Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Let me get this straight. The theory goes something like this. The Germans hated the German Jews because they saw the Balfour Declaration, behind which were the Jews, and which brought the US into WW1 causing Germany to lose the war, and the adoption of which at Versailles after successful lobbying by the international Jewish "lobby", an act of betrayal of Germany by German Jews especially in the context of a Jewish boycott of German goods in the thirties.

Is that about it? And Solomon raises his eyebrows at me?

Angela,  I remember uni days as you described but I'm happy to report I never behaved so boorishly. Even with blondes. But I have to ask. What on earth were you smoking? And isn't it time you stopped?  

I know you've been kind to me, Geoff, but I must say I wait with baited breath the response to your mysoginistic non sequitir to Angela - I say mysoginistic in tone, rather than in content, since a mere proposition would indicate the opposite. Your "Work that one out." kinda puts it in a different light. However I will say that a woman of intellect is certainly attractive, though, it would seem it is not that to which you are attracted. I think perhaps welcoming her to your bed is a little passe - surely feminism would dictate that she invite you to hers.

C'est La Vie.

Patriachy-Feminism-Sexism to one side, I find parallels to Nazi Germany puzzling. I can't, for the life of me, understand how the Nazis came to fill the public consciousness with such hatred for the Jewish people. It is a period in history which I have avoided studying in any depth, simply because it disturbs me so. It was an evil moment, that defies understanding. The west was surely not to blame for the actions of the Nazis, whatever their sins,  because I can't see how anyone can induce such incomprehensible hatred.

I'm not happy with our current political world, but at least I understand it. Terrorism is a real threat - exploited by our politicians, but then, that's what politicians do - which we need to deal with. Some of the grievances of terrorists may be rational, but most aren't, and from what I understand for the most part they are seeking to exploit anti-Western hatred in order to secure their domestic positions.

Gareth Eastwood, Re: “I prefer to deal in specific details (ie. what to do when you’ve been invaded) not absolute ideals (eg. worldwide happiness).” That’s the difference between a reactive approach and a proactive approach.

Re: “I think our notions of the word ‘specific’ differ as well.” I need a specific problem and plenty of information about it to come up with specific responses.

Re: “I also prefer to consider the reality that humankind is not perfect.” Yes. But my argument is that if people understand that their own happiness depends on the happiness of others, then it is in their own interest to work for the happiness of others too.

Re: “So called “peaceful strategies” have been tried before, not all have worked.” That’s because nations were not ready to see their own faults and apologise and make changes. They just wanted to subtract a particular threat, but maintain the immoral unjust status quo.

Re: “History is also littered with mad and violent folk to manage to find themselves ruling a nation.” Violent and mad people need to be kept separate from the rest of us. If they are ruling a nation, then it’s time for the international police force that we should have worked so hard to create.

Re: “I disagree with your view on surveillance or spying, I would prefer an open/free press be used to obtain the same information.” Ultimately, a free press could work. Once the principle of happiness for all is established nations would invite foreign observers. But in the meantime, you have got to guarantee security for your nation and other nations (including the nation you are spying on). Spying gets information that you cannot get any other way according to the ex-MI5 boss that I saw about a week ago on TV. (Sorry, I forget the show - maybe Sunrise on ch 7 or 9AM on ch 10.) But she was talking about bad times during the cold war and with Irish terrorists being active.

Re: “Finally I think the responsibility for worldwide happiness resides with individuals, not governments.” I agree. But once enough people understand, or the right people understand, then it will naturally become part of government policy.

You wrote: “Here are a few things that I reckon would bring us closer to “worldwide happiness: All nations are genuinely democratic, with regular multi-party elections. I don’t think a global government or parliament is required. Genuine and complete separation of the activities of government and religion. All nations have access to an open and free media. Global trade in goods, services and labour is completely free and open. Enough food is produced and distributed for all (GM food may help this). Same for water (de-salinate if necessary).”

Gareth, I’d like your suggestions to happen, except I think there needs to be some kind of world government or body with the authority to enforce  international security and to deal with emergencies. The basics of survival (food, education, health, housing) must be guaranteed, which will happen once everyone understands that individual happiness depends on the happiness of others. Also we can’t force your suggestions on others, especially if we have no moral authority -  it would look like domination. I think the principle of happiness for all should come first, then the methods will naturally arise.

Re: “for the moment I’ll continue to take your comments at face value.” Thanks for your patience. Don’t give up on me. I’m trying my best.

Re: “Do you think that the Jews of the ‘Warsaw ghetto uprising’ would have survived if they ran and hid? Was fighting back the wrong thing to do Martin?” If you believe that fighting was the only option in that situation, I will accept your judgement. As I wrote, “In rare emergencies, we will still engage in survival behaviour.” Once the government has failed to prevent war, it is every person for himself - you are forced down into the instinctual survival level once it has deteriorated into an emergency.

