CLEARING THE FOG OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI CONFLICT

From CounterPunch : December 8, 2015

Back to Basics: Clearing the Fog of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

by Sami Al-Arian

 

In his novel 1984 George Orwell introduced the lexicon of Big Brother’s Doublespeak in which “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.” In today’s Western political circles and mainstream media coverage of Palestine/Israel and political Zionism, one may add a host of other phrases to this Orwellian Newspeak. Expressions that would fittingly describe this coverage might include “racism is democracy, resistance is terrorism, and occupation is bliss.”

If individuals were to rely solely on Western media outlets as their source of information regarding the increasingly volatile situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, especially Jerusalem, they would not only be perplexed by the portrayals of victims and oppressors, but also confused about the history and nature of the conflict itself. For instance, in the past few weeks, in their coverage of the latest Palestinian uprising, most Western mainstream media outlets, such as the New York Times, CNN, FOX, and BBC, virtually omit the words “Israeli occupation,” or “illegal Israeli settlements.” Seldom if ever do they mention the fact that Jerusalem has been under illegal Israeli control for the past 48 years, or that the latest confrontations were set off as a result of Israeli attempts to change the status quo and force a joint jurisdiction of the Islamic holy sites within the walls of old Jerusalem.

Oftentimes Israel and its enablers in the political and media arenas try to obfuscate basic facts about the nature and history of the conflict. Despite these attempts, however, the conflict is neither complicated nor has it existed for centuries. It is a century-old modern phenomenon that emerged as a direct result of political Zionism. This movement, founded by secular journalist Theodore Herzl in the late 19^th century, has incessantly attempted to transform Judaism from one of the world’s great religious traditions into a nationalistic ethnic movement with the aim of transferring Jews around the world to Palestine, while ethnically cleansing the indigenous Palestinian population from the land of their ancestors. This is the essence of the conflict, and thus all of Israel’s policies and actions can only be understood by acknowledging this reality.

It might be understandable, if detestable, for Israel and its Zionist defenders to circulate false characterizations of history and events to advance their political agenda. But it is incomprehensible for those who claim to advocate the rule of law, believe in the principle of self-determination, and call for freedom and justice to fall for this propaganda or to become its willing accomplices. In following much of the media coverage or political analyses of the conflict, one is struck by the lack of historical context, the deliberate disregard of empirical facts, and the contempt for established legal constructs and precedents. Are the Palestinian territories disputed or occupied? Do Palestinians have a legal right, embedded in international law, to resist their occupiers, including the use of armed struggle, or is every means of resistance considered terrorism? Does Israel have any right to old Jerusalem and its historical and religious environs? Is the protraction of the so-called “cycle of violence” really coming proportionally from both sides of the conflict? Is Israel a true democracy? Should political Zionism be treated as a legitimate national liberation movement (from whom?) while ignoring its overwhelmingly racist manifestations? Is Israel genuine about seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict? Can the U.S. really be an honest peace-broker between the two sides as it has persistently promoted itself in the region? The factual answers to these questions would undoubtedly clear the fog and lead objective observers not only to a full understanding of the conflict, but also to a deep appreciation of the policies and actions needed to bring it to an end.

Occupation, Self-Determination, and International Law

There should be no disputing that the territories seized by Israel in June 1967, including east Jerusalem, are occupied. Dozens of UN resolutions have passed since November 1967, including binding Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, which the Zionist State has stubbornly refused to comply with. In fact, if there were any “disputed” territories, they should be those Palestinian territories that Israel took in 1948, through a campaign of terror, massacres, and military conquests, which resulted in forcefully and illegally expelling over 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, villages, and towns, in order to make room for thousands of Jews coming from Europe and other parts of the world. Consequently, UN Resolution 194 mandated that these Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes … should be permitted to do so.” This resolution has now remained unfulfilled for 67 years. There is also no dispute in international law that Israel has been a belligerent occupier triggering the application of all the relevant Geneva Conventions as the Palestinian people have been under occupation since their “territory is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”

Furthermore, the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people and their right to resist their occupiers by all means are well established in international law. In 1960, UN resolution 1514 adopted the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.” It stated that, “All peoples have the right to self-determination”, and that, “the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.” Ten years later the UN adopted Resolution 2625 which called on its members to support colonized people or people under occupation against their colonizers and occupiers. In fact, UN Resolution 3246 reaffirmed in 1974 “the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.” Four years later UN Resolution 33/24 also strongly confirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle,” and “strongly condemned all governments” that did not recognize “the right to self-determination to the Palestinian people.”

As for occupied Jerusalem, the UN Security Council adopted in 1980 two binding resolutions (476 and 478) by a vote of 14-0 (the US abstained and did not veto either resolution.) Both resolutions condemned Israel’s attempt to change “the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure, (and) the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem.” It also reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,” and called out Israel as “the occupying power.” It further considered any changes to the city of Jerusalem as “a violation of international law.”

The Use of Violence, Resistance, and the Deceptive Peace Process

Living under brutal occupation for almost half a century without any prospect for its end, the Palestinian people, particularly in Jerusalem, have, since late September, embarked on new mass protests against the latest Israeli incursions on their holy sites and revolted once again against the ceaseless occupation. As a consequence, the Israeli army, aided by thousands of armed settlers roaming the West Bank, have intensified their use of violence, which resulted in over 100 deaths, 2200 injuries, and 4000 arrests in less than two months. The Israeli army and the settlements-based armed gangs, though forbidden under international law and the Geneva conventions, have regularly employed various violent means in order to force Palestinian exile or compel submission to the occupation. The Israeli harsh tactics include: settler violence and provocation under full army protection, targeting children, including kidnapping, killing, as well as arresting children as young as 5 , burning infants alive, the constant use of collective punishment and house demolitions, the use of excessive prison sentences for any act of defiance including throwing rocks, storming revered religious sites, and the deliberate targeting of journalists who dare to challenge Israeli hegemony.
The Palestinian people, whether under occupation or under siege, in exile and blocked by Israel from returning to their homes, or denied their right to self-determination, have the legitimate right to resist the military occupation and its manifestations such as the denial of their freedom and human rights, the confiscation of their lands, or the building and expansion of Israeli colonies on their lands. Although most Palestinians opt for the use of nonviolent resistance as a prudent tactic against the brutality of the occupation, international law does not, however, limit their resistance only to the use of peaceful means. In essence, the right to legitimate armed resistance, subject to international humanitarian law, is enshrined in international law and cannot be denied to any people including the Palestinians in their struggle to gain their freedom and exercise their right to self-determination. Furthermore, international law does not confer any right on the occupying power to use any force against their occupied subjects, in order to maintain and sustain their occupation, including in self-defense. In short, aggressors and land usurpers are by definition denied the use of force to subjugate their victims. Consequently, as a matter of principle embedded in international law and regardless of any political viability, strikes against military targets including soldiers, armed settlers, or other tools and institutions of the occupation are legitimate and any action against them, non-violent or otherwise, cannot be condemned or deemed terrorism.

