Islamic School Preaches Hatred

Two weeks ago an Islamic school in the northern suburbs of Melbourne expelled three high school students for desecrating the Bible. The male students allegedly set fire to the Bible and then proceeded to urinated over it. This manifestation of Islamic intolerance, while entirely characteristic, is particularly brazen. Suppose that teenage boys from a Catholic school were to vilify the Quran. What would the reactions have been? Perhaps something akin to the bloody riots instigated by harmless Dutch literary debauchery. This story is made even more interesting by allegations made by the families of the expelled pupils that the Islamic school nurtured this type of behaviour. The parents suggested that teachers at the school routinely demonised non-Muslims and encouraged segregation by teaching radical Islamic doctrine. An investigation of the school yielded several sources of illicit radical Jihadist propaganda- books and Jihad-glorifying videos.

This incident is just another straw on the back of the Australian collective. Australians are very open, welcoming and tolerant people. But everyone has their limits.

Join the International Appeasement Society

Charter

The International Appeasement Society (IAS hereon in) is an organization established to promote global stability. The IAS seeks to satisfy this objective by observing its Core Tenets. The Core Tenets are:

· Cultural Empathy- Receptiveness to the intricacies of other cultures.

There is a common misconception that some cultures are less “civilized” or less “acceptable”. This is known as cultural elitism. In reality, all cultures are rich and thriving, especially Islam which condones; brutality against women, religious persecution, terrorism, ignorance.

· Social Cohesion- Opposing assimilation.

Presently, the distorted notion of social integration mandates that migrants must abandon their rich cultural manifestations. The IAS aims to promote legitimate multiculturalism, where Ethiopian Muslims can mutilate their female children’s genitals because Mohammed (peace be upon him) said “it is a sin for a woman to enjoy sex.”

· Military Abstinence

Acts of war, even in self defense are unacceptable. The IAS deplores acts of aggression resulting in the deaths of Muslims. Specifically, the IAS condemns the Illegal Zionist Entity’s (IZE hereon in) war of genocide against the Lebanese victims, which it in fact it lost.

· Proportionate Compassion

Recognising victims of Imperialism and fascism is central to the IAS. The IAS seeks to commemorate the victims of: IZE’s illegal occupations and ethnic cleansing of Jenin, where literally billions people were killed, the Turks, who lost a few soldier during the Armenian unpleasantness and the trillions of Iraqis who are being humiliated and brutalized by the Zionist Puppy Entity (USA).

The IAS also seeks to digress from the alleged Holocaust of the Jews. There is no evidence to suggest that it did happen, but even if it did- it was more than 60 years ago. Let’s move on.

· Protection Against Defamation

Slanderous statements such as, “Islam is a proverbial cancer, that impedes, nay, erodes human progress,” and “Despite the prevalence of Islam in the hearts of over 1.25 billion Muslims, it is almost impossible to identify a single scientific, technological, medical or literary accomplishment made by these people,” or “Despite being responsible for every single territorial conflict on the planet, Muslims still insist that they’re victims and misunderstood” , or even “It’s ironic that left wing hippy movements support Islamic fascism, given Islam’s aversion to feminism, communism and extreme-liberalism, which are all allegedly apart of being left wing,” are incorrect and offensive.

As a member of the IAS you must agree to adhere to these principles and promote them wherever possible. Also, you are entitled to a monthly subscription of ‘The Chamberlain’.

Please note: This is satire. Such a society doesn't really exist- well it does, but it goes under a different name. Its official website is located here.

Random Musings

In international news, Turkey successfully partitioned a restraining order against Hungary.

Why has the British Colonialism Model been so successful at dealing with the indigenous?
What's an indigenous?

Missouri- Say no to medical progress. Vote against stem cell research. Reproducibility of results has ensured that chemistry and physics are off-limits to Christians. Ergo, they're now pursuing the sole vestige of science available to them- biology. Why? Because it's technically impossible to disprove the existence of God. And if it's impossible to disprove the existence of God, then it's possible that we are sinning against Him. You see, embryonic stem cells are apparently indistinguishable from human life.

I've been following the Lamont-Leiberman pre-selection battle. After reading hundreds of articles and watching hours of debate, I think that I finally understand the consideration that voters have to make: Lieberman is old and lamont is spunky.

A curious letter appeared in the local newspaper this Friday. It read: "China is building coal fired power plants at the rate of 5 per week. Somebody should tell the Chinese government that they're not the only people on the planet." I say- Let Them Eat Cake!

Controversial Mufti and pariah, Sheikh al-Hilaly observed a fortnight ago: "If a woman sits in her room, in her house, in her hijab- she will not be raped. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cat's or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” Allow me to paraphrase: If you let a rabid dog into your home and he bites you, whose fault is that, the dog's or yours?

Human rights lawyers are challenging the legality of Madonna’s adoption. What the fuck? You'd think that human rights lawyers would support Madonna’s decision. No, apparently it's better to relegate the child to the poverty stricken malaria-infested hell hole.

Two years ago, singing MILFS- the Dixie Chicks- declared that they were embarrassed that Bush was a Texan. They caused mass outrage and were threatened, vilified and slandered. Now, Kerry comes out and asserts that US soldiers are uneducated and there is relative calm.

Abortion is a contentious issues. Australia conditionally legalised abortion as a means to minimise the harm caused by illegal backyard surgeries. Presently euthanasia is illegal on the premise of religious dogma and as a consequences thousands of people are needlessly yearning to die as a means of ending their suffering. Perhaps if a few of those people decided to take their own lives the government might get the message.

Why is it racist to question the tenets of Islam but acceptable to justify 9/11 as "a legitimate response to American aggression?"

Is it possible that the Bush Administration's Mideast Policy is centred around motivating the necessary preconditions for the second coming?

How can Israel claim to be a victim of Arab terrorism when it persistently and deliberately restrains itself from fully satisfying its military objectives?

Are the French blind to the demographic transition in their country, or do they welcome it?

Why is it easier to blame America for all the world's problems than to accept responsibility and face reality?

How is Mel Gibson not anti-Semitic? Consider his Goebbels style rant in the context of: his fundamentalist beliefs, his father's overt anti-Semitism and the Passion Play that he produced to renew the bullshit notion that Jews are somehow responsible for Jesus' death.

If Jesus was alive in the 1940s he would have been gassed in Auschwitz.

Farewell to the GOP

The convincing defeat of the GOP in both houses and the subsequent resignation of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, confirms the thesis that the midterm elections were a referendum on the Administration's handling of the Iraq war. Consequently, the defeat of the GOP does not equate to a public endorsement of the Democrats but rather a dissatisfaction with the current establishment.

