Tim Blair

Then a sizeable amount of SMH readers are just as irrational as "militant" Islamists. Surprise surprise.

Note Dr. Ali's question-begging assumption that agreeing with the Americans necessarily means you don't have an independent foreign policy.

Absolute trash (which we get all the time in the GWN).

We've also disappointed Chris Sheil. Will somebody go over there and comfort him? And fellow Australians - Chris thinks this country is a disgrace, so don't forget to live up to your reputation!

For those who believe in the rule of international law, if a global referendum concluded that Israel should pull the wall down, is Israel refuses, is such unilateralism destructive? Should Israel then be sanctioned for not immediately responding to global opinion?

Why don't you go pull it down yourself, Ali? I mean, it's not like the JOOOOOOOOOS would shoot your ass, is it?

Dean, uh no. Israel should build it faster.

Australia votes with a tiny, tiny minority in the General Assembly and therefore is accused of not having an independent foreign policy?

I guess sticking with the majority is a good sign of independent thinking.

Tim- thanks for the shoutout. Micronesia is indeed a real country, and actually very pro American. They have stamps with pictures of the American Army.

As for the wall - Dean - the UN general assembly does not represent the "rule of international law." They issue resolutions which are all nonbinding. Only the security council can issue "binding" resolutions. Even so, they are considered to hold weight. But when there is a body with countries like Iran, Tunisia and Nigeria who hold equal footing to Democratic countries, the importance of the UN seems, in many people's eyes, to diminish.

The crazy thing is that the whole EU block, as well as Russia and others agreed before the ICJ ruling that the fence was out of their scope and they shouldn't even be trying it. Now they, of course, threw out their beliefs for the greater cause: anti Israelness.

Adam, apparently it was France that "convinced" the rest of the EU cuntries to support the resolution - no suprises there.

Dean-

Remember what Ben Franklin said of the distinction between democracy and liberty:

"Democracy means two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty means the sheep is armed."

48% of whom, according to an earlier poll, think the US should "try to negotiate" with Osama bin Laden...

Suits me. Can we use all of them as intermediaries?

"The government has not said anything in favour or in sympathy with the Palestinian people."

Err, is Australia somehow obligated to do this?

Thankfully John Howard continued his rigid stance on Israel's right to protect itself. I wonder what Latham's opinion would have been? Bet the media don't ask him this close to an election.

As for Ahmeer Ali. It does not send a signal that the government has no sympathy for the Palestinians. What it is saying is that as long as terrorists continue to kill the innocent, any self-respecting government will do everything in its power to protect those it is meant to serve.

I feel very sorry for the Palestinian people. I am sure the majority are good, decent people. But while Arafat and his cronies continue to wield power, condone terrorism and support it financially, nothing in the Palestinian people's future will ever get better.

I think that negotiating with bin Laden is the best idea that's come along in years! He gives us his exact coordinates and we send in a negotiator from Rockwell Industries via the USAF or Navy! Just do it before November because I don't think Kerry etc would be up to it.

A look of disfavor, huh? Whoa, I'm shaking in my boots!

Jonny- I have heard that bit on the french leading the pack. I don't by it. No doubt they are more extreme then the rest, but that isn't saying much- when the entire EU block goes against even what they said, just in an effort to pacify (and to give Israel a boot to boot), then I would be hesitant to say something that will take the blame from the individual countries.

Lofty - I used to feel sorry for the Palestinians, but no longer do. And this is for oen simple reason: if there were these "masses" going along with Arafat's policy, where are they? Is every one too scared to speak? Because in other nations all throught history some voices would come out and the rest of the world would hear them. But in this case I don't hear any voices. Even the traditionally liberal areas, such as the Palestinian Gay's, have become so anti Israel, even when Israel treats them freely and the Arabs, well, kill them.

Arafat is not a voice oppressing his people, he is a voice speaking for his people. That is not to say that opinions can't change and bias can't disappear, it can and has so often in history. And not to say that a leader can't help that happen. But unless a people starts to get up and fight for their own lives, they don't deserve sympathy from the rest of us.

Adam, apparently it was France that "convinced" the rest of the EU cuntries to support the resolution - no suprises there.

The world is France's poodle? Nah, it'd never catch on...

The government has not said anything in favour or in sympathy with the Palestinian people.

No sign of Ali saying anything in favour or in sympathy with the Israelis in that article. Unless the SMH is selectively quoting him (they'd never do that, would they?), he makes no mention of why the wall is being built.

