Posted on

Guess who’s not coming to dinner

To break bread or to boycott: that’s Muslim Australia’s choice

Refusing to eat with someone is a gesture indicating they’ve dishonoured you. That’s why Muslim leaders are boycotting high profile events in an attempt to be heard

The Guardian.com, Tuesday 12 August 2014

In recent weeks, three high-profile boycotts have been launched by Australia’s Muslim leaders against the backdrop of the current conflict in Gaza. As a form of political activism, the boycotts are novel, but perhaps the response to them isn’t: they have been described as “divisive and unproductive” and a barrier to constructive dialogue.

Those remarks came from Vic Alhadeff, who was the subject of the first boycott. In his capacity as CEO of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Alhadeff issued a community update on 9 July which justified Israel’s Operation Protective Edge by republishing a statement from Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs. By doing so, I and others argued, he abrogated his responsibility to remain neutral as chairman of the NSW community relations commission (CRC).

We argued his position had become untenable, and that he had to resign. Local Arab leaders issued an open letter to Victor Dominello, the NSW citizenship minister, and met with him in person, but the minister concluded that Alhadeff “is doing an outstanding job” as CRC chair and would remain in the post.

Similarly, Mike Baird, the NSW premier, affirmed that Alhadeff had “his full confidence” – although he conceded that it was inappropriate in his role for him to have made those comments. This was seen as a slap on the hand for Alhadeff, and a slap in the face for NSW’s Muslim leaders.

After being ignored, a boycott or withdrawal becomes a worthwhile option. Community leaders announced that they would “suspend involvement with the CRC so long as [Alhadeff] is at the helm … [because] the minister has walked away from what is morally right”.

Many who had accepted the invitation to attend the premier’s annual Iftar (breaking of fast) dinner, scheduled for that week, announced that they would “respectfully withdraw … on moral grounds”. They could not break bread with those who shrugged off what they saw as propaganda. Images of injured or dead Palestinian children had spoiled their appetite for a celebration.

The result was many empty tables at the parliament house dinner. Photos of Baird addressing the half-full room made a powerful statement: the premier and minister did not treat Australian Arabs and Muslims with respect, so they acted with respect for their culture, faith and tradition.

The “Iftar boycott” is such a strong image because dining is much more than physical act of eating, it’s a spiritual communion of people. There is an Arabic expression said after a meal is shared, along the lines of “there is now bread and salt between us”. Even the poorest people share what little food they have as a gesture of hospitality, which is often bread and salt.

Salt is a bonding and flavouring agent when baking bread, and a bonding agent that preserves friendships. It’s also a common motif in the Abrahamic faiths. In Christianity, breaking bread holds profound significance after the last supper, as does salt; Christians are described as the “salt of the earth” in Matthew’s gospel. In the Jewish Shabbat, there is silence during the hand-washing ritual before the bread is blessed.

Refusing to break bread together is neither about dishonouring the host, nor is it a threat or a provocation. It is, rather, a gesture to indicate that he has dishonoured you. The Sydney Morning Herald apprehended this in their editorial on 26 July, when they lamented that “some ill-chosen and insensitive words at an inopportune time have tarnished [Alhadeff’s] otherwise fine work”.

Alhadeff resigned the next day and Baird finally conceded that his comments had made his position untenable. “I will always listen to the Muslim community, just as he has in that resignation,” Baird said, proving the boycott was a landmark lesson in how to be heard without yelling; on 28 July he addressed thousands of Muslims at Lakemba mosque.

The precedent was repeated last week when the Australian National Imams Council announced its withdrawal from the annual Eid dinner hosted by the Australian Federal Police on 7 August. Again, it was a moral stand led by professor Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, the Grand Mufti, who said they “regrettably, must in all good conscience decline the invitation to attend the dinner in protest of the new proposed anti-terrorism laws … the amendments are a direct attack on the … presumption of innocence”.

Like the Alhadeff boycott, which was launched to preserve the CRC’s neutrality, the AFP boycott sought to preserve a fundamental maxim of Australia’s system of justice, the presumption of innocence. Neither promoted, imported or apologised for an ideology that is dangerous or divisive, such as fighting foreign wars.

Yet both boycotts were met by last-minute offers that miscalculated the seriousness of the Muslim community’s concerns: Alhadeff issued a statement, rather than an apology, and the AFP invited the Grand Mufti to speak about his concerns.

Many Muslim Australians watched with horror as their American counterparts were humiliated at Barack Obama’s annual Iftar dinner at the White House on 14 July, when he appeared with Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer. With Dermer’s tweeted support, Obama said during the dinner that “Israel has the right to defend itself against … inexcusable attacks from Hamas.” He was talking at them, not to them. Any hope that the dinner was a dialogue were smashed when the president left soon after his speech.

Given the US weapons supplied to kill civilians in Gaza, many argued that the dinner should have been boycotted in the first place. The American-Arab anti-discrimination committee made the case: “political engagement is important and having a seat at the table is crucial — but only when that seat is intended to amplify our voice as a community, not tokenise or subdue it.”