The outcome of the elections will necessarily affect the direction of the USA's Foreign Policy, particularly in relation to the Mideast. The overt challenges in Iraq (primarily attributable to the Islamic mentality of shirking responsibility) have undermined the credibility of the presidency and precluded any further military mandates, such as Iran. Not only will Pelosi humiliate the US President by wreaking her brand of liberal holier than thou justice but she will opportunistically impede Bush's capacity to act.

Iran has violated resolution after resolution, disregarded incentive after incentive in its pursuit of nuclear armament. Indeed, Iran is acutely aware of the consequences of this election and is likely to continue its research with impunity. The inability of the Americans to act will certainly result in a nuclear Iran. By its own admission, Israel is unable to unilaterally neutralize the threat and make no mistake Iran will act.

On Beit Hanun

Two days ago an errant Israeli artillery shell hit a civilian Palestinian target killing 18. Unlike the Arab terrorists who deliberately target Israeli civilians with fatal rockets, Israel attempts to mitigate civilian casualties. The global response, while anticipated and indicative, illustrates the futility of the situation. By launching rocket attacks from civilian areas, the terrorists are hedging their strategic position. If Israel is dissuaded from responding then the terrorists proceed with impunity. If Israel does respond and civilians are inevitably killed then the Palestinians are the unfortunate darlings of the media.

Personally, I don't buy into the emotive bullshit. The Palestinian people are sympathetic to the terrorists and routinely co-operate with them by providing human collateral cover. Case in point, the recent standoff in the Gaza Mosque. Indeed, it is this deliberate and persistent culture of complacency to terrorism that implicates Palestinian civilians.

Update
A big thanks to John Bolton for vetoing the outrageously unbalanced Resolution against Israel. A big fuck you goes out to Qatar for sponsoring it.

Richards > Gibson

The mainstream media has been overwhelmed by footage of Michael Richards berating the African American community during a comedy routine. His anger erupted so quickly and manifested so viciously that it's almost surreal. He referred to black Americans as niggers and expounded various derogatory notions of racial inferiority. Nevertheless, despite his appalling lack of self control and overt racism, Richards is twice the man Gibson is.

Following his comments, Richards issued several public apologies. He unconditionally accepted responsibility for his comments and expressed his mortification. The distinction with Gibson stems from the qualifier in the previous sentence; unconditionally. Richards didn't seek to mitigate the impact of his comments by claiming that they were taken out of context. Richards didn't insist that he was provoked. Richards didn't attribute his sentiments to his upbringing, nor the Americana of yesteryear.

I find the selective public outrage curious. Consider the subtleties of the lexicon- Gibson's diatribe was described as controversial whereas Richards' was described as malicious. I suspect that this is attributable to America's sensitivities. Naturally, the notion of lynching a nigger is further entrenched in the American collective memory than the abstract notion of villainous Jewish deicide. Further, I suggest that the general contrast in the socio-economic situation of the African American and Jewish American communities compounds these sensitivities. In any case, I hope that the same voices who rallied behind Gibson's explanations reconsider their position.

Rabbi Hillel suggested that there are two ways to observe a man's heart; by his comments when he's drunk and his comments when he's angry. Richards and Gibson have a lot of soul searching to do and it's unlikely that these men will ever be forgiven by the communities that they've scorned.

The Environment

The issue of environmental conservation has become corrupted by politically motivated opportunists. Case in point- Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth- an unfortunate title given the film's obvious scientific deficiencies and convenient anti-Republican undertones. Presently, the discourse has become so convoluted that a discussion of the environment necessarily leads to a debate of capitalism.

It is a common misconception that the conservative anti-Kyoto lobby derides the environment. To suggest that the Republicans, conservatives, corporations and capitalists harbor contempt for the planet is slanderous bullshit. Given the complexity of the subject matter, environmental conservation was initially debated within the upper echelons of the scientific community. The debate was proportionate and based around the tenets of generational responsibility verses progress. Presently, former vice-Presidents shock gullible audiences with ominous statistics without providing reasonable context or extending a thorough analysis. Let's assume for a moment that the questionable hypotheses are correct: climate change exists, global warming exists and we are primarily responsible. Now, let's balance that with mankind's scientific, technological, medical and cultural progress since the industrial revolution. For all the questionable statistics the pseudo-political-environmental lobby (PPEL) throws around, there are more compelling statistics that justify those detriments. Here's a few:

Observed British male life expectancy 1850: 38.3
Observed British male life expectancy 2006: 75.7
Pharmaceutical status 1850: None.
Pharmaceutical status 2006: Immunization, antivirals, antibiotics, insulin, etc.
Scientific knowledge 1850: Mechanics, experimental chemistry, God.
Scientific knowledge 2006: Chemistry, biology, medicine, nuclear physics, God (unfortunately and unbelievably)

Another indictment of the PPEL is its warped preferences. Typically, one would expect environmentalists to be politically non-aligned, opting for policies that further the cause of the environment. Consider nuclear power; a viable alternative to fossil fuels that releases only 1% of the greenhouse gases. Recently, prominent environmentalist, David Suzuki, suggested that the option be considered in a menu of potential alternatives to the burning of brown coal. The PPEL, on the other hand, is vehemently opposed to nuclear power. Why? Just because. There is never any qualification of the stance beyond the typical "nuclear power is dangerous. Bush is a terrorist!" rhetoric. Rather, the PPEL advocates grossly inefficient and unfeasible modes of power generation such as solar cells and wind turbines. While these renewable sources of energy are a positive supplement, a $30,000 solar cell configuration still requires households to draw power from the grid when using hot water and air conditioning. Moreover, the creation of silicon solar cells results in toxic byproducts and requires an initial investment of energy corresponding to a thermal pay back period of circa 10 years.

I've always affirmed that war, sex and capitalism have been the three major augmenting factors of human ingenuity. The desire to kill, fuck and make money have motivated mankind's ingenuity. Ultimately, the latter of these- make money- will resolve the problems potentially associated with climate change. Through the creation of schemes that create financial incentives to pollute less, such as Carbon points, and the gradual depletion of fossil fuels, firms will have to seek alternative and profitable ways to generate power. It's not altruistic, but who really cares?

Israel-Lebanon Before July 11

The media is currently being swamped with in-depth analyses of the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict. Incidentally, I have just finished reading a superb editorial that appeared in The Australian newspaper, a nation wide publication. Despite the unrelenting press coverage, I suspect that most people's exposure to the conflict is purely osmotic- a brief thirty second news report over dinner or the odd glance at a headline on the way to the sports pages. This post attempts to motivate some history and provide a context for the current crisis.

---

Fact 1: Israel and Lebanon are both sovereign nations with independent governments and no contested borders.
Explanation: During the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), Israel invaded from the south to halt PLO attacks. Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon to the green line (mutually recognised border) in 2000 and ceased all its military operations.