Re: “So the human race is going to evolve to point where it no longer needs to survive or reproduce?” No. As I wrote, “As soon as the emergency passes, we should start working towards happiness, which produces better survival because it’s more intelligent, cooperative, and inclusive.” It’s about motivation. At the survival level it’s “us vs them”, at the happiness level it is “us and them”.

Re: “So ‘we’ got what they deserved then?” No. As I wrote, “Poland did not deserve to be invaded and enslaved. No one does.”

Re: “explain how ‘we should have non-violently rescued the Germans from Hitler’ using specific examples and without using the words goodwill and happiness.” As I wrote, “we should build business and cultural relationships… demonstrate moral authority by apologising… engage people in a real conversation by focussing on higher shared goals, bringing moderate …voices and nations into the endeavour, increase surveillance…” We need to begin by really caring for everyone involved. But we weren’t credible because, as I also wrote, “How could Britain be taken seriously given that they were a colonising country?” In other words, how could we say to Germany not to colonise other countries when we vigourously upheld our own colonies? There needs to be a sacrifice on both sides so that we can meet in the middle.

Re: “Perhaps the same method can be used in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Syria etc.” The last 3 countries are not yet actively causing large scale death and/or destruction (as far as I know), so, for them, yes, the same method would work. The first 3 countries are actively causing large scale death and/or destruction and they can be easily stopped. For them, my following quote applies, “I support international police-type actions during and after serious peace efforts… An international police force should be set up with a mandate to stop warlike activities.”

Re: “‘You’ve got to work on a wide multifaceted front.” Could you provide a few examples of these facets?” As I wrote, “build business and cultural relationships, spread goodwill, demonstrate moral authority by apologising… engage people in a real conversation by focussing on higher shared goals, bringing moderate …voices and nations into the endeavour, increase surveillance…” The main thing is to genuinely focus on the happiness of all people. You also need moral authority, which we sacrificed by attacking Iraq and supporting the demolition of Lebanon.

Re: “when and where is the next major predictable war going to be?” I predicted America’s attack on Iraq - everyone who could read or hear predicted that. It was marketed on CNN and FOX day and night for months, and in newspapers - Shock and Awe! Operation Iraqi Freedom! I am not keeping a keen eye on international affairs at the moment, so I do not know of any possible major new wars in the next year. Perhaps America will attack Iranian nuclear installations - that would be crazy, but Bush and co are currently quite crazed. They would call it a continuation of the Global War on Terror (whatever that is).

Re: “is spying on your neighbours a good way to demonstrate goodwill and encourage happiness?” Yes, it aids in spreading goodwill and happiness to know what’s going on elsewhere. Every country that can afford it has spies. It’s a matter of doing it for the right reasons, rather than the wrong reasons.

Re: “Should Australia increase its espionage operations in Indonesia to encourage goodwill between our nations?” Australia should have an espionage operation in Indonesia at a level that is sufficient to understand the important things that are going on there. The intention should be to genuinely aid the spread happiness.

Re: “Have you apologised to the people of the Middle East yet Martin?” No. I am not the leader of Australia or the US or a leader in international peace talks. But I can do it now for all the Middle Easterners who are avidly following our conversation…

People of the Middle East,

I apologise for Australia’s contribution to your suffering. I promise to continue working for a change of attitude in Australia and around the world. Here is my website for further information: www.worldwidehappiness.org.

Gareth, perhaps this will help our further discussion:

There are 4 main ways to view war:

1. “There are times in the short-term when it is the best option”. This is the mainstream or centrist way and it is your way.

2. “War is good in pursuing our objective of universal Islam or universal democracy or wealth or power.” This is extremist fundamentalist or idealist or greedy person’s way.

3. “War is bad so we should always turn the other cheek.” This is the extremist peace activists’ way.

4. “War is an attempt at happiness but since it comes from the survival level of ‘us vs them’, it cannot work, so we need to get everyone to focus on the goal (happiness) first rather than on the method (war or peace talks), then increasingly better methods of achieving happiness will arise, and so the desire for war will end.” This is my way.

In the same way I mistook you (a point 1 type of person) as being a point 2 type of person, I think you might have mistaken me (a point 4 type of person) as being point 3 type of person.

Martin Gifford, considering some of your silly comments and the fact that you’re quite happy to repeat yourself, I’m suspicious that you’re just taking the piss now. However, for the moment I’ll continue to take your comments at face value.

Re “You would run or hide if you are outnumbered and/or overpowered.” Do you think that the Jews of the ‘Warsaw ghetto uprising’ would have survived if they ran and hid? Was fighting back the wrong thing to do Martin?

