Further to my thesis that Zionists (who routinely conflate Judaism with Zionism) really don't give a damn if right-wing nut jobs like Fraser Anning refer to Jews/the Holocaust/Hitler etc so long as they do Israel's bidding, here's Zionist ranter Michael Burd (Toorak, Vic) joining the dots for us on the letters page of yesterday's Australian:
"As the son of Holocaust survivors, I fully understand the meaning behind the term 'final solution'. In my view, Jewish community representatives have overreacted to Fraser Anning's use of this term, first because I am aware of his background and public support for the Jewish community. Some examples include lobbying for our government to stop funding alleged Palestinian terrorism and moving Australia's embassy to Israel's capital Jerusalem - hardly the actions of an anti-Semite."
And here's Australian-Palestinian activist Ali Kazak (Narrabundah, ACT) to remind us on the same letters page that the one and only target of Anning's speech is Australian Muslims:
"The main point in Fraser Anning's speech is his anti-Muslim racism. His use of 'final solution' was clearly related to Muslims, not to Jews or the Holocaust. For Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and others to twist Anning's words to avoid condemning his anti-Muslim bigotry and address this serious racism issue is appalling."
Showing posts with label Michael Burd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Burd. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2018
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Palestine Had No Chance
Prolific Zionist propagandist and scribbler Michael Burd - *sigh* - had the following letter published in yesterday's Australian under the incredible heading Palestine had its chance. In it, he seeks to divert the reader's attention from Israel's total contempt for international law and its serial violations of UN resolutions by trotting out the old Zionist saw that the Palestinians could have had a state of their own today if only they hadn't petulantly rejected the UN "umpire's decision" to divvy up Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1947:
"Israel basher Jake Lynch (Letters, 11/9) claims Israel's occupation is the obstacle to peace ignoring the reality that when Israel pulled out of Gaza, it was reciprocated with even more terror attacks by Palestinians - which certainly doesn't give Israelis the confidence to make any more concessions. Lynch likes to cite international law and UN resolutions when it suits him. How about the original UN resolution 181 in 1948 [sic: 1947] declaring one state for the Jews and one state for the Arabs which to this day has never been accepted by the Arab-Muslim world? Had this umpire's decision been accepted by the Arabs, the Palestinians would have had their state by now."
The oft-repeated lies of Zionist propagandists such as Burd on the subject of Resolution 181 are easily exposed. A good place to start is with political analyst Jeremy Hammond's 2010 essay, The Myth of the UN Creation of Israel.
Hammond's paper makes it abundantly clear why no Palestinian Arab in his right mind could possibly have accepted UN Resolution 181, arguably the most outrageous and disgraceful resolution in UN history. As an appetizer, here is the conclusion to Hammond's essay:
"The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7% of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for the purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews.
"The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to the alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government.
"The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.
"UN General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer.
"When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented.
"The US, Syria, and other member nations were correct in their observations that, while the Security Council did have the authority to declare a threat to the peace and authorize the use of force to deal with that and maintain or restore peace and security, it did not have any authority to implement by force a plan to partition Palestine contrary to the will of most of its inhabitants. Any attempt to usurp such authority by either the General Assembly or the Security Council would have been a prima facie violation of the Charters's founding principle of respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples, and thus null and void under international law.
"In sum, the popular claim that that the UN 'created' Israel is a myth, and Israel's own claim in its founding document that UN Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel's creation, or otherwise constituted 'recognition' by the UN of the 'right' of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right of self-determination, is a patent fraud.
"Further corollaries may be drawn. The disaster inflicted upon Palestine was not inevitable. The UN was created for the purpose of preventing such catastrophes. Yet it failed miserably to do so, on numerous counts. It failed in its duty to refer the legal questions of the claims to Palestine to the International Court of Justice, despite requests from member states to do so. It failed to use all means within its authority, including the use of armed forces, to maintain peace and prevent the war that was predicted would occur upon the termination of the Mandate. And most importantly, far from upholding its founding principles, the UN effectively acted to prevent the establishment of an independent and democratic state of Palestine, in direct violation of the principles of its own Charter. The consequences of these and other failures are still witnessed by the world today on a daily basis. Recognition of the grave injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people in this regard and dispelling such historical myths is essential if a way forward towards peace and reconciliation is to be found." (jeremyhammond.com)
"Israel basher Jake Lynch (Letters, 11/9) claims Israel's occupation is the obstacle to peace ignoring the reality that when Israel pulled out of Gaza, it was reciprocated with even more terror attacks by Palestinians - which certainly doesn't give Israelis the confidence to make any more concessions. Lynch likes to cite international law and UN resolutions when it suits him. How about the original UN resolution 181 in 1948 [sic: 1947] declaring one state for the Jews and one state for the Arabs which to this day has never been accepted by the Arab-Muslim world? Had this umpire's decision been accepted by the Arabs, the Palestinians would have had their state by now."
