Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Marko Beljac, I honestly wonder sometimes when I read posts on Webdiary, 'Where on earth do they get this rubbish?'

"The separation of church and state is a founding article of liberal democracy."

I mean really. You clearly get your knowledge of the world from watching Law and Order! England is the birthplace of liberal democracy, and guess what? It also has a state religion - the Church of England.

And how can you in all seriousness compare the circumstances under which Israel was created with Australia becoming a "Christian state?"

This is a very serious issue and it is important that Melbourne University Press stand its ground and publish Loewenstein's book. University publishing companies play a vital, if under-appreciated, role in our society, for they provide an outlet for free and creative intellectual inquiry not shackled by the profit motive.

As a consequence it is to be expected that a university publishing company would publish books that challenge the status quo opinions in our society. Loewensteins's book promises to bust some myths about Israel that have dominated discussion of Middle East affairs in the West, especially since the 1967 war.

If Melbourne University Press buckles then this would be a sad defeat for the principle of the free pursuit of knowledge, one of the pillars of our society since the enlightenment.

I note that Danby at one point accuses Loewenstein of being a "Jew that opposes the Jewish state". Shock horror!! I am a Christian, or at least was baptised one, and I would oppose Australia being a "Christian state" - as would plenty of others. But it is revealing that in the context of Israel that such a thought is now unthinkable, or has the ring of the shocking.

The separation of church and state is a founding article of liberal democracy, and don't forget we are supposed to be fighting the so called "war on terror" against those who want to create an Islamic state. Maybe bin Laden himself expresses outrage at "Muslims who oppose the Islamic state".

In the article it is also stated that Loewenstein is "anti-Zionist", although, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, opposition to a Jewish state used to be a current in the Zionist movement itself, let alone the Jewish community.

Noelene, I believe that the expression 'separation of church and state' refers to the exclusion of the Church from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government.

Are you asserting in your response to Marko Beljac that the separation of church and state is not central to the concept of a liberal democracy?

Margo: Hi Simon. I'll be interested to read Noelene's answer to your question.

I think the biggest part of his method is that it shouldn't be bought, it's that simple. I think they should publish if they think it will bring a profit, but otherwise, I have no problem with people boycotting the book. It's their choice, their money.

Thanks to Sol Salbe on his measured update on this contentious issue. I personally recall his constructive contributions offered during previous discussions on this complex and vexed subject.

My personal view is that Antony Loewenstein comprehensively won his debates, through arrangement of factual materials and good presentation. And was Antony really "in people's faces", particularly when compared with some of those who hurled such bile and vitriol at him and continue to do?

However, the issue and tragedy of the Holocaust is of such a nature as to make it very difficult to prevent offence being given to those "traumatised", as Margo Kingston once described it. In these circumstances someone who tells unpalatable home truths will inevitably cop emotion-based reaction from who may be responding emotionally through the lens of their own pain-ridden past experiences. So Loewenstein has been made a pariah for doing an unpopular job; a Jeremiah or Jonah.

Was his timing off, or is there simply never a time when something like this can be raised with causing discomfort.

Besides, with Israel and Palestine, as with Australia and Aboriginal Native Title, vested interests also come into play, involved in working aginst a fairer general outcome.

Some people I have read on WB will understand a little better than most what it feels like to tell the truth, or present an unpopular version of it when it is unwelcome, and know that Antony must have had to brace his backbone to tell the truths he tells, for the good of a people and a civilisation that he must love very much, whatever his denials as per this. and in fact as a cosmoploitan to humanity in general.

Many who contribute to that pooling of ideas that is Webdiary may have had a sense of what Loewenstein must have felt concerning the resentful responses he received . They have themselves also have experienced the "slings and arrows of fate", with insults like "commo" or "pro terrorist" or "un-Australian" and various other smears, for similarly trying to stop Australia and the West generally letting themselves down when unsavoury policies and attitudes involving victimised places like like Vietnam and Iraq have surfaced.

Fathers day this brought back shocking memories to me, memories of a young man who tried to tell the truth and was blown to bits for his efforts.

I only met this young man once and spent the day at an Afghan fathers day picnic with him in 2002. He spent the day taking films for the families who thought their children were lost forever and taking the films to them when he could.

For years he had supported the cause of the Kurds in northern Iraq and just 2 days into the official "war" a suicide bomber blew him up and his film and story with him.

The government and media here went into overdrive to demonise him and vilify him, they accused him of deranged espionage stuff against the national interest. It was shocking to see.

His name is Paul Moran, and today another Paul is in Afghanistan trying to bring us the truth. Do Australians ever think about our foreign correspondents who put their lives on the line so we know the truth? Do we ever say to them "just stay alive mate"?

I get death threats for telling the truth about refugees. Once I got two tissues in an envelope from some terrible person claiming she was "the president of the deport the Bakhtiyari fan club". It seems she thought I could use them when she and her ilk had hounded those poor children out of the country.

Throughout Europe during the 20th century and for centuries before hand people of Jewish faith suffered hideous pogroms, murders, displacements, vilification and ultimately the holocaust.

How can the human race, whoever they are and where ever they are, fail to feel dread and horror and shame that this could happen. That 6 million people could be gassed and burnt for the sake of some mad ideology.

How then could the human race not be horrified that the same nations which did this then displace the Palestinians, vilify them and demonise them for the sake of a Zionist state?

Robert Fisk will be in Australia next month. I have booked a ticket to hear him here in Adelaide on the 1st, and he will talk about what he has seen.

Antony Loewenstein, just Just for the public record - by opposing a Jewish state, do you mean that Israel should be absorbed into Palestine/Syria/Egypt? Or that all the Jews should leave Israel? Because it is an important distinction.

Noelene, you are quite correct about the separation of church and state, though can I suggest there are politer ways of making your point (especially if you want others to be polite to you when addressing your errors)?

In addition you could have provided further information on the issue such as from Wikipedia.

Your remark - "And how can you in all seriousness compare the circumstances under which Israel was created with Australia becoming a "Christian state?" - seems entirely beside the point, as Marko made no such comparison.

He made the more valid and indeed relevant point that there seems to be an overall trend among mainstream Australia to supress (or at least make it very difficult to express) dissenting ideas.

And that there is a rather hypocritical flavour to this. Why indeed should we be "fighting the so called "war on terror" against those who want to create an Islamic state" and yet "it is revealing that in the context of Israel that such a thought is now unthinkable, or has the ring of the shocking"?

Paul Walter is correct. Writing about Israel/Palestine is one of the more sensitive subjects around. What's wrong with a Jew saying he doesn't believe in a Jewish state? Or an Islamic or Christian state, for that matter? The Danby's of this world - and since he attempted to censor my work, any number of Jews and non-Jews have written to me with abuse and bile - fail to understand that a democracy means various viewpoints should be in the public domain.

Danby is afraid of debate as are many other blind pro-Israel supporters. As I told Green Left Weekly last week:

“These sort of people don’t want discussion, because discussion is threatening. Discussion means that more people are aware, or might become aware, of what actually does go on over there: What does occupation mean, what does it mean that Palestinians often have to wait hours at checkpoints in searing sun, what does it mean that women often have to give birth at checkpoints and often die? They don’t want people to know that, for obvious reasons, because it’s shameful. And they know if more people find out that kind of stuff, their view about Israel and the relationship between Australia and Israel could change.”

Oh Boy. To think that just a few days ago I got a phonecall from someone at WD to explain that my posts on Holocaust denial and Israel/Palestine( in response to these issues raised by others) were not going to be published because the issues were too emotional and WD wasn't ready for it yet. And now you publish this thread.