Fact 2: The Lebanese government is in violation of UN Resolution 1559- the disarmament of all militia.
Explanation: The 2000 Israeli withdrawal was conditional on a cessation of hostilities from its northern neighbour. The UN accordingly enacted resolution 1559 and called for the disbandment of Hizbullah- a Shiite terrorist organization sponsored by the Syrian and Iranian regimes. The Lebanese government failed to enforce the resolution and allowed the militia to continue operating. Since 2000 there have been hundreds of cross-border skirmishes between Israel and Hizbullah.

Fact 3: Lebanon is a Syrian proxy.
Explanation: There is a misconception that Syrian involvement in Lebanese politics concluded in February 2005 following the Hizbullah assassination of the anti-Syrian reformist Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. While Lebanon enjoys some level of autonomy there is significant Syrian oversight. For example, Hizbullah maintains 18 MPs within the Lebanese Parliament, two of whom form part of the coalition's cabinet. Syria broadcasts propaganda through the airwaves into Lebanon. Syria recruits for Hizbullah and supplies the terrorist group with weapons. Syria offers assylum to those found guilty of sedition. Syria intimidates and murders opponents of the Hizbullah.

Fact 4: Hizbullah is not a division of the Lebanese army.
Explanation: Support for Hizbullah within Lebanon is divided along sectarian lines. Many Arabs (Lebanese or otherwise) correctly assert that Hizbullah does not represent the collective will of the Lebanese people and undermined the Lebanese government through its unilateral attack on Israel. Indeed, the current Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora scolded Hizbullah for inciting conflict during the nation's peak tourism period.

Fact 5: Israel is not at war with Lebanon.
Explanation: While the protracted Lebanese government policy of appeasement precipitated this conflict, Israel's main objectives are to enforce UN resolution 1559 by decimating Hizbullah's base of operations and the release of its two captured soldiers. Israel has no interest in engaging Lebanese soldiers.

Fact 6: Israel's response is not disproportionate.
Explanation: Critics of Israel usually employ deliberately convoluted jargon. When Israel engages Palestinians, terrorist sympathisers describe "legitimate resistance against occupation". Presently, Israel is being accused of "exercising disproportionate force". These phrases make great slogans but are absolutely devoid of any meaning.
A nation with an undisputed border is attacked by its northern neighbour and suffers eight deaths and two abductions. The nation responds by isolating its neighbour; disrupting the enemy's ability to smuggle the hostages across the border. The response is calculated and measured with care taken to mitigate civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the enemy's base of operations are routinely concealed within dense civilian areas and are used to launch rocket attacks against the nation's civilians. What is the appropriate response? For Israel to negotiate with Hizbullah and to make concessions to the agressive terrorist militia? To rely on the Lebanese government to intervene on its behalf? To allow the incessant barage of rockets to continue hammering northern Israeli cities?

Fact 7: The July 11 attacks came one day before the UNSC was set to convene on the matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Explanation: Self-evident. The Iranians successfully instigated a proxy war to to shift the focus away from their selfish desires to enslave the MidEast with nuclear weapons.

---

The situation in the Middle East is unbearable to both the Lebanese and Israeli peoples. Both seek a cessation of violence and an opportunity to mourn and rebuild. Despite the heavy casualties on both sides, it's essential to recall that both Israel and Lebanon are victims of the international pariah regimes: Syria and Iran.

...And One More Thing

I found some humorous satire on my computer from a few years ago. As pathetic as this may sound; I read it and laughed out loud. It's quite unnatural to laugh at one's own jokes... it's akin to literary incest. It's late and I'm a little giddy. Anyway, here are some articles.

"Ayatollah Censors Dictionary"

Tehran- The planned release of a Persian-English dictionary by the Webster Company has once again been delayed by the nation's ultra-conservative Islamic regime. In a brief statement to the press the managing director of Webster announced, "It is unfortunate that the Iranian government continues to prohibit the release of our dictionary." Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Kahaha'arshi insists that "[the dictionary] will never be released into this country! It is a Zionist plot to cause a revolution in this country... lies all lies, this book is filled with them..."

In a 150 page report submitted to Webster, the Ayatollah's Department of Information compiled a series of demands and mandatory ammendments that must be made before the dictionary is to be released. These demands include, but are not limited to: removal of certain words deemed "dangerous to the Iranian psyche", revision of definitions found to "undermine the Iranian regime and/or promote the posionous Zionist cause" and the creation of new words currently not in existence. "We object to the insertion of the word 'freedom'. Freedom never has and never will have a place in this country. There is no need for this word."

Michael Moore's Latest Creation

Controversial film maker Michael Moore has today announced plans for a new documentary aimed at exposing the state of the nation's hospitals. The film, entitled "Hospitalise Me", due for release early next year will feature Moore becoming infected with several serious diseases and seeking medical assistance from the public hospital system.

To coincide with the development of the film, George Bush has announced a 95% cut in government funding to public hospitals. This further cut will likely cripple an already ailing health system. Furthermore, President Bush has secured himself and other high ranking executive Republican officials front row seats at the premier of the film, "I have suddenly become a fan of Mr. Moore's work. I look forward to his funeral, I mean, film."

Qana: An Anlysis

Mainstream media coverage of the latest Mideast conflict has been lax. There is a notable absence of objective analyses, context and commentary. Rather, media outlets have embraced sensationalism and deliberately inflamed the situation by instigating people's intolerance. The objective of this post is to restore the complexity of the conflict and motivate my central thesis- the Israeli Defense Force is acting ethically.

Qana: a Hizbullah Aberation
Several days ago, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) engaged Hizbullah targets in the Southern Lebanese city of Qana. In excess of 60 people were killed, more than half of them children. The UN deplored the act as "deliberate and ruthless" and the UNSC prepared a document criticising Israel for "disproportionate" use of force. In the midst of the tragedy, few news agencies bothered to objectively report the facts. However, News Radio (Australia- 1278 AM) broadcast a compelling BBC interview. The foreign British correspondent, based out of Southern Lebanon, extended an ostensibly objective analysis into the incident. Despite attempts by the programme's host to bait the journalist into editorialising, he calmly maintained his neutral stance and asserted the facts. So what are the facts?

Prior to the IAF's attack on Qana, the IDF employed its airforce to cover the city in leaflets imploring civilians to evacuate. The tactic, which has been employed aggressively throughout the campaign, cited that Hizbullah terrorists had seized the town as a platform from which to launch rocket attacks against Israel. The civilians were in effect held as human collateral aimed to dissuade Israeli airstrikes. Aerial surveillance footage captured a particularly despicable instance of inhumanity when Hizbullah terrorists, dressed as plain-clothed civilians, fired a rocket from the balcony of a private residence. Naturally, when the 24 hour deadline concluded, the IAF struck Qana.

