians. Ibn Muneer explained that while there are different types of martyrs in Islam, one should not confuse any of them with the martyr who was killed in battle, who holds the highest status of martyrdom. He warned the audience not to treat lesser forms of Jihad, such as seeking knowledge and giving da'wa, as if they are equal to fighting for the sake of Allah.
Ibn Muneer said that when a Muslim makes a comment about Christians or Jews, such as saying that the Jews have earned Allah's wrath, he may face repercussions such as being called an extremist or terrorist. He explained that some people might say that videos on those topics should be taken down or made private, but that there is no need to apologize for the truth, and he asked: "What's next?... When does it stop, the neutering of the Muslim?" He also said that trying to remove Jihad from the Quran and the Sunnah is like "removing sweetness from honey." He added: "Your feelings have no value [or] worth in light of the Quran and Sunnah. If you don't believe and understand that, then maybe Islam is not the religion for you."...' [Emphasis added]
 Read more here

 Here he is again. last year and this, telling his faithful how to deal with Jews and "kuffars".



To quote the uploader, Memri.org:
'In a Q&A session uploaded to the Hadith Disciple YouTube channel on January 31, 2018, New York cleric Mufti Muhammad Ibn Muneer said that there are different ways of dealing with different types of Jews. 
He cited the Islamic principle of Al-Bara Wal-Wala (disavowal and loyalty), which he says is, as "explained by Ibn Al-Qayyim and many others... simply summed up as loving the Muslims and hating the non-Muslims... Buddhist, Hindu, this, that, so on and so forth." 
He underlined that if his Jewish neighbor is "trying to do me physical harm... I have the right to defend myself." 
He continued: "Look at history" when Jews and Muslims lived together and "the Muslims ran the country [and] the Jews were the minority.... The moment there is oppression" – that's "a whole different story." 
In a Q&A session uploaded a year later, on January 31, 2019, he expanded on the subject, saying that a Muslim cannot maintain a close relationship with infidels with whom he had been friends prior to accepting Islam and that Muslims cannot treat non-Muslim as friends. 
They may be treated with respect and friendliness in order to invite them to Islam, he said, but only a pious Muslim is worthy of a close, trusting friendship. 
He added that it may be Islamically impermissible to wear soccer jerseys that have the names of non-Muslims or that contain symbols of something other than Islam, and that buying designer clothing might be supporting homosexuals or people who are bombing Muslims in Palestine.' [Emphasis added]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hR24Fxz8zc)

Thursday, 11 April 2019

When Walid Met Manal (video)

That Jews can be identified by a characteristic unpleasant odour was an integral part of medieval antisemitism, mentioned, for example, in historian Joshua Trachtenberg's The Devil and the Jews (1943).

But who knew that it's still believed in modern Tunisia in 2019?

Tunisian actress Manal Abdul Qawi evidently didn't, until Israelphobic Tunisian actor Walid Nahdi attempted to set her straight:


To quote the translator and uploader, Memri.org:
'Tunisian actor Walid Nahdi said in an April 4, 2019 broadcast on Radio Med (Tunisia) that he would not go to Israel if given an opportunity to do so, and that he cannot tolerate the Jews and their "distinct odor".
 He said that he also does not feel comfortable around and cannot stand homosexuals. Tunisian actress Manal Abdul Qawi, who was also on the show, rebuked Nahdi and defended Jews, saying that Tunisian Jews love Tunisia more than many non-Jews do.
 She also said that homosexuality is a private matter. Abdul Qawi added that she accepts all races and religions and that she values personal freedom.
Yamina Thabet, the head of the Tunisian Association for Support of Minorities (see MEMRI TV Clip No. 7063), has filed a legal complaint against Walid Nahdi following his comments.
 This excerpt was not posted by Radio Med to their social media accounts; rather, it was uploaded to the Internet by other Tunisian accounts.' 
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=7hGcYmm9HK8)

Monday, 8 April 2019

David Singer: Hashemite Rule in Jordan on Collision Course with Trump and Israel

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

He writes:

King Abdullah seems increasingly hell-bent on ending 99 years of Hashemite-dynasty rule in Jordan.

This possibility is emerging as Abdullah is:
  • Seemingly refusing to commit to negotiating with Israel on President Trump’s soon-to-be-released deal of the century to end the Jewish-Arab conflict and
  • Taking active steps to place the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty in jeopardy.
Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1950) has always been the key to resolving competing territorial claims by both Arabs and Jews in former Palestine.