"That is the most troubling issue in the Muslim world and as long as that problem remains boiling, the governments that support this American foreign policy will be looked at with disfavour."

And how will they be expressing this disfavour? I trust it will be peaceful, right?

Oh so sorry Dr Ali we wont assist you in your plans for genocide of the Jewish people. Sorry mate but try and get over it. Go and talk to France they may be willing to help.. fuckwad!

Wait a minute. Re the condemnation of the Israeli wall, did genius Dr. Ali actually say
"It is disheartening,"... "Israel, America and Australia - these are three important countries that have voted against it."

Was he holding our hope that Israel would vote FOR the UN condemnation? One hopes that this man is not a medical doctor but a specialist in 8th century cartography or something.

"holding OUT hope" was what was intended above, but the fingers are so tired at the end of the day. And then the mind goes, after reading the news---

So, 48% of the Silly Morning Herald readers think that you can reason with a religious nihilist, a man and his followers who wish to destroy the very fabric of western judaic christian society as we know it - that very society that gives people like Chomsky and Pilger the very freedom to spew their rubbish. So, 48% of the Silly Morning Herald readers think that you can reason with a religious nihilist, a man and his followers who not only don't believe any religious, economic, sexual, gender and intellectual freedom, but who also think that these notions are corrupt, and have stated publicly that they will (note, will)destroy these notions that we prize and have worked towards for the last 2,000 years.
So, 48% of the Silly Morning Herald readers think that you can reason with a religious nihilist, a man and his followers who have stated publicly (on video and other transcripts no less) that all Jews and Americans (that is all Jews and not only the Jews living in "occupied palestine" are to be killed. That all Jews across the world are legitimate targets for moslems.
What I find particularly ironic and galling is that most of these 48% who believe you can negotiate with someone as destructive and evil like Bin Laden and his cronies are no doubt you usual inner city, middle class twerps who sanctimoniously delight in lecturing other Australians on their intolerance towards migrants, refugees etc. etc. So they go to bed with a man and his followers who advocate no rights for women, no economic or personal freedom, no religiuos freedom (there is only one religion in this new world and that is extreme Islam) and not even a television (actually the world would be better without the ABC and SBS, at least then you would get more facts).
Please note that I use the word "nihilist" deliberately. Bin Laden and his followers are not followers of G-d, Allah, Jesus or whatever, they are indeed followers of the devil. And of course, the 48% of the Silly Morning Herald readers who believe you can negotiate with a lunatic and his followers would look down on me for believing that Bin Laden is a devil because they delight in proclaiming that they don't believe in religion, unless it is some new age claptrap, they take pleasure in denigrating christianity and judaism, the two faiths that helped build this society. No they want to sup with the devil. It would actually give me some pleasure to see how long these inner city middle class twerps would survive in Bin Laden's new world. I suspect, not for long.

Thanks for the link Tim.

I have to disagree with "Adam, apparently it was France that "convinced" the rest of the EU cuntries to support the resolution - no suprises there."

The other countries in Europe have had no problem standing up to France on other issues. They each made up their own minds and it is disappointing to see Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic vote with the crowd.

Um.. There was a UN vote condemning Israel for putting up a protective fence. Lets see, Israel put up a fence to stop lunatics from turning teenage Jewish kids into mince in Pizza Parlours and the UN votes against it. As as Australian I am proud our Government sees the logic of Israeli self-defense. I condemn those countries and people who would support such a disgusting vote.
As for the UN! Shouldn't Kofi be busy trying to work out how his son and cronies pocketed millions and million s of dollars from the Iraqi food program be brought to justice.
This is an organization which had Lybia holding the chair for the UN Civil Rights commission. What a joke,
I think the debate ought to be whether it's wothwhile for decent countries to even be bothered with UN membership at all.

I checked out some of the other SMH surveys. I felt this one was particularly incomplete: Where do you stand on gay priests:? Options: For, Against, Indifferent.

What about: behind ?

Cassandra
yes what is astonishing is how 48% of the readership has been brainwashed into believing negotiation can be followed with an extreme wahabbist like OBL. he has stated in interviews that "the right to life" is only granted to those who adhere to the strictest forms of Islam. his is similar or worse than Nazi philosophy in its classification of the "untermensch" in which jews were merely at the bottom of the pile of the "unworthy of the right to life" races.

