Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![]()
Clik here to view.
From: g87Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:16 AMCc: Shimon CowenSubject: Fw: Dear Danny, Peter Wertheim, Julie Nathan of ECAJFrom: g87Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:28 PMSubject: Dear Danny, Peter Wertheim, Julie Nathan of ECAJCONFIDENTIAL
Dear Danny, Peter Wertheim, Julie Nathan of ECAJ
and Phillip Chester ZFA, Tzvi Fleischer and Colin R of AIJAC
Please pass on to Sam T of Zionist Council.
CC to I Leibler, Romy Leibler, Akiva Hamilton – Shurat Hadin
Shalom people!
STRENGTH TO YOUR ARM, AKIVA HAMILTON!
Re the ‘TO’ area above: I submit for your respective websites the article I had written some time ago.
Let there be no doubt that you will NOT publish it.
And I tell you that in terms of pure unadulterated humbug – nothing beats the last paragraph of today’s The Australian:
[I pasted it to a semi – secure blog, rarely used by me]
http://cognatebmpaz.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/anti-semitism-on -increase-oz-2811.html
Ms Nathan also spoke of the need for legal recourse to tackle vilification and hate, citing sections of the Racial Discrimination Act the government has pledged to repeal.
I refer to the scenario of legal recourse, of course.
Please be careful in responding: it may be better to ignore me for reasons not obvious
Kindly publish my essay without smart – alec comments – and we will see how many people support your stance.
Should you wish to make any comments – any of you are invited to do so in writting.
As an aside – I do wonder why the ‘silent majority’of our people have remained silent. You are challenged to comment and / or publish my article to enable those moribund of mind to understand what a con – job you have pulled!
Shalom
Geoff Seidner
As an aside: I recall Mr I Leibler wrote an article decimating the lamentable anti Israel writings of Jonathan Sacks in the AJN – 10 or so years ago. It was the only one.....
We will see whether he has the courage to lacerate you guys named in the ‘To’ area above
###########################
###############################
GOOD ON YOU, SHURAT HA DIN!!I am saddened that the usually esteemed ECAJ and other major Israel – supporting groups – ZFA and the Zionist Council of Victoria have not appreciated that their late October attempts at undermining the incipient legal action by Shuarat Hadin the Israeli Law Centre against the determined ‘boycotteers’, are dreadfully ill advised.There will be a directions hearing commencing in the Federal Court on Wednesday 27 November in the Federal Court. I refer to The Australian: November 25, 2013 which also correctly advises that:‘’Several prominent Australian Jewish academics -- including some who oppose BDS – manifestly back his [Lynch, Rees and University of Sydney] right to support it as an expression of academic freedom, and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has disowned Shurat HaDin's action.’’
Am I reading this correctly?See also BDS Litigation “inappropriate” says ECAJ » J-Wire Oct 31, 2013It saddens me that The Oz is correct. I posit that basis the article in JWire and ECAJ website that our leading people resent action taken by Shurat Ha Din - and in the process fail to realize they somehow also manage to effectively support the BDS! Well may they claim that they oppose the BDS. It is meaningless codswallop to so claim and yet do everything to undermine the legal process which the Australian Jewish organizations should have started themselves.
And it gets worse - much worse.I understand they feel diminished because they did not act earlier before S.HaDin shamed them with action.It is expected that they will have disparate excuses for what I regard as almost essentially treacherous action on their [ECAJ] part. Arguably to justify their own unmasterly inactivity. Note carefully furthermore that in supporting boycotters’ rights under the aegis of ‘’academic freedom’’ – they plainly humiliate themselves? Non? It is plainly astonishing.I [GS] asked these Jewish mainstream organizations early November to explain the inarguable ‘’PATHETIC SITUATION THAT WILL POSSIBLY ENSURE
THAT THE JUDGE ADJUDICATING WILL BE AWARETHAT THE ENTIRE JEWISH / ZIONIST BUREAUCRACY SEEMS TO BE WORKING
AGAINST SHURAT HADIN, TO OUR MUTUAL DISADVANTAGE!!Exactly whose side are you guys on – I continued.Or is it do that not think things through!?
Surely if you cannot / will not help - why hinder?