Furthermore, the argument regarding the validity of using armed struggle against oppression and denial of political rights by tyrannical and colonial regimes is well established in its favor. Patriot Patrick Henry rallied his countrymen prior to the American Revolution in 1775 in his famous call “give liberty or give me death.” Civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. even rejected pacifism in the face of aggression. He only questioned its tactical significance when he stated “I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked.  The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration.” Mahatma Gandhi saw active resistance as more honorable than pacifism when he said “I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defence her honour than that she would, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.” Nelson Mandela reflected on this debate when he asserted that he resorted to armed struggle only when “all other forms of resistance were no longer open”, and demanded that the Apartheid regime “guarantee free political activity” to blacks before he would call on his compatriots to suspend armed struggle. Accordingly, the debate over whether the use of armed resistance against Israeli occupation advances the cause of justice for Palestinians is not a question of legitimacy, but rather of sound political strategy in light of the skewed balance of military power and massive public support from peoples around the globe for their just struggle.

Yet, the reality of the conflict actually reveals that the Palestinian people have overwhelmingly been at the receiving end of the use of ruthless Israeli violence and aggression since 1948. With the exception of the 1973 war (initiated by Egypt and Syria to regain the lands they lost in the 1967 war) every Arab-Israeli war in the past seven decades (‘48, ’56, ‘67, ’78, ’82, ’02, etc.) was initiated by Israel and resulted in more uprooting and misery to the Palestinians. Still, since 2008 Israel launched three brutal wars against Gaza with devastating consequences. In the 2008/2009 war, Israel killed 1417 Palestinians and lost 13 people including 9 soldiers. In the 2012 war, Israel killed 167 Palestinians and lost 6 including 2 soldiers. And in the 2014 war, Israel killed 2104 Palestinians, including 539 children, with 475,000 people made homeless, 17,500 homes destroyed, while 244 schools and scores of hospitals and mosques damaged. In that war Israel lost 72 including 66 soldiers. In short, since late 2008 Israel killed 3688 Palestinians in its three declared wars and lost 91 including 77 soldiers. Shamefully the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children has been amply documented as over two thousand have been killed by Israel since 2000. This massive Israeli intentional use of violence against the Palestinians, especially in Gaza (which has been under a crippling siege since 2007) was investigated, determined to constitute war crimes, and condemned by the UN in the Goldstone Report, as well as by other human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The 1993 Oslo process gave rise to the promise of ending decades of Israeli occupation. But the process was rigged from the start as many of its participants have recently admitted. It was an Israeli ploy to halt the first Palestinian uprising and give Israel the breathing room it needed to aggressively and permanently colonize the West Bank including East Jerusalem. It was an accord with a lopsided balance of power, as one side held all the cards and gave no real concessions, and a much weaker side stripped of all its bargaining chips. During this period the number of settlements in the West Bank more than doubled and the number of settlers increased by more than seven fold to over 600 thousand including in East Jerusalem.

The world has none other than Benjamin Netanyahu to acknowledge that Israel has no intention of withdrawing or ending its occupation. After serving his first stint as a prime minister, Netanyahu (shown here in a leaked video) while visiting a settlement in 2001, admitted to his true intention of grabbing as much as 98 percent of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and halting the fraudulent Oslo process. Believing that the camera was off, he spoke candidly to a group of settlers about his strategic vision, plans, and tactics.

On his vision he assured them that “The settlements are here. They are everywhere.” He stated, “I halted the fulfillment of the Oslo agreements. It’s better to give two percent than 100 percent. You gave two percent but you stopped the withdrawal.” He later added, “I gave my own interpretation to the agreements in such a way that will allow me to stop the race back towards the 1967 borders.” As for the tactics, Netanyahu freely confessed his strategy of causing so much pain to the Palestinians that they would submit to the occupation rather than resist. He said, “The main thing is to strike them not once but several times so painfully that the price they pay will be unbearable causing them to fear that everything is about to collapse.” When he was challenged that such a strategy might cause the world to consider Israel as the aggressor, he dismissively said, “They can say whatever they want.” He also implied how he was not concerned about American pressure.
 To the contrary he asserted that he could easily manipulate Israel’s main benefactor when he stated “America is something you can easily maneuver and move in the right direction. I wasn’t afraid to confront Clinton. I wasn’t afraid to go against the UN.” Even though world leaders consider Netanyahu a “liar” and they “can’t stand him” as shown in this exchange between former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Barak Obama, no Western leader has stood up to Israel, even though a British parliamentarian stated that 70 percent of Europeans consider it a “danger to world’s peace.” But the obstructionist posture and expansionist policies of Israeli leaders are not restricted to the Israeli right. Former Labor leader Ehud Barak was as much determined in 2000 at Camp David not to withdraw from the West Bank, Jerusalem, or dismantle the settlements.

For decades the world waited for Israel to decide its destiny by choosing two out of three defining elements: its Jewish character, its claim to democracy, and the lands of so-called “greater Israel.” If it chose to retain its Jewish majority and claim to be democratic, it had to withdraw from the lands it occupied in 1967. If it insists on incorporating the lands and have a democracy it would have to integrate its Arab populations while forsaking its Jewish exceptionalism in a secular state. Yet sadly but true to its Zionist nature, Israel chose to maintain its Jewish exclusiveness over all of historical Palestine to transform itself into a manifestly Apartheid state.

Political Zionism and the True Nature of the Israeli State

For over a century political Zionism has evoked intense passions and emotions on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: its ardent supporters as well as its critics and hapless victims. Zionists hail their enterprise as a national liberation movement for the Jewish people while its opponents condemn it as a racist ideology that practiced ethnic cleansing, instituted racial and religious discrimination, and committed war crimes to realize its goals.

On November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 3379 that determined Zionism as a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” However, it was revoked 16 years later under tremendous pressure from the U.S. and other Western countries in the aftermath of the first Gulf war in 1991. Oftentimes, the public is denied unfiltered information about the true nature of political Zionism and its declared state. And unfortunately the media conglomerates rarely cover that aspect of the conflict, which contributes to the public’s confusion and exasperation.

Since its creation in 1948, Israel has passed laws and implemented policies that institutionalized discrimination against its Arab Palestinian minority. In the aftermath of its 1967 invasion, it instituted a military occupation regime that has denied basic human and civil rights to millions of Palestinians whose population now exceeds the number of Israeli Jews in the land within historical Palestine. In addition, in defiance of international law, Israel has obstinately refused to allow the descendants of the Palestinian people that it expelled in 1948 and 1967 to return to their homes, while allowing millions of people of other nationalities the right to become citizens of the Israeli state upon arrival simply because they are Jewish.

Zionist leaders from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu have always claimed that Israel was a democracy similar to other Western liberal democracies. But perhaps the best way to examine this claim and illustrate the nature of the modern Zionist state is through a comparative analogy (a similar example could also be found in Israeli historian Shlomo Sand’s book).