Transjordan comprised 78 per cent of the territory placed under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after being wrested from 400 years of Ottoman Empire sovereignty during World War One.

Mandatory Palestine was designated in April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference and in August 1920 by article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres as the location for reconstitution of the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

Transjordan’s first Hashemite ruler – Abdullah I – arrived there in November 1920.

Abdullah was en route by train from Hijaz to Syria with armed forces to assist his brother Feisal in his struggle with France to retain power in Syria. Winston Churchill – at France’s request – offered Abdullah an Emirate in Transjordan – which Abdullah gratefully accepted on 11 April 1921.

Feisal was removed from Syria by the French and installed as ruler of Iraq under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty dated 10 October 1922.  France became the Mandatory for the territory comprised in the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon.

These British-Franco machinations cost the Jewish people dearly, when the Mandate for Palestine – adopted unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 – denied the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of Transjordan (Eastern Palestine) and restricted that right to the remaining 22 percent (Western Palestine).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this decision. The Arabs didn’t.

In 1946 Transjordan was granted independence by Great Britain.

In 1948 – immediately after the Mandate ended and Jews declared the State of Israel – Transjordan invaded Western Palestine, conquering Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem (comprising 4 per cent of Mandatory Palestine) – and unified these areas with Transjordan to form a new territorial entity – Jordan – encompassing 82 per cent of Mandatory Palestine completely devoid of Jews.

The founding Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 specifically excluded any PLO claim to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

In the 1967 Six Day War Israel captured Judea and Samaria from Jordan. The PLO – claiming Jordan and Israel to be one indivisible territorial unit – removed its non-claim to sovereignty from the revised 1968 Charter.

In September 1970 the PLO unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Jordan’s Hashemite ruler King Hussein. Israel helped save Hussein.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty 1994 (Peace Treaty) – which has withstood many events that could have seen its termination.

That Treaty is again under threat – as Jordan has:
  • indicated it is not prepared to renew an expired 25-year lease of Jordanian sovereign territory farmed by Israelis and
  • given the PLO 40% representation on the body charged with administering the Moslem Holy Sites in Jerusalem – breaching the Washington Declaration and the Peace Treaty.
Jordan’s resistance to negotiating with Israel on Trump’s plan could see Trump shelving it and abruptly ending the 2018 five years $1.275 billion America–Jordan Memorandum of Understanding underpinning Jordan’s security and stability.

The PLO – as in 1970 – is waiting in the wings as current ongoing unrest in Jordan is destabilizing continuing Hashemite rule there.

Abdullah might find that spurning Trump and Israel could see him facing the PLO on his own.

Sunday, 7 April 2019

The Naive Fool of "Romiyyah"

Last year Raymond Ibrahim, the distinguished American scholar of Islam, who's of Egyptian background, published the book pictured left, based on primary sources in Arabic and Greek.  It's 
'A sweeping history of the often-violent conflict between Islam and the West, shedding a revealing light on current hostilities The West and Islam--the sword and scimitar--have clashed since the mid-seventh century, when, according to Muslim tradition, the Roman emperor rejected Prophet Muhammad's order to abandon Christianity and convert to Islam, unleashing a centuries-long jihad on Christendom. 
 [It] chronicles the decisive battles that arose from this ages-old Islamic jihad, beginning with the first major Islamic attack on Christian territory in 636, through the Muslim occupation of nearly three-quarters of Christendom, which prompted the Crusades, followed by renewed Muslim conquests by Turks and Tatars, to the European colonization of the Muslim world in the 1800s, when Islam largely went on the retreat--until its reemergence in recent times....
[T]oday, as the West faces a resurgence of this enduring Islamic jihad, Sword and Scimitar provides the needed historical context to understand the current relationship between the West and the Islamic world--and why the Islamic State is merely the latest chapter of an old history.'
Recently, Ibrahim pointed out the absurd and dangerous attitude of Pope Francis regarding the Islamic threat to Western civilisation.  His must-read article (just one of numerous must-read articles by the dynamic young scholar over the years) began:
'"I appeal not to create walls but to build bridges" has long been Pope Francis's mantra.
Most recently, when asked last Sunday "a question about migration in general and about U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to shut down the southern border with Mexico," the pope pontificated in platitudes: "Builders of walls," he said, "be they made of razor wire or bricks, will end up becoming prisoners of the walls they build.... With fear, we will not move forward, with walls, we will remain closed within these walls." Less than a week earlier, Pope Francis lectured the mayor of Rome about the need to be more welcoming to Muslim migrants. "Rome," he declared, "a hospitable city, is called to face this epochal challenge [Muslim migrants demanding entry] in the wake of its noble history; to use its energies to welcome and integrate, to transform tensions and problems into opportunities for meeting and growth."
"Rome," he exulted, "city of bridges, never walls!"The grand irony of all this is that Pope Francis lives in the only state to be surrounded by walls—Vatican City—and most of these bastions were erected to ward off centuries of Islamic invasions....' [Emphasis added]
And concluded:
'Today, many Muslims, not just of the ISIS-variety, continue to boast that Islam will conquer Rome, the only of five apostolic sees never to have been subjugated by jihad (unlike Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople). Similarly, Muslims all throughout Europe continue exhibiting the same hostility and contempt for all things and persons non-Islamic, whether by vandalizing churches and breaking crosses, or by raping "infidel" women as theirs by right. As for Italy, click here, here, and/or here for an idea of how Muslim migrants behave.
And that is the point Pope Francis misses: walls should only go down and bridges should only be extended when both parties are willing to live in amicable peace—as opposed to making the destructive work of those who have been trying to subjugate Europe in the name of Islam that much easier.'
To read Giulio Meotti's full article click HERE

Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea realises clearly what the end result of Francis's foolishness would be:
"I would like to explain why I, a son of Africa, allow myself to address the West. The Church is the guardian of civilization. I am convinced that western civilization is passing at present through a mortal crisis. It has reached the extreme of self-destructive hate.... 
 How could I not emphasize the threat posed by Islamism?  Muslims despise the atheistic West....  A West that denies its faith, its history, its roots, and its identity is destined for contempt, for death, and disappearance."
Indeed,
'"It is a false exegesis to use the Word of God to promote migration. God never wanted these rifts," Cardinal Sarah told French publication Valeurs Actuelles before going on to blast bishops who "say fuzzy things, vague, imprecise, to escape criticism, and they marry the stupid evolution of the world."

Sarah, head of the Vatican liturgy office, minced no words in his denunciation of the prevailing viewpoint among liberal Catholics, which states that the faithful betray Christ by wanting stricter immigration policies, especially from Islamic countries. Liberal Catholics often speak of migration in romantic terms, but Sarah notes there is nothing romantic about people leaving their cultures and homes behind, saying they would best be helped in their culture of origin.

"All migrants who arrive in Europe are penniless, without work, without dignity. ... This is what the Church wants?" he said. "The Church cannot cooperate with this new form of slavery that has become mass migration. If the West continues in this fatal way, there is a great risk that, due to a lack of births, it will disappear, invaded by foreigners, just as Rome has been invaded by barbarians."

Sarah made it clear that he speaks from personal experience. "My country is predominantly Muslim," he said. "I think I know what reality I'm talking about."

Cardinal Sarah warned that if Europe were to fall, Islam would prevail as the world religion, altering the course of history and culture as we know it. "If Europe disappears, and with it the priceless values of the Old Continent, Islam will invade the world and we will completely change culture, anthropology, and moral vision," he warned.' [Emphasis added]
 Similar warnings, but from a secular/ Jewish perspective:
'There is no mental contortion too extreme for European liberals when it comes to covering up the crimes and misconduct of the members of the immigrant Muslim population. The latest example comes from Germany, where a state-funded study concluded that growing anti-semitism among Muslims was in fact a result of “Islamophobia” in the country....'

Thursday, 4 April 2019

David Singer: Trump Exposes United Nations as World’s Epicentre for Jew-Hatred

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

He writes:

President Trump’s Proclamation recognising Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights – and the condemnation issued by the United Nations Security Council in response – has exposed the United Nations (UN) as the world’s epicentre for rabid Jew-hatred.

Jews do have ancient, historic and legal claims to sovereignty in the Golan Heights that cannot simply continue to be dismissed by a UN media release headed “Security Council Members Regret Decision by United States to Recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over Occupied Syrian Golan”.
The “Occupied Syrian Golan” is UN diplomatic doublespeak contrived after Israel:
  • Captured the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six Day War from Syria,
  • Passed an Act in 1981 declaring that the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel applied to the Golan Heights – which was immediately rejected by Security Council Resolution 497.
Circumstances have since changed as Israel now faces Syria and its “invitees” Russia, Iran and Hezbollah across this very strategic piece of territory – whilst the UN remains powerless to end the carnage and displacement of Syria’s citizens by its ruler Bashir Assad during the past eight years.
38 years of unbroken UN refusal to recognise Jewish sovereignty in the 1150 square kilometres Golan Heights has finally been called out and trashed by Trump.