Let's get one thing straight for a start. This issue is not about censorship and it is obscene for Loewenstein and his little gang to claim that it is. Danby is entitled to his opinion about Loewenstein and his book, published or unpublished, Loewenstein is entitled to write it, MUP is entitled to publish it and people are entitled to ignore it. What is this? Freedom of speech for Loewenstein but not for Danby?

I'll be back. I haven't finished off Pape completely yet. He comes first.

I do not believe that Jews should leave Israel or be expelled, or anything of the sort. Of course, Israel has done this to Palestinians for generations, but we're not living in an eye for an eye world anymore (I hope...)

I believe, ideally, in a one-state solution, secular and with both Jews and Palestinian living side by side. BUT, this is unlikely to occur for a long time, so a two-state solution is ideal. We are a long way from this point, whatever the rhetoric and media is telling us.

Israel, as it stands today, is an anachronism, an oppressive, US client state that is more than happy to continue a nearly 40 year occupation over millions of Palestinians.

Let it be made clear. Again. A Jew, like myself, can be against the Jewish state as it stands, and be very supportive of Jews and their safety.

It remains baffling why so many Jews, pro-US advocates and others seem more than capable of supporting the Israeli occupation. If that's your idea of a comfortable Jewish state, visit a West Bank town like Hebron, and see true apartheid with your own eyes. I did earlier this year. That is what Zionism and Israel has become in the 21st century.

Stuart, well I understood Anthony to mean that he opposes the idea of a state whose executive, judiciary and legislature are based on the Jewish religion ... not that he thinks the state of Israel should be dissolved or that all the Jews should leave.

Anthony?

Michelle: "I understood Anthony to mean that he opposes the idea of a state whose executive, judiciary and legislature are based on the Jewish religion."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that Israel's legal system is based on common law? The Israeli Parliament is not a council of rabbis but and elected legislature. Sure there are some religious parties (there are in Australia too and Germany and many other countries). These religious parties have never held the majority and most Israelis would consider themselves secular Jews.

I believe what Anthony means is that there shouldn't be a Jewish homeland. Anthony, you'd better pray that a Nazi government never comes to power in this country (hey, I'll join you in that prayer) because if it ever comes to pass, they won't care about your political views, just the fact that one or more of your grandparents was Jewish will be enough to see you gassed.

Say what you want, Anthony, if this was 1939 and you lived in Germany you'd be pleading for a Jewish state.

Perhaps Mr Danby, who seems to believe that the Gaza-withdrawal was meant to further the peace process, could do us a favour and explain to what extent he disagrees with the views expounded by Sharon's personal adviser, Dov Weisglass, in that notorious interview with Ari Shavit (Haaretz 6 October 2004).

As is well known Weisglass claimed there that the withdrawal was not meant to further but to freeze the peace process, which was now put, as he said,'on formaldehyde'. Indeed, W. found it difficult to hide his pleasure about this clever scheme.

"And when you freeze that process", he said, "you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

I don't know whether Howard ever reads anything that has not been pre-packaged for him by some underling. I, for one, found it quite galling to see him congratulate Sharon so effusively for doing what should have been done more than 35 years ago and what now seems obviously meant to obstruct UN Resolution 242 rather than anything else.

But Howard, of course, was not the only foreign leader to hug Sharon. We can only hope that these hugs will turn out to be bearhugs, compelling the old "gannef" to give up the rest of the occupied territories.

Margo. Are you suggesting that my unpublished posts questioned the fact that the Holocaust occurred?

Margo: No.

The wording and context of your note would infer that they did.

Margo: I don't see how. The DNP comment I referred to was not by you. When I published this piece my brother warned that holocaust deniers could, on past experience, jump in, and I told him I wanted none of that on Webdiary. I DNPd the post I referred to on that basis before I got to your post, which I assumed concerned a response from you to a holocaust denier. I then published my editorial policy decision as a comment so everyone was crystal clear about Webdiary's position on this matter.

Margo, this is really a very serious matter. I strongly suggest to you that it would be in everybody's interests that you clarify this in the shortest possible space of time. In language that could leave no doubt in anybody's mind. The time is now 7.30 PM.

Margo: I am editing comments to this thread personally as I get time. It's now 8.51pm. Your move, Geoff.

G'day. I have decided that no comments which question the fact that the holocaust occurred will be published on Webdiary. Period. I have already put a DNP on one comment to this thread on that basis. Hamish has added this editorial policy decision to comments editor guidelines.

I suspect Michelle Davies is offering an underlying proposal that the more close-minded involved in the thread open up their minds, avoiding "contempt prior to invstigation".

Some seem so locked into their prejudices that nothing, not even Christ Himself walking upon the waters, would persuade these to (re)consider the evidence, let alone make the effort to form a reasoned judgement based on objectivity.

This is the twentieth century equivalent to the attitude fathering the fearful stubborn peasant mentality of the fourteenth century. All that comes of this is muddlement, as is suggested in the illogical dichotomy suggested by Stuart Lord, that suggests that Israel is either :" absorbed into Palestine/SyriaEgypt, or that all the Jews should leave Israel".

No, there is another solution overlooked and one prays this through lack of forethought, rather than malice.

That is, that Israel withdraws from sufficient west Bank territory to to allow the Palestinians workble self-determination and thus eases the humiliation for them, to lessen the frustration that breeds terrorism. (Perish the thought that the US, oil sheiks, other interests, etc, etc, might like to put a fraction of the incredible wealth squandered on wars and palaces into this. )

So my guess is that Antony would favour a solution perhaps as suggested by the Oslo accords or even 1967, that would allow enough room for both peoples to survive comfortably and harmoniously.

As to the status of Israel as theocratic, the situation is complex as to this, as I understand it.

It is true that Israel was established as a secular state and like many advanced nations it was informed of a social democrat weltanschuang.
Immigration and warfare appear to have tilted the balance toward theocracy, with religious granted many concessions, such as the avoidance of military service and also issues to do with taxation and voting rights ( as I imperfectly undersand it).

It is not a Theocracy in the sense that Iran is yet, of course- but equally, one suspects, the old secular Israel of Kibbutzim democracy and communities of often immensely-literate artisans and tradespeople has passed into history.

The solutions for this region require a major change concerning provocative Israeli colonial policy throughout the West Bank teritories and parts of Jerusalem, merely for the Palestinian areas to function (take no notice of the Gaza gimick; it was just a sop). This is because Settlement policies have been conducted partly in the aim of splintering the Palestinian territories into dozens of separate little regions cut off from each other by the strategic location of settlements, as well as giving land to Jewish people. As there are problems as to communication and infrastructure so there also is the question of access to the precious waters of the Jordan river.

Any hope of unscrambling the egg?

Margo: Hi Paul. Webdiarists conducted a detailed and informative debate on this matter from November last year in comments to a Webdiary column by Antony called How Australia reported Arafat's death and legacy.

How foolish of Danby to indulge in such loud, public criticism. Doesn't he know there's no such thing as bad publicity? MUP must be loving it.

Simon Ellis, not entirely. What actual position does the Queen hold in Britain? And what actual power does she have? I'm not talking about what custom says she should do, but what actual power does she have?

And is she not the head of the Anglican Church, which is the state religion? And does it still say that Catholics can not hold the throne?

Just wondering. Because unless you don't want to call Australia (and by inference Australia (through the GG and residual power in the throne he embodies) a liberal democracy, you have at least part of the executive and up to half of the overall authority and power available (though not used) residing in a figure both head of the state religion, and monarch of the country. And she doesn't have 'hats' as such, she is both at the same time in almost every function.

Margo. Are you off your rocker? You interject on behalf of a dreary dissembler (Simon Ellis) insisting that it is I who must adduce evidence. I hate to remind you toots, but whatever happened to "he who asserts must prove?" Margo, you would do well to take a breather and consider your ethical lapse in your intervention here.