A third Australian boycott has been announced, over the controversial resignation of Fairfax columnist Mike Carlton. Peak Muslim organisations have written to Fairfax, calling for Carlton to be reinstated or they may stop cooperating with journalists and start targeting advertisers. Given that the Australian Jewish News had called for readers to “cancel your Fairfax subscriptions” a week earlier, this counter-boycott risks being trivialised; there was less at stake. It may have been wiser for community leaders to invite the editors to their table, break bread together, and explain why Carlton was a vital voice for the voiceless.

The political Iftar has arisen during a period of conflict and tragedy, but it may well become a new phenomenon in Australia. If Australians are serious about multiculturalism, the broader community should realise that the boycotts are a pouring forth of Ramadan themes of human rights, justice, integrity, poverty and morality, which return each year. The 2015 Iftar agenda could be political again; consulting with and respecting Australian Muslims may ensure next year’s hosts won’t need to guess who’s not coming to dinner.

http://bit.ly/1sKx6kc

Posted on

Hatred can begin at home

http://bit.ly/1sKwZFd

Adelaide Advertiser

Racial hatred laws and foreign fighter laws may seem disconnected, but Tony Abbott is right to link them: Joseph Wakim

August 12, 2014

RACIAL hatred laws and foreign fighter laws may appear disconnected. Hence, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s dual announcements to retain the former while toughening the
latter were met with much cynicism.

It has been presented as political trade-off to placate Muslim communities: garnering their support for the ‘‘guilty until proven innocent’’ proposal for returning ‘‘fighters’’ by retreating from the proposed dilution of Section 18C of the 1995 Racial Discrimination Act.

This exaggerated perception feeds into Islamophobia and ignores the fact that among the most vocal “Muslim’’ leaders who advocated against the 18C changes were from the Christian Arab communities.

It ignores a more important fact that incitement to racial hatred and incitement to terrorism thrive on the same continuum.

The Prime Minister was right to connect the two issues, albeit inadvertently.

On one end of this continuum is home-grown prejudice. Conversations around family dinner tables can teach children who to love, who to mock, who to fear, who to trust, who is us and who is them. If this is not moderated through wider socialisation and personal experiences, it creates fertile soil for poisonous seeds to be sown.

As the child matures and self-selects which media channels to tune into, the same world view about who to hate is reinforced. He can surround himself with social networks which further fertilise the hatreds. If he does not socialise with those who challenge him, the resulting foliage is never pruned, but blinds him from seeing the others as human.

He will utter statements such as Zionist pig or Arab terrorist as if it is a known fact, not as if it is racist. He will regurgitate propaganda about Israel wiping out Palestine, or Hamas wiping out Israel, with no regard to the human lives.

Whether racial hatred is yelled loudly in a train carriage or spoken softly in an executive office, it is still toxic. Sometimes the racism peddled in a suit and tie by lawmakers and politicians, such as the Howard government’s citizenship test, inflicts the most insidious damage. Hence, halfway across this continuum are those who harbour hatred and have the power to take action on the hatred.

The pre-emptive “I am a not a racist but’’ highlights the subjectivity of what counts as racism, whereby some genuinely believe that they are stating facts, not inciting hatred.

Websites and blogs that attract supremacist or hateful views have moderators, but they sometimes tolerate many vilifying comments because their subjective spectrum of intolerance is skewed. Repeated references to Arabs or Jews as terrorists or sub-human in their online comments and chat rooms are perceived as normal in their closed circles.

The grooming continues in the home is also reinforced as the young adult becomes addicted to daily updates on his preferred internet sites. He is incensed by graphic photos of injustices committed against “my people”.

In times of foreign conflict, dining table conversations may shift from who to hate to who is a hero: those who have made sacrifices, flown overseas, accepted their ‘‘duty’’, taken up arms and defended “my people”. The terrorist is always subjectively defined as the other.

This is the violent extreme end of the continuum: those who have graduated from using words to using weapons to end the life of fellow human beings. The other is dehumanised and dispensable. They are nameless and faceless, not someone’s beloved daughter, sister or mother.

Whether through homemade rockets or through a remote-controlled drone, whether they are wearing an army uniform or a black bandanna, human life is always equally precious, and therefore its destruction is always equally devastating.

Tony Abbott’s linking of the two issues may have been an accidental wake-up call to all of us. The dreaded home-grown terrorists that may create national unity behind “team Australia’’ may be literally home-grown. All foreign fighters who return home definitely warrant interrogation, and many of us called for this at the beginning of the war in Syria over three years ago.

But let us not delude ourselves that these fighters depart ignorantly and return home contaminated. And let us not delude ourselves that Muslims have a monopoly over fighting in foreign battles.

To uproot the causes of home-grown hatreds we need to redress the injustices that breed this radicalisation.

Injustices such as Australia pounding the UN Security Council table over the tragic loss of life in Eastern Ukraine, but not over the tragic loss of life in Gaza.