The UN’s continuing anti-Israel and pro-Syrian bias in 2019 is the product of a structured regional-representation system which has seen decisions of its 193 member states impacted for decades by:
  1. 16 member States that have never recognised Israel
  2. 11 member States that have had no diplomatic relations with Israel for decades
  3. 30 member States (in addition to those in 1 and 2) that are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – hardly a Jewish fan club
  4. 77 member States that fraternise and associate with the above 57 Jew-hating States in a 134 member voting bloc at the UN called the G77 – guaranteeing an automatic majority for any resolution in the UN General Assembly – no matter how dismissive or contemptuous of Jewish rights and claims.
The Security Council’s current 10 non-permanent members include 3 OIC members – 2 of whom – Indonesia and Kuwait – have never recognised Israel.

The Commission on the Status of Women currently includes among its 45 members: 6 that have never recognised Israel – Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

The current 49 members of the Human Rights Council include: 9 States that do not recognise Israel – Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Tunisia –
and another 19 who are both OIC and G77 members or only G77 members.

These States regularly denigrate and delegitimise the Jewish people under the guise of civilised debate and constructive discussion on solving the worlds’ problems – most of which are remarkably sheeted home to the actions of the Jewish State of Israel and its Jewish majority population.

This toxic hate-filled potpourri has created a climate of unbridled UN-sponsored Jew-hatred that has permeated through other UN agencies including UNESCO and UNRWA.

A UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian Peopleexists– but no similar UN Committee for the Jewish People.

UN Jew-hatred will be re-ignited when Trump inevitably focuses his attention on Judea and Samaria – the UN’s falsely-designated “Occupied Palestinian Territories”– where the UN still misleadingly claims that Jews have no vested legal rights to reconstitute their biblical and ancient national home there as recognised by:
  • Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and
  • Article 80 of the United Nations own Charter.
Endemic Jew-hatred throughout the UN must be eradicated if the UN is to regain any credibility or relevance.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Tuesday, 2 April 2019

Outside the UK Israeli Embassy, Ugly Smears, Ugly Chants from Corbynistas

"When I say Free you say Palestine ... Yes, yes BDS"

"O Jeremy Corbyn!"

On 30 March, outside the Israeli Embassy in London (with a bunch of those Shabbat-breaking "authentic Jews" the Neturei Karta lending the support of their presence) anti-Zionist ferals marking the first anniversary of the "Great March of Return", scream and cheer a succession of leftist speakers claming Netanyahu and "Apartheid Israel" and advocating the "Right of Return".

Speakers include Jewish flotilla alumnus Glyn Secker, Amos Trust director Chris Rose, and Stop the War Coalition's Lindsey German, and Joyce Hurndall.

 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMPMja0Wgp4

More odious sentiments, from, among others, a trade union representative, from a member of the truly egregious  Jewish Voice for Labour, and a pro-BDS song from a choir of elderly dames, as well as a talk by the PSC's Hugh Lanning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzVzui7X-rg

And yet more vile bile, including notice of another demo planned for 11 May:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ivCgMFHM8

(MrAlexSeymour videos)

Monday, 1 April 2019

Hijab Hypocrisy: "Not Just a Piece of Cloth"

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/NoHijabDay?src=hashtag_click
In the wake of the Christchurch atrocity, New Zealand's female (and feminist!) prime minister, along with the female mayor of Christchurch, covered their heads with hijabs out of "respect" for their Muslim fellow-citizens, and numerous of their non-Muslim countrywomen followed their example, including a policewoman and several news anchors.