Re “Sooner or later our motivations evolve.” So the human race is going to evolve to point where it no longer needs to survive or reproduce? This is getting absurd Martin.

Re “we failed to produce an environment where the German people did not want to go to war.” So ‘we’ got what they deserved then? (whoever ‘we’ is/are).

Re “we should have non-violently rescued the Germans from Hitler.” I have a challenge for you Martin (should you choose to accept it), explain how using specific examples and without using the words goodwill and happiness. Perhaps the same method can be used in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Syria etc.

Re “War itself is predictable, and some wars are predictable.” So when and where is the next major predictable war going to be Martin? Remember, if you can’t answer this, you’re contradicting yourself. Maybe you mean inevitable?

Re “The Polish leaders should have read it or had spies at the Nuremberg rallies.” So Martin, is spying on your neighbours a good way to demonstrate goodwill and encourage happiness? Should Australia increase its espionage operations in Indonesia to encourage goodwill between our nations?

Have you apologised to the people of the Middle East yet Martin?

Gareth Eastwood: “Surrender for slaughter.” If the enemy is going to break the Geneva Convention (God forbid) by slaughtering you if you surrender, then you don’t surrender. You would run or hide if you are outnumbered and/or overpowered.

Re: “are you suggesting that the human race is able to do away with survival and reproductive behaviour?” Sooner or later our motivations evolve. In rare emergencies, we will still engage in survival behaviour. As soon as the emergency passes, we should start working towards happiness, which produces better survival because it’s more intelligent, cooperative, and inclusive.

Re: “Hitler’s Germany was primarily responsible for WW2 and the deaths of millions.” Hitler’s Germany was the active cause, and the rest of us were the passive cause - we failed to produce an environment where the German people did not want to go to war. Indeed, we should have non-violently rescued the Germans from Hitler.

Re: “I would have thought that starting an unprovoked war is what results in the death of many people.” Waiting for an unprovoked war contributes to many deaths. You are focussing on the pointy end of the spear.

Re: “Not all wars have a nice predictable long build up.” War itself is predictable, and some wars are predictable, but not every war is predictable. In a world that doesn’t seriously work to end war, you can be sure that war will happen. In a world of advanced technology and information, many wars can be predicted and circumvented. An international police force should be set up with a mandate to stop warlike activities.

Re: “Did you see the recent Hezbollah / Israel conflict coming?” Not specifically, but that someone would attack Israel was predictable because no one is seriously addressing the prevalent ill will, or seriously promoting goodwill.

Re: “You presume that all conflict is preventable; I’ll believe that when I see it.” You’ll see it when we seriously work towards it.

Re: “Exactly why does everyone outside Iran who wishes peace need to apologise to Iran again?” For bombing Muslim countries, killing innocent people, breaking agreements after WWI, calling them evil, supporting Iraq against Iran, using the Middle East as a battle ground for fighting the USSR, supporting Israel in every UN resolution, dividing the Middle East like a piece of cake. Ultimately, it’s a gesture of goodwill. It is taking responsibility for the boat given that we are all in the same boat.

Re: “Are 'we' apologising to the Iranian people in general or just their fruitcake President?” To the people of the Middle East for contributing to their misery.

Re: “What method of delivery should 'we' use? (in person?)” Leaders should do it before and during peace talks. Then we should demonstrate consistent moral authority.

Re: “All the nations first taken/invaded by Germany did work to prevent war.” Not seriously. Not responsibly. Just trying to pacify a bully isn’t enough. You’ve got to work on a wide multifaceted front. You’ve got to be inclusive and really want the happiness of both sides. How could Britain be taken seriously given that it was a colonising country?

Re: “I suggest you read up on what Hitler’s ‘New World Order’ had in store for the Polish people.” The Polish leaders should have read it or had spies at the Nuremberg rallies.

Re: “'Cheese eating surrender monkeys' is a quote from The Simpsons.” Personally, I look forward to the impeachment of Oil Guzzling Attack Chimpy - that would be a watershed. (They've returned to French Fries in the Pentagon now.) I think this whole terrorist issue has exposed the geriatric state of war. War cannot work when the enemy is spread out in the population, so we need an alternative to war. Creating worldwide happiness is the next step. The exclusive competitive survival level no longer has any value. It’s time to move on to the inclusive cooperative happiness level. In a happy world, people would not want to hurt others.

Martin Gifford, are you suggesting that the human race is able to do away with survival and reproductive behaviour?

Re: “it is the same as 'oblivious inaction', which contributed to WWII and the deaths of millions.” I reckon Hitler’s Germany was primarily responsible for WW2 and the deaths of millions, don’t you agree?

