For one very simple reason: I also have an account [...]]]> I’m actually very happy with the service from DreamHost, and there are some features that they offer (such as mirroring and the announce-list) that I won’t have access to with the move – or if these exist, I have yet to find them! So why move?

For one very simple reason: I also have an account with On-Rev, and wish to experiment a little more with RunRev for the main part of my site… and for this, I need to have it at On-Rev (which I already use to host other sites).

Israel is no in any kind of enviable space: it is surrounded by communities that do not genuinely believe it even ought [...]]]> What’s a nation to do when people around it are hell-bent on seeking to destroy it, to bring in (even more) weapons, to violently provoke it, and to paint it as an unfair aggressor?

Israel is no in any kind of enviable space: it is surrounded by communities that do not genuinely believe it even ought to exist, and every act of self-defence is imaged elsewhere as though the government of Israel, protecting its population, is aggressor.

Why a naval blockade in the first place? simple: as one amongst many examples, only a few months ago, the Israeli Navy intercepted the ship Francop containing 320 tonnes of arms sent from Iran (the image to the right is part of the weaponry seized). In this and other instances, the weapons and ammunition were disguised as civilian cargo amongst numerous containers.

What’s Israel to do? Part of the ‘problem’, of course, is that in so many instances in recent history, the aggressor which has had to be countered has been the official State. This remains the case in the ongoing struggles between Kurds and the Turkish government, Tibet and China, the freedom movement in Sri Lanka, the appalling situation in numerous parts of sub-sahara Africa and all too many islamic regimes. As westerners, we also collectively face the more recent struggles of independence movements in former colonies, these often in nations that have become, especially since gaining independence, at the mercy of islamic groups (from ‘benign’ examples such as Indonesia and Malaysia, to the difficult situations in places like Zimbabwe, Algeria, and so many of the ‘-stan’ nationstates of the regions that connects Asia to Europe).

Israel, in that context, remains a rather unique counter-intuitive example where the State is placed in the situation of being permanently at war with organisations funded by foreign governments who see it in their political advantage to perpetuate aggression. How is Israel to protect its citizens?

Despite the all too numerous deaths that have occurred on all sides, what’s really quite astounding is the ongoing military restraint that Israeli governments have displayed over the years, and the incredible similar restraint its individual soldiers have shown. This does not mean there aren’t a relatively small (but still unacceptable) number of incidents whereby individual soldiers have apparently gone over the top. In comparison, however, it’s quite astounding how benign the vast majority of personnel within the Israeli armed forces have shown themselves to be. Frankly, I doubt that the equivalent units in any neighbouring nation (or further afield ones, for that matter) would have acted with such humanist values. At the very least, consider what each of us would have done if part of the navy escorting the redirection of ships to Port and being attacked without provocation – not sure about others, but I suspect that my own defense would have been swifter than the restraint shown by the Israelis (cf this report).

With regards to the part of Israel generally referred to as the West Bank, this was an area that was relinquished by the (also new) State of Jordan following that country’s unsuccessful attempt to destroy the State of Israel in 1967 – recalling also that Jordan is one of the country established under what used to be called the Palestine Mandate, divided into Trans-Jordan and the remainder. Ie, Jordan this is the nation established for Palestinians, in the same way that Israel was established as the homeland of the Jewish population. That Palestinians continue to be treated as ‘refugees’ in Jordan is tragic, and only perpetuates the regional problem. Why was the area named ‘Palestine’? this goes right back to the Roman invasion of Judea, renaming the region in part to obliterate memory of the Jewish homelands.

For a good overview of the recent political history of the region, see http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp026_eretz.htm

[Model of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, as it would have been prior to its Roman destruction]

For those amongst us who care for the sanctity of the Jewish Temple’s location, this new celebration is… well, something to celebrate!

The second Temple was of [...]]]> Today, 16th March, marks an important development: the first international Temple Mount Awareness day.

[Model of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, as it would have been prior to its Roman destruction]

For those amongst us who care for the sanctity of the Jewish Temple’s location, this new celebration is… well, something to celebrate!

The second Temple was of course destroyed by the Roman Empire with its effective invasion of Judea and its transformation by them into a new province renamed ‘Palestine’ (effectively renaming the whole region as though it were Philistine and ‘wiping Judea off the face of the Earth’).

Perhaps it is also time to see the Temple Mount area declared part of Israel’s ‘Heritage Plan’ (sites of significance to the Jewish people), and steps taken to organise a relocation of the mosques currently thereon to more appropriate locations that may be agreed upon such as, for example, in Jordan.

[Sketch of forthcoming Third Temple]

On PEACE in the region

It seems rather obvious that peace will only be achieved once Jerusalem is supported and recognised as the capital of the State of Israel, and when the Temple Mount is rebuilt with the Temple. Of course there will be ‘cries’ seeking to arrest or prevent such. Once completed, however, I would suggest that even the more extreme amongst islamacists will recognise that the Temple rightfully belongs to the Jewish community, and that the current mosques are not, in fact, the third temple.