What if a Western country claiming to be a democracy, such as the U.S. or the U.K., were officially to change its constitution and system to become the state of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs)? Even though its African, Hispanic, Asian, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim citizens as well as other minorities would still have the right to vote, hold political offices, and enjoy some civil and social rights, they would have to submit to the new nature and exclusive character of the WASP state. Moreover, with the exception of the WASP class of citizens, no other citizen would be allowed to buy or sell any land, and there would be permanent constitutional laws that would forbid any WASP from selling any property to any members of other ethnicities or religions in the country. Its Congress or parliament would pass laws that would also forbid any WASP from marrying outside his or her social class, and if any such “illegal” marriage were to take place, it would not be recognized by the state. As for immigration, only WASPs from around the world would be welcome. In fact, there would be no restrictions on their category as any WASP worldwide could claim immediate citizenship upon arrival in the country with full economic and social benefits granted by the state, while all other ethnicities are denied. Furthermore, most of the existing minorities in the country would be subjected to certain “security” policies in order to allow room for the WASPs coming from outside. So in many parts of the country, there would be settlements and colonies constructed only for the new WASP settlers and consequently some of the non-WASP populations would have to be restricted or relocated. In these new settlements the state would designate WASP-only roads, WASP-only schools, WASP-only health clinics, WASP-only shopping malls, WASP-only parks or swimming pools. There would also be a two-tier health care system, educational system, criminal justice system, and social welfare system. In this dual system for example, if a WASP assaults or kills a non-WASP he would receive a small fine or a light sentence that would not exceed few years, while if a non-WASP murders a WASP, even accidentally, he would receive a harsh or mandatory life sentence. In this system, where the police is exclusively staffed by WASPs, the Supreme Court would routinely sanction the use of torture against any non-WASP, subject to the judgment of the security officers. Such a system would clearly be so manifestly racist, patently criminal, and globally abhorred that no one would stand by it or defend it. But could such a regime even exist or be accepted in today’s world? (I realize that some people may argue that many of these practices had actually occurred in the past against certain segments of the population in some Western societies. But no government today would dare to embrace this model or defend its policies.)

Yet, because of the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, this absurd example is actually a reality with varying degrees for the daily lives of the Palestinian people, whether they are nominal citizens of the state, live under occupation or under siege, or have been blocked for decades from returning back to their homes, towns, and villages. Such a system would not only be condemned but no decent human being or a country that respects the rule of law would associate with it or tolerate it.

From its early days, prominent Jewish intellectuals have condemned the racist nature of the Zionist state. Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt wrote in 1948 condemning Zionist leaders of Israel who “openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state.” Israeli scientist and thinker Israel Shahak considered Israel as “a racist state in the full meaning of this term, where the Palestinians are discriminated against, in the most permanent and legal way and in the most important areas of life, only because of their origin.” Renowned American intellectual Noam Chomsky considers Israel’s actions in Palestine as even “much worse than Apartheid” ever was in South Africa. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé argues that “The Zionist goal from the very beginning was to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians in it as possible,” while American historian Howard Zinn thought that “Zionism is a mistake.” American academic and author Norman Finkelstein has often spoken out against the racist nature of the Zionist state and condemned its manipulation of the Nazi Holocaust to justify its colonization of Palestine. British historian Tony Judt described Israel as “an anachronism” because of its exclusive nature in comparison to its “non-Jewish citizens.” Former UN Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine Professor Richard Falk called Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories “a crime against humanity” and compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews and has said, “I think the Palestinians stand out as the most victimized people in the world.” Very recently, prominent American Jewish academics posed the question: “Can we continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another people?” Their answer was an emphatic call for a complete boycott against the Zionist state.

Furthermore, Israeli politicians and religious leaders regularly use racist rhetoric to appeal to their constituents and articulate their policies. In the last Israeli elections in March, Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted to the Israeli public, “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls.” Former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman advocated new ethnic cleansing through “the transfer” of Palestinian citizens from the state. One prominent Rabbi considered “killing Palestinians a religious duty,” while another declared that “It is not only desirable to do so, but it is a religious duty that you hold his head down to the ground and hit him until his last breath.” Former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, one of the most senior religious leaders in Israel ruled that “there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza.” Racism in Israel is so pervasive that a Jewish settler stabbed another Jew, and another settler killed a fellow Jewish settler not because the perpetrators were threatened, but because the victims looked Arab. Israeli racism is so widespread among its population that noted journalist Max Blumenthal, who investigated the Israeli society’s attitudes towards the Palestinians, was himself surprised to “the extent to which groups and figures, remarkably similar ideologically and psychologically to the radical right in the US and to neo-fascist movements across Europe, controlled the heart of Israeli society and the Israeli government.”

In short, the ideology of political Zionism, as it has amply been demonstrated within the state of Israel, with its exclusionary vision and persistent policies of occupying the land and subjugating its people, has proven without any doubt that it represents a relic of a bygone era that utterly lacks civilized behavior or claims to a democratic system. Therefore, any discussion, coverage, analysis, or debate of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that sidesteps the nature and ideology of the Israeli state is not only disingenuous and lacks credibility, but also contributes to the deepening of the conflict, the continuous suffering of its victims, and the illusion of finding a potential just and peaceful outcome.

Dr. Sami Al-Arian is a Palestinian academic and intellectual. He lived for four decades in the U.S. before relocating to Turkey in 2015. Because of his long activism for the Palestinian cause and defending human and civil rights, he was a political prisoner in the U.S. and spent over a decade in prison and under house arrest until the charges were dropped in 2014. He can be contacted at nolandsman1948@gmail.com.
 

More articles by:Sami Al-Arian

A newspaper cutting arrived in my post a few days ago from some South African friends. The story is below and is hilarious!

I am an Old-Edwardian, having gone to school at King Edward VII school in Johannesburg for 11 years, from 1933 to 1943.

It was a school rife with anti-semitism and I was at the school during the period when Hitler was trying to kill off the whole of the European Jewish community.

Here we have some zionists at Old-Eds doing the reverse because they support Israel's anti-apartheid activities as they try a different sor of genocide against the Palestinians.

As a Jew who is anti-zionist and disgusted with Israeli actions in Palestine, which they are stealing bit by bit from the Palestinians, I think the actions of South African zionists is as despicable as those of the zionists around the world, including the Jewish zionists and Christian zionists in all the western countries.

Gym defends action in T-shirt row

August 14 2015  
By Anna Cox and Sphelele Ngubane 

YOUTUBE BDS South Africa member Muhammed Desai

 

Johannesburg - Muhammed Desai, the co-ordinator of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), “aggressively declined a polite request” to take off his BDS/ YCL branded T-shirt when asked to do so.

Instead, he said he would force his way into the gym if he weren’t allowed in, Virgin Active said on Thursday.

It was defending its decision to remove Desai from its gym for wearing the branded T-shirt.

Virgin Active faced a backlash from its members on Wednesday night when police removed Desai from its Old Eds branch, which has a large Jewish membership.

Desai is a member of the South African chapter of lobby group BDS, which seeks sanctions against Israel.

He has given the gym an ultimatum that if it does not affirm his right to wear the T-shirts, it will find itself before the Human Rights Commission and Equality Court.

The BDS/YCL Chris Hani T-shirt that sparked the row. TWITTER

 

Desai said he was meeting the management of Virgin Active on Thursday night.