According to the IDF's preliminary investigation and eyewitness testimony, Hizbullah terrorists effectively enforced a siege over the town. Gunmen prevented locals from leaving and the terrorist group tactically decentralised itself. When Israel struck its objectives, the civilian density localised proximal to the targets were maimed and killed. And Hizbullah had further subverted international opinion.

Critcism
Israeli advocates, myself among them, appreciate that Israel errs. However, we maintain that any criticism of Israel should be proportionate and balanced. This precludes agitation fueled by intolerance. The UN charge of "deliberate targeting of civilians" is an absolute fallacy and an indictment of the organisation's central tenent of neutrality. The IDF's manifesto of mitigating civilian casualties supersedes ALL of its military objectives. For example, the IDF blatantly eliminates the element of surprise by declaring its targets in advance. Moreover, the IDF employs ground troops and actively engages in guerrilla warfare against terrorists in dense urban environments. Does an errant Israeli rocket ever kill civilians? Yes. Are civilians sometimes caught in the crossfire? Yes. But it's a huge stretch to suggest that Israel intentionally targets civilians. Legitimate criticism might involve questioning the wisdom of using the airforce to engage hostiles in an urban setting, while recognising that terrorists cannot be allowed to operate out of civilian areas with impunity. In any case, the conflict is complex and has depth. Linear analyses, slander and emotive jargon based on anti-Israel sentiment doesn't constitute valid condemnation.

Photographed near my university. This is an example of myopic, unjustified and intolerant criticism.

Canada, Gaza and Deluded Opinions

The Canadian government has embraced the Neville Chamberlain approach to global politics; appease your enemies and desert your friends. Canada has been vocal in its opposition to the Iraq War and intentionally subverted global opinion by sheltering cowardly army deserters. Moreover, Canada maintains a limited economic and diplomatic boycott of Israel. Ostensibly, this policy seemed effective. The only nations exposed to terrorist attacks were those who outwardly supported the Imperial American War initiative (Madrid and London) and the Zionist Occupation (Israel). The liberal sentiment that Islamic terrorism was a symptom of adverse foreign policy proliferated globally and millions marched with their proverbial fingers in their ears chanting "terrorism is not our problem!"

Until last week.

Canadian intelligence infiltrated an Islamic terrorist cell and prevented an imminent catastrophe. Undoubtedly, the Canadians would have felt indignant, betrayed. After all, they did everything that Mr. bin Laden requested. Among the conservative thinkers there was no surprise. This development merely reiterates what the right has been saying for decades; that the objective of Islamic terrorists is to destabilize the West and establish an international Shariah theocracy. Naturally, these intentions are as much an affront to moderate Muslims as they are to others.

Also in the news, Israeli Internal Security Minister (and former Shin Bet agent), Avi Dichter, addressed the Israeli Cabinet. He presented a report about the continuous barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza, numbering 500 since the Israeli withdrawal. He observed that "just as the IDF responded harshly to Katyushas in the North, it should wield a strong hand against Kassams in the South" and employed strong language emphasizing the need for the IDF to "turn Beit Hanun 'into a ghost town' ". Naturally, the cabinet rejected his suggestions. Olmert: "We have strong means in our arsenal, but sometimes international considerations limit their effectiveness. It's not worth harming civilians. We have gotten rid of our dream from childhood that Israel can do everything alone. These dreams do not exist anymore." Curious.

When Sharon conceived the idea of unilateral disengagement, he legitimately believed that strategic settlement withdrawal was militarily advantageous. His motivations were pragmatic and he was certainly, if not deliberately, indifferent to irrelevant global opinion. At the time of the withdrawal empirical evidence (return of the Sinai to Egypt) suggested that his reasoning was plausible. Sadly, he was wrong.

One year on and enthused by delusions of victory, Palestinian terrorist groups have consolidated their power base within Gaza. A recent IDF report cites that "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ambitious plan to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank will not do anything to decrease the scope of daily violence in the region. Instead, the army is moving forward based on a working plan that it is nearing another round of bloody violence with the Palestinians." The report identifies the rigidity of Hamas' ideology as the main prospective source of conflict. For Olmert, however, there has been a phase shift from securing Israeli lives to securing world opinion. It seems that the "childhood dreams" of self determination and security that Olmert apparently envisaged (but didn't pass onto his kids, one of whom refused to serve in the IDF) are far less important than what French cheese makers and Canadian beaver hunters seem to think.

Rockets

Several days ago BBC broke a story that accused the Israeli Defense Force of perpetrating a massacre against Palestinian civilians. Palestinian mobs filled the streets and Hamas announced plans for a fresh wave of terrorist attacks against Israelis. Moreover, Kofi Annan issued a statement condemning the disproportionate Israeli force. Sadly, the mainstream media coverage ended there.

Last night the Israeli government released a report into the incident. The report found that no specific orders to target the site were issued and that the likelihood of an errant misfire was slim. The report cited the following anomalies as justification for its conclusion:
1. Shrapnel taken from two wounded Palestinians who were evacuated to Israeli hospitals showed that the explosives were not manufactured in Israel.
2. Absence of a sufficiently large crater, indicative of IDF artillery shells, at the site of the explosion.
3. All debris were removed before the IDF was able to investigate. Limited Palestinian co-operation has hindered all efforts to investigate the site.
The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion. A more realistic theory is that Hamas murdered their own in an attempt to subvert the imminent Palestinian Referendum.

Naturally, the Hamas response was instant. Over 50 shells were launched against the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Two people were wounded by the bombardment; one is critical. The mayor of the city presented a plea on behalf of his constituents to an Israeli minister. Defense Minister, Amir Peretz, issued an ultimatum to the terrorists urging them to cease the rocket attacks of face a calculated Israeli response. The rocket attacks continued and the IDF has finally responded by killing two Islamic Jihad operatives on their way to carry out the attack.

I draw the reader's attention to two points. The first is the obvious asymmetry between the Israeli and the Palestinian military tactics; the deliberate targeting of civilians on the Arab side and the tireless efforts to minimise civilian casualties on the Israeli side. Arrogant Western media outlets casually refer to this bullshit notion of a cycle of violence. Fact: the linear violence exists because the Palestinians repeatedly inflame it. And in rare instances where there is a lul they instigate it. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that Hamas was an accomplice to the Islamic Jihad Kassam campaign.

The sad reality that I must bear at this point in time, and believe me when I say that it eats at me, is the obvious realisation that the Intifada is an elaborate publicity stunt to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I find it morally reprehensible and an indictment of Western media outlets that I have to write entries like these and correct malignant fallacies. This, along with numerous other incidents, among them the Jenin massacre, illustrate that journalism is a profession dominated by opportunistic grubs. Undoubtedly, the BBC will retract its story or will extend a thorough analysis into the incident, but this will certainly be relegated to a tiny corner of a back page. Nevertheless, the BBC succeeded- a family of Palestinians was wantonly murdered by their own, a Jew is on his deathbed and Israel is the bad guy despite the absence of any evidence. Hooray for freedom of the press!

