Quantcast
Channel: Cognate Socialist Dystopia
Viewing all 585 articles
Browse latest View live

BBC -7/12/08 Olmert condemns settler 'pogrom'

$
0
0
Page last updated at 20:50 GMT, Sunday, 7 December 2008

Olmert condemns settler 'pogrom'

Palestinian boys look at burnt-out Palestinian car
Cars and homes were burnt as settlers rampaged after the eviction
Outgoing Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has compared the violence used by Jewish settlers against Palestinians in Hebron to bygone anti-Semitism in Europe.
He told Cabinet he was ashamed by recent scenes in the West Bank city, which he said amounted to a pogrom.
The settlers shot and wounded three Palestinians and set fire to property after Israeli security forces evicted a Jewish group from a disputed building.
Correspondents say Mr Olmert's use of "pogrom" has particular resonance.
It is usually associated with the anti-Semitic violence Jewish people experienced in Europe and Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries.
"As a Jew, I was ashamed at the scenes of Jews opening fire at innocent Arabs in Hebron. There is no other definition than the term 'pogrom' to describe what I have seen," he told Cabinet members, according to public radio.
"We are the sons of a nation who know what is meant by a pogrom, and I am using the word only after deep reflection."
Video from an Israeli human rights group showed two settlers shooting Palestinian rock-throwers on Thursday.
About 600 Jewish settlers live in the city, with several thousand more in surrounding settlements.
It is not the first time Mr Olmert has used the word to condemn Jewish settlers - in October he described a rampage through a Palestinian village in the West Bank as a pogrom. 

J Post - 12/08/08 Olmert calls settler violence a 'pogrom

$
0
0

Olmert calls settler violence a 'pogrom'

12/08/2008 05:05

Dichter slams PM, says word should be removed from lexicon; Shas MK: There's no even a whiff of a pogram.

Olmert calls settler violence a 'pogrom'
Photo: AP [file]
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday called arson and shooting attacks by settlers against Palestinians in Hebron last week a "pogrom" and said that "as a Jew, I am ashamed that Jews could do such a thing." The violence followed Thursday's eviction of settlers from the city's four story apartment building known as Beit Hashalom. "Immediately after the eviction, there were acts that cannot be described other than as an attempted pogrom by Jews from the Hebron area, and other areas, against Palestinian residents in Judea and Samaria," Olmert said at the start of Sunday's cabinet meeting. "I say this after much thought," he continued. "I formulate these words with the greatest care that I can. We are the children of a people whose historic ethos is built on the memory of pogroms. The sight of Jews firing at innocent Palestinians has no other name than pogrom. Even when Jews do this, it is a pogrom." After settlers and right-wing activists were evicted from Beit Hashalom, clashes broke out between them and Palestinians living in the valley that lies between the building and Kiryat Arba. In some cases, settlers and activists with cloths wrapped around their heads descended into the valley, allegedly to exact revenge for the eviction and out of frustration that the IDF and the government appeared to be preferring the rights of Arabs over their own. In another incidences, activists were attacked by Palestinians as they walked through the valley from Kiryat Arba to Beit Hashalom to avoid security forces' roadblocks. In the midst of the fray, a Palestinian home in the valley was set on fire. In another incident two settlers shot and wounded two Palestinians, a father and son, living in the valley. The two settlers said they were defending themselves from being lynched, while the Palestinians said they were innocent bystanders and were attacked for no reason. Olmert said that he and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had asked law enforcement authorities "to take aggressive and sharp action to bring those responsible to justice" and to ensure that "the intolerable leniency toward lawbreakers from among the settler community will come to a complete halt.""We are instructing the security forces to do their utmost to prevent illegal and violent actions by Jews toward Palestinians in all areas under the responsibility of the State of Israel," the prime minister said. He said a decision to clear Beit Hashalom in the event that dialogue with the settlers failed to get them to leave voluntarily had already been taken last Sunday. "I think that the government's restraint and our determination in implementing the decision were correct, justified and worthy of esteem," Olmert said. The prime minister was not the only one to term the events a "pogrom." Already on Friday, Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann made similar statements. Even before Thursday's events, Border Policemen had told The Jerusalem Post they felt the Hebron settlers were executing a pogrom against the Palestinians. In an interview Sunday to Israel Radio, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter took issue with Olmert's terminology, and said the word "pogrom" should not be used to describe what happened in Hebron. "I suggest that we take this word out of our lexicon," Dichter said. "We know what a pogrom is, we have felt it from other nations in other places. "The events perpetrated by Jews in Hebron were bad, but I don't think we have to use the word pogrom to describe them, because pogroms describe events that were much worse. We can go back to the pogrom in Kishinev in 1903, where 50 Jews were killed - there the word pogrom fits." MK Nissim Ze'ev (Shas), who had moved into Beit Hashalom a few weeks ago to protest the state's decision to evict the settlers, also took issue with Olmert's use of the word. "There is not even a whiff of a pogrom," Ze'ev told the Post. "The pogroms against Jews in Europe included atrocities such as burning babies alive," he said. "The alleged attacks by a few right-wing activists against the Palestinians do not even come close to reaching that same level." Ze'ev and MK Arye Eldad (Hatikiva) said they most certainly did not condone the violence, but that the true blame for it lay with Olmert and Barak's "needless" decision to evict the settlers before the Jerusalem District Court determined who owned Beit Hashalom. "It was a political eviction that heated up the area at a most sensitive time," Ze'ev said. Settlers had first moved into the structure in March 2007 after claiming to have purchased it from its Palestinian owner, who has since denied that such a sale ever took place. The clashes in Hebron began after Barak announced his intention to evacuate the structure last month, Ze'ev said. Eldad also attacked Olmert's use of the word pogrom, particularly since it was his understanding that the two settlers who shot at Palestinians did so in self-defense. Eldad alleged that video clips of the incident had been carefully edited to make it seem as if innocent Palestinians were being attacked. Olmert was aware that by using the word pogrom "he is creating a blood libel, and he doesn't care. He knows that these people [the two shooters] were almost lynched to death by the Arabs, but he still enjoys the opportunity to portray them as killers," Eldad said. 

SMH _ 24/1 Attacks on Julie Bishop unwarranted

$
0
0

Attacks on Julie Bishop unwarranted

Date

Peter Wertheim, Alex Ryvchin

With her Israeli settlements comments, Julie Bishop has tried to avoid acting as judge and jury on the issue.
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop addresses the media during a press conference at Parlaiment House in Canberra on Monday 11 November 2013. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
It comes as little surprise that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's refusal to condemn Israeli settlements in an interview with The Times of Israel was met with unreserved hostility by her predecessor Bob Carr, the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network and, of course, the Palestine Liberation Organisation's Hanan Ashrawi.
All three have consistently perpetuated the falsehood that Jews living beyond the defunct Israeli-Jordanian armistice line of 1949 are the predominant cause of a conflict that has raged since well before the first West Bank settlement was built.
At a time when Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are ongoing and delicately poised, Bishop's actual statement was reasonable, indeed innocuous: ''I don't want to prejudge the fundamental issues in the peace negotiations. I think it's appropriate we give those negotiations every chance of succeeding.''
Significantly, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has now adopted Bishop's position of neutrality on the settlement question as a means of advancing the prospects of a negotiated peace. Bishop's comments in no way constituted ''uncritically siding with Israel … on the issue of settlements'', as one critic alleged. Nor did the Foreign Minister diminish the significance of the settlement issue. On the contrary, she noted that ''the issue of settlements is absolutely and utterly fundamental to the negotiations that are under way''.
Advertisement
Instead, Bishop prudently sought to avoid acting as judge and jury on a bitterly contested and unresolved legal question. After all, Israel and the Palestinians have themselves agreed that the question of settlements is one of the core issues to be resolved by the delimitation of a final border in the course of final status negotiations between the parties.
The attacks on Bishop also contained the sorts of distortions of international law that have become the hallmark of the anti-Israel movement. Ashrawi falsely asserted that ''Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 43 of The Hague Regulations … explicitly state that Israel is in direct violation of international law with its illegal settlement activities''. The Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations make no reference to Israel whatsoever, explicit or otherwise. However, their application to Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a serious legal question that is hotly disputed. There has never been a definitive legal determination of this question. The oft-cited International Court of Justice opinion in 2004, which APAN's George Browning (The Age, 18/1) falsely calls a ''ruling'', was delivered as a non-binding advisory opinion and is not legally determinative.
Professor James Crawford, who is one of Australia's (and the world's) most eminent international lawyers and is generally critical of Israeli settlements, published a legal opinion in 2012 in which he concluded that some of the settlements, such as the Nahal settlements, are ''probably lawful''.
A preponderance of opinion, one way or another, by legal experts does not decide the issue. Mere opinions about the legality of the settlements do not harden into established norms simply because large numbers of eminent lawyers support those opinions, especially if other equally eminent lawyers have a contrary opinion.
Therefore, Ashrawi's accusation that Bishop ''wilfully defied international consensus'' on settlements is utterly baseless. There is no such consensus. A majority is not a consensus. Australia is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government which makes decisions according to its own assessment of Australia's national interests. Ashrawi's crude attempt to bully Australia with the spectre of a non-existent ''international consensus'' should be ignored.
On the same day as Bishop delivered her remarks in Jerusalem, her former political adversary, Julia Gillard, was speaking in another Middle-Eastern capital, Abu Dhabi. She did not refer to the settlements. Instead, she urged the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people and live in peace with it. The ''key to peace'', she said, is ''that they accept Israel as a Jewish state. Once that is stipulated, then virtually everything can be successfully negotiated.''
Both Julie Bishop and Julia Gillard have eschewed the standard approach of Western bureaucrats to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which is ''to go along to get along'' with the rest of the herd and reflexively side against Israel. Both deserve praise for rejecting such an approach as weak and wrong.
Peter Wertheim, AM, is the executive director and Alex Ryvchin is the public affairs officer of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/attacks-on-julie-bishop-unwarranted-20140123-31big.html#ixzz2rv9jC6fs

