Bob Carr's meddling is harming Labor

From The Australian,  FEBRUARY 07, 2015, by MICHAEL EASSON:

THE [Arab-Israel] conflict... is now potentially a powder keg for the Australian Labor Party.

Arab advocate, Bob Carr

The claims by ... Bob Carr in an article for The Guardian newspaper on January 14 illustrate a looming debate at the forthcoming ALP national conference in July. Carr said he “winced” at Australia’s vote at the UN Security Council on the recognition of a Palestinian state in Dec­ember, alleging the Coalition meekly delivered “what the pro-Israel lobby in Australia wanted”, ignored the national interest and delayed the achievement of a two-state solution.

So what are the facts and the ­issues? Late last year, after many iterations of an earlier draft, Jordan submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council on the Middle East. The resolution was voted on, on December 29, but failed to muster the minimum nine yes votes required (a two-thirds affirmative vote) from the council for adoption and then for a vote before the full assembly of the UN. The motion received eight affirmative votes, from Jordan, China, France, Russia, Luxembourg, Chad, Chile and Argentina; two no votes, from the US and Australia; and five abstentions, from Britain, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda.

Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, said the resolution was “deeply imbalanced and contains many elements that are not conducive to negotiations between the parties, including unconstructive deadlines that take no account for Israeli’s legitimate security concerns”.

There the matter rested, without much Australian interest, until Carr, once more, entered the debate demanding recognition of “Palestine”, as proposed by Jordan and others.

The draft UN resolution did not deserve support for many reasons. 

• First, although the resolution is 80 per cent OK, the remaining 20 per cent is a minefield. 
• Second, although the draft preaches peace, in parts the resolution is vague and unbalanced, sometimes dangerously so. With mere declaratory resolutions, there is the temptation to sweep the deficiencies aside and let it go through. But the better view, especially when every word is loaded with resolutions involving the Middle East, is not blithely to ­ignore the hardest facts.
• Third, there is already a good deal of constructive and forceful diplomacy going on in coaxing, cajoling and pleading with Israel and the Palestinians to reach a fair conclusion. Foremost in these efforts are those by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Quartet (the UN, the US, the European Union and Russia) led by Tony Blair. The proposed resolution undermines their efforts.
• Fourth ...The two parties who need to work out a solution directly are the Israelis and the Palestinians.
• Fifth, it is irresponsible to recognise a country with no agreed boundaries. If recognition ignores what ought to be and would be defined borders, we are delving into the realm of metaphysics rather than practical politics. The world might as well recognise Utopia.
• Sixth, a country without clear definition of its borders is a recipe for border skirmishes in defining clear borders.
• Seventh, Israel has legitimate fears about the formation of a ­second Hamastan in the heart of ­Israel — this is front and centre of Israel’s security concerns.
• Eighth, the security concerns of Israel are given short shrift. Noticeably, the UN draft resolution was weaker than what Carr advocated at the NSW ALP conference last July. One of the key planks of Carr’s resolution then was that “NSW Labor welcomes the decision of the Palestinian Authority to commit to a demilitarised Palestine with the presence of international peacekeepers, including US forces”. Either this is an essential point or a matter of rhetoric. In the UN resolution there was no reference to a demilitarised Palestine. What the resolution refers to is the need for “security arrangements, including through a third-party presence that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a state of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces”, which is proposed to occur no later than the end of 2017. This is an incredibly weak statement. Yet, in his January article, Carr says of the proposed UN wording: “It thus captured the recent Palestinian concession that there should be Western peacekeepers within the territory of their putative state. And Australia voted that down.” But that is not what the words in the draft resolution actually say.
• Ninth, the status of Palestinian refugees and their descendants is confusingly mentioned in the draft Jordanian resolution. In 1999, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak offered the resettlement of up to 50,000 in Israel. Such numbers have been off the table ever since. Barak’s proposal, part of a wider package, was rejected by Yasser Arafat when he spurned the Clinton peace proposals. Perhaps economic compensation, long proposed by the Americans, in rebuilding and developing Palestinian society, is what is needed. But the reference, in the draft UN resolution, to resolution 194 (iii), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative, is unhelpful. UN resolution 194 was adopted in 1948 and proposed the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. The Arab peace initiative proposes all refugees and their descendants have the right of settlement in ­Israel. This is an impractical idea.
• Tenth, the proposed UN resolution recklessly refers to the International Court of Justice’s decision of July 9, 2004, on the legal consequences of the construction of a security barrier in the occupied Palestinian territory. On one reading, this reference is not saying much. On another, this is suggesting the wall be pulled down. Construction of the barrier began in 2002, following the Palestinian intifada, and its purpose was to stop the wave of suicide bombings that took hundreds of lives in Israel. The Palestinian Authority sought a ruling from the International Court of Justice on the fence. Israel refused to present evidence directly, arguing the court had no jurisdiction, and presented only an advisory opinion on the jurisdiction issue. The majority of the court in an advisory opinion, however, ruled for the Palestinians in a complicated assessment, with dissent from several judges. Given the lives saved, no Israeli government would dismantle this structure. Certainly, with border adjustments, parts will need to be rebuilt in accordance with new boundaries. Sadly, however, until confidence is built up, there will continue to be a wall.