A Brief History Lesson

In a previous post a reader requested that I explain the circumstances and origins of the Palestinian national movement. I have decided that the most effective response is a simple citation of the facts. Accordingly, I will abstain from any editorialising.
In the second part of his question, Samuel asked me whether one can be neutral in one's sympathies on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The answer is a resounding no. The case for Israel is far more compelling than the case for Palestine.

In the year 1947, the United Nations General Assembly accepted a resolution that divided British Mandate Palestine into two distinct territories. The orange portions (as indicated below) were appropriated to form a Jewish state and the yellow portions were designated to form the basis of a Palestinian state.

Neighbouring Arab regimes instantly rejected the resolution. That was where the consensus ended. Syria, which had administered the land during the Malmuk period, demanded the right to annex it. As did Jordan, which had occupied the West Bank (hence the West Bank of Jordan) since the Ottoman Empire's conquests. Gaza belonged to Egypt. However, the UN resolution called for the creation of a new and independent Arab state alongside Israel; a policy the Arab governments were averse to.

Nevertheless, Israel proclaimed independence on May 15 1948. Several weeks later, the newly born state was invaded along three fronts by the armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Israel's military success and the subsequent Armistice Agreements ensured that the two-State solution was never fully implemented. Adding further detriment, the Arab nations effectively sealed their borders to the displaced and relegated them to refugee camps. Border skirmishes ensued as the refugee population demanded integration. The notorious Black September Massacre (Sept. 16 1970), sanctioned after Palestinian Fedayeen attempted to seize the Jordanian Kingdom, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians along the Jordanian border. Naturally, Israel integrated very few displaced Arabs.

The birth of the Palestinian movement is contentious and difficult to ascribe. I view the initial phase of transitory statehood as commencing in the years 1956-1958. These were the chaotic years of spontaneous resistance against Israel allegedly organised by non-governmental entities (in reality these groups were part of an Arab led proxy war, but that's rather incidental). Specifically, the Fatah Party was formed by Cairo student-activist, Yassir Arafat, and the organisation actively engaged Israeli troops. The Palestinian identity was cemented over the years 1964-1967 and is attributed to two main factors. The first was the sense of statelessness among the new generation of Arabs living in satellite camps. The second was the threefold expansion (to roughly 1/2 the size of Tasmania, or the size of New Jersey) of the Jewish state in the Six Day War. Demoralised by the abominable failure of the Arab war machine and the empty promises to "push the Jews into the sea", the Arab refugees shed their dependency of their brothers and sought to liberate Jerusalem with their own blood. Thus far they have successfully forced an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and remote Israeli settlement.

Israel has undertaken numerous initiatives to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. To date, all have failed. The fundamental problems are the asymmetrical expectations between the two peoples, extensive corruption within the Palestinian leadership and the reluctance of the Palestinians to disavow violence and pursue legitimately diplomatic routes.

What does the future hold for the region? Assuming a continuation in terrorism (a rather shrewd assumption), Jews will certainly embrace emigration. In fact, I will be amazed if Israel sustains a Jewish Knesset and demographic majority over the next fifty years. I also suspect that certain radical Muslim elements are viewing the Israeli conflict as a successful experiment in warfare. Given comparable (but latent) demographics within certain Western countries and the tendency of the media to embrace self-hating pseudo-liberalism, I anticipate similar clashes globally. The Middle East conflict, though alluringly territorial, is clearly existential. Crap-I've editorialised.

Modern anti-Semitism

Jews are often accused of being over sensitive to their own plight and insensitive to the suffering of others. This rhetoric follows a standardized formula and typically involves criticism of Jews for persistently referencing the Holocaust, asserting millennia of persecution or simply over glorifying insignificant acts of vandalism as anti-Semitism. Some cynics even contend that Jews deliberately play the anti-Semitism card to avoid legitimate criticism of Israel. Seems plausible? Perhaps. But how grounded are these accusations?

Firstly, the nature of modern European anti-Semitism provided the framework for the annihilation of more than half of the continent's Jewish population. While contemporary Germans may find it inconvenient to exist within the shadow of their nation's past, the horrors of the Holocaust are engrained within the psyches of many survivors. Moreover, the sheer magnitude of the genocide motivates contemporary Jews to assert their rights. The complaint of persistent Jewish referencing of the Holocaust is about as valid as insisting that African Americans cease dwelling on the injustices of slavery.

The charge of a Jewish persecution mentality is absolutely absurd. While millennia of persecution are undeniable, Jews have always been excellent enablers. As per Mark Twain's analysis, " Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him." An obsession with always playing the victim necessarily precludes this level of achievement.

The final accusation against the Jews as intentionally subverting anti-Semitic sentiment to achieve political objectives is the most heinous. There seems to be a conspiracy, probably attributable to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, that Jews frequently assemble and discuss plans for global domination. Despite the obvious logistical flaws and the lack of Jewish consensus on what global domination would actually entail, Jewish history unequivocally proves that Jews have very limited influence over their neighbours’ actions. Sadly, this perverse logic runs deeply through the Western pulse. I draw the reader's attention to an article fragment from the Jpost that describes the efforts of the American Jewish community to publicise the silent Dafur genocide:
The fact that the aggressors in Darfur are Arab Muslims - though it should be said that the victims are also mostly Muslim - and are supported by a regime in Khartoum that is backed by the Arab League has made some people question the true motives of some of the Jewish organizations involved in the rally.
The journalist observes that African American and Arab organisations have been dissuaded from endorsing the March of Solidarity because of suspect Jewish political motivations. In this instance, contemporary anti-Semites would prefer an entire race of ethnic Muslim Sudanese to be slaughtered than to accept the possibility that Jews are genuinely sensitive to genocide. Naturally, had the Jews remained silent on this issue then they would have undoubtedly been condemned for inaction.

When you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, it costs nothing to be righteous.

Freedom of Speech?

The Australian Federal Policy (AFP) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), have successfully established a precedent that allows Islamofascists to advocate violent Jihad against Westerners as an expression of their religious convictions. This absurd judgment came after several suspect Sydney Islamic bookstores were investigated for selling material that "carried an endorsement from Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden on its back cover and promoted 'wiring up one's body' with explosives." Moreover, seized material also described non-Muslims as "pigs and dogs" and justified killing innocent people in the name of Jihad. Despite the insistence of the Islamic Lobby that these texts constitute a legitimate freedom of expression, there is a clear violation of Australia's Sedition Laws. I specifically draw the reader's attention to Subdivision 80.2 of the legislation that specifically criminalises urging violence within the community:

(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished)

Additionally, it is now specifically illegal to [urge] a person to assist the enemy:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
Or to [urge] a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force."
Presently, the Australian Defense Force is engaged in armed hostilities with Al Qaeda.