The oft-repeated lies of Zionist propagandists such as Burd on the subject of Resolution 181 are easily exposed. A good place to start is with political analyst Jeremy Hammond's 2010 essay, The Myth of the UN Creation of Israel.
Hammond's paper makes it abundantly clear why no Palestinian Arab in his right mind could possibly have accepted UN Resolution 181, arguably the most outrageous and disgraceful resolution in UN history. As an appetizer, here is the conclusion to Hammond's essay:
"The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7% of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for the purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews.
"The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to the alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government.
"The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.
"UN General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer.
"When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented.
"The US, Syria, and other member nations were correct in their observations that, while the Security Council did have the authority to declare a threat to the peace and authorize the use of force to deal with that and maintain or restore peace and security, it did not have any authority to implement by force a plan to partition Palestine contrary to the will of most of its inhabitants. Any attempt to usurp such authority by either the General Assembly or the Security Council would have been a prima facie violation of the Charters's founding principle of respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples, and thus null and void under international law.
"In sum, the popular claim that that the UN 'created' Israel is a myth, and Israel's own claim in its founding document that UN Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel's creation, or otherwise constituted 'recognition' by the UN of the 'right' of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right of self-determination, is a patent fraud.
"Further corollaries may be drawn. The disaster inflicted upon Palestine was not inevitable. The UN was created for the purpose of preventing such catastrophes. Yet it failed miserably to do so, on numerous counts. It failed in its duty to refer the legal questions of the claims to Palestine to the International Court of Justice, despite requests from member states to do so. It failed to use all means within its authority, including the use of armed forces, to maintain peace and prevent the war that was predicted would occur upon the termination of the Mandate. And most importantly, far from upholding its founding principles, the UN effectively acted to prevent the establishment of an independent and democratic state of Palestine, in direct violation of the principles of its own Charter. The consequences of these and other failures are still witnessed by the world today on a daily basis. Recognition of the grave injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people in this regard and dispelling such historical myths is essential if a way forward towards peace and reconciliation is to be found." (jeremyhammond.com)
Monday, March 10, 2014
Then There Were Two
There will soon be two openly Islamophobic parties operating in Australia. The first, of course, is Fred Nile's Christian Democrats - see my post Witches Brew 5 (7/10/11).
Here's the second:
"An anti-Islam party based on the hardline views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders plans to field candidates at the next federal election... Australian Liberty Alliance was registered as a not-for-profit business last month by Debbie Robinson, the president of the Q Society, an anti-Islam think tank that was responsible for bringing Mr Wilders to Australia last year." (Anti-Islam party to contest next election, Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 5/3/14)
An anti-Islam think tank?! Just imagine the conniptions in the ms media if someone were to set up an anti-Judaism or anti-Christianity 'think tank'?
The Q Society, BTW, has just held a Stop Islamization of Nations (SION) 'congress' in Melbourne:
I couldn't help but notice that its panelists included such luminaries as Pamela Geller (awarded the 'Queen Esther Award for Jewish Heroism' by the Creative Zionist Coalition in 2013); Robert Spencer (director of Jihad Watch, "a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center"); Dr Mordechai Kedar (ex-IDF Military Intelligence); and Michael Burd (described as "a passionate Zionist advocate and a critic of the Jewish community representatives' views on multiculturalism and asylum seekers") (See sionaustralia.com for the complete list.)
Maybe the congress should have been called Zap Islamization of Nations (ZION)?
Here's the second:
"An anti-Islam party based on the hardline views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders plans to field candidates at the next federal election... Australian Liberty Alliance was registered as a not-for-profit business last month by Debbie Robinson, the president of the Q Society, an anti-Islam think tank that was responsible for bringing Mr Wilders to Australia last year." (Anti-Islam party to contest next election, Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 5/3/14)
An anti-Islam think tank?! Just imagine the conniptions in the ms media if someone were to set up an anti-Judaism or anti-Christianity 'think tank'?
The Q Society, BTW, has just held a Stop Islamization of Nations (SION) 'congress' in Melbourne:
I couldn't help but notice that its panelists included such luminaries as Pamela Geller (awarded the 'Queen Esther Award for Jewish Heroism' by the Creative Zionist Coalition in 2013); Robert Spencer (director of Jihad Watch, "a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center"); Dr Mordechai Kedar (ex-IDF Military Intelligence); and Michael Burd (described as "a passionate Zionist advocate and a critic of the Jewish community representatives' views on multiculturalism and asylum seekers") (See sionaustralia.com for the complete list.)
Maybe the congress should have been called Zap Islamization of Nations (ZION)?