Speaking of which, point six of the draft UN resolution calls on both parties to build trust and engage in confidence-building measures. In that spirit, how about the Palestinian Authority banning television shows that night and day incite the murder of Jews? This is an unrelenting theme, featured in children’s shows and cartoons, and popular dramas, on Palestinian television. There is a fear the PA is so weak it is unable to control elements interested in continuing the armed struggle.

After all, when Israel’s Gaza withdrawal occurred, following agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas was soon after ruling the roost. Unrelenting rocket attacks on Israel launched from Gaza have been a constant ever since. Abbas seems to be an honourable man but a weak one and, at nearly 80, with few years left for the political stage. It is more than a decade since he last faced direct election. Who knows who will come next.

The slaughter last November of rabbis praying in a synagogue in Jerusalem (historic Jewish Jerusalem) and the celebratory response in the Arab world make many Israelis wonder what lies ahead. (Note that the Jordanian parliament passed a motion hailing these murderers as martyrs. There were celebrations, firecrackers going off and dancing in the street in Ramallah.)

The arguments against the draft UN resolution united the Israeli opposition (the Israel Labor Party, led by Isaac Herzog, in coalition with Hatnuah, led by Tzipi Livni), and Kerry, the US Secretary of State, among other significant players, in urging it be voted down.

Israeli Labor has been petitioning foreign governments against unilateral declaration. ­Labor Party secretary Hilik Bar wrote an open letter to Britain about this. He cited unilateralism as making things worse in terms of Israel’s desire to move back to serious peace talks. A renewed opportunity with the latter is with the election of a new government in Israel. It appears Labor and its ­coalition allies are performing strongly.

The recent stance on the Middle East adopted by Carr, however, departs from Australia’s reasonable position of the achievement of national objectives and high ­ideals, through practical means. Unilateral adventurism and inconsistency are hardly the hallmarks of creative realism.

The ALP needs to be cautious about sweeping generalisations, wary of lazy wording in conference resolutions and particularly determined to get the language right with anything that might be supported on the international stage.

...Even if a particular resolution is four-fifths OK, all the words matter and cannot be regarded lightly. A draft UN resolution that sets unilateral deadlines, avoids the hard security issues and is laden with provocative references to Israel is not the way ahead.

Australia’s best hopes are served by working in tandem with the US in pressing for a workable solution. Endorsement of one-sided, loosely worded resolutions is not a responsible position for our country. Labor ought to be better than that. I believe it will be, come the July ALP national conference. But, in view of Carr’s persistent advocacy, there’s a long road ahead.

*Michael Easson is a former NSW Labor Council secretary and NSW Labor vice-president.

Australian Muslims are statistically more likely to engage in jihad than to enlist in the Australian Defence Forces.

From the SMH, 11 Jan 2015, by Paul Sheehan:

Illustration: michaelmucci.com

When French president Francoise Hollande addressed the nation on Friday in the wake of terrorist attacks that left 20 dead, he uttered the predictable mantra:

"These fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion".