What do you intend to say when your grandchildren ask: What
did you do in the war against the anti - Israel scourge of
this decade’’?There was no answer to this: indeed one of the 'troika' essentially admitted I
was right.How could it come to this? Our people using the favoured line of our enemies, for goodness sakes!Any or all of the troika could have done what Shurat Ha Din did. It begged to be done because primary or secondary boycotts are arguably illegal basis either commercial law or Racial Vilification law. Which the BDS plainly comprimizes. You guys should have chosen your weapons – instead you did the most demonstrable example of mealy – mouthed inaction dressed up as jealousy.Inverted humour attempted.But they did worse than nothing.Instead they publically criticised / vitiated Hamilton’s action. Certainly giving
oxygen to our enemies! Can I put in a few more exclamation marks!!?And putting it in the public domain – in spite of the fact that action against inarguable defacto Jew haters will have had greater prospects if it was not ‘kiboshed’ with self – serving selfishness.Now I have put this in the public domain myself – and appreciating that our enemies are reading this as well. You have forced my hand. Shame also on all of our
people who have allowed this to pass without comment. I have watched the cavalcade of nothingness for many weeks – pardon the oxymoronic insult.Maybe in some sort of rational world the judge will contemplate my humble words and accept that the ECAJ et al are simply wrong. It is rare – but it is possible for mainstream Jewish entities to be 'misguided'. Desperately wrong and pathetically misguided. I have never seen anything like this inane situation that The Australian and Shurat HaDin have been the only ones to stand up against the BDS promoters and our local organizations do matters adverse to Israel's interestTo those Jews who espouse that theirs may be a viable legal opinion – they should realize they are helping the same people who were quoted as railing against the London Declaration on anti semitism. [see below] Even if they are proven to be right – which is far from certain - it is irresponsible to do what they have done.Note Sydney University’s Peace Studies Prof. Rees on the London Declaration signed by all responsible parties: ‘’ it is childish, thoughtless but easily populist.’’This is what Rees wrote: Criticising Jew Hatred is ‘’childish’’! The Australian 15/5/13http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/ 11/hhhhantisemitism-but- easily-populist.html And never mind the self – fulfilling prophecy which our Zionist organizations had chutzpah and ineptmodus in setting into motion. Devoid of notion. I wrote some poetry many years ago which when found will aptly designate this farce for what it is; in non – post modernist poetry.It is my understanding that holding ‘them’ to account is best achieved by threats and real world action through the courts: there has to be an understanding who
one is doing business with.Well - may the Executive Director Peter Wertheim in his article in Jwire 31/10 ‘’believe that the most appropriate and effective way....through public discourse’’Where is the evidence that anything anyone has said in civilized discourse has had any effect?Au contraire – the University of Sydney have a Sturt Rees who on 15 May this year was quoted by The Oz as being against governments signing the London Declaration against anti semitism!This is how far our enemies have taken it: who would have believed a few short years ago that 'they' would insist that railing against AS as ''childish thoughtless and easily populist''Note Wertheim’s waffle in his public pronouncement in seeking justification for his BDS stance in nation states signing the document is strained and and inarguably absurd..See below: it is self - contradictory tripe to suggest that the BDS promoters are allowed to have their day in court'' - and simultaneously vitiate same via suggesting they are against the action action to bring it to court is ''are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
Excuse me? This is ethereal nonsense to invert reality by criticising via the ‘political’ moniker.Excuse me Mr Wertheim - exactly how can it be anything but ''politics'?Maybe he can pursue legal action without subject matter? That would eliminate the political scenario!Pray explain what you say here: exactly how would you describe your comments: political, non? Do you resile from making political statements infavour of protecting Israel against the BDS? Exactly what do you do during the day? Support a motherhood version of politics?I suggest you get real as they say in the non – classicist world.It is all too absurd for serious discussion: I sometimes wonder how we won so many Nobel Prizes.The Syney University are the source of the infamous Sydney Peace Prize.... with infamous list of anti – Israel winners. They select them for their anti Israel stance - shamelessly.And our people select disingenuous verbiage as above and below to harm ourselves.And the Vice Chancellor of Sydney Uni has plainly never had any intention of doing anything about Rees or the chief boycoteer Lynch, the Professor of the Peace and Conflict Studies Centre at University of Sydney. I did not realize that their much – parodied nomenclature was still extant.Furthermore the idea to take viable legal action against those who would bedevil Israel is necessary. Surely the legal system will allow defence against evil incantations.
Contemplate what the gay or some entity turned against gays or Muslims? It would result in proverbial war or worse. And the ECAJ merely wants to continue asking them nicely to cease and desist?Surely legal action compares favourably with ECAJ fatuous attempts at ‘’exposure... its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods...’’Where has it got you, Peter W? In my opinion there are two irrefutable ideas in this realm: only declaration of war or threat of legal action has ever been heeded by those who care not for civil discourse.Who is your hero – Churchill or Chamberlain? The analogy is appropriate. And if you want examples of viable real – world action via the courts compared withwaffled, plaintive bleating – tell me where have you seen examples of success with ‘’through public discourse.’’ ?I repeat:
- Look at Rees’ comment about the London anti semitism document : ‘’childish, thoughtless but easily populist.’’
