Yes, the spectre of massive destruction by a bestial exercise in abject cruelty, not seen since WW 2, is the current objective for a “pause” for the Zionists' consideration of "peace talks" and to put the stamp of "their God’s will” on the people who they have demonised; starved and murdered – the farmers of Palestine – now that’s fair in the eyes of Yahweh isn’t it? It was - in Canaan.

Would Hitler have offered a peace settlement if, for example after - he had invaded, occupied, subdued and placed under a puppet government – say the governments of Norway; Belgium; France; or Holland etc? Or with the huge slice of Russia that he had gained pre the winter of Stalingrad? Would he?

There cannot be any peace with justice until the Zionist murderers - (and all of those who are watching and thinking of how to get away with military murder) - pay for their crimes and NAZI style military occupation of the State of Palestine.

Perhaps I am naive but, the facts in this issue go back long before the massive influx of Jewish mainly business people "fleeing" to Palestine from the Nazi intention to totally remove the Zionist grip on the wealth and power of Europe and Russia?

Without pulling the heart-strings, those are facts and the doctrine of the Nazis was to treat all “enemies of the Reich” the same, be they political; Gypsies; Russians, Jews or even those too infirm to work “for the better good”.

The original treatment of the Jews was to deport them, as indeed other countries had done before. They were offered the choice of leaving the country or being interned in the concentration camps as illegals.  It was universally understood that Jewish citizens were constrained by their beliefs that their loyalty was only to Yahweh and the Torah. 

In 1939, a large passenger vessel the MS St.Louis was packed with nearly a thousand wealthy Jews and sailed from Hamburg to Cuba (although it was a US ship) - but was refused entry.  A movie was made based on the theme of this unusual act and called “The Voyage of the Damned”.

It was generally assumed that the Nazis wanted to prove that the “civilized world” agreed with their assertion that Jews constituted a “hidden hand” of influence on national and economic affairs.  They meant to show that no other Western country would receive Jews as refugees.  (Refer Wikipedia).

Where there is smoke there is fire – the century old history of Jewish “problems” to be always unfair, must therefore be considered as a universal; bi-national; bi-religious; bi- racial conspiracy against a completely innocent people or  else – their actions in Palestine and in particular Gaza and the West Bank - are indicative of their own personal doctrine of “Gold-n-Power”.

The US/Zionist unholy alliance is not the way to totally subdue the Arabs and their lands when they are of Ottoman/Saracen lineage. Their history of sacrifice in war is far greater than the Zionists.

Well might Admiral Yamamoto have said “We have woken a sleeping giant”?

“It is easier to ruin a Kingdom than to set up a greengrocer’s stall” or as LBJ use to say, “Any donkey can kick down a barn door but it takes a tradesman to build one”.

NE OUBLIE.

This will be cross posted in http://www.webdiary-libre.blogspot.com/ Demon Zionists.

Palestine, Israel and freedom of speech: striking at the heart of liberal democracies

 Sydney based freelance journalist, author and blogger Antony Loewenstein writes:

Echoing the discredited and contemptible Holocaust-denier David Irving, Australian Frederick Tobin, who happily accepted an invitation to the 2006 Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, was back in the news last week after being found in contempt by a Federal Court for refusing to remove material from his website that vilified Jews.

The Australian featured a photo of Tobin's nephew giving a Nazi salute outside the court.

As a human being first and a Jew second, Holocaust denial disgusts me -- as it should any decent person. It must be condemned in the strongest possible terms as both an indignity to the millions of victims and survivors, as well as a perversion of the historical record. The Jewish Holocaust, along with other similar catastrophes against Cambodians, Rwandans, Palestinians and Tamils, should be respected and understood.

But there are two critical questions about the whole Tobin saga. Firstly, does it do anything to address the serious issue of Holocaust revisionism, a growing problem as survivors of the death camps fade away? Secondly, can the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the lobby group that has pursued the Tobin case for years, credibly argue that Tobin has been chastised by their pursuit let alone that community education on the Holocaust been enhanced? Just last week saw yet another Australian man, who had posted anti-Semitic rants on YouTube, charged with inciting racial hatred.

The Tobin and Irving cases strike at the heart of liberal democracies. Which views are permissible? Are there limits? Who decides the rules?

More ominously, however, the Tobin saga masks a very selective concern for racial vilification by the ECAJ. Holocaust denial warrants condemnation, but too often any criticism against Jews or Zionism is automatically slammed -- witness a recent article by the former head of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBD) professing to oppose all racial hatred, especially anything directed at Jews. Yet, equally egregious examples of bigotry are ignored, even endorsed. Anti-Muslim sentiment has often been proudly displayed since September 11 by the Zionist establishment. In their worldview, only what they find offensive should be censored.