Monday, July 30, 2012
Good Refugees/Bad Refugees
There's something quite satisfying about deploying the historical record to expose the Zionist propagandists and scribblers who infest the ms media and rely on the general public's ignorance not to spot their lies and distortions.
Our scribbler this time around needs no introduction to those who follow these matters. Uber-Zionist and prolific letter writer, Michael Burd, is at it again, stoking community prejudices with yet another variation on his familiar good refugees/bad refugees theme: Jewish refugees of old good. Muslim refugees today - or illegal asylum seekers as Burd prefers to call them - bad.
Blessedly, I can spare you the entirety of Burd's latest letter. His bald assertions and groundless assumptions about those seeking entry to Australia by boat are best left to those more informed about the issue than I. I will say, however, that Burd's kind of honesty is at least preferred to that of Zionists who cloak their racism with an expressed 'concern' for every kind of refugee under the sun but one.
From the perspective of this blog, the first problem with Burd's letter is a relative bagatelle, really, but nonetheless of interest to afficionados of the Zionist propagandist's craft. The second, where Burd actually falsifies the historical record, unwittingly or not, is of more consequence:
"Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence uses the plight of World War II Jewish refugees (Humanity overboard, AJN 20/07) to advocate liberal treatment of recent illegal asylum seekers mainly from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories." (The Australian Jewish News, 27/7/12)
You'll note here the deliberate omission of the definite article before 'Palestinian territories'. Its inclusion, of course, would have resulted in an admission on Burd's part that the whole of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian. However, Burd will only grudge the Palestinians the scraps that haven't yet been encroached on by Jewish settlements, roads, army bases, military zones, checkpoints, and what have you - and even that probably only for propaganda purposes.
"It is inappropriate to compare the recent flow of illegal, predominantly economic asylum seekers, to the Jewish refugees genuinely fleeing Europe in the 1930s and '40s. Jews who were lucky enough to be allowed entry into Australia, did not bring with them any hatred of Germans, Poles or other Europeans who assisted the Nazi war machine. These Jewish refugees did not seek revenge nor did they bring with them any prejudice or intolerance." (ibid)
Unfortunately, the facts reveal otherwise. When Harold Holt, as Minister for Immigration in the post-war Menzies Government, proposed mass German immigration into Australia in the early 50s, the organised Jewish community was adamantly opposed, as the following extracts from The Sydney Jewish News illustrates:
"Australia is one of the few places on earth in need of people. Those who are coming to her shores now will decide her fate and future... But... we must have Germans, we are told. Why? Because they are most readily available. No wonder! Having plunged Europe into 4 successive wars within a 100 years and set the world ablaze in two world conflagrations within 25 years they are now ready to leave the ruins of their own making. But, who wants creators of ruins? Let us indulge in the unhappy visualisation of an Australia into which Germans have imported their talents for hate and national intolerance. Are we to see goose-stepping Australians, uniformed youngsters and the rule of the bludgeon and of the Secret Police, as might happen within 50 years of German mass immigration into this country?... Surely, we Jews (but particularly Jewish immigrants to Australia during the last 15 years) are experts on Germans and on Nazism." (Rabbi HM Sanger, 5/1/51)
"An Emergency Fund to meet the costs of a state wide campaign against the proposed mass migration of Germans to Australia was launched by Mr S Steigrad at last Tuesday's meeting of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies." (Board launches emergency fund to fight German migration, 19/1/51)
"The duty of refuge is a duty to the oppressed, not the oppressors. There can be no duty of asylum towards the murderers of millions of women and children, nor even to those who merely acquiesced in it. The 100,000 Germans who are to be brought out here were all content to live under a Nazi Government with a Nazi programme which openly advocated barbarity. True enough, many of them are miserable now. But this, with rare exceptions, is the misery of the frustrated 'Herrenvolk' and not of the repentant sinner... Even if by a miracle - and it would have to be a miracle - screening were 90% effective, Australia would still be honeycombed with 10,000 fanatically indoctrinated Nazis in 4 years." (Professor Julius Stone, 16/2/51)
"Organisers of the campaign against mass German immigration yesterday said that last Monday's overflow meeting in the Sydney Town Hall would swell public opposition against the Federal Government's immigration policy." (Packed Town Hall meeting seen as start of bigger anti-German migration campaign, 2/3/51)
These displays of prejudice and intolerance (for that is what they are) on the part of Sydney's Jewish community in the early 50s are at least understandable in the context of the Nazi genocide of the war years. Burd, however, has no such excuse for his particular displays of prejudice and intolerance.
Our scribbler this time around needs no introduction to those who follow these matters. Uber-Zionist and prolific letter writer, Michael Burd, is at it again, stoking community prejudices with yet another variation on his familiar good refugees/bad refugees theme: Jewish refugees of old good. Muslim refugees today - or illegal asylum seekers as Burd prefers to call them - bad.
