Mining companies, white supremacy, Zionism, neo-colonialism, libertarianism and education vouchers: The fascist programme to establish a racist, oppressive state that will wreck the planet

I wrote in my previous post that I am embarking on a journey, thanks to the sagacious commentator and academic, Dr. Mohan Dutta.  Although he is unaware of this, I am truly grateful for him showing me a new way and recognising that I may have been duped, for years, to be an instrument of dark forces, from overseas and paid for by mining and fossil fuel interests, who only want to make a profit exploiting others.

I said I had questions, and I do, as I have been deconstructing the network of connections that means libertarianism is actually a vehicle for fascist white-supremacy and neo-colonialism, including Zionism, which is a tool of not only apartheid, but allegedly genocide.  This is serious stuff and very confronting for anyone who has spent a good 25 years or so promoting libertarian ideas and politics, to be told that actually what you advocate for isn't more freedom, less government and getting the state out of people's lives, but rather a sinister strategy to facilitate takeover of society by mining and fossil fuel interests.  It's not advocacy for individual rights, but advocacy for racism and oppression of people.

I'm unsure what this really means for what form of government we should have, how laws should constrain freedom of speech, funding of political activities and the rights of mining and fossil fuel companies. I don't know what it means for foreign affairs, beyond ending diplomatic relations with Israel.  However, I do want to know, and I want to know whether everything I believed in is for naught, or if there are shreds of campaigning for individual freedom that are worth continuing with.

So here are some of my questions: 

1. Given Zionism is irredeemable (apartheid, settler-colonialism), do Jews have a right to self-determination as a people? If so, where? If not, what is it about them that denies them this right?  Are they not a nationality or race, but just a religion, or is it that they have a right to self-determination, but somewhere else? If so, where?

2. Does the right to self-determination on land where your ancestors once lived and governed, disappear if the people who moved there subsequently, and were part of empires that conquered that land, still have their descendants living on part of that land?  If so, does that not also apply to lands with generations of settlement of people who live on land previously occupied and governed by other people indigenous to that land?  How is this applied consistently in a principled way?

3. What makes "whiteness" a unique characteristic among racial groups globally? Does it apply to all ethnicities that are visibly "white", notwithstanding the diversity of languages, religions, histories, cultures and experiences?  If not, what is its essential nature? (I know there are books, but they are not all consistent). 

4. Is it possible to want individual freedom, small government and human beings interacting voluntarily without being part of a scheme to enrich mining and fossil fuel companies? 

5. Many declared white-supremacists are anti-semitic, and hate Jews as much as other races (such as the Nazis), what makes them different from the ones that are libertarian, who like Jews and hate Nazis, is this just internecine warfare between people who are similar, or something else?

6. Islamist militant groups universally use violence as a form of resistance and often expound racist rhetoric that is Islamic supremacist in nature. Where do they fit in, or am I misconstruing their otherwise heroic revolutionary acts of self-determination that are not to be interpreted under the lens of "whiteness"?

7. If libertarianism is fascist and white supremacist, are statist authoritarians (those advocating a very intrusive and dominant state role in the economy and society) anti-fascist and anti-racist? Or rather, is the solution to libertarian fascism and racism the adoption of a large government that has significant control over economic and social systems?

8. If education vouchers are a tool of white supremacy, does that mean that Sweden (a pioneer of educational vouchers) is a white-supremacist state?  Are all European states white supremacist? How do they avoid this?

9. Is Zionist backed white supremacy the most virulent and destructive ideological influence in the world today, or are there others? I gather the Hindutva moment is similar, as Dr Dutta has written much about it, but do other countries or cultures also promote similarly fascist ideologies? If so, what are they?

10. If the solution to Palestine is for Israel to be disbanded, should we even consider the future of Palestine at that point? What would happen to the Jews there?  Jews in most Arab countries have declined in number precipitously, is this something to be concerned about, or should we just not care what happens to the Zionists?

11.  What is the answer to Ukraine? Is this just white supremacists fighting each other? Should we all just let them fight and hope for peace? 

12. How should the international order be restructured for decolonisation and anti-racism? Presumably it means the US withdrawing globally, along with disbandment of NATO and an international order of the South having more power (excluding fascist Hindutva India).  Can we trust the People's Republic of China to lead a new peaceful world order, or will a multi-polar world just be more peaceful and just?  Does there need to be reparations paid by Western countries (and presumably Japan) to the South? How is consensus to achieve this to be reached to take such taxes from people in those countries? How do we avoid corruption in the South seeing such money accumulating in the hands of national elites?

13. Decolonisation should always exclude violence against civilians, but does that include what a post-colonial government does to civilians?  Some post-colonial governments have been brutal to the civilian population in implementing their policies (see Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Zaire/DRC), how should we respond to this?

14. Virtually all of South and Central America is dominated by people who are, by the definition applied to Aotearoa, Australia, Canada and the USA, settler-colonialists. How is this injustice to be addressed? Is resistance against these governments, from Mexico to Chile, justified? 

More questions will come no doubt

A Revelation

Happy New Year everyone. I was hoping for a break over Christmas and New Year, but I was busy. I had a Road to Damascus experience. I’ve been a libertarian for over 25 years, and having at different times been a member of ACT, Libertarianz (when it existed) the Taxpayers’ Union and the Free Speech Union, I had my own set of views, and I would happily express them. I expressed untramelled opposition to Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October, and expressed dismay and anger towards those who not just ignored it but seemed to celebrate it. However, I was naïve, I did not join the dots to understand fully what I was a part of, when I tweeted my opposition to a phrase published by a man I clearly misunderstood.  I would have gotten away with continuing this if it hadn’t been for the meddling Professor. 

What I wrote

By whom I mean the world-renowned expert in developing culturally-centered, community-based projects of social change, advocacy, and activism that articulate health as a human right, Dr Mohan Dutta, Dean’s Chair in Communication at Massey University.  Dr Dutta reminds me of Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics who became famous for his commitment to anti-imperialism and taking on global capitalism and those exaggerating or not understanding the context of emancipatory movements around the world, and the network of white supremacist, libertarian, Zionist, extractive industry funded pro-settler colonialist promoters opposing them. 

Dr Dutta caught me (and others part of this network) tweeting about him, and explained in some detail, (in over 5,000 words) on New Year’s Eve quite how it all works. In truth I am shocked and ashamed, because I didn’t quite realise the connections, but it is all clear now.   He wrote this article which I unreservedly defend his freedom of speech to produce.  I don't want him silenced, I want his views shared and of course with that he will have to defend his views, but that highlights them more.

See I thought when he said:

I was therefore not surprised to wake up today in the backdrop of what would be described as a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance and my expression of solidarity to it to angry and racist tweets by Giraud. 

He was supporting Hamas's attacks, but that oversimplified and falsely represented his views, and he opened my eyes.

I had thought that libertarian movements and groups domestically and overseas were simply people who believed that society’s problems were best resolved through voluntary human interaction, co-operation and trade, rather than through the use of coercion through government. I thought they were avowedly against the initiation of violence (violence only being approved in self-defence, and proportionately so), and that a belief in treating all humans as individuals based on their deeds and character was an ethical position to have. 

I did not realise I had been duped for so long by the world’s extractive industries (by which I take to be mining and fossil fuel extraction) seeking to make their fortunes through neo-colonialism.  You see those industries, which despite being only 12% of global GDP, exercise disproportionate power and control over governments and the public. They make money by imposing the white supremacist concept of “property rights” over land and by requiring white supremacy (even China is now doing this) to ensure labour in extractive industries is predominantly undertaken by ethnic minorities and seeks to ensure they remain impoverished. This is especially so in colonial-settler countries such as the United States and Australia, although official statistics in both countries indicate indigenous people in both countries form a tiny part of extractive industry employment, I haven’t done enough research to question Dr Dutta’s findings. He also notes the role of the tobacco industry, but I thought that was a tiny part of the global economy and not at all influential.

Extractive industries seek to promote both white supremacy (this includes the mining and fossil fuel businesses owned and managed from countries such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (all of South America is colonialist-settler based though)), because whiteness brings with it the concept of privatising property and human relations (I’m not sure quite how Marx, Engels and Lenin fit into this, all being white and seeking to abolish private property, and implement an idealised society without exploitation and where there would be equal provision for all, but again I am new to this). 

This is where I once was confused.  See I thought white supremacy was what was seen in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, UDI Rhodesia and the US Deep South, of course most European colonialism was a project led by a belief in superiority of the colonisers over the colonised. This changed after WW2, when most colonies became independent, and the horrors of the Holocaust shocked most of the world, and theories of race and eugenics were seen as immoral. A more classically liberal view of humanity emerged, with human rights of individuals, not limited by race, nationality, caste or sex.  

I was wrong, in fact the classical liberal/libertarian view of rights is white supremacy, not just because it was developed mostly by white people, but because treating people as individuals blanks out the oppression people experience and feel. I thought that because the Nazis ran a totalitarian state, the Apartheid regime had severe restrictions on freedom of speech and movement, and even the segregationist states of the US severely constrained private property rights, freedom of movement and speech, that a libertarian would be absolutely opposed to racism, let alone white supremacy.  Especially given the writings of ultra-nationalists and racial supremacist politicians and political parties always seem to promote strong, interventionist states with little tolerance for untrammelled free speech, legalising drugs, free trade, foreign investment and immigration. 

So libertarians are white supremacists funded by extractive capital, but it goes further. The global network of libertarians pushing school vouchers and school choice actually want only rich people’s children to be educated, and to sustain racial differences in educational outcomes (although I’m unsure if this includes the above-average performance of children from various Asian backgrounds in many countries, including the US and the UK, but Dr Dutta might have an answer for this).  School choice is a tool of white supremacy and colonialism.

Dr Dutta rightfully places the example of Equatorial Guinea, a country I know a bit about, as an example of colonialism exploit its resources, but I’m not clear whether the Franco regime instituting Macias Nguema was designed to exploit resources that it didn’t know existed at the time (fossil fuels) who then systematically slaughtered a third of the population.

What’s most sinister though is the links between white supremacy and Zionism. Zionism isn’t a project whereby the Jewish people (who I mistakenly thought lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years) have an independent state on their historic lands, after centuries of colonisation and imperial invasion, but is a settler-colonial project. Maybe Ken Livingstone got it right and the Nazis and the Zionists were in cahoots? Of course, I was first astonished that the people who suffered the first industrialised genocide in history, undertaken by a white supremacist government, could actually be called white supremacists themselves – but Dr Dutta says it is a colonial settler regime that engages in apartheid (I’m unsure whether the Arab members of the Knesset fit into apartheid, and where non-Jews are prevented from going within Israel, but who am I to judge?).  

This all comes back to what I first said. I thought when Dr Dutta after the Hamas pogrom saying it was “a powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance”, that saying it is a “resistance” means it was justified (is a resistance not justified ever?), and saying it was a “powerful exemplar” meant its meaning was powerful and it was an example, perhaps for others seeking decolonisation. 

He has since clarified that decolonisation “fundamentally critiques violence in any form carried out on civilian lives”, which infers condemning all forms of terrorism, which is a relief. No ethical person could possibly support what Hamas does to its own people, let alone Israelis.

I could go on, but the links Dr Dutta makes are clear:

Mining and fossil fuel companies seek exploitative profits and cheap labour.

To achieve this they promote idea of private property, freedom of speech (but they don’t like people criticising their ideas), school choice and small government.

This promotes white supremacy, because only white people benefit from these ideas.  Zionists are white supremacists as well, because like white supremacists that lead major Western countries (Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak – don’t let his name fool you into thinking he isn’t a tool of white supremacy), they want more settler colonialism.  They are colluding with the Free Speech Union to suppress the voices of Palestinian solidarity and to attack anti-racist concepts like Critical Race Theory and decolonisation – which proves how racist they are.

Libertarian organisations are funded by mining companies to promote policies for the expansion of genocidal white supremacist including Zionists, and will wreck the environment and exploiting non-white people.

I don’t want to be a part of that. Not just because I’ve not seen a dollar of money from extractive industries or the Atlas Network, but because I don’t want to be a part of an international ecosystem of misinformation that is about wrecking the planet, expanding colonialism and promoting white supremacy, that encourages Zionism (which is implementing genocide apparently). 

I thought the far-right were explicitly racist people wanting largely closed ultra-nationalist states that categorise people by race, with laws and money distributed by the state based on racial characteristics, and a heavy-handed state that suppresses speech, media and art it finds offensive, and hated Jews.

I was apparently wrong.

Dr Dutta has explained a lot, but I do have a lot of questions.  

Some questions for those protesting for Palestine

I'm frankly astonished at the scale, frequency and anger of protests held in solidarity for Palestinians in Gaza, which variously call for a ceasefire, call for "freedom" for Palestine and which variously accuse Israel of atrocities, using the language and statistics issued by the Gazan totalitarian theocrats. It is driven by a coalition of communists, socialists, Islamists, ethno-nationalists and many many hangers on who see this as the latest "socially just" cause. 

Few can be moved by the suffering of the people in Gaza under fire, both from Israel and Hamas's own rockets falling short, but also the relentless oppression of the Hamas death cult.  However, how many protesting for Gaza know Israel cleared Gaza of Jews 18 years ago and left it to the Palestinian Authority? How many know Egypt has full control over a border with Gaza? How many actually care and just think Israel (and by extension the USA and the entire Western World) are irredeemable evil "insert pejorative"?

I have more to write about this in the coming week or so, but for now, I thought I'd put forward a series of questions for those who protest.  Not that I expect any to read or care.

1. Do you think Israel has the right to exist? 

2. If so, do you recognise that right within the pre-1967 borders? If not those borders go to question 4.

3. If so, what is the right response of any sovereign state to being invaded by a group that engages in a sadistic slaughter of your people and takes hostages?

4. If Israel should not exist (or exist within smaller boundaries), what do you want done to the people in Israel who live within those boundaries? Where do you want them to go? How do you intend to evict them from their homes? 

5. What do you call a political organisation (in this case Hamas) that wants to eliminate another country and kill all the people from that country, and all those of the ethnic group associated with it?  Do you believe such an organisation, which actively engages in violent action to implement that approach, should be permitted to exist?

6. What do you call a political organisation (in this case Hamas) that wants a totalitarian theocracy, with zero tolerance for other religious beliefs, zero tolerance for other political beliefs, and wants an absolutist theocratic state?  Would you tolerate funding and arming of that organisation if it sought to do it in your own country?

7. Do you believe leaving a population to be under that sort of government to be giving them “freedom”? If so, do you think people of other races deserve far fewer personal freedoms if a majority of those people think that its ok?

8. Do you believe Hamas will miraculously abide by the ceasefire you are now calling for, when the last time it was under a ceasefire, it invaded Israel and slaughtered over 1,000 civilians? If so, why?

9. When Hamas next breaks a ceasefire, what should Israel do in response?  

10. When Hamas shelters underneath hospitals, schools and homes, and uses those shelters to prepare munitions, to plan further attacks and hold hostages? What should be the right response to it?

11. If Israel withdrew (again) from Gaza, and opened the sea and airspace to Hamas, do you think it would build Gaza into a city of peace and prosperity where Palestinians could thrive, or would it use it as a staging post to wage war against Israel? What has history taught about this since 2007?

12. If Israel withdrew from the West Bank unilaterally, and pulled out all of the settlements, do you think Fatah would build it into a state of peace and prosperity where Palestinians would thrive, or would it be used as a staging post to wage war against Israel? What has the experience of Gaza indicated is likely?

13. Why are you angrier and more agitated about Israel’s response to aggression, than the aggression in the first place? Are people who peacefully went about their lives at homes or at a concert, without terrorists living and planning attacks on Gaza less important than people peacefully going about their lives whilst terrorists use their territory to wage war?

14. Why are you angrier about Israel’s response to Hamas than Ukraine’s response to Russia, or Russia’s attack on Ukraine in a war that has claimed 500,000 lives, or Myanmar’s deportation of over 700,000 Rohingyas, or the barrel bombing and use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria, or the fleeing of 100,000 Armenias from Nagorno-Karabakh? 

15. What do you think of people who celebrated the Hamas attack, and called it a “powerful exemplar of decolonising resistance” and gave solidarity to it? Do you want to be in protests with these people, and giving succour to them?

16. What do you think of the many examples of explicitly anti-semitic attacks on random Jews and Jewish businesses and properties around the world, including in NZ, by people who are proclaiming solidarity with Palestinians? Does this not remind you of the actions of the Nazis? Does it concern you that your protests and cause is attracting people with such virulent hate to attack innocent people and their property? Or do you think that it is justified?

17. If you think attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets are justified in protest, do you think attacks on other foreign government targets, or on Muslims or people of other faiths and nationalities are justified, if a government engages in violent actions that harm innocent people?

Let's talk about international law, Hamas and Israel

Who is Natasha Hausdorff?

After a law degree at Oxford University and an LL.M. specialising in public international law, Natasha clerked for the President of the Supreme Court of Israel in Jerusalem, acquiring a particular insight into the Court’s application of international law. In 2018, as a Pegasus Scholar, Natasha was a Fellow at Columbia Law School in the National Security Law Program. She frequently lectures around the world on aspects of public international law and national security policy.

Natasha Hausdorff schooling the BBC

The tolerance for hatred from some MPs

Before I make my point I unfortunately feel it is important to make a few context points. I’m not a supporter of Netanyahu, I don’t believe in a greater Israel and I do hold the widespread view that there is only a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in peaceful co-existence, which necessitates two states on the land concerned.  Criticism of the Israeli government isn't anti-semitic, because millions of Israelis do it regularly. You might argue that believing Israel shouldn't exist is anti-semitic, and I don't hold that view, but it certainly rejects the idea that Jews are entitled to national self-determination, and for people who proclaim that this is a fundamental right, why should Jews be exempt from this, unless you think they are lesser? Israel is a thriving liberal democracy, it contains the full spectrum of views on the issues confronting it, from fundamentalists who are eliminationists about Palestinian Arabs, to radicals who question the very existence of Israel at all. This spectrum of opinion, assuming it exists, cannot be expressed in Gaza or the parts of the West Bank governed by the Palestinian Authority.  Not that this matters to purported supporters of Palestinians. This post is not about debating Israel vs. Palestine, it is about whether or not you can support Palestinian Arabs as a people, without supporting the fascist eliminationist theocratic death cult of Hamas at the same time.  I am fairly certain that most of those who believe the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong were not supporters of Japan's fascist imperial government.  However, it would appear that many Palestinian supporters find it difficult to separate them from Hamas.

What is important is the narrow band of opinion expressed by those who openly support the Palestinian Arabs in New Zealand and how silent they almost all have been since Hamas invaded Israel to murder and abduct hundreds of Israelis, who live peacefully on territory recognised by every New Zealand government as being justifiably Israel.

With the exception of the geriatric tankie John Minto, who has always been off to the far-left, the silence has been deafening.  Green list MP Golriz Ghahraman condemned the attack, but of course there is always a but… about how Israel responds. Apparently if citizens of a government are attacked, murdered and abducted, the key focus should be on “not overreacting”.  In itself it may seem fair, but it's immoral to not call for Hamas to cease glorifying killing and promoting Jew hatred, and comparing that to a military defending its citizens from attack.

Auckland Central Green MP Chloe Swarbrick and Green list MP Ricardo Menendez-March have kept silent, as has Wellington Central Green candidate Tamatha Paul.  Green list MP Teanau Tuiono and Labour Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb, both members of a Palestinian solidarity Facebook group that, before it locked down, contained rabidly anti-semitic rhetoric including Holocaust denial. 

Then we have the absurdity of Green co-leader Marama Davidson, in The Press debate claiming that if Hamas is to be declared a terrorist group, so should the Israeli Defence Forces. She grants moral equivalence between Islamofascists who call for eliminationist genocide of Jews worldwide, and the national military of a recognised sovereign state and member of the United Nations.  Even accepting, as I do, that the Israeli Defence Forces are far from angelic, Davidson’s comparison is telling – telling of either how absolutely batshit stupid she is, or how odious is her outlook on the world, and how terrifyingly she may see political violence carried out in the name of what she supports. 

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Te Pati Maori list MP has also engaged in “whataboutery” around all this. Again, there has been no statement from Te Pati Maori condemning Hamas, but this is a party which has a foreign policy of being “friends to all”, except apparently when one of its “friends” tries murdering another. It’s morally empty.

Bear in mind the Green Party and the Labour Party have both been vehement in their demands for tougher laws to ban “hate speech”, it’s curious how tolerant they are of their own MPs allying themselves with people who engage in expressions that would be caught by this.

I on the other hand am quite happy for them all to show who they ally themselves with and tolerate in their campaign for Palestinian rights, and who they don’t condemn, because it speaks volumes.

Contrast it to how the Green Party acted in response to Posie Parker and her rally in the debate on transgender rights.  No doubt her rallies attracted some people objectively from the “far-right”, but it was hardly dominated by it, but the approach of the Greens, and transgender rights lobbyists were to damn all of their critics as “Nazis” by association.  Curious how this doesn't, at all, apply when it comes to Green MPs associating with those backing Hamas.

Hamas, of course, has zero tolerance for transgender or anyone with sexual or gender diversity at all. Like all Islamists they are ultra-conservatives who treat women as chattels, who regard homosexuality as an aberration solved by death, but overall they are fascists. Hamas spreads wanton anti-semitic propaganda and teaches children in its schools to celebrate martyrdom and killing Jews. Nazis would find much of their literature to be familiar.

So when Green and Labour MPs who support Palestinian rights don’t simultaneously condemn, unreservedly, Hamas, its ideology and its actions, are they associating with Nazis too? Does parading their slogan (shared with Hezbollah from Lebanon, and shared with radical elements of Fatah on the West Bank) mean these Green MPs are Nazis? Or does the use of the term Nazis not apply when it is a cause you believe in, even though you share that cause with people who embrace and promote actual Nazi ideology.

You might wonder then why Palestinian supporters have not said what is actually a defensible position in favour of a better life for the Palestinians:

• Hamas is an evil fascist racist organisation that will not help Palestinians to be free, and its actions and ideology are condemned unreservedly;

• The only solution to the Palestinian conflict is for a peaceful settlement whereby there are two states that exist side-by-side with mutual respect for the existence of each other, and which promote tolerance and free exchange between peoples;

• Israel has the right to defend itself, and it has the right to do what it takes to free hostages, apprehend terrorists and destroy Hamas’s means to kill its people;

• Palestinians deserve a free homeland, and the civil and political rights we take for granted, and there should be international co-operation to promote this, to not support movements that desire to eliminate Israel and promote Jew hatred.

• Israel deserves to live in peace, and to ensure all those within its borders have equal civil and political rights, and that does not mean settlements on occupied territory or to implement a Greater Israel on the occupied territories.

If any MPs or candidates support Hamas, then we all deserve to know and act accordingly.  If any of them refuse to condemn Hamas, then consider how it would be to refuse to condemn the Christchurch shooter, or to refuse to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine (and Te Pati Maori and the Greens are a bit weak on that too). 

It's been a dereliction of the duty of most of the media to not ask these questions. You might ask why? The Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand published a press statement which did not condemn the actions of Hamas at all, but actually condemned those who called out Hamas. This is an organisation that gained much sympathy and publicity for its demand for tolerance after the Christchurch shooting, and rightfully so. Now it has been shown to be disgraceful sympathisers with Hamas, and as a result, sympathisers of hatred towards Jews.  

So we can now see, clear as day, what the moral compass is of those who claim to have a moral compass about human rights, about tolerance, about combating hatred and even about rights for LGBT people, and women.

It’s broken. Whoever you vote for, don’t vote for individuals who can’t condemn the gleeful murder of people, who promote a theocratic fascist state with no tolerance for dissent from Islamism, no tolerance for Jews, no tolerance for political dissent, and no tolerance for gay, lesbian or the transgender people the empty vessels of the Green Party and Te Pati Maori claim to care about. Their tolerance and their opposition to hatred doesn’t apply to Jews, Israelis or EVEN Palestinians, because they are happy for Palestinians to be led by a fascist racist homophobic misogynistic death cult.  That also means don't vote Green or Te Pati Maori.  We can be grateful that Hipkins DID condemn Hamas, as did Luxon, Seymour and Peters.

My biggest hope is that tomorrow the Palestinian rallies are tiny, and the scenes from Sydney, where a group was not just celebrating the murder of Israelis, but calling for genocide, are not repeated.  If those who are keen on the cause could just not do that...

The Islamofascist death cult of Hamas

The Palestinian Arabs got a raw deal from their leaders in 1948 when their neighbours decided the right response to the UK decolonising the Palestinian mandate by enabling the creation of Israel and a parallel Arab state was to oppose it.  You may or may not agree with the creation of the state of Israel, as an act of Jewish self-determination, but it was endorsed by the United Nations and has never been revoked.  For nearly twenty years neither Jordan nor Egypt, which held the Arab lands of Palestine enabled creation of a Palestinian state, indeed the concept of a "Palestinian homeland" was invented after 1967 - after the Six Day War when Jordan, Egypt and Syria tried to wipe Israel off the map - and each ended up losing territory to Israel.

It has all come a long way, in that Israel accepted Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, albeit with power over airspace, marine and land access, by removing Israeli settlements in Gaza and withdrawing completely in 2005.  This gave the Palestinian Authority a chance to choose peace, build trust with Israel, and as a first step towards Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank, with the prospect of a land for peace deal, whereby Israel and the Palestinian State would exchange land to provide Israel with easily defensible borders. Of course the issue of Jerusalem remained most difficult.

However Palestinians in Gaza did not choose peace, they chose to break away from the Palestinian Authority and give power to Hamas - an Islamist death cult that by any objective measure of standards on the political spectrum would be deemed to be ultra-nationalist far-right fascist ultra-traditionalists. 

Hamas wants an Islamist theocracy, with no tolerance for other or no religion, no tolerance for political plurality. It promotes martyrdom to children, it promotes traditional submisive roles for women, it promotes death to homosexuals and lesbians and it promotes death to Jews. Its ideal is a totalitarian state of obedience to radical Islamism. It is a death cult, that celebrates the death of innocent people.  They are nihilists who are antithetical to any sense of life, to any belief that individuals exist to pursue their own purposes, their own lives, their loves, passions, interests and joy.  Hamas is in opposition to the values of the Enlightenment and the values of any liberal open modern society, let along liberal democracy. 

Hamas are enemies of Palestinians, they don't want peace for Palestinians and certainly don't want peace for Israel, they want it destroyed. They don't want "Palestine to be free" anymore than Beijing wants Taiwan to be free, or Moscow wants Ukraine to be free. 

There is plenty of room for criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian occupied territories, and ultimately it will be right only when the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza can govern themselves in secular states with liberal democracy and no ability to wage war against their neighbours - and Israel respects their right to do so.  However, there will be no peace whilst Hamas thinks it is better to kill Israelis than to build an economy and society based on Palestinians producing, trading, living and thriving.  The most recent attack by Hamas was unprovoked, it has shown the vile horror of people who celebrate death and torture, of people who are the most vulnerable. By contrast you wont see the streets of Tel Aviv filled with people dragging women abducted from Gaza in horror.  That's the moral difference between a death cult and a society that has as base of human values. 

In the coming days we'll see who are the useful idiots to this death cult in New Zealand. John Minto is an obvious tan, but it was a surprise that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nanaia Mahuta issued her first statement which effectively called for both sides to stop:

"Aotearoa New Zealand is deeply concerned at the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Gaza. We call for the immediate cessation of violence. The protection of all civilians, and upholding of international humanitarian law is essential."

It blamed both sides. This was followed by a statement by PM Hipkins which condemned Hamas, followed by a similar statement by Mahuta. Does Nanaia Mahuta lack sympathy for Israel or have sympathy for Hamas? Or is she inept or does he just have a partisan advisor? We will probably never know. Both Christopher Luxon and David Seymour damned Hamas quite rightly alongside most of our allies, whereas the Greens condemned attacks on civilians, there are plenty of Green MPs who explicitly called out the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" - which is used by Hamas to mean wiping Israel off the map.  Meanwhile the clown show called the Wellington City Council voted recently for the city of broken sewers, crumbling library and town hall to become a sister city of Ramallah, which although under the authority of Fatah in the Palestinian Authority one-party state (not Hamas), is full of individuals cheering on attacks on Israel and the abduction of women and children.  That majority on Council includes the former Green Party Chief of Staff Tory Whanau - the Mayor - and the Green Party candidate for Wellington Central Tamatha Paul, who on recent polling stands a good chance of getting elected to Parliament by the Marxist morons in that electorate.

If you sympathise with Palestinians you will oppose Hamas. If you believe in individual freedom and human rights you'll oppose Hamas.  However, frankly, I have yet to see any semblance of an organisation set up by Palestinians that is actually about a relatively free open liberal democracy that resembles anything remotely like what exists in either Israel or other former dictatorships like Bulgaria or Georgia.

It would be wonderful for Palestine to be free, for there to be a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel, that shares trade, investment, employment and lives in peace side by side. Some Israelis don't want that, they want the Greater Israel of the full occupation. A lot more Palestinians don't want that, they want the Jews pushed into the sea.  

Golda Meir once said "We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us", unfortunately too many of them want their children to be martyrs, and too many useful idiots in the West are happy to support them doing it.

UPDATE:  By the way, those voting in Christchurch Central, Auckland Central, Palmerston North and Mt Albert might ask why their Labour (for Christchurch Central) and Greens (for the rest) candidates who are all so vocal about the Palestinian issue previously are keeping quiet now?  

Of course it isn't just voters in those electorates it is ALL electorates, who might ask why Labour tolerates Duncan Webb belonging to a Facebook group that openly cheers on Hamas and anti-semitic rhetoric, and the Greens tolerate Teanau Tuiono doing the same, and then Chloe Swarbrick, Ricardo Menendez-March and Golriz Ghahraman who all cheer on Palestinian liberation.  

But you should ask more loudly what each of them think of Hamas's actions.  What they think of Hamas? What they think Israel should do when Hamas invades Israeli territory, invades civilians' homes and abduct women and children? What should Israel do when Hamas mows down young people attending a concert in Israel?  Remember this is Israeli land, recognised internationally, not occupied territory, it isn't land that anyone other than Hamas, Iran and other radicals who oppose the existence of Israel think should become part of a Palestinian state.

So go on? Ask those candidates.  Ask ALL Labour and Green candidates what they think. Marama Davidson went on a flotilla to Gaza after all. 

Oh and if you think that some of them aren't sympathetic, then do wonder why several Australian Green MPs have explicitly shown their support for Hamas - and of course the Green Party of Aotearoa always cheers on its colleagues over the Tasman.

Does Russel Norman want Israel to disappear?

It's not clear, after all Russel Norman could just have been too quick to use the wrong language here but look at this:

"Palestine"...

...not Gaza (which Israel did withdraw from and Hamas subsequently used as a base to attack Israel - i.e. not occupied territories - the internationally recognised land of the state of Israel).  

.. not "the occupied territories" (which still respects a two state solution)...

but "Palestine", which implies the end of the state of Israel completely.  It is the Hamas solution.   Russel is wanting Israel to withdraw and disband according to that tweet.

but then this is contradictory:

So it looks like he accepts a state of Israel here, but how can we be sure?  His tone is so one-sided as to be virulently anti-Israel.  It's so evasive of the facts.

Israel withdrew from Gaza, completely.  

It dismantled Jewish settlements in their entirety, it told the Palestinians they could govern their own affairs. So they elected Hamas, which vowed to destroy Israel and institute an Islamist theocracy (and has not held an election since).  Hamas started shooting rockets into Israel, supplied by Iran (completely ignored in all of the "America arms Israel" rhetoric).  Israel imposed a blockade to stop the rockets getting into Gaza.

Cheering on religious theocracy

We should live in a Christian theocracy.

Those who are not Christians can live in peace, but the laws they live under will be Biblical.  However, Muslims shouldn't expect much tolerance, for they are the enemy.  They will be driven out and should not expect mercy for they have long been oppressors of Christians. 

Christians can expect punishment if they reject Christ.  They will be discriminated against in employment and education, and if they spread their atheist heresy, they face arrest.

Women will live in their proper God-specified roles.  They wont be allowed to wear any provocative clothing, and be chaperoned by their husbands, fathers or brothers before they meet the right man to marry and have children.  Some may aspire to careers, but the new regime will favour mothers first.  Deviants who are homosexuals or lesbians will be arrested.

All children will be taught bible studies and that the literal biblical view of history is true.  This will include learning about the oppressors from other religions.  They will learn about the glory of the crusades and that dying for Jesus is a sacrifice that God understands and glorifies.

Peace and human rights activists from other countries will protest against those who do not appreciate the beauty of our society.  They will march opposing the aggressors who regard our rocket attacks on their legally recognised territory as a provocation that deserves attacks on our own people.  For once we have driven our those heretics from their "state" we will reunite our peoples under the banner of God.

You see we want a society of peaceful respect for God's laws.  We will not tolerate blasphemy against God, and will imprison those creating images of God and Jesus that are offensive, or making offensive remarks about our beliefs.  We will ban photos, movies, TV programmes, music and internet websites that are contrary to the teachings of the Bible.  We will ensure women know their place, and good Holy men are in charge of our government, our courts, our prisons and our schools.   We will ensure elections and democracy do not compromise our land of God, and ensure always there are governments under the guidance of the Bible, which we will consider to be a document alongside the constitution.

We are heartened by global peace activists and human rights activists who support us, in spite of our obvious differences in what we think are human rights.  We think women's place is specified by holy scripture, they let women be harlots and arrogantly think they can rule, or lead men.   We think homosexuals are filthy abominations, yet there are plenty of them supporting us.  We think atheists need re-education and help to find God, but many of them are atheists too.

Still, we are thrilled that the activists of the new-left peace movements across many countries don't think their heretical world view should be imposed upon our people.  Their solidarity with us, emboldens us to fire more rockets at the heathens, sacrifice more of our people for God and demonstrates to our people how righteous it is for us to defend and seek to expand our theocracy, God Willing, throughout our lands to the north and east.   They know that there cannot be peace unless others submit to the word of God, and we trust that when our friends and allies come to their lands, they too will call for understanding and dialogue, rather than oppression of our world view.

Their moral relativism, whereby the so-called "rights" of "religious freedom", "sexual equality" "gay rights" and "freedom of speech" they argue for, are not deemed applicable to our people, is perplexing, but I will leave it to my brothers in their lands to argue the soundness of absolute adherence to the Bible against the moral depravity seen in their lands.

We are willing to sacrifice men, women and children for our state of God, we are always glad to get support from others who will cheer on when our theocracy is complete, God Willing.

PS: Does all this mean there isn't a deep sense of horror and despair at what has been happening in Gaza? Of course not.   Does it mean unwavering support for Israel's policy towards the Palestinians?  No.  What it is, is a belief that they deserve freedom and basic individual rights too.  The worshippers of the death cult of Islamism not only lead away from that, but they want to bring us all down with them.

Gaza could have chosen peace but no

You'll see lots of reports of the destruction in Gaza from the BBC and CNN and other "well-balanced" Western news networks, you might wonder about what's been going on in the other direction...

Just 115 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel - that's Israel proper, the part that Palestinians usually cite as not being occupied, in one day.

The difference is that Gaza's weapons are poorer technology and less well targeted than Israel's.

You see Palestinians in Gaza, not in the West Bank (where they are governed by Fatah, which officially recognises the state of Israel and has explicitly renounced terrorism), have chosen to wage war against Israel - which withdraw from Gaza, including dismantling all Jewish settlements.

They could have set up a free trade zone, offering to make it the Dubai on the Mediterranean, seeking its port to be a gateway to a trading hub, because they have the potential.  It could have become a sliver of land of prosperity and peace, and been an example to prove to Israel that Palestinians can shed the image of being worshippers of death, accelerating the day that Israel does grant them statehood over the Gaza and a negotiated portion of the West Bank.

No.  That was too hard.

Something else Israel's neighbours wont allow

This post, criticising some of Netanyahu's speech, in a major Israeli newspaper.

You see, the only permitted press in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, or indeed most of Israel's neighbours (Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon far less so), would not contemplate printing a column being profoundly critical of an address made by their political leader.

It shows that there IS real debate within Israel about such things as whether the IDF acting excessively or not against Hamas in Gaza, and noting some of the treatment of Palestinian protestors.

What struck me was not the criticisms themselves, but that Israel, unlike its neighbours, has a vibrant civil society, open press and has the sorts of debates that we take for granted in the western world. The sorts of debates that are more difficult to have in other states in the Middle East, or banned in the case of Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

In other words, Israel's enemies fear their own people turning on them, which says volumes about their own legitimacy.

Iran or Israel, how are they equals?

I fully agree with the sentiments of Not PC on the simply brilliant speech by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The video is here (in 4 parts)

However, the text is here.

He refutes the ridiculous Holocaust denial claims of the dictator buffoon Ahmadinejad, he describes the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran correctly as follows:

"Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

He points out the wonder of human achievement, the application of free minds to the world:

"The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet."

He describes how Israel withdrew, unilaterally from Gaza, in the hope it would bring the advancement of peace but:

"In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent."

Meanwhile, far too many think Iran can't be pursuing nuclear weapons, or if it is, it is "ok", because Israel has them. Israel has had them for some years, but hasn't threatened to ever use them, except in retaliation for use against Israel. Iran's recent military coup and election rigging is "ok", because after all, it has to be better than the USA, what with George Bush invading Iraq (another "legitimate" state perhaps) and Afghanistan. The very same cover their eyes when told of the execution of political prisoners in Iran, the second highest execution rate in the world after China, and ignore the execution of homosexuals or minors for sex crimes - being consensual sex. The very same people ignore the persecution of those who want to choose to reject Islam, and ignore the systematic oppression of free press and media.

The same who claim to give a damn about freedom of speech, about womens' rights, supporting gay and lesbian rights, but are happy to let Iranians live with none of the above.

It reminds me of the wilful blindness of the old left who wanted to "listen" to the men who rewarded snipers who shot desperate East Germans trying to cross the Berlin Wall, or "understand" what Nicolae Ceausescu's new way for Romania, without Soviet troops, or recognise the advantages that the Soviet Union brought for education, employment and in housing. The same lickspittles and sycophants who regard Western claims of militarism and human rights abuses with disdain, so denying the victims of dictatorial regimes the legitimacy of their experiences.

In which case I say this.

If you think Iran has a legitimate government with rights, then why do you not endorse a similar government for your own country? If it is good enough for Iranians to get political candidates chosen for them by a theocratic council, to have election results gerrymandered by the incumbent, for political protests to be put down by a state security agency that arrests and imprisons, for newspapers, radio and TV to be fully state controlled to prevent messages "unwelcome" to the regime being distributed, and for bloggers and others online to be persecuted and arrested for criticising the regime, then why not for YOUR country?

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to acquire nuclear weapons, then presumably you embrace widespread nuclear proliferation.

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to call for Israel to be erased from the map, then presumably you think so too. So go on, explain how you'd propose that be achieved? Explain how little bloodshed that would entail and how that would promote freedom, human rights and secularism in the Middle East? How would it be compatible with your opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

Hamas kids TV praises suicide bombing mother

CNN reports that al Aqsa TV (run by Hamas) has broadcast a children's show (Tomorrow's Pioneers) where it glorifies that a mother blowing herself up in a suicide bombing is doing more for her children than anything else. It is designed to convince children that if their mother gets ready for such a "mission" then it is for their good. In other words, Hamas is promoting a death cult to children.

None of this is new. Al Aqsa TV has used this childrens' programme variously to promote "wiping out the Jews" and promoting martyrdom as a good thing for children.

Want a summary of the episodes? Try this Wiki article, and see for yourself how to have childrens' programming that worships death, murder and suicide. Think how much this puts back any efforts at peace with Israel, and why so many Israelis think so little of Palestinians when some of them elect these sorts of people to government.

Prepared to treat Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent still?

Obama to Muslims: We share common principles

There was some criticism of President Obama choosing Egypt rather than Indonesia for his speech to the Muslim world. Indonesia has a thriving (and recently formed) open fairly liberal democracy with a free press – notwithstanding decades of US support for the Suharto autocracy. It is a far more welcoming example of a country with a high Muslim population than Egypt. Egypt by contrast is a dictatorship, admittedly with much more personal freedom than many countries in the Middle East, it is still dominated by one man, who does not tolerate much questioning of his rule.

So going to Egypt to talk to the Muslim world was perhaps a mistake. However, it is the largest Arab state, the third biggest recipient of US aid, and the first Arab state to make peace with Israel – albeit that relations remain frosty.

So what did he say? His speech in full is here, but overall I found it disappointing, with some flashes of inspiration.

There is some which is positive, reaffirming the alliance with Israel, damning those who would deny the Holocaust, criticising Israel’s continued construction of settlements on the West Bank. He talked openly about the rights Muslims have in the USA, and how their rights to freedom of worship are protected. This was a positive message, one not made often enough in the censored world of much media in the autocracies than control most of the Muslim world.

He made it clear that the USA will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.” A critical point, but there are sadly more than enough of all faiths who believe in killing innocent men, women and children, and faiths who believe no one is innocent – Islamists who happily seek to murder any in the name of jihad or those Christians who think everyone is a sinner.

He clearly tried to reach out to moderate Islam by claiming “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” Yet surely without Islam, Al Qaeda would not exist, Hamas would not exist, in fact terrorism would be confined to far more localised actions and not united by a religion that can be used to justify waging war on non-believers. Afghanistan would be far safer if it was full of objectivists, for example! If the US is to promote peace it can do no better than to promote respect for individual rights, and to let Islam wither.

However, while Obama sought a new beginning, talking of ending a “cycle of suspicion and discord”, some of the language he uses is a cause for concern.

He wants to “fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”, which begs some obvious questions:
1. What is a negative stereotype, compared to a negative fact – i.e. when Islamic regimes employ violence against their own citizens for matters that should be free will, such as apostasy, criticising Islam, homosexuality? Who decides what is a stereotype and what isn't?
2. How does this fit in with the fundamental right of free speech in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Can nobody poke fun at Islam anymore? What of negative stereotypes of atheists or those of other religions?

Obama suggested that there needed to be mutual respect. Indeed there does, between individuals, and by governments of individuals. However, will Muslim states even allow people to promote other religions, eliminate apostasy as a crime and allow the promotion of atheism?

The mutual respect he calls for is based on “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings”. Whoa hold on a minute. “America” as a political/philosophical concept is embodied in one document – the Constitution of the United States. “Islam” is embodied in the Koran, how DO they overlap?

What of those common principles? Well you can say the USA was founded to achieve justice, but the philosophical basis underpinning justice is what is important - justice in the concept of fundamental freedoms, not submission to a deity. Something that Obama carefully sidestepped away from.

The United States is based on the premise that government does not exist for God, or the rulers, but as an instrument of the people. That government exists to protect their rights, and explicitly guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, association, religion, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to jury trial etc. etc. The fundamental underpinnings of government that protects individual rights, and has a superstructure of separation of powers, liberal democracy and government to serve the people.

Islam, the very word, has its roots in the Arabic word Aslama, meaning to “submit”. Islam demands individual submission, the USA demands the state be submissive to the rights of the individual. How different could you be?

Yes, it is possible to distil elements of Islam that would be seen compatible with individual rights, it is easy to acknowledge that in the USA Muslims are free to live their personal lives compatible with Islam, as long as they respect others to do the same. However, beyond that Islam and secular individualism ARE in competition, it is quite naive to suggest that a secular government protecting individual rights (the idea of the USA) can be compatible with an Islamic government demanding submission to Islamic law.

Obama may have been better to suggest that the values expounded by the USA are universal, apply to all individuals, and that they allow Muslims to practice their religion, and promote it, as long as they respect others to do the same. Indeed, relatively secular Egypt is in some respects a partial example. One can be Christian or atheist in Egypt relatively easily, although the law still has some elements of Sharia, and by no means is one free to criticise the government openly.

On Iran he simply wanted it to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but also talked about the abolition of nuclear weapons. Without context to that, it is a meaningless concept – and for me that context is one where all countries relate to each other more like western countries do, where the idea of military action of any kind between each other is inconceivable.

He appeared supported democracy in a more optimistic way than I would have expected “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” The freedom to live as you choose is the closest he has got to yet on individual rights, which is more than democracy – something that should be welcomed.

As is his belief that “we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.” Although what respect means is obviously a bit unclear, and sadly his further statements don’t help “No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.” Respecting the rights of minorities is NOT respecting the rights of individuals, and a spirit of compromise when it comes to individual rights is hardly tolerable. Besides, every dictatorship in recent history has talked of the interests of the people. Russia would meet this standard, and even China may claim power through consent and happily claim the rest to be true.

His words on faiths bringing people together are relatively benign, and he encouraged women having rights, which in Egypt they do have more than most states in the Middle East.

Overall, his message was clearly intended to be one of goodwill, but it falls far short of promoting the idea that Islam should only exist within a framework of individual rights. He is badly mistaken to claim overlaps between the USA and Islam, but more disturbingly to want to fight negative stereotypes about Islam – he is effectively endorsing laws to harass Danish cartoon makers, for example. His view of democracy gave enormous room to move to allow for continued repression of individual rights, as he talked only of rights for minorities – which of course can be defined by governments themselves. So the verdict? Not hopeless, but maybe 4 out of 10. Clear messages on Israel, against Holocaust denial, against terrorism and alluding to freedom are welcome, along with clarity on what rights Muslims have in the USA, but he did not have the courage to explain what the USA is about – nor did he expound democracy as being besides the point if fundamental individual rights are not respected.

Is it that Obama does not understand what the US is about, or does he simply lack the courage to explain it?

Abbas should intervene over Palestinian death sentence

Whaleoil reports on a man issued the death penalty by a Palestinian Authority military court for selling land to a Jew. He has also had all his property confiscated.

Reason? It breaches Palestinians "laws" dating back to 1953 (what country was that then?) than include bans on trade with Israelis, a trade embargo with Israel and banning selling land to Jews.

He has no right of appeal

The death penalty must be confirmed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, hopefully President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will give him a short phone call to confirm this.

Iran's benign proxy?

Leave it to Trevor Loudon to post to remind us how an Imam from Hamas calls for extermination of all Jews.

Then wonder why, with this rhetoric, Israelis and Jews generally should "get over" the Holocaust, as so many leftwing commentators say.

While Palestinians support the likes of this, is it any wonder Israel wont compromise?

Oh and Iran funds and arms Hamas. However, you never hear calls for Iran to end its imperialist ambitions do you?

Amnesty silent over Hamas encouraging child martyrs

So Amnesty International, once a proud defender of free speech, the right to a fair trial and an open liberal society is now calling for an arms embargo on Israel and Hamas. It calls the rocket attacks by Hamas, and Israel's overwhelming response both illegal and immoral.

The fact Hamas started it is, of course, besides the point.

However, what particularly grates is the political imperative behind Amnesty in making this call. It knows it will go nowhere, primarily because the US wont isolate Israel. Imagine if Israel DID suffer an arms embargo. Might that embolden Iran? Which wants Israel wiped off the map, and is developing a nuclear weapons capability. No, Amnesty is silent about that. Wouldn't Hezbollah then start attacks? No, Amnesty doesn't care about that. Idiot Savant thinks it would help. It's incredibly naive to think that. Hamas is fundamentally evil, it should send shivers through the bones of any liberal minded person in the West to think of such people gaining power - much like neo-Nazis. Sadly, the left just sees someone fighting Israel and turns a blind eye.

More importantly, has Amnesty raised concerns about how Hamas encourages children to be martyrs?



No. Amnesty KNOWS the debate wont be about isolating Hamas and Hezbollah, two organisations that if they ever got into power would be egregious violators of human rights. They would oppress non-Muslims, they would discriminate against women, and brutally suppress non-Islamist politicians, media or speech. Amnesty wont say that.

So fuck them. I'll tell the next naive student who asks me to support Amnesty that I wont as long as it refuses to campaign against Islamism, and while we are at it, it remains next to silent about North Korea's gulags which enslave children.

Israel votes for security

Well despite Tzipi Livni’s claim of victory, it is unlikely she can form a coalition government, as without the Likud party she can’t get a majority together (assuming those parties more conservative than the Likud reject her). It is more likely that Binjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party will form a coalition with the conservative and religious parties. It is a damning indictment of the Labor Party to slip into fourth.

However, why did Israelis move to the right? Well it is about security. The rocket attacks from Gaza tired many, and they damned Labor for its incompetence, although Kadima got credit for confronting Hamas directly. There is also the Obama factor.

With Obama talking of change and talking to Iran (which has called for Israel’s destruction), Israelis fear insecurity and the US pushing for concessions to Israel’s enemies. So they vote for the parties most willing to take a hardline against the Palestinian political parties and Israel’s enemies.

Parties like Yisrael Beitenu, which calls for the boundaries of Israel to be redrawn to effectively evict most Israeli Arab citizens and include Jews in West Bank settlements. Shas wants Israel governed by Jewish religious law.

So the challenge for the Obama Administration is how to deal with Netanyahu, who has called for an “economic peace” before a political peace. In others words, encouraging Palestinian economic activity, trade and development, ahead of deciding the political status of the occupied territories. This was to give Palestinians a better life and a stake in peace, before negotiating peace. However, he also supports expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which is hardly going to engender support among Palestinians who see Netanyahu as a man who has in the past supported a Greater Israel, and opposition to any Palestinian state.

The sad tension of Israel is that it is a country based on ethnicity, targeted by religious fundamentalist Arabs, and needs security from them. Meanwhile its own religious fundamentalist Jews gleefully treat Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as second class citizens. The more secular Israel can be the better it will be for Israel and for the Palestinians.

However, one thing that Israel can claim, over its neighbours - even Iraq with its embryonic democracy - Israelis can choose their leaders, have a vigorous vibrant liberal democracy and they can criticise their leaders.

That is a freedom that should spread throughout the Middle East, and it is the honest beautiful truth about Israel that its leftwing worldwide opponents ignore - just as they ignore the dictatorships, absolute monarchies and tyrannies that exist in virtually all Arab states.

Happy Birthday Israel but...

The 60th anniversary of Israel was always going to provoke strong responses from those who align themselves to both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Many Jews will celebrate that Israel has survived 60 years surrounded by those committed on its destruction. Palestinian Arabs condemn it as 60 years of occupation.

So this post will be controversial.

The founding of Israel was a political decision, a decision that the British governed territory known as Palestine should be divided into states based upon nationality, and implicitly by religion. It was one of the first actions by the UN. Words are important here, after all arguably everyone living in the territory of Palestine is Palestinian, although the word is only used to describe the Arabs living there. There is no other distinction for the word "Palestinian". However, equally all Arabs living in Israel can be said to be Israelis.

What is clear is how much isn't clear about the years leading up to the creation of Israel. Zionists did act, violently, against Arabs. Arabs responded in kind. Quite simply, bald nationalism drove both sides, and still does - the notion that because one belongs to a certain nationality, there is some greater entitlement to land than that of others. It divides people who wish to live side by side on the same land, and it is a division promoted by the UN from day one.

So Palestinian Arabs have wanted to destroy Israel from day one, although Fatah in recent years has recognised Israel and accepted a "two-state solution", it would be fair to say that many Palestinian Arabs want Israel eradicated. On the other side, many Israelis also sought the end of any notion of a Palestinian Arab state, some wanting the West Bank and Gaza to be part of a greater Israel. However, many also today accept that a "two state solution" is probably the only way that Palestinian Arab aspirations will be met. Having said that, Jerusalem will remain a problem, because of the different ghost intepretations that Jews, Muslims and Christians have and conflicting claims to that city for the same reason.

The right approach would have been to grant independence to all of the Palestinian territory, but for it not to be Israeli or Arab, but a secular state comprising Jews, Arabs and others. Zionists did not seek this, but then neither did many Arabs. Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism both held the same collectivist malignancy. Had Palestinian Arabs had secure private property rights they could have justifiably held onto their own land, or sold it to others including Jews. State land could also have been sold. The displacement of Palestinians, by fear or by force was wrong - but that was then.

Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN partition plan of 1948, and sought to destroy Israel from that day forward. Since then Israel has created a modern liberal western democracy, light years ahead of the authoritarian Arab regimes that surround it. However, the issue of what to do about Palestinian Arabs has been the thorn in the side of Israel ever since, and especially for the Palestinian Arabs themselves.

So on the one hand Israel has reason to celebrate, having been attacked numerous times by those willing to destroy it, it survives, flourishes, maintain an average standard of living that is the envy of its neighbours, and has a relatively high level of freedom and corrupt free government. On the other hand, the West Bank and Gaza are disaster areas. Israel's occupation of both long made sense while neighbouring states vowed to destroy it. However, the creation of settlements, and the virtual martial law endured by Palestinian Arab in those territories has antagonised, and seen much suffering. It is clear that this must be addressed.

Israel has always said it was prepared to trade land for peace. It exchanged the Sinai Peninsula territory that it held after the Six Day War for peace with Egypt. It made peace with Jordan after Jordan recognises its right to exist, and relinquished any claim of the West Bank. Peace with Syria remains elusive, partly because the totalitarian one party state in Damascus finds it convenient to be a haven for terrorists and a rallying point for Islamists (ironic for a secular socialist party). No doubt peace with Syria will involve a settlement regarding the Golan Heights in one way or another.

The rest of the Arab world wont make peace until the Palestinian Arabs do. Much has been surrendered to them in recent years as overtures to make progress were made, by granting autonomy.

Palestinians were granted a chance with the withdrawal from Gaza, a chance they squandered. Gaza could have become a focus for reconstruction, the building of infrastructure, education, a free trade zone, a place for Palestinians and those who govern them to build an enclave of success. Somewhere to say to Israel - "Look we can look after ourselves peacefully, now let us have the West Bank too".

No.

Palestinians voted for Hamas, Hamas chose to use Gaza to launch attacks on Israel proper. Palestinian Arab's chose politicians who are vowed to destroy Israel. Who is surprised that Israel wont concede anything to these people?

Meanwhile Israel is a prosperous country with Western standards of living and a modern technology driven economy. It benefits enormously from US taxpayers, but is, if Arabs paused for a moment, an example of freedom, prosperity and tolerance in that region. The weeping sore of the Palestinian Arabs needs to be healed before Israel can live in peace, but as long as they follow Islamists or socialists, they will remain impoverished. The incompetence of their leaders will be hidden by blaming Israel for their woes, whilst their leaders continue to gain the benefit of subsidies from their oil rich Arab neighbours.

Israel still lives in an environment where many of its near neighbours don't believe it should exist, and almost the whole Islamic world follows this from Sudan to Indonesia. It has Iran, breaching IAEA rules and wishing its annihilation. Perhaps the only UN member state where other members explicitly call for its eradication. It deserves congratulations for surviving against wars that tried to destroy it, and neighbours that wanted it replaced with a Marxist or Islamic dictatorship. In that process of fighting for survival, it has accidentally killed many, and nobody can pretend Israel has not made many mistakes in how Palestinian Arabs were dealt with (indeed until 15 years ago mainstream Israeli politicians were still advancing a greater Israel). However, despite these mistakes Israeli citizens can be proud of the state they have defended, while they have been fighting they have built a livable modern society - when given the chance, Palestinian Arabs have so far failed. Israel is never going to go away, it's about time all its neighbours recognised this.

Oh and by the way, Israel knocked out Saddam's first nuclear reactor, supplier by the ever peace loving morally uplifting French in the 1980s, and last year knocked out Syria's. Nobody else had the courage to do either of those actions, and the world is undoubtedly a better place since Israel prevented Saddam and Assad junior from obtaining nuclear weapons. Something I doubt anyone in the so-called peace movement has ever cheered, because after all none of them really care about peace.