Take the case of leading Israeli historian Benny Morris who visited Australia in 2008 and was warmly welcomed by the current head of the JBD head Vic Alhadeff. Morris has exposed the massacres and forced expulsions of Palestinians in 1948 but he is also a proud extremist who thinks the Arabs are "barbarians" who should be placed in a "cage". He believes that the mistake of David Ben-Gurion and the leadership of 1948 was that they did not fully carry out the expulsion of the Palestinians. He has called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran. He argues in his new book that Jews value life more than Muslims.

These positions are abhorrent. However, I would not want to censor Morris's views. If Tobin's ideas are beyond the pale, why not equally call for the censure of Morris or even push for criminal charges? The answer is obvious: the Jewish establishment largely agrees with Morris, he's Jewish and a Zionist and therefore not "offensive." A community is either consistent about racial vilification or it's not.

There have been countless examples of senior Jewish leaders publicly supporting viciously anti-Islam and anti-Arab sentiments and regularly welcoming overseas visitors, such as Daniel Pipes, who routinely defame Muslims in the name of their Zionist jihad. Pipes continually claimed during last year's US Presidential debate that Barack Obama was Muslim, a transparent attempt to insinuate terrorist-sympathy. I don't remember the shock-jocks calling for the Jewish establishment to stand up and take a stand against such bigotry (such is demanded of Muslims.)

Where, for example, is the Jewish outrage over the third biggest party in the Israeli Knesset, Yisrael Beiteinu -- its leader is hardline Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman -- last week proposing a law that would forbid Arabs in Israel from commemorating their annual "Nakba" [catastrophe] day? For many Palestinians, this is nothing less than an assault on denying what they regard as their Holocaust.

My point here isn't to support rampant racial hatred; I actively campaign against it (and when Tobin himself approached me in 2006 at the Adelaide launch of my book, My Israel Question, I wanted to have nothing to do with him). There is no denying that Holocaust revisionism is a growing problem and it must be tackled in every way possible.

But the agendas of those pushing loudest for criminal punishment against racial vilification are counter-productive, highly selective and certainly demonstrate double standards. The Jewish victim complex must end and criticism of Israel, as distinct to that of Jews, treated as both legitimate and appropriate in a democracy. Witness last week's predictable smearing in Melbourne of a robust "anti-Semitic" play about Israel.

Free speech is a delicate beast that must be constantly nurtured and defended. Our society can handle robust engagement on a host of issues. Some will offend Jews. Some will offend Muslims. Some won't offend anybody.

Hurt feelings shouldn't be a crime.

To Antony Loewenstein. Re “hurt feelings” in www.yourdemocracy.net.au/

Firstly let me compliment you on your writings which show that you try to at least be fair and balanced in your criticisms of racist remarks from all sides.

Although I agree with most of your article “hurt feelings” due to the fact that the utterances or writings of some people are offensive to other people and should be, in my limited knowledge of the freedom in my country, forbidden but only IF the offensive material is claimed to be factual and is “broadcast” in order to gain advantage or to defame the subject person or people.  The law is then available and should be upheld.  You say:

As a human being first and a Jew second, Holocaust denial disgusts me – as it should any decent person. It must be condemned in the strongest possible terms as both an indignity to the millions of victims and survivors, as well as a perversion of the historical record.  The Jewish Holocaust, along with other similar catastrophes against Cambodians, Rwandans, Palestinians and Tamils should be respected and understood.

I couldn’t agree more Antony even though the holocaust is not the worst example of its kind – I would suggest that the massacres of tens of millions of Christians during a pogrom by the U.S.S.R. between 1920 and 1940 – according to historical record would be worth discussing but – why?

Regarding holocaust deniers on which I believe your article turns – WHY should that particular massacre be more unholy and unacceptable than any of the others – even those you have mentioned? Or the many others which have been forgotten but still remain as accepted history for all to find if they wish?

Personally I do not KNOW that the Jewish Holocaust happened EXACTLY as it is recorded but, I would find it rather offensive if I was vilified, damned or locked up simply because I had a different OPINION on a matter of which I would be lying if I said that historic records can NEVER be wrong – would I not?  After all, there is no history - only historians.

Consider Adam and Eve? The Darwin theory of evolution?  The evidence which the ever-searching scientists are unearthing year after year that at least creates educated doubts in some of the most sincere of faiths? Would the OPINION of Galileo have offended the Hebrews of that time as it did the Roman Catholics? 

I believe Antony that to outlaw free thought or opinion such as not believing in the Jewish Holocaust (as dictated) only creates resentment and indignity by others.

Why do people like myself who, as laypersons, have researched Hebrew history simply because of the claims – no, the demands – that are now made on our freedom of thought and OPINION that are intended to force me to accept something with which by nature, I may choose to ignore?