- How misguided is the modus vivendi that ‘’....but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
But now we come to the arguable ultimate: Start Rees and Lynch have tried the astonishing and got away with it to date: they effectively refused access to theSir Zelman Cowen Scholarship to a Jew who was plainly helping the Palestinians!And of course Sir Zelman Cowen was the highly respected Jewish Governor – General!The Scholarship was / is being run by a Jewess Sue Freedman-Levy who has obviously not spoken up about this.Could someone help me understand how the Peace and ‘Conflated’ studies Centre through Lynch has the authority to control the Sir Zelman Cowen Scholarship?I do not want to call this chutzpah – because this minimizes it somehow.If only for this I wish Shurat Hadin well. Maybe one day I will see an article in mainstream media – not just JWire – that openly wonders at how professional Israel – Haters can refuse a ‘peacenik’ Jew access to the Sir Zelman Cowan scholarship.Never mind all the other matters in this epistle.And maybe someone at the ECAJ will admit that theirs was not a good idea!Geoff Seidner13 Alston Grove East St Kilda 318303 9525 929903 9 525 9290“The ECAJ believes that the most appropriate and effective way to combat the boycott campaign is to expose its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods and aims public scrutiny. In our view, attempts to suppress the campaign through litigation are inappropriate and likely to be counter-productive. It is for this reason that the ECAJ has had no involvement in the action brought by Shurat HaDin and will continue to fight the boycott campaign through public discourse. If any individuals believe they have been adversely affected by racially discriminatory policies and practices of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies they are entitled to have their day in court, but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”On 15/5 Professor S Rees of Sydney University thought the signing by more than 40 Parliamentarians of The London Declaration against anti semitism was ‘’childish, thoughtless but easily populist.’’Throughout it all we have the Vice Chancellor Spence seemingly vitiating the boycott – yet allowing it to be promoted at his University!The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has issued a statement detailing their reasons as to why they are not aligned with Israeli Human Rights group Shurat HaDin’s move to litigate against a NSW professor who advocates BDS against Israeli academics.In a prepared statement, executive director of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim states: “The campaign to boycott academic and other contacts with Israel is repugnant to all who sincerely seek a just and lasting resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Peter Wertheim, the Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). “The path to a just peace is through mutual engagement, not vilification. Contacts between Israeli and Palestinian academics should be encouraged and facilitated by their Australian and other colleagues, not stigmatised.”The ECAJ has long been a vocal critic of the anti-Israel boycott campaign. “The boycott campaign is a calculated attempt to demonise, isolate and ultimately dismantle Israel through the distortion of international law and human rights. The hate-filled protests outside Max Brenner chocolate shops and the ill-considered scheme of Marrickville Council to boycott Israeli products at a cost of millions of dollars to its rate-payers, which was subsequently abandoned, have rightly been condemned and derided by most Australians. All major parties including the Greens, except for a handful of their MP’s, disavow the anti-Israel boycott campaign” Wertheim said.“The ECAJ believes that the most appropriate and effective way to combat the boycott campaign is to expose its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods and aims public scrutiny. In our view, attempts to suppress the campaign through litigation are inappropriate and likely to be counter-productive. It is for this reason that the ECAJ has had no involvement in the action brought by Shurat HaDin and will continue to fight the boycott campaign through public discourse. If any individuals believe they have been adversely affected by racially discriminatory policies and practices of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies they are entitled to have their day in court, but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”Asked whether he believes that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, Wertheim answered “No. Israel is a vibrant pluralist democracy and its citizens – Jews, Bedouin, Druze and other Israeli Arabs – are often its most incisive critics. But it is also false to suggest that no criticisms of Israel are antisemitic. There is clearly an overlap, as has been acknowledged by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the members of paBDS Litigation “inappropriate” says ECAJ » J-Wire
Oct 31, 2013 - In a prepared statement, executive director of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim states: “The campaign to boycott ...rliament from many countries, including Australia, who have signed the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism and the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism.”Kindly note that essentially there is no need for me to send emails of my ‘works’ to most people on my lists: you need merely the links below.I will send emails from time to time for disparate reasons.Note my personal details:Geoff SeidnerTel: 03 9525 9299..... 03 9525 9290EMAIL: g87@optusnet.com.auAlternative email: geoffseidner@gmail.com############################################################ ############################## ############################ THESE TWO PAIRS OF BLOGS ARE THE ONES I USE CURRENTLY.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pair of blogs below have essentially been discontinued fortechnical reasons.There are hundreds of entries of disparate current interest.http://cognatemediaspinners.blogspot.com.au/ From: g87Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:54 AMTo: Henry BenjaminSubject: Background to ARTICLE FOR JWIRE!! Good on you, Shurat Ha Din!Editor JwireHello BenjaminLINKS IMPORTANT BELOW!