SAEB EREKAT ! - 24/1 SMH re Julie Bishop and Int. Law

$
0
0
kjhjkh

Julie Bishop reinvents international law in her support of Israeli settlements

Date
Category
Opinion

Saeb Erekat

Illustration: Andrew Dyson
Illustration: Andrew Dyson
International law does not allow acquiring land through the use of force. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits Israel, as an occupying power, from directly or indirectly transferring its citizens into occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that Israel's settlement policy violates that convention. The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court makes Israel's illegal settlement policy a war crime.
But Australia's Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to reinvent international law and call Israeli settlements legal. Or what else was Bishop trying to accomplish by showing her support to Israeli settlements?
Authorities must respect the commitments of their countries before the international community. Australia has thus far been a responsible member of that community. It ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Rome statute and various other human rights conventions that Israel systemically violates by occupying Palestine.
If Bishop wanted to show solidarity with an occupation that harms the rights of an occupied population, she did well. I would be unsurprised if her next step was a cup of coffee with her Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, in the illegal settlement of Nokdim, where he lives, in land stolen from Bethlehem.
Advertisement
If Bishop wanted to make Australia a stronger voice within the international community, she certainly did wrong. The latest votes in the United Nations show that Australia, Canada and the US, joined by Micronesia, Tuvalu and Marshall Islands, are the only countries that would not favour a resolution declaring settlements illegal. Regardless of the vote, Australia is now the only country, other than Israel, to state publicly that settlements are not illegal. Bishop's statement came 15 days after the European Union began to apply its guidelines on Israeli settlements, preventing those colonies in occupied Palestinian land from benefiting from EU-Israeli relations.
If Bishop wanted to enhance Australia's international standing, she did wrong. International civil society organisations, including those in Australia, continue to advance campaigns to disinvest from the Israeli occupation, something we Palestinians fully support and encourage. At a time when companies, churches and other organisations around the world are disengaging from the Israeli occupation, Australia is engaging with this illegal enterprise.
If Bishop wanted to support the negotiations process, she did the opposite. It is precisely due to Israeli settlement expansion that most of the Arab world doubts that negotiations will succeed. The terms of reference for negotiations do not include legitimising illegal Israeli settlements, but ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967. As the International Court of Justice has ruled, the Israeli settlement regime - including the wall that de facto annexes most of the settlements to Israel - denies the Palestinian people its inalienable right to self-determination. Let me be very clear: there is no room for a two-state solution in the presence of Israeli settlements.
The same day that Bishop made her comment, Israeli settlers burnt a mosque near Salfit. In occupied Palestine, Palestinians continue to be denied their right to access their churches and mosques, their land and natural resources, their schools, hospitals and places of work due to the Israeli settlement enterprise. Thousands of families have been divided, been evicted, had their land confiscated or houses demolished under policies that Australian diplomats continue to report back to Canberra, all of which are part of Israel's settlement enterprise.
Israeli settlements are not leading to a two-state solution but to a two-system, one-state reality, where a minority of Israeli Jews control the lives of a majority of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. One wonders how Bishop will explain her statement to the thousands of Australian-Palestinians who have been personally affected by Israel's colonisation policies. She can be assured that the victims of that colonisation, the residents of Bil'in, Sheikh Jarrah, Khirbet Makhoul, Silwan, Hebron, Bethlehem, Beit Jala, Nablus, Salfit, Huwara and countless other Palestinian cities and villages, are wondering when the international community will muster the determination to end Israel's impunity and give peace a chance. The answer, clearly, won't come from those who support apartheid over peace.
Dr Saeb Erekat is Palestine's main negotiator and a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation's executive committee.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/julie-bishop-reinvents-international-law-in-her-support-of-israeli-settlements-20140123-31be0.html#ixzz2rvBhrxUl


The Oz: 31/1 Geneva's just another front in the stalemated Syrian civil war

$
0
0

Geneva's just another front in the stalemated Syrian civil war

UN-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi conceded the talks were likely to go nowhere this week.
UN-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi conceded the talks were likely to go nowhere this week.Source: AFP
SYRIAN peace talks - like the civil war itself - have hit a stalemate. Although Syrians and world powers had few illusions this conference would halt the country's warring parties, there was some optimism over the government and opposition sitting down together. A week into the diplomacy, however, divisions are persistent and deepening.
At times the warlike rhetoric emanating from the alabaster walls of the UN offices along the banks of Lake Geneva has reinforced animosities, disorienting even seasoned diplomats.
"Is it evening or afternoon?" UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi said yesterday after hours of shuttling between the two sides. Even Mr Brahimi conceded the talks were likely to go nowhere this week. "To be blunt, I don't think we will achieve anything substantive," he said.
Officials said yesterday the talks would pause today and resume a week later, to give the sides time to reflect.
Meanwhile, the war raged on in Syria, with activists saying the government bombardment of Aleppo and Homs has intensified since the talks began.
The impasse stems from a disagreement over the talks' goal. Both sides signed on to this week's meetings by endorsing the 2012 Geneva I communique, which calls for the establishment of a transitional government by "mutual consent". The opposition is determined to use Geneva I as grounds to remove President Bashar al-Assad from office. That approach has been steadfastly dismissed by regime delegates, who have instead tried to focus on fighting terrorists - what they call the rebel forces.
The Assad delegates also are trumpeting plans to further enshrine his leadership by holding presidential elections in June.
With no progress in sight, both sides have resorted to using the conference as a public platform to criticise and isolate their adversaries on the diplomatic stage.
"They've been bluffing all along," said Syrian opposition coalition president Ahmad Jarba, referring to the regime. "Geneva ... was the moment of truth."
After days of posturing, Mr Brahimi this week finally turned the discussions to the main goal of the conference - political transition. But the government countered by submitting a "political communique" demanding the opposition and its Western backers commit to "restore all (Syria's) occupied territories" - a reference to the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. The document defended Syria as a legitimate democracy, saying: "Syrians decide the future of their country through democratic means and the ballot box."
The regime's defence of Syria's political system has grated on the opposition and its Western backers. Assad's father, an air force pilot, seized power in a 1971 coup and after his death in 2000 power passed to his son Bashar. Both have suppressed any opposition to their rule.
Although the government amended the constitution in 2012 to allow for multi-party elections, the opposition boycotted that year's parliamentary polls, dismissing them as neither free nor fair. The Syrian parliament remained filled with Assad loyalists.
But Ayham Kamel, an analyst with the Eurasia Group think tank, said the opposition should not reject elections outright, provided the polls are monitored by international observers.
. The conference has also become a setting for each side to jockey for tactical advantages back on the battlefield. More than a week before the conference, the regime received a UN proposal to allow humanitarian convoys to enter the besieged parts of Homs, according to Western diplomats. The plan, diplomats said, was supposed to win quick approval and build momentum for the talks.
When the regime and opposition finally faced off last weekend from opposite ends of a U-shaped table, the Assad government's stone-faced delegate Bashar Ja'afari informed the room he was unaware of the plans to help Homs, according to diplomats.
Syrian officials swiftly characterised the humanitarian convoys as a trick aimed at helping besieged rebel forces rather than civilians. A counterproposal by the regime - to allow women and children to leave Homs's historical quarter - was rejected by opposition delegates who labelled it an attempt to lure rebels into deserting their positions. "The regime is trying to steer us away from the process," Louay Safi, a delegate for the opposition, said this week.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

various interesting re Julie Bishop / Int Law / Israel

$
0
0
  1. Greg Sheridan was right! About Julie Bishop that is… | Crikey

    www.crikey.com.au/.../greg-sheridan-was-right-about-julie-bish...

    May 26, 2010 - Bishop: “It would be naive to think that Israel was the only country in the world that has used forged passports, including Australian passports, ...

  2. Australia is right to challenge the UN's anti-Israel bias - The Guardian

    www.theguardian.com/.../australia-is-right-to-challenge-the-uns-anti-isra...

    Nov 27, 2013 - When foreign minister Julie Bishop announced that Australia would once again support Israel at the United Nations general assembly in order ...

  1. Julie Bishop right on Israel | Zionist Council of NSW

    www.zionistcouncil.com.au/julie-bishop-right-on/
    5 days ago - We are proud Australians, especially on Australia Day – and Julie Bishophas done us particularly proud with her postive contribution regarding ...
  2. Israeli lawyers caution Bishop | The Australian

    www.theaustralian.com.au/.../israeli...bishop/story-fn59nm2j-122681085...
    4 days ago - A GROUP of eminent Israelis has urged Australia to continue to support... damage to the fundamental rights and wellbeing of the Palestinians.
  3. Bishop's troubling stance on legality of Israeli settlements - The Age

    www.theage.com.au/.../bishops-troubling-stance-on-legality-of-israeli-set...
    Jan 18, 2014 - Bishop's troubling stance on legality of Israeli settlements ... Given the delicacy of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and Australia's considerable investment of blood and treasure in ... Right's dangerous habit of targeting Europe.
  4. Australia's FM Julie Bishop Encourages Illegal Israeli Settlements ...

    nsnbc.me/.../australias-fm-julie-bishop-encourages-illegal-israeli-settleme...
    Jan 17, 2014 - Australia's Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, called on "The ... Bank as illegal, claiming that Israel has the right to build its settlements, reports the ...

Colin Rubenstein letter: 31/1 Bishop right on Israel

$
0
0
Bishop right on Israel
COMMENTS by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in which she refrained from branding Israel's settlements as illegal have drawn considerable adverse reaction ("Israeli lawyers caution Bishop", 27/1). However, Ms Bishop was right, in law and as an expression of Australia's bipartisan support for a two-state resolution.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention -- the provision usually cited as supposedly making the settlements illegal -- prohibits a country from transferring its population to land it occupies. However, it is arguable both that this applies only to forced transfers or deportations, not voluntary ones, and that, in any case, by the plain text of the convention itself, it does not apply to the West Bank. This is because it applies only to land taken from another signatory country that had the legal right to it. Jordan's occupation of the West Bank prior to 1967 was illegal.
So when Ms Bishop says "I would like to see what international law has declared them illegal", she is on solid ground, backed by numerous eminent international law authorities.
But even more important than the legal argument is her policy one: "I don't think it's helpful to prejudge the settlement issue if you're trying to get a negotiated solution."
It is widely accepted, even by the Arab League, that there will be land swaps as part of any peace deal, and this can resolve the settlement issue.
However, peace will arrive only through genuine bilateral negotiations focusing on all contentious issues but also depends on the Palestinians genuinely tackling issues such as continued incitement to hatred and violence and the refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.
Colin Rubenstein, executive director, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, South Melbourne, Vic

Article 0

$
0
0
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3936762.htm

ABC OUTRAGE RE PROF EX BEIRUT Nov 2012

$
0
0
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ABC Corporate_Affairs3
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:56 PM
To: 'g87@optusnet.com.au'
Subject: ABC - ABC selected links of 15 Nov 2012
 
Dear Mr Seidner
 
Thank you for your email regarding the ABC coverage on 15 November of events in Gaza.
 
Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC's editorial standards for impartiality.
 
The ABC's editorial requirement to achieve balance is outlined in the impartiality standards in section 4 of the ABC Code of Practice, which state;
 
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
 
ABC TV news, and current affairs programs: 7.30 and Lateline, have covered this developing story in the Middle East from a diverse range of principal relevant perspectives, providing insights into both sides of the conflict.  No one side has been unduly favoured over the other.
 
That coverage has included interviews with; Israeli government spokesman, Mark Regev; Yigan Palmor, Israeli Foreign Affairs spokesman; Palestinian lawyer and peace negotiator, Diana Buttu; Rami Khouri, American University of Beirut; Palestinian journalist, Mohammed Omer and Israel correspondent for The Economist, David Landau.   Other perspectives presented in the coverage have included Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General; Ashraf Alkidreh, Hamas Health Ministery; Khalil Al Haya, Hamas Official; Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister;  Hisham Kandil, Egyptian Prime Minister; Mohammed Kamel Amr, Egyptian Foreign Minister; Ehud Barak, Israeli Defence Minister; Ihab Al-Gussine, Hamas government spokesman; Micky Rosenfeld, Israeli police spokesman; Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State; Shimon Peres, Israeli President; Khaled Meshaal, Hamas Leader and a range of Israeli and Palestinian citizens describing the terror of the attacks on civilian populations.
 
You may care to access the 7.30 interview with Palestinian Lawyer, Diana Buutu, broadcast on Monday 19 November, which covered many of the points you have raised, a link follows:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3636185.htm
 
The coverage has included the justifications of both sides for their actions, considerable detail on the  level of death and destruction being suffered by both sides, as well as the diplomatic moves by a range of international leaders calling for an end to hostilities.
 
On review, we are satisfied that it was balanced and in keeping with the impartiality standards in section 4 of the ABC Code of Practice.
 