Blessedly, I can spare you the entirety of Burd's latest letter. His bald assertions and groundless assumptions about those seeking entry to Australia by boat are best left to those more informed about the issue than I. I will say, however, that Burd's kind of honesty is at least preferred to that of Zionists who cloak their racism with an expressed 'concern' for every kind of refugee under the sun but one.
From the perspective of this blog, the first problem with Burd's letter is a relative bagatelle, really, but nonetheless of interest to afficionados of the Zionist propagandist's craft. The second, where Burd actually falsifies the historical record, unwittingly or not, is of more consequence:
"Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence uses the plight of World War II Jewish refugees (Humanity overboard, AJN 20/07) to advocate liberal treatment of recent illegal asylum seekers mainly from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories." (The Australian Jewish News, 27/7/12)
You'll note here the deliberate omission of the definite article before 'Palestinian territories'. Its inclusion, of course, would have resulted in an admission on Burd's part that the whole of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian. However, Burd will only grudge the Palestinians the scraps that haven't yet been encroached on by Jewish settlements, roads, army bases, military zones, checkpoints, and what have you - and even that probably only for propaganda purposes.
"It is inappropriate to compare the recent flow of illegal, predominantly economic asylum seekers, to the Jewish refugees genuinely fleeing Europe in the 1930s and '40s. Jews who were lucky enough to be allowed entry into Australia, did not bring with them any hatred of Germans, Poles or other Europeans who assisted the Nazi war machine. These Jewish refugees did not seek revenge nor did they bring with them any prejudice or intolerance." (ibid)
Unfortunately, the facts reveal otherwise. When Harold Holt, as Minister for Immigration in the post-war Menzies Government, proposed mass German immigration into Australia in the early 50s, the organised Jewish community was adamantly opposed, as the following extracts from The Sydney Jewish News illustrates:
"Australia is one of the few places on earth in need of people. Those who are coming to her shores now will decide her fate and future... But... we must have Germans, we are told. Why? Because they are most readily available. No wonder! Having plunged Europe into 4 successive wars within a 100 years and set the world ablaze in two world conflagrations within 25 years they are now ready to leave the ruins of their own making. But, who wants creators of ruins? Let us indulge in the unhappy visualisation of an Australia into which Germans have imported their talents for hate and national intolerance. Are we to see goose-stepping Australians, uniformed youngsters and the rule of the bludgeon and of the Secret Police, as might happen within 50 years of German mass immigration into this country?... Surely, we Jews (but particularly Jewish immigrants to Australia during the last 15 years) are experts on Germans and on Nazism." (Rabbi HM Sanger, 5/1/51)
"An Emergency Fund to meet the costs of a state wide campaign against the proposed mass migration of Germans to Australia was launched by Mr S Steigrad at last Tuesday's meeting of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies." (Board launches emergency fund to fight German migration, 19/1/51)
"The duty of refuge is a duty to the oppressed, not the oppressors. There can be no duty of asylum towards the murderers of millions of women and children, nor even to those who merely acquiesced in it. The 100,000 Germans who are to be brought out here were all content to live under a Nazi Government with a Nazi programme which openly advocated barbarity. True enough, many of them are miserable now. But this, with rare exceptions, is the misery of the frustrated 'Herrenvolk' and not of the repentant sinner... Even if by a miracle - and it would have to be a miracle - screening were 90% effective, Australia would still be honeycombed with 10,000 fanatically indoctrinated Nazis in 4 years." (Professor Julius Stone, 16/2/51)
"Organisers of the campaign against mass German immigration yesterday said that last Monday's overflow meeting in the Sydney Town Hall would swell public opposition against the Federal Government's immigration policy." (Packed Town Hall meeting seen as start of bigger anti-German migration campaign, 2/3/51)
These displays of prejudice and intolerance (for that is what they are) on the part of Sydney's Jewish community in the early 50s are at least understandable in the context of the Nazi genocide of the war years. Burd, however, has no such excuse for his particular displays of prejudice and intolerance.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Adjective Power
Every so often along comes a letter to the editor that, like LSD, takes the mind to places it's never been before. And here it is, as you'd expect, in today's Australian:
"Israel takes in all Jewish asylum-seekers and refugees no matter where from. It does this even though it is only one third the size of Tasmania and has no oil wealth and receives no subsidies from the UN or NGOs to cover the cost of resettlement. "Considering so many asylum-seekers come from Islamic countries and claim they are not coming to Australia for economic reasons, they could all be easily resettled in any one of the 57 Islamic countries including their transit points of Indonesia and Malaysia." Michael Burd, Toorak, Vic.