A little googling will reveal the surprising number of countries who have in recent times put up walls to protect themselves from Islamic Jihad.
yet all have voted against Israel's right of self defence. Having produced the Holocaust Europe is now promoting a second one in Israel.
Eurabia is surely upon us now.

Cassandra...

I fail to see how persons wishing a dismantling of the apartheid wall by extension must propogate the opinions that Bin Laden is not the devil and that radical Islam is perfectly normal.

They, myself included, simply want to see the barrier taken down.

To be a supporter of an independant Palestine is NOT the same as being a frothing at the mouth Islamist sympathiser.

But of course it helps your poorly constructed argument to paint us all as such.

Middle class SBS viewers? Pfffffffft When was the last time you ventured out of the Eastern Suburbs?

You want the terror to stop? End the fucking occupation.

Adam,
yes you are right about the palestinians as a group. I was just trying to air some hope that there is a willingness and desire to do good in them.

Cassandra,
nice post and fully in agreement with you. The 48% of people that want the US to negotiate with Usama Bin Laden really make the rest of us look good despite our own apprehensions on "what's next."

The 48% would undoubtedly piss themselves in terror if confronted with old women at a Myer's bargain basement sale!

Why we even give a shit what the UN think is beyond me. I mean for fucks sake, countries like Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe are getting a vote on democracritic policies. The UN is nothing more than a shithole full of murderers and despots and they should end up the same as The League of Nations.

Did any one of those voting members rule that suicide bombings were illegal?? I'll bet it wasn't even mentioned!!

So Dr Ali, fuck off you worthless muslim prick and move to Palestine.

I'll bet that spineless anti-semite Latham would have followed the rest of the UN sheep in the vote.

Speaking as an Eastern Suburbs resident, all I can to you is: "keep saving up, mate, and one day you too will be able to live in Sydney's best area."

There is no occupation of anyhhing by Israel.

The real villains are Arafat and his friends, who seem to think that keeping their people like mushrooms is going to give them a better life. Instead of building a peaceful, capitalist society where all can strive to better thier plight, the islamo-facists of Palestine want to mire their people in constant victimhood.

The Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world could show us that they are peaceful, if they gave us their commitment that they would stop all terrorist activities and agree to the existence of Israel. Until they do so, they are not fit to be called civilised.

You want the terror to stop? End the fucking occupation.

You know, that's what they're doing with the wall. No more Israeli troops in almost all Palestinian areas once the thing is finished. Great, huh?

Oh, wait, you must have meant ALL of the territory that Israel "occupies".

To be a supporter of an independant Palestine is NOT the same as being a frothing at the mouth Islamist sympathiser.

I don't think any Israelis would agree with what you seem to consider the necessary land area for an "independent Palestine". You're not frothing at the mouth (yet), but I certainly do think you're an Islamist sympathiser after that post of yours.

(Needless to point out, that you seem to be one of those nutcases who think Israel brought on the terror themselves was probably all anyone needed to know to come to that conclusion.)

At least you're not in favour of "apartheid", I guess. You're just in favour of a one-state solution, that state being one of Palestinian origin.

"The Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world could show us that they are peaceful, if they gave us their commitment that they would stop all terrorist activities and agree to the existence of Israel. Until they do so, they are not fit to be called civilised."

Like any guarantee of this kind would prevent the expansionist Zionist agenda, the goal of which is a racially pure Israel on both sides of the Jordan River.

You think this is an unreasonable premis?

Well, so is the whole "pushing into the sea" thing.

But but but ...you'll say the Arabs SAID they're gonna push us into the sea.

Well Zeev Jabotinksy and Joseph Schechtman, the architects of Zionist population transfer, are the two chaps who proclaimed the former edict.

Darp,

There is a book that you would be very interested in, as it specifically talks about Zionist expansion.

It is called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and a lot of people who approve of the deliberate targeting and murder of pregnant women and children as long as they are Jewish and 'occupying' recommend it as well ....

I'm curious: just what were the Israelis "occupying" in 1964, when Arafat formed the PLO? And how does the alleged Jabotinsky quote above even come close to equating with full-on calls for genocide from the Arab side, nonstop since at least 1948?

You want the terror to stop? End the fucking occupation.