Injustices such as threatening to isolate Russia with sanctions, but not daring to apply the same moral standards with Israel. Injustices such as treating some foreign fighters with scrutiny and others with impunity.

The resolutions at the UNSC table need to disarm the hatred that begins in some dinner tables.

Posted on

The most fearful weapon in Israel’s assault: dehumanisation

http://bit.ly/1oqLJe2

The most fearful weapon in Israel’s assault: dehumanisation

Canberra Times
August 7, 2014

A Palestinian man at a funeral carries the body of a girl whom medics said was killed by an Israeli air strike. Photo: Reuters

If we were witnessing a kangaroo cull through aerial bombardment, there would be moral outrage. If we were witnessing a whale cull through ships, there would be moral outrage.

But we are witnessing a Palestinian cull by air, land and sea, and we are told to blame the victims for hiding among terrorists.

One euphemism used for this mass murder of civilians in Gaza is ”mow the lawn”, reducing Palestinians not to animals but to blades of grass. It is sold to us as a two-sided war between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas terrorists – not Palestinian people. The Palestinians all belong somewhere on the terrorism continuum as potential terrorists, breeding terrorists, born terrorists, supporting terrorists, hiding terrorists or armed terrorists. The loaded label is intended to throw a blanket over our eyes to blind us from any questions of legitimacy or humanity.

This is the well-worn, war-time propaganda of dehumanisation, aimed to absolve us from any guilt that the humans are like us – with a name, a face, a family, a home, a dream.
But it is time that this dehumanisation was worn out and discarded. It is the ”de” that needs to be mowed away to so we can see humanisation.

Propaganda relies on controlling the cameras. But social media has become a powerful weapon. As pilots ”send” air missiles down to Gaza, Palestinians ”send” videos up for the world to see – graphic and uncensored. Unlike the pilots who see inhuman dots on a screen, the videos enable us to see terrified humans with nowhere to hide. In real time, we become witnesses to the destruction of indigenous Palestinians and the reduction of their homeland to an abattoir.

When the terror-tinted glasses are discarded, this is not hyperbole. This is the making of history. This is the map of Palestine being shrunk and flattened, year after year, war after war, talk after talk, settlement after settlement.

If we could see Palestine from high above the unmanned drones, the picture makes more sense. Gaza is only 360 square kilometres, home to 1.8 million Palestinians, less the current cull. It is wedged between Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea, so unless they can swim, fly or dig, the people are besieged. Even the birds and fish avoid the area as a no-go zone.

This is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, with more than 5000 people a square kilometre. This equates to Drummoyne in Sydney, St Kilda in Melbourne or Fortitude Valley in Brisbane.

Imagine a leaflet telling you to leave these crowded areas. How is it possible for Israel’s pinpoint technologies to avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians? Where exactly are the humans supposed to swim, fly or dig? How can combatants hide behind human shields in a totally civilian area? How can there be any shields when no school, hospital or UN shelter is spared?

While the charter of Hamas may claim to eradicate Israel ”in words”, it is Palestine that is being eradicated ‘’in deeds’’ through regular culls named Cast Lead, Pillar of Defence and Protective Edge. The proof of the real eradication is in the grotesquely disproportionate fatalities.

The dehumanisation is central to Israel’s arsenal, but is also central to Palestinian reality. Since electing the wrong government in 2006, when Hamas took control of Gaza, these Palestinians endured a siege that has rationed their water, food, medicines, electricity and sanitation.

For the Palestinians in Gaza, the difference between a ceasefire and a war was the difference between continuing to die slowly, or die quickly.

This noose must be loosened if the Palestinian voices are to be heard. The deprivation of these basic human rights of a besieged people is a protracted war crime. The dehumanisation blindfolds us to two facts: all human life is absolutely equal, and these two ”sides” are absolutely unequal.

Any state claiming that their land ”belongs” to their religion, whether Israeli Jews or Hamas Sunnis, leans towards theocracy, not democracy. With or without Israel’s Iron Dome defence missiles, the rockets from Gaza have murderous intentions and must be condemned.

I dread the day that our children’s future children go on a school excursion to the Holocaust Museum and then to a Palestine Museum. They will see the shrinking map of Palestine, before it completely disappeared off the face of the earth. They will see photos, artefacts, testimonials, videos and timelines. They will see how the indigenous people were labelled as Arabs, Muslims, Gazans, Hamas, terrorists and refugees, but rarely as Palestinians. They will see how one proud people (the Palestinians) paid the price for the crimes committed against another proud people (the Jews). They will see how both people were dehumanised.

And our grandchildren will say: but they should have been best friends. And they will ask us how we let this happen to humans.

Posted on

Stop oiling the supply chain to ISIS

http://bit.ly/1u6y6E3.

As long as the US protects its Saudi oil supplies, the vital supply chain to ISIS and their ilk will continue to be oiled

The Advertiser
18 July 2014

“THE tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free,” trumpeted US President George W. Bush aboard aircraft carrier USS Lincoln on 2 May 2003. “al-Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.”