His comment is understandable given that France has more than five million Muslims, a stagnant economy, 24 per cent youth unemployment and endemic social alienation among young Muslims.

His comment is also nonsense. A de facto world war is under way and it has everything to do with Islam. It is not thousands of lone wolfs. It is not un-Islamic conduct. It involves thousands of Muslims acting on what they believe is their religious duty to subjugate non-believers, as outlined in the Koran.

And the problem is growing, not contracting. There was once a tradition among young Australians to travel overland from Singapore to London. That route has become a hell-hole:

Pakistan is dangerous. Afghanistan is a no-go area. Iran is an oppressive theocracy. Iraq is disintegrating. Syria is a disaster area. Lebanon is dangerous. In Turkey, for the first time, Australians travelling to Gallipoli will be going under a security alert.

All these Muslim countries used to be safe for transit. The intimidation being practised in the name of Islam by a small minority is a by-product of something much larger – the state-mandated conservatism that is systemic in the majority of Muslim societies. Most of them are dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies or failed states.

An investigation by Kings College London and the BBC World Service found that in a single month, November 2014, 5042 people were killed by jihadists in 664 separate attacks across 14 countries. That is one death every eight minutes.

It is ongoing. On Thursday, the Islamist group Boko Haram (which translates as "Western education is forbidden") is believed to have murdered  up to 2000 people in Nigeria. These crimes, far greater in scale than those in Paris, received only a fraction of the attention.

In the 35 years since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, at least a million people have been killed in tens of thousands of jihad attacks, religious civil wars or wars between predominantly Muslim countries.   

In France, a form of dissimilation (to borrow a term from phonetics) is taking place. About 40 per cent of young Muslims are unemployed and thousands have embraced radical Islam as a form of social retaliation.

Surveys have found that between 16 and 21 per cent of respondents in France hold positive views of Islamic State. Given that France has more than five million Muslims, the social catchment of sympathy for jihad is about one million people.

This explains why France has 751 special security zones, an endless sequence of violent incidents involving young Muslim men, anti-Semitic incidents have become routine and Muslims represent 60 per cent of the prison population. Two of the three jihad killers in Paris had served time in prison.

France and Australia are linked by the past week's events. Both countries have been drawn into an asymmetrical global jihad, fed by notoriety and thus self-sustaining.

In Australia, the pressures are much less severe in the Muslim diaspora but there are self-evident problems.

Here is a statistic to ponder: 

Australian Muslims are statistically more likely to engage in jihad than to enlist in the Australian Defence Forces.

As at June 30, 2014, there were 57,036 permanent members in the ADF, plus 24,028 in the reserves. When I asked Defence Media how many ADF personnel were Muslim, I received this response:

"As at 26 October, 2014, 100 ADF members have declared they are of Islamic faith … The reporting of religious faith is voluntary and, as such, the data provided may not be a fully accurate representation."

With about 500,000 Muslims in Australia, representing 2.1 per cent of the population, there would be about 1200 Muslims in the ADF if they served on a per capita basis. Instead, the number is miniscule, about 0.2 per cent.

In contrast, 20 Australian Muslims have been killed in fighting in the Syrian civil war, an estimated 60 are still in the combat zone, another 20 have returned from Syria, and an estimated 100 more have provided support for jihad. These figures are from the federal government.

Another 20 Muslims are serving prison terms in Australia for serious terrorism offences or are facing terrorism charges. Two more Muslims, Man Haron Monis and Abdul Numan Haider, were killed during attacks in Australia in which they both invoked Islamic State.

Obviously, if 220 Australian Muslims are known to have engaged in jihad or supported jihad, it follows that 500,000 Muslims, or 99.95 per cent, have not.

Equally obvious, the diverse Muslim diaspora cannot be treated as a dangerous monolith, given that Muslims are the primary victims of oppression by Muslims and the overwhelming majority of Muslims either prefer the peaceful precepts of the Koran or are not highly religious.

But the calculus of terrorism relies on the leveraging of small numbers. It only took three jihadists to occupy 90,000 French police and military personnel, at enormous cost to the state, with enormous global publicity. That will have been duly noted by jihadists.