The extra expletive really gives your erudite-yet-impotent demand that feel of genuine rage, Darp, but I believe you're unclear as to who gets to make demands in this situation. Hint: it's not you, not the Arabs, and not the airheads at the UN. So the real demand goes, "You want the wall to come down? End the fucking terrorism and start acting like human beings." ...Or don't -- but the Israelis won't make for good targets anymore, so you'll have to kill each other, for a change, and bite the hands that feed you.

I'm not Israeli, but either works for me.

err Darp can you give an example of the "expansionist Zionist agenda" from people that are you know are 'alive' and not part of the fringe like your self.

Well Zeev Jabotinksy and Joseph Schechtman, the architects of Zionist population transfer, are the two chaps who proclaimed the former edict.

yes, but that was 100 years ago and this is now!

G'day Darp Hau,

Are you against the wall that the Saudis are building along a disputed border with Yemen?

Are you against the wall that the Indians are building along a disputed border with Pakistan?

Are you against the great wall of China?

Russell

Darp's only against protective walls when they're built to protect Joooos from highly explosive Arabs.

He should go back to reading the Protocols and Mein Kampf.

Thank God Australia was on the right side of history this time.

G'day David,

Just because we think that Darp Hau is a racist bigot and a troll doesn't mean that he actually is. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe Darp Hau has a genuine distaste or even a phobia about walls - maybe he hates all walls with equal passion. Maybe he despises the Saudis for seeking to prevent Yemenis from killing them. Maybe he despises the Indians for wanting to stop jihadis from randomly killing them. Maybe he "thinks" that the Chinese made a bad move when they sought to stop the steppe barbarians from sweeping into the middle-kingdom.

Maybe the racist notion that they only people in the world that are not permitted to defend themselves is the Jews is the furthest thing from Darp Hau's "mind". Maybe he actually "thinks" that being inconvenienced and even dispossessed is orders of magnitude worse than being randomly blown up.

The point I am trying to make is that Darp Hau may not be the anti-semitic troll that he appears to be - he may simply hold a deep aversion to walls.

To try and keep some perspective, from Chomsky in Guardian, Friday, May 10th, 2002

"Not surprisingly, the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant humiliation. Israeli plans for Palestinians have followed the guidelines formulated by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labour leaders more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. Thirty years ago Dayan advised the cabinet that Israel should make it clear to refugees that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave". When challenged, he responded by citing Ben-Gurion, who said that "whoever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist". He could have also cited Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel, who held that the fate of the "several hundred thousand negroes" in the Jewish homeland "is a matter of no consequence"."
(end quote)

It will be interesting to see how many people who currently support this Court-of-no-real-jurisdiction will be happy to comply when their advisory opinions include the new provisions.

In an analysis by Anne Bayefsky:

“The Court has declared four new rules about the meaning of the right of self-defense in the face of terrorism today. (17th July, 2004)
(1) There is no right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter when the terrorists are not state actors.

(2) There is no right of self-defense against terrorists who operate from any territory whose status is not finalized, and who therefore attack across disputed borders.

(3) Where military action is perpetrated by "irregulars," self-defense does not apply if the "scale and effects" of the terrorism are insufficient to amount to "an armed attack...had it been carried out by regular armed forces." (The scale in this case is 860 Israeli civilians killed in the last three years — the proportional equivalent of at least 14 9/11's.)

(4) Self-defense does not include nonviolent acts, or in the words of Judge Rosalyn Higgins: "I remain unconvinced that non-forcible measures (such as the building of a wall) fall within self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter."
These conclusions constitute a direct assault on the ability of every U.N. member to fight international terrorism. The U.N. Charter was not a suicide pact and Security Council resolutions in response to 9/11 were intended to strengthen the capacity to confront violent non-state actors, not defeat it.”

No doubt when it is not Israel’s self defense at stake but their own, or a homeland they still hold dear, will they be of the same mind.

No? Didn’t think so.

Ah, Noam Chomsky. Always trustworthy, never blinded by bigotry.

Carlos, you probably had some good points to make but blew them by quoting Chomsky (and in "The Guardian", as well, that most vitriolic of anti-Israeli papers in the UK).

If one did have to answer some of Chomsky's points (and one should always be suspicious of the inferences he uses, and once certainly needs a shower afterwards):

a) If the 'refugees' are left to 'live like dogs', is that the fault of the Israelis who really do have no option other than letting them all swarm into Israel, when most of them now were not born there and have no recollection of it, and many of whom are committed to its destruction ? Surely, it is the fault of the Arab states who vowing to support them have left them to fester in camps rather than using some of the money spent on promoting Jihad on builiding a working sewerage system, or even the Palestinians own corrupt and stinking administration, propperd up by European money ?

b) I am certainly intrigued by the hundreds of thousands of negroes. I remember seeing the Jews of the 'Lost tribes' who certainly looked negroid being welcomed back into Israel, but as to what the others were doing there, perhaps someone could enlighten me ?