He said he had a three-year Virgin Active membership and when attending gym, he would wear T-shirts of various organisations and campaigns.

However, on Wednesday morning, Desai received calls from the branch manager of Old Eds Virgin Active and the regional manager telling him they had received complaints from pro-Israeli supporters about his shirts.

“The managers said I would not be allowed to enter the gym as long as I wore a BDS T-shirt with pro-Palestinian messaging, or one calling for a boycott of Israel,” said Desai.

He requested copies of the complaints, but they were not provided. He also requested the relevant policies and a letter outlining the reasons for the decision. After not receiving a response, Desai went to the gym in the evening wearing his BDS/YCL Chris Hani T-shirt.

The T-shirt is emblazoned with the words: “From the coast of Cape Town to the coast of Gaza in solidarity with Palestinians against Israeli apartheid.”

The T-shirt is emblazoned with the words: From the coast of Cape Town to the coast of Gaza in solidarity with Palestinians against Israeli apartheid. TWITTER

 

“The manager informed me that he had been instructed to remove me. I offered to leave but only if relevant policies could be provided and a copy of a letter outlining why I would not be allowed in. The gym then called the police, but they refused to arrest me. Virgin Active then claimed they wanted me removed for my own safety.”

According to Desai, the police responded that if he was assaulted they would arrest those responsible.

In a video released on YouTube, it appears Desai deliberately wore the T-shirt after the warnings and had a camera on standby to record the incident.

In the video, he says the manager refused to give him, in writing, the rules stating that political or social justice T-shirts weren’t allowed, and called the police.

“I am a paid-up member and have the right to be here and to have access to the gym facilities. It is those with problems against human rights who are offended,” he said.

Virgin Active spokeswoman Les Aupiais said the goal was for its health clubs to be neutral spaces in which members could pursue their health and wellness goals while accommodating the rights and freedoms of all members.

The gym “wasn’t in the business of restricting speech or policing personal behaviour unless it contravenes the club rules, the law, or carries some kind of threat to the safety of staff and members”.

“In all instances we seek a negotiated solution to any perceived conflict. When he appeared at the club, clearly intent on making a political statement and generating confrontation, management was concerned about the potential consequences and called on the police to intervene. This is a situation we have never encountered before, and we’ve learnt valuable lessons.”

She said Virgin Active didn’t believe its clubs should be forums for contentious political activity.

“Mr Desai has not been banned and is welcome to return to train as a member as long as he respects the conditions of membership.

“We have sought an urgent personal meeting with Mr Desai to discuss our position. Any member who made provable threats on our premises of physical violence against Mr Desai, or any member on any occasion, will have their membership reviewed and possibly terminated,” Aupiais added.

anna.cox@inl.co.za
The Star and The Mercury

APARTHEID ISRAEL AND ITS ACTIONS OF EXTREMITY APPROACHING GENOCIDE

This article was in CounterPunch on 27 November  2015

Madness in Hebron: Hashem Had No Enemies, Yet Hashem Was Hated

by Mats Svensson

He gently took my hand. Almost caressed it, wishing to know how I felt. His gaze created intimacy. His eyes were kind. Both his handshake and his eyes were tender, tender but penetrating. I knew, knew immediately that he had experienced something. Something that had affected him deeply.

I had had to climb over the wall from his neighbor. It was partially dismounted. There was no longer a path to the house. Everything was blocked. Directly behind the house, on top of a small hill, was a long house. Israeli flags were draping the windows. I saw a man sitting with an automatic weapon. We looked at each other. He did not seem to like my presence. He was an Israeli settler. He was my host’s neighbor.

Within a few meters; one who tries to steal the land and homes, another who just wants to remain. Stay in the house that had been his family home for so long. The settler with the automatic weapon, on the other hand, had not lived there for very long. They came and went. Many did not stay long.

Hashem had no enemies. But Hashem was hated, hated by the settlers. Right here, they were planning to continue the expansion. Could wait but did not want to wait too long. It was like different groups of criminal settlers were competing against each other. To win meant to be the one who expanded the fastest. But Hashem’s house was in the way.

Hashem’s wife Nisreen welcomes me. While she tells me how they had broken the window last night, Hashem sets the table. Nisreen is carrying a little girl. The family is growing. I see that she is not comfortable talking about last night’s events. It had been a large group. They had been loud. It was the neighbors, up on the hill, just behind the house. They had broken the window and woken up the whole family. She told me with a sad voice that there was no one to call; the Israeli soldiers would not come in the middle of the night to ward off the settlers. They would not come during the day either. They never came.

Her neighbor at the front had also been hit. They did not dare to go outside either. They only had one another and the two families tried to support each other.

We sit at the table. Hashem begins to talk about the destroyed grapevines and olive trees. Nisreen sits beside him. Has her hand on his shoulder. Supporting him. Now the worry is gone. Sometimes she fills in. Adds where Hashem forgets or misses something important. That time they had also come during the night. The family had a few grapevines and olive trees along the path between the house and the wall. One morning they were all cut off. The roots remained as well as the crowns but in between there was a small gap. One can kill in many ways. The settlers use all the means at their disposal.

Some young settler girls came a few nights ago. They rushed toward the house. Shouted ‘whore’ at Nisreen and ‘bastards’ at her children. They screamed like maniacs. For a while, they were on all sides. In the morning, Hashem started clearing up. Washed the walls clean of feces. They had painted Stars of David on the doors. As he cleaned the path leading to the door, with the sawed off olive trees and grapevines on one side, they continued to throw garbage and feces.

When we sit at the table we see a woman and a man, a wife and husband who are so fused together that nothing can come between them. They are committed to each other and for their right to live in their own house. They are very alone where they are sitting. I can see dignity, I can feel dignity. For a moment, I am envious of their inner strength. Not of anything else.

I listen, taking in every word, every movement. There is a calm in the room. We share the bread that Nisreen has just baked. It is warm. Warm like the warmth of being together. There is a constant stream of people to this table. We come from all over the world. It will be a meal that stays within all of us. That transforms.

I think about the crazy people who are allowed to continue doing what they are doing. That a few hundred individuals are protected by thousands of soldiers. It becomes so clear that they should not be here. No settlers, no Israeli soldiers. Large parts of the Israeli project are illegal. Violate normal human relations.

Nor should trees be cut down or burned. We do not like to see feces on doors. Within me, I become deeply sad when I see a Star of David in the wrong place. I do not understand how someone can come up with the idea of painting this particular symbol on a Palestinian home.

For all of us who had the privilege of visiting Hashem and his family, what was going on there and is allowed to continue was incomprehensible. It still continues while country after country intensifies their relations with the occupying power.

More than twenty years ago, apartheid ended in South Africa. We thought, then, that it would never return. We were wrong. In Palestine, apartheid deepens day by day, and virtually all western countries allow it to continue. And on each bullet that is used to oppress and degrade Palestinians, there is an invisible dollar sign.

 A flow of huge amounts of dollars are transferred to Israeli bank accounts so that the oppression in Hebron and other places can continue.

A few days ago, Hashem was killed. Hashem did not come home and his wife today mourns her beloved husband. His three children, the eldest of whom is 13 years old, do not understand why their father is never coming back.