RegardsGS************************************************** Note my personal details:Geoff SeidnerEast St Kilda 3183Tel: 03 9525 9299..... 03 9525 9290EMAIL: g87@optusnet.com.auAlternative email: geoffseidner@gmail.com############################################################ ############################## ############################ THESE TWO PAIRS OF BLOGS ARE THE ONES I USE CURRENTLY.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pair of blogs below have essentially been ‘partially – discontinued’ formarginal / technical reasons.There are hundreds of entries of disparate current interest therein.############################################################ #######
############################################################ #####
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1598
67894/Shurat-HaDin-s-complaint -about-BDS
Shurat HaDin's complaint about BDS - Scribd
********************************** From:Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:43 AMTo: g87@optus.netSubject: FW: Israeli organisation sues Sydney academic over boycott supportAnd check out comments on https://newmatilda.com//2013/10/31/israeli-law-centre-sue s-outlaw-boycotts Don’t suggest you join the comments – they will just out swamp you with their blind bias and hatred.......From:
Sent: Sunday, 3 November 2013 1:26 AM
To: 'g87@optus.net'
Subject: Israeli organisation sues Sydney academic over boycott support
From: Peter Van Onselen <peter.vanonselen@uwa.edu.au>
Date: 22 December 2013 11:58:25 AM AEDT
To: "vanonselenp@theaustralian.com.au "<vanonselenp@theaustralian.com.au >
Subject: FW: PVO IS A FOOL
G87@OPTUSNET.COM.AU
From: Peter Van Onselen <peter.vanonselen@uwa.edu.au>
Date: 22 December 2013 11:58:25 AM AEDT
To: "vanonselenp@theaustralian.com.au "<vanonselenp@theaustralian.com.au >
Subject: FW: PVO IS A FOOL
|
|
|
From: Peter Van Onselen <peter.vanonselen@uwa.edu.au>
Date: 22 December 2013 11:58:25 AM AEDT
To: "vanonselenp@theaustralian.com.au "<vanonselenp@theaustralian.com.au >
Subject: FW: PVO IS A FOOL
Hi Peter,Please note that George Brandis has responded to you in today’s The Oz. It was inevitable. The A - G is of course very generous to you in his carefully considered item.I am of course not so encumbered with trying to optimise my electoral popularity VS the need to respond to your pretty outrageous efforts.Fortunate perhaps is that most people are on hols.You should contemplate my heroic incipient efforts. I have lots of interests – and have tried to invent a means of stopping time.You will see my response reasonably soon.Note also that Catalaxy has also taken the ‘parody weapon’ to you. See below.Do you intend a decko at the comments?Other salient links will be posted as convenient during the silly season; we are regularly taking days off to be with the grandchildren and whatever else we pick to relax with.I somehow hope we all continue to have fun at your expense.As a further aside: you should really not continue this farce in yet another column.Sadly – you may just do that.RegardsGeoffFrom: Catallaxy FilesSent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:11 AMSubject: [New post] PVOs watch list for 2014Image may be NSFW.
New post on Catallaxy Files
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.PVOs watch list for 2014
by Sinclair DavidsonPeter van Onselen has put out a pollie watch list for 2014. So he has 5 on the up and 5 on the down. It is the on the down choices that I'm interested in.
First he nominates Wayne Swan - but Swan has more or less disappeared from public life, if not actually the Parliament, when Julia Gillard lost office. PVO does suggest that Swan might be snapped up by the private sector. Surely not. The only people who could credibly employ him would be some union dominated super fund.
PVO also nominates the shadow ministry.The collective of ageing shadow ministers who should have retired when the Labor government lost. It is remarkable how many former ministers past their prime stayed on to hog frontbench spots which should have gone to the likes of Nick Champion, Stephen Jones and Ed Husic. Expect a few to fall away next year, as they realise opposition ain't much fun.This is correct. These are the people to watch because much the same thing happened after 2007. The then Coalition shadow ministry had the same problem. But as it became clearer that opposition was going to be a short term proposition the older members didn't retire and make space but hung on there. If the now shadow ministry starts retiring then that reveals their expectations of returning to government.
So far all good.
Then:George Brandis or Christopher Pyne: Neither probably will fall from grace, but both have had poor starts as ministers. 2014 will either see them find their feet, or the mistakes will pile up and Abbott will need to act. The former is more likely for both men, but they will be closely scrutinised next year.on Christopher Pyne I agree. While I think dumping Gonski would have been good policy, he completely fluffed the implementation.