On the contrary, al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan reproduced a new ‘‘base’’ in Iraq. Many of us warned about this before

Operation Iraqi Freedom was unleashed but we were dismissed as prophets of doom.

While meeting with prime minister John Howard on 20 December 2002, we explained the delicate demography of Iraq and cautioned against further fuelling the anger of a nation already crippled by sanctions: another injustice in Iraq will be another magnet for al-Qaeda.

Comparing the new brand of “social media’’ terrorists such as ISIS with al-Qaeda is no longer scaremongering, as this next breed of masked men make al-Qaeda look like their elderly parents. Indeed, al-Qaeda has backed al Nusra Front over the delinquent ISIS in Syria.

Those Western voices who falsely declared the democratisation of Iraq a decade ago should now be given the attention they deserve. None. Yet the US have again dispatched hundreds of ‘‘military advisers’’ to counter ISIS in Iraq but not Syria.

They are the same “Arabists’’ and “experts’’ who failed to forecast the Arab Spring and gave no warning about the recent rise of ISIS.

Those Western voices have lost credibility with their amoral “enemy of my enemy’’ compass: the Salafi jihadists attacking the Assad government are freedom fighters, our friends. But if those same mercenaries step over the border into Iraq to attack al-Malaki’s government, they are now insurgent terrorists, our enemies.

This appears to make no sense as both the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS groups ignore the border in their quest to “reclaim’’ a Salafi caliphate. The English acronym is wrongly translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but the last letter actually stands for Shaam, or Levant, an axis that includes Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Palestine.

Hence, their Arabic name is pronounced D-A-E-SH. The car bombings that recently rocked Beirut, attributed to Daesh, confirm that their Shaam extends way beyond Syria into all of the Levant. Their caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi recently declared that the “Islamic State’’ is “breaking the borders’’ and is not confined to Iraq or Syria.

Why would Western voices tolerate the Syrian branch but not the Iraqi branch?

The more credible explanation has nothing to do with Iraq or Syria or justice or democracy.

It has everything to do with the two greatest allies of the US in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

As for Israel, so long as the Arab tribes and sects are depleting each other, this weakens them and relieves the oldest democracy in the region from global scrutiny of Palestinian human rights.

As for Saudi Arabia and adjoining sheikdom Qatar, so long as their pipelines of oil to the US continue uninterrupted, the US will turn a blind eye to their pipelines of weapons and finances to these jihadists.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki openly accused Saudi Arabia of “supporting these groups financially and morally (for) … crimes that may qualify as genocide.”

Saudi Arabia and Israel, as arch allies of the US, remain untouchable while the US criticises Syria and Iraq for lack of democracy, lack of inclusion and lack of human rights.

Horrific images tweeted by the radical Islamic group ISIS.
The US foreign policy tolerates extremism, Salafism and Zionism when it suits their end game. Hence, it may be in US interests that al-Qaeda is not destroyed in order to manipulate the balance of power.

The aggressive ISIS cells thrive as they cross borders, seize weapons, steal money and cause carnage. But what happens when their use-by date expires and they approach the Israeli borders as part of their Shaam plan?

After the predictable re-election of the Syrian president, and the regaining of territory by the Syrian army, many ISIS jihadists recently crossed the border to fight a more winnable war in Iraq.

If Western voices talk about what “we’’ are going to do and who should replace al Maliki, then “we’’ have learnt nothing. If Western voices label the fighters as Islamists and blame Islam, then we have learnt nothing.

The majority of Muslim scholars preach mercy and forgiveness, not crucifixions and genocide. If the central message of Islam is reclaimed, it could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Iraqi refugees try to enter a temporary displacement camp but are blocked by Kurdish soldiers in Khazair, Iraq. The families fled Iraq’s second largest city of Mosul after it was overrun by ISIS militants. Picture: Getty

As long as the US protects its Saudi oil supplies, the vital supply chain to ISIS and their ilk will continue to be oiled and the depletions will continue.

Posted on

After his Gaza comments, Vic Alhadeff should step down

http://bit.ly/1m9jiuh

After his Gaza comments, Vic Alhadeff should step down

Comments by the chair of the NSW community relations commission have inflamed tensions between Arab and Jewish Australians at a sensitive time

The Guardian, 14 July 2014

When former NSW premier Barry O’Farrell appointed the incumbent CEO of the NSW Jewish board of deputies, Vic Alhadeff, to the chair of the community relations commission (CRC) in December last year, did he think Alhadeff could straddle both roles?

Having been a commissioner myself, under both Labor and Liberal governments, I am acutely aware that this statutory body demands ambassadors of harmony. Yet a recent release, disseminated among his Jewish constituents, has achieved the opposite effect.
Wearing his CEO hat, Alhadeff issued a community update on 9 July, titled “Israel under Fire: Important points about Operation Protective Edge”. His statement reached the Arab Australian community and went viral.