Perhaps they were left over from the floursihing Arab slave trade when their owners fled to Egypt, Syria or Jordan ?

So nearly half of SMH readers think the US should negotiate with Bin Laden? I wonder how many think Australia should've negotiated with Ivan Milat?

(for those who don't know, Milat was a serial killer who raped and murdered young Australian women.)

Andrew

In response to your b)

During the latter period of the declining Ottoman Empire, Egypt make forays into the Levant with conscripted Sudanese troops. In the late 1800’s Ibrahim Pasha settled 500 Sudanese familes in “Palestine” before he was driven back to Egypt.

"Make"

"made" dammit "made"

Easy to vote at the UN, harder to vote in their countrys

Anabel, so according to Anne Bayefsky -

- Russia is not allowed to "deal" with the Chechyn separatists in the same manner?
- Spain is not allowed to "deal" with the Basques?
- If extremist Maori's go crazy ape bonkers and wish to reclaim there "occupied" lands using really big fire-crackers, the Pakeha are stuffed?????
- Saudi Arabia has buckley's against Islamists who happen to have a holiday camp in Yemen?

O Shit!

I'm confused. Why was it ok for the Jordanian government to slaughter thousands of Palestinians with nary a peep from the international community, but Israel is not allowed to defend itself from suicidal jihadists?

"To try and keep some perspective, from Chomsky in Guardian, Friday, May 10th, 2002

(tonnage of crap snipped(
Posted by: carlos at July 22, 2004 at 05:13 PM"

Man, I can't stop laughing! Thanks, carlos, for your humorous comment!

Andrew,

The Protocol's as YOU and WE ALL know are a Tsarist forgery.

Why must any defence of Palestine be immediately counteracted by veiled acusations of anti-semitism.

How?

You're implying that "I'd be interested in the Protocols", hence implying I'm pro-Palestinian because I must obviously be anti-semitic.

I find such accusations highly inflamatory, and do does my Swiss-Jewish grandmother. MATERNAL grandmother.

Aha! A self hater then!

Joke...
But seriously Darp Hau, no need to defend your stance this way.

Darp Hau: Jewish heritage means literally nothing when it comes to telling and recognizing the truth about the world. There are many Jews on all sides, and many who - like Chomsky - feel so guilty about being Jewish they go to the other extreme.

And as for your above quote about the Palestinians not being civilized, how do you derive from that “a racially pure Israel?” That seems to be quite a mild insult, for they are speaking about “Terrorism.” And as for population transfer, Jabotinsky felt quite the opposite- that he wanted to live in peace as neighbors with the Arabs and thought it possible, where the ones on the left thought it impossible. What you should be concerned about, though, is today, not digging up quotes from 100 years ago. And today the only people advocating an apartheid state are the Palestinians (and their European backers), for the only people that are even in discussion for transfer are the Jews from certain cities in the disputed territories. Did you ever think about that? One mention of moving Arabs and you get “Zionism evil,” and somehow moving Jews- from places like Hebron where they lived continuously for 3000 years except for a brief spell after they were slaughtered in 1926, is acceptable. Better think about who the real advocates of apartheid are.

Repeat after me "there is no such thing as international law".

Repeat as necessary until its sinks in...

The ICJ ruling was more about the "the right of Palestinians to kill Jews" than it was about Israelis not being about to defend themselves.

What you should be concerned about, though, is today, not digging up quotes from 100 years ago. And today the only people advocating an apartheid state are the Palestinians (and their European backers)

And the only ones talking of a racially pure nation are the Hamas/Hizbollah types and their supporters (Iran, say, or EUro nations that declare them "legitimate charities"), in addition to a non-trivial contingent of far-left nuts decrying Israli "colonialism." (Actual Arab colonialism -- intimately tied to repeated conquests, religious persecution, mass murder, and slave trading for its entire history -- is, of course, conveniently ignored.)