In the house above theirs, they can hear celebration. Victory songs are being sung while continuing to shout ‘whore’ and ‘bastards’. The soldiers look away. Let the crazy people continue to be crazy. The international community also lets the madmen continue. No obligations are placed on Netanyahu to end the occupation. The criminals are fully protected.

Yesterday, a 73‐year old woman was killed. She was driving her car in Hebron, on her way to lunch. An 11‐second movie is published on the web. An Israeli soldier seems to have had enough. Perhaps he has witnessed far too much of the madness. Nobody knows.

I know that many murderers are on the loose in Hebron. Innocent people are being killed. Sometimes you get killed while driving past some Israeli soldiers, or while opposing the illegal occupation, the ongoing colonization of Palestine, or you are killed while questioning the Israeli oppression, an oppression that has led to apartheid.

Palestinians have been deprived of their human rights. To resist is a crime.

More articles by:Mats Svensson

---

THE TERRORISM ROUTINE: PARIS, HERE WE GO AGAIN - ARTICLE FROM COUNTERPUNCH

November 16, 2015

The Terrorism Routine: Paris, Here We Go Again

by Jose Martinez

Every time a mass killing occurs, the nation and the media go through a by-now well-worn routine. First, there is the expressed shock by the media, who are soon on the scene. If it is a large enough killing, Obama gets into the act by putting on an air of righteousness and condemning it (a lot of condemnations by now from him, to no avail). Then there is a minute by minute description of what is going on, particularly wall-to-wall filming of police actions. Then eyewitnesses are sought to describe the panic and carnage and their tales of how they managed to survive. If it is a large enough slaughter, “terrorism experts” are brought onto the talking head television screen, but not even one person is included who would contradict them (in our so-called democracy where there is supposedly freedom of speech).

Soon after that the networks are on the search for some sort of heroes, those who did something to further avert or to diminish “what could have been a larger tragedy.” Law enforcement is likewise depicted in a warm-hearted way as saviors, though they did not prevent anything (just as ordinarily they do not prevent crime in society yet they do attack Blacks, Hispanics, poor Whites, etc., but are lauded nonetheless) and are there after the fact walking or running around, with patrol lights flashing everywhere. In the workplace around the water cooler the talk is of “Did you hear about…? How awful!” Soon arrive the flowers and wreaths on the scene of the victimizations and other somber ceremonies very solemnly portrayed on TV.

Never in all these hundreds of 24/7 hours is anyone asking about our perpetration of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, where we have slaughtered millions from at least the Vietnam War onward, and certainly no one discusses what the CIA itself refers to as the predictable and consequent “blowback.” The U.S. itself created ISIS, just as we did Osama bin Laden and just as we are at this very moment using terrorists such as al Nusra and others to attack Syria and elsewhere and the Contras to attack Nicaragua some time before that, and on and on ad nauseam. Obviously we do not much discuss what we can do or could have done constructively that is different than our going to those countries to blow up people without any compunction or conscience even though we claim to be Christian. In a word, we only use the word “carnage” to refer to when they punch us back.

Simply, a ten-year old understands that when he or she is punched, he or she will likely reciprocate. However, there are some of us who sometimes analyze these situations and we wind up saying that we never seem to learn. We are not going to learn. How is anyone going to learn anything when the U.S. objective is material, to get their oil and other resources or to further our corporate interests? The public is not going to learn when we don’t care about the carnage we have been inflicting on others, since there is not even a cursory discussion of such, and there is not going to be, as you will see.

During the television coverage of Paris, a number of commercials interspersed in it were saturated with the blood and gore of upcoming movies, and it should go without saying that so is American life overall in practically any and all aspects, from murders to employer violence (my own father died from the practice of employer violence) against workers causing death and destruction to domestic violence to sexual assault, and so forth. This is not to mention the extensive 24/7 violence throughout our history against Blacks, Hispanics, poor Whites, women, etc.

Clearly the media that most people watch is not going to help viewers when in fact such media are sponsored by the very oil companies and others who are contractors making billions from war profiteering, and do not expect such media to bite the hand that feeds them millions of dollars. As just one example, the anchor Anderson Cooper himself was with the CIA. Is anyone expecting for the word “blowback” to cross his lips? The countless people we have killed and are killing we do not deem worthy of wall-to-wall coverage here.

 No one here is going to shed tears and say “how awful” in regard to the carnage we inflict on others. No one here is going to go lay a wreath at the site where we blew people up. The entire routine thus continues.

Jose Martinez is a university professor.

PEOPLE'S CLIMATE MARCH - MELBOURNE NOVEMBER 2015

www.peoplesclimate.org.au/melbourne#avaaz

HOMOPHOBIA REARS ITS UGLY HEAD IN PORT MELBOURNE

The following article in The Age illustrates, yet again, how far we have to go to rid society - and ourselves - of the scourge of homophobia. The owners corporation in this story is homophobic and/or it is responding to an owner in the building who is homophobic and the whole thing is a ridiculous episode, very upsetting to two people who have experienced homophobic episodes before this one.

We can not be complacent at any stage, because attempts to push us back into the closet and shut us up are ongoing and criminal. We must publicise every episode of any homophobic occurrence until the episodes cease and we are not any longer subject to human rights abuses.

-----------------

Gay elderly couple ordered to take down gay flag in Port Melbourne

14 October  2015

Timna Jacks

Reporter

James Bellia and Murray Sheldrick on the balcony of their Port Melbourne apartment, after being told to stop flying their flag. Photo: Wayne Taylor
 

An elderly gay couple has been ordered to take down a gay pride flag from their apartment balcony in Port Melbourne, with the body corporate threatening them with legal action if they did not comply.

Murray Sheldrick, 78, and James Bellia, 72, received what they said was a "nasty" email from the Melbourne Inner City Management Property Owners Corporation on Wednesday last week, demanding that the couple remove the flag from their Rouse Street balcony, or risk a legal case in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The letter, seen by Fairfax Media, warned the couple were in breach of the owner's corporation rules affecting the "peaceful enjoyment" of the other residents.

The couple say the complaint against their flag is homophobic. Photo: Wayne Taylor
 

The breach was described as "displaying advertising material" and the residents were instructed to remove the flag immediately. It was unclear from the letter what was being advertised.

Mr Bellia said the couple, who have been in a relationship for 50 years, and own their property, bought the flag in February. They have since complied with the demand and removed it from their balcony.

They said they had unfurled it on special occasions, including Australia Day, Queen's Birthday and the Midsumma Festival, but this was first time they received a complaint.

The couple wrote a letter to the Victorian Ombudsman last week about the incident, but were referred to Consumer Affairs Victoria.

They also contacted Port Philip Council, and are awaiting a response.

Mr Bellia said he and his partner, who are former interior designers, were in no doubt that the email was homophobic.

They said their flag had nothing to do with advertising, as the body corporation suggested, nor was it obstructing someone's view.

"We are positive it is homophobia, there is no doubt about it. Why else would they bother us? The flag is on a huge terrace, it's not in anyone's view."