Australia's security agency has thus become extremely busy. Last financial year, ASIO conducted 159,000 security assessments. This helps explain why the Lindt Café killer was taken off the watch list.

Because of the leveraging of small numbers, the deaths of 22 Australian Muslims in the cause of jihad represents serious social capital. In per-capita terms, it the equivalent of more than 1000 Australian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan. This dwarfs the death toll of 43 Australian military personnel killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the past decade, regarded as a heavy social cost.

In these terms, 22 is a large number and 220 is a very large number.

Goodbye France.

An opinion by Dr Ron Weiser AM:

Je Suis Charlie, Je Suis Ahmed, Je Suis ?????

I was waiting for another Je Suis to spontaneously erupt from the good people of France.

But it did not come, maybe tomorrow, maybe not...........not the French word for Jewish or the names of even one of the innocent people going about their erev Shabbat shopping in a kosher store in France.

Je Suis?????

And no, the real problem is not the Moslem population of France, nor even the Jihadist element of that population.

Blaming them allows the French an excuse.

The real problem is France.

Even before this latest atrocity French Jews were making aliyah in record numbers.

Thousands and thousands – 8,000, 9,000 in 2014 alone.

For the first time in the history of the modern state of Israel, more Jews are coming on aliyah by choice from a democratic country than from your typical country of distress.

Is this because French Jewry is more Zionistic than say the Jews of Australia?

Is this because the aliyah shaliach in France is so effective?

It is because something is so broken within French society – the non Moslem 90% of the population - and within the leadership of France, that Jews are fleeing for their lives – literally.

A France that is rotten to the core.

A hypocritical country that thinks that mouthing slogans of liberty and equality make it so.

A country that snobbishly looks down on the State of Israel and waves its wand of moral equivalence over her. Where an Israeli Arab is safer walking any street in Israel dressed in any religious garments he or she chooses, than a Jew in France walking around in a kippa.

A France that only a few days ago voted in the UN Security Council for a Palestinian State without any safeguards or guarantees at all that a Jewish State alongside it would be part of the deal.

A France whose actions do not immunise it from the Jihadists in any case.

Thank G-d for Australia.

And what a delicious and fitting irony.

That of all people, of all people, Bob Carr must be kicking himself for pushing so heavily for Australia to have a seat on the UN Security Council and then for that seat to be used byAustralia to demonstrate the moral clarity Prime Minister Abbott and Foreign Minister Bishop did with that magnificent vote, the final vote of Australia’s term as a Security Council member.

I wrote in an earlier piece of my disbelief when during a debate I heard in Israel last year on the situation of French Jewry which included one of their leading representatives, he stated that there was no anti-Semitism in France.

I was equally shocked two years earlier when another leader of French Jewry publically blamed Israel for causing French Jewry’s problems (the problems they claim they do not have), more or less along the same lines as a so called leading light of British Jewry.

There are many lessons to be learnt.

Not the least of which is to recognise a problem when it exists.

And to not excuse an act of fundamentalist terrorism as that of a crazy criminal.

U.S. President Barack Obama said he wants the people of France to know that the United States "stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow" after this week's terror. He told a crowd in Tennessee that "we stand for freedom and hope and dignity of all human beings, (and) that's what Paris stands for."

He is wrong – that is not what Paris stands for at all.

The kidnapping and torture of Ilan Halimi in 2006; the terrorist murders of Jews in Toulouse in 2012; and the attack in May at the Jewish Museum of Belgium, in which four people were murdered and for which a man with French and Algerian citizenship was arrested tested Paris.

What did Paris stand for then?

Platitudes.

A few nice words.

Does French Jewry feel safer today?

French President Hollande summed it all up so so terribly wrong.

He called the attack on the Hyper Cacher supermarket an act of anti-Semitism.

Of course it was, but in French terms that is not so horrible after all and has happened before.

Until the French leadership and the French people regard the attack on the kosher deli just as they regard the attack onCharlie Hebdo AND use the same terms – an attack on French values, on the French way of life and on France itself – we should call them out on their moral failings.

And until then, goodbye France.