In a post-Latham Diaries world, surely we can longer settle for this slackness?

Margo: Feel like answering Simon's question, Noelene? It's nothing to do with "adducing evidence", it's simply asking you to clarify your position. The question again: "Are you asserting in your response to Marko Beljac that the separation of church and state is not central to the concept of a liberal democracy?" Yes or no.

And please, since YOU have alleged an "ethical lapse" by me, an extremely serious allegation, could you set out the ethical obligation or obligations I have breached and how? I assume this was not a throwaway line on your part? If it was, please consider YOUR ethical position. If not, I request that you email or post your complaint to the Media Alliance, the professional association I belong to. See Webdiary Ethics for more details. If you see fit, copy your complaint to me and I will answer it on Webdiary.

Geoff Pahof: "What is this. Freedom of speech for Loewenstein, but not for Danby?" Danby is an ALP politician. He has infinitely more chance to exercise "freedom of speech" than most of the rest of us put together.

He has actually been opposed within the ALP itself by other reps for his one-sided commentaries concerning the Palestine/Israel problem. It has been suggested he is a pro-Israeli proxy in parliament put there to reassure more conservative Jewish voters that the ALP is accessed most directly by the anti-Palestinian lobby.

It is people like Loewenstein who suffer more from the current media regime in this country in spades than folk like Danby and AIJAC, who find themselves monotonously given space in the newspapers to carry on their Hollywood nonsenses without usually providing much opportunity for any alternative viewpoint.

The "War on Terror", the nonsenses about non-existant "Weapons of Mass-Destruction", Iraq and so forth have allowed the authorities the chance to impose accountability-avoiding ASIO laws and to fashion a pretext for media dumbing-down which has atually been aimed at Australians, not for them and not against "terrorists".

A climate of fevered suspicion has allowed the likes of Danby and, paradoxically, equally hysterical far-right Aryan-Nation types on the other hand, to thrive at the expense of legitimate debate of the sort Loewenstein advocates. And this as how it was intended by those with power.

For instance, it's been grim to discover that a lot of what advocates like Marilyn Shepherd have claimed concerning legitimate refugees passed off as "terrorists" for cheap political gain has turned out to more correct than I would have hoped.

The thing is, while for most sensitised Aussies these debates function merely in a nebulous realm of the abstract, for vast numbers of people across the world much pain and grief is involved, because powerful people are too stubborn to get "honest".

Is Mr Danby a member of the Australian parliament or the Israeli knesset? Because the area of Melbourne he represents is not a jewish enclave and he took an oath in 2004 to serve his electors irrespective of race,colour or creed, in the Australian Parliament. If he does not like what Antony Loewenstein has to say then he does not have buy the proposed book.

Margo. Alright. Sorry for the slow response, I had to go out. When you posted your note at 7.04 PM it appeared directly above my post at 5.07 PM. That prompted a mild to moderate freak-out somewhat. Read the two posts together and you might see why.

For my part at least this matter is now at an end. It's now 11.53 PM and I've had enough for one day and going to bed. Goodnight.

Margo: No worries, Geoff. Goodnight.

Simon, actually what powers the Queen has in Britain are irrelevant to Australia. The Australia Act of 1986 severed them all (except the right to ask for leave to appeal to the Privy Council - which I think can be exempted as irrelevant in this context).

I am not trying to disagree with your point about what can and can't be called a liberal democracy, I just think your example was poor. Finland and Norway would be better examples of countries other than the UK that would be considered by all to be liberal democracies which don't have seperation of Church and State.

I actually don't agree that "the separation of church and state is a founding article of liberal democracy". However I do think that liberal democracies function better where they are either secular (Australia, the US) or the involvement of the church in the state bodies of legislature, executive and judiciary is limited to the mostly ceremonial, ie: an effective seperation of church and state (UK, Finland, Norway).

So the question I suppose is can a liberal democracy function well if there is not an effective separation of church and state?

Certainly those states that actively promote a church seem to spend a lot of time (and money and energy and often lives) trying to deal with the question of how to manage non-believers ....

Are people's minds in hibernation? What is all this hysterical talk about "censorship" and "anti-democracy"? Here in Australia, Antony Loewenstein is entitled to his opinion, and even to publish it in a book, which aparently he is doing.

No one is censoring him; on the contrary, MUP is publishing his book, and I have heard no reports of government secret police agents busting in to MUP, destroying the printing presses and arresting the staff. That would be censorship. (For that matter, no one is shutting down Webdiary.)

Mr. Danby is also entitled to his opinion. The rest of us are entitled to read the book or not read the book (though I'm guessing Danby's remarks will sell more copies than MUP or Loewenstein ever dreamed possbile). Agree or not agree with either of them. Vote or not vote for Mr. Danby, if we are in his electorate. That's democracy.

Argue for or against Mr. Danby's or Mr. Loewenstein's position to your heart's content, but please don't whinge about censorship or anti-democracy.

A note on Jewish attitudes towards Sionism: in the first half of the 20th Century, most Diaspora Jews were, at best, ambivalent towards the idea of a Jewish state. In general the Holocaust ended that ambivalence. However, there are still a lot of Jews who are opposed to Zionism, for a variety of religious (ultra-orthodox who believe Jews should not establish a state until the coming of the Moshiach) and political (for example, belief that Israel's very existence is illegitimate because of the displacement of Arabs) reasons.

But I bet Danby is not telling Murdoch’s Oz to pull its head in, either on Israel, or for that matter, Mark Latham and his diaries. And you’d hope Michael, eyes staring, is not muttering behind clenched teeth, spittle aflicker, to Le Poisson D’Or, either.

(Poisson is said variously to be one of four mysterious Lebanese Quads, horsemen of the a’Croqueasheet, who years ago fled a jungle riverside fastness in the Deep North.)

POISSON D’OR GETS SNAKEY

Glenn MilneThe Australian, 19/9, Latham's allies turn to targets.

“Turn to targets”? And open fire at will, or stand there and cop it sweet? Oh dear, Michael Danby. Sounds like Palestine all over again. Please tell Zelmo’s lad to keep his head down, if he has one.

Or he’ll turn to cart food or fertiliser rather than endgame as a lowly target only. Not good form to get sent home to mum and dad in a body bag like some kind of poor dumb yank

“Turn to targets.” I love it. But do ya need targets in a yo-yo contest?

Le Poisson concluded his clunky snarl (sounding like an old Ducati trying to start) with a scarcely veiled threat: “But one day, the real story of Latham's role in the Wilton suicide will be revealed.”

As an EXCLUSIVE SCREAMER in all the “exclusive” News stable, no doubt. The REAL story, Poisson, old fish? We mustn’t have that, surely. Where’s the angle in that?

It’s a pity Rupert’s Super! Zeitung was trashed by better, quality rags like Bild Zeitung, or TAZ. Be great to see a Poisson D’Or Exclusiv! tag getting a flutter up and down the S-Bahn platform.

But that final para in one fell swoop rooted Le Poisson’s whole “statesmanlike” riposte for Latham’s embarrassing recount of some alleged Milne boasts, each with a considerable air of authenticity.

So the column mayn’t have been for Mrs Wilton and her children, despite all the clumsy footwork attempting to flog that sad angle.

A Freudian might try to harvest here some kind of Murdoch apology to the widow and her kids but the Freudians would have to be unaware of the calibre of the Murdoch gang’s family feelings, or feelings for families, wouldn’t they?

This was a seemingly half-workmanlike commentary echoing almost as a parody Latham’s glum whinges about unsourced self-interested wide-boys unbuttoning the mutton for any and all press gallery loiterers.