The owners corporation rejected the suggestion that it discriminated against any group, and said it regretted the hurt the notice had caused.

It said it was responsible for maintaining the external appearance of the building, and its rules did not allow any materials to be displayed on balconies.

"A uniform external appearance is to be maintained. Even curtains, blinds and window fixtures are to be of a uniform nature," it said in a statement.

The couple moved to the Port Melbourne apartment in 2004, after Mr Sheldrick endured a traumatic homophobic attack in Mansfield, in 1998.

Mr Sheldrick was staying in the couple's country holiday house, when two locals invaded and attacked him. The incident left him in intensive care for three-and-a-half weeks.

"They invaded our house to 'teach us a lesson', because we were poofters. They bashed the hell out of him [Mr Sheldrick] he was brutally bashed, and finished up in intensive care," he said.

"It's not a very nice experience, it ruined his life altogether. He has never been himself since the home invasion. That's why we sold the property and moved into an apartment ...we didn't feel safe in a house anymore."

Mr Bellia said Mr Sheldrick, who has Parkinson's Disease, was feeling upset by the incident.

Justin Koonin, convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said questioning an LGBTI person's right to express themselves could be very damaging.

"There is no legal or moral justification for preventing people from being proud of who they are," he said.

"Elderly LGBTI people in particular have suffered discrimination and invisibility for many years, often decades. This is not caused by their identity, but by living in a society which does not accept their identity."

Fairfax Media has received a number of calls from lawyers offering to defend the couple.

REIMAGE SUPPORT - ANOTHER SEARCH ENGINE DISASTER! - AND A COSTLY ONE TOO!

I unpacked my brand new acer computer 3 years after buying it (about 2 months ago) - I had bought another one at the same time but microsoft helped to reduce that one to an unusable state with windows 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 - and this new one still had windows 7 installed so I anticipated no troubles.

What one needs to remember at all times is that, according to our late friend Sister Mary Mary Quite Contrary, they should not be called computers because they are confusers which seems to be the case no matter what one might anticipate of hope for.

The brand new Acer with windows 7 had all my usual programmes loaded into it with all my documents, photos and emails and now does nothing but freeze all the time.

Still being naive after all these years of computer use I looked online for a solution to the freeze problem and found an organisation called Reimage. For $100 I could download a repair programme and for another $40 dollars I could use it on another 3 desk top computers. There was a 1800 phone number to contact and I was told they would talk me trhough the whole process.

Here I am a month later, having spent nearly $200 (including a long phone call which, it seems, I am having to pay for) and windows 7 is still freezing.

More and more I am grateful to Linux where I seem to have a minimum amount of problems.

More and more I am learning not to trust what is presented online as solutions. They simply aren't and cause more troubles than one already had.

WINDOWS 10, 8.1, 8, 7 - MICROSOFT FAILS ON ALL FRONTS!

I bought two identical desk top computers three years ago. One was for my partner for his 90th birthday. He had a very old desk top with windows xp and it has very small memory and a fairly small hard disc and it was time to upgrade.

My desk top was not that old but as windows xp was coming to an end and these new ones had windows 7, it seemed a good time to upgrade.

When I bought the two desk tops I was told that windows 8 would be out in 3 months and for a special offer of $15 I would be able to upgrade to the latest Microsoft operating system.

Not having used windows 7 before and therefore knowing nothing about it, I thought I would bring myself up to date with the latest and install windows 8 as soon as it was available, and did just that.

Disaster struck from day one as I discovered that windows 8 was unusable. Fortunately there were still some windows xp laptops and desk tops still working in the house so I was not completely disabled. Looking on the web I found there were thousands around the world horrified by windows 8's disaster and it didn't take long for someone with knowledge to design a start button which could be easily downloaded and installed and give some measure of normality back to this ghastly operating system.

Windows 8 caused such an outcry that microsoft issued windows 8.1 which returned some sort of sanity for those of us who are not geniuses and are also geriatrics and needed something simpler and more rational than windows 8.

Then, Microsoft, wanting to make its next fortune, did an upgrade and produced windows 10, supposedly designed to simplify operation for those of us who needed something easy to follow.

As if windows 8 hadn't provided a host of problems, windows 10 came along and did some irreparable harm from which I am still trying to recover.

The first disaster was to affect my keyboard by swopping two keys around, one of those everybody uses to send emails the @ sign, and the other the double inverted comma sign ". Only by accident did this come to light.

The next disaster was to tell me - and my web upload programme is designed around them - that "access was denied" when I had to use notepad pages.

Thus endeth the FTP programme on the windows 10 desk top computer.

Microsoft told us we could uninstall windows 10 if we weren't happy with it and that is what I did. The outcome was I was back to windows 8.1 but the windows 10 disasters remained!

So as my partner hadn't used his new computer because of all the problems I had had, and because it was still packed in its box, I decided to unpack it and learn to use windows 7.

Mistake and disaster! The windows 7 computer has now decided it doesn't like something installed on it and it freezes all the time!

Thank goodness for my Linux laptop - none of these microsoft disasters. Never again!

I was too late to send an entry to Choice Magazine's 2015  Shonky Awards - an annual competition for people to submit companies which make claims for their products and which fail lamentably for many reasons.

If possible I will submit Microsoft windows 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 as my entry for the Shonkys. 

 

WINDOWS 10 HAS RUINED MY DESKTOP PC!

Windows 10 gives the option of uninstalling  so that you can return to - in my case - windows 8.1. When I tried this, the problems that windows 10 had caused with its installation would not go away on windows 8.1, so I thought I would have nothing to lose by reinstalling windows 10.

How wrong can one be??? Not only were the previous problems caused by windows 10 still there but there were now new ones added to the old.

The main lesson I have learnt from this exercise of microsoft and its upgrading to new operating systems is that if something is working and it is not broken, don't try and fix it. You will make it worse and disaster looms.

I am now doing my best to keep my laptops which still have windows xp and also my laptops which have linux.

The sooner I can rid myself of anything to do with microsoft, the better.


............and good luck to all those who think they will be better off with windows 10! I wish them well.

MANUS ISLAND - THE STORY OF ONE OF THE TRAGEDIES CAUSED BY ALL AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS

This article by Arnold Zable was published in The Age on 22 SEPTEMBER 2015.

It is a story which could be told hundreds of times thanks to Australia's politicians.

The story of Australia's indigenous population writ large in the concentration camps - "WE STOPPED THE BOATS!"  

 Iranian journalist Behrouz Boochani tells of the horrors of Manus Island: out of sight, out of mind

September 22, 2015

Arnold Zable

Instead of being imprisoned and harassed, deserving detainees should be welcomed and granted asylum in Australia.

The Manus Regional Processing Centre on Los Negros Island, Manus Province, Papua New Guinea. Photo: Andrew Meares
 
His name is Behrouz Boochani. He was born in Ilam city in west Iran on July 23, 1983. He graduated from Tarbiat Madares University in Tehran with a masters degree in political geography and geopolitics. He worked as a freelance journalist and for several Iranian newspapers – Kasbokar Weekly, Qanoon, Etemaad – and the Iranian Sports Agency. He published articles on Middle East politics and interviews with the Kurdish elite in Tehran.