A Rogues Gallery of Australian Politicians

The following Australian politicians signed the anti-Israel declaration to "call on all Australian politicians to condemn the ongoing Israeli military bombardment and invasion of Gaza. ... to support an immediate cessation of hostilities and a ceasefire deal which includes an end to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and to the blockade of Gaza [and] ...to also support the United Nations Human Rights Council's decision to launch an independent inquiry into purported violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem..."

The organisers for this piece of terrorism-supporting propaganda are Melissa Parke and  Lee Rhiannon

1. Maria Vamvakinou MP, Labor (VIC)
2. Melissa Parke MP, Labor (WA)
3. Laurie Ferguson MP, Labor (NSW)
4. Alan Griffin MP, Labor (VIC)
5. Sharon Claydon MP, Labor (NSW)
6. Adam Bandt MP, Greens (VIC)
7. Barbara Perry MP, Labor (NSW)
8. Andrew Giles MP, Labor (VIC)
9. Paul Lynch MP, Labor (NSW)
10. Jamie Parker MP, Greens (NSW)
11. Lynda Voltz MLC, Labor  (NSW)
12. Shaoquett Moselmane MLC, Labor (NSW)
13. David Shoebridge MLC, Greens (NSW)
14. Dr Mehreen Faruqi MLC, Greens (NSW)
15. Dr John Kaye MLC, Greens (NSW)
16. Jeremy Buckingham MLC, Greens (NSW)
17. Jan Barham MLC, Greens (NSW)
18. Senator Claire Moore, Labor (QLD)
19. Senator Nick Xenophon, Independent (SA)
20. Senator Christine Milne, Greens (TAS)
21. Senator Lee Rhiannon, Greens (NSW)
22. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens (SA)
23. Senator Larissa Waters, Greens (QLD)
24. Senator Janet Rice, Greens (VIC)
25. Senator Richard Di Natale, Greens (VIC)
26. Senator Penny Wright, Greens (SA)
27. Senator Rachel Siewert, Greens (WA)
28. Senator Scott Ludlam, Greens (WA)
29. Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Greens (TAS)
30. Senator Sue Lines, Labor (WA)
31. Tammy Franks MLC, Greens (SA)
32. Graham Perrett MP, Labor (QLD
33. Senator Anne Urquhart, Labor (NSW)
34. Terri Butler MP, Labor (QLD)
35. Julie Owens MP, Labor (NSW)
36. Lisa Chesters MP, Labor (VIC)
37. Senator Gavin Marshall, Labor (VIC)
38. Senator Anne McEwen , Labor (SA)
39. Senator Carol Brown, Labor (TAS)
40. Senator Doug Cameron, Labor (NSW)
41. Cassy O’Connor MLA, Greens (TAS)
42. Senator Jan McLucas, Labor (QLD)
43. Lynn MacLaren MLC, Greens (WA)
44. Jill Hall MP, Labor (NSW)
45. Jackie Trad MP, Labor (QLD)
46. Malcolm Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister
47. Shane Rattenbury MLA, Greens (ACT)
48. Yvette Berry MLA, Labor (ACT)
49. Bronwyn Halfpenny MP, Labor (VIC)
50. Tony Piccolo MP, Labor (SA)
51. Andrew Wilkie MP, Independent (TAS)
52. Senator Lisa Singh, Labor (TAS)
53. Khalil Eideh MP, Labor (VIC)
54. Lee Tarlamis MP, Labor (VIC)
55. Johan Scheffer MP, Labor (VIC)
56. Katrine Hildyard MP, Labor (SA)
57. Janine Freeman MLA, Labor (WA)
58. Amanda Fazio MLC, Labor (NSW)
59. Mary Porter MLA, Labor (ACT)
60. Ian Hunter MLC, Labor (SA)
61. Stephanie Key MP, Labor (SA)
62. Maree Edwards MP, Labor (VIC)
63. Adam Searle MLC, Labor (NSW)
64. Sylvia Hale, former Greens MLC (NSW)
65. John Gazzola MLC, Labor (SA)
66. Katy Gallagher MLA, Labor (ACT)
67. Ian Cohen, former Greens MLC  (NSW)
68. Kelvin Thomson MP, Labor (VIC)
69. Anna Burke MP, Labor (VIC)
70. Senator Kate Lundy, Labor (ACT)
71. Carmel Tebbutt MP, Labor (NSW)
72. Sharon Knight MP, Labor (VIC)
73. Jo Vallentine, former Senator for Nuclear Disarmament Party and Greens (WA)
74. Marg Lewis MLC, Labor (VIC)
75. Mark Parnell MLC, Greens (SA)
76. Dee Margetts, former Greens Senator (WA)
77. Simone McGurk MLA, Labor (WA)
78. Jo-Ann Miller MP,  Labor (QLD)
79. Senator Sam Dastyari, Labor (NSW)
80. Kerry Nettle, former Greens Senator (NSW) 