What is required to force the people in every “democratic” country to believe in the Jewish recorded history of the Holocaust - issue by issue, incident by incident – on the testimony of the people who were there but - excluding the Germans and non-Jews? Sort of an inexplicable denial of any possibility of defence on the basis that - that very thought may be offensive to some?

Surely Antony with your intelligence, it must now become obvious that the genuine abhorrence to the Jewish Holocaust due to its consistent preaching, is becoming annoying even as the Bush administration has ruined the world’s sympathy after 9/11?

Some people believe that it is more important to consider what people DO rather than what they SAY. The major issue today is surely the Gaza Holocaust and all it demonstrates.

A person of wisdom once said – “Today is a new day. You will get out of it what you put into it”.

NE OUBLIE.

This will be cross-posted in http://webdiary-libre.blogspot.com/  Demon Zionists.

Well said Ernest.

Wisdom would dictate that you “Never search for a complicated solution of a problem when a simple answer is right at hand”!  Return to your respective corners gentlemen!

Firstly the two state solution to the Zionist takeover of the Palestinian’s land was based on an illegal motion by the United Nations.  It was considered and agreed to by the “big” players – except the Palestinians and every other Arab country.

Every person, state or recognised nation – who had anything to LOSE – voted against it. And the Palestinians, whose homes, families and livelihood were up for grabs, had no vote at all! The Zionist terrorists were asked to accept half of their intended booty in return for a “halt” to their murders and destruction – but it wasn’t enough.

That pacifist policy helped the cause and intentions of a previous political “master race” when the “negotiators” allowed the occupation of peaceful European nations in return for a “Clayton’s” promise of “peace in our time”.  And they used the hatred of Jews just as the Jews are now using the hatred of Muslims.

Neither will it ever be enough for the Zionists since they have adopted the Nazi policy of ultimately solving ‘the Palestinian problem” by concentration camps, massacres and denial of citizen rights or any form of equality. And should that succeed then....?

Anyone who cares to study Hitler’s brown shirts’ grasp for power in the early 1930’s will find too many similarities in their methods with those of the Zionist terrorists in Palestine.  The only difference was that the brown shirts were taking over their OWN country while the Zionists are taking over someone else’s.

That is a perfect example of the disproportionate power of the US/Zionist unholy alliance and a lasting disgrace to the UN in its abject failure to provide the Palestinians with any form of justice. 

Over the years it has become painfully obvious that the UN is as much a captive of the US and its policies as any of the other puppets the latter controls.

Why is it that any Arab nation which tries to train a military force to help defend itself is damned by the US/Zionist alliance as training “terrorists”? And bombed into submission?

After all – hasn’t the United States of America, during the 20th century and on, acted so aggressively that they have proven to the world that “a country is only entitled to that which they can defend”?

NE OUBLIE.

This will be cross-posted in http://webdiary-libre.blogspot.com/ Demon Zionists.

The site http://archaelogy.about.com/  describes it thus:

Definition: The term Semitic tribes (or Semites) refers to several groups of nomads and camel pastoralists who spoke related Semitic languages and included Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Abyssinians, and Phoenicians. They roamed Arabia and Mesopotamia beginning somewhere in the third to fourth millennium BC, and dominated the Babylonian society beginning about 3000 BC. They are associated with the invention of the earliest alphabet, from evidence found at Serabit el-Khadem, on the Sinai peninsula of modern Egypt.

I have searched many sites and info-centres including the Encyclopaedia Britannica and, contrary to the strange claim by the Hebrew Semites, all Aribic [sic] tribes originated in or about what became Egypt – the pinnacle of civilisation of ancient history in that area.

So I accept that all Arabs are originally Semites and as such, Semitic - not just the Hebrews but all Arabs.

Therefore, the ironic stupidity of this world-wide “crusade” against anything anti-Semitic is actually not about the Hebrews/Zionists/Canaanites/Jews at all – the truth is that the term is much more all-encompassing than that.

As the powerful Zionist Lobby in the US and its sub-branches in many western countries, attempt to force governments to outlaw and punish any criticism of anything Jewish by naming it an act of “anti-Semitism” or anti-Semitic, is really a baseless fallacy being fed to the world through the “Gold-n-Power” of the only religious “out of step” Semites in the entire planet.

Why isn’t it called anti-Jewish; anti-Hebrew or anti-Zionist – the latter being most appropriate.

To accept this centuries old deception, any legislation which uses that terminology should – and I repeat should – be applied to any criticism of the other Semitic nations of the world, irrespective of their religion or their wealth.  And it would still be wrong.

The fact is that, even if the laws of “democratic” nations attempt to outlaw and even punish their own citizens for daring to criticise one particular race/religion then it can only lead to massive disobedience and even rioting – not to mention the hatred that would obviously be directed to the very people the Zionists claim to represent.