What of George Brandis? I can't see him being in the same category as Pyne. I don't perceive him as having had a poor start. So I asked PVO on twitter what the story is. PVO nominates three areas where Brandis is vulnerable. Entitlements, hypocrisy, and not abolishing the Human Rights Commission.
So we're in full agreement on not abolishing the Human Rights Commission.
It is hard to get too excited about the entitlements thing. We covered it here at the Cat at the time and it is disgraceful and politicians should be paid in cash and all that. Okay - but I'm not convinced that Brandis is uniquely vulnerable in this area. Ultimately there is no real political cost in this area. If criminality come be demonstrated then it is a different story - but exploiting vague rules may cause a temporary stink and excite journalists and bloggers but I doubt there is any long-term cost here.
Then PVO and Brandis have been exchanging barbs in The Australian over hypocrisy and the meaning of partisanship. That is pure self-indulgence on PVOs part. Nobody cares. More importantly that isn't the risk Brandis faces in 2014.
The risk Brandis faces in 2014 is that the political left succeeds in discrediting Tim Wilson. I have no doubt they will give it a red-hot go. If they succeed an already overly cautious government will become more cautious. If they fail the Abbott government may acquire more of a backbone.
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Catallaxy Files.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://catallaxyfiles.ozblogistan.com.au/2013/12/29/ pvos-watch-list-for-2014/
Clik here to view.Good luck with it Geoff, do get back to me when you have some substantial and cogent words completed. I look forward to reading it if you manage to follow through on this commitment.RegardsPeter
Sent from my iPadHello PeterCongratulations,You have in your two recent articles given me enough incentive to base a major essay, thesis, monograph or even a book on the subject ofMEDIA MANIPULATION AND INSULTS TO THE INTELLIGENCE.I may change the nomenclature – but methinks some people may recognize that it will be based on theWINTROP PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM AT WA UNI.I will send you advance copies as I write it: you may be prepared to comment on salient segments.Oh – by the way – I will try to find room for Emmerson: remember him?His article is right next to yours in Saturday’s Oz.Yours SincerelyGeoff SeidnerDecember (66)
- PVO - 28/12 ..A lesson for Brandis on the meaning ...
- Emmerson 28/12: Deep thinker says subs are the sol...
- GS: 29/12 LYNCH AND MEALY - MOUTHED PHRASES OF RAC...
- Complete Catalaxy and comments re Dreyfus and Tr...
- Att: M Dreyfus: brilliant Catalaxy re disgraceful ...
- J'ACCUSE Mark Dreyfus of weakness
- 24/12 -Lauren Wilson.. Brandis fends off demands t...
- BRANDIS [et al] RESPOND/S TO PVO 23/12
- PVO responds again: Of Viccisitudes and muting the...
- PVO RESPONDS - Greetings, PVO
- PVO IS ALSO A FOOL
- The ultimate Labored fool - Emmerson???
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Entries for the GoPro HD Hero4 Action Video Camera open at 09.00am on Monday 2nd November, 2015 and close 11.59pm Monday 30th November, 2015. Winner determined 4th December, 2015 11.00am at Pinpoint, 34 James Craig Road, Rozelle 2039. Winner’s name published on the Australian Plus website. Total prize pool valued at $699. Full term and conditions available theaustralianplus.com.au. Entries for luxury tropical cruise open at 09.00am Monday 12 October 2015 and close 11.59pm Saturday 5 December 2015. Total prize pool valued at $26,235.00. Australian residents aged 18 years and over only. Winner drawn 10am Wednesday 8 December 2015 at Salmat Digital Pty Limited, Level 2, 116 Miller Street, North Sydney. Winner’s name published Friday 11 December 2015 on The Australian Plus website. Permit numbers NSW: LTPS/15/07693, ACT: TP15/07608, SA: T15/1742. Promoter is Compagnie du Ponant Ltd. (ABN 35 166 676 517) of 3 Eden Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060, Australia. Telephone number is 02 8459 5007. Full term and conditions available theaustralianplus.com.au. Entries open for Bang & Olufsen H8 headphones on Monday 2 November 2015 at 09.00am and close Monday 30 November 2015 at 11.59pm. Australian residents only. Winner drawn Wednesday 2 December 2015 at Pinpoint, 34 James Craig Road Rozelle, NSW 2039. Winner's name published on Monday 7 December 2015 on The Australian Plus website. Total prize pool valued at $679. Full term and conditions available theaustralianplus.com.au. Entries open for James Halliday's premium six wine case on Monday 2 November 2015 at 9am and close Monday 30 November 2015 at 11.59pm. Australian residents over the age of 18 only. Winner drawn Wednesday 2 December 2015 at Pinpoint, 34 James Craig Road Rozelle, NSW 2039. Winner's name published on Monday 7 December 2015 on The Australian Plus website. Total prize pool valued at $415. Full term and conditions available theaustralianplus.com.au. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now peace it together By Phillip Adams 25may02 IN a recent conversation, Robert Fisk, arguably the best informed journalist on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared that dance of death with what was happening 40 years ago in Algeria. Responding to the Arabs' bombing of French cafes in Algiers, the occupying French army demanded carte blanche to "end terror". Their retaliation was brutal and included the use of torture. Contemporary writers, notably philosopher Raymond Aron, observed that the damage France was doing to the Algerians was nothing compared with the damage it was doing to itself. Refusing to apportion blame in the conflict, Aron ignored the issues of terrorism, torture and France's campaign of state-sponsored political assassinations to assert that the facts demanded France withdraw. He insisted that the origins of the disaster no longer mattered. What mattered is that it had to end. In a fine essay on the Middle East crisis titled The road to nowhere (The New York Review of Books), Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University, applies Aron's thinking to the bloodbath in Israel. Like Fisk, he finds the similarities with the Algerian crisis overwhelming. And he calls for the same solution that Aron proposed. I am pro-Israel. I'm also pro-Palestinian. This is not a contradiction. It is the only way to approach the most dangerous conflict in the world. So I wholeheartedly endorse Judt's advice to both sides. He argues that the solution to the conflict "is in plain sight". Israel exists and the Palestinians and other Arabs will eventually accept this – as many do already. The Palestinians can neither be expelled from "Greater Israel" nor integrated into it. Shove them into Jordan and that nation will "explode, with disastrous consequences for Israel". "Palestinians need a real state of their own and they will have one. The two states will be delineated in accordance with the map drawn up at the Taba negotiations in January 2001. Nearly all of the occupied territories will come under Palestinian rule. Thus the Israeli settlements in these territories are doomed and most of them will be dismantled. "There will be no Arab right of return; and it is time to abandon the anachronistic Jewish one. Jerusalem is already largely divided along ethnic lines and will, eventually, be the capital of both states. Since these states will have a common interest in stability and shared security concerns, they will learn in time to co-operate. Community-based organisations like Hamas, offered the chance to transform themselves from terrorist networks into political parties, will take this path." Judt reminds us that de Gaulle extricated his countrymen from Algeria with relative ease. Following 50 years of monstrous repression, white South Africans handed over power to a black majority who replaced them without violence or revenge. The most feared black in South Africa, Nelson Mandela, became an inspiration to the world. Judt sees Israelis "still trapped in the story of their own uniqueness". For many Jews, their entitlements derive from the Jewish community that existed in the territory of modern Israel thousands of years ago. Others claim that God gave them title to the lands of Judea and Samaria. Others – and I include myself in this category – cite the Holocaust, arguing that this greatest of atrocities allows Jews to make great claims on the world. But there are Israelis who state their case in geographic or Realpolitik terms. Back to Judt: "We are so vulnerable, they say, so surrounded by enemies, that we cannot take any risks or afford a single mistake. The French could withdraw across the Mediterranean; South Africa is a very large country. We have nowhere to go." Behind every Israeli refusal to face the inevitability of hard choices "stands the implicit guarantee" of the US. To visit Israel is to be astonished by its minuteness – and its sense of geographic vulnerability. But don't forget that the Israel of 2002 isn't the Israel of 1967. Today's Israel is a significant regional and colonial power and, by some measures, the world's fourth largest military establishment. It is, in short, a mighty nation. Whereas the Palestinians' desperation is a measure of their weakness. They are so weak that their leader, Yasser Arafat, can be jailed in a couple of darkened rooms. "While the failings of the Palestinian leadership have been abysmal and the crimes of Palestinian terrorists extremely bloody, the fact is that Israel has the military and political initiative," writes Judt. "Responsibility for moving beyond the present impasse thus falls primarily, though not exclusively, on Israel." Why are the Israelis blind to this? Why do they insist on regarding themselves as, in Judt's words, "a small victim community, defending themselves with restraint and reluctance against overwhelming odds"? Arafat may have been an appalling leader. But Sharon is every bit as appalling – as the massacres in Lebanon attest. As his present policies prove. Arafat stands condemned for wasted opportunities but Israel has wasted much of the past 35 years. "In that time Israelis have built illegal compounds in the occupied territories and grown a carapace of cynicism towards the Palestinians, whom they regard with contempt." And the US has been "manipulated shamelessly". Describing Sharon as "Israel's dark id", Judt speaks for many friends of Israel when he says that the Prime Minister has proven as bad as many of us feared. His vision clouded by his hatred of Arafat, his policies have denied Israel credible Palestinian negotiators. "If he ever gets rid of Arafat, and the bombers keep coming, as they will, what will Sharon do then?" asks Judt. "And what will he do when young Arabs from Israel