There is no war between Israel and a nonexistent nation

From The Australian, 3 Jan 2014, by Gerard Henderson:

IN mid-December I travelled from Jerusalem to Ramallah for meetings inside the territory presided over by the Palestinian Authority. I was accompanied by an able young diplomat who heads the Australian Representative Office in Ramallah.
 
All was quiet on the border between the area of the West Bank presided over by Israel and that governed by the PA. Despite some tensions between the administrations in Jerusalem and Ramallah, the PA’s President Mahmoud Abbas had decided to continue the security agreement that exists between the PA and Israel. This protects both entities from terrorist attacks from Islamists including those who express allegiance to the so-called Islamic State.

So it came as some surprise when ABC News Breakfast presenter Beverley O’Connor introduced a segment on the Middle East on Thursday with a reference to what she termed the “Israeli-Palestinian war”. O’Connor later referred to the “very costly and brutal conflict between Israel and Palestine that seems to have no end”.

Contrary to O’Connor’s editorialising, there is no war between Israel and Palestine. Nor has such an entity as Palestine ever existed. Jordan was in control of the area between Israel and the Jordan River between the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the 1967 war, which saw Israel occupy the area. In almost two decades Jordan did not establish a state of Palestine.

... no elected Israeli leader, on the right or the left, will agree to the creation of a Palestinian state without a watertight security agreement.

In Australia’s last vote in its two-year position on the UN Security Council, the Abbott government opposed a resolution proposed by Jordan, which set a three-year deadline for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 “green line”. The Jordanian resolution also provided for the creation of a Palestinian state.

In this instance, Australia’s position was identical to that taken by Barack Obama’s administration. The Jordanian resolution failed to take into account that a peace process in the region could not be established by UN fiat. It can be agreed to only among the existing parties.

A glance at the topography of the region suggests that Israel may not be able to defend itself if a return to pre-1967 borders were agreed to without concessions. At the end of 1966, Israel shared a border with a state administered by Jordan that prevailed over East Jerusalem including the Old City. It is difficult to imagine that any democratically elected government in Israel would agree to an antebellum situation that could see Hamas on Israel’s doorstep.

Australia’s decision to vote in agreement with the US in the Security Council on the Jordanian resolution is not an example of Tony Abbott slavishly following Obama. Not at all. Australia has been a strong supporter of Israel’s right to exist within secure borders since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Also, the policy has been essentially bipartisan.

Australia’s support for Israel started when Labor’s Ben Chifley was prime minister. It continued after December 1949 under the Coalition prime ministers Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, John Gorton and William McMahon. Gough Whitlam was not as friendly to Israel as his predecessors, but his government lasted only three years. Malcolm Fraser is one of Israel’s most high-profile critics. But he did not manifest such a position during his nearly eight years as prime minister. Labor prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were supportive of Israel, as was John Howard. Kevin Rudd essentially continued this position, as did Julia Gillard.

Viewed in this light, the position taken by the Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister reflects established policy. Moreover, it makes good sense.

It is fashionable among the left intelligentsia in the West to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East. However, the appalling civil war in Syria, which has seen about 200,000 Muslims killed by other Muslims, has nothing to do with Israel. Currently, authorities in Jerusalem want to see reconstruction in Gaza following Israel’s recent war with Hamas aimed at destroying missile sites and attack tunnels on the Israel-Gaza border. Neither Egypt nor the PA is supportive of this proposal, due to the hostility of the governments in Cairo and Ramallah to Hamas.