Still, some sensitivity in the relocation (rather than the demolition) is required. It seems to me that the only sensible re-location is in modern-day Jordan.

Where the foreign minister claimed that the usage of such Australian passports would not be an ‘act of a friend’, Kevin Rudd [...]]]> It’s some concern when both our foreign and prime ministers seem to place more value on the appropriation of an Australian passport than they do on protecting the life and freedom of Australian citizens.

Where the foreign minister claimed that the usage of such Australian passports would not be an ‘act of a friend’, Kevin Rudd is reported to have said that:

When it comes to Australian passport fraud or the use and abuse of Australian passports, this government has an absolutely hard line on defending the integrity of our passport system.

He further added that:

Any state that chooses to do this in relation to Australian passports, frankly, is treating the Australian people, the Australian government and the Australian nation with contempt

As an Australian citizen all too often travelling abroad (‘all too often’, as the so-called ‘security’ measures are increasingly becoming a reflection of draconian totalitarian regimes), I’m far more concerned about the apparent lack of ‘hard line’ this government is taking in protecting the integrity of Australian citizens!

Of recent events includes the jailing of Shapelle Corby on what would likely be insufficient evidence in European, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian courts; the state murder of some of the so-called ‘Bali 9′, and further death sentences by yet other countries on Australian citizens. And these acts by nations that Australia still explicitly considers ‘friends’!

Whether or not any of those individuals are guilty of trafficking is only one part of the problem: the issue here is whether the Australian government is concerned more with protecting the integrity of its citizens or, instead, its documents.

A further problem in the case of the Dubai assassination of a known terrorist is that accusations, without evidence, have been publicly pointed or implied by our government: it is as yet unknown who the perpetrators of the killing of the arms smuggler were, and whether or not they had any assistance from any country. Of course Israel is going to be considered in this undertaking: the felon killed is one of its enemies, and Israel has both the capacity and motivation for undertaking this crackdown in its ongoing need to defend itself from individuals and other nations that only seek its destruction.

Frankly, under such duress and under the shadow of an ongoing war, it would have been better had Australia, in my personal view (and one obviously not shared by the ruling political party that is very unlikely to get my future support), be in support of Israel’s actions should it be behind this or other similar actions. In exactly the same way that, I would suggest, it also would have been in support were a struggling Ally nation during WWII ‘misuse’ an Australian document in order to ‘eliminate’ a known felon who has previously used his capacity to potentially kill thousands of civilians.

Nazi passport issued to foreigners

… or to [...]]]> In an ironic twist, radical muslims in the US are using the above slogan against those who act against islamic aggression… but perhaps, even without considering, amongst numerous others, Salman Rushdie and the 75 y.o. Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who have their lives at risk, some of these images speak for themselves:

… or to rephrase this in the more usual Orwellian newspeak doublethink

‘WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH’

added
I was also quite surprised to read the comments by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran on the supposed ignorance of the common folk in France who oppose islam, claiming that “these are people who have never encountered Muslims”: in France (where the Cardinal is located), unless one has never entered any significant city in that country, it has become impossible to NOT have encountered a significant number of muslims!

To have a Christian Cardinal omit to explicitly negate slavery in general, or the presentation of Christ as ‘slave to allah’ is rather worrying!

The concern about islam is generally not due to ignorance, but rather to observation as to the engagement of a significant minority that seem to verbalise or display explicit support for the violent acts of an even smaller minority. It is indeed the case that ‘most muslims are not terrorists’, and that there are honourable people everywhere – even despite their religion, whether this be islam, communism or membership to a nazi party. This does not mean that we cannot acknowledge the worth of the person qua person whilst at the same time awake to the detrimental worldview held (especially if a book it holds ‘sacred’ admonished the killing of fellow human beings). In addition, that most muslims are indeed not terrorists has to be taken in conjunction with an awareness that most terrorists in the West have of recent times been muslims.

While several european countries are currently debating the visibility of Islam, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran declared to the press agency I.Media that for many this fear is born of “ignorance”. Questioned on the growing “fear” in Europe with respect to Islam, as seen in the reactions in the debate over the burka and the minarets, Cardinal Tauran affirmed that “the problem in these affairs” is the “ignorance of the people who are opposed to Islam”. “These are people”, laments the French cardinal, “who have never encountered Muslims and who form their opinions based on what they see and hear on television.” Cardinal Tauran also deplores “the general lack of culture, especially of religious culture” in the political European world. Recalling to mind that “most Muslims are not terrorists”, the president of the pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue invites us to “see them as partners”.

 

‘IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ISLAM TO EMBRACE THE LIBERTIES REQUIRED FOR CITIZENS OF A MODERN STATE, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND’

There’s not really much to say. Though if [...]]]> Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

I’ve just (finally) read the 575 page UN document titled ‘HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict‘ (otherwise known as the ‘Goldstone’ report).