itself, inflamed by Israel's treatment of their cousins in occupied Jenin and Ramallah, volunteer for suicide missions? Will he send the tanks into Galilee? Put up electric fences around the Arab districts of Haifa?" Israelis can't forget the war of 1948, the Arabs' refusal to recognise their state before 1967 and the random massacres of the past year. But the Palestinians can't forget the mass expulsions of 1948, the land expropriations, the colonisation of the West Bank, the political assassinations. But the enemies in Northern Ireland are learning to negotiate and will learn to forget. Judt reminds us of a 1944 SS massacre – the burning alive of 700 French men, women and children in the village of Oradour. Yet a few years later "France and Germany came together to form the core of a new European project". Yes, Israel's present policy is "a road to nowhere". As Judt says, "there is no alternative to peace negotiations and a final settlement. And if not now, when?"philadams@ozemail.com.au |
----- Original Message -----From:GEOFF SEIDNERTo:Switzer, TomSent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 9:13 PMSubject: Re: Article in response to Phillip Adams V 3.1!!MORE CORRECTIONS MADE: MAINLY 'TYPOS', AND ADDITIONS AT THE LATTER PART ETCFeatures / Opinion Editor;Dear Mr Switzer,Please note below article. Adams should not be allowed to get away without some recourse. If you cannot publish for some reason, please profer to your letters Editor, Judith Elen. it would be SOME letter!Geoffrey Seidner13 Alston Gr East St Kilda 3183 Ph 03 9 525 9299 0407 525 929A PEACE OF WHAT?!Phillip Adams has not penned anything of value over the past decade.[Many have written letters attesting to this over the years. Give up, Phillip, you can always call it 'writers' block.] Letter writers to the Australian have frequently written, decrying his half a dozen - or more - tirades against the Prime Minister. All within the past year. His latest attack seems to be Israel:The Australian, May 25 -26 2002 . [The Review, page R24]He seeks 'protection' for his anti Israeli views by coalescing with an Arab apologist [Robert Fisk]and a motley band of academics he thinks add gravitas to outrageous ideas.Sadly he makes an unhealthy variation on the discreditable anti semites by line, with these words:"I am pro Israel. I'm also pro Palestinian.This is not a contradiction....''[Tell me - just the two of us .... are your best friends still Jewish?]Of course not, Phillip - of course it is not a contradiction! You are merely trying to hide your malfeasance via an aged contrivance. Me thinks you doth protest too much, or merely trying to con the reader into believing that the following verbiage is 'balanced'He attempts to make a comparison with France and the Algerian Civil War of 1954 -1962, without pointing out the unfair comparative dichotomy; Israel's significant under -reaction , and France's arguably different approach. There is no valid comparison for many other reasons; space mitigates against a prolix dissemination. In fact these discredited / comparative views were promulgated by Fisk on 17 /4/ 2001 in The Independent. It lacked objectivity then and was deservedly, widely criticised.Adams suggests, in an abstruce way- that the Arabs / Palestinians will eventually accept Israel's right to exist. Eventually! Perhaps another 55 years? How many more terrorist attacks? Then he makes an oblique jump in logic by ignoring all the agreements that they have broken. Somehow he manages to whitewash the major terrorist group [Hamas], calling them ''community based'', [sounds like a mothers' play- group, the way it is put!] suggesting that they will co operate in some sort of ''stability and shared security concerns'' Only an academic would try to get away with this piece of disengenious pap!'Generously' he then postulates that there will be no Arab right of return, then goes on; ''.... and it is time to abandon the anachronistic Jewish one'' Tell me Mr Adams, did you somehow forget what you wrote earlier? Let me quote your gratuituos words:''...and I include myself in this category -cite the Holocaust , arguing that this greatest of attrocities allows Jews to make great claims on the world''So here we have a true academic in all sorts of trouble; effectively banning these same Jews .... Holocaust et al - from entering Israel as citizens !! Only an academic could ......The true leftie in Adams even allows him to have a go at the USA; ''Behind every Israeli refusal to face the inevitability of hard choices stands the implicit guarantee of the US''Hey Adams; are you really suggesting that the might of America will come down on the Palestinians / Arabs? Because in the very next paragraph you write;''...Today's Israel is a significant regional and colonial power and, by some measures, the world's fourth largest military establishment. It is , in short, a mighty nation.''Only an academic could so tie himself up in subtle self - contradictions! He seeks to somehow disparage Israel for being in one instance in de facto need of USA help, and then neatly , shamelessly suggesting a mutually exclusive concept!! Only an academic could......Whilst begrudgingly agreeing that ''Arafat stands condemned for wasted opportunities'', within the same sentence he somehow manages to blame Israel; ''but Israel has wasted much of the past 35 years''[Yes,Adams, in a manner of speaking, you may be right. It is arguable that Israel has wasted much time and thousands of the lives of her citizenry by believing that an agreement could be reached as part of many peace overtures and consessions! ]Only an academic could justify this by rambling on, as per below, amongst other things.Possibly the worst of this article is his suggestion of a quid pro quo relationship between what HE calls ''politicall assasinations'' and ....