Take that opening sentence for example. It reveals with blinding clarity the sheer transformative power of a simple adjective, in this case 'Jewish'. Simply by qualifying the words 'asylum-seeker' and 'refugee' with the word 'Jewish', Mr Burd actually gets to fool some folks out there that Israel, whose major export since birth has been Palestinian refugees, not only inhabits the moral high ground when it comes to refugees, but is actually (especially with the additions of a) third-size-Tasmania, b) no-oil-wealth, and c) no-UN/NGO-subsidies) a shining example for places like Australia when it comes to the treatment of these unfortunate people.
Just think of the possibilities!
If only some defender of the Third Reich, all those decades ago, had marketed Nazi Germany as a taker of all Aryan asylum-seekers and refugees no matter where from, people might have overlooked the non-Aryans fleeing for their lives or languishing (and worse) in concentration camps.
If only some defender of apartheid South Africa had proclaimed that South Africa takes in all White supremacist asylum-seekers and refugees no matter where from, maybe no one would have noticed the legalised discrimination and casual brutality suffered by non-whites.
See what I mean? A simple, well-placed adjective and you're sure to fool at least some of the readers (or, seeing your letter's in The Australian, most probably all of its readers).
But there's more! Take the adjective 'Islamic' (which Mr Burd trots out in his second paragraph), for example. I had no idea before reading his mind-expanding letter that, simply because a country, perhaps by virtue of maybe having a simple Muslim majority, could be deemed Islamic, an asylum-seeker or refugee, whether true believer or no, could easily be resettled there.
Just imagine, as long as the receiving country is 'Islamic', then all other differences, ethnic, cultural and linguistic simply melt away. Our Muslim asylum-seeker/refugee could be equally easily resettled in Saudi Arabia, Mali or Turkmenistan. Likewise, whether your 'Islamic' country be filthy rich, dirt poor or somewhere in between, it simply wouldn't matter.
Think of the possibilities here. Tony Abbott, for example, could swim out to a boatload of Shiite Hazaras from Afghanistan, attach a rope, and with the other end held firmly in his clenched teeth, single-handedly tow them all the way to Sunni, nay Wahhabi, Saudi Arabia. End of problem. (Maybe end of Hazaras too.)
But there's more, and this is the real power of adjectives! By deploying such heavyweights as 'Jewish', 'Islamic', 'Christian' and so on (black, white, brown and yellow have sort of had their day), you get to foment, spread, hype or reinforce division along sectarian lines. You get to promote that wonderful Clash of Civilizations game that so many of the punters, especially those who read The Australian, love to play.
And, wonder of wonders, you get to drive home the concept and fact of a 'Jewish' state as natural and inevitable. Works a treat.
"Israel takes in all Jewish asylum-seekers and refugees no matter where from. It does this even though it is only one third the size of Tasmania and has no oil wealth and receives no subsidies from the UN or NGOs to cover the cost of resettlement. "Considering so many asylum-seekers come from Islamic countries and claim they are not coming to Australia for economic reasons, they could all be easily resettled in any one of the 57 Islamic countries including their transit points of Indonesia and Malaysia." Michael Burd, Toorak, Vic.
Take that opening sentence for example. It reveals with blinding clarity the sheer transformative power of a simple adjective, in this case 'Jewish'. Simply by qualifying the words 'asylum-seeker' and 'refugee' with the word 'Jewish', Mr Burd actually gets to fool some folks out there that Israel, whose major export since birth has been Palestinian refugees, not only inhabits the moral high ground when it comes to refugees, but is actually (especially with the additions of a) third-size-Tasmania, b) no-oil-wealth, and c) no-UN/NGO-subsidies) a shining example for places like Australia when it comes to the treatment of these unfortunate people.
Just think of the possibilities!
If only some defender of the Third Reich, all those decades ago, had marketed Nazi Germany as a taker of all Aryan asylum-seekers and refugees no matter where from, people might have overlooked the non-Aryans fleeing for their lives or languishing (and worse) in concentration camps.
If only some defender of apartheid South Africa had proclaimed that South Africa takes in all White supremacist asylum-seekers and refugees no matter where from, maybe no one would have noticed the legalised discrimination and casual brutality suffered by non-whites.
See what I mean? A simple, well-placed adjective and you're sure to fool at least some of the readers (or, seeing your letter's in The Australian, most probably all of its readers).
But there's more! Take the adjective 'Islamic' (which Mr Burd trots out in his second paragraph), for example. I had no idea before reading his mind-expanding letter that, simply because a country, perhaps by virtue of maybe having a simple Muslim majority, could be deemed Islamic, an asylum-seeker or refugee, whether true believer or no, could easily be resettled there.
Just imagine, as long as the receiving country is 'Islamic', then all other differences, ethnic, cultural and linguistic simply melt away. Our Muslim asylum-seeker/refugee could be equally easily resettled in Saudi Arabia, Mali or Turkmenistan. Likewise, whether your 'Islamic' country be filthy rich, dirt poor or somewhere in between, it simply wouldn't matter.