Never mind, naturally, that for all of Zionism's alleged expansionism, Israel would have happily stayed inside its 1948 borders had it not been attacked by the entire mass of Araby immediately after declaring its independence. No no, the correct story line is that the poor little defenseless Arabs are oppressed by big mean Jews. It can't be wrong: the UN says so, and so does Chomsky!

Why must any defence of Palestine be immediately counteracted by veiled acusations of anti-semitism.

Why must anti-semites always build the strawman that "any defence of Palestine" gets called anti-semitism when it's actually their own words that triggered the accusation, not some nebulous "anybody's" utterances. Face it, you've presented yourself in this thread with enough rope to hang yourself three times over. Don't act so surprised that people have figured you out; it really wasn't that difficult once you got rolling.

Damn fucking straight, PW.

Let’s face it, if there were no Jews involved in the Palestinian conflict, then the UN, EU and the whole army of bogus humanitarians would care as much about “the poor Palestinians “ as they do about tribes in darkest Congo or the Sudan.

To them it’s always been about the Jews, and 99.9% of their criticism of Israel is basically Jew bashing masquerading as “concern”. Most of these people couldn’t give a toss about the Palestinians. Lebanon and Kuwait can expel tens of thousands of them,
Jordan can kill thousands of them and there’s hardly a murmur out of the great and the good.

I can't see what land the Jews supposedly occupy illegally. I mean Judea and Samaria are Jewish areas, they were only called the west bank after Jordan invaded Isreal in 1948 but Isreal took it back in 1967.

Considering the jews have claim to the whole of the area dating back 3800 years and Islam only dates back to 600 AD, I fail to see how it is considered islamic land.

It's just another cheap grab by muslims to steal land they don't own, just like Sudan, Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Papua New Guinea and the list goes on.

Scott- Their claim comes from the idea that the land was Arab for many years and even heavily so between 1900 and the birth of the state. And then the rest of their argument is based on lies- that Israel kicked out many people, stole the land, etc etc. A friend of mine met an Egyptian in New York last week, and the guy not only had never met a Jew before, but he was told in his school and always believed that the Arabs won every war against Israel, including Yom Kippur. So you can see, in a culture based on lies it is easy to justify anything. So arguing with some of these people goes around in circles, as they believe these lies for truth.

We have seen these tactics of quotes from long-dead people about Israel's wild expansionist desires to control China or whatever before.

You can find far more quotes from Arab leaders wanting to kill all the Jews.

But lets look at how the nations actually behaved over the last hundred years.

Israel: Has a large and growing Israeli Arab population with full citizenship rights. Manages (to some degree) a growing and hostile Palestinian population.

Arab Countries (including W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem until 1967): No oppression of Jews, because ethnic cleansing of large Jewish populations completed in the years after 1948. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the "Jewish Quarter" of Jerusalem or parts of the West Bank where Jews lived for thousands of years.

The degree of hypocrisy demonstrated by the pro-Palestinian International "Court" of "Justice" ruling and the non-binding UN resolution is astonishing.

Annabel's post describes an opinion from the so-called ICJ that openly supports terrorist tactics.

Leftoids support the Palestinian's right to kill people while denying Israel's right to stop Palestinians from killing people, even though the wall effectively gives much of what the Palestinians want (with the notable exception of the destruction of Israel --- that might be the real problem leftoids have with the wall).

Multiple governments around the world decry Israel's right to self-defense, but likely will not hesitate to do the same thing in their own neighborhoods.....if not something worse.

It sounds like the inmates have taken over the asylum, doesn't it? Thank God we still have rational people around.

NOTE FOR DARP HAU

G'day Darp Hau,

Are you against the wall that the Saudis are building along a disputed border with Yemen?

Are you against the wall that the Indians are building along a disputed border with Pakistan?

Are you against the great wall of China?

Still no answers to these vital questions

From Chemical Margo's webdiary:

Tim and Anna-Maria Stephens in Haberfield, Sydney:
Hi Margo. Please see below our e-mail to Minister Downer today concerning
Australias vote in the UN General Assembly on the West Bank wall. This one
has really slipped under the radar. Why, we can all ask, was there no
public debate about this?

Margo's Reply: Because the fundamentalist Zionist lobby
controls politics and the media in the US and Australia. A chapter in my
book by Antony Loewenstein includes an indictment of the tactics of these
people by Bob Carr. For an example of the Libs in the Zionists pockets,
see Award honours PMs support for Israel.