[so -called!!!] '' .....mass expulsions of 1948, [the so- called!!!!] ''land expropriations, the colonisation of the West Bank ,'' [and - worst of all!!!] THE POLITICALL ASSASINATIONS'' !!He has a credibility problem, again. Why try to create moral equivalence between the murder of a five year old girl in her bed and the military reaction against terrorists who somehow can bring themselves to such acts of depravity? I could not believe academics could......Never mind the attempts are revising history re 1948 ; ''...mass expulsions of 1948, the land expropriations .....'' Not enough time / opportunity to give you a history lesson in this article.Stick to writing John Howard articles and simply bore people to death.Geoffrey Seidner
Clik here to view. War cries an insult to our intelligence 11feb04 IN this era of technological triumphalism and digital dazzlements, you would think someone would have come up with a BSD. A bullshit detector. With circuitry installed in your TV, computer or mobile phone ready to buzz or blink when someone tries to lay it on with a trowel. The old joke that asks: "How can you tell when a politician's lying?" is answered by: "When his lips move." Yet too many people remain oblivious to political lying. In many cases such credulity is wilful, a deliberate choice. How else could this ongoing BS about weapons of mass destruction remain an issue? Those fortunate enough to have a natural aptitude for BS detection were trying to warn the world what was going on throughout the preamble to the war in Iraq. When the only people on earth who believed, or pretended to believe that George W.Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard were telling the truth were to be found among the gullible and the culpable in the US, the UK and Australia. The great fraud that went on for month after month, wherein our PM echoed the nonsense being pumped out in Washington and London, failed to convince a majority of Australians while being rejected and ridiculed by nations and populations around the world. The thuggery that went on at the UN, the revelations of former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and the blundering attacks on Hans Blix were clear evidence of Bush's and Blair's determination to bulldoze their countries into an unnecessary conflict. The BS was laid on so thick that you didn't need a detector. It was clear that Howard didn't believe what he was saying and hardly cared if we didn't believe him either. Remember Howard's twaddle about no final decision having been made about our involvement? Australia's media was all but buried in Uluru-sized dollops of BS in an ongoing piece of political and media theatrics that was even less convincing, less plausible, than the silliest cosmetic ads. While Baghdad's Baathists would be stunned by the scale of Washington's war, many of us were more shocked and awed by the scale of its BS. It wasn't the WMDs we were worrying about but the WBS. The powerful weapons of bullshit. It's not an issue of the reliability of US Intelligence. When has it ever been reliable? Intelligence (sic) failed to notice that North Korea was about to invade the South. It was responsible for such glorious stuff-ups as the Bay of Pigs and, subsequently, failed to protect president John F. Kennedy from those who wanted him dead. Having grotesquely exaggerated the military might of the Soviet Union throughout the cold war, intelligence failed to predict communism's collapse. Then there was the small problem of its failure to protect the US from September 11. BUT all this low IQ intelligence is nothing compared with the unintelligence, the idiocy, of what passes for political leadership. It was the scale of the exaggerations, the out-and-out fabrications, the bare-faced fraudulence of the whole preamble to the war in Iraq, that critics found profoundly offensive. One might have forgiven Bush and Co if, for a moment, they had believed what they were saying. If they had simply been misinformed. Or mistaken. But it was all chicanery and charades, sexing up any intelligence that could be conjured by Washington while ignoring any contradictory information or advice. Critics were vilified, having their patriotism questioned. It became treasonable to protest. We've witnessed an ugly war waged by ugly people against, yes, an ugly despot. And the WMD were just one of the lies used to justify it. Never forget the vacuous allegation (more unintelligent intelligence) that the invasion was an essential part of the war against terror because Iraq was in league with al-Qa'ida. Of course it was. Just as Harold Holt was plucked off Cheviot Beach by a Chinese submarine. Intelligence? Washington would have been better off relying on the revelations in owls' entrails or the horoscopes in women's magazines. |
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Complete disrespect of non-believers.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
where's your proof?
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.