Think of the possibilities here. Tony Abbott, for example, could swim out to a boatload of Shiite Hazaras from Afghanistan, attach a rope, and with the other end held firmly in his clenched teeth, single-handedly tow them all the way to Sunni, nay Wahhabi, Saudi Arabia. End of problem. (Maybe end of Hazaras too.)
But there's more, and this is the real power of adjectives! By deploying such heavyweights as 'Jewish', 'Islamic', 'Christian' and so on (black, white, brown and yellow have sort of had their day), you get to foment, spread, hype or reinforce division along sectarian lines. You get to promote that wonderful Clash of Civilizations game that so many of the punters, especially those who read The Australian, love to play.
And, wonder of wonders, you get to drive home the concept and fact of a 'Jewish' state as natural and inevitable. Works a treat.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
A Better Class of Refugee
Don't you just love the emissions of uber-Zionist letter writer Michael Burd (Toorak)?
His latest erupted in Monday's Australian:
"Perhaps if the refugee and asylum-seekers particularly those from the Middle East/Africa would assimilate more, not bring with them their age-old hatred and prejudices that they claim they are fleeing Australians would be more sympathetic to their plight. The refugees who came to Australia in the 1940s, 50s and 60s and who came from Asia in the 70s - most fleeing war torn regions with little or no English and different cultures - were successfully integrated into Australian society." (12/4/10)
Michael's other favourite outlet is The Australian Jewish News, which recently highlighted another mob that's apparently finding it difficult to assimilate/integrate:
"The recent announcement that Chelsea Clinton, a Methodist, will marry Marc Mezvinsky, a Jew, caused some to rejoice, and others to weep. A few pointed out that mixed marriages in the Diaspora increased by 200% over the past 50 years, with one blogger going as far as to declare that, 'Chelsea will serve as a private gas chamber for Marc. After him, his family tree will be Judenrein [clean of Jews]... this wedding is really a funeral. Funerals don't make me happy'." (Making religion relevant, Dvir Abramovich, 26/2/10)
His latest erupted in Monday's Australian:
"Perhaps if the refugee and asylum-seekers particularly those from the Middle East/Africa would assimilate more, not bring with them their age-old hatred and prejudices that they claim they are fleeing Australians would be more sympathetic to their plight. The refugees who came to Australia in the 1940s, 50s and 60s and who came from Asia in the 70s - most fleeing war torn regions with little or no English and different cultures - were successfully integrated into Australian society." (12/4/10)
Michael's other favourite outlet is The Australian Jewish News, which recently highlighted another mob that's apparently finding it difficult to assimilate/integrate:
"The recent announcement that Chelsea Clinton, a Methodist, will marry Marc Mezvinsky, a Jew, caused some to rejoice, and others to weep. A few pointed out that mixed marriages in the Diaspora increased by 200% over the past 50 years, with one blogger going as far as to declare that, 'Chelsea will serve as a private gas chamber for Marc. After him, his family tree will be Judenrein [clean of Jews]... this wedding is really a funeral. Funerals don't make me happy'." (Making religion relevant, Dvir Abramovich, 26/2/10)
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Unsent Letters
Ever wanted to respond forthrightly - even directly - to some swinish letter or opinion piece but knew it'd be a case of casting pearls before some swine of a letters or opinion editor with a distinct inability to distinguish a sow's ear from a silk purse? Sows' ears such as the following, for example, each followed by a silk purse from yours truly:
"If it is indeed true that Mossad were able to find and dispose of Hamas terrorist leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, instead of the UK criticising Israel it should be asking Mossad to find and dispose of Osama bin Laden (Mossad suspected of forging passports, 18/2)." Michael Burd, Toorak, Vic (The Australian, 19/2/10)
Michael, your repeated and tiresome sniping on behalf of Israel always manages to miss the mark. 'Hamas tewworist leader' may have been all the go way back when, but following Israel's wilding in Gaza, and Justice Goldstone's finding that it was a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population," it's like sooo dated. And as for Mossad disposing of Osama, shouldn't they first clean up Israel - beginning with its war criminal leaders and ending with themselves?