Boochani's passions are human rights and the survival of Kurdish culture. With several colleagues, he founded, edited, published and wrote for the Kurdish magazine Werya, documenting Kurdish aspirations for cultural freedom. He wrote a paper advocating a federal system for Iran, protecting minority rights. The paper was delivered at a conference in France on his behalf after he was denied a passport to attend.

On February 17, 2013, officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps ransacked the Werya offices in Ilam and arrested 11 of Boochani's colleagues. Six were imprisoned. Boochani was in Tehran that day and avoided arrest. On hearing of the arrests he published the information on the website Iranian Reporters, and the report was widely circulated. Boochani feared for his safety and went into hiding.

During his three months in hiding, colleagues advised Boochani he was at risk of arrest and interrogation. As a member of the Kurdish minority in Iran, and of both the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the National Union of Kurdish Students, he had experienced threats and was under surveillance. Having been interrogated and warned previously about his work promoting Kurdish culture and having signed an undertaking he would not continue this activity, he was in grave danger.

Boochani fled Iran on May 23, 2013. In July of that year he was among 75 asylum seekers intercepted by the Australian Navy en route to Australia. It was his second attempt at the crossing from Indonesia. On the first, the boat sank. He was rescued by Indonesian fishermen, and jailed on his return.

He immediately asked for asylum in Australia. He was detained on Christmas Island where he developed a deep bond with Reza Barati, a Kurdish-Iranian, also from Ilam. He was transferred to the Manus Island Immigration Detention Centre in late August 2013.

Boochani's predicament is both unique and emblematic of the horrors facing the men detained on Manus Island. There are currently about 900. Behrouz is among a group of about 100 who are refusing to be processed by PNG immigration officials, claiming the right to be processed for asylum in Australia.

He maintains his sanity between descents into depression with his continuing work as a writer and journalist, and his lifeline via various channels with a few advocates in Australia, including Castlemaine resident and refugee advocate Janet Galbraith. She is in touch with him daily, and has arranged for his writings to be translated from Farsi to English. His accounts of his incarceration on Manus Island read like a Kafka nightmare.

He continues to write articles for Kurdish publications from detention. He remains active as a human rights defender, and is recognised as such by the UN. He collaborates with Australian journalists and human rights agencies, reporting on human rights abuses occurring in the centre. He was torn apart by the murder of Reza Barati, and has reported on the death, through medical neglect, of Manus island detainee Hamid Khazaie. Boochani was one of several asylum seekers arrested and jailed without charge in Lorangau prison during a hunger strike early this year. He remained peaceful during this action.

He says his communications are monitored by Transfield, the company that operates the detention centre, and that, as a result of his reportage and his human rights activity on behalf of fellow detainees, he has been threatened, regularly searched and is subject to surveillance.

The men detained on Manus Island have not been convicted of any crime. Yet they are imprisoned. Isolated. Kept out of sight and out of mind. Those who have been found to be refugees remain in the Lorangau transit centre. They have not been resettled. The men know they are the fall guys, punished as a means of deterring other would-be asylum seekers, as are the men, women and children detained on Nauru. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have been palmed off, abandoned and all but forgotten. They are being driven mad.

The fate of Behrouz Boochani and his fellow detainees is Australia's responsibility. Instead of being imprisoned and harassed, he should be welcomed for his courageous stand for democracy and granted asylum in Australia. It is a profound irony that he is now experiencing levels of surveillance and harassment that have some parallels with his treatment by Iranian authorities.

In recent conversations with writer and trauma worker Janet Galbraith, he has said that when he sailed for Australia, he was happy because, "I knew Australia as a modern and democratic country. I thought that when I arrived in Australia they would accept me as a journalist. When I arrived at Christmas Island I said: 'I am a journalist', but I did not get any respectful response. I was wondering why it is not important for them that I am a writer. When they transferred me to Manus, I said to immigration: 'Don't exile me. Don't send me to Manus, I am a writer.' They did not care."

PEN International, a worldwide association of writers with members in more than 100 countries, has this week launched an international campaign on behalf of Boochani in collaboration with Reporters Without Borders and a range of human rights groups in Australia.

Arnold Zable is a Melbourne writer and immediate past president of PEN Melbourne.

 

JEREMY CORBYN'S SPEECH ON BEING ELECTED LABOUR PARTY LEADER IN THE UK

Jeremy Corbyn, Parliament Square, London
    September 12, 2015

I’ve never seen Parliament Square looking so filled, so beautiful and so 
happy as on this day. Thank you all for being here today.

When I was declared elected three and a half hours ago, I announced to 
our conference that my first action in this new position as leader of 
the Labour Party would be to come to a demonstration in support of 
refugees, the right to asylum and the human needs of people all over the 
world.

And I do that because we are all humans, we all have a sense of decency 
and humanity and reaching out to others. And I am shocked beyond 
appalled at the way so many and so much of our media over so long, 
endlessly describe desperate people in desperate situations as ‘the 
problem’; desperate people in desperate situations, as people who are 
trying to travel or move illegally.

Those desperate people in desperate situations are all over the world. 
There are more of them now than at any time ever in the recorded history 
of this planet.

They’re victims of war, they’re victims of environmental degradation, 
they’re victims of poverty, they’re victims of human rights abuses all 
over the world.

We have a responsibility as one of many countries that signed the 1951 
Geneva Convention on the Right to Asylum. We are a country that is a 
member, obviously, of the UN, but also of the Refugee Council and the 
Human Rights Council.

And we therefore have a responsibility to ensure those people are 
properly cared for and properly supported.

And so I think it’s quite incredible what has happened across Europe in 
the past few weeks. Suddenly a lot of politicians have rediscovered 
their principles of humanity. They’ve rediscovered that you don’t need 
to walk in fear of the far right and racists – there is actually a 
popular uprising in favour of decency and humanity in our society.

To those who managed to try to get into Hungary, to get through Austria, 
to get into Germany, I say to the ordinary people, the ordinary decent 
people in Hungary, who came out of their homes to offer food and water 
and clothing and health and sustenance and comfort to Syrian people 
going through the most terrible stress and distress in their lives, 
thank you very much for your demonstration of humanity.

I also say thank you to the people in Austria who did the same, and I 
say thank you to Germany, for being prepared to take the numbers of 
refugees they are, and showing the way that should be followed.

I also say that we need to have a thought as to why people end up in 
such desperate situations. I’ve been in parliament a long time and I’ve 
seen many decisions taken. And in moments of clamor and moments of 
fervor, decisions are made – go here, invade there, bomb there, do this, 
do that.

It’s the easy situation, the media build it up, there’s lots of military 
advice, there’s lots of apparently simple and easy solutions. Tragically 
wars don’t end when the last bullet is fired, or the last bomb is dropped.

The mourning and the loss of soldiers of all uniforms goes on. The 
mourning and the loss of families that lost loved ones because of 
bombardments and fighting – that goes on.