Re: “It results in the deaths of many people once war starts.” I would have thought that starting an unprovoked war is what results in the death of many people.

Re: “This position ignores the long build up to war during which we could have prevented it.” Not all wars have a nice predictable long build up Martin. Did you see the recent Hezbollah / Israel conflict coming? You presume that all conflict is preventable; I’ll believe that when I see it.

Re: “I mean everyone outside of the Middle East who claims to want peace in the Middle East.” Exactly why does everyone outside Iran who wishes peace need to apologise to Iran again? Are “we” apologising to the Iranian people in general or just their fruitcake President? What method of delivery should “we” use? (in person?)

Re: “In the 20 years prior to Germany’s attack on Poland, Poland (and everyone else) should have worked to prevent it (and all wars).” All the nations first taken/invaded by Germany did work to prevent war Martin. Hitler’s Germany was the aggressor; the Czechs were carved into pieces and submitted to brutal Nazi rule in the interests of peace. Hitler came in anyway. Belgium was a neutral nation and behaved as such, it didn’t stop Hitler from invading.

Re: “Polish people should have run and surrendered in the days of the attack since this would reduce the number of casualties on both sides.” Now Martin I know you admit to being unfamiliar with the details of WW2, this statement proves as much. I suggest you read up on what Hitler’s ‘New World Order’ had in store for the Polish people.

Note: “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” is a quote from The Simpsons.

A contributor to Tim Blair's blog has now exposed the mystery weapon the Israelis deployed to attack that ambulance.

A photograph of it appears here.

Gareth Eastwood, I get “living at the survival level of self-interest” from the theory of evolution - animals compete for survival and reproduction. After surviving and reproducing what should we do? Enjoy life. This is what I mean by the “happiness level”. So we need to move from the competition of the survival level to the cooperation of the happiness level. The happiness level assists in survival because it is smarter than the animalistic survival level.

Re: “Poland was ‘maintaining a peaceful passive stance of goodwill’ towards Germany.” In effect it is the same as “oblivious inaction”, which contributed to WWII and the deaths of millions.

Re: “If all nations waited around to be invaded there would be no war, Martin. Waiting around to be invaded may actually kill no one.” It results in the deaths of many people once war starts, which is inevitable in a world that allows build-ups to war. Morality has a passive and active aspect. The passive aspect is to avoid hurting others, the active aspect is to work towards others never hurting others.

Re: “preventing war and maintaining peace is the ideal situation.” Yes. To do that we have to spend the same time, effort, and resources on peace that we currently spend on war.

Re: “You claim to want move away from an “us and them” mentality, yet are happy to paint this issue in term of people being either pro or anti war.” I mean “pro-war” in the sense of “pro-abortion” ie. it’s supporters might think it undesirable but necessary in some circumstances. To me, “anti-war” means wanting to spend the same time, effort, and resources on peace that we currently spend on war.

Re: “My broad position on the use of force is that there are times (hopefully rare, history suggests they’re not) when in the short-term it is best option.” This position ignores the long build up to war during which we could have prevented it.

I am sorry for putting words in your mouth by writing that you believe in the War on Terror and invading Iran.

Re: “My view on Iran is complicated, but does not include a military option until an Iranian govt/faction is a proven aggressor.” I believe we can stop aggression if we spent the same time, energy, and resources that we spend on war on preventing war.

Re: “In regard Iran... who are “we”, do you mean the federal governments of the US, UK and Australia?” By “we” I mean everyone outside of the Middle East who claims to want peace in the Middle East.

Re: “you’ll never convince me that “running and surrendering” is a legitimate long-term option in response to an unprovoked and violent invasion.” You are claiming your question with short-term parameters was a question with long-term parameters. In the 20 years prior to Germany’s attack on Poland, Poland (and everyone else) should have worked to prevent it (and all wars). Since the leaders of Poland failed to do this, Polish people should have run and surrendered in the days of the attack since this would reduce the number of casualties on both sides. In the 6 years of the war, they were virtually powerless due to their failures in the previous 20 years. By the way, I support international police-type actions during and after serious peace efforts.

Mike Lyvers, the reason “communication failed to end those persistent hatreds” is that we have not been serious. Communication would need to begin with an apology from America and others for dividing the Middle East up like a cake, bombing Iraq, and meddling in ME affairs.

Re: “In the case of Nazi Germany, bombing and defeat did seem to dramatically reduce the persistent hatred of Jews in that country.” The hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany was based on paranoia. There were other ways to end the persistent hatred of Jews in Germany prior to war. In the case of the Middle East, those who hate Jews have some valid grievances. Bombing in the Middle East will not dramatically reduce the persistent hatred of Jews there.