It is likely that the tension in the Middle East, as it affects Israel, will continue for some time. A long-term settlement seems a long way off. But this does not suggest a war between Israel and the Palestinians as depicted by O’Connor.

About 20 per cent of Israel’s population is made up of Muslims and Christians. Both groups enjoy full democratic rights. What’s more, as Arab-Israeli citizen Khaled Abu Toameh pointed out in The Australian yesterday, there is a lack of democracy in the PA areas on the West Bank — particularly with reference to female critics of Abbas.

While in Israel, I visited the Ziv hospital close to the Lebanese-Syrian borders, where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and other minorities work together. Here, Melbourne-born doctor Michael Harari looks after victims of the Syrian civil war who have been brought to the hospital by the Israel Defence Force. There were adult male and child victims. According to Harari, no one asks details about the patients. They receive the best attention possible. At the Ziv hospital, there is no war between Israelis and Palestinians or, indeed, Syrians. It’s a symbol of hope in a troubled region.

Federal grant for jihadist recruit

From: The Australian, December 31, 2014, by: MARK SCHLIEBS and EAN HIGGINS:

Samir Atwani at Canterbury Boys High in Sydney.

A TOP Sydney school student was praised by Arthur Sinodinos and given $2000 by the federal government shortly before flying out of Australia to join Islamic State’s propaganda unit in Syria.

It is unclear whether Samir Atwani, who graduated from Sydney’s Canterbury Boys High last year after receiving a university admissions score of 96.25, used any of the government prize money to travel to Syria, where he became a video editor for the proscribed terrorist group.

Last week, The Australian revealed the man, now identified as Mr Atwani, had been studying electrical engineering at university but abandoned the degree when he went to Syria sometime in the past six months. He is now based in Deir Ezzor province. Mr Atwani was a high-achieving student at Canterbury Boys High, which former prime minister John Howard attended as a boy.

...One of the teenager’s closest friends said yesterday Mr Atwani, along with his online profiles, vanished in August, despite the teenager doing well at university, where he had started an engineering degree.

Mr Atwani is understood to have been born in Australia into a family descended from the [Arab] refugee community in Lebanon who fled Israel after the creation of the Jewish state.

Mr Atwani’s friend said the budding video editor had gone to Lebanon for some weeks with his father about 18 months ago, where they visited Palestinian relatives. He said Mr Atwani had ­occasionally mentioned Islamic State videos and praised them — not for their content, but for their high production quality.

...This month, Mr Atwani told The Australian he had volunteered to be in the media unit after Islamic State sought volunteers with experience in video production, and described watching an alleged “spy” being beheaded as “satisfying”....

Tony Burke cancels Palestine speech

From  THE AUSTRALIAN, DECEMBER 09, 2014, by Ean Higgins:

LABOR frontbencher Tony Burke has pulled out at the last minute from giving an address to the inaugural general meeting of the lobby group Labor for Palestine, after learning that the organiser of the event supported boycotts and armed conflict against Israel.

Hours after telling The Australian that Mr Burke would give the speech at Lakemba in Sydney’s west tonight, a spokesman for the member for Watson in Sydney’s southwest said there was uncertainty about whether the event was going ahead. “Tony is not attending,” the spokesman said.

The decision came after The Australian highlighted the fact that the contact person for the event was Fahad Ali, a medical student at Sydney University who has been known as a leader of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel and lauded by prominent pro-BDS academic Jake Lynch.

Mr Ali last night confirmed Mr Burke had cancelled his speech after the revelations provided to his office by The Australian, but said he would proceed with the event anyway.

He said he did not support an immediate campaign of violence against Israel, and did not condone the rocket attacks by Hamas, but did support what he said was the right of Palestinians to “self-defence” and “armed resistance”.

Mr Burke’s spokesman said the frontbencher supported a two-state outcome pursued through peaceful means.

Mr Ali recently appeared on his Facebook page under a flag of a terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is not proscribed in Australia but is on the list of terrorist organisations against which Australia imposes financial sanctions under a UN Security Council resolution.