There is an alarming asymmetry within the Australian judiciary in its handling of free speech. Australian Muslims enjoy a virtually unlimited right of expression, unrestricted by existing incitement laws. Yet, groups critical of the potential Islamic insurrection are subject to judicial restraint. For example, two years ago, a Christian minister was ordered to retract an online statement that accused Muslims of ideologically supporting terrorism. Furthermore, those who do engage the Islamic Lobby often face intimidation and threats of violence.

The sole detraction of democracy is its susceptibility to subversion; the Nazis were elected on an unambiguously democratic platform. Australia needs to seriously review its freedom of expression laws, assert federal control of existing sedition laws and reconsider its immigration policy. Specifically, how compatible is Islam with Australian values?

Ayatollas with Bombs

In an alarming development, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared on Iranian television that "At this historic moment, with the blessings of God Almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday." Assuming this statement and its timing to be accurate, Iran has essentially mastered the rudimentary research and development capability required to enrich uranium to the 3% required for nuclear fuel. This percentage refers to the concentration of the fissionable uranium isotope U-235 within the fuel. The secondary stage of weapon-grade development involves further enrichment of the uranium to 90%. This is a complex task that involves an experimental analysis of the fuel cycle and the construction of additional gas-centrifuges. Depending upon a variety of factors, including Iran's empirical results and its access to nuclear technologies, the nation could have access to the destructive technology within 6-48 months.

Why Iran?
It is a perverse misconception that the USA, Israel and its allies are averse to Iran possessing civilian nuclear power generators. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Iran may pursue peaceful nuclear power subject to international approval and transparency. However, Iranian authorities have been anything but transparent. According to Mohamed Elbaradei, the chief of the IAEA, Iran lacks a legitimate reason for nuclear power, "There's a lot of concern why Iran is developing an enrichment program, why do they need nuclear energy? They have a lot of gas, they have a lot of oil? There's a lot of skepticism there." Moreover, Iran has failed to disclose the location of numerous clandestine nuclear facilities and the illegal supply trail of their technologies, "These equipments have been imported from outside of Iran. They were not domestically manufactured." On Iran's mandated co-operation with the IAEA, Elbaradei observed, "..We had a very difficult relationship with Iran, cooperation was no good, information was slow, in many cases contradictory, and I have reported all that and I said that you are not helping us to build confidence. Verification is after all to try to build confidence, and we need transparency." Yet, the strongest evidence to support Iran's illegitimate nuclear ambitions was the nation's rejection of the Russian Proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil. The statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that "The Russian proposal is not on our agenda anymore," was intentionally vague. Nevertheless, there may be no mistake of Iran's intentions.

Options
The world faces two options. The first is to retain an open dialogue with Iran and seek a diplomatic solution. Proponents of this option suggest possible economic sanctions and political isolation should talks fail. A detraction of this policy is that it's slow. Libya defied UN economic and political sanctions for two decades before finally capitulating. A second drawback is that in the medium-term Iran wields leverage in the form of crude oil. The alternate policy, one to which I subscribe, is to insist on immediate Iranian compliance with its obligations under the NPT. Through transparent inspections, Iran should abate global fears about its nuclear ambitions. Should this fail, the UN must respond with tactical strikes against known and suspected nuclear sites.

Appeasement- but at what cost?
Should the West elect to appease Iran and provide it with ample time to develop its nuclear arsenal, the world will begin living on borrowed time. Iran may elect to attack Israel, a move that would instigate a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran could extort its Muslim neighbours, threatening them with nuclear war. Iran could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. The disastrous possibilities are limitless. Radical oppressive regimes and nuclear weapons don't mix.

Australia Vs. Indonesia

Indonesian-Australian relations were once again frosted this week following dual political rifts between the two nations caused by the arrival of 42 Papuan asylum seekers into Australia late last year.

Context
West Papua is a tiny Pacific island nation sharing an eastern border with Papua New Guinea. It was originally colonised by the Dutch but gained a level of autonomy in the 1850s. In 1963, West Papua was seized by the Indonesians who have illegally occupied and brutalised the nation. Despite countless UN resolutions and UN-recongised Independence Agreements (1952, 1961, 1962), Indonesia has refused to cede control. The exact reason for the initial Indonesian administration isn't clear, but the current oppression stems from a thirst for the island's natural resources, including gold, natural gas, oil, silver and copper.

Conflict
Australian-Indonesian relations are confusing at the best of times. In 2002 Australian peacekeepers were instrumental in gaining long-overdue independence for East Timor from Indonesia. Australia's role in enforcing international law and stopping state-sponsored terrorism (government armed militia sporadically murdering and raping villagers) against the tiny nation soured diplomatic relations. Tensions seemed to thaw following terrorist attacks against Australian interests and the outpouring of financial support by Australians to aid in Indo.'s tsunami relief effort (totaling $1bil AUS in private charity and low interest g'ment loans). Nevertheless, the relationship fell under the spot light last week as Australia announced that it would grant temporary protective visas to the Papuan refugees. The Indonesian response was swift. The Indonesian representative to Canberra was promptly recalled and the state-owned press ran a series of condemnatory articles and lude cartoons (the infamous cartoon depicting PM John Howard engaged in 'doggy style' sex with Foreign Minister Alexander Downer). An Australian newspaper cartoonist responded in kind (featuring the Indo. Pres. anally raping a West Papuan and the banner 'no offence'), which the Indo. Pres. opportunistically used as motivation to review Indo.'s co-operation with Australian authorities in preventing channels of illegal immigration into the country. As a friend of mine observed, "The extent of their co-operation probably extends to not shooting Australians."

Unfortunately, despite all the wrangling and ass-fucking West Papuans are no closer to justice.

When Privatisation Fails

The Australian Labor Party's descent into perpetual opposition reflects its inability to form alternative policy and enforce government accountability on relevant issues. One such issue is corporate privatisation.

It's the economy, stupid!
It is a common misconception that Capitalism is averse to nationalisation. Basic microeconomic theory suggests that a government monopoly can most efficiently control the allocation of certain resources, such as water, by funding the initial expense through tax revenue and then charging consumers the marginal cost (variable cost) of production. Another instance of economic failure due to privatisation occurs when a government elects to cede control over a heavily regulated sector. A classic example of this is the Howard government's decision to partially privatise Telstra- Australia's largest telecommunication company.