The ABC Code of Practice is available online at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf
 
Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue the matter with the Australian Communications and Media Authority http://www.acma.gov.au
 
It is not possible to include every detail about such a complex issue within the one broadcast.  The ABC will continue to cover events in the Middle East on a newsworthy basis over time.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Kieran Doyle
Audience and Consumer Affairs
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Michael Danby
I formally request that you take this on and demand a responsible answer / apology from the management of the ABC
Regards
 
Geoff Seidner
East St Kida 3183
03 9 525 9299
 
 
ABC selected links of 15 Nov 2012
 
 
INTERVIEW WITH GEOFFREY ROBERTSON, LAWYER AND AUTHOR
Is Iran close to getting the bomb and would Israel or the US be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike? Geoffrey Robertson discusses these questions and his new book, Mullahs Without Mercy.
 
 
 
Being of the left means never having to say 'sorry...
 
Maybe Jews should use peashooters in response to t...
 
 
 
 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
 
TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ABC!
 
I disrespectfully advise that whenever Israel gets 'sick - and -  tired' of  her citizenry being bombed - the ABC takes the side of the terrorists.
How wlong would it take the federal police or the Army to ACT against  bombers?
 
Here are my claims.
 
1. All your organs have recently demonstrated that they are mere appendages for mass - murdering terrorists / propagandadists.
2. It is impossible to list or detail all of them - even though this latest attack on Israel is only days old.   You guys are proud progenitors of the 'snow - job' technique of lies / big lies and mere anti Israel evil. You have all your organs / appendages designed to disable any complaints with disparate, disingenious waffle: all designed to break the heart of anyone with common decency - or any basic knowledge of history.
3. AND YOU HAVE NO SHAME! I RECALL THE 40th ANNIV OF THE 6 DAY WAR - ALL YOUR ORGANS / APPENDAGES DEPICTED ISRAEL AS HAVING BEEN THE EVIL AGGRESSOR! Do you want to look up TWT,  AM PM 730 Report and Lateline?? You were pathetic then as now.
4. Indeed - I challenge you to show one item out of the hundred?? that was promulgated by the below entity that passes any historicity!!!
5. I have seen them all: the twaddle about 'balance over time' is merely one of your tools. You have tried to ignore my complaints - it has regularly taken three or more efforts to elicit your mealy - mouthed trite anti - semitic twaddle.
6. I know what you are going to do: you would under normal circumstances concentrate on all strategies to prove that criticism of Israel is not anti semitic!
7. But not only will I debunk this classical chimera if you try it. I will complain to the PM: demand that she holds your favourite plaything to be unacceptable. At any rate: if I will  eventually find my AWARD - WINNING ESSAY TO DEBUNK YOUR HYPOTHETICAL NON - CREDIBLE  essay on why it is inappropriate to use this tangent -  a pathetic shibboleth of the ABC!!!!....you will wish you had not. So don't!
My primary complaint is the pathetic interview of the moribund, lame Emma Albirichi with this Professor RAMI KHOURI of Beirut university as below.
You know the Beirut University?
It is not amongst the world's top 1000 houses of learning.
Their courses on Jihad is popular only with Jihadists.
 
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME EMMA DEAREST REFUSED TO HAVE HER BRAIN IN GEAR: I RECALL HER PATHETIC INTERVIEW WITH THE LAMENTABLE NOW THE SLOWEST OF SLOW GEOFFREY ROBERTSON
 
 
 
RE KHOURI BELOW:
" It has hundreds of lies and distortions.
" He starts cautiously - then no lomger cares by the mid stages of the interview.  A CLASSICAL TACTIC IN YOUR POST - MODERNIST TIMES.
" It is arguably the worst piece of unadulterated, disreputable lies that I have ever seen you guys do!
I warn you: your tactic of demanding that my complaint be in writing is an abysmal outrage - I refuse: so there!
G Seidner
 
#########################################################################
 
Israel and Hamas militants continue bombardment
As hostilities between Israel and Hamas militants enters the sixth day, air strikes on Gaza have resulted in the deadliest day so far. At least 18 Palestinians were reportedly killed overnight with officials saying the death toll in Gaza since the conflict began has now reached more than 90.
 
Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer interview
Interview with Mohammed Omer - a Palestinian journalist who's been in Gaza during the Israeli bombardment.
 
Rami Khouri Interview in Beirut
Interview with Rami Khouri from the American University of Beirut.
 
 -
 
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
 

The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material.   It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s).  If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system.  The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.

TO ABC MARK SCOTT DEC 2013

$
0
0
 
 
From:g87
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:30 PM
Subject: ABC completely lacking in the barest elements of honesty or style
 

Dear Chris M
 
Why do you refuse to publish even my short letters?
GS
 
From:g87
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:13 PM
Subject: ABC completely lacking in the barest elements of honesty or style
 

Manager ABC

Dear Mr Scott

It is about time you responded to the multiple disasters under your wing: please do so.
Or do you consider yourself immune?

Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9 525 9299


http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/abc-am1012-fact-check-shows-govt-not.html

ABC completely lacking in the barest  elements of honesty or style

It takes chutzpah of magnitude for ABC management  to so plainly assume that the deliberate distortions they shamelessly, glibly create almost daily will not rebound on them. Eventually.

Surely they assume the more frauds they promulgate the more difficult to pin any / all on them.

The luvvies practice the modern version of the snow job - just like the lamentable administrations of Rudd - Gillard - Rudd and the frauds of Obama , the UN and European leftists. In another era Obama would have been impeached. 'Europe' has always been thus.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/among-bourgeoisophobes-by-great-david.html

But I digressed only to dynamically imply that the left are the same the world over: they care not for the barest elements of style / truthfulness. Indeed see what google turns up in this tangent of post - modernism, which I pin on the left: only they could believe the outrage that there is no such thing as truth. Never mind the mind - numbing idiocy of it all.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/googlepostmodernism-no-such-thing-as.html

http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/googlepostmodernism-only-text.html

None of this is debatable: sadly one needs to set out to write a telephone - directory - style book. Indeed this is part of the snow - job technique. I have written on this extensively, as on their other mendacious media techniques.
http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-times/a-farrago-of-mendacities-4503451.html
http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/new-way-gearing-up-hypocrisies-and-mendacities-of-the-leftwing
http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/truth_revolt_is_now_live

From the sheer idiocies of the Cholesterol scam a la their Catalyst [science programme] to the multiple manipulations expounded in the pages of The Australian, one finds them lacking redeemable features.

They are shameless in setting out to create or debunk news via their acolytes whom they interview ad nauseam: anyone seriously doubt the evidence? Or doubt the humiliations when Emma Alberichi caught out via the interviewee turning on them? So often it reaches the farcical stage one wonders why they try it at all.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/mere-few-examples-of-emmas-humiliations.html

The more links I append the less likely the curious reader will absorb. This also is an examplar of how impressive the SJ [snow job] technique is.

But for the sake of curiosity let us merely examine what the loonies attempted today to pass - off as fair commentary.

The ABC's so - called Fact Check unit deliberately distorts statistics.

08:09:00 10/12/2013

Fact Check shows Govt not disclosing full story on boat arrival

I ask management to respond: I will send them this article and they will surely plead Nolo Contenderer to all here.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/google-to-some-gs-re-nolo-contender.html

Here are my points of contention to the pathetic propaganda - based chimera of ABC AM this morning [10/12] [check up that chimera word! It perfectly describes it all]

Contemplate that Rudd - Gillard - Rudd created at least a 10,000%+ real - world increase in the illegal boats / people problem. Labor created this border security issue of  well over 50,000 people now in suspended animation and costing BILLIONS. How about the  well -  over 1000 deaths that are plainly directly attributable to Rudd et al? But the left never apologizes.

Amazingly Rudd almost managed to admit this in the recent election campaign. Not exactly - but he and the left  know the reality of numbers when there is nowhere else to go. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day....

In any context one could reasonably expect the ABC to stay stum. http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/keeping-schtum.html
But no: they hoist this inane, numerically insane insipid and idiotic derivation of the worst of push - polling on listeners.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/abc-am1012-fact-check-shows-govt-not.html


Let it be understood that Rudd and earlier Gillard [East Timor et al] changed Labor policy merely after they both came to the realization that the electorate was aghast at their astonishing multiple ineptitudes re our border security [and everything else, surely]
This was surely forced on them - and thank goodness it never came to pass.
Note the credible, rational idea that they would have reverted to old policies if they had somehow won the election cannot be tested.

One could however contemplate on the audacious outrage of purporting to solve this problem on the eve of the election - and the obvious fact that their creation of decrepitude will take years for Abbott / Morrison Julie Bishop et al  years to solve. It is easily / merely the third - largest major financial catastrophe of this Labored mob.

The sheer humbug of not accepting this is mind - numbing. 
And this is what happened this morning on ABC AM!

..............................................................................................

The ABC fraudulently takes one to July in order to ensure they have statistics that can be abused.

I can come up with many reasons why the number of boats and illegal people therein were slowing in July.

  1. All of the above: the electorate does not have to think things through - but Rudd's technique also worked in a more pragmatic way with the people smugglers and their incipient 'cargo.'
  2. Surely also impinging on the decision of people to not undertake a very expensive dangerous journey is the certainty that there are only two possibilities: Labour will loose and the Liberals will win. Humour attempted.
  3. Indeed - there are three: Australia would be bankrupted if there was a continuum / and Labor won. And even those economically - irrational would have to cease the open - door policy. And herein the was a troika of major reasons why the boat arrivals diminished in the dying days of the leftist lunatics. The salad days were over. it was perceived that way where it counted. And that was the real yet easy - to - understand reason the ABC failed to understand.
But here again reality forces a reconciliation: they undertood alright: it is merely their secretly held belief that distortions in the name of the poroletariat is acceptable: that it is OK to lie!
Never mind post - modernism or whatever.

But there is more!
The ABC to did not explore the Rudd manifesto or their own Push - Polling as above.
Indeed K07's best polling was just after he announced that he was a ''social conservative'' which was just before his 8000 word mutually - exclusive Marxist manifesto in The Monthly.
The electorate does not view these opposing ideas as a problem: it requires intelligence, memory, analytical skills. None of this comes naturally to the 47% plus of ABC people and the left who regularly vote for the Trotskyites.

No matter how desultory they may feel about Gillard's vacuus femininist utopia or Rudd's radicalism.

They lack the barest elements of style;  their own in - house fact checkers are infected with the ABC virus.

They will always be this way: maybe the call by the world's ultimate hypocrits - the 'New' Labor Party in complaining about alleged profligacy by the Abbott government - will not mind judicious cuts to the moneys being wasted on them?

Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9 525 9299


  exemplar
ɪgˈzɛmplə,ɛg-/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person or thing serving as a typical example or appropriate model.
    "the place is an exemplar of multicultural Britain"
    synonyms:epitome, perfect example, shining example, model, paragon, ideal,type, exemplification, definitive example, textbook example,embodiment, essence, quintessence; More

  1. Chimera (mythology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(mythology)

    The Chimera was, according to Greek mythology, a monstrous fire-breathing creature of Lycia in Asia Minor, composed of the parts of three animals — a lion, ...

http://www.abc.net.au/am/
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/abc-am1012-fact-check-shows-govt-not.html

08:09:00 10/12/2013

Fact Check shows Govt not disclosing full story on boat arrivals

The ABC's Fact Check unit has obtained figures which show that the Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's claims about boat arrivals don't tell the full story. Mr Morrison claims that there's been an 80 per cent reduction in boat arrivals since the Coalition Government's Sovereign Borders policy came into effect. MORE

Tony Jones Humiliated 3/3/2011

$
0
0
 
 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:19 PM
Subject: ABC HUMILIATED ON LATELINE
 

 
I have been bemused by the consistently - easy - ride ABC Lateline host Tony Jones has given to the true believers of climate change religion - Professors  Pitman, Karoly Flannery et al.
 In his many interviews Jones  has never made  any challenge to Gaia - worshipper Flannery's extreme views. Nor any of the same fanatics he regularly trots out to support the  Labor policy.
 