But Latham had lashed out at Milne and his boss, Paul Kelly, too, with supposedly revealing quotes from Kelly.

There was, for example, a tremendous backhander for Kelly’s boss, John Hartigan, as well as Hartigan’s old chum, New York Post editor Col Allen.

Allegedly Kelly regards these two formidable newspapermen as little more than bimbos. I dunno about that, mate.

And one has to wonder about various Latham backhanders. The most notable is the kiss of death given to Julia Gillard.

Latham could not have failed to analyse the hatred that his comments would rouse, and by extension, the consequent ALP hatred of Julia Gillard, who was anyway in the gun way back for a lot of nasty sniping from someone or something over her “childless” and unwed status.

There was plenty of insourced stuff in le Poison’s stuff aimed at squarely at Gillard, too.

“Marked her card,” indeed. Yeah, well there’s a lot of stupid sporting metaphors used in dumbo shopping channel land, isn’t there?

And Le Poisson, Murdoch’s hook and flies clamped firmly in his tiny, razor sharp teeth, did, after all, wriggle once from the anus of the unlovely Seven Network.

He commands sumptuous fees for his strange columns, which always have the air of corporate press release coprophagy. Perhaps that’s what they are.

The question then is: to which corporation is Le Poisson wed? News? ALP Reich? Liberal Party? Or something or someone deeper and nastier yet? Or nothing at all?

What’s behind the curtains in Poisson’s play-within-a-play, the thing to catch the conscience of the king?

Not bloody much likely, if the king is ensconced at Castle Kirribilli, cobbers, where, alert but not alarmed, he could nevertheless turn to a target.

Shalom and most affectionate regards

Rabbi Peter Woodforde, aka “Mr Boggo”

Noelene, yes, to be sure the head of state of the UK must be a member of the Church of England, but they also must be a member of the Windsor family. Both facts, and there are others, serves as qualifiers to the UK's status as a liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy is a concept and we judge a state as a liberal democracy to the extent that it meets the criteria contained within the concept. Hence we say that the US is more of a liberal democracy than the UK for these and other reasons.

In fact, Catholics have served as head of state in the past, and if Prince Charles was for real and converted to Catholicism then presumably his status as a member of the Windsor family would take precedence. Certainly it would provoke a constitutional crisis of some sort.

So, Noelene, I am a 'dreary dissembler' am I? And here I was thinking that by refusing to use abusive and emotional language in my posts I would have a better chance of finding some common ground with you - oh well, I live and I learn.

I will endeavor to be less 'dreary' when I respond to your posts in future.

In the meantime Stuart and Michelle have actually done what you, Noelene, were unable to do, and have given a pretty good synopsis of how church and state are not always as 'separate' as one might think in a liberal democracy.

Thanks Stuart and Michelle - food for thought.

Peter "Tedia Watch" Woodforde has added a most apt corollary to the comprehensive Hoisting of the tabloid press on its own collective Petard, as detailed on the most recent Media Watch programme.

He does this in citing the most recent effort from that paradigm and archetype of the sick mindset of tabloid media, Glen Milne, in the "Oz" on 19/9.

Didn't learn from Brogden, still hasn't learnt after the Murdoch embarrassment, concerning its trumping by the ABC; can only therefore bray forth his impotent hate and arrogance in his smear column. Don't you get it Glen?

Can't you finally recognise that people now see you and your colleagues as predictable and have begun to make forward plans based on your past responses.

Just getting back to the 2 state solution, from what I've read and seen, the Israelis have always wanted the extra land as a buffer against Arab invasion/incursions in the future. How does establishing a Palestinian state allow the Israeli Government to maintain that peace of mind?

Simon Wiesenthal is dead.

Actually Simon Ellis, the separation of church and state refers to the exclusion of the Executive from the Church. ie - religious freedom. It's why many people came/come to Australia to start new lives.

Israel doesn't seem to have this separation in anywhere near the same measure (and Australia is losing it). I haven't read much of Antony L's stuff, but perhaps this is one of his issues with Israel?

I can't think of anything more boring than the internal politics and feuds of ethnic communities, especially over events far across the seas with nothing to do with the Australia. I'm thankful that I don't belong to one and have the luxury of being an individual and being able to treat other people as individuals, without having the extra stress that this kind of thing must place upon all members of such communities.

The Israeli-Palestinian situation is depressing in its basic ugliness. I am grateful for the gaza pullout and hope that one day humanity will transcend politics and a solution found and harmony restored. As an Australian citizen I don't think it's really any of my business, nor my responsibility to fret or worry about this and I think the same applies to Jewish and Muslim Australians, if they so choose.

Danby's comments are laughable hyperbole. It is not appropriate for an MP to disrupt social harmony by importing foreign conflicts to Australia. Regardless, I'll adopt his own approach, accept his right to freedom of speech and vote for someone else besides the ALP.

I've not read anything of Lowenstein's work, beyond the chapter in Margo's book and I scarcely even remember what was in it. I don't think I learned anything from it and I don't expect there is anything in his new work which is so horrible that it simply should not be read.

Solomon, you do belong to an ethnic "community" and I'll bet the house that you are dripping with the culture of a place far across the seas and probably bent over double carrying the baggage from there as well. I don't know what ethnic group you belong to and I neither care or want to know. But unless you've just arrived from Mars you are an ethnic and you are probably more involved in the internal conflicts and fueds than you realise.

But don't fret over your newly discovered status as an ethnic. Being an ethnic does not disqualify you at all from being an individual and treating others as individuals. In fact in your case this new knowledge might even help you in this department given your perceptible inclination to generalise about other Australians who happen to be Muslims and Jews many of whom I'll bet have a longer family history in Australia than you. Whose failing to treat others as individuals now?

This little spat as I understand it is based on no more than a letter or two written to an ethnic newspaper. To promote this as an "internal feud" or "politics" is to vastly inflate the importance of Louwenstein. I'm sure he'd love to be in the centre of a fued or split or whatever. He certainly seems to be trying hard.

Perhaps Danby should not have raised the issue(problem) in the first place. Arguably all it's done is given Loeuenstein the oxyen he craves. But on the other hand perhaps it's better to get it said now rather than waiting until his book comes out when publicity would clearly benefit him most.

Several posters have brought up the issue of separation of church and state in Israel. The role of religious authorities in areas considered civil in many liberal democracies is an ongoing debate. Many Israelis and Disapora Jews object to the monopoly of the Orthodox rabbinate on authority over marriage and divorce, immigration, and other areas.

Some organisations are trying to introduce reforms to this system, and it seems to be happening gradually.

For example, in areas of personal law (marriage, divorce, etc.) Islamic religious courts have jurisdiction over Muslims, and Druze and Christian religious courts have jurisdiction over their own communities. (Civil marriage as such is not recognised, though there are moves to introduce civil union or at least to break the monopoly of the orthodox rabbis.)

In other legal areas civil law applies. There is intertwining of church and state, but not on the scale of, say, Iran.

Solomon, you are happy to have 'the luxury of being an individual' and to be able 'to treat other people as individuals'. Fair enough. But why then do you suddenly, when it comes to the question whether or not you should worry about other individuals (Palestinians happen to be individuals too) refer to a collective identity (Australian citizenship) to argue that their fate is none of your business?

Ok, Geoff , I'm an anglo-celtic Republican and am caught up in age-old squabbles over whether or not Australia should be under the tyranny of the British Monarchy. My mistake. I actually think that Kingston's book vastly over-estimated the influence of any "Zionist lobby", leading to accusations of anti-semitism and of her promoting some Jewish conspiracy.