Mark Ross wrote, “Like everything in the Middle East, it's not the people, it's pathetic leadership and the meddlesome west.”

Precisely.

The only mistake I made was give an incorrect link. Here it is. 

The story of how the highly credible Middle East  correspondent Martin Chulov personally travelled to the source of the Red Cross ambulance incident to discover first hand that it was indeed genuine and true unlike the great dill Alexander Downer who took his information, like others seem to have from a well know Israeli right wing propaganda website zombietime.com.

It appears the first time in his parliamentary career Downer has actually read something - AWB, WMD etc - and he gets it all wrong.

I'd like you all to consider the possibility that the original hoax ambulance photo might have been a deliberate creation to discredit pro-Hezbollah propaganda.  In a war being fought partially through the media lens, such an act would be a clever way of discrediting an argument.  I'm not saying that this is what happened- just that is a possibility.  These days nothing would surprise me.

What does concern me is that according to the accounts in The Australian the two main repeat-sources of the zombietime.com version events are the Australian and Israeli Foreign Ministries.  Chicken and egg may not be related in this case, but then again they might.

Here's the relevant extract of Downer's speech, courtesy of Australian Jewish News:

What concerns me greatly is the evidence of dishonesty in the reporting out of Lebanon.

For example, a Reuters photographer was forced to resign after doctoring images to exaggerate the impact of Israeli air attacks.

There were the widely-reported claims that Israel had bombed deliberately a Red Cross ambulance.

In subsequent weeks, the world has discovered those allegations do not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny.

After closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax.

Yet some of the world's most prestigious media outlets, including some of those represented here today, ran that story as fact - unchallenged, unquestioned.

Similarly, there has been the tendency to report every casualty on the Lebanese side of the conflict as if a civilian casualty, when it was indisputable that a great many of those injured or killed in Israeli offensives were armed Hezbollah combatants.

My point is this: in a grown-up society such as our own, the media cannot expect to get away with parading falsehoods as truths, or ignoring salient facts because they happen to be inconvenient to the line of argument - or narrative - that particular journalists, or media organisations, might choose to adopt on any given controversy or issue.

This is not just a politician complaining.

The public is onto this. Your readers and viewers are not fools.

They talk about these things in pubs and clubs. And I would venture to say that these lapses in accuracy, the distortion of images and the failure to report the straight facts, has made it that much harder a job for the Western media to restore its credibility in the public mind.

Sounds like "set a thief to catch a thief" if you ask me.

It seems, C Parsons, that everyone's been had, including the esteemed Alexander Downer and Robert Fisk about the Red Cross Ambulance incident which was indeed a real and deadly attack according to Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov. The only thing that surprises me is that this report actually appears in the Australian newspaper.

Martin Gifford, re “living at the survival level of self-interest.” This is a term you have invented. It means nothing to me. I can invent my own meaningless terms too, Martin. How about, Poland was ‘maintaining a peaceful passive stance of goodwill’ towards Germany?

Re: “waiting around to be invaded.” This sounds like peace to me. If all nations waited around to be invaded there would be no war, Martin. Waiting around to be invaded may actually kill no one.

I think we can take for granted that preventing war and maintaining peace is the ideal situation, Martin. You claim to want move away from an “us and them” mentality, yet are happy to paint this issue in term of people being either pro or anti war. You’re not being consistent.

Re: “You are justifying war by focussing on what to do after violence has happened.” Why does this surprise you, Martin? I’m not here to justify the use of force in response to bad language. My broad position on the use of force is that there are times (hopefully rare, history suggests they’re not) when in the short-term it is best option when balanced against the long-term interests of peace, life and general human prosperity.

Re: “you are trying to prove that because Poland defended itself with weapons against Germany, we (America, England, and Australia) should defend ourselves from a relatively small number of terrorists and from a few loonies in Iran by dropping bombs.” I don’t recall saying anything of this nature, Martin. Please don’t put your words in my mouth. My view on Iran is complicated, but does not include a military option until an Iranian govt/faction is a proven aggressor. I’d prefer nuclear proliferation be treated as a monitoring and limits issue, not a flat out ban (I see this as unrealistic).

Martin, is it too much to ask that your comments be more specific, consider a degree of nuance and be free of meaningless invented terms (what is a ‘competitive survival approach’?). In regard Iran, you consider everything from the view of what “we” should do. Who are “we”, do you mean the federal governments of the US, UK and Australia?

Finally, Martin, you’ll never convince me that “running and surrendering” is a legitimate long-term option in response to an unprovoked and violent invasion.

Jay, you make it sound like we are faced with a simple dilemma of selecting war or peace. If only it were that simple.