1998 heralded a new age in Australia. Finally, the shackles of progressive socialist economics were removed and Australia was free to pursue a US-style economic reform. Well, not quite. Thanks to brilliant American economists like Milton Friedman and Americans' love of sex, the USA enjoys a relatively deregulated capitalist market with three hundred million economic agents. Indeed, the latter condition is conducive of a competitive telecommunication sector because massive initial outlays can easily be recouped and a dense population distribution ensures effective service coverage. Historically, Australia's minute population, especially in remote country areas, has necessitated regulation. The intrinsic right of all Australians, rural or urban, to enjoy telecommunication service parity is an ingrained Australian ideal. Precipitously, Telstra maintained strict obligations to service the bush and as doing so was grossly unprofitable it was wholly owned and operated by the government.

The initial public offer of Telstra shares ($6) in 1998 was marketed at "mum and dad investors". The prospectus was intentionally simple to understand; lacking verbose financial jargon, and projected Telstra as an income stock. Institutional investors were cynical about Telstra's capacity to generate substantial long-term profits and queried the government about the extent of regulatory constraints being enforced. Nevertheless, applications were received on the basis that Telstra's dividend model provided a superior return to the cash rate and it was very unlikely that the telco would suffer any significant capital losses.
At the end of trade today TLS closed at a near record low of $3.68.

I trust the government, it's the people that run the government that I don't trust
So what happened? Precisely what analysts feared would happen. Telstra gained conditional independence from the government and instantly found itself in an impossible Catch-22 scenario. On the one hand Telstra had to return profits to investors in the forms of capital gains and cash dividends; a policy that stripped the company of liquid assets, and on the other hand, Telstra had to invest hundreds of millions into improving infrastructure and servicing the bush. Under its first CEO, Ziggy Switkowski, Telstra attempted to divest out of the bush, actively ignoring rural Australia until ordered into action by the government. This strategy remained fairly latent until the 2001 election when rural voters exposed distaste in the great communications divide: limited mobile phone coverage, negligible access to broadband and unreliable service through archaic infrastructure. To compound the problem, Telstra also found itself facing menacing competition from emerging telcos stealing away some of its market share. While the legislated forfeiture of some of Telstra's monopoly benefited consumers by way of cheaper phone call rates, Australia was inevitably digging itself into a hole.

First law of holes: when you're in one, stop digging
Earlier in the week, Phil Burgess, Telstra's managing director, publicly expressed the Telstra board's frustration with the government constraints.
"We have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to protect the investment of our shareholders. And the new management is going to do that - that's what we're committed to do...So the idea that Telstra can be a magic pudding for government policy, those days are over."
Presently, Telstra finds itself in a desperate situation. The company is cash strapped and was forced to dip into reserves to sustain its dividend levels. Hundreds of millions are required to update the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. And Telstra was forced to suspend its plans to introduce higher speed broadband to consumers until "the board is satisfied that Telstra has resolved all immediate issues."

The only equitable solution is a policy of complete privatisation, complete deregulation of the telecommunications industry and the establishment of government funds in escrow (possibly from the sale itself) to ensure the interests of the bush.

Passover Message

It's Passover. As Jews the world over sit at their Seder tables and recall their ancestors' exodus from Egypt, I would encourage all families to spare a thought for those Jews who are disaffected.

Introduction
In the late 19th century, Western European Jewry began to flourish. It embraced secularism, affluence and acquired a sense of national identity. Indeed, their auto-emancipation was so comprehensive that many suppressed their Jewish roots. A German-Jewish soldier, venerated for bravery during World War I, famously observed "I am a German citizen of the religion of Moses". This cultural abandonment was also coupled with a sense of indifference towards the plight of their Eastern European brothers. Many Jewish-born intellectuals arrogantly expressed disdain for the humiliated Eastern Jewry, suggesting that they must shed their persecution complex and earn their place in society. Others, less publicly, adopted the "am I my brother's keeper?" mentality. While I reject the notion that the Holocaust was God's divine manifestation, I do, very carefully and respectfully, acknowledge the irony that all 'Jews' (according to the Nazi definition), irrespective of nationality, wealth or even religious persuasion were collectively bound to experience the same horrors.

Sixty years on, and sensitivities aside, the ugly face of apathy rears its ugly head.

Double speak
A detraction from objective journalism is a lack of context. The role of the News is to merely state the facts, not extend an analysis of the situation. Accordingly, when one reads of a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, one simply absorbs the number of causalities, the circumstances of the attack, a verbose ideological statement from the relevant terrorist organisation and a statement of resolve from the authorities. Hidden within the text are the indirect effects of the conflict.

Constant Arab reprisals have created a fractured Israeli society, riddled with poverty and inequity. In 2005, Israel spent US$9.45 billion on defense. That equates to US$1500 per head
or 7.7% of GDP, the highest military spending anywhere in the world. 21% of the Israeli population live below the poverty line and thanks to the Intifada's decimation of the tourist industry, 8.9% of the labour force is unemployed. Moreover, amenities for disabled people are desperately under funded and equal access is a mere pipe dream. The privileges that are so ingrained in Australia as to be taken for granted are a result of 150 years of peace. In order for a nation to be socially aware, compassionate and prosperous peace is absolutely essential.

Few diaspora Jews acknowledge, or even recognise, that in 2006 Israeli Jews go hungry. We must ask ourselves whether present day Israel is what Herzl envisaged in 'Das Judenstaat' (a citation of modern Zionism). Yet, to do so is often confronting because it involves a critical analysis of Israel. Personally, I believe that Israel should be unrelenting in its pursuit of social equality and the alleviation of poverty. Since the conflict with the Palestinians is inevitable and will never be resolved through diplomacy, Israel should focus on settling people in homes and investing in sustainable development [please read adjunct below for explanation]. The current meshuga policy of ceding precious land to terrorists and displacing Jews in order to appease the disinterested international community is counter productive.

Less land equates fewer resources and fewer opportunities.

Adjunct
Gaza was home to beautiful costal settlements. The settlers, unlike the Palestinians, who use the terrain to launch Qasam rockets into Israel, were industrious. Using sophisticated irrigation techniques (necessitated by Israel's infertility and aridness, Israeli agricultural scientists are the foremost specialists in the world), the settlers established efficient greenhouses. These were used to grow fruit and flower exports to Europe. Prior to Israeli disengagement, a contingent of wealthy American Jews purchased the greenhouses from the settlers and donated it to the PLO. The idea was to encourage Palestinian self-reliance and stimulate job growth (the greenhouses required 250-350 employees to maintain). These greenhouses, along with abandoned synagogues were savagely destroyed within minutes of Palestinian resettlement. The Palestinian hatred of the Jews far outweighed their love of a prospect independent Palestine.

Israeli Elections

As Israeli voters cast their preliminary ballot there is a pervasive sense of uncertainty about the future direction of the Arab-Israeli conflict. My contention is that the outcome of this election will have no discernable impact.