"It is an unfashionable thing to say, but I have a considerable admiration for the Israeli way of doing things. They want something, they get it. They perceive someone as their deadly enemy, they kill them. They get hit, they hit back. They don't waste time explaining or justifying or agonising; nor do they allow their detractors to enter their country and then afford them generous welfare payments. They just act. No messing. No scruples. Not even a shrug and a denial, just a rather magnificent refusal to debate anything." (Mossad act beats box office fare, Melanie Reid, The Times/The Australian, 19/2/10)
Dear Melanie, as a spruiker for the thugs and assassins of an apartheid terror regime, simple solidarity with its victims dictates that I perceive you as my deadly enemy, and who better than yourself to know what that entails. So be warned - your time is up. And no, I won't waste time explaining, justifying or agonising over my decision, I'll just act, with no mess, no scruples, not even a shrug and a denial, just a magnificent refusal to debate anything. You do understand, don't you? [1]
"It's fantastic that the Dubai authorities are leaving no stone unturned in trying to figure out how a group of Israelis of varying ages and baldness was able to kill a terrorist on their soil. Perhaps when they have finished this, an investigation can commence into how a self-proclaimed murderer was able to freely travel there and procure Iranian arms under their noses. The passport fraud is the ultimate moral deflection." Dr Doron Samuell, Woollahra, NSW (The Australian, 20/2/10)
Hey Doc, wasn't that latest Mossad 'hit' in Dubai absolutely awesome! For doddering, balding, walking stick-wielding old codgers like us, a Mossad hit beats a shot of Viagra every time, right? Talk about the ultimate erection.
"If only, Geoff Saunders (Letters, February 19), Western intelligence operatives were as clever as Mossad. Then Saddam and Osama would have been 'hit' without nations going to war." Alice Khatchigian [2], Ryde (SMH, 20/2/10)
If only, Alice Khatchigian (Letters, February 20), Western intelligence operatives were as 'clever' as you and Mossad. Then nobody would be safe. Following Mossad's excellent example, in addition to your approved Israeli and Western assassins, just from Asia alone we might well have, say, Chinese, Sri Lankan [3], Burmese and North Korean assassins strutting their stuff in this country. Not even the streets of Ryde would be safe. Now wouldn't that be fun, Alice?
Now back to pigs. Pigs will fly if ever I see the following kind of root and branch analysis of Mossad in the ms Australian media [4]:
"Israel's policy of overseas assassination raises profound issues that threaten the basis of the modern state: sovereignty, rule of law and national and personal security. Israel has a publicly-stated policy of violating the sovereignty of any and all countries in order to kill its opponents. In both proclamation and actual practice, Israeli law, decrees and actions abroad supersede the laws and law enforcement agencies of any other nation. If Israel's policy becomes the common practice world-wide, we would enter a savage Hobbesian jungle in which individuals would be subject to the murderous intent of foreign assassination squads unrestrained by any law or accountable national authority. Each and every state could impose its own laws and cross national borders to murder other nations' citizens or residents with impunity. Israel's extraterritorial assassinations make a mockery of the very notion of national sovereignty. Extra-territorial secret police elimination of opponents was a common practice of the Nazi Gestapo, Stalin's GPU and Pinochet's DINA and has now become the sanctioned practice of the US 'Special Forces' and the CIA clandestine division. Such policies are the hallmark of totalitarian, dictatorial and imperialist states, which systematically trample on the sovereign rights of peoples. Israel's practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations, exemplified by the recent murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room, violates all the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings ordered by a state, mean its own secret police are judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner, unrestrained by sovereignty, law and the duty of nations to protect their citizens and visitors. Evidence, legal procedures, defense and cross examinations are obliterated in the process. Liquidation of opponents abroad is the logical next step after Israel's domestic show trials, based on the application of its racial laws and administrative detention decrees, which have dispossessed the Palestinian people and violated international laws. Mossad death squads operate directly under the Israeli Prime Minister (who personally approved the recent murder). The vast majority of Israelis proudly support these assassinations, especially when the killers escape detection and capture. The unfettered operation of foreign state-sponsored death squads, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations with impunity, is a serious threat to every critic, writer, political leader and civic activist who dares to criticize Israel." (Mossad's Murderous Reach: The Larger Political Issues, James Petras, intifada-palestine.com, 21/2/10)
[1] Sadly, the times being what they are, I hasten to add that this 'threat' is merely satire.
[2] Alice has recently become a favourite of the letters editors. See my 3/12/09 post Revolted.
[3] See my 20/10/09 post Exporting Zionism 2. [4] For an insight into what is curiously called 'quality Australian journalism' on this subject see my 8/2/10 post Disinformation Services.]
"If it is indeed true that Mossad were able to find and dispose of Hamas terrorist leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, instead of the UK criticising Israel it should be asking Mossad to find and dispose of Osama bin Laden (Mossad suspected of forging passports, 18/2)." Michael Burd, Toorak, Vic (The Australian, 19/2/10)
Michael, your repeated and tiresome sniping on behalf of Israel always manages to miss the mark. 'Hamas tewworist leader' may have been all the go way back when, but following Israel's wilding in Gaza, and Justice Goldstone's finding that it was a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population," it's like sooo dated. And as for Mossad disposing of Osama, shouldn't they first clean up Israel - beginning with its war criminal leaders and ending with themselves?