In the post he condemned the “Hamas terror organisation” for its “attacks on Israeli civilians”, for “violating international law and engaging in war crimes as its militants launch rockets indiscriminately at civilians from civilian areas”.

His statement failed to condemn the collective punishment and indiscriminate attacks against Gaza. As chairman, his role is to prevent this kind of stone throwing, not engage in it.

Community relations commissioners are not appointed to advocate for foreign governments. We are tasked with bringing local leaders together, as neutral arbiters.

A Jewish colleague of mine, from my time in Melbourne, is a lifelong friend; we were part-time commissioners but full-time ambassadors. Whatever our other roles, we worked together, cautiously, to extinguish sparks before they became fires.

When he accepted the chairman’s position, he declared that he was “passionate about the need to advance social harmony and combat racism”. The Jewish board of deputies espouses the same view; its goals include combating all forms of racism. Alhadeff has spoken out in favour of retaining section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and opposes all forms of racial vilification. Yet he makes an exception, when Israel vilifies Arabs.

His statement copy-pastes the Frequently Asked Questions from Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs. The references to Israel as “we” and “our operation” under his name raises serious questions about whether he can truly be an ambassador for community harmony.

He refers to “self defence in response”, “operating with care” and “pinpoint technologies to hit targeted infrastructure”. Yet he fails to explain, or even mention, how Israeli strikes had already killed Gazan children and civilians by the time his release was published. The Gazan fatalities now exceed 160.

The release refers to the “recent kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers”, but not the recent burning alive of a 15 year old Palestinian student, even though Alhadeff personally tweeted his dismay. Neither did it mention the countless Palestinian children who are snatched from their beds, never to be seen again, and never to attract global condemnation.

What message does his statement send to half a million Australian citizens of Arab ancestry, many with relatives cowering under beds in Gaza? Would such statements build bridges and community relations, or build a wall between us and them?

Alhadeff has neither retracted nor apologised for his statement. Instead, Yair Miller, the president of the Jewish board of deputies, added insult to injury when he criticised Sunday’s pro-Palestinian rally as activists bringing “foreign conflicts to the streets of Sydney”. So it’s permissible to justify a foreign war on the Jewish board of deputies letterhead, but not to protest against war in the streets of your own city?

A spokesperson for Mike Baird, the NSW premier, gently rebuked Alhadeff in a statement, saying that while he “was not writing in his capacity as CRC chair … “He has acknowledged the need to focus on issues in NSW and avoid using inappropriate language regarding overseas conflicts”.

Baird is not responsible for appointments made by his predecessor. Asking Alhadeff politely to resign for his comments, made at such a tense time, would be the moral thing to do. It would be pro-harmony. To avoid escalating tensions, it would be wise to announce a date for Alhadeff to step down – for him to essentially “give notice”.

Honest dialogue may result from what has been a painful experience. It should go beyond exercising restraint about public statements, but on educating both parties about their impact on fellow human beings. Ironically, this what the chair of the community relations commission should have done in the first place.

Posted on

Stop oiling the supply chain to ISIS

http://bit.ly/V9GEui

Stop oiling the supply chain to Isis
ON LINE opinion

2 July 2014

“The tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free,” trumpeted US President George W Bush aboard aircraft carrier USS Lincoln on 2 May 2003. “Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.”

On the contrary, Al Qaeda cells in Afghanistan reproduced a new ‘base’ in Iraq.

Many of us warned about this before Operation Iraqi Freedom was unleashed but we were dismissed as prophets of doom. While meeting with Prime Minister John Howard on 20 December 2002, we explained the delicate demography of Iraq and cautioned against further fuelling the anger of a nation already crippled by sanctions: another injustice in Iraq will be another magnet for Al Qaeda.

Those who understand what hides beneath the foliage of the ‘Arab Spring’ also warned that the uprising was hijacked by those sowing seeds for a theocracy, not a democracy. Exhibit A: al Nusra Front. Exhibit B: ISIS.

Comparing the new brand of ‘social media’ terrorists such as ISIS with al Qaeda is no longer scaremongering, as this next breed of masked men make Al Qaeda look like their elderly parents. Indeed, Al Qaeda has backed al Nusra Front over the delinquent ISIS in Syria.

Those western voices who falsely declared the democratisation of Iraq a decade ago should now be given the attention they deserve. None. Yet the US have again dispatched hundreds of ‘military advisers’, to counter ISIS in Iraq but not Syria.
They are the same ‘Arabists’ and ‘experts’ who failed to forecast the ‘Arab Spring’ and gave no warning about the recent rise of ISIS.

Those western voices have lost credibility with their amoral ‘enemy of my enemy’ compass: the Salafi jihadists attacking the Assad government are freedom fighters, our friends. But if those same mercenaries step over the border into Iraq to attack al-Malaki’s government, they are now insurgent terrorists, our enemies.