Lateline on 2/3/11 was delicious however.
 
Jones thought that his guest Bjorm Lomberg would support the ABC / Labor / Gillard policy re climate change. He was shoked to find Lomberg debunking it all.
 
Jones could not resist challenging his guest's rational views.
 
He did it maybe 7 times - and was decimated every time -  effortlessly! The more TJ tried - the more terryfiing it became for Jones.
Consider that Lomborg is a believer: it made the ABC look even worse.
 
Let this stand as an indictment of Jones, ABC, Labor and all who plainly delude themselves about 'climate - change' and Gillard's disasterous plans.
 

Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299
 

Solving warming is about innovation: Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg is the author of the controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist and says we are taking the wrong approach to 

Carbon emissions threaten marine ecosystems

Australian scientists are using Southern Ocean life to monitor the threat posed by acidification caused by dissolved carbon dioxide.

Search Results

  1. Flannery | Australian Climate Madness

    Let me see: Mann, Hansen, Jones, Santer, Trenberth, KarolyPitman, Brook, Steffen,Flannery etc etc - Ed]. "It should do a review of the IPCC and produce a ...
    www.australianclimatemadness.com/?s=flannery&searchsubmit= - Cached
  1. The Weather Makers: Tim Flannery in the Press

    He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. .... Tony Jones: Well, Dr TimFlannery is arguably Australia's best known popular scientist. ...
    www.theweathermakers.org/news/ - Cached - Similar
  2. Flannery | Australian Climate Madness

    There's lots of Gaia talk, a theme of the new book, which Flannery tries to ..... leaks with a slot on Lateline (hosted by arch ABC alarmist Tony Jones). ...
    www.australianclimatemadness.com/?s=flannery&searchsubmit= - 
 
 

Jan 26, 2012: FUN!!! Plunder creatively, Romans and leftists!

$
0
0
 
 
From:g87
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: Plunder creatively, Romans and leftists
 

 
 
Plunder creatively, Romans and leftists!

Having no viable / original ideas Labor acolytes should take less well - known speeches and reconfigure it creatively.
Yea - I recall the 'man on the moon' tearfull codswallop from Gillard; Bono forgave her.
 Albanese unashamedly quoting Homer Simpson "'I stuffed up''
[plainly not even realizing the obscenity he thus espoused]
 
Now their chief  minister for Head - Kicking has typically abused a Hollywood movie script.
 
I recall how the leftist Albanese  attacked Julia Bishop vociferously for arguably  similarly using a Wall St article.
Even herein - note it was a Wall St article vs a movie script!
 
Yet Labor justifies their actions implying much about their pacity of ideas.and internicine policy disasters.['stuff - ups galore!]
 
So I offer the below as a help to the moribund left: surely no one will pick the original!
GS


Friends, leftists  and plaigerizers,

lend me your ears;
I come to humiliate Abbott, not to praise him;
The evil that men say lives after them,
The unoriginal is oft interréd with Labor's political bones,
So let it be with Julia... and the ignoble Kevin 

Who hath told you I was ambitious:
If it were so, I would have quoted the whole movie,
And grievously let Gillard answered it.... 
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299

 
 
 
  1. Albanese accused of plagiarism in speech (latest news) | The Wall

    thewall.com.au/.../62715-albanese-accused-of-plagiarism-in-speech
    15 hours ago – Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese has been accused of plagiarising a Hollywood movie script to attack Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
  2. Australian Politics Forum - Albanese Caught Plagiarizing Speech

    www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327478113/1
    Albanese accused of plagiarising Hollywood speech. The Federal Opposition has ridiculed Government frontbencher Anthony Albanese for using lines from a ...
  3. Don't steal an Aaron Sorkin speech to attack your political rival or ...

    www.avclub.com/.../dont-steal-an-aaron-sorkin-speech-to-attack-you...
    1 hour ago – Australian transport minister Anthony “Albo” Albanese is finding that out ...do was to plagiarize his attack lines directly from an American movie.

Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299
 

 
Albanese accused of plagiarising Hollywood speech


The Federal Opposition has ridiculed Government frontbencher Anthony Albanese for using lines from a Hollywood movie in a speech to the National Press Club.

In the romantic comedy The American President, actor Michael Douglas plays the role of US president Andrew Shepherd.

He tells the White House press corps regarding his Republican opponent: "We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it.

"He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it."

Mr Albanese used lines almost identical to those spoken by Douglas while attacking Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in his press club address.

"In Australia we have serious challenges to solve and we need serious people to solve them," he said.

"Unfortunately, Tony Abbott is not the least bit interested in fixing anything.

"He is only interested in two things; making Australians afraid of it and telling them who's to blame for it."

Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane, who has made a YouTube video of the incident, said the plagiarism showed Labor was "unoriginal and devoid of ideas".

'Stuffed up'

Both Mr Albanese and Prime Minister Julia Gillard have laughed off the matter on Twitter.

Mr Albanese has quoted Homer Simpson, saying he "stuffed up".

"D'oh! Stuff up (for the record, that comes from another great American, Homer Simpson)," he tweeted.

Ms Gillard also joked that she loves Michael Douglas.

"And speaking of actors - I love Michael Douglas because he's married to a Welsh woman. @AlboMP's not bad either. JG," she tweeted.

Opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne says that is not good enough.

"Far be it from to take some joy out of his embarrassment but a cabinet minister in the Federal Government should do a lot better," he said.

"I think Anthony Albanese should apologise to the Federal Parliament and the press club for not doing the homework he should be doing."

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears

by William Shakespeare

Julius Caesar

Act 3, Scene 2



Mark Antony:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar.... The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it....
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral....
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man....
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.... Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

LYONS:26/11/1011 Stone cold justice

$
0
0

Stone cold justice

Gerard Horton
Gerard Horton outside Ofer prison in the West Bank. Picture: Sylvie Le Clezio Source: The Australian
YOU hear them before you see them. The first clue that a new group of children is approaching is a shuffle of shoes and a clinking of handcuffs and shackles. The door to the courtroom bursts open - four boys, all shackled, stare into the room. Four boys looking bewildered.
They wear brown prison overalls and they trail into the room where their fate is to be decided by a female Israeli army officer/judge, who is sitting at the bench, waiting. The look on the face of one of the boys changes to elation when he sees his mother at the back of the court. He blows her a kiss. But his mother begins crying and this upsets the boy. He begins crying too.
We're sitting in an Israeli military court which is attached to the Ofer prison in the West Bank, 25 minutes from Jerusalem. Mondays and Tuesdays are "children's days". Hundreds of Palestinian children from the age of 12 are brought here each year to be tried under Israeli military law for a range of offences. The majority are accused of throwing stones and, as the court has close to a 100 per cent conviction rate, almost all will be imprisoned for anything from two weeks to 10 months. Some will end up in adult jails.
Today, groups of children in threes and fours shuffle in; some cases last only 60 seconds, just long enough for the child to plead guilty and hear their sentence. Sitting in a room 50m away, more children wait. Despite their confessions, many insist that they did not throw stones or molotov cocktails, and the human rights group Defence for Children International estimates that about a third who pass through the system have either been shown or signed documentation in Hebrew - a language they cannot understand.
Others are said to have confessed under coercion. Since January 2007, DCI has collected and translated into English 385 sworn affidavits from Palestinian children held in Israeli detention who claim to have suffered serious abuse: electric shocks, beatings, threats of rape, being stripped naked, solitary confinement, threats that their families' work permits will be revoked, and "position abuse" - which involves a child being placed in a chair with their feet shackled and hands tied behind their back, sometimes for hours.
This courtroom has become a front line of one of the oldest conflicts in the world, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is Israel's conveyor belt of justice, but it is a world away from Israel: in Israel a child cannot be sent to prison until 14; in Israel there are laws against a child being taken away at night; and in Israel a child cannot be interrogated without a parent.
The Israeli Defence Forces, concerned at the growing debate about Israel's treatment of children, has given The Weekend Australian Magazine rare access to the court. They say too many journalists write about it without visiting it. They are keen for me to spend time with the army prosecutor in charge of the cases who will be my guide during three visits to the court. I have a briefing with him before the trials begin. The main point he wants to emphasise is that, two years ago, the army set up this military juvenile court to take note of children's needs. If a child needs a welfare officer or a psychologist, they are available.
Inside the courtroom, the army's public relations unit wants the IDF guide to sit next to me to explain each case. I'm told I can quote him as "my guide" but not name him and we are allowed to photograph some of the older children but not the younger ones. Nor will they allow us to photograph children handcuffed and shackled trying to walk - "absolutely not," my guide says. The army obviously realises that such a photo would be enormously damaging. After September 11 I'd seen images of alleged terrorists walking like this but I'd never seen children treated this way. It's not surprising that Israel doesn't want this image out there - it would look uncomfortably like a Guantanamo Bay for kids.

Several countries, led by Britain, are turning up the heat on Israel over the treatment of Palestinian children - not only the manner of their arrest and interrogation but also the conditions in which they're kept in custody. MP Sandra Osborne, part of a British delegation that recently visited the military court, said of the visit: "For the children we saw that morning, the only thing that mattered was to see their families, perhaps for the first time in months ... A whole generation is criminalised through this process."
Into this world has walked Gerard Horton, an Australian lawyer. Horton was a Sydney barrister for about eight years and his practice included contract disputes, building insurance cases and employment matters. In 2006, while studying for a masters in international law, he volunteered for three months for an organisation that represented Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank. He has worked there ever since.
During his five years at Defence for Children International Horton says the office has increased its evidence-gathering capacity and will only pursue credible allegations based on sworn affidavits. He takes me through the arrest process: "Once bound and blindfolded, the child will be led to a waiting military vehicle and in about one-third of cases will be thrown on the metal floor for transfer to an interrogation centre.
"Sometimes the children are kept on the floor face down with the soldiers putting their boots on the back of their necks, and the children are handcuffed, sometimes with plastic handcuffs which cut into their wrists. Many children arrive at the interrogation centres bruised and battered, sleep-deprived and scared." The whole idea, he says, is to get a confession as quickly as possible.
DCI has documented three cases where children were given electric shocks by a hand-held device and Horton claims there is one interrogator working in the settlement Gush Etzion "who specialises in threatening children with rape". Some cases contain horrifying allegations, such as this one from Ahmad, 15, documented by DCI, who was taken from his home at 2am, blindfolded and accused of throwing stones. "I managed to see the dog from under my blindfold," he says. "They brought the dog's food and put it on my head. I think it was a piece of bread, and the dog had to eat it off my head. His saliva started drooling all over my head and that freaked me out. I was so scared my body started shaking ... they saw me shaking and started laughing ... Then they put another piece of bread on my trousers near my genitals, so I tried to move away but he started barking. I was terrified."
In another case, Ezzat H, 10, who was interrogated but not charged, testified: "A soldier pointed his rifle at me. The rifle barrel was a few centimetres from my face. I was so terrified that I started to shiver. He made fun of me and said, 'Shivering? Tell me where the pistol is before I shoot you.'" Another boy, Mahmoud A, was taken by soldiers from his West Bank home in February, aged nine, after apparently playing near a boy who'd thrown stones at soldiers. His mother, Rana, said a soldier told her: "We are capturing him until you bring us the other boy." Now 10, Mahmoud says during the interrogation a soldier hit him "hard" in the face "four or five times" when he said he did not know the names of any stone-throwers. The day we visited his home a soldier shouted his name as we passed a checkpoint. Mahmoud began crying and locals told soldiers he had been doing nothing wrong.
Yahia A, 15, accused of throwing stones, testified that he was tied to a metal pipe and beaten by a soldier, and that an interrogator placed a device against his body and gave him an electric shock, saying, "If you don't confess I'll keep shocking you." The interrogator, he said, gave him another electric shock - at which point he could no longer feel his arms or legs, had a pain in his head, and confessed.
There are many other allegations: a boy kept in solitary confinement for 65 days; other boys kept in solitary confinement with the lights on 24 hours a day; a seven-year-old boy in Jerusalem taken for interrogation who says he was hit during the questioning. The boy's lawyer said that when his mother turned up looking for him, authorities denied he was there - even as he was being questioned inside.
These sorts of reports are fuelling a clamour for change in Israel among groups such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Yesh Din, Defence for Children International, Hamoked, B'Tselem and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. DCI says that in 76 per cent of its cases children reported violence.
Stone-throwing is a big problem in the West Bank, with the Israeli Defence Forces reporting 2766 incidents of rock-throwing against them or passing cars this year (up to November 14). Israeli police also say a crash in September that killed a man and his infant son may have occurred after a rock hit their car.
But the central issue here is that Palestinian child prisoners in the West Bank are treated by Israel in a way that would be illegal in Israel itself. In Israel the maximum period of detention without charge is 40 days - for Palestinian children it is 188 days. In Israel the maximum period of detention without access to a lawyer is 48 hours - for Palestinian children it is 90 days. For the past 44 years a Palestinian was regarded as an adult at 16, compared to an Israeli at 18, but Israel recently lifted this to 18. About 83 per cent of Palestinian children before military courts are sent to prison, while 6.5 per cent of Israeli children before regular courts go to prison.
Concern about the treatment of children prompted 60 of Israel's leading psychologists, academics and child experts to go public. They wrote: "Offensive arrests and investigations that ignore the law do not serve to maintain public order and safety. On the contrary, they inflict harm on a particularly weak population and widen the cycle of hostility and violence."
The Israeli Government would not discuss individual cases but did concede changes needed to be made. "There are many things that need to be improved," Israel's international spokesman, Yigal Palmor, said, adding that Israel was engaged in "slow reform and improvement" and was working with human rights groups. "This is a general problem that derives from the fact that the West Bank is under military jurisdiction and military law and there is obviously a discrepancy between the civil code in Israel and the military law in the West Bank. That is the root of the problem. But extending fully Israeli law to the West Bank would be tantamount to annexation."
Israel is under pressure to at least allow filming of interrogations. "We want interrogations of children audiovisually recorded," says Horton. "This would not only provide some protection to the children but would also protect Israeli interrogators from any false allegations of wrongdoing."
Australian diplomats have shown no obvious interest in the military courts despite our Ambassador to Israel, Andrea Faulkner, being told about the treatment of children a year ago. She refused to comment on the situation for this story. Says Horton: "It is disappointing that of all the diplomatic missions in the region, Australia has been conspicuously silent on the issue of the military courts."

It's 10 o'clock on Monday morning and my guide and I take our seats in court. He asks me to report that the reason Israel brings children to court is for security. With us is an army public relations officer who says stones can be dangerous. I agree, telling him there was a case in Sydney some years ago of a truck driver who was killed by rocks.
The judge - army officer Sharon Rivlin-Ahai - walks into the court. I'm shocked when the door opens and the first group of boys appears - wearing prison overalls, handcuffed and with feet shackled. The handcuffs are taken off before they come through the door but the shackles remain. The four are dealt with in minutes and the next batch is brought in. My guide must see me blanch when the door opens - one of the boys looks so young. He leans over to me: "He looks much younger than he is. He's actually 18." I tell him I simply cannot believe this - he looks 12 or 13. My guide examines the charge sheet. "He's actually 15." The boy waves at his mother. She breaks into tears, which makes him cry as well. "Throwing 10 stones," my guide says as one boy stands. How would soldiers in a fortified jeep know it was 10 stones? "They know," he says. Others are brought in. My guide must see my discomfort at how young they seem. He leans across: "They look very young but they're not."
Then enters Moad, 15. "He's pleading guilty," my guide says. The judge quickly hands down her verdict: three and a half months' jail and a 2000 shekel ($525) fine. As child number 15 stands, something hits me: not a single child has pleaded not guilty.
I tell my guide I've never seen any court where 100 per cent plead guilty. "The thing the indictment is based on is true evidence," he explains. "Usually the evidence is their admission to police."
He seems pleased everything is going so smoothly. "It all moves quickly when there is agreement," he says. And he has high praise for the judge. "She's a very pleasant judge," he says. "Very pleasant." Pleasant judge aside, he senses I'm not convinced all this is fair. "The cases don't take long because there has already been agreement between the two sides," he says.
Israeli human rights group Yesh Din found that in 2006 only 1.42 per cent of cases before the military courts had any evidentiary hearing. They reported: "Attorneys representing suspects and defendants in the military courts believe that conducting a full evidentiary trial, including summoning witnesses and presenting testimony, generally results in a far harsher sentence, as a 'punishment' the court imposes on the defence attorney for not securing a plea bargain."
Another Israeli group, No Legal Frontiers, concluded: "No separation of powers exists within the military regime and thus the army is at the same time the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. These fundamental flaws are irreparable as long as the occupation persists."
Horton says the military courts function as a system of control: "The army has to ensure that the 500,000 Jewish settlers who live in occupied territory go about their daily business without interruption from 2.5 million Palestinians... it is no coincidence that most children who are arrested live close to a settlement or a road used by settlers or the army."
He says it's an effective system; quite often the children emerge scared and broken. But there is little recourse. From 2001 to 2010, 645 complaints were made against Israeli interrogators; not one resulted in a criminal investigation. "Sometimes if there is a group of children who throw stones and the settlers or soldiers are not clear exactly who has thrown them, the army can go into a village at two or three in the morning and five or 10 kids get roughed up and it scares the hell out of the whole village," says Horton. He adds that when the army arrests children they usually don't say why or where they are taking them.
Former Israeli soldiers have formed Breaking the Silence, a group that has gathered more than 700 testimonies about abuses they committed or witnessed. Former Israeli army commander Yehuda Shaul says the army sets out "to make Palestinians have a feeling of being chased". "The Palestinian guy is arrested and released," Shaul says. "He has no idea why he was arrested and why he was released so quickly. The rest of the village wonders whether he was released because he is a collaborator."
Fadia Saleh, who runs 11 rehabilitation centres in the West Bank dealing with the effects of detention, says: "Usually the children isolate themselves, they become very angry for the simplest reasons, they have nightmares. They have lost trust in others. They don't have friends any more because they think their friends will betray them. There is also a stigma about them - other children and parents say, 'Be careful being seen with him, or the Israeli soldiers will target you too.'"

Back in the children's court, my guide says the judges are independent, "even if they are part of the army". He adds: "We have a couple of acquittals every year." When I say that's not very high, he says: "A couple of dozen or so acquittals."
In comes Mahmoud, 15. "He's going to plead guilty," says my guide. I'm no longer surprised. "He threw one stone and the agreement is 45 days in prison and 1500 shekels [$400] fine."
One of the last is Mohammed, also 15. He's charged with "attempting to throw 10 stones". I ask how anyone could know he attempted to throw 10 stones if he didn't throw one. "He wasn't able to do it but he attempted to," my guide answers. Mohammed is the closest we come to a not-guilty plea - he rejects the charge. From the back of the court his mother is trying to say something. The boy makes it clear he doesn't want her to speak but the judge rules that she can. The boy stares at the floor as his mother begins. "There are eight people living in our small house," she says. "They are difficult conditions and Mohammed has had a hard life. I ask that a sentence not be given."
The judge thanks the mother then begins her summing up. You can see the mother tensing. The verdict: four months in prison. The mother bursts into tears. The judge adds: "Because of the severe economic situation of the family I have decided not to impose a fine."
The case lasts six minutes - the longest "trial" of the day. Mohammed has been in prison for a month and my guide explains that had he pleaded guilty he would be free now instead of just beginning another three months. He is taken from court. His mother sits at the back of the court, crying.
The judge - still very pleasant - closes the court for the day. The lawyers pack up. My guide had noted earlier that things were going smoothly. In fact, the whole day went extremely smoothly.

Lyons page 3 The OZ 8/2/14 Israel in U-turn on child justice

$
0
0

SEE OUTRAGEOUS  VIDEOS BELOW!
GS

Israel in U-turn on child justice

AUTOPLAY

JOHN LYONS' FOUR CORNERS REPORT3:48

http://content5.video.news.com.au/NDM_-_The_Australian/275/560/2435366746_promo216018823_648x365_2435416592-hero.jpg
A preview of John Lyons Four Corners story, airing February 10, investigating the Israeli armys treatment of detained Palestinian children. Footage courtesy: ABC1 Four Corners
<>
ISRAEL has foreshadowed a dramatic overhaul of its military justice system in the occupied West Bank, following several years of international criticism of its treatment of Palestinian children.
The announcement of the need to change has come during a joint investigation of the system by The Weekend Australian and the ABC's Four Corners to be broadcast on Monday night.
Last March, in Jerusalem, Barack Obama made a direct appeal to Israelis to consider how Palestinians saw the Israeli Defence Forces as "a foreign army".
"It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movement of her parents every single day," the US President said.
Israel enforces two legal systems for children in the West Bank: one for Palestinian children and one for the children of Jewish settlers. A Palestinian child accused of a crime is brought before Israel's military court while an Israeli child appears before a civilian court.
A Palestinian child has few of the rights of an Israeli child and is usually arrested by the army in the middle of the night and not permitted to have a lawyer or parent present during interrogation. Sometimes they are placed in adult prisons or in solitary confinement. An Israeli child in the West Bank is almost always arrested by summons and always permitted a lawyer.
Mr Obama's comments followed a UNICEF report that concluded that ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system appeared to be "widespread, systematic and institutionalised".
"Children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault, against themselves or a family member," the report said.
"Most children confess at the end of the interrogation."
Israel's international spokesman Yigal Palmor told The Weekend Australian that the instances detailed by UNICEF were "intolerable".
He said changes needed to be made in relation to the night-time arrests of the children.
"Basically I think that the question of the arrests is a question that needs to be addressed because once you send soldiers and not policemen to arrest people the whole attitude will be different," Mr Palmor said.
"So we need to train soldiers to behave as policemen and that is something that's not so easy. We are going to do this eventually in these cases."
Former Israeli army commander Yehuda Shaul said that when Israeli soldiers saw settlers attacking Palestinians "our orders are not to intervene".
Mr Shaul has founded Breaking the Silence, a group of 950 current and former Israeli combat soldiers who have given testimonies about human rights abuses they witnessed while serving in the West Bank.
Last month the Israeli government, under pressure from human rights groups, stopped a practice of keeping Palestinian children in outdoor cages at night.
The office of Justice Minister Tzipi Livni confirmed the decision and said it came after Ms Livni became aware that it had been a longstanding practice and had included keeping Palestinian children in the cages during snowstorms.
Sydney lawyer Gerard Horton, who left his practice six years ago to work on the issue, said the night-time arrests could have a damaging effect on families.
"You never know when there's going to be a bang on the door in the middle of the night and soldiers are going to demand that you bring out your children and one of them is taken away," Mr Horton said.
Mr Palmor said Israel was working with UNICEF to help it "re-arrange" the system.
"The natural reaction is that this is an intolerable, these are intolerable cases, and that I would like my authorities to do their utmost to make sure that this will not be repeated and that this will change," he said.

Lyons The Oz INQuirer Page 15 Palestinian children pawns in an unjust system

$
0
0

Palestinian children pawns in an unjust system


GS: NOTE HOW MANY OUTRAGEOUS IMAGES ARE NOT REPRODUCED ON THIS  - LINE VERSION OF LYONS' OUTRAGES! 

PUSH FOR ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN CHILDREN TO FACE ONE LAW6:41

http://content5.video.news.com.au/NDM_-_The_Australian/275/356/2435157716_AZ2ZgMjz0LFGHCPn4xMDoxOjBtO_wVGe_648x365_2435311765-hero.jpg
The Australian has teamed up with Four Corners to investigate the Israeli military's treatment of Palestinian children in the West Bank. Clive Mathieson interviews John Lyons about the story.
AUTOPLAY

JOHN LYONS' FOUR CORNERS REPORT3:48

http://content5.video.news.com.au/NDM_-_The_Australian/275/560/2435366746_promo216018823_648x365_2435416592-hero.jpg
A preview of John Lyons Four Corners story, airing February 10, investigating the Israeli armys treatment of detained Palestinian children. Footage courtesy: ABC1 Four Corners
 Israeli army officer Maurice Hirsh.
Israeli army officer Maurice Hirsh. Source: News Limited
<>
Five-year-old Wadi'a was arrested in Hebron in the West...
Five-year-old Wadi'a was arrested in Hebron in the West Bank. Source: News Limited
SITTING in the heavily fortified headquarters of the Israeli army in Tel Aviv a few months ago, we were surrounded by some of the world's most advanced military technology.
Yet it was not the equipment of the most powerful military in the Middle East that went off but my early warning bulldust detector.
The subject of discussion was the Israeli military's treatment of Palestinian children: the army had offered me briefings with three senior officers. I had been writing stories on the subject for The Australian for several years and the army wanted to update me about the issue.
It was all going well until one officer made an absurd comment. Every so often in journalism you hear something that makes you wonder about everything else that person has said. My question had been simple: how many Palestinian children go through Israel's military court each year?
"Unfortunately our computer software cannot distinguish between children and adults," the officer said. "Maybe 200."
The answer was ridiculous: Israel's army and intelligence service know every kilometre of the West Bank. My assessment, based on reliable sources, is that Israel has as many as 20,000 paid Palestinian informants in the West Bank. Israel is also a leader in technology; the notion that its computers were unable to distinguish between detained minors and adults was absurd.
I replied that UNICEF estimated it was about 700 children a year. "That would be right," he agreed instantly.
There is a serious debate in Israel over a policy that is a public relations disaster but that the army supports. The issue is how Palestinian children are treated; last year a UNICEF report concluded that ill-treatment of children by Israeli security forces appeared to be "widespread, systematic and institutionalised". "The interrogation mixes intimidation, threats and physical violence, with the clear purpose of forcing the child to confess," the report found.
"Children are restrained during the interrogation, in some cases to the chair they are sitting on. This sometimes continues for extended periods of time, resulting in pain to their hands, back and legs."
It found that children had been "threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault against themselves or a family member" and added: "Most children confess at the end of the interrogation."
The debate is between the Foreign Ministry, which sees the damage the issue is doing to Israel, and the security forces.
Recently The Jerusalem Post revealed that Israel had been keeping Palestinian children in outdoor cages overnight. As part of a joint investigation between The Weekend Australian and the ABC's Four Corners, the office of Justice Minister Tzipi Livni confirmed that Livni had stopped the practice after learning children had been kept in cages, freezing, during snowstorms.
At the heart of the issue is that Israel enforces two legal systems in the West Bank, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. About 2.5 million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation in the West Bank - also known as the Palestinian Territories - which Israel has occupied since 1967.
Palestinian children appear before the military court, while Jewish children face a civil court with full legal protections.
Typically, a Palestinian child is taken by the army in the middle of the night and blindfolded, handcuffed and transported to an unknown location.
Unlike Jewish children, they are not allowed to have a parent or lawyer present; often their parents do not know their whereabouts for weeks.
Palestinian children from the age of 12 are often sentenced to three months' imprisonment while a Jewish child cannot go to prison until 14 and jail for them is rare. Palestinian children often say they are not allowed food, water or to go to the toilet.
Israeli lawyer Gaby Lasky wants Palestinian children to have the same rights as Jewish children.
"Military courts are the long arm of occupation," she says. "We're not talking about courts of justice, we are talking about courts of occupation."
She adds: "Children are not part of the conflict; they shouldn't be part of the conflict."
Lasky says some children serve three months in an army jail for throwing stones at Israel's security barrier. While injuries from stone-throwing are rare, they can be horrendous. I visited in hospital Adele Biton, a three-year-old Israeli girl from a settlement who has head injuries from Palestinian youths throwing rocks at her car. Adele's mother, Adva, said: "I don't think it's fair for her to sleep here in the bed and not do things like children her age." But Adva says the law should be the same for Palestinians and Jews: "For both, because we need to highlight that stones kill," she says.
Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Hirsh, the Israeli army officer who oversees prosecutions, says: "Her three-year-old child is basically still in hospital and it's unlikely that she will recover from that event. That is terrorism."
Even though officially the law is much harsher for Palestinians, it's the apparent laxity in enforcing laws on Jewish settlers that also fuels anger. While thousands of Palestinian children have been imprisoned for stone-throwing - some in solitary confinement - a case last year made many wonder about the system.
Jewish youths firebombed a Palestinian taxi, injuring six members of one family, including two children. Haaretz newspaper described it as one of the most severe cases of violence carried out by settlers against Palestinians. Despite DNA evidence of one of the settlers being found at the scene, the paper reported that authorities closed the case "after months of foot-dragging".
Cases of settlers attacking Palestinians with impunity are frequent. As former Israeli army commander Yehuda Shaul says: "When we see settlers attacking a Palestinian, our orders are not to intervene."
The Israeli Foreign Ministry's Yigal Palmor says the abuses highlighted by UNICEF are "intolerable". "Basically I think that the question of the arrests is a question that needs to be addressed because once you send soldiers and not policemen to arrest people the whole attitude will be different," he says. "So we need to train soldiers to behave as policemen and that is something that's not so easy."
But the army says the system is working. "I think that the end result is a juvenile justice system which does provide a very comprehensive solution for the minors that are involved in the terrorist activity," says Hirsh.
While Israel is under pressure over the issue, at its heart is the occupation. When it began occupying the West Bank, there were about a million Palestinians there. Now there are 2.5 million. Central to the conflict is that the Palestinians wake up each day under an occupation they do not want.
International condemnation of Israel's military court is growing; scores of British lawyers and politicians have visited the military court and 74 members of the House of Commons have signed a petition against it.
Strangely, not a single Australian politician is known to have visited the court, despite the fact an Australian barrister, Gerard Horton, takes delegations to the court. Horton says he is not pro-Palestinian but "pro rule of law".
"Essentially the way this system operates is through fear and intimidation," he says.
"It is much more effective to occupy people's minds psychologically.
"You never know when the army is going to come into your village. You never know when there's going to be a bang on the door in the middle of the night and soldiers are going to demand that you bring out your children and one of them is taken away."
Israel rejects this analysis.
"A policy to create fear?" says spokesman Palmor. "There is no such thing. The only policy is to maintain law and order, that's all. If there's no violence, there's no law enforcement."
In Israel, more than 950 current and former combat soldiers, in a group known as Breaking the Silence, have given testimonies about abuses they witnessed in the West Bank.
Shaul, the former army commander who founded the group, tells Inquirer: "I grew up believing that our actions as a military in the occupied territories are here to protect Israel from terrorism.
"What I've learned from my three years of service and nine years of activism and Breaking the Silence, after reading testimonies of over 950 soldiers, is that the main story here is about maintaining our absolute military control over Palestinians.
"It's basically not about defending our country from terrorism, it's about entrenching our military control over the Palestinian people, and that's basically what we see."
The UN says 726,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been through the military court. For almost four years on and off, The Australian has reported on the system.
After a feature in The Weekend Australian the Israeli Defence Forces threatened to ban access for me even though they conceded there were no errors in the story. They did not proceed with a ban.
Some Israeli officials admit a problem. "Military courts are to justice what military bands are to music," one said.
I told that official I had visited the military court where children shuffle across a courtyard shackled in groups of four and wearing small prison overalls. I invited him to come to the court and suggested that as a father he would be horrified. "I don't need to go there to know I would be horrified," the official said. He declined the offer to visit the prison.
John Lyons's investigation will appear this Monday night at 8.30 on ABC television's Four Corners.

Feb 10: JWIRE -- HONEST REPORTING Ahead of Four Corners

$
0
0


http://www.jwire.com.au/news/ahead-of-four-corners/40274


Ahead of Four Corners

February 10, 2014 by  
Read on for article
Tonight, ABC-TV’s Four Corners will  broadcast a program highlighting the exposure of Palestinian children living in the West Bank to Israeli military law whilst their offending Jewish counterparts are dealt with under Israeli civil law. Honest Reporting has something to say on The Australian’s reports on the issue….the  Australian paper’s John Lyons collaborated with the ABC.
Stone
From: Simon Plosker/Honest Reporting
In advance of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program to be aired on February 10, The Australian’s John Lyons has produced two articles and an accompanying video interview on the subject of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children in the West Bank.
The Australian articles most likely offer a preview as to what will be seen on the television.
Central to Lyons’ report is the following:
At the heart of the issue is that Israel enforces two legal systems in the West Bank, one for Jews and one for Palestinians. About 2.5 million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation in the West Bank – also known as the Palestinian Territories – which Israel has occupied since 1967.
Palestinian children appear before the military court, while Jewish children face a civil court with full legal protections.
Contrary to Lyons’ statement, the two legal systems in operation are divided between Israeli citizens (which, of course, includes both Jews and Arabs) and non-citizens. This is not a division based on race, ethnicity or religion but on the legal status of the disputed territories. The reason why Palestinians, both children and adults, are not subject to Israeli civil law is that Israel has never annexed the West Bank and therefore, Israeli law does not apply to the area. Instead, military law is applied.
It’s safe to say that Lyons would not advocate Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and it’s also safe to assume that were Israeli law to be administered in the disputed territories, there would be an international outcry and accusations of breaching so-called international law.
So it’s hardly surprising that Jewish children face a civil court. After all, how many Jewish children would find themselves in front of a military court charged with throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli cars or IDF soldiers?
In addition, contrary to Lyons’ statement that “2.5 million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation,” needs clarification, especially when discussing the legal rights of the Palestinians. Some 2.4 million Palestinians live under Palestinian Authority rule and are subject to the PA’s domestic laws.
To Lyons’ credit, he interviews Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor who refutes the charge that Israeli policy is designed to make life intolerable for the Palestinians:
Let me say this very clearly. There is no such policy. A policy to create fear? There is no such
thing. The only policy is to maintain law and order, that’s all. If there’s no violence, there’s no law
enforcement.
But who exactly are the Palestinian “children” that Lyons refers to? These aren’t 8 year olds but Palestinian youths, perhaps 17 years old who are engaged in the same terror activities as Palestinians who are legally considered to be adults. Israel does not arbitrarily arrest minors for the sake of it. It isn’t “only” stone throwing that Palestinian minors are involved in.
In response to a Guardian article on the same subject, the spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in London wrote in January 2012:
But you omit the horrific nature of the atrocities that minors, some as young as 12, can be arrested for.
Hakim Awad, 17, is a minor. Last March [2011] he and his 18-year-old cousin, Amjad, brutally murdered the Fogel family while they slept. No mercy was shown to three-month-old Hadas, her two brothers (aged four and 11) and their parents. The scene of the crime, including the severed head of a toddler, left even the most experienced of police officers devastated. The duo proudly confessed to their killings, and they have shown no subsequent remorse.
Between 2000-04, 292 minors took part in terrorist activities. Shocking images of Palestinian infants dressed in explosive vests are only the tip of the hate industry that Palestinian children are exposed to.
Ismail Tsabaj, 12, Azi Mostafa, 13, and Yousuf Basam, 14, were sent by Hamas on a mission chillingly similar to the one involving the Fogels, aiming to penetrate a Jewish home at night and slaughter a family in their beds. In this case, the IDF fortunately stopped them in time. …
In the face of ever younger minors committing ever greater numbers of crimes, its efforts to maintain and even increase legal protections are impressive. When a minor involved in terrorist activity is arrested, the law is clear: no torture or humiliation is permitted, nor is solitary confinement in order to induce a confession. …
Furthermore, a special juvenile court has been established to guarantee professional care for minors in detention. The above and other measures have succeeded in making legal proceedings easier for minors, and have almost halved their duration. …
It would be our wish that no minor would ever find themselves in Israeli custody. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the reality, not our dreams.
Much criticism is made of Israeli arrest operations of children in the middle of the night. Lyons may wish to consider the probable outcome of an arrest operation carried out during daylight hours. This would most likely result in violence as Palestinians in the immediate vicinity engage IDF soldiers leading to injuries or worse on both sides. Is the arrest of children during nighttime hours unpleasant? Certainly. But it still preferable to the alternative.
Lyons also states in his video interview that the Israeli authorities have been very receptive to the criticisms of the treatment of Palestinian children. Israel recognizes that improvements need to be made to the system and are continuously striving for this.
The discussion is undoubtedly a sensitive and emotive one. Nonetheless, it should be carried out in an accurate manner that avoids demonizing Israel.

18/9/12 Gabsy Debinski Two-state clarification

$
0
0

Two-state clarification

18 September 2013

By Gabsy Debinski
I was horrified this week to come across a piece titled ‘Two-State Illusion’ which appeared on the front page of the New York Times Opinion Page last Sunday.
Written by professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, Ian Lustick, the piece advocates against a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Going beyond a critique of the two-state solution, Lustick maintains that the best way to solve the conflict is a one state solution with an Arab majority, that dissipates Israel in its current form.
Lustick writes that “diplomacy under the two-state banner is no longer a path to a solution but an obstacle itself.”There are several factors which conjure alarm and great sadness. First, why the New York Times chose to amplify Lustick’s view is bewildering.
Opinion pages give rise to diverse views and opinions. Indeed this is the beacon of a democracy. Yet are they supposed to soak up hate speech born from anyone with an agenda or a score to settle?
It is saddening that the New York Times decided to not only feature, but give prominence to a destructive view that claims; “once the illusion of a neat and palatable solution to the conflict disappears, Israeli leaders may then begin to see, as South Africa’s leaders saw in the 1980s, that their behaviour is producing isolation, emigration and hopelessness.”
Honest Reporting quickly took to the web to lament the article which it described as “a complicated and lengthy pantheon to a one-state solution- essentially the end of the State of Israel.”
The main problem with Lustick’s anti-Zionist proposal, however, is that it is rooted in blatantly misleading assumptions.
Lustick upholds that a drastic change of the conflict is not only possible but probable. And so he maintains “the disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum” is plausible. With an apparent enthusiasm Lustick welcomes the end of the Jewish State. In this regard he sees the dissolving of Zionism as inevitable, which he likens to the collapse of various imperialist regimes of the past such as the fall of the Soviet Union and British rule over Ireland.
In an article titled ‘Two States and the Anti-Zionist Illusion’, Jonathan Tobin of Commentary Magazine repels this assumption of the inevitable ‘crumbling’ of Zionism.
Tobin writes “these analogies are transparently specious, but they are telling because they put Israel in the category of imperialist projects rather than as the national liberation movement of a small people struggling for survival. That tells us a lot about Lustick’s mindset but little about the reality of the Middle East.”
Indeed the facts on the ground speak for themselves. The State of Israel is growing from strength to strength. A population that has grown from 650,000 in 1948, to over 8 million only sixty-five years later, has a thriving economy, potent military and vibrant culture that marries religion with modernity. Yes, the Zionist entity is not going anywhere.
Such discussions revive focus on the argument of a 1 vs. 2 state solution. However, in his unwavering support for the former, Lustick fails to capture a perspective on the magnitude of the problem which has a large bearing on the eventual outcome of the conflict.
There are currently around eight million people living in Israel (keeping in mind that exact figures differ depending on who you ask and I acknowledge this wholeheartedly).
In an interview with Haaretz Professor Arnon Soffer, a geography professor says that there are 6.2 million Jews and others in Israel, 1.7 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank. There are 300,000 Israeli Arabs living in East Jerusalem.
And then include the figures of the Palestinian Law of Return, which is part of the Palestinian solution. The one-state solution would thus usher a significant Arab majority and dissolve the Jewish character of Israel entirely.  This proposed ‘outcome’ has been broadly rejected by Israelis on both the right and far left and has not been entertained by any successive Israeli government. To harp on this as an alternative to the two-state solution is not only unrealistic at current times, but counterproductive in the setting of negotiations.
Additionally, Lustick attributes the end of the Jewish character of Israel, replaced by an Arab majority, as amenable to the changing times of the Middle East.
He writes; “in such a radically new environment, secular Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank could ally with Tel Aviv’s post-Zionists…Anti-nationalist ultra-Orthodox might find common cause with Muslim traditionalists. Untethered to statist Zionism in a rapidly changing Middle East, Israelis whose families came from Arab countries might find new reasons to think of themselves not as ‘Eastern’ but as Arab.”
That Middle Eastern Jews from Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, who were persecuted for generations, would suddenly feel a sense of solidarity and brotherhood with the Arab nations that turfed them out shows just how little Lustick understands of the demographics of the region or the history of the conflict.
David Harris writes in the Huffington Post, of the absurdity of Lustick’s self-importance. He says “so, from his rarefied perch in West Philadelphia, Lustick dispenses with the foundational Jewish link among a people, a land, and a faith.”
Most unoriginal but disturbing, is that he equates Israel with apartheid South Africa, Suddem Hussein’s Iraq or the Iran of the shah. Yet this actually proves my point that political advocates like Lustick are driven by an unfounded hate for Israel that is deep-rooted, rather than minor disputes about borders or settlements.
Lustick’s ‘crux’ is that the facts on the ground, including Israeli settlers to Islamic fundamentalist, make a two state-solution near impossible. Yet as Jonathan Marks of Commentary points out, in defence of the one-state solution, he offers numerous examples of endings once thought impossible that have come to pass such as the outcome of the Irish situation with Britain and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This leads  Marks to conclude that “Lustick does not really think a two-state solution impossible. Instead, he thinks that when confronted with a choice between two difficult ways forward, one should choose the one that results in the end of the State of Israel. Again, Lustick says out loud what his crowd thinks”:
“The disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion, or demographic momentum, is at least as plausible as a two state solution.”
Lustick’s appalling vision of a post-Zionist Middle East says more about him as an individual, than reveals about the current status of the State of Israel, or the Middle East at large.
There is no plausible scenario under which current day Israel will collapse or would allow itself to be turned into an Arab-Majority. The sooner people like Lustick acknowledge this as concrete, the closer we will be to securing a lasting two-state solution for two peoples.

THE OZ 11/2/14!!!! Israel moves on child justice and letters

$
0
0

Israel moves on child justice

WISELY, Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has moved swiftly to correct the worst excesses of the treatment of Palestinian children under the military justice system that has operated on the West Bank since 1967. These have been exposed in a joint investigation by The Australian’s Middle East correspondent John Lyons and the ABC’s Four Corners.
The practices alleged were inhumane. They were also counter-productive. Arresting children at midnight, taking them away from their parents, denying them legal representation during interrogations, locking them in solitary confinement and in metal cages during snowstorms has undoubtedly turned them into implacable enemies for life, in one of the world’s most volatile regions. It’s little wonder, as US President Barack Obama warned, that Palestinian children on the West Bank grow up regarding the Israeli Defence Forces as a “foreign” army.
To understand the problem in context, it needs to be acknowledged that the Israeli army faces constant and often dangerous provocation in the area, with children in the vanguard of stone-throwing and violence. Brutal as it was, such treatment of as many as 700 children a year was an excessive response to an ongoing, simmering conflict and not the product of state-sanctioned racism.
In mainstream Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning democracy, children born to parents of a Palestinian background have the same legal, educational, health and other rights as Jewish children. Israel’s 1.7 million Arab and Palestinian citizens, who comprise a fifth of the nation’s population, share the same rights as the Jewish majority. They vote and some hold parliamentary seats. Most live in peaceful prosperity and are far removed from the strife-torn, tense environment of the West Bank.
Israel’s enemies will undoubtedly seize upon the West Bank revelations to falsely depict the nation as being innately racist. It is not, and never was, but is often on the receiving end of racist propaganda. Israel cannot afford to compromise on security, especially on the West Bank. Ms Livni is a principled politician and an articulate advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In reforming an unacceptable military justice system for minors in a volatile region, she has helped Israel and the children.


Rockets and rocks damage childhood

IT appears that by being indoctrinated from kindergarten age to hate Jewish people, the Palestinian children are throwing rocks across the border (”Palestinian kids ‘used as spies’ by Israel”, 10/2). I don’t know if Jewish children reciprocate. However, during a visit to a kibbutz several years ago I noticed in their kindergarten grounds a solid concrete shelter bearing a painting of Mickey Mouse on the side. It was explained that the shelter was for the children to run to when rockets rained down.
Pat Cannard, Murrumba Downs, Qld
YOUNG Palestinians, arrested by the Israeli military for throwing stones, can’t be compared to your average Australian delinquent, who might progress to stealing cars. They are pawns in a greater game, and are likely to be martyrs in a future terrorist incident. Unfortunately, Israel lives in a brutal environment.
Ruth Rosenblum, Elsternwick, Vic
SO as we beat our breasts about the abuse of children under religious care, spare a thought for the Palestinian children who have suffered equally shocking abuse. Their continuing arrests and imprisonment (sometimes in outside cages in the winter snow), makes for chilling reading.
John Lyons has brought this situation to our attention and we cannot ignore it, as was done by so many in the face of the abuse of Australian children at the hands of the clergy.
Cathy Peters, Enmore, NSW
GS: HUH??!!!!

Editorial: The Perils of Unilateralism AIJAC -

$
0
0


Editorial: The Perils of Unilateralism


YOU ARE IN: Home Page
27/6/11


Colin Rubenstein


This September, the Palestinian Authority (PA) intends to go to the United Nations to seek support for a unilateral declaration of a sovereign Palestinian state - a move that will intensify rather than end the conflict, setting the entire peace process back by years if not decades.
Having shunned repeated Israeli attempts to negotiate a two-state solution without preconditions over the past two and a half years - including during Israel's historic settlement freeze in 2009-10 - the Palestinians' goal in approaching the UN is, as noted historian Benny Morris put it, "to establish a Palestinian Arab state encompassing the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, but without recognising Israel or making peace with it."
Morris adds "once this mini-state is achieved, unfettered by any international obligations like a peace treaty - and having promised nothing in exchange for their statehood - the Palestinians will be free to continue their struggle against Israel, its complete demise being their ultimate target."
At the outset, it is important to recognise that for a state to be admitted to or formally recognised by the UN, there must first be a UN Security Council resolution to that effect. The United States has already indicated that it will likely put a halt to this endeavour by exercising its veto power, repeatedly declaring that direct negotiations are the only way to achieving a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict - a call that was echoed recently in a statement by the G8 countries.
The Palestinians have indicated that in the face of a UN Security Council veto, they will go directly to the UN General Assembly, where they enjoy an automatic anti-Israel majority. However, the General Assembly cannot admit new members to the UN without a decision of the Security Council.
A successful vote at the UN General Assembly therefore will not materially alter the status quo or help the Palestinians realise their elusive dream of an independent state. This will only be possible through direct negotiations with Israel, where both sides make painful compromises. Moreover, abandoning the negotiation process and unilaterally seeking a UN-imposed resolution will have dire consequences for the Middle East peace process.
First and foremost, such a move would constitute a fundamental breach of the Oslo II agreement, which states that "neither side shall initiate or take steps that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations". The European Union, which was one of the witnesses, has a responsibility to uphold this agreement and not encourage or acquiesce in the Palestinian moves which clearly constitute a material breach of those agreements. If the Palestinians go through with their plan, they will effectively invalidate the entire Oslo framework.
Furthermore, it would also severely undermine previous UN Security Council resolutions, specifically Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for ‘agreement' and ‘negotiations' between the parties as a means of establishing a just and durable peace, including ‘secure and recognised boundaries' for Israel. Both resolutions have formed the backbone of the entire peace process since 1967, including negotiations over some of the most complex issues, including borders, Jerusalem and refugees.
A unilateral declaration also risks undoing many years of cooperation and achievement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, primarily in the areas of joint security and economic development, which has produced significant gains, principally in the West Bank.
Most worryingly perhaps, a unilateral declaration will provide legitimacy and acceptance for Hamas, who are now being incorporated as fully fledged members of the PA, with effective veto power over policy.
It is no coincidence that in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the only two lasting peace treaties have been between Israel and Egypt and Jordan respectively. Although on both occasions there was involvement by the United States and the international community, ultimately, the peace has been a durable one precisely because the parties themselves negotiated terms agreeable to all sides, and no third party attempted to impose a resolution.
This is the only model that can work between Israel and the Palestinians. The long-standing fantasy of many Palestinian leaders that some outside party - the UN, the EU, the US, the Arab League, world opinion - will someday grant them statehood without the need to strike a deal with Israel is not only a diversion from what needs to be done, but positively destructive of prospects for real peace progress.
However, destructive and undesirable as the Palestinian unilateralist plans are, the remedy is not to bribe them to stop, as some officials and activists seem to be proposing. Abbas has also hinted that he is angling to be offered "incentives" to abandon his push, saying, "If the Americans, the Europeans and Israel don't want us to go to the UN, they must show me an alternative." The US Administration has reportedly been pressuring Israel to publicly accept the problematic formula articulated by President Obama in May of "the 1967 lines with land swaps" as the basis for negotiations. Such a prior commitment is now a new Palestinian demand, and the US Administration is reportedly arguing that Israel should agree as a way to head off the unhelpful UN bid.
But this would be rewarding destructive Palestinian behaviour coming on top of the incorporation of an unrepentant Hamas into the PA.
The US Congress has recently indicated that should the Palestinian Authority persist with its unilateralist path to the UN, the US may withhold or limit funding to the PA. This is a potentially more effective response.
The international community must, for the Palestinians' own good, convey to the Palestinian leadership an unequivocal message - statehood can only be achieved through agreement with Israel, and it is strongly in their own interests to resume negotiations to that end as soon as possible.

JDU - 30/11/13 Australia reverses Israel vote at the UN

$
0
0

Australia reverses Israel vote at the UN

Posted on 30/11/2013 by 

Finally Australia is ‘back on track’ in regards to supporting Israel.
On the resolution dealing with the non-recognition of Israel’s claims over Jerusalem, until 2004  Australia voted for this resolution.
From 2004 to 2011 Australia abstained.
In 2011 and 2012 Australia reverted to voting for this resolution. This year Australia abstained.
So this is the third of the annual anti-Israel resolutions in which the current Australian government has reversed the voting pattern that applied under Labor and restored the voting pattern that applied under Foreign Minister Alexander Downer
Kol HaKavod to the Liberal Party.
According the ALP, Julie Bishop needs to give a better explanation of why the Abbott government has changed Australia’s position on Israeli settlement activities in the mis-named ‘occupied Palestinian territories’
According to me, the ALP needs to give a better explanation of why the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government, in  conjunction with Bob Carr, changed Australia’s position on Israeli settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territories.
I don’t recall the ALP explaining anything. What hypocrites.!
Yet Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Tanya Plibersek said,
“It’s also quite extraordinary that the government would make such a change without reporting back to the Australian people about it,”
A spokeswoman for Ms Bishop when asked why the Abbott government changed Australia’s position regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict in two recent United Nations votes said,
“The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided,”
 Acting on instructions from Ms Bishop, government representatives at the UN have withdrawn Australia’s support for an order to stop “all Israeli settlement activities in all of the occupied territories”.
While 158 countries supported the UN in calling for an end to Israeli settlements, Australia joined eight other countries, including South Sudan, Cameroon, Panama and Papua New Guinea, in abstaining from voting. Labor governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard condemned the settlements.
The Abbott government has also indicated it no longer believes Israel, as an “occupying power”, should be forced to comply with the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
At the UN meeting, 160 countries supported ordering Israel to “comply scrupulously” with the conventions. Australia was one of five countries to abstain – the group again including countries such as South Sudan, Papua New Guinea, Cameroon and Vanuatu.
Ms Bishop’s spokeswoman said the shifts in position
“reflected the government’s concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced”.
“The government considers each Middle East-related resolution on a case-by-case basis, and on its merits”
..the spokeswoman said, adding that Australian assistance to the Palestinian Territories in 2012-13 was $55.2 million, including $20 million to the Palestinian Authority.
“Australia strongly supports resumed final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, aimed at reaching a just and lasting two-state solution”
Colin Rubenstein, the Executive Director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, said he
“emphatically [welcomed] the government’s principled leadership in changing these votes, reverting to the Howard/Downer position”.
Dr Rubinstein said he was
“very critical of the previous government’s support for these resolutions”.
The UN resolutions encouraged
“misplaced Palestinian hopes that they do not need to end incitement or make the requisite compromises in the negotiations to achieve positive results.”
“They are part of the destructive international campaign to delegitimise Israel and are totally unhelpful to the cause of progressing to a negotiated two state outcome.”
Refresh if graphic is flattened. WordPress glitch occasionally.
General Assembly
Sixty-eighth General Assembly
Plenary
58th Meeting (AM)

General Assembly, Wrapping Up Annual Consideration of Question of Palestine.

Situation in Middle East, Adopts Six Resolutions by Recorded Vote. Link:
Sending a strong message of support for the Middle East peace process, albeit with the traditionally divergent views on how to achieve its aims, the General Assembly today adopted six draft resolutions on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East overall.
As the Assembly wrapped up the discussion begun yesterday on the Palestinian question, a member of Indonesia’s House of Representatives, echoing the sentiment of many delegations, heralded the two-State solution as the “best chance for a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel”.  To that end, he called on Israel to show good faith and to make the best use of current negotiations.
The Assembly then adopted four resolutions by recorded vote under that agenda item.  By the first, “L.12”, the Assembly proclaimed 2014 the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and requested the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to organize activities around that observance, in cooperation with Governments, the United Nations system, intergovernmental organisations and civil society.
That text was adopted by recorded vote of 110 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 56 abstentions.
By a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 59 abstentions, the Assembly adopted “L.13” by which it requested the Division for Palestinian Rights to continue to monitor developments relevant to the question of Palestine, and asked the Secretary-General to ensure the continued cooperation with the Division of United Nations bodies in connection with programme components addressing various aspects of the question of Palestine.
Under draft “L.14”, the Assembly encouraged the Department of Public Information’s programme on the Question of Palestine to formulate ways for the media and civil society representatives to engage in open and positive discussions to explore means for encouraging people-to-people dialogue and promoting peace and mutual understanding in the region.  It was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 7 abstentions (Cameroon, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo, Tonga).
According to the draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine, “L.15”, the Assembly, among other things, called for the timely convening of an international conference in Moscow, as envisioned by the Security Council in resolution 1850 (2008), for the advancement and acceleration of the resumed peace process.  The draft was adopted by recorded vote of 165 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga).
When the Assembly turned to the situation in the Middle East, the representative of Egypt expressed concern about recent developments in negotiations.  Palestinians, he said, had been put in an arduous situation due to measures taken by Israel, including continued settlement expansion.  He then introduced two draft texts, both of which were adopted by recorded vote.
The first, “L.16”, on Jerusalem, stated that all legal and administrative measures taken by Israel to change the legal status of East Jerusalem were null and void, he explained.  The draft also, among other things, called for a halt to settlement construction and any attempts to desecrate the Al-Aqsa Mosque.  It was adopted by recorded vote with 162 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo, Tonga).
A resolution on the Syrian Golan, “L.17”, included a call for Israel to withdraw from the territory to 1967 borders, he said, adding that peace, stability and co-existence would not be achieved until Palestinians recovered their rights, he said.  The illegal measures of the occupying Power were halted, he said, hoping the draft texts would be supported.  The Assembly adopted that text by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 58 abstentions.




3 Responses “Australia reverses Israel vote at the UN” →
  1. When are they going to come out properly and vote AGAINST the goddamn resolutions! The whole UN-Israel situation is a farce and it’s about time someone took a stand and said so! Vote with your feet Australia………….
    Reply
  • Nothing will ever change. There are just too many countries that are Muslim, that’s the trouble. Europe won’t go against the ME vote because of oil. I have it on good authority that oil is the reason behind so many Muslims being in Europe too.
    Reply
1 Trackback For This Post
  1. At the UN, Australia reverses vote in Israel's favor | Israel Islam and End TimesIsrael Islam and End Times →
    […] Source […]
Viewing all 585 articles
Browse latest View live