My perusal of the Australian media led me to believe that if anything, the commercial media ignores the issue and the rest, if anything, has a bias towards the Palestinian "Underdog". I think this issue is more of an internal one, for specific communities, rather than having any broader interest to the Australian people. I'm not referring to this specific event but rather the broader politics of it all. Calling it a "feud" lessens it, though I'm not uncomfortable with doing that.

Arie, remoteness. It's something far away, which I didn't cause and over which I have no control. I think it's fine for me simply not to concern myself with it. The point being that in a multi-cultural society like Australia I think it's unwise for people to import negative attitudes resulting from foreign conflicts. Whilst I see nothing wrong with a person developing an interest in foreign affairs, or having a global social conscience, I don't think it should be incumbent upon anybody to do so, when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own experience.

As for the fate of the Palestinian people, I think that the problems are internal ones between Hamas, the PA and the general population. If they can sort themselves out, they'll find it much easier to negotiate with Israel. I have equal sympathy for the Israeli people who have to put up with the threat of terrorism and are thus prevented from living normal lives.

I don't approve of anyone that obstructs peaceful negotiation and am mystified by the stubborness of Jewish settlers that are refusing to co-operate with the Gaza pullout. They seem to have little perspective, which is a sin, in the present context.

As for Palestinian suicide-bombers, I don't know, it seems like a pointless waste of life, for those that carry it out and for the innocent Israeli people that are killed. In many ways I think they choose their own fate and I'm finding myself with less sympathy now, for people that ruin their own lives, especially if they decided they want to drag somebody else down with them.

No man is an island, entire of itself... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
- John Donne, Meditation XVII.

Solomon: "Arie, remoteness. It's something far away, which I didn't cause and over which I have no control. I think it's fine for me simply not to concern myself with it."

Solomon, in your previous post you referred to your Australian citizenship as a reason for not bothering about the Palestinian issue. And now it is our distance from it. Does that imply that if you happened to be a Greek living in Greece your Greek citizenship would not allow you to bury your face in your handkerchief? Athens is, after all, as near to Jerusalem as Adelaide is to Sydney.

Solomon: "The point being that in a multi-cultural society like Australia I think it's unwise for people to import negative attitudes resulting from foreign conflicts."

On that basis we could never protest against human rights violations anywhere because there will always be individuals in Australia, who on the basis of their ‘ethnic identity’, side with the government criticized (though, of course, they might also be here because they themselves are among the critics and/or former victims). And how does this tie in with your previous criterion: remoteness? The fact that the East Timorese, Achehnese and Papuans are on our doorstep would, on the basis of your distance criterion, presumably incite us to take an interest in their fate. But then again there are many Indonesians in Australia...

Your line of argument would encourage those Jews in Australia who would argue that a critique of Israel does amount to an attack on ‘the Jews’ as such, and is, in fact ‘anti-Semitic’. I have always found this a nonsensical argument. Many of the most effective critics of Israel are Jews. Some pro-Israel front has put a ‘shit list’ online with no less than 7,000 names of Jewish critics of Israel. Predictably they are all accused of suffering from ‘self-hatred’. And these are people who have, somehow, come out into the open – we have no way of knowing how many tacit Jewish critics of Israel there are around.

Solomon: "Whilst I see nothing wrong with a person developing an interest in foreign affairs, or having a global social conscience, I don't think it should be incumbent upon anybody to do so, when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own experience."

Well, here I would like to quote that famous statement by the German theologian Martin Niemoeller:

"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

The point is of course that human rights form a ‘seamless web’. A rent in it anywhere concerns us all.

Solomon: "As for the fate of the Palestinian people, I think that the problems are internal ones between Hamas, the PA and the general population. If they can sort themselves out, they'll find it much easier to negotiate with Israel."

There are very good grounds for assuming that the Israeli government is not very interested in the Palestinians ‘sorting themselves out’ (see my previous posting quoting Sharon’s personal adviser, Dov Weisglass). On many occasions it has deliberately provoked the more extreme Palestinian factions so that it can claim that the Palestinian Authority 'cannot get its own house in order' and that there is ‘nobody to negotiate with’. It has played this game for years with Arafat and would like now to do the same with Abbas. There is some hope that the US is this time around somewhat less inclined to let its ally get away with this trick.

Solomon: "I have equal sympathy for the Israeli people who have to put up with the threat of terrorism and are thus prevented from living normal lives. I don't approve of anyone that obstructs peaceful negotiation and am mystified by the stubborness of Jewish settlers that are refusing to co-operate with the Gaza pullout. They seem to have little perspective, which is a sin, in the present context."

When one believes that his/her piece of real estate came from God himself s/he will feel no great willingness to vacate it. For the rest I am mystified by your use of the word ‘sin’ here. In what moral framework does that fit? Apparently it is one that allows you to feel indifferent towards the fate of people that are ‘remote’.

Solomon: "As for Palestinian suicide-bombers, I don't know, it seems like a pointless waste of life, for those that carry it out and for the innocent Israeli people that are killed. In many ways I think they choose their own fate and I'm finding myself with less sympathy now, for people that ruin their own lives, especially if they decided they want to drag somebody else down with them."

Tony Blair’s wife Cheri commented after an Israeli suicide attack by Palestinians: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress". The shocked PM quickly ordered an apology. His wife had reacted as a human being rather than the wife of a top politician. Thus his gloss was that it was important to provide hope for the future through a political process "and I am sure that is what Cherie was saying".

Well, if that was what Cheri was saying most of us will agree with her. But it requires two to tango...

I am not quite sure, though, that you are not also arguing that the Palestinians in general have chosen their own fate. If that is the case you need to do some background reading on the issue. I am certainly not going to provide a potted history of the matter here. If you are interested in my views on the subject you can find them in Antony Loewenstein’s bit of the SMH Webdiary over November-January 2005, to which Margo has provided a link above.

Solomon Wakeling, allow me to ease your pain. Hon, neither you, nor me, nore anybody here is under any form of tyranny, particularly from the British Monarchy. The British monarchy is irrelevant to the lives of Australians.

Craig: Noelene you are yet to answer a number of questions Margo put to you on this thread on Monday night. Please do in your next comment.

Beyond the issue of religion, a far more relevant question to pose in relation to Israel and the viability of its claims to democratic status concerns ethnic exclusivity.

Note that the idea of an ‘Israeli nationality' (rather than citizenry) has no formal standing within Israel. The Interior Ministry assigns citizens one of many possible nationality statuses: from Jew, Georgian, Russian and Hebrew through to Arab, Druze, Abkhazi, Assyrian and Samaritan. Each citizen's assigned nationality is clear to authorities on their identity card either as an ethnic label or as code number.

This labelling is integrated with a range of institutionalized discriminations, placing constraints on Arab citizens of Israel in particular, in areas such as education and land tenure, which suggest an apartheid-like situation that deserves international censure.

As one Israeli academic put it recently, we are not talking about the fully-fledged Big-A Apartheid of the old South Africa (ie notices declaring toilets, beaches, park benches, buses etc ‘Arab’ and ‘Jew’). Rather, a small-a apartheid which, in its lack of the same visibility can be seen as a more insidious (strategic?) form.

Language provides just one example. Arabic is officially a state language in Israel, alongside Hebrew. But the institutional status of Arabic is far lower than Hebrew. Arab pupils are required to take Hebrew as a main subject until their high school graduation examination; in the exam extra points are awarded for excellence in Hebrew and not for Arabic. The result is that it becomes more difficult, for Palestinian citizens in particular, to enter Israeli universities. Formal public meetings are also held in Hebrew, as are all court hearings.

Another example is land. Legislation known as the ‘absentee properties law’ has played a key role in the wholesale confiscation of private Palestinian-owned lands by the state, and its transfer into the control either of a government body known as the Israel Lands Authority or of quasi-governmental bodies such as the Jewish Agency or the Jewish National Fund. These bodies restrict the leasing of lands under their control to those of particular ethnic identities. Such land control mechanisms perpetuate a legally enforced system of territorial separation along ethnic lines.