Aussie columnist and Sky News host Rita Panahi, American-born of Iranian parentage, knows a thing or two about the oppression of women that the hijab represents, as pointed out here and here and here,
'Sky News host Rita Panahi says World Hijab Day, celebrated on February 1, is a betrayal of the most oppressed women in the world. Ms Panahi says a woman celebrating modesty culture like the hijab, ‘is like a slave celebrating their chains’ and it shows how regressive modern feminism has become. She says celebrating the hijab and burqa ‘is utterly perverse and has no place in a civilised society that values equality’.....
 Women in New Zealand are being encouraged to wear hijabs to show solidarity to the Muslim community after the Christchurch massacre.... [T]he hijab is being forced on millions of oppressed women across the world and was invented by men to be imposed on women to ‘control, separate and subjugate’ and that the NZ campaign is 'misguided and counterproductive'.... [T]he garment is 'imbued with deep symbolism' and represents a pernicious 'modesty culture.'....
 New Zealand women who donned the hijab following the Christchurch massacre were "well-intended, but ill-considered and ignorant".... {W]omen in some Muslim nations are being beaten and locked up for fighting against the hijab and "we have a responsibility as free women in the West to stand by our subjugated sisters rather than give comfort to their oppressors".  [T]he hijab is "not just a piece of cloth", but rather "imbued with deep meaning" and "at the centre of a fight for equality and human rights".
Ruchika Sharma, a doctoral student at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, is also aghast at the New Zealanders' actions, and in this article she explains the misogynistic reasoning behind the hijab (lit. "curtain") and its imposition on Muslim women.  Her article concludes:
"The oppressive origins of hijab, have made it an active a tool to subjugate Muslim women. In countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia forced veiling is practiced that has led to scores of protests by women in these countries. The lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh has only recently been sentenced to 38 years in prison, and 148 lashes, for representing women who defied Iran’s hijab laws.
As if the upholding of an oppressive symbol was not damaging enough, New Zealand’s Scarves in Solidarity movement also stereotypes Muslim women, many of whom do not wear the headscarf. It presupposes, in the most orientalist manner, that hijab-clad women are the norm in the Muslim community.
Considering the hijab as a synonym for the Muslims not only disadvantages women actively fighting against its enforcement but also has a deleterious effect on womanhood in general. It marginalizes women as merely a property of the community.
Proponents of New Zealand’s Scarves in Solidarity regards hijab as a neutral symbol of Muslim identity. Yet, if symbols of oppression could be purged of their exploitative histories in a day, feminism would have already triumphed. Associated with the hijab is centuries of suppression and body policing. Using it to show solidarity is to marginalize the women actively fighting against its enforcement and yearning to break free."

Wednesday, 27 March 2019

David Singer: Trump Could Replicate Golan Heights Decision in Judea and Samaria

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

He writes:

 President Trump’s Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel (Proclamation) could have important implications for America’s future policy regarding territorial claims by the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

Trump first signalled America was voting against the United Nations long-held position on the Golan Heights – when US Ambassador to the United Nation Nikki Haley declared on 15 November 2018:
“The annual United Nations resolution entitled “The Occupied Syrian Golan” is scheduled for a vote on Friday, November 16. In previous years, the United States has abstained from voting on this resolution. However, given the resolution’s anti-Israel bias, as well as the militarization of the Syrian Golan border, and a worsening humanitarian crisis, this year the United States has decided to vote no on the resolution.
“The United States will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights. If this resolution ever made sense, it surely does not today. The resolution is plainly biased against Israel. Further, the atrocities the Syrian regime continues to commit prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone. The destructive influence of the Iranian regime inside Syria presents major threats to international security. ISIS and other terrorist groups remain in Syria. And this resolution does nothing to bring any parties closer to a peace agreement. The United States will vote no.”
The United Nations' designation of the Golan Heights as “The Occupied Syrian Golan” clearly signalled the UN’s total rejection of any Jewish biblical, historic and legal claims in the Golan Heights.

Part of the Golan Heights had been originally included in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine in the 1920 “Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia”.

This Convention established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground. The Commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922 – reducing the area of Palestine by placing all of the Golan Heights within the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon. The 1923 Paulet–Newcombe Agreement was subsequently signed by the British and French Governments confirming this and other boundary adjustments.

Trump could well turn his attention now to recognising the legal right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.

The United Nations'
  • designation of Judea and Samaria as “The Occupied Palestinian Territories”and
  • retention of the term “West Bank” – first used in 1950 – rather than “Judea and Samaria” -used since biblical times
has similarly signalled the UN’s rejection of the Jewish peoples’ right to “close settlement” in Judea and Samaria  – expressly recognised in article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and preserved until today by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Another Trump proclamation acknowledging the legal right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria could happen at any time – irrespective of whether Israel has passed any law similar to that passed on 14 December 1981 declaring that ”the law, jurisdiction and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights.”

Such a Trump proclamation would blunt the rising tide of rabid Jew-hatred within the United Nations, UNESCO, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the European Union resulting from these institutions having failed to acknowledge such vested Jewish rights under international law.

The Jewish people worldwide owe President Trump a huge debt of gratitude for championing and defending their right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the Golan Heights – and hopefully soon – in Judea and Samaria.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog