A 30-strong pack of Israeli war criminals and their camp followers, led by Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom and former Security Minister and Shin Bet supremo from 2000 to 2005, Avi Dichter, lunched with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the latest Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, in Sydney on December 3. This extraordinary gathering (apparently quid pro quo for DPM Gillard's trip to Israel earlier in the year) was inexplicably ignored by the Sydney Morning Herald, and got scant treatment by The Australian, whose reporter, the appropriately named Jodie Minus, really only seemed to have eyes for the Rudd/Abbott handshake and body language: "The Prime Minister didn't waste any time moving in for the congratulatory handshake. But neither man studied at the Mark Latham school of hand manoeuvres and the grip was more passive than aggressive, with Mr Abbott holding on to just 4 of Mr Rudd's limp-looking fingers." (Rivals get hands on, 4/12/09)
In fact, the only reference in Minus' report to the latest Israeli-Australian carry-on came in this sentence: "At the Australia Israel Leadership Forum's gala luncheon... Kevin Rudd and the Opposition leader were asked to the podium to accept a copy of a Jewish picture book, Touching the Stones of Our Heritage."
It wasn't much to go on, but my interest was sufficiently piqued for me to google Stones. At that point the plot began to thicken. Up came this little blurb: "Touching the Stones of Our Heritage: The Western Wall Tunnels by Dan Bahat: Throughout the 2,000 years since the Holy Temple that stood in Jerusalem was destroyed, the Western Wall has stood as the prime symbol of Jewish yearning. Today, more than 50 years since the restoration of Jewish sovereignty, the Wall remains an intense expression of national pride and of the profound affinity between the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem. Through photographs, text and original drawings, this spectacular album takes the reader on a journey of discovery through the Western Wall and its tunnels. Included is a bonus transparency overlay showing how it was, and what it looks like now... Features of this book:... Includes a full color insert of the Temple Mount with overlays showing how it looked in ancient and modern times... THE WONDER OF THE WORLD THAT WAS (AND IS) MISSED." (judaism.com)
Well, well, well - instead of handing Rudd and Abbott a book containing merely glossies of 'Israeli' landmarks, Shalom had handed them one which represents the third holiest shrine in Islam, the Haram ash-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), containing the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, as, in effect, squatting on the foundations of a structure of far greater importance - an ancient Jewish temple, the subject of much contemporary Jewish "yearning". Not that the Arabic term Haram ash-Sharif even appears in Bahat's book, the term of choice being The Temple Mount.
Now given that a copy of Stones hasn't yet found its way into my hot little hands, I can't be 100% certain, but are we not entering Hint, hint, do you get my drift? territory here? One thing's for sure though, Rudd and Abbott are not going to learn in Stones that the Haram ash-Sharif (not to mention the rest of East Jerusalem) is, under international law, occupied territory to which the Israelis have absolutely no legal claim whatever.
And the book's author, 'archaeologist' Dan Bahat? Here's a revealing snapshot: "According to the man warmly referred to as Israel's Indiana Jones, an ongoing crime continues to be perpetrated against world Jewry. 'The Jewish people around the world are disconnected from The Temple Mount today. The Arabs claim that it has nothing to do with the Jews, but we know better', says Professor Dan Bahat, one of Israel's most famous, respected and colourful archaeologists. 'At every entrance to The Temple Mount today, there are guards there who ask if you are Jewish. If you answer 'yes', they tell you that you cannot go inside. It's a crime forever'... The Temple Mount is the holiest location in Jewish life. According to religious tradition it's where the world originated and where the biblical sacrifice of Isaac took place. It's also where King Solomon built the first Jewish Temple. The Roman King Herod... rebuilt the temple. With Jews kept off the hilltop by Muslim restrictions and both government and rabbinic bans, The Kotel - a retaining wall of the second Temple - is the holiest place at which Jews can pray. 'What concerns me is a political problem connected to The Temple Mount', says Bahat. 'I believe the Chief Rabbinate made a terrible mistake in 1967 by installing signs reading that no Jew should go onto The Temple Mount (until the Temple is rebuilt)'. Asked about Ariel Sharon's famous visit to The Temple Mount in 2000, Bahat left no doubt as to his feelings. 'I am still angry over this', he says. 'Everyone blames Sharon for going to The Temple Mount and starting this Intifada more than 2 years ago. Of course this is not true, but what really makes me mad is that there was such an uproar because a Jew went to The Temple Mount in the first place. This should not be'." (Israel's 'Indiana Jones' addresses Toronto's Jewish community, toronto.ujcfedweb.org) Some disinterested scholar!
What was that line from the 60s? You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing? Well here's the wind from templemount.org: "Unfortunately, the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archaeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive [sic] to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam. Who knows what events developing in the history of Jerusalem will one day change the staus quo, allowing scientific investigation of the entire Temple Mount, below ground as well as above? Then, according to the hopes and dreams of devout Jews for centuries, a Third Temple can be built on the foundations of the First and Second Temples and temple worship according to the Torah restored." Notice how "archaeological studies" and "scientific investigation" morph seamlessly into a rebuilding of a third temple? And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque? Now you see them, now you don't. Hell, you can feel that plot thickening now, can't you? Why, if Dan (Indiana Jones) Bahat had had his way back in 1967, when the site was - ahem - acquired, the Third Temple would be packing them in right now!
Touching the Stones of Our Heritage - some "Jewish picture book," Ms Minus!
But there's more. I mentioned Avi Dichter at the beginning of this post. Although The Australian gave him an opportunity to beat the drum on Iran (Ex-Israeli spy chief warns about Iran, 4/12/09), it was left to an Australian Zionist blogger, present at the luncheon, to remind us that Dichter too has a keen interest in stones. The Ozi Zion Blog informs us that the former Shin Bet head and now Kadima MK concluded his speech "with a powerful story of how he added a 3rd stone (from Jerusalem) to the 2 stone collection of a friend - (from Aushwitz [sic] and Massada). Jerusalem is the heart of Israel and will remain so." (szcnsw.auton.telligence.net.au) In fact, Dichter has real archaeological form: "Police have prevented Muslim burial at the foot of the Temple Mount for several months, as Public Security Minister Avi Dichter responded to pleas to reserve the area as a significant archaeological site." (Dichter rules area near Temple Mount off-limits to Muslim burial, Nadav Shragai, Haaretz, 29/5/07)
And more. With former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert also in town we've got Israeli war criminals coming out of our ears. His visit was described in The Australian Jewish News (4/12/09) as "a precursor to an influx of senior Israeli politicians and other influential figures in the coming week for the second Australia Israel Leadership Forum." Now I don't know whether Olmert put in an appearance at the Forum's galah luncheon, but I do know that, among his other crimes, he's got form in messing with Jerusalem: "As mayor of Jerusalem in the 1990s, Olmert oppressed the Palestinian inhabitants of the city and intensified the process of de-Arabisation. He pressed for opening the 'archaeological tunnel' near the Muslim shrines and encouraged American Jewish right-wing millionaires to build Jewish settlements in the middle of unilaterally annexed Arab districts and pushed for the building of the Apartheid Wall that cuts up Arab neighbourhoods." (The Bible & Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology & Post-Colonialism in Israel-Palestine, Nur Masalha, 2007, p 181) Oh, and he and Indiana go back some years with Olmert penning a forward to another of Indiana's books, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem.
What's really been going on in little old Sydney then? Given Australia's tendency to cosy up to Israel at various UN and other fora (and Shalom's hugs and kisses for our cold-shouldering of Goldstone and Durban II*), I can't help wondering if this hopelessly laid-back land isn't being subjected to the hard word - along the lines of Cut the teasing, bitch. If you really love me, you'll move your embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Dear oh dear, would the world still respect us in the morning? And then what? Shalom, Dichter, Olmert et al take up archaeology in earnest? Watch this space...
[*Australia a 'leader of the free world', Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 4/12/09]
[The following 2 posts of mine are highly relevant to this subject: Who Did What? (28/9/09); Mosque Busters (27/11/09)]
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Revolted
Nothing much shocks me anymore when I read the howling nonsense (and worse) written on the Middle East in the corporate press, but the brazen neoconservative cheerleading of the following letter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald revolted me to the core:
"Caroline Rae (Letters, December 1) says the truth about the Iraq war 'has not been pretty'. War is always ugly, but most of the time the outcome has been worth it. Despite the gruesome stories in the initial stages of the war and the number of deaths (most inflicted by insurgents on their own population), Iraq has emerged as a country standing up on its own feet, hungry for democracy and prosperity. Iraq today has countless newspapers scrutinising its government. It has minority groups lobbying for more power in parliament, something unheard of in most Arab nations. And an Iraqi minister has been charged with corruption. Ever had that happen in this great democracy of ours." (Alice Khatchigian Ryde)
What inspires someone (presumably neither in the pay of Rupert Murdoch nor one of the Zionist faithful) to sit down, compose and actively seek to publish such crap? From what unfathomable depth of blissful ignorance and/or ideological blindness did it emerge? Normally I suppose I would have just dismissed it with a curse on the head of the letters editor for giving the bloody thing oxygen. However, I just happen to be reading one of those books about the ongoing gang rape of Iraq (by the Coalition of the Willies) which makes you realise that it is worse - far worse - than you ever expected. The back cover blurb for Cultural Cleansing in Iraq: Why Museums Were Looted, Libraries Burned & Academics Murdered (edited by Raymond W Baker, Shereen T Ismael & Tariq Y Ismael, 2010) gives you the gist:
"Why did the invasion of Iraq result in cultural destruction and the killing of intellectuals? Conventional wisdom portrays these events as the resut of poor planning and accidents of war in a campaign to liberate Iraqis. However, the authors of this book argue that the reality is very different. The authors reveal that the invasion aimed to dismantle the Iraqi state in order to remake it as a client regime. The post-invasion chaos was not an accident but a deliberate aim of the invasion, creating conditions under which the cultural foundations of the state could be undermined. The authors painstakingly account for the willful inaction of the occupying forces, which led to the ravaging of one of the world's oldest recorded cultures. In addition to the destruction of unprotected museums and libraries, they document the targeted assassination of over 400 academics, widespread kidnapping and the forced flight of thousands of doctors, lawyers, artists and other intellectuals. All in all, they show that Iraq suffered a comprehensive cultural cleansing which was part of a deliberate attempt to weaken and ultimately to end the Iraqi state. This important book lays to rest claims that the invasion aimed to free an educated population to develop its own culture of democracy."
And here's part of the introduction: "The consequences in human and cultural terms of the destruction of the Iraqi state have been enormous: notably the deaths of over 1 million civilians; the degradation in social infrastructure, including electricity, potable water, and sewage systems; the targeted assassination of over 400 academics and professionals and the displacement of approximately 4 million refugees and internally displaced people. All of these terrible losses are compounded by unprecedented levels of cultural devastation, attacks on national archives and monuments that represent the historical identity of the Iraqi people. Rampant chaos and violence hamper efforts at reconstruction, leaving the foundations of the Iraqi state in ruins. The majority of Western journalists, academics, and political figures have refused to recognize the loss of life on such a massive scale and the cultural destruction that accompanied it as the fully predictable consequences of American occupation policy. The very idea is considered unthinkable, despite the openness with which this objective was pursued. It is time to think the unthinkable. The American-led assault on Iraq forces us to consider the meaning and consequences of state-destruction as a policy objective. The architects of the Iraq policy never made explicit what decontructing and reconstructing the Iraqi state would entail; their actions, however, make the meaning clear. From those actions in Iraq, a fairly precise definition of state-ending can now be read. The campaign to destroy the state in Iraq involved first the removal and execution of Saddam Hussein and the capture of Ba'ath Party figures. However, state destruction went beyond regime change. It also entailed the purposeful dismantling of major state institutions and the launching of a prolonged process of political reshaping. Contemporary Iraq represents a fragmented pastiche of sectarian forces with the formal trappings of liberal democracy and neo-liberal economic structures. Students of history will recognize in the occupation of Iraq the time-honoured technique of imperial divide et imperia (divide and rule), used to fracture and subdue culturally cohesive regions. The regime installed by occupation forces in Iraq reshaped the country along divisive sectarian lines, dissolving the hard-won unity of a long state-building project. The so-called sovereign Iraqi government, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), established by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), was founded as a sectarian ruling body, with a system of quotas for ethnic and professional groupings. This formula decisively established the sectarian parameters of the 'new Iraq'." (pp 4-5)
I thought I'd google Khatchigian and see what came up. I found the following letter to the editor, again on the subject of Iraq: "Robert Krochmalik is being too kind in his letter about the diminished Jewish communities in Arab nations being merely 'forced to leave'. My father, who was a young boy in Baghdad in 1948, recalls how Jews were dragged through the streets with ropes around their necks to be hung on lampposts, and dragged out of their homes and beaten almost to death as onlookers cheered." (brisbanetimes.com.au, 11/8/09) No source I've read on the subject (and I can highly recommend Iraqi Jews: A History of Mass Exodus, Abbas Shiblak, 1986/2005) comes anywhere near corroborating Khatchigian's shocking allegation. I can only conclude that it's black propaganda.
PS: I note that our 'expert' de jour on Iraq continues to peddle her neoconservative cliches. The following appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4/12/09: "If Steven Prentice expects a definition of 'worth it' in regards to the Iraq war, it is this: that any number of deaths in war is tragic, but this is and always has been the price we pay for freedom. Is freedom not worth fighting for?"
Unfortunately, the mainstream press being what it is, I expect this isn't the last we'll be hearing from this insufferable creature.
"Caroline Rae (Letters, December 1) says the truth about the Iraq war 'has not been pretty'. War is always ugly, but most of the time the outcome has been worth it. Despite the gruesome stories in the initial stages of the war and the number of deaths (most inflicted by insurgents on their own population), Iraq has emerged as a country standing up on its own feet, hungry for democracy and prosperity. Iraq today has countless newspapers scrutinising its government. It has minority groups lobbying for more power in parliament, something unheard of in most Arab nations. And an Iraqi minister has been charged with corruption. Ever had that happen in this great democracy of ours." (Alice Khatchigian Ryde)
What inspires someone (presumably neither in the pay of Rupert Murdoch nor one of the Zionist faithful) to sit down, compose and actively seek to publish such crap? From what unfathomable depth of blissful ignorance and/or ideological blindness did it emerge? Normally I suppose I would have just dismissed it with a curse on the head of the letters editor for giving the bloody thing oxygen. However, I just happen to be reading one of those books about the ongoing gang rape of Iraq (by the Coalition of the Willies) which makes you realise that it is worse - far worse - than you ever expected. The back cover blurb for Cultural Cleansing in Iraq: Why Museums Were Looted, Libraries Burned & Academics Murdered (edited by Raymond W Baker, Shereen T Ismael & Tariq Y Ismael, 2010) gives you the gist:
"Why did the invasion of Iraq result in cultural destruction and the killing of intellectuals? Conventional wisdom portrays these events as the resut of poor planning and accidents of war in a campaign to liberate Iraqis. However, the authors of this book argue that the reality is very different. The authors reveal that the invasion aimed to dismantle the Iraqi state in order to remake it as a client regime. The post-invasion chaos was not an accident but a deliberate aim of the invasion, creating conditions under which the cultural foundations of the state could be undermined. The authors painstakingly account for the willful inaction of the occupying forces, which led to the ravaging of one of the world's oldest recorded cultures. In addition to the destruction of unprotected museums and libraries, they document the targeted assassination of over 400 academics, widespread kidnapping and the forced flight of thousands of doctors, lawyers, artists and other intellectuals. All in all, they show that Iraq suffered a comprehensive cultural cleansing which was part of a deliberate attempt to weaken and ultimately to end the Iraqi state. This important book lays to rest claims that the invasion aimed to free an educated population to develop its own culture of democracy."
And here's part of the introduction: "The consequences in human and cultural terms of the destruction of the Iraqi state have been enormous: notably the deaths of over 1 million civilians; the degradation in social infrastructure, including electricity, potable water, and sewage systems; the targeted assassination of over 400 academics and professionals and the displacement of approximately 4 million refugees and internally displaced people. All of these terrible losses are compounded by unprecedented levels of cultural devastation, attacks on national archives and monuments that represent the historical identity of the Iraqi people. Rampant chaos and violence hamper efforts at reconstruction, leaving the foundations of the Iraqi state in ruins. The majority of Western journalists, academics, and political figures have refused to recognize the loss of life on such a massive scale and the cultural destruction that accompanied it as the fully predictable consequences of American occupation policy. The very idea is considered unthinkable, despite the openness with which this objective was pursued. It is time to think the unthinkable. The American-led assault on Iraq forces us to consider the meaning and consequences of state-destruction as a policy objective. The architects of the Iraq policy never made explicit what decontructing and reconstructing the Iraqi state would entail; their actions, however, make the meaning clear. From those actions in Iraq, a fairly precise definition of state-ending can now be read. The campaign to destroy the state in Iraq involved first the removal and execution of Saddam Hussein and the capture of Ba'ath Party figures. However, state destruction went beyond regime change. It also entailed the purposeful dismantling of major state institutions and the launching of a prolonged process of political reshaping. Contemporary Iraq represents a fragmented pastiche of sectarian forces with the formal trappings of liberal democracy and neo-liberal economic structures. Students of history will recognize in the occupation of Iraq the time-honoured technique of imperial divide et imperia (divide and rule), used to fracture and subdue culturally cohesive regions. The regime installed by occupation forces in Iraq reshaped the country along divisive sectarian lines, dissolving the hard-won unity of a long state-building project. The so-called sovereign Iraqi government, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), established by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), was founded as a sectarian ruling body, with a system of quotas for ethnic and professional groupings. This formula decisively established the sectarian parameters of the 'new Iraq'." (pp 4-5)
I thought I'd google Khatchigian and see what came up. I found the following letter to the editor, again on the subject of Iraq: "Robert Krochmalik is being too kind in his letter about the diminished Jewish communities in Arab nations being merely 'forced to leave'. My father, who was a young boy in Baghdad in 1948, recalls how Jews were dragged through the streets with ropes around their necks to be hung on lampposts, and dragged out of their homes and beaten almost to death as onlookers cheered." (brisbanetimes.com.au, 11/8/09) No source I've read on the subject (and I can highly recommend Iraqi Jews: A History of Mass Exodus, Abbas Shiblak, 1986/2005) comes anywhere near corroborating Khatchigian's shocking allegation. I can only conclude that it's black propaganda.
PS: I note that our 'expert' de jour on Iraq continues to peddle her neoconservative cliches. The following appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4/12/09: "If Steven Prentice expects a definition of 'worth it' in regards to the Iraq war, it is this: that any number of deaths in war is tragic, but this is and always has been the price we pay for freedom. Is freedom not worth fighting for?"
Unfortunately, the mainstream press being what it is, I expect this isn't the last we'll be hearing from this insufferable creature.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tony Abbott: Mouthpiece, Patsy, Tool
Before his demise as leader of the opposition yesterday, Malcolm Turnbull had this to say of revolting Liberal climate change deniers: "I am not interested in becoming a mouthpiece or a patsy or a tool for people whose views are completely wrong and are contrary to the best interests of our nation, our planet and indeed the Liberal Party." (Turnbull unleashes tirade on Liberal rebels, abc.net.au, 29/11/09)
His revolting, climate change-denying successor, Tony Abbott, you will be unsurprised to learn, has been a mouthpiece, patsy and tool for another group of people whose views are completely wrong and contrary to the best interests of our nation, our planet, the Liberal and Labor parties, and indeed just about everything else under the sun, at least since Tuesday, 28 October 2003 when he addressed the Zionist Council of Victoria.* Abbott herein demonstrates his mastery of Zionist talking points, a key requirement for any serious Australian political leader. Some gems:
Israel's as pure (and white!) as the driven snow - just like us!:
"It's not anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli Government when it's wrong... But what is it, then, to proclaim moral equivalence between an Israeli leadership striving to preserve a liberal, pluralist democracy and a Palestinian leadership running a one party statelet dedicated to destroying its neighbour? What is it, if not anti-Semitism, which makes many Western countries and Western citizens habitual critics of Israel even though it's the only functioning liberal democracy anywhere in the Middle East."
Thank God for canaries in coalmines:
"When the passenger jets tore into the World Trade Centre and the bombs ripped through Bali nightclubs, the rest of the Western world began to experience what is has long meant to be an Israeli. Far from demonstrating the dire consequences of supporting Israel, these atrocities reveal the extent to which Westerners are all Israelis now."
You never know when or where these buggers are going to pop up, but you know exactly what they're after:
"The distinguishing feature of the September 11 hijackers, Bali terrorists and West Bank suicide bombers is belief that anything less than Taliban-style totalitarianism is an abomination in the eyes of God."
I swear, it's the Nazis all over again:
"The struggle against terrorism in the Middle East is Australia's fight as well as Israel's... Australia can no more afford to see Israel overcome by its enemies than it could have afforded to see Britain defeated in the Second World War."
I read all about it in that Leon Uris novel when I was a nipper and I'll be buggered if my budgie- smuggling's going to take a back seat to another bloody book:
"Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were displaced during the 1948 war - but this started when Egypt, Jordan and Syria tried to prevent the partition of Palestine and to destroy or expel the Jewish inhabitants."
I can be as smartarse a lawyer as the best of them:
"It's often claimed it was hypocritical of America, Britain and Australia, on the one hand, to invade Iraq for failing to comply with UN resolutions but, on the other, to support Israel which is also in breach of UN resolutions. This ignores the key distinction between chapter 7 resolutions which are binding and chapter 6 resolutions which are negotiable."
Israel can spot a Palestinian terrorist from a mile up:
"Attacking terrorist leaders with stand-off missiles is harder to justify especially given the risk of civilian casualties. Even so, there is a world of moral difference between eliminating known terrorists, however ruthlessly, and deliberately killing shoppers, travellers, diners or school children."
I don't have a problem with a hundred Palestinian eyes for one Israeli - it's a tough neighbourhood over there:
"Faced with a terrorist threat as close as the local shopping centre, it would be surprising if there weren't aspects of Israeli life that seem harsh and oppressive, at least to those who have never lived in the valley of the shadow of death."
Psalm 23 and Robert Frost - irresistable!:
"In the face of carnage, well-meaning outsiders inevitably cluster on the sidelines and call on 'both sides' to make concessions. Invariably pious hopes about not building walls between people jostle with the understanding born of bitter experience that, very often, it's good fences which make good neighbours."
Sheesh, the place practically sells itself!:
"Successive Israeli governments have given Arafat repeated opportunities to be a statesman rather than a terrorist godfather. This example of resolution, stoicism, forbearance and decency under fire is Israel's 'best sell' and gift to the wider world."
???!!!???!!!
"The Middle East needs more Palestinians who are committed supporters of Israel and vice versa."
[*For the full Monty see tonyabbott.com.au]
PS: Relax, he's been rambammed*: "As Turnbull was dumped on Tuesday as party leader, the question on Jewish lips was: is his successor, Abbott, as supportive as Turnbull? Judging by previous comments, it seems the community has no need to worry. [Abbott] was most recently in Israel in July 2008 on an Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) Rambam Mission. During the trip, Abbott travelled far and wide - to the Lebanon border, Golan Heights, Sderot and Jerusalem - with his Liberal Party colleagues." (Abbott a friend of Israel, The Australian Jewish News, 4/12/09)
[*See my 30/3/09 post I've Been to Israel Too]
His revolting, climate change-denying successor, Tony Abbott, you will be unsurprised to learn, has been a mouthpiece, patsy and tool for another group of people whose views are completely wrong and contrary to the best interests of our nation, our planet, the Liberal and Labor parties, and indeed just about everything else under the sun, at least since Tuesday, 28 October 2003 when he addressed the Zionist Council of Victoria.* Abbott herein demonstrates his mastery of Zionist talking points, a key requirement for any serious Australian political leader. Some gems:
Israel's as pure (and white!) as the driven snow - just like us!:
"It's not anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli Government when it's wrong... But what is it, then, to proclaim moral equivalence between an Israeli leadership striving to preserve a liberal, pluralist democracy and a Palestinian leadership running a one party statelet dedicated to destroying its neighbour? What is it, if not anti-Semitism, which makes many Western countries and Western citizens habitual critics of Israel even though it's the only functioning liberal democracy anywhere in the Middle East."
Thank God for canaries in coalmines:
"When the passenger jets tore into the World Trade Centre and the bombs ripped through Bali nightclubs, the rest of the Western world began to experience what is has long meant to be an Israeli. Far from demonstrating the dire consequences of supporting Israel, these atrocities reveal the extent to which Westerners are all Israelis now."
You never know when or where these buggers are going to pop up, but you know exactly what they're after:
"The distinguishing feature of the September 11 hijackers, Bali terrorists and West Bank suicide bombers is belief that anything less than Taliban-style totalitarianism is an abomination in the eyes of God."
I swear, it's the Nazis all over again:
"The struggle against terrorism in the Middle East is Australia's fight as well as Israel's... Australia can no more afford to see Israel overcome by its enemies than it could have afforded to see Britain defeated in the Second World War."
I read all about it in that Leon Uris novel when I was a nipper and I'll be buggered if my budgie- smuggling's going to take a back seat to another bloody book:
"Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were displaced during the 1948 war - but this started when Egypt, Jordan and Syria tried to prevent the partition of Palestine and to destroy or expel the Jewish inhabitants."
I can be as smartarse a lawyer as the best of them:
"It's often claimed it was hypocritical of America, Britain and Australia, on the one hand, to invade Iraq for failing to comply with UN resolutions but, on the other, to support Israel which is also in breach of UN resolutions. This ignores the key distinction between chapter 7 resolutions which are binding and chapter 6 resolutions which are negotiable."
Israel can spot a Palestinian terrorist from a mile up:
"Attacking terrorist leaders with stand-off missiles is harder to justify especially given the risk of civilian casualties. Even so, there is a world of moral difference between eliminating known terrorists, however ruthlessly, and deliberately killing shoppers, travellers, diners or school children."
I don't have a problem with a hundred Palestinian eyes for one Israeli - it's a tough neighbourhood over there:
"Faced with a terrorist threat as close as the local shopping centre, it would be surprising if there weren't aspects of Israeli life that seem harsh and oppressive, at least to those who have never lived in the valley of the shadow of death."
Psalm 23 and Robert Frost - irresistable!:
"In the face of carnage, well-meaning outsiders inevitably cluster on the sidelines and call on 'both sides' to make concessions. Invariably pious hopes about not building walls between people jostle with the understanding born of bitter experience that, very often, it's good fences which make good neighbours."
Sheesh, the place practically sells itself!:
"Successive Israeli governments have given Arafat repeated opportunities to be a statesman rather than a terrorist godfather. This example of resolution, stoicism, forbearance and decency under fire is Israel's 'best sell' and gift to the wider world."
???!!!???!!!
"The Middle East needs more Palestinians who are committed supporters of Israel and vice versa."
[*For the full Monty see tonyabbott.com.au]
PS: Relax, he's been rambammed*: "As Turnbull was dumped on Tuesday as party leader, the question on Jewish lips was: is his successor, Abbott, as supportive as Turnbull? Judging by previous comments, it seems the community has no need to worry. [Abbott] was most recently in Israel in July 2008 on an Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) Rambam Mission. During the trip, Abbott travelled far and wide - to the Lebanon border, Golan Heights, Sderot and Jerusalem - with his Liberal Party colleagues." (Abbott a friend of Israel, The Australian Jewish News, 4/12/09)
[*See my 30/3/09 post I've Been to Israel Too]
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
If Not, Why Not?
I came across this in today's Sydney Morning Herald:
"Rabbi Michael Lerner sports a small lapel pin. It is paired flags of Israel and Palestine... It says a lot about its wearer, a controversial Jewish intellectual and prolific author who is also the spiritual leader at a San Francisco synagogue... [Lerner is i]n Sydney before the Parliament of the World's Religions Interfaith Conference in Melbourne this week... Of the Middle East conflict, he said yesterday: 'The first step towards peace is for both sides to stop saying 'We're the innocent victims and the other guys are evil' - which is the discourse which predominates both in the Arab world and the Jewish world. We have to transcend the blame game and move to a discourse of mutual compassion'." (From jail to the White House, rabbi gets his message across, Kelsey Munro)
I noted that "[a]s a student activist in Berkeley in the 1960s, [Lerner] was arrested and jailed for his role as an organiser in an anti-Vietnam War protest that turned violent..."
The Vietnam War, eh? Remember that? Bit hazy? Well let me jog your memory. Here's what Vietnamese scholar, Nguyen Khac Vien (1913-1997), had to say about that conflict:
"That Hitler's Germany could savagely attack the Soviet Union might be explained. But why should Washington vent its fury on this little country, Vietnam? In what way did our people threaten the vital interests of the United States? Why did 5 successive American presidents seek to crush us by any means possible? There can be only one answer to all these questions. American imperialism nurses vast designs, and its way to world hegemony passes through the conquest and subjugation of the third world. It so happened that Vietnam was giving a bad example by stubbornly refusing to allow itself to be dominated and assimilated, by being determined to preserve its integrity and independence. This black sheep, this alien element, this unfortunate pebble on the road, had to be eliminated at any cost. The best American brains - engineers, scientists, sociologists, economists, ethnologists, churchmen - were mobilized to this end. The Vietnamese people went through many trials: B52s, steel-pellet bombs, laser-guided bombs, election farces, tiger cages, operations Phoenix and Swan. Just think: two hundred billion dollars! And the most extraordinary thing of all is that it failed!" (Tradition & Revolution in Vietnam, Nguyen Khac Vien, 1974, p 3)
Now that got me thinking about Michael Lerner. Was the P plate rabbi back then sporting the paired flags of the United States and Vietnam on his lapel? If not, why not? Was he of the view that both sides were equally blameworthy/innocent? If not, why not? Was he preaching mutual compassion to both sides? If not, why not? Consistency demands it.
"Rabbi Michael Lerner sports a small lapel pin. It is paired flags of Israel and Palestine... It says a lot about its wearer, a controversial Jewish intellectual and prolific author who is also the spiritual leader at a San Francisco synagogue... [Lerner is i]n Sydney before the Parliament of the World's Religions Interfaith Conference in Melbourne this week... Of the Middle East conflict, he said yesterday: 'The first step towards peace is for both sides to stop saying 'We're the innocent victims and the other guys are evil' - which is the discourse which predominates both in the Arab world and the Jewish world. We have to transcend the blame game and move to a discourse of mutual compassion'." (From jail to the White House, rabbi gets his message across, Kelsey Munro)
I noted that "[a]s a student activist in Berkeley in the 1960s, [Lerner] was arrested and jailed for his role as an organiser in an anti-Vietnam War protest that turned violent..."
The Vietnam War, eh? Remember that? Bit hazy? Well let me jog your memory. Here's what Vietnamese scholar, Nguyen Khac Vien (1913-1997), had to say about that conflict:
"That Hitler's Germany could savagely attack the Soviet Union might be explained. But why should Washington vent its fury on this little country, Vietnam? In what way did our people threaten the vital interests of the United States? Why did 5 successive American presidents seek to crush us by any means possible? There can be only one answer to all these questions. American imperialism nurses vast designs, and its way to world hegemony passes through the conquest and subjugation of the third world. It so happened that Vietnam was giving a bad example by stubbornly refusing to allow itself to be dominated and assimilated, by being determined to preserve its integrity and independence. This black sheep, this alien element, this unfortunate pebble on the road, had to be eliminated at any cost. The best American brains - engineers, scientists, sociologists, economists, ethnologists, churchmen - were mobilized to this end. The Vietnamese people went through many trials: B52s, steel-pellet bombs, laser-guided bombs, election farces, tiger cages, operations Phoenix and Swan. Just think: two hundred billion dollars! And the most extraordinary thing of all is that it failed!" (Tradition & Revolution in Vietnam, Nguyen Khac Vien, 1974, p 3)
Now that got me thinking about Michael Lerner. Was the P plate rabbi back then sporting the paired flags of the United States and Vietnam on his lapel? If not, why not? Was he of the view that both sides were equally blameworthy/innocent? If not, why not? Was he preaching mutual compassion to both sides? If not, why not? Consistency demands it.
Monday, November 30, 2009
No Bull
When "the most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism" (aka Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan) met "a giant of contemporary Middle East politics" (aka Ehud Olmert) over lunch at Sydney's Circular Quay last week, he must have had quite an attack of the vapours, given the pheromones charging full tilt from the "balding lawyer with a modest paunch... dressed in jeans and black T-shirt with a Red Bull logo." (Olmert still dreams of peace, The Australian, 28/11/09)
Mind you, Mr Influential has always had a thing for giants, having previously described Suharto as an "authentic giant" and John Howard as a "giant in Australian foreign and security policy." (See my 29/1/08 post Greg Sheridan: In Praise of 'Great' Men)
"Olmert's term in office," Sheridan cooed, "is best remembered for the extensive negotiations, and final peace offer that he undertook with [that pygmy] Abbas."
Of these the Israeli giant said: "On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan... based on the following principles. One, there would be a territorial solution on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides." This, reports Sheridan, "would have allowed Israel to keep the biggest Jewish settlement blocks [sic] which are mainly now suburbs of Jerusalem, but would certainly have entailed other settlers having to leave Palestinian territory and relocate to Israel. In total, Olmert says, this would have involved Israel claiming about 6.4% of Palestinian territory in the West Bank."
OK then, let's get this straight: the mob that, contrary to international law, stormed into the West Bank in 1967 and has refused ever since to leave, in defiance of UN resolution 242, is now offering the West Bankers the deal of a lifetime. Hmm! That aside, the giant reckons his mob is/was now prepared to give it all back except for just 6.4% of the West Bank, consisting of settlement blocs "now suburbs of Jerusalem." Incredible! But... um... don't those settlement blocs - sorry - "suburbs" extend east almost to Jericho in the Jordan Valley, effectively cutting the West Bank (and the proposed Palestinian state) in two? And the West Bank? Does that come with or without the Jordan Valley? Or with or without the bits now west of the West Bank wall? Greg? Can you get back to us on this?
"No. 2 was the issue of Jerusalem... Jewish neighbourhoods would be under Jewish sovereignty. Arab neighbourhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state." Righto! So those Jewish settlements - sorry, "neighbourhoods" - ringing Palestinian East Jerusalem (Gilo, Har Homa, East Talpiot, Ramat Eshkol etc), wouldn't they sever said "Arab neighbourhoods" (the putative Palestinian "capital") from the West Bank? Greg? Can you get back to us on this?
"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees... I told [Abbas] I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for 5 years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1,000 per year." Run that past me again. Of the 5 million Palestinian refugees currently in exile beyond Israel's borders (wherever they may be at the moment), 5,000 get to return to their homes and lands. Greg? Are you there, Greg? But there's more to this giant than fabulous offers: "I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say that we are not indifferent to that suffering," he said solemnly.
Those pheromones were too much. Sheridan was clearly smitten: "Olmert is right to paint this offer as embodying the most extensive concessions, and the best deal, ever offered to the Palestinians by an Israeli leader."
And that Palestinian pygmy, Abbas? The Israeli giant, with pained look and shrug, could only lament, "He promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again."
Pearls before swine, obviously.
PS: While on the subject of Israeli pearls and Palestinian swine, you might like to check out my 13/11/09 post Mendes & Dyrenfurth's Win-Win Plan.
Mind you, Mr Influential has always had a thing for giants, having previously described Suharto as an "authentic giant" and John Howard as a "giant in Australian foreign and security policy." (See my 29/1/08 post Greg Sheridan: In Praise of 'Great' Men)
"Olmert's term in office," Sheridan cooed, "is best remembered for the extensive negotiations, and final peace offer that he undertook with [that pygmy] Abbas."
Of these the Israeli giant said: "On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan... based on the following principles. One, there would be a territorial solution on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides." This, reports Sheridan, "would have allowed Israel to keep the biggest Jewish settlement blocks [sic] which are mainly now suburbs of Jerusalem, but would certainly have entailed other settlers having to leave Palestinian territory and relocate to Israel. In total, Olmert says, this would have involved Israel claiming about 6.4% of Palestinian territory in the West Bank."
OK then, let's get this straight: the mob that, contrary to international law, stormed into the West Bank in 1967 and has refused ever since to leave, in defiance of UN resolution 242, is now offering the West Bankers the deal of a lifetime. Hmm! That aside, the giant reckons his mob is/was now prepared to give it all back except for just 6.4% of the West Bank, consisting of settlement blocs "now suburbs of Jerusalem." Incredible! But... um... don't those settlement blocs - sorry - "suburbs" extend east almost to Jericho in the Jordan Valley, effectively cutting the West Bank (and the proposed Palestinian state) in two? And the West Bank? Does that come with or without the Jordan Valley? Or with or without the bits now west of the West Bank wall? Greg? Can you get back to us on this?
"No. 2 was the issue of Jerusalem... Jewish neighbourhoods would be under Jewish sovereignty. Arab neighbourhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state." Righto! So those Jewish settlements - sorry, "neighbourhoods" - ringing Palestinian East Jerusalem (Gilo, Har Homa, East Talpiot, Ramat Eshkol etc), wouldn't they sever said "Arab neighbourhoods" (the putative Palestinian "capital") from the West Bank? Greg? Can you get back to us on this?
"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees... I told [Abbas] I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for 5 years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1,000 per year." Run that past me again. Of the 5 million Palestinian refugees currently in exile beyond Israel's borders (wherever they may be at the moment), 5,000 get to return to their homes and lands. Greg? Are you there, Greg? But there's more to this giant than fabulous offers: "I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say that we are not indifferent to that suffering," he said solemnly.
Those pheromones were too much. Sheridan was clearly smitten: "Olmert is right to paint this offer as embodying the most extensive concessions, and the best deal, ever offered to the Palestinians by an Israeli leader."
And that Palestinian pygmy, Abbas? The Israeli giant, with pained look and shrug, could only lament, "He promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again."
Pearls before swine, obviously.
PS: While on the subject of Israeli pearls and Palestinian swine, you might like to check out my 13/11/09 post Mendes & Dyrenfurth's Win-Win Plan.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Israel: Just Another Middle Eastern Autocracy
In a propaganda piece in today's Age, Isi Leibler (described as "a former leader of the Australian Jewish community who now lives in Israel") writes as follows: "Israel remains the only democracy in the region; 20% of its inhabitants are Arab citizens, who enjoy equality of rights, freedom of expression and elect their representatives to the Israeli parliament. By contrast, Israel's despotic neighbours are autocracies or dictatorships which deny freedom of religion and many other basic human rights." (Cowardly bias blights attitudes on Israel, 28/11/09)
This particular Zionist cliche is, of course, a staple in the mainstream media, and my earlier posts on the subject can be viewed by clicking on the relevant tag below.
Ilan Pappe, author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (among other titles) and currently the chair of history at Exeter University, tackles it head on in his insightful contribution (The Mukhabarat State of Israel) to the recently published anthology, Thinking Palestine (ed Ronit Lentin, 2008). Outta the way, Isi!:
"[The role of the Israeli army and secret service testify] that Israel [is] a mukhabarat state, a local Arab and Middle East variant of the oppressive state. Politically, the mukhabarat (secret service) state exists mostly within the Arab world (although there are similar states elsewhere). Such a state is characterized by an all -pervasive bureaucracy and ruled by military and security apparatuses (Entelis 2005). The variants of this model range from robust to liberal autocracies, and the span is wide enough to include Israel. What characterizes such states is the sustainability of their security establishment (the mukhabarat) in the face of internal challenges and external pressures. This sustainability is ensured by a strong connection to an outside power: 'the mukhabarat state cannot long endure, if it lacks the financial resources to pay its soldiers, purchase arms, upgrade equipment, maintain supplies, and acquire externally-gathered intelligence data' (Entelis 2005:1)... Readers versed in the critique of Israel are familiar with its depiction as 'an army with a state'. This is actually a common reference to the mukhabarat state of Algeria, about which it was written that 'every state has an army but in Algeria the army has a state', describing the deeply enmeshed linkage between the state and the security apparatuses (Bellin 2004: 144). This is not dissimilar to the bold attempt by several critical Israeli sociologists to define Israel as a militarist society (Ben-Eliazer 1995; Erlich 1987; Karmi & Rosenfeld 1989). The role of the army or security apparatuses in these studies appears to be... part of the state's foundation and raison d'etat... The [non-democratic founding] ideology and colonialist reality produced a state in which the army and security apparatuses reign not in exceptional circumstances, but as a rule. While the militaristic model mobilizes Jewish society, as a typical mukhabarat state it oppresses the Palestinian population... In Israel, martial law is the legal and political reality for almost all its Palestinian citizens at any given time, directly or indirectly. The authoritarian, rentier militaristic state of the Arab world is a model that better corresponds, historically and theoretically, with the state within the State of Israel: the state of the Palestinians within the Jewish state. However, as argued by others before me (see, eg Ram 1993), it is a hybrid with another model, the settler-colonial state, which can be presented as a mixture of an Arab post-colonial model and a colonialist model such as Apartheid South Africa... My argument is that the Israeli paradigm is a colonialist and post-colonialist mixture, a political outfit of a settler state ruling through a mukhabarat state."
Pappe charts in Israel's history an "escalating cycle which carries the potential to end the pretence and the false inclusion of Israel in the western democracy frame of analysis":
"The first wave was in 1948, leading to the rights to own land and water and to buy and sell land being denied to the Palestinians by law, as was the right for full citizenship. This was followed by discrimination in every aspect of life, while welfare, education and protection from abuse of the law were all practised systematically and efficiently but not legalized. The second wave was legislation through the imposition of the Emergency Regulations on the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967 that denied basic human and civil rights to the millions who lived there. It began with ethnically cleansing 300,000 Palestinians and then constructing the oppressive regime we are familiar with today. All this was achieved without undermining Israel's membership in the exclusive democratic club. The third wave... concerns greater Jerusalem, defined as one-third of the West Bank, where potential Palestinian citizens of Israel have lived since it was officially annexed to Israel in 1967. A set of municipal regulations, town planning ordinances and other municipal legislation enabled the ethnic cleaning of the 200,000 Palestinians who live there - an operation that needed time and has not yet been completed at the time of writing (40% have already been transferred; see report on East Jerusalem at btselem.org). And there is a fourth wave of legislation that began in 2001. A series of parliamentary initiatives led to new discriminatory laws, among them 'The Nation and Admittance to the Country Law' which disables any reunion of Palestinian couples living on either side of the Green Line and of families separated for whatever other reason. In practice it is a means of preventing the return to the homeland of any Palestinian who 'overstayed' abroad. Other laws institutionalized discrimination in the realms of welfare and education (including the secret service's right to determine the employment of school principals and teachers). And finally, there are the laws, already mentioned, equating opposition to the Jewishness of the state with treason." (pp 164 -168)
This particular Zionist cliche is, of course, a staple in the mainstream media, and my earlier posts on the subject can be viewed by clicking on the relevant tag below.
Ilan Pappe, author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (among other titles) and currently the chair of history at Exeter University, tackles it head on in his insightful contribution (The Mukhabarat State of Israel) to the recently published anthology, Thinking Palestine (ed Ronit Lentin, 2008). Outta the way, Isi!:
"[The role of the Israeli army and secret service testify] that Israel [is] a mukhabarat state, a local Arab and Middle East variant of the oppressive state. Politically, the mukhabarat (secret service) state exists mostly within the Arab world (although there are similar states elsewhere). Such a state is characterized by an all -pervasive bureaucracy and ruled by military and security apparatuses (Entelis 2005). The variants of this model range from robust to liberal autocracies, and the span is wide enough to include Israel. What characterizes such states is the sustainability of their security establishment (the mukhabarat) in the face of internal challenges and external pressures. This sustainability is ensured by a strong connection to an outside power: 'the mukhabarat state cannot long endure, if it lacks the financial resources to pay its soldiers, purchase arms, upgrade equipment, maintain supplies, and acquire externally-gathered intelligence data' (Entelis 2005:1)... Readers versed in the critique of Israel are familiar with its depiction as 'an army with a state'. This is actually a common reference to the mukhabarat state of Algeria, about which it was written that 'every state has an army but in Algeria the army has a state', describing the deeply enmeshed linkage between the state and the security apparatuses (Bellin 2004: 144). This is not dissimilar to the bold attempt by several critical Israeli sociologists to define Israel as a militarist society (Ben-Eliazer 1995; Erlich 1987; Karmi & Rosenfeld 1989). The role of the army or security apparatuses in these studies appears to be... part of the state's foundation and raison d'etat... The [non-democratic founding] ideology and colonialist reality produced a state in which the army and security apparatuses reign not in exceptional circumstances, but as a rule. While the militaristic model mobilizes Jewish society, as a typical mukhabarat state it oppresses the Palestinian population... In Israel, martial law is the legal and political reality for almost all its Palestinian citizens at any given time, directly or indirectly. The authoritarian, rentier militaristic state of the Arab world is a model that better corresponds, historically and theoretically, with the state within the State of Israel: the state of the Palestinians within the Jewish state. However, as argued by others before me (see, eg Ram 1993), it is a hybrid with another model, the settler-colonial state, which can be presented as a mixture of an Arab post-colonial model and a colonialist model such as Apartheid South Africa... My argument is that the Israeli paradigm is a colonialist and post-colonialist mixture, a political outfit of a settler state ruling through a mukhabarat state."