It seems to me that these kinds of institutionalized discrimination (and there are numerous other examples) is what makes the state of Israel profoundly undemocratic, worthy of international censure and of pressure for change. (What form that pressure should take is a separate question).

So rather than ‘wishing for a Jewish state’ (or an ‘Irish state’ or a ‘Basque state’ or ‘Armenian State’ etc) as a means to guard against human rights abuses, including genocide, a far better aim - and one which could apply to all people - is to support internationally agreed parameters concerning human rights and their enforcement.

However imperfect the UN is, it remains the only institution currently capable of determining international covenants concerning human rights. And on this basis, Israel’s flouting of a range of UN resolutions also deserves our condemnation. The effect is to undermine a vision (however remote this vision may now seem) of the international protection of universal human rights, including the prevention of genocide.

No man is an island, entire of itself... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." (John Donne, Meditation XVII).

Solomon: "Arie, remoteness. It's something far away, which I didn't cause and over which I have no control. I think it's fine for me simply not to concern myself with it."

Solomon, in your previous post you referred to your Australian citizenship as a reason for not bothering about the Palestinian issue. And now it is our distance from it. Does that imply that if you happened to be a Greek living in Greece your Greek citizenship would not allow you to bury your face in your handkerchief? Athens is, after all, as near to Jerusalem as Adelaide is to Sydney.

Solomon: "The point being that in a multi-cultural society like Australia I think it's unwise for people to import negative attitudes resulting from foreign conflicts."

On that basis we could never protest against human rights violations anywhere because there will always be individuals in Australia, who on the basis of their ‘ethnic identity’, side with the government criticized (though, of course, they might also be here because they themselves are among the critics and/or former victims). And how does this tie in with your previous criterion: remoteness? The fact that the East Timorese, Achehnese and Papuans are on our doorstep would, on the basis of your distance criterion, presumably incite us to take an interest in their fate. But then again there are many Indonesians in Australia...

Your line of argument would encourage those Jews in Australia who would argue that a critique of Israel does amount to an attack on ‘the Jews’ as such, and is, in fact ‘anti-Semitic’. I have always found this nonsense. Many of the most effective critics of Israel are Jews. Some pro-Israel front has put a ‘shit list’ online with no less than 7,000 names of Jewish critics of Israel. Predictably they are all accused of suffering from ‘self-hatred’. And these are people who have, somehow, come out into the open – we have no way of knowing how many tacit Jewish critics of Israel there are around.

Solomon: "Whilst I see nothing wrong with a person developing an interest in foreign affairs, or having a global social conscience, I don't think it should be incumbent upon anybody to do so, when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own experience."

Well, here I would like to quote that famous statement by the German theologian Martin Niemoeller:

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out; Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out; Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

The point is of course that human rights form a ‘seamless web’. A rent in it anywhere concerns us all.

Solomon: "As for the fate of the Palestinian people, I think that the problems are internal ones between Hamas, the PA and the general population. If they can sort themselves out, they'll find it much easier to negotiate with Israel."

There are very good grounds for assuming that the Israeli government is not very interested in the Palestinians ‘sorting themselves out’ (see my previous posting quoting Sharon’s personal adviser, Dov Weisglass). On many occasions it has deliberately provoked the more extreme Palestinian factions so that it can claim that the Palestinian Authority cannot get its own house in order and that there is ‘nobody to negotiate with’. It has played this game for years with Arafat and would like now to do the same with Abbas. There is some hope that the US is this time around somewhat less inclined to let its ally get away with this trick.

Solomon: "I have equal sympathy for the Israeli people who have to put up with the threat of terrorism and are thus prevented from living normal lives. I don't approve of anyone that obstructs peaceful negotiation and am mystified by the stubborness of Jewish settlers that are refusing to co-operate with the Gaza pullout. They seem to have little perspective, which is a sin, in the present context."

When one believes that his/her piece of real estate came from God himself s/he will feel no great willingness to vacate it. For the rest I am mystified by your use of the word ‘sin’ here. In what moral framework does that fit? Apparently it is one that allows you to feel indifferent towards the fate of people that are ‘remote’.

Solomon: "As for Palestinian suicide-bombers, I don't know, it seems like a pointless waste of life, for those that carry it out and for the innocent Israeli people that are killed. In many ways I think they choose their own fate and I'm finding myself with less sympathy now, for people that ruin their own lives, especially if they decided they want to drag somebody else down with them."

Tony Blair’s wife Cheri commented after an Israeli suicide attack by Palestinians: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress". The shocked PM quickly ordered an apology. His wife had reacted as a human being rather than the wife of a top politician. Thus his gloss was that it was important to provide hope for the future through a political process "and I am sure that is what Cherie was saying".

Well, if that was what Cheri was saying most of us will agree with her. But it requires two to tango…

I am not quite sure, though, that you are not also arguing that the Palestinians in general have chosen their own fate. If that is the case you need to do some background reading on the issue. I am certainly not going to provide a potted history of the matter here. If you are interested in my views on the subject you can find them in Antony Loewenstein’s bit of the SMH Webdiary over November-January 2005, to which Margo has provided a link above.

Phil Uebergang: "Actually Simon Ellis, the separation of church and state refers to the exclusion of the Executive from the Church. ie - religious freedom. It's why many people came/come to Australia to start new lives."

No, it cuts both ways. It also refers to the exclusion of the church from certain political activities. You can find it here, in the Australian Constitution:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This was based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Our Constitution clearly states that religious observance cannot be required for participation in government. It isn't just telling the government to keep out of religion, but religion to keep out of government.

Arie Brand, you seem to be troubling yourself about someone encouraging, "those Jews in Australia who would argue a critique of Israel does amount to an attack on 'the Jews' as such, and is, in fact anti-semitic."

I'm seriously mystified about all these people who would argue that any criticism of Israel is per se anti-semitism. I'm constantly hearing about them. I've commented about this before (The Dividing Australia thread on 04\09\2005 at 2.52 pm). Arie could you give an example of where someone has seriously said such a thing? One will do.

I'm also very curious about the 'shit-list' with 7000 names that some 'pro-Israel front' has put on-line. Have you actually seen this? Where is it?

Arie, I think what I'm trying to say is that I see this as a kind of sectarian violence, with fault on both sides, rather than a clear case of abuse of state power against a minority group, so I don't think speaking of it in terms of "human rights" gives a clear picture.

I don't believe sectarianism should be perpetuated here, so the kind of hyperbole that I see in Danby and the deliberate stirring I see in Lowenstein is unhelpful. I think it's one thing to have a political opinion, however, I think what I see here goes slightly beyond that where there is no real constructive dialogue and social groups are built around particular ideas.

I'd be concerned if young people, who have not had any or much experience living in the Middle-East, are dragged in to this issue when they'd be better off leaving it behind. I say this about all foreign conflicts, especially those from the former Yugoslavia, since we've many immigrants and refugees from all parts.

Solomon, Antony Loeowenstein is not 'stirring' as you put, he is trying very hard to alert people to a very serious situation that has unsatisfactorily dragged on for generations, and is a major factor in some of the present tragedies that afflict the world. Even in places as far-flung as the Australian outpost people contemplate what possibility there is that the raw emotions of angry people in the Middle-East might yet boil over into actions along the lines of New York four years ago, or Bali not long afterwards, or London recently.

That's apart from much head-shaking at so much human sadness at the source.

Please let me refer you back to that amazing post from Arie Brand.