So Chemical Margo uses an award given to John Howard by Australian-Israel
Chamber of Commerce as an example of the "fundamentalist zionist lobby"
controlling politics and the media in Australia? This is beyond a joke,
and Anthony Lowenstein is a fucking Judenrat.

For an example of the Libs in the Zionists pockets,

Is she fucking serious? There are only two seats, TWO seats, which have a Jewish influence on them.

One is Wentworth, the bluest of the blue ribbon seats. I expect the Liberals could put Yasser Arafat up for election and still win.

The other is Melbourne Ports, held by the only Jewish Federal MP, Michael Danby (ALP).

Jewish influence in Australian politics is minimal, because they make up bugger all of the population.

Quentin, she's absolutely mad! She's the intellectual offspring of Julius Streicher (the publisher of der Strummer).

Margo confirms once again that it is not only her outside appearance that is a total put-off.

I dunno...people like Margo should be encouraged to put their inner anti-semite on display whenever possible. Shortens the route to professional self-destruction, hopefully.

...our e-mail to Minister Downer today concerning Australias vote in the UN General Assembly on the West Bank wall. This one has really slipped under the radar. Why, we can all ask, was there no public debate about this?

I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but a two-thirds majority...

Jean Luc
Ivan Milat was the backpacker murderer. He was convicted of killing seven (I think) tourists in Australia, men and women. It is suspected that he did not act alone.

Margot's speed psychosis is not helped by her downing 2 six packs of VB daily. The woman needs rehab, not a webdiary.

we should be saying "tear down this United Nations calomny Mr Bush!"
Because it has now graduated to become part of Islamic Jihad.
For year it ignored and indeed REPRESSED the news reported to it by swiss Ngos and christian organisations on the slavery and horrors in Sudan.
To reward Sudan ofr its continuig genocide of Black Christians and animists what did it do?

the U.N. voted to approve Sudan's application to become a member of the Commission on Human Rights, the same year it decided the United States was no longer a suitable country for membership, (May 3, 2001)

13 of the members of the commission have NO HUMAN RIGHTS AT ALL.
Algeria Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic
Next in a scandal , which exposes the UN's islamification It promoted the
FOOD FOR ISLAMIFICATION policy.
To receive food given by the United Nations' food aid program, recipients in Southern Sudan are forced to convert to Islam. This has been a well-documented practice, and to date, the United Nations has done nothing to stop the practice, despite having a universal declaration of human rights stating that such practices are illegal.

The constant vilification of Israel is merely a smokescreen to disguise its activies to promote Islamification of third world countries.
It may therefore be impossible for the US or UK to send troups to Sudan to prevent the further genocide which has been going on for years.

Davo- that is not to mention the human rights records of France, China, Russia - they don't have much to talk. In fact, only a few countries - including Australia, Israel, GB and the US (and Micronesia!), have any consistant positive human rights records. Unless you are in the cloud of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch where human rights means any act is condemned only if it is directed against the West, or Israel specifically.

Are you serious? 48% think we (the u.s.) should negotiate? With these people....

"Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue."
--Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, Join The Caravan

"Allah is the only one that must be worshipped on Earth, and the only way to guarantee this is to control all the land masses, air and sea and give Islam the proper channel to be heard by the people."
--Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Masri, Allah's Governance on Earth

"Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Israeli Likud party said, trying to disparage his enemies: 'The celebrated goal of Islamic Fundamentalism is to secure the worldwide victory of Islam by defeating the non-Muslim and infidels through Jihaad...'. Thank you very much, Mr. Netanyahu, for a very accurate description. "
--Muhammad 'Abdus Salam Faraj, Jihad: The Absent Obligation

I heard that this "Adam" guy that keeps posting here pushes over little old ladies. You guys can take him seriously if you like.

Amir, better watch it-- I heard you like to kick kittens.

I thought the Palestinians wanted a fence—at the Mediterranian. A rabbi-proof fence.

Darp-

Where are you? Just a troll I guess. Just don't eliminate his posts, his sheer ignorance must be put up for all to see. To all the pro-Islamofascists out there, this is why despite the most intense semi-coordinated smear campaign in history, aided and abetted by the Western media - who would be dismantled the minute the West is overrun - it has failed to sway a majority of the US population to want to abandon Israel and the new democracy trying to take hold in Iraq.

Micronesia may be small, but there are those who love her.

Eric that is about the long and the short of it yes.