Pappe charts in Israel's history an "escalating cycle which carries the potential to end the pretence and the false inclusion of Israel in the western democracy frame of analysis":
"The first wave was in 1948, leading to the rights to own land and water and to buy and sell land being denied to the Palestinians by law, as was the right for full citizenship. This was followed by discrimination in every aspect of life, while welfare, education and protection from abuse of the law were all practised systematically and efficiently but not legalized. The second wave was legislation through the imposition of the Emergency Regulations on the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967 that denied basic human and civil rights to the millions who lived there. It began with ethnically cleansing 300,000 Palestinians and then constructing the oppressive regime we are familiar with today. All this was achieved without undermining Israel's membership in the exclusive democratic club. The third wave... concerns greater Jerusalem, defined as one-third of the West Bank, where potential Palestinian citizens of Israel have lived since it was officially annexed to Israel in 1967. A set of municipal regulations, town planning ordinances and other municipal legislation enabled the ethnic cleaning of the 200,000 Palestinians who live there - an operation that needed time and has not yet been completed at the time of writing (40% have already been transferred; see report on East Jerusalem at btselem.org). And there is a fourth wave of legislation that began in 2001. A series of parliamentary initiatives led to new discriminatory laws, among them 'The Nation and Admittance to the Country Law' which disables any reunion of Palestinian couples living on either side of the Green Line and of families separated for whatever other reason. In practice it is a means of preventing the return to the homeland of any Palestinian who 'overstayed' abroad. Other laws institutionalized discrimination in the realms of welfare and education (including the secret service's right to determine the employment of school principals and teachers). And finally, there are the laws, already mentioned, equating opposition to the Jewishness of the state with treason." (pp 164 -168)
Friday, November 27, 2009
Mosque Busters
Follow the thread:
"Yehuda Etzion was no less colorful. A student of the Elon Shvut Yeshiva, determined and zealous in his faith, he was among the 'professional settlers' during the first years of Gush Emunim, spending long periods on the hilltops, moving constantly from one to another. Etzion did his military service as a paramilitary yeshiva soldier in combat engineering, a unit that provided him with the training in explosives that he latter used in terror group activities. He was a partner to the first settlement attempt by the Elon Moreh nucleus in Samaria, in the spring of 1974, and was among those who were forcibly evacuated while Sharon was endeavoring to protect him with his own body and instructing the evacuating soldiers to refuse to obey orders. Afterward Etzion headed the work brigade out of which the settlement of Ofra grew. During the days of Camp David he took part in demonstrations all over the country and organized protest settlements. However, the failure of the settlement attempt at Rujaib near Nablus right after the signing of the Camp David agreements led him to cut himself off from Gush Emunim and to a period of isolation and thought. Settling the land no longer looked to him like the most important course of action. He set out to seek a 'personality of spiritual stature, who would put himself at the head of an initiative that would march the Jewish people toward the fulfillment of their destiny'. The books of his relative, Shabtai Ben-Dov, and the conversations he conducted with his friend Yeshua Ben Shushan gave him ideas about the ways of accelerating the process of the Redemption... When Etzion asked... Ben-Dov whether removing the Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount would start a dynamic of Redemption, the latter replied..., 'If you want to do a deed that will solve all of the problems of the Jewish people - do that!' Etzion and Ben Shushan turned for advice to Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook, the spiritual leader of Gush Emunim, and the rabbi directed them to Ariel Sharon." (Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007, Idith Zertal & Akiva Eldar, 2007, pp 81-82)
"The destruction of a mosque by Hindu radicals that led to some of the bloodiest religious riots in India since Partition was 'meticulously planned' by politicians including a former prime minister, according to a leaked report of the official investigation. The razing of the 16th-century Babri Mosque - in the northern town of Ayodhya, on December 6, 1992, by an estimated 150,000 Hindus - led to national violence in which about 2000 people died, mostly Muslims. The demolition also cemented the power base of the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power 4 years later. BJP hardliners had long claimed the mosque stood on the birthplace of Lord Rama, the Hindu warrior god, and had campaigned for a Hindu temple to be built on the site... Those [politicians] allegedly involved included former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee..." (Hindu MPs behind razing of mosque, Rhys Blakely, The Australian, 25/11/09)
"Ariel Sharon [was] the first Israeli prime minister to visit India since independence in 1947... During a dinner organised in his honour by his Indian counterpart, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, on September 9, Sharon reaffirmed his government's determination to 'act against terror'. Vajpayee said: 'Our defence cooperation rests on the foundation of mutual understanding of security concerns'. The spectacular blossoming of Israeli-Indian relations owes much to their joint perceptions of 'Islamic threats' in Kashmir and in Palestine. Long fascinated by Israel, the leaders of the nationalist Hindu Indian Peoples Party (BJP) decided in 1999, after a fresh wave of bloody clashes with Kashmiri guerillas... to call on Israeli expertise... The events of September 11, 2001, further boosted that cooperation, and the Indian prime minister's national security adviser... speaking earlier this year to the American Jewish Committee in Washington, argued in favour of a central axis consisting of the United States, Israel and India that would fight terrorism together. Israel is now India's second-largest arms supplier after Russia." (Sharon & Vajpayee see eye to eye on terror, Francoise Chipaux, Guardian Weekly, 18/9/03)
"Yehuda Etzion was no less colorful. A student of the Elon Shvut Yeshiva, determined and zealous in his faith, he was among the 'professional settlers' during the first years of Gush Emunim, spending long periods on the hilltops, moving constantly from one to another. Etzion did his military service as a paramilitary yeshiva soldier in combat engineering, a unit that provided him with the training in explosives that he latter used in terror group activities. He was a partner to the first settlement attempt by the Elon Moreh nucleus in Samaria, in the spring of 1974, and was among those who were forcibly evacuated while Sharon was endeavoring to protect him with his own body and instructing the evacuating soldiers to refuse to obey orders. Afterward Etzion headed the work brigade out of which the settlement of Ofra grew. During the days of Camp David he took part in demonstrations all over the country and organized protest settlements. However, the failure of the settlement attempt at Rujaib near Nablus right after the signing of the Camp David agreements led him to cut himself off from Gush Emunim and to a period of isolation and thought. Settling the land no longer looked to him like the most important course of action. He set out to seek a 'personality of spiritual stature, who would put himself at the head of an initiative that would march the Jewish people toward the fulfillment of their destiny'. The books of his relative, Shabtai Ben-Dov, and the conversations he conducted with his friend Yeshua Ben Shushan gave him ideas about the ways of accelerating the process of the Redemption... When Etzion asked... Ben-Dov whether removing the Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount would start a dynamic of Redemption, the latter replied..., 'If you want to do a deed that will solve all of the problems of the Jewish people - do that!' Etzion and Ben Shushan turned for advice to Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook, the spiritual leader of Gush Emunim, and the rabbi directed them to Ariel Sharon." (Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007, Idith Zertal & Akiva Eldar, 2007, pp 81-82)
"The destruction of a mosque by Hindu radicals that led to some of the bloodiest religious riots in India since Partition was 'meticulously planned' by politicians including a former prime minister, according to a leaked report of the official investigation. The razing of the 16th-century Babri Mosque - in the northern town of Ayodhya, on December 6, 1992, by an estimated 150,000 Hindus - led to national violence in which about 2000 people died, mostly Muslims. The demolition also cemented the power base of the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power 4 years later. BJP hardliners had long claimed the mosque stood on the birthplace of Lord Rama, the Hindu warrior god, and had campaigned for a Hindu temple to be built on the site... Those [politicians] allegedly involved included former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee..." (Hindu MPs behind razing of mosque, Rhys Blakely, The Australian, 25/11/09)
"Ariel Sharon [was] the first Israeli prime minister to visit India since independence in 1947... During a dinner organised in his honour by his Indian counterpart, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, on September 9, Sharon reaffirmed his government's determination to 'act against terror'. Vajpayee said: 'Our defence cooperation rests on the foundation of mutual understanding of security concerns'. The spectacular blossoming of Israeli-Indian relations owes much to their joint perceptions of 'Islamic threats' in Kashmir and in Palestine. Long fascinated by Israel, the leaders of the nationalist Hindu Indian Peoples Party (BJP) decided in 1999, after a fresh wave of bloody clashes with Kashmiri guerillas... to call on Israeli expertise... The events of September 11, 2001, further boosted that cooperation, and the Indian prime minister's national security adviser... speaking earlier this year to the American Jewish Committee in Washington, argued in favour of a central axis consisting of the United States, Israel and India that would fight terrorism together. Israel is now India's second-largest arms supplier after Russia." (Sharon & Vajpayee see eye to eye on terror, Francoise Chipaux, Guardian Weekly, 18/9/03)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