This appears to make no sense as both the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS groups ignore the border in their quest to ‘reclaim’ a Salafi caliphate. The English acronym is wrongly translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but the last letter actually stands for Shaam, or Levant, an axis that includes Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Palestine. Hence, their Arabic name is pronounced D-A-E-SH. The car bombings that rocked Beirut last week, attributed to Daesh, confirm that their Shaam extends way beyond Syria into all of the Levant. This week, their self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared that the ‘Islamic State’ is ‘breaking the borders’ and will conquer the ‘world of Allah the Highest.’

Why would western voices tolerate the Syrian branch but not the Iraqi branch?

The more credible explanation has nothing to do with Iraq or Syria or justice or democracy.

It has everything to do with the two greatest allies of the US in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

As for Israel, so long as the Arab tribes and sects are depleting each other, this weakens them and relieves ‘the oldest democracy in the region’ from global scrutiny of Palestinian human rights.

As for Saudi Arabia and adjoining sheikdom Qatar, so long as their pipelines of oil to the US continue uninterrupted, the US will turn a blind eye to their pipelines of weapons and finances to these jihadists.

Iraqi prime minister Maliki openly accused Saudi Arabia of “supporting these groups financially and morally [for] … crimes that may qualify as genocide.”

Saudi Arabia and Israel, as arch allies of the US, remain untouchable while the US criticises Syria and Iraq for lack of democracy, lack of inclusion and lack of human rights. The US foreign policy tolerates extremism, Salafism and Zionism when it suits their end game. Hence, it may be in US interests that Al Qaeda is not destroyed in order to manipulate the balance of power.

The aggressive ISIS cells thrive as they cross borders, seize weapons, steal money and cause carnage. But what happens when their ‘use by date’ expires and they approach the Israeli borders as part of their Shaam plan?

After the predictable re-election of the Syrian president, and the regaining of territory by the Syrian army, many ISIS jihadists recently crossed the border to fight a more winnable war in Iraq.

If western voices talk about what ‘we’ are going to do and who should ‘replace’ al Maliki, then ‘we’ have learnt nothing. If western voices label the fighters as Islamists and blame Islam, then we have learnt nothing. The majority of Muslim scholars preach mercy and forgiveness, not crucifixions and genocide. If the central message of Islam is reclaimed, it could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

As long as the US protects its Saudi oil supplies, the vital supply chain to ISIS and their ilk will continue to be oiled and the depletions will continue.

Posted on

Warning: your phone can lead to serial text offences

http://bit.ly/1odOwBU
Imagine a place where you can go to socialise without the fear of interruption from mobile devices
The Sunday Telegraph
July 06, 2014

Picture this sign outside a restaurant: Wi-Fi Free zone.

Yes, you read it correctly, it is the reverse of ‘Free Wi-Fi’, a zone that is free from all Wi-Fi reception.

A zone where you can be fully present with your friends or family.
Where you are free from the anti-social interruptions and ring tones of text messages and phone calls.

You know the routine at the restaurant table. One person casually decides to takes one call, often without an ‘excuse me’. This sends a green signal for the others to zone in to their own phones. Many minutes pass, and the social group are still ‘socialising’ with virtually everyone, except those at their table.

It is like a smoko that has gone out of hand. One cigarette becomes two as the next smoker arrives, so as not to be anti-social.

I recently took a photo of a table at a restaurant where all those sitting and ‘socialising’ were texting. No eye contact. No conversation. No guilt.

So how were they catching up with their head down?

Unfortunately, these iPhones and Smart phones are not sold with a social etiquette license.

Perhaps, like a box of cigarettes, they need a plain packaging warning: Overuse can lead to serial text offences.

If a person turned their back on you during a conversation, it would be deemed rude.

But if a person chooses to interrupt your conversation by communicating with someone else by phone, this is just as rude.

What compounds the rudeness is when the texter glances up and declares: “I’m still listening to you, I can multi-task.”

The response ought to be: “But I don’t want to be reduced to one of your many multi-tasks. I want our conversation to be the only task that we are doing.”

Listening is much more than the physical act of hearing the spoken words, like the words on the screen.

Listening requires zoning in to the rich tapestry of non-verbal expressions such as frowns, smiles and hand gestures.

If you are going to dismiss all these cues and treat your companion’s conversation as just another string of words, forget the coffee and just text each other.

We already have candy-free check-out counters at supermarkets. These were ostensibly designed to enable parents to exit without the tantrum of a child craving the candy that was placed at arm’s reach and at eye level.

Now is the time for the Wi-Fi Free zone, the antithesis of an Internet Café.

Just as people choose places that are smoke free, gluten free, or alcohol free, there should also be places that are Wi-Fi Free, where people can enjoy a digital detox.

Someone will look down and cry out ‘Damn! I have no phone reception! No signal bars!’

To which you can respond, ‘Oh yes you do! Look up. You have all the most beautiful signals smiling right at you.’

Our technology must never replace our humanity.

Joseph Wakim is the author of Sorry We Have No Space

Posted on

We can’t condemn some arms bearers and not others, like Jewish Australians fighting overseas

http://bit.ly/1pUiu4G

We can’t condemn some arms bearers and not others, like Jewish Australians fighting overseas
The Courier-Mail
July 07, 2014

DURING recent Senate estimates hearings, ASIO’s head David Irvine announced that 150 Australian citizens were being scrutinised for suspected military activities in the Syrian conflict.

He cautioned that young recruits could return with “heightened commitments to jihadi terrorism”.

The self-declared caliph of the ever-expanding Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has called on Muslims to “rush” to arms with “heavy boots”. To try to combat home grown terrorism, Attorney-General George Brandis met with Imams who pledged to use their Friday sermons to help de-radicalise youth. Unfortunately, these Imams are more likely to preach to the converted.

Each time ASIO raises these alarms, echoes rebound with broader questions about Australians in foreign armies.
Sympathisers of the Muslim Australians taking up arms in Syria ask why Jewish Australians taking up arms in Israel experience immunity rather than scrutiny.

Nominally, the two situations are deemed incomparable: the Muslims are taking up arms with illegitimate and criminal terrorist organisations such as the al-Qa’ida-linked al-Nusra and ISIS and al-Qa’ida itself, whereas the Jews are taking up arms with the legitimate army of Israel. But this black and white branding belies the many shades of grey in between.

The atrocities committed by the loose affiliation of brigades and foreign mercenaries in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are undeniably immoral and inhumane. They have been incriminated for beheadings, kidnappings, crucifixions and cannibalism, as propagated on their own videos.

But the activities of the Israel Defence Forces and its official brigades are well documented by many human rights groups. They have been accused of collective punishment, illegal occupation, imprisonment of minors, torture of prisoners, bulldozing of homes, expansions of settlements and deployment of cluster bombs. Smart uniforms, badges and stripes do not make this right.

Just when does loyalty to a foreign country become disloyalty to Australia? Our homegrown “jihadists” are neither the first nor last to take up arms abroad, as borne out in the recent book Foreign Fighters by Dr David Malet.
Australians fighting with Iraqi jihadists 0:26

This longitudinal study covering 200 years, concludes that most responsive recruits tend to be “marginalised in the broader society”.

Spanish Australians fought on both the Communist and the Catholic side of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Jewish Australians fought in 1948 to establish a homeland. Australians fought on all sides of the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s with Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, Slovenes and Macedonians. But who decides if this military service is moral and justified?

Most Australians now concede our participation in the “Coalition of the Willing” against Iraq in 2003 was unjustified given the false weapons of mass destruction pretext, which has precipitated a spiralling regional and sectarian war.
Since Saddam Hussein was toppled, Western governments have deemed those who have taken up arms against the Iraqi government as insurgents and enemies. But if those same mercenaries crossed the border to fight with the Free Syrian Army, they would be deemed as Western allies.

We can no longer pretend military service by dual citizens will not present conflicts of interest. Even by serving in the ostensibly benign Israel Defence Forces, our citizens would be inadvertently enforcing a one-state solution when Australia officially upholds bipartisan support for a Palestine/Israel two-state solution.
So rather than continuing this subjective policy of selectively condemning some arms bearers while condoning others, our government needs to take the more moral position of banning all such activities.

It is time to review the bilateral agreements regarding dual citizens and their duty for foreign military service. If our young citizens are seriously interested in taking up arms, then suitable candidates could be recruited into our national service. As citizens, this is both their right and responsibility.

Joseph Wakim, a founder of the Australian Arabic Council, is a freelance writer.

Originally published as What of Jewish Australians fighting overseas? Comments

Posted on

Palestinian unity is path to peace

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=16271
http://bit.ly/RlOFu2

Online Opinion, 7 May 2014

If Israeli leaders are worried about a Palestinian unity government, they should look in the mirror. If they are worried about the forbidden apartheid word, they should look out the window.

When Benjamin Netanyahu alleged that ‘Abu Mazen has chosen Hamas and not peace,’ Palestinians enduring daily occupation asked: what peace?
If the continuing construction of Israeli settlements, home demolitions and military raids are ostensibly the hallmarks of ‘peace’, then Palestinians cannot be blamed for seeking alternatives. These actions in themselves have ‘essentially buried’ any remnants of a peace process.

It appears that no matter what Palestinians do, apart from capitulation, they are always the villains, never the victims.

If Palestinians embark on armed resistance or intifada, they are terrorists.

If a non-government movement embarks on a non-violent civil resistance or BDS, they are anti-Semitic.

If Hamas is democratically elected in Gaza as they were in 2006, they are blockaded.

If Fatah rivals Hamas as it did since 2007, it is rendered as impotent and illegitimate.

If Fatah reconciles with Hamas, they are anti-peace.

While the Netanyahu government rejects Hamas for refusing to recognise Israel’s right to exist, it refuses to recognise Palestine’s right to exist along the 1967 borders.

The US has threatened to stop providing aid to the Palestinian Authority unless three conditions are met: recognise Israel, renounce violence and accept previous agreements. The fact that these reciprocal stipulations are not imposed on Israel highlights the bias of the peace broker.

Netanyahu would be hypocritical to threaten a Palestinian national unity government when his own Likud-led coalition announced a similar pact with Shaul Mofaz, chairman of the opposition Kadima party, exactly two years ago.

His current cabinet includes head of the Jewish Home Party, Economy Minister Neftali Bennett, who has publicly called for the unilateral annexation of Area C which is 60% of the West Bank. He has vowed that “a Palestinian state means no Israeli state. That’s the equation … There is not going to be a Palestinian state within the tiny land of Israel.” With these one state solutions declared by Palestine’s peace partner, is there anything left to negotiate? Should Netanyahu be given an ultimatum to choose between peace with Palestinians or these partners: “You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace, so far he hasn’t done so.”

His cabinet also includes Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who opposed a 2003 amnesty of 350 detained Palestinians: “It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world.”

Apparently, only the Hamas rhetoric is an obstacle to peace, as the national unity governments of Israel are internal affairs.

In Cairo in 2011, an attempt at rapprochement by the two Palestinian factions failed to fulfil the accord. Hamas is now forced into a compromising position because its ally, the Muslim Brotherhood, has been ousted in Egypt and their smuggling tunnels to Gaza have been blocked. The misery and poverty of Gazans has necessitated negotiation and further compromises may follow.

Talking peace with a united and elected Palestinian government is not the beginning of the end. It is the epitome of democracy and the perfect climate for honest dialogue.

With elections in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine pending, Israel has long lost its monopoly as the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’. While US Secretary of State John Kerry cannot rewind the tape on his ‘apartheid’ slip, it will continue to be a self-fulfilling prophecy if Israel does not rewind the shrinking map of Palestine.

Posted on

Big reality gap in phony rhetoric on Ukraine from militaristic US

http://bit.ly/1jSUeJX
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-big-reality-gap-in-phony-rhetoric-on-ukraine-from-militaristic-us/story-fnihsr9v-1226846366717

Published in The Courier-Mail
6 March 2014

It is profoundly phony for the US Secretary of State to lecture Russia during press conferences about invading another country on phony pretexts.

What John Kerry was preaching deserves to be juxtaposed against what the US is practising.

“This … act of aggression … is really 19th-century behaviour in the 21st century,” Kerry said.

Well, we do not need to wind the clock back too far to see similar behaviour by the US. Rather than de-escalating and demilitarising the multiplying wars within Syria, the US decided to aid and abet the Free Syrian Army with $250 million worth of “nonlethal” aid. There was no guarantee this aid would not fall into the hands of foreign invaders, mercenaries and jihadists. And, indeed, in December the US was forced to temporarily suspend the shipments after the Islamic Front seized a range of US-supplied equipment, along with weapons, from warehouses.

“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” Kerry intoned. Yet in 2003, the US led the invasion of Iraq on the phony, as it rapidly turned out, pretext of weapons of mass destruction, without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council. That was not in the 19th century, but the 21st century. The promises of democracy and liberation have been replaced by the reality of war and instability with no end in sight. US oil companies have bled Iraq of its oil reserves by setting up shop in Basra, while Iraq has bled over half a million citizens from war-relation deaths. So who was asserting their own interests?

“The people of Ukraine are fighting for democracy, they’re fighting for freedom,” Kerry went on.

So were the people of Syria in their unarmed uprising in Dar’aa three years ago. But when many countries began to “assert their interests” by funnelling weapons to both the army and the rebels, the aspirations of the Syrian citizens were hijacked by foreign agendas. Hence words like democracy and freedom ring hollow given the recent US intrusions There are now sarcastic bumper stickers in the Middle East that threaten: “Be nice to Americans. Or we’ll bring democracy to your country.”

Kerry again: “If (the Russians) have legitimate concerns … there are plenty of ways to deal with that without invading the country … We call on Russia to engage with the government of Ukraine this is a time for diplomacy … not to see this escalate into a military confrontation.”

Why is this universal principle selectively applied? The Syrian National Council and their foreign sponsors were never encouraged to “engage” with the Syrian Government, or hand in their weapons during the November 2011 amnesty, or trust the “general conference for national reconciliation”. Rather than pursuing “plenty of ways” towards dialogue about legitimate concerns, the rebels proliferated and became default allies with invaders such as al-Qa’ida. The “time for diplomacy” was repeatedly squandered by all parties which inevitably saw the crisis “escalate into a military confrontation”.

Even in Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott toed the same line that “Russia should back off … people of the Ukraine ought to be able to determine their future themselves.” But where was this posturing and principle when Australia recently chaired the UNSC, when the people of Syria sought a civil and political solution, rather than a summit of sponsors?

Before Kerry and his 21st-century allies next meet the press, perhaps they ought to meet the mirror and take an honest look at how dishonest they sound.