"Arie, I think what I'm trying to say is that I see this as a kind of sectarian violence, with fault on both sides, rather than a clear case of abuse of state power against a minority group, so I don't think speaking of it in terms of 'human rights' gives a clear picture."

Solomon, ‘sectarian violence’ is a misnomer. That term is appropriate for a conflict that is fuelled by differences in religion and/or ideology and where neither of the conflicting parties has state power.

The conflict in Palestine is not, primarily, about religion. In the nineteenth century, when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Arabs lived more or less peacefully together. Zionist aspirations and activities changed this.

The conflict is, basically, about land. An indigenous group has been pushed out of its habitat to the fringes of its original territory, where it is still subject to the control of and harassment and humiliation by an overwhelmingly powerful state. Many individuals in this group, or their direct ancestors, have been robbed of their private property.

Ongoing control by the expropriators has entailed very serious violations of human rights. Why is this our concern? There is the moral angle. There is also a pragmatic-political one. The Palestinian issue, and especially the role the US has played and is playing in this, has deeply embittered the Arab world. Ongoing conflict there is also of importance to us.

Global ‘public opinion’ can be of influence in such situations (think of the South African case). That is why we are debating this issue. And that some people get their feathers ruffled in the process seems to me of minor importance compared to the matters that are at stake.

Your assertion that we don’t have a human rights issue here makes me think that you know very little about this matter. I thus repeat my suggestion to do some background reading. For the human rights angle read the relevant Amnesty International reports. For the general background Antony’s forthcoming book might be helpful.

See Breaking The Silence, testimony of Israeli soldiers who served in the West Bank and Gaza. The following extracts from the site relate specifically to the situation in Hebron.

It’s Alright:

The thing that I remember that affected me emotionally the most from my time in Hebron, was when we had just arrived there. I was on guard at our post, when suddenly, from one of the small streets, a settler girl shows up and shouts at me very urgently: "Soldier, soldier, come quickly, there's an Arab here who's attacking a girl." I get very alarmed and advance with my weapon cocked. The scene that unfolds is of an Arab with his two children, he's trying to protect them from another settler girl who's throwing stones at them. I blew my fuse and starting screaming at her: "What are you doing, what's going on here," and I'm torn between the girl who's throwing stones and screaming that he's an Arab and he should be killed, and that they shouldn't be here, and the father, poor guy, who sort of says with his helpless eyes, "We're used to it, we've been here a long time now, it's alright."

No Such Thing as "Benign Occupation":

If I'm standing at a checkpoint that prevents people from going somewhere, somewhere it's obvious they need to get to, like from the grocery store to their house, and they can't get there because I'm standing in their way, it really doesn't matter how polite I am. I don't have to behave cruelly for it to be unjust. I can be the most courteous person in the world and still be unfair. Because from their point of view, it makes no difference if I'm a nice guy. I still don't let them go home. What difference does it make if I try to be nice? Or humiliate them? The very existence of the checkpoint is humiliating. As long as I’m doing my duty according to the regulations, something completely legal, I’m doing something that is inflicting pain on people, harming them unnecessarily. I guard, or enable the existence of, 500 Jewish settlers at the expense of 15,000 people under direct occupation in the H2 area and another 140,000-160,000 in the surrounding areas of Hebron. It makes no difference whatsoever how pleasant I am to them or how pleasant my company commander is, it simply... won't make it any better. I will still be their enemy. There will still be a conflict between us. And sometimes, the fact that I may be nice to them will only cause me trouble because then they’ll have someone to argue with, someone to turn to. But there is nothing I can tell them. You can't go through the checkpoint because you can't, and that's it!! It’s an order, based on security considerations. As long as you want to protect these 500 people, that's what you have to do. As long as you want to keep these folks in Hebron alive and enable them to go about their existence in a reasonable manner, you have to destroy the reasonable existence of all the rest. There's no alternative. For the most part, these are real security considerations. They're not imaginary. If you want to protect them from being shot at from above, you have to occupy all the hills around them. There are people living on those hills. They have to be subdued, they have to be detained, they have to be hurt at times. But as long as the government has decided that the settlement in Hebron will remain in tact, even without undue cruelty, the cruelty is there, and it doesn't matter whether or not we act nice.

Safari in Hebron:

That morning, a fairly big group arrived in Hebron, around 15 people or so, of Jews from France. They were all religious Jews, French Jews, they didn't really know Hebrew, and spoke half English, half Hebrew, and half French. They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them from destroying the town. In other words, this is what they were busy doing for hours. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw off the ground, and started throwing them in Arabs’ windows, and overturning whatever they came across. A gang of Jews from France simply came along, to the area we were responsible for, and did whatever they wanted. And there’s no horror story here... he didn’t catch some Arab and kill him or anything like that, but what bothered me about this story is that along came a gang of people from France, and I have no idea how in tune they are with what's going on here, and without... maybe someone told them that there’s a place in the world where you can just, I don't know... that a Jew can take all of his rage out on the Arab people, and simply do anything, do whatever he wants. To come to a Palestinian town, and do what ever he wants, and the soldiers will always be there to back him up. Because that was actually my job. I guess I could have tried to keep the rock from being thrown, something I can't do, of course. I couldn't run after them all the time, not successfully at least. But my real actual job was to protect them and make sure that nothing happened to them. And that’s how the job was also explained to us. Not to stop them. To try and stop them. But mostly to protect them.

Could you imagine anything like Breaking the Silence coming out of anywhere controlled by the PA/Hamas/IJ? They'd all be executed as collaborators after a quick kangaroo trial. Or could you imagine it from just about anywhere else in the Arab world?

In fact there is no 'silence' to 'break'. Israel has had its vocal dissenters and others from the very start. They all get a hearing. Sections of the public are sympathetic. Sections are not.

Israel is a liberal democracy. That means you get all sorts of people saying all sorts of things. There is a simple explanation for this. It is because they are allowed to.

Geoff Pahoff, I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the 'liberal' values that justify the plight of the Palestinian residents of Hebron. Since when do 500 radical Israeli 'settlers' have a 'democratic' right to impose their will on 160,000+ Arabs in their own homes?

Michael’s posting reminds us that it is virtually impossible for soldiers in an occupation army to retain their humanity.

Shiri Tsur’s film On the Objection Front, which gave the stories of the six Israeli military men who started the movement of the ‘refusniks’ (those soldiers who refuse to serve beyond the ‘Green line’, that is in occupied territory) provided impressive evidence for that. Predictably this story, which was broadcast by SBS on 13th September, did, as far as I know, not elicit any comment in the Australian mainstream media at all. And I suspect that SBS only took its courage in its hands because this was an Israeli film with an Israeli director.

What I found particularly intriguing in this film was the fact that several of the officers and soldiers who talked there had only belatedly gained the insight that what they had been involved in was thoroughly wrong. It seems that that mysterious thing called a ‘conscience’ often has a late ignition.

I remember that the row over Dutch war crimes in Indonesia only blew up in 1969, that is about a quarter century after the events concerned, when a former officer, then a professor of psychology, felt compelled to speak out in a television interview. To many Dutch people this was particularly shocking because they had always been given the impression, by their mainstream media, that only the other side committed war crimes.

The Israeli army cannot claim that it has not been warned for this process of dehumanisation. Various Israeli public intellectuals pointed out in advance that military occupation would inevitably lead to that. And the anti-occupation movement has staunchly maintained that 'the occupation corrupts’.

Nor can the army claim, as for instance Dutch high command did in the case of the events in Indonesia, that it wasn’t told by members of its own forces what was going on. Here is, for instance, one such story, that appeared in Haaretz in 2003, and that I have shortened a bit:

I Punched an Arab in the Face, Gideon Levy

Haaretz Weekend Magazine - 21/11/2003

Staff Sergeant (res.) Liran Ron Furer cannot just routinely get on with his life anymore. He is haunted by images from his three years of military service in Gaza and the thought that this could be a syndrome afflicting everyone who serves at checkpoints gives him no respite. On the verge of completing his studies in the design program at the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, he decided to drop everything and devote all his time to the book he wanted to write.