"It is an unfashionable thing to say, but I have a considerable admiration for the Israeli way of doing things. They want something, they get it. They perceive someone as their deadly enemy, they kill them. They get hit, they hit back. They don't waste time explaining or justifying or agonising; nor do they allow their detractors to enter their country and then afford them generous welfare payments. They just act. No messing. No scruples. Not even a shrug and a denial, just a rather magnificent refusal to debate anything." (Mossad act beats box office fare, Melanie Reid, The Times/The Australian, 19/2/10)
Dear Melanie, as a spruiker for the thugs and assassins of an apartheid terror regime, simple solidarity with its victims dictates that I perceive you as my deadly enemy, and who better than yourself to know what that entails. So be warned - your time is up. And no, I won't waste time explaining, justifying or agonising over my decision, I'll just act, with no mess, no scruples, not even a shrug and a denial, just a magnificent refusal to debate anything. You do understand, don't you? [1]
"It's fantastic that the Dubai authorities are leaving no stone unturned in trying to figure out how a group of Israelis of varying ages and baldness was able to kill a terrorist on their soil. Perhaps when they have finished this, an investigation can commence into how a self-proclaimed murderer was able to freely travel there and procure Iranian arms under their noses. The passport fraud is the ultimate moral deflection." Dr Doron Samuell, Woollahra, NSW (The Australian, 20/2/10)
Hey Doc, wasn't that latest Mossad 'hit' in Dubai absolutely awesome! For doddering, balding, walking stick-wielding old codgers like us, a Mossad hit beats a shot of Viagra every time, right? Talk about the ultimate erection.
"If only, Geoff Saunders (Letters, February 19), Western intelligence operatives were as clever as Mossad. Then Saddam and Osama would have been 'hit' without nations going to war." Alice Khatchigian [2], Ryde (SMH, 20/2/10)
If only, Alice Khatchigian (Letters, February 20), Western intelligence operatives were as 'clever' as you and Mossad. Then nobody would be safe. Following Mossad's excellent example, in addition to your approved Israeli and Western assassins, just from Asia alone we might well have, say, Chinese, Sri Lankan [3], Burmese and North Korean assassins strutting their stuff in this country. Not even the streets of Ryde would be safe. Now wouldn't that be fun, Alice?
Now back to pigs. Pigs will fly if ever I see the following kind of root and branch analysis of Mossad in the ms Australian media [4]:
"Israel's policy of overseas assassination raises profound issues that threaten the basis of the modern state: sovereignty, rule of law and national and personal security. Israel has a publicly-stated policy of violating the sovereignty of any and all countries in order to kill its opponents. In both proclamation and actual practice, Israeli law, decrees and actions abroad supersede the laws and law enforcement agencies of any other nation. If Israel's policy becomes the common practice world-wide, we would enter a savage Hobbesian jungle in which individuals would be subject to the murderous intent of foreign assassination squads unrestrained by any law or accountable national authority. Each and every state could impose its own laws and cross national borders to murder other nations' citizens or residents with impunity. Israel's extraterritorial assassinations make a mockery of the very notion of national sovereignty. Extra-territorial secret police elimination of opponents was a common practice of the Nazi Gestapo, Stalin's GPU and Pinochet's DINA and has now become the sanctioned practice of the US 'Special Forces' and the CIA clandestine division. Such policies are the hallmark of totalitarian, dictatorial and imperialist states, which systematically trample on the sovereign rights of peoples. Israel's practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations, exemplified by the recent murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room, violates all the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings ordered by a state, mean its own secret police are judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner, unrestrained by sovereignty, law and the duty of nations to protect their citizens and visitors. Evidence, legal procedures, defense and cross examinations are obliterated in the process. Liquidation of opponents abroad is the logical next step after Israel's domestic show trials, based on the application of its racial laws and administrative detention decrees, which have dispossessed the Palestinian people and violated international laws. Mossad death squads operate directly under the Israeli Prime Minister (who personally approved the recent murder). The vast majority of Israelis proudly support these assassinations, especially when the killers escape detection and capture. The unfettered operation of foreign state-sponsored death squads, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations with impunity, is a serious threat to every critic, writer, political leader and civic activist who dares to criticize Israel." (Mossad's Murderous Reach: The Larger Political Issues, James Petras, intifada-palestine.com, 21/2/10)
[1] Sadly, the times being what they are, I hasten to add that this 'threat' is merely satire.
[2] Alice has recently become a favourite of the letters editors. See my 3/12/09 post Revolted.
[3] See my 20/10/09 post Exporting Zionism 2. [4] For an insight into what is curiously called 'quality Australian journalism' on this subject see my 8/2/10 post Disinformation Services.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)