We are re-witnessing the building of a repressive wall here as in the fateful year of 1961. This time, it was not the german Democratic Republic building it, by an ally of a double standard United states led by GWB. Anyway international outcry is a not important to the GDR, why should the more powerful Jewish state?

Er, what happened to our usual trolls? These substitute posts by their little 'tard cousins just aren't much of a substitute.

Not only are SMH readers complete dickheads, they are ageist as well.

Forty-seven percent they are less likely to vote for Howard now he has turned 65.

The Nazis had no difficulty from Europe during the Holocaust (except Denmark), nor did they have much difficulty recruiting Europeans for the Wehrmacht and the SS.

So why is it suprising that they would endorse an anti-Jewish resolution?

Not suprised by the Poms either, when they ran 'Palestine' (inverted commas because there is no historical claim that an independent Arab Palestine ever existed) they geared their immigration policies and enforcement to pack the land with Arabs from everywhere, and exclue the Jews, even though it was both a violation of British law and International law.

And the similarity was very clear, the Soviets supported the GDR to build the wall of repression while Tel Aviv had a similar superpower sponsor to support her. Also when Vietnam invaded Canbodia in 1978, the kremlin used its veto to reject international condemnation, Similarly, Israel's armed overeaction in many instances particularly those aimed at innocent Palestinians, were condoned by the US veto at the security council.

Sheriff:

Your comments about Europeans being anti-Jewish is both myopic and grossly misleading, way before US started selling arms to support the Israelis, France was the first country to supply arms to the Jewish state. And it was both London and Paris that decided to team up with Israel to invade the suez Canal to topple Nasser's regime in 1956. Uncle Sam however came in and spoilt the game for the Israelis and her European allies. Your knowledge of contemporary history is seriously lacking. Its time to pick up college history texts again.

And Australia by voting against such an overwhelming majority in the General assembly together with washington, seem to coonive with the Bush notion of international autocracy. After all, Australia is a democratic state whose govt is chosen by the majority, yet with a democratic tradition, she refused to acknowledge the collective will of the world community and go against the tide. By voting blindly together with GWB, Australia is no a deputy sherriff but a lap dog of Bush. She looked more like one of the former Soviet satellites voting in communist solidarity with the Kremlin in all important UN resolutions. Howard is no more than a Honecker, Kadar, Husak to the Soviets as to the USA.

Piss off SP we voted in agreement with the US because it was the right thing to do. Don't expect Aussies to be as moraly bankrupt and confused as the rest of you. Latham however would have have done what???

I like the phrase "collective will" in your comments. What are you a fucking communist? We have individual freedom of thought, an ability to think and act for ourselves. We need no goddamn "collective".

Dog:
Cool it dog, judgeing by your manners, its not a surprise to be called Dog indeed.

When i used collective will, i do not mean socialist collectivism, after all, Marx did not have the patent right to the word "collective'. The League of nations and the Nato practises something called "collective security" which means allies hand in hand, unity. So do you mean that Nato is communist? I did not know Truman, Marshall were bloody communists since they are the ones who came up with Nato. It is rare that the UN General Assembly voted so solid behind a issue from the thrid world nations, Arab states, asian states to the whole of EU, all voted against Israel's actions. Only Australia and the few sided with the US, choosing an isolationistic position. It as good as saying "balls to the opinion of the international community at large". Its no different from adopting the diplomatic behaviour of North Korea and Iran and Myanmar who frequently disregard international opinion and choose to brush international norm aside.

SP - "with a democratic tradition, she refused to acknowledge the collective will of the world community and go against the tide."

If in your view countries should vote with where how they think other countries will vote, what is the point of giving them a vote? I don't think you understand Democracy. It means you can vote you conscience, regardless of how others vote.

As for the fence being similar to the wall in Berlin. Maybe in Australia, you are not familiar with the concept of a border. We have them here in the US, and in most countries which border others; particularly those with hostile populations. As I recall, the West Berliners were not trying to get to East Berlin to kill women and children.

sp, if the entire country voted to let someone cut my throat, you betcha I'd ignore the results!

What, does everyone has to behave like a cow herd being driven to the slaughterhouse in order to fit your vision of world peace?

A bit OT, but relevant:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_belmontclub_archive.html#109081240452350568

"But the word "consequences" has long been expunged from the Canadian foreign policy dictionary...Compare this with Australian Prime Minister John Howard's virtual promise that the Bali bombers, whose convictions were set aside on a technicality by the Indonesian Supreme Court, would be punished."