Jay, That was an excellent post. Perhaps I should use your method of numbering my ideas - it communicates well on the net.

Mike, Shall I give up on you dealing with the content of my posts? I asked, 'What will be more likely to end those "persistent hatreds" - bombing or communication?' It's an important question, isn't it?

Reasons war wins over peace:

1. War appeals to the arms industry, a huge force in our capitalist mentality.
2. A lot of people think war is good for the economy
3. War appeals to men, peace to women. Men are in charge of the world.
4. War is based on an ‘us or them’ mentality, which appeals to more people.
5. War gets people excited and willing to make heroic sacrifices, in a way that peace doesn’t.
6. War gives the armed forces (in many countries a huge political force) a reason for being, and greater clout.
7. The science of war is well developed, taught and easy for people to understand. The science of peace is still in its infancy.

Martin Gifford, re “Poland had 20 years between WW1 and WWII to spend time, energy, marketing, willpower, goodwill-building, etc. Did they do any of those things?” Does this actually matter? If they didn’t, did they deserve to be invaded and enslaved? What if a nation just wants to peacefully keep to itself? Once invaded, you're at war, anti-war slogans won't stop the tanks (neither will 'spreading goodwill' or any other fluff you claim is 'building peace').

Re “Peace is realistic; war isn't realistic.” This is another meaningless statement Martin. If war wasn’t realistic, it wouldn’t re-occur so frequently.

And Martin, you still haven’t answered the Poland question.

As far as I’m aware, I’m not Greg Moylan.

Roslyn Ross: "As Syria's president said the other week, every generation of Arabs hates Israel more and the stories and pictures coming out of Lebanon show why."

Not only was Syria's occupation of Lebanon itself recently stymied by a popular uprising, the fascist Hizbolla militias which were occupying Southern Lebanon are themselves funded largely by the hereditary Assad dictatorship of Syria.

For the first time in 40 years, Lebanese forces occupy the south of Lebanon. No thanks to Syria's President Assad but to whose opinions you happily submit.

And given the relentless anti-Semitic hysteria pumped out daily by the state controlled media of Arabic and other Middle Eastern states, no wonder each generation of Arabs hates Israel more and more.

Mike Lyvers and Gareth Eastwood, the point is that achieving peace takes the same, energy, marketing (propaganda), time and willpower that war takes. Peace is realistic; war isn't realistic.

Mike, what will be more likely to end those "persistent hatreds" - bombing or communication?

Gareth, Poland had 20 years between WW1 and WWII to spend time, ergergy, marketing, willpower, goodwill-building, etc. Did they do any of those things? How deep into specifics do you want me to go? If you talk about how to make war you just say build bombs, get soldiers, etc - everyone knows how to make war because we have put the time and energy to doing it. Similarly to build peace you build communications, find areas of common interests, build business relationships, increase diplomacy personnel. And as I wrote in that linked post, while Hitler was a problem that needed stronger defences, he arrived 12 years after WW1, which was plenty of time to create a happier, smarter, and therefore safer world in which people would not be attracted to him.

Gareth, yes, Kofi is pro-war. My post wasn't meaningless. You have to read it with interest to get it. If you are looking for items to disagree with then you'll miss the scintilating nature of it.

Gareth, are you Greg Moylan?

It doesn’t take long for the chattering classes to de-rail a discussion about peace, and to make it instead a tirade of emotional claptrap about the hideous, evil, other. Thankyou Mike Lyvers, Geoff Pahoff, and C Parsons.

It’s obvious that none of you three possess even a modest knowledge of Islamic culture and belief, or the politics of either the Arabian or Ayrian middle east. You just repeat the crude cartoon images of Goebles and Rumsfeld.

On the “other” side, some collapse the debate into maudlin sentimentalism about how people feel, and assume that life in the Middle East is just like it is here.

Jeffrey Sachs says, “I find that the vast majority of individuals and political leaders of all religions, races, and creeds are ready to work together to achieve the shared goals of prosperity and wellbeing for their children. The claim by many Israelis that there are “no partners for peace” is absurd. Israel’s neighbors will make peace on the basis of fair borders and fair play.”

This is an entirely unremarkable statement. The context in which it’s published acknowledges that the obstacles to cooperation are not emotional, and have nothing to do with fundamental flaws in human nature. They are material crimes that can be analysed and averted. The possession of stolen land, and the exploitative control of scarce resources. These crimes are being committed, at least in part, by our own country. At home the Australian government is also moving against truth, justice, and the Australian way.

If we wish to build peace, we must begin with a concerted resistance to the crimes being committed against us and others by the Demo-fascists John Howard and his elk does such a good job of leading.

