MIDDLE EAST REALITIES

Prime Minister Fraser's statement in Parliament last week, explaining why "in principle", he was prepared to commit Australian troops to serve in one of the most unstable areas in the world, again provided evidence of the Prime Minister's shallow understanding of the realities of foreign affairs. Mr. Fraser called upon the former terrorist, Prime Minister Begin of Israel, "to hold aloft the banner of peace" for the Middle East that Egypt's President Sadat had carried.
Sadat's only prospect of achieving any worthwhile progress towards peace in the Middle East was a positive Israeli response concerning the Palestinian issue and the future of the West Bank. But there has been no such response with the result that even King Hussein of Jordan joined other pro-Western Arabia leaders in distancing himself from Sadat.

As stressed by Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, and other Jews opposing Zionist policies, Zionist influence in the media is so strong that the Western world generally is given a consistently distorted picture of the Middle East, one of over-simplified black and white. All members of the Palestinian Liberation Organisations are terrorist, while the Zionists are compassionate who only want to live and let live. But even by reading the Zionist press, a different picture emerges.

"The Australian Jewish News" of October 23rd reports that Israel's Defence Minister, Mr. Sharon, is not hedging in his determination to consolidate his nation's hegemony over the West Bank and all of Jerusalem." Mr. Sharon is quoted as pledging to strengthen Jewish settlements to secure "the future of the Jewish people". During his futile negotiations with Begin, the late Sadat appealed for some move to halt Israel's ongoing policy of expansionism, one that continues to alarm the Arabs.

In an attempt to demonstrate to the Arab world that he was not "selling out" the Palestinians, Sadat's successor, Mubarak says that the 1.2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza strip had an "incontestable right" to self-determination and a sovereign State. The complete lack of response by Begin to Sadat left him completely isolated from the rest of the Arab world and indirectly led to his assassination. Unless President Reagan insists that the Palestinian question is dealt with constructively, Mubarak's position is hopeless. The end result could be the loss of Egypt to the West.
Although President Reagan's own personal views appear realistic in the field of foreign affairs, the evidence mounts that he is being forced to accept the policies of the International Zionist machine, itself dedicated to the creation of the one World State.

Australia' s military presence in the Middle East will not make one little contribution towards peace or stability in this area. But it will further confirm throughout the Moslem world that Prime Minister Fraser is a puppet of International Zionism. If public opinion polls are correct, the fact that 72 percent of Australians are opposed to contributing troops to the Sinai shows a deep national uneasiness. Open support by the notorious Dr. Henry Kissinger for the Fraser Government's Sinai can only increase the uneasiness. Dr. Kissinger says that those nations who do not want to supply troops for the Sinai "want to sabotage the Camp David process".
Not a word about the provocative statement by Israel's Foreign Minister, Mr. Shamir, that Palestinians already have their State "and their country is now called Jordan", a statement which produced the strong retort from Egypt that "Egypt considers this declaration a violation of the concept of full autonomy as expounded in the Camp David agreements.
Mr. Fraser is not involving Australians in a "peacekeeping exercise" but in a controversy which both Israel and Egypt are still continuing. It is a controversy, which could explode into open violence at any moment.

CANCUM AND AFTER

The Cancum Conference, a $9.2 million extravaganza conducted in lush luxurious conditions, was the seventh such conference devoted to establishing the New International Economic Order. The 22 "world leaders" were supported by a cast of 1500 delegates and 2300 journalists. But after wining, dining and talking for two days, the Co-Chairman, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada admitted that "There was an inability to bring together those who wanted to take up global negotiations now in the UN and those who wanted to start afresh. They could not agree."
But he added, "We should not conclude from this that it is hopeless. The discussion itself will serve to take the negotiations further".
No doubt the venue for the eighth "summit conference" has already been chosen!
The Chinese Communist representative, Premier Zhao, insisted that the next conference must begin under UN auspices "before the end of the year, or no later than early next year".

No doubt reflecting the intense pressure being applied by the internationalists, the most important being the Trilateralists headed by Mr. David Rockefeller, Dr. Henry Kissinger and similar people, President Reagan has softened in his opposition to some aspects of proposed international planning. Canadian External Affairs Minister, Mr. McGuigan, an open advocate of nations surrendering their sovereignties to a World Government, welcomed the Reagan statement at Cancum, stating, "I think this marks a very considerable advance…"

The gabfests of the Melbourne CHOGM and Cancum are not where the real decisions are made. These ongoing circuses are designed primarily to condition people to accept the overall programme for the New International Economic Order. The masterminds continue to operate in the background; hopeful that the increasingly disastrous conditions their own financial policies are producing will make it appear "inevitable" that some type of New International Economic Order must be set up.
The widest possible exposure of the diabolical nature of the programme is absolutely essential if Civilisation is to be regenerated.

CONFUSION ABOUT QUEENSLAND STATE BANK

It is not surprising that Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen appears to be having problems in advancing his State Bank project. Judging by a letter we have seen from the President of the Premier's own party, Sir Robert Sparkes, there is confusion about the real nature of banking. The person writing to Sir Robert pointed out that the establishment of a State Bank was party policy. Sir Robert states, "Sometimes the Party adopts policies which on in-depth research prove to be unworkable and/or undesirable."
Sir Robert continues, "Whilst I am not suggesting that the State bank proposal necessarily falls into this category, it is surely understandable that a significant section of the Party would find if difficult to digest being as it is so diametrically opposed to the Party's private enterprise philosophy. After all the establishment of a State Bank is undeniably a blatant Socialist move because State ownership is at the very core of Socialism?"

We presume that Sir Robert has no objection to governments being responsible for the road system. Is this Socialism? State control of transport is a Socialist objective. Does not the Queensland State Government run the State railways? How much of Queensland's electric power is provided by private enterprise? Practically none. Compulsory marketing boards are a Socialist objective. We cannot recall Sir Robert opposing such boards.

The major case for a new Queensland bank for creating credit, as do similar banks, established under the constitutional authority, which the States Government possesses, is that it could make available credit at lower interest rates and for longer periods to Municipal Councils and other bodies, thus easing the financial pressure on all Queenslanders. Such a Queensland credit-creating instrument could provide some genuine competition to the present credit monopoly operated under the direction of the Reserve Bank.

Competition is the very antithesis of Socialism. No anti-Socialist can object to government being responsible for the building of roads, so long as he is left free to make use of the roads to suit his own personal desires. And no informed anti-Socialist can object to a Government using its constitutional powers to have a new credit service provided the people being free to decide whether to use it or not. Such a new service would not own anything, except the premises and equipment essential to operating. How then could it be termed a Socialist enterprise?

We take it that Sir Robert Sparkes does not support the application of the private enterprise philosophy to the creation of money. A few people have tried it, but when they are caught, they receive long prison sentences for forging! The real credit of a nation, its productive capacity, belongs as a natural right to the individual members of that nation, because the major factor in modern production is inheritance. The proper role of government is to ensure that the individual can gain access to his share of that inheritance as a right. The real cost of creating financial credit is probably no more than 2-3 percent. A State authorised credit-creating authority, making credit available at much less than the usurious rates being imposed by the Central Bank and Canberra