The refugees move on and on, and there are whole generations of refugees 
around the world that are victims of various wars. Those desperate 
people in camps in Lebanon, in Jordan, in Libya and so many other 
places, desperate people trying to cross into Turkey and other places – 
they are all, in a sense, victims of wars.

So surely, surely, surely, our objectives ought to be to find peaceful 
solutions to the problems of this world; to spend our resources on 
helping people not hindering people; and to try and bring about that 
world of decency, human rights and justice.

And so none of this is simple, and none of this is easy. But surely we 
have a principle between us all – that we are all human beings on the 
same planet. We’re all human beings who want to live. We’re all human 
beings who want the children who live in the next generation to 
hopefully be better off than we are.

And you think of those families eking out an existence in refugee camps 
all around the world – they too are ambitious. Their children too want 
to be artists, poets, writers, engineers, lawyers, journalists… doctors 
and everything else.

The waste of human resources by the lack of human rights is one of the 
great crimes of the last and this century.

So today, here in Parliament Square, we as ordinary, decent people, 
stand up and say to our government, recognise your obligations in law. 
That would be good. Recognise your obligations to help people, which 
you’re required to do by law. That would be good.

But above all, open your hearts and open your minds and open your 
attitudes, towards supporting people who are desperate, who need 
somewhere safe to live, want to contribute to our society and are human 
beings just like all of us.

Together in peace, together in justice, together in humanity - that 
surely must be our way forward.

DEAR LIFE (QUARTERLY ESSAY) COMMENTS ON CORRESPONDENCE

In Quarterly Essay No. 57, Karen Hitchcock, a doctor, wrote about aged care and many of the issues involved, financial and others, and what should be considered for the future with an ageing population.

As is usual practice with the Quarterly Essays, people are asked to respond to the essay just published and the responses are published in the following Quarterly Essay. in this case N0. 58, and the writer of the essay being responded to has a right of reply to the published letters and that right of reply is at the end of the rest of the correspondence.

There were 10 published responses and Karen Hitchcock's response was, in fact, number 11.

As stated previously, Hitchcock is a doctor. Of the 10 responses, 7 are by doctors, one is by a Fairfax journalist who writes on finance and economics, one is by an ex-senator who is currently Age and Disability Discrimination Commissioner, and one is a well-known writer who is herself in an aged care facility, and so writes from a position of practical experience of the aged care system.

There were no published responses from "the common herd" and people such as my partner and myself were not included in the correspondence.

It seems to me that this then begs the question as to who is writing for whom, and whether there were other letter-writers who are also not people in the public arena and whose voices remain unheard.

Our response was comprehensive and covered much ground of our day to day experiences, including living our lives as two openly gay very old geriatrics.

To me this means that much of what needed to be discussed has now been omitted and the exercise is therefore not successful in terms of outcomes.

Of course the Quarterly Essay allows only limited space and therefore there is a limit to what can be included, so it is somewhat of an exercise in futility, because it is such a vast subject and so much research still needs to be done.

My essay in response was published by me in this blog and can be found under GLTH Ageing and Quarterly Essay on 6 JUNE 2016.

CHELSEA MANNING AND BARACK OBAMA PART 2

Chelsea Manning has appeared in a rigged kangaroo court of the US military and charged with some of the most ridiculous nonsense that a military prison system and possible conjure up.

Chelsea has already endured years of military abuse and political abuse because the president of the United States of America has seen fit to prosecute a soldier for crimes committed by the US government and US army.

Is Chelsea going to be kept in the disgusting circumstances of the military prison system until the whole of her 35 years sentence is completed and suffering the indignities of those court cases such as the one recently trumped up - you know, the expired tube of empty toothpaste - what an absurdity - and what has the president done to stop this nonsense?

Obama finishes his term of office in 2016 and leaves that position as one of the worst presidents in US history, Considering how many criminal and other bad presidents there have been since the north fought the south and won and "united" the country as the United States of America, some 250 odd years ago, that is quite some achievement - of the wrong sort!

CHELSEA MANNING AND BARACK OBAMA PART 1

When Barack Obama became president of the United States of America he made some promises which he broke soon after the election and soon after he became the president in that election.

Obama promised to close Guanatanamo Bay Concentration camp in 2008. We are now in 2015 and Guantanamo is still open despite the current thaw between the US and Cuba.

Obama promised a fair deal and support for whistleblowers. Think of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and many others. Their treatment at the hands of the US administration has been criminal and the current behaviour towards Chelsea Manning is not only criminal but human rights abuses of the worst kind.

It is not Chelsea Manning who should be behind bars but Barack Obama and those who have supported him through these travesties of justice in which this young person is being treated worse than some of the US mass murderers and the processes by which guns are more or less freely distributed in the US to anyone who wants them.

Chelsea Manning should not have been sent to Iraq in the first place. That in itself was an abuse of power, and it only got worse stage after stage in the process.

And what about the whole story with Julian Assange and many of those in the USA who have been locked up whistleblowers.

The so-called greatest democracy on earth which supports the greatest apartheid state on earth Israel and punishes in concentration camps growing smaller by the day as their lands are stolen in large chunks for Jewish religious fanatics who mostly come from the USA.

Barack Obama's legacy will not be one to be credited with any great achievements.

But the treatment of Chelsea Manning is one of the darkest episodes in modern USA history.

WINDOWS 10 - DISASTER ONCE MORE FROM MICROSOFT

When I bought a new PC a few years ago it came with windows 7 installed. The shop where I bought the computer advised that windows 6 was being released in a few months' time and would be able to be downloaded for a small amount of $15.

Who could refuse an offer like that! - although I know nothing about windows 8 at that stage.

However, ever a glutton for punishment I bought and installed windows 8.

Disaster of course hit immediately and I found windows 8 unworkable. My mini notebook had windows xp installed - thank goodness - and when I had trouble on the PC with windows 8 I did what I needed to do on the mini.

Looking on the web I discovered that I was not alone in having problems with windows 8 and some enterprising developers had developed a start button to install and life with windows 8 improved considerably.

Then came windows 8.1 which improved matters somewhat.

When windows 10 was announced as a free download if one had 7, 8 or 8.1 installed I thought that 10 could not possibly be worse than what I had been struggling with on my PC, but how wrong could one possibly be!!

To start with, two of the uppercase symbols seem to have been changed around so that the @ symbol is now where the " symbol is and vice versa!

Then the sidebar almost disappears when one uses it and it becomes impossible to find where it has disappeared to.

The next problem appeared in my ftp programme which I have been using for the last 10 years and more.

In order to upload pages to the web from one's local documents one has them loaded onto a notepad page which then gets uploaded with its contents to the web for everyone to have access to - except that windows 10 has made alterations to my ftp programme and I am now not able to access my notepad pages and so am unable to upload anything on my windows 10 PC.

Thank goodness for my old windows xp computers - and thank goodness I have now got a new laptop with linux installed.

Ultimately I will get rid of windows for ever and start having peace of mind. If windows continues going from one disaster to another, I don't want to be one of the guinea pigs! 

I have now just discovered that I am unable to save word documents in word as I have been doing for years! What is the next disaster I will be facing?

Thank goodness for my LINUX laptop!