As for those of you who argue that nonviolence doesn’t work against Zio-Nazis, have a read of Professor Brian Martin’s work on the history and dynamics of nonviolence in which he says:

There is ample evidence from historical examples that nonviolent action can be an effective method of social action. Examples from recent decades include the toppling of Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 through "people power," the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989, the thwarting of a coup in the Soviet Union in 1991, the ending of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s, the resignation of President Suharto due to popular pressure in Indonesia in 1998, and the overthrow of Serbian ruler Milosevic in 2000 (Ackerman and DuVall 2000).

The piece by Sachs is excellent. It is of course comprised of reason and common sense, two qualities which are often in short supply when it comes to the Middle East question/s.

Mark, sadly the site you posted is not satirical. It is, despite being tasteless and a tad 'sick', a part of the ongoing propaganda war which Israel fights and which Israel must fund.

I suspect too it also helps the Israelis to maintain their 'head in the sand' attitude to the world around them. If you keep telling yourself, and others, that you are the victim and innocent on all counts then it does tend to push the horrible 'truth' away. But mostly I imagine such 'tours' are about raising money, spreading the message and filling the tills.

One can only presume the level of dysfunction is so great that Israelis themselves and their supporters do not see the existence of such things for what they areally are: a desperate and somewhat pathetic attempt to maintain the fantasy that Israel is in the right.

One of the problems with the situation, and this applies to some degree on both sides, but more so to the Israeli side, is that people do not want to be reasonable, or sensible, or just, or fair ..... they just want to be 'right.' They want to 'win', to be affirmed in their 'victimhood.' It is difficult to get past such dysfunction particularly when it has become entrenched in the society. There is an emotional and psychological 'shock' for people who must 'see' themselves in a new way, see themselves as aggressor, not victim. Sometimes the sense of guilt and confusion is so great that people are incapable of doing this and the battle to maintain the 'lie' of innocence becomes ever greater.

This is a time when Israel needs its friends to tell it the truth. Without the truth there will only be more war and another war which Israel will lose. The destruction of Lebanon and the absolute failure to curtail Hezbollah in any way at all is clear evidence that in the modern world it is impossible to win wars with mere military might, particularly when that might is limited, in the main, to aerial warfare in a bid to save the lives of soldiers. America is losing its war against Iraq for this very reason and Israel lost this war against Hezbollah for the same reason.

My hope has been that this destruction of Israel's fantasy might shake some sort of reason into them but a number of Israeli writers have said it is likely to bring the opposite result because the loss of face means Israel will be determined to embark upon another onslaught to prove that it has all the deterrent power. I hope not.

I thought it was good that Nasrallah said he would not have kidnapped the soldiers, or ordered the kidnapping, if he had known this would be the outcome. As I and others have said before, border skirmishes and kidnappings have been carried out by both sides but this was the first time Israel decided to lay waste to a country because of it. Anyway, Nasrallah's words may give some comfort to the Israelis and a sense that they have not completely 'lost face' and therefore increase the chances for future peace. One can only hope so.

As Syria's president said the other week, every generation of Arabs hates Israel more and the stories and pictures coming out of Lebanon show why. Israel must at some point recognise that it has no future without peace with its neighbours and to have that peace it must end all occupations and return all land and that includes not just Palestine but now the Golan heights and Shebaa Farms.

There is no way but peace it is just a matter of how long and how much blood is spilled. Israel could lay waste to Egypt, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi for that matter (avoiding oil facilities of course) and it would still not be safe. The peoples of those nations would arise again, rebuild, re-arm and hate Israel even more.

In these days of modern weaponry it is impossible to protect yourself even if you cleared the land for a thousand miles all around you. There is no protection but that which peace brings.

This war has made a mockery of Israel's Apartheid Wall and perhaps Israelis will see that for themselves. It was after all only a landgrab because of course it protects nothing.

Everyone is grateful for this ceasfire. UN troops patrolling the border with Israel will set a precedent for UN troops in Gaza and the West Bank. It is easy to see more war on the way but let us at least hope for peace. There is a chance.

I haven't personally seen the graffitti you describe but are hateful and as you say.

I was speaking, C.Parsons, in response to Geoff Pahoff's reference to a Bulletin article that mentions Jewish groups that most certainly are extremely active lobby groups, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the ECAJ that claim to speak for Australian Jews, but certainly do not speak for me or many others, and in the most appalling act of ignorance are quoted in a series of articles entitled  "Hate Wave" about an apparent "six fold rise in anti-Semetic attacks in Australia" although in this story it only applies to Jews and not Muslims.