The major publishers he brought it to declined to publish it. The publisher that finally accepted it (Gevanim) says that the Steimatzky bookstore chain refuses to distribute it. But Furer is determined to bring his book to the public's attention.

You can adopt the most hard-line political positions, but no parent would agree to his son becoming a thief, a criminal or a violent person," says Furer. "The problem is that it's never presented this way. The boy himself doesn't portray himself this way to his family when he returns from the territories. On the contrary - he is received as a hero, as someone who is doing the important work of being a soldier. No one can be indifferent to the fact that there are many families in which, in a certain sense, there are already two generations of criminals. The father went through it and now the son is going through it and no one talks about it around the dinner table."

Furer is certain that what happened to him is not at all unique. Here he was - a creative, sensitive graduate of the Thelma Yellin High School of the Arts, who became an animal at the checkpoint, a violent sadist who beat up Palestinians because they didn't show him the proper courtesy, who shot out tires of cars because their owners were playing the radio too loud, who abused a retarded teenage boy lying handcuffed on the floor of the Jeep, just because he had to take his anger out somehow. "Checkpoint Syndrome" (also the title of his book), gradually transforms every soldier into an animal, he maintains, regardless of whatever values he brings with him from home. No one can escape its taint. In a place where nearly everything is permissible and violence is perceived as normative behavior, each soldier tests his own limits of violence and impulsiveness on his victims – the Palestinians.

His book is not easy reading. Written in terse, fierce prose, in the blunt and coarse language of soldiers, he reconstructs scenes from the years in which he served in Gaza (1996-1999), years that, one must remember, were relatively quiet. He describes how he and his comrades forced some Palestinians to sing "Elinor" - "It was really something to see these Arabs singing a Zohar Argov song, like in a movie"; the emotions the Palestinians aroused in him - "Sometimes these Arabs really disgust me, especially those that try to toady up to us - the older ones, who come to the checkpoint with this smile on their faces"; the reactions they spurred - "If they really annoy us, we find away to keep them stuck at the checkpoint for a few hours. They lose a whole day of work because of it sometimes, but that's the only way they learn."

He described how they would order children to clean the checkpoint before inspection time; how a soldier named Shahar invented a game:"He checks someone's identity card, and instead of handing it back to him, just tosses it in the air. He got a kick out of seeing the Arab have to get out of his car to pick up his identity card ... It's a game for him and he can pass a whole shift this way"; how they humiliated a dwarf who came to the checkpoint every day on his wagon: "They forced him to have his picture taken on the horse, hit him and degraded him for a good half hour and let him go only when cars arrived at the checkpoint. The poor guy, he really didn't deserve it"; how they had a souvenir picture taken with bloodied, bound Arabs whom they'd beaten up; how Shahar pissed on the head of an Arab because the man had the nerve to smile at a soldier; how Dado forced an Arab to stand on four legs and bark like a dog; and how they stole prayer beads and cigarettes - "Miro wanted them to give him their cigarettes, the Arabs didn't want to give so Miro broke someone's hand, and Boaz slashed their tires."

The most chilling of all the personal confessions: "I ran toward them and punched an Arab right in the face. I'd never punched anyone that way. He collapsed on the road. The officers said that we had to search him for his papers. We pulled his hands behind his back and I bound them with plastic handcuffs. Then we blindfolded him so he wouldn't see what was in the Jeep. I picked him up from the road.

Blood was trickling from his lip onto his chin. I led him up behind the Jeep and threw him in, his knees banged against the trunk and he landed inside. We sat in the back, stepping on the Arab ... Our Arab lay there pretty quietly, just crying softly to himself. His face was right on my flak jacket and he was bleeding and making a kind ofpuddle of blood and saliva, and it disgusted and angered me, so I grabbed him by the hair and turned his head to the side. He cried out loud and to get him to stop, we stepped harder and harder on his back. That quieted him down for a while and then he started up again. We concluded that he was either retarded or crazy.

The company commander informed us over the radio that we had to bring him to the base. `Good work, tigers,' he said, teasing us. All the other soldiers were waiting there to see what we'd caught. When we came in with the Jeep, they whistled and applauded wildly. We put the Arab next to the guard. He didn't stop crying and someone who understood Arabic said that his hands were hurting from the handcuffs. One of the soldiers went up to him and kicked him in the stomach. The Arab doubled over and grunted, and we all laughed. It was funny ... I kicked him really hard in the ass and he flew forward just as I'd expected. They shouted that I was a totally crazy, and they laughed ... and I felt happy. Our Arab was just a 16-year-old mentally retarded boy." ...

Furer is out to prove that this is a syndrome and not a collection of isolated, individual cases. That's why he deleted a lot of personal details from the original manuscript, in order to underscore the general nature of what he describes. "During my army service, I believed that was atypical, because I came from a background of art and creativity. I was considered a moderate soldier - but I fell into the same trap that most soldiers fall into. I was carried away by the possibility of acting in the most fear of punishment and without oversight. You're tense about it at first, but as you get more comfortable at the checkpoint over time, the behavior becomes more natural. People gradually test the limits of their behavior toward the Palestinians. It gradually becomes coarser and coarser.

The more confident I became with the situation, as soon as we reached the conclusion – each one at his own stage - that we are the rulers, we are the strong ones, and when we felt our power, each one started to stretch the limits more and more, in accordance with his personality. As soon as serving at the checkpoint became routine, all kinds of deviant behavior became normal. It started with 'souvenir collecting': We'd confiscate prayer beads and then it was cigarettes and it didn't stop. It became normative behavior.

After that came the power games. We got the message from above that we were to project seriousness and deterrence to the Arabs. Physical violence also became normative. We felt free to punish any Palestinian who didn't follow the 'proper code of behavior' at the checkpoint. Anyone we thought wasn't polite enough to us or tried to act smart - was severely punished. It was deliberate harassment on the most trivial pretexts. ...

At the checkpoint, young people have the chance to be masters and using force and violence becomes legitimate - and this is a much more basic impulse than the political views or values that you bring from home. As soon as using force is given legitimacy, and even rewarded, the tendency is to take it as far as it can go, to exploit it much as possible. To satisfy these impulses beyond what the situation requires. Today, I'd call it sadistic impulses ...

We weren't criminals or especially violent people. We were a group of good boys, a relatively 'high-quality' group, and for all of us - and we still talk about this sometimes - the checkpoint became a place to test our personal limits. How tough, how callous, how crazy we could be - and we thought of that in the positive sense.

Something about the situation - being in a godforsaken place, far from home, far from oversight - made it justified ... The line of what was forbidden was never precisely drawn. No one was ever punished and they just let us continue.

Today, I feel confident saying that even the most senior ranks – the brigade commander, the battalion commander - are aware of the power that soldiers have in this situation and what they do with it.

How could a commander not be aware of it when the more crazy and tough his soldiers are, the quieter his sector is? The more complex picture of the long-term effects of this violent behavior is something you only become conscious of when you get away from the checkpoint.

Today it's clear to me that that boy whose father we humiliated for the flimsiest of reasons will grow up to hate anyone who represents what was done to his father. I definitely have an understanding of their motives now. We are cruelty, we are power. I'm sure that their response is affected by elements related to their society - a disregard for human life and a readiness to sacrifice lives - but the basic desire to resist, the hatred itself, the fear - I feel are completely justified and legitimate, even if it's risky to say so.