Historical context

Prof. Alan Dershowitz (Harv.) aptly insists on a 'statue of limitations for grievances' in his book 'The Case for Israel' (2003). While some opportunists intentionally misinterpret this as a license to observe the conflict within a convenient time period, the Prof. is actually precluding much of the esoteric religious debate over ownership (which is highly variable depending on what language you praise God with). Succinctly, the Arab-Israeli conflict commenced in the year 1948 when Israel gained independence. Arab objections to Israel were not based on concerns that Israel was formed on "Palestinian territory"; indeed, "Palestine" has never existed in a sovereign capacity, but rather that Jews have no right to self-determination. It is worth noting that Israel was formed largely on land purchased from absentee Arab landlords by wealthy Jewish donors. Where land was designated, it complied with clauses in the Israeli constitution that prohibited the acquisition of land on which Arabs were a majority. In fact, the Arab nations were also averse to the creation of an independent Palestinian state through the contemporary Two State Solution. They preferred that British Mandate Palestine be returned to Syria, the traditional administrator of the land during the days of the Ottomans. There are countless evidences to support this assertion but I specifically draw the reader's attention to E. Said, a prominent anti-Israel intellectual, who stated that "the whole of Palestinian nationalism evolved from the desire on driving all Israelis (Jews) out." I also remind the reader that land designated for a provisional Palestinian state was promptly annexed in 1947 by Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Thus, the fundamental opposition to a Jewish state in the Mideast by its Arab neighbours is a pervasive legacy.

Territorial or Existential?

Critics of Israel typically maintain that the Jewish state can defuse tensions with its neighbours by ceding territory to the Palestinians. I have intentionally omitted a description of these territorial concessions because they are at best ambiguous. According to the Fatah party (brainchild of terrorist Yassir Arafat, born Cairo, Egypt), Israel illegally occupies land seized during the 1967 Six Day War. According to the Hamas, a terrorist organisation and the current democratically elected representative body of the Palestinian people, Israel has no legitimacy in any form. According to Libya, Israel doesn't currently exist in any capacity (yes, we're all very confused by that statement). Naturally, I will address the foremost argument.

When the united Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973 and amassed along its border in 1967, the intention was evident: the complete destruction of Israel. Curiously, very few nations were concerned by this prospect, as evident by an absence of any UN draft resolutions concerning these illegal invasions, and most even exacerbated Israel's woes by imposing arms embargoes (prior to 1973 only the French sold arms to Israel). Nevertheless, in the space of just a few weeks, the Chosen people flushed the aggressors from the Holy Land. During these wars Israel secured territory from the invaders. The rationale for this decision was to establish militarily strategic vantage points (such as the Golan Heights and the West Bank of Jordan) and wield some leverage as far as future negotiations. In an historic peace agreement with Egypt's President Sadat in 1979, Israel conditionally* returned the Sinai. Pres. Sadat was subsequently assassinated by Islamic extremists. The peace has nevertheless endured.

The assertion that Israel must unconditionally return land that it legitimately seized to a provisional state incapable of enforcing its own obligations under International Law and failing to recognise Israel's right to exist is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, this line of reasoning was proved to be defunct in the 2000 Camp David Peace Talks, where terrorist Yassir Arafat shocked the world by rejecting a proposition that he himself had been demanding; an independent state with its capital in Jerusalem, control over the Temple Mount, a return of 95% of the West Bank of Jordan and the entire Gaza strip, and a $30 billion compensation package for alleged refugees of the 1948 Arab instigated war. Arafat failed to offer a counter-proposal. Instead, he waged the Intifada.

Thus, the issue of "occupation" had been effectively dissolved as a central point of contention among the Palestinians and Israelis. The issue is the fundamental right of Jews to live in their own state.

Consequences

The most overt implication of the Arab-Israeli conflict is that it will never be resolved through politics. Regardless of whether Israel will be governed by Kadima, the Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, there is a fundamental asymmetry between the ideologies of Israelis and the Arabs that precludes any diplomatic outcome. Isolationism appears to be the only option.

I conclude with the final blessings offered by millions of Jews daily:
Ose shalom bimrumav, Hu ya'ase shalom aleynu, ve al kol Yisrael.
Bring peace in our time, bring peace upon us and upon all of Yisrael.
Amen

(*The primary condition was that the Sinai would remain a demilitirized zone)

Nuclear Proliferation

One of the most redundant initiatives by the United Nations (UN) has been the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A brief history: The NPT was enacted on July 1 1968 in order to contain the proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons. Succinctly, the doctrine is based upon three pillars. Firstly, signatory nations must abstain from developing, renewing or expanding their nuclear military programmes. Secondly, those nations possessing the offending technology must endeavour to completely disarm "under strict and effective international controls" and must abstain from "inducing any non-nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons". Finally, the Treaty affirms a nation's legitimate right to pursue peaceful nuclear power subject to international approval and transparency. There have since been other peripheral clauses added relating to nuclear technology embargos on non-ratifying nations; the most recent example of this concerns Australia's ambivalence on whether to export $100 million worth of Uranium to India.

Strictly ideological legislations are often based on unrealistic assumptions of behaviour. Indeed, they tend to mandate how a collective should behave rather than accommodate how the collective actually does behave. The NPT is one such example. The fundamental assumptions of the Treaty are that all regimes are rational and seek peace. Not particularly shrewd. Consider Israel's nuclear programme.

Israel's constitution (1948) stipulates "Yisrael muchanah lehoshit yad l'shalom l'shcheneya- Israel extends a hand of peace to her neighbours." To that end, Israel has made territorial concessions in order to normalize relations with two former adversaries, Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). Israel has also made repeated attempts to negotiate peace with the Palestinians (1947, 1948, 1967, 1979, 1993, 2000). Presently, the state finds itself embroiled in existential (non-territorial) conflict.

Israel's nuclear capabilities (believed to have commenced in the 1950s) was motivated by necessity. Nevertheless, its nuclear monopoly within the Mideast and its refusal to ratify the NPT have been a point of contention among critics. Some of these concerns were baseless to begin with and others have been dispelled after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the USA and Israel to be "wiped off the map" while concurrently pursuing nuclear technology.

Another indication of the NPT's sheer irrelevance is the absence of an enforcement clause (akin to the Kyoto Protocol). Curiously, a signatory nation is merely "bound by principle" to observe its obligations as per the Treaty. Member nations, among them; France, China, Russia and the UK continue to actively develop and test military nuclear technology, while the USA, which is poised to overhaul and upgrade its entire arsenal, regularly performs virtual nuclear tests using computer simulations. The lack of legal recourse and non-transparency creates a classic cartel scenario: In a climate of mistrust, each member seeks to gain an advantage by violating their obligations. An organic dissolution.