Not that I am denying there has been an increase in attacks upon Jewish institutions and this is distressing and a disgrace but so is the Bulletin's and both Jewish groups' (as are many worldwide Jewish groups') persistent claims to the use of "anti-Semetism" to describe what should be either an "anti-Israeli" attack or an "anti-Jewish" attack, as by using the other wording they are completing denying the Arab people's Semetic heritage and claiming it as their own. Therein lies some of the slanderous falsehoods that are peddaled by these well funded and vocal lobby groups that bully anyone who dares to question them and they disgrace decent Jewish people around the world brave enough to stand up to them.  

Gareth Eastwood, are you referring to the Poland conversation in the thread "Is all fair in love and war?" Do you have an alter-ego called Greg Moylan who asked me a question about Poland on that thread? If so, then I did reply and you didn't reply to my reply.

My scintillating reply is here.

Gareth, if you aren't Greg Moylan, then where is your Poland question, and does the above post answer it?

Martin Gifford, mate sometimes so called “peaceful strategies” don’t work. The 20^th century is littered with examples of this. You note that Mike has failed to answer your questions on this topic. May I remind you that you also haven’t given answers to questions asked of yourself regarding the “peaceful strategies” Poland should have used in response to German invasion at the outset of WW2.

A quote from Kofi Annan:

“There are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace.”

Does this mean Kofi can be described as “Pro-war” Martin?

Martin, in my view there’s no such thing as being anti-war (or pro-war). Being “anti-war” is not a practical ideology, I see it as nothing more than delusional hope.

Michael de Angelos: "The Jewish lobby is quite right to collate these incidents and I have no idea if Muslim groups are as organised to do likewise."

Have you noticed, Michael, how people speak of 'The Jewish lobby' as opposed to 'Muslim groups'?

Singular - as opposed to plural.

I can tell you, as a Catholic, I have never in my life heard anyone refer to The Catholic Lobby - as if Catholics were an homogenous cohort with one set of political or social interests or that there was a single body acting to influence world events on their behalf?

And we have the Vatican at our disposal along with about 500 million people in The Church Militant.

For us Catholics, the closest thing to The Jewish Lobby, as a focus of anxious concern for people of other confessions, has been The Jesuits.

Or perhaps Opus Dei.

And at least they actually exist as organisations.

Mike Lyvers, did you see my post to you? I wrote: "Mike, your list of failures regarding peace initiatives are only hangovers from the “us vs them” mentality. A classic strategy of pro-war people is to spend years and billions of dollars on planning war and carrying out war (and other domination activities), and then to say peaceful strategies don't work after a few weak simplistic attempts fail in the short-term. In reality, you have to spend the same time, energy, and money on peace as you spend on war. Mike, don't you think it takes time for the momentum of resentments and hostility to end? Peace now doesn't mean instant peace.

What is your response? I was expecting that you would have seen the light and given up war and had converted to radical peace. What happened?

You say these are dangerous times for Australians exercising their rights . The attacks upon Jewish institutions are as disturbing as the disgraceful and sordid, riotous attacks by hundreds of drunken yobs upon a handful of dark skinned Aussies perceived to be Muslims (whether they were or not) who happened to want a peaceful day at Cronulla beach. The resulting ugly footage not only flashed around the world making us look extemely foolish but have had a disastrous affect upon local business, sending restaurants bust. The Jewish lobby is quite right to collate these incidents and I have no idea if Muslim groups are as organised to do likewise. Certainly it happens, as I discovered in a antique establisment in Merrylands this week when a customer practically spat at two Muslim woman in traditional garb as they left the store and swore at them using the most foul language. As far as I could see they had only been innocently lookng at some second hand washing machines.

I'd seriously question though your claim about The Australian's editorials. I find them amongst the most obnoxious I've ever read, especially their attacks upon the Victorian Supreme Court decision on Jack Thomas. The fact they were writen by their legal affairs editor makes them even more disturbing, and that includes the one today where he firstly has a whinge about a drubbing from the ABC's Media Watch - no great crime in itself and expected - but his ignorance of the law, which it appears I not being a lawyer seem to know more about, is most disturbing. He joins a chorus of shrill critics, like Alan Jones etc (a promoter of the Cronulla riot) of the decision of these esteemed judges who applied the law correctly and impartially, and who seem to want to cherry pick and decide who should be carted off, as in the case of Mr Thomas because The Australian leader writer has decided that the so-called Jihad Jack is going to bring about the ruination of western civilization as we know it. Unfortunately he doesn't quite explain how placing a curfew on the man between midnight and 9am will prevent the endtimes nor for that fact either does Mr Grim-Phillp Ruddick or the bumbling AFP. Perhaps terrorists don't operate during daylight hours.

I reckon if you beginning to believe The Australian's editorials it's only a short step away from taking it's sister newspaper The News Of The World seriously and you are in danger of being swamped by tales of footballer's wives and errant vicars.