There’s not really much to say. Though if the same people had been involved in a ‘fact finding mission’ on the ‘French conflict’ during WWII, the Nazis would have come out looking as though the aggrieved party in a British ‘invasion’ of the mainland, and any of the atrocities committed by the Nazis briefly mentioned in passing, whilst the Allies brandished as aggressive killers.

Needless to say, the UN continues to show its colours by such ‘reporting’ – which should perhaps better be termed propaganda!

Perhaps it should be recalled that southern Israel has had over 240 missiles fired into it indiscriminately this past year alone (ie, since the end of the Gaza military defensive action – prior to this action, over 3000 missiles were exploded amongst Southern Israeli residents). That’s over FOUR BOMBS A WEEK fired by Hamas since the ‘end’ of the ‘war’! And this is ‘peaceful’ times. Not sure about anyone else, but if those landed in my vicinity on such a regular occurance, I would not only want some action taken to stop these, but would feel incensed that the world instead supported the senseless random acts of violence rather than legitimate action taken for these to stop.

What should be surprising is that the UN and the world does not support Israel’s need to prevent such atrocities.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, or Orwellian NewSpeak [...]]]> From the description of the prizes according to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to someone who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." [my emphasis]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, or Orwellian NewSpeak has now gained normal currency. Nobel’s description is reasonably open, yet quite specific: I would have thought that someone who engaged in the opposite of the ‘abolition or reduction of standing armies’ would be ineligible.

apart from the announced US troop increase of 30 000, another 56 000 ‘private contractors’ (jobs that were previously done by the military, including ‘security’ armed personnel), as well as other NATO forces, are expected!!!

Of more concern still is Obama’s speech. I cannot but read it with something of the descriptions of Arhiman’s incarnation in mind. Surely this is the type of presentation that will ensue: lull and promise; do the opposite and justify it in terms of peace, truth, etc.

It’s also quite interesting to put his speech in accepting the PEACE prize into wordle.net and see what emerges. Here are the top 12 words (apart from common English words such as ‘that’ etc.):

war/s         45 human/man/men/women/people 40 world 30 peace         29 nations 15 America 14 force 10 believe 10 rights 9 conflict 9 nuclear 8 countries 7

I’m also amazed at how this has unfolded given my much earlier comment on Ahriman on fourhares – which I wrote prior to Obama being nominated (and not, of course, assuming nor implying Obama to be Arhiman incarnate… I could, of course, be entirely misjudging the entire situation…

Anyhow, here are a few brief excerpts from his speech:

Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed.

‘Some will kill, and some will be killed’, and he mentions, in the middle of the acceptance of a PEACE prize, his responsibility in this!

And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Is this Orwellian, or what? the ‘difficult questions’ about the relationship between peace and war (this latter mentioned first!) is that one is NOT the other… and what of the effort to replace one with the other? should this be understoon in the context of increased war?

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.

Is the implied subtext that war is inevitable and part and parcel of being a real man?

At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned;

My recollection of the dawn of history is that its morality WAS questioned… and has been throughout. Is this a subtle manner of implying that war’s morality ought not to be questioned?

it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

War is a different kind of ‘fact’ to either drought and disease as these latter are not (at least intentionally) the direct involvement of people with people, whereas in war there is the intentional killing of a person by another.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups,

The emergence of laws was not to control violence, but rather to reflect ideals of Justice.

so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war.

Interesting use of ‘cleric’ in that sentence, especially in light of what occurs later which seeks to paint Christianity as aggressor against islam! Of course, I realise that the term ‘cleric’ is far more generic in meaning that its common usage – it remains, nonetheless, full of religious implications. On a general note, to claim that philosophers and statesmen sought to ‘regulate’ the power of war is non-sensical… though again there is here a hidden suggestion that war’s regularity has the implied blessing of ‘cleric’, philosopher and statesman!

The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Here is a double implication: the first is that the concept of a just war meeting those stated conditions is bunk; yet just wars are Just… even if… let’s get to the next point

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.

Let’s take a brief few second pause and call to mind that this is a speech in acceptance of the Nobel PEACE prize! And here humanity’s capacity described as inexhaustible – not towards that which is good or peaceful, but in the context of justifying ways to kill people.

Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.

the implication is that we now live in a world in which war is between all, not simply combatants.

In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent.

Sure he’s talking about the past… the ensuing sentence points clearly to this. Yet as either heard or read, the sentence has been given its attention without the mind able to ascertain if what is presented is prophecy or a period of past history.

And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

A strange sequence of words – virtually putting into doubt that the defeat of the Nazis was for the best.

I’ll leave it here for now – but to my reading, the entirety of his ‘Peace’ acceptance speech sounds closer to what one would expect from a recipient of a shadow ‘War’ Nobel prize!