Would that lead to another calamity that could rear up and bite the bums of the very leaders of a people who deserve the contemptuous criticism that they so obviously fear.

May I suggest to the Hebrews and their Zionist leaders: “Silence is the essential condition of happiness”.

NE OUBLIE.

This will be cross-posted in http://www.webdiary-libre.com/ Demon Zionists.

An overall opinion of the Hebrews.

One dare not back off from criticism of the Zionist Hebrews and their fellow travellers for they will never back off from their overlord attitude to every other race on earth.

The “Gold-n-Power” of Zionism inhabits every major country in the world plus, and they use that power to demand an international society where only they can do no wrong. This has been festering in the minds of the Cult of Mount Zion since the days of the Roman occupation of Judah.

It is scary to delve into their past and come to the conclusion that they really do believe that they are the chosen race and are the real masters of the fate of all humanity.  Why is it so? “And what shall it profit them?”

I am satisfied that “anti-Semitic” is a term falsely used when claimed that it only applies to the ancient Hebrew nomadic tribes. It is continually used to prevent any criticism or even debate since such an act of freedom of thought, reasoning and logic - will always reveal the simple fact that they are mere mortals and that their behaviour to “all other life” on this planet is certainly no better or worse, when placed in identical situations.

I am satisfied that the “Jewish Holocaust” is being used as a conduit for pity and sympathy to the end that the world must owe them a living.  If it happened as they claim or as so many others have claimed to the contrary – it is past and should be placed alongside the many thousands of other slaughters and genocides since the beginning of recorded time.

They want only their suffering in the Holocaust to live forever in the minds of the entire world – not just the Nazis – not just the Germans – not just the European nations but – every nation that existed then and even those that have evolved since.  Perhaps because they believe that we all ignored the Commands of their God?

They should not be concerned since the Germans were forced to pay compensation to those who suffered – and if I am wrong in my assumptions, they should then expect to pay for their own slaughter in the Gaza Holocaust.

“The evil that men do lives after them”.

The thought that the “bastions of freedom” may even consider passing laws which favour and protect the unbridled behaviour (however bestial) of any one race/religion is abhorrent in the extreme – even to the pirates of Somalia IF - we criticise them for trying to exist by “illegal means”.

NE OUBLIE.

This will be cross-posted in http://www.webdiary-libre.blogspot.com/ Demon Zionists.

from Crikey .....

Israel's soft power pulling Australian elites in

Greg Barns writes:

Almost 20 years ago, the Harvard scholar Joseph Nye coined the phrase "soft power" to give some meaning as to why governments spend billions in developing cultural and business ties with other countries as a means of obtaining influence or impacting on how their country is perceived by others, as opposed to dealing in the realm of "hard power", or in other words military might.

When it comes to using "soft power", in Australia, Israel takes the cake. Not only does it send politicians and journalists on junkets to Israel on a regular basis, but the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce wields clout well beyond what would be expected of a trading partner that is less important in dollar terms to Australia than Turkey, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates or Mexico.

Politicians, CEOs and other community leaders break their necks to speak at Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce functions. The roll call of federal government ministers who have been, or will be guests of the chamber in 2008 and 2009 is impressive. Rudd, Swan, Gillard, Wong, Ferguson, McClelland, as well as the Rudd government's national security chief Duncan Lewis. The CEOs of big corporates like Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank and McDonalds have all been there over this same period.

This is a business chamber that punches well above it weight. According to Austrade's latest figures Australian exports to Israel are worth just over $250 million, while imports run at $685 million. By contrast China, our biggest export partner is worth $27 billion in exports and $30 billion in imports.

Israel' s trade relationship with Australia is less valuable in dollar terms than those we have with say South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Mexico:

Australian exports to South Africa are worth $$2.4 billion, and imports $1.49 billion; to the UAE the numbers are $3.6 billion in exports and $231 million in imports; to Turkey exports are worth $655 million and imports total $404 million; and for Mexico the numbers are $551 million in exports and $1,2 billion in imports.

Each of those trading partners has a bilateral chamber of commerce with Australia but none has the clout, profile or the speaker and crowd pulling capacity of Israel, despite the fact that they represent trading relationships of greater importance to Australia.

Israel it seems is effectively using its Australian chamber of commerce activities as part of its armoury of foreign policy. It is an example of what Nye described in 2007 as not just "soft power" but "smart power". Describing the need for the US to use such power, Nye argued "It is an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions at all levels to expand American influence and establish the legitimacy of American action."

Exactly the same might be said of Israel.

The Australian-Israel Chamber of Commerce is more about keeping Australia's political and business elite onside than it is about growing a trade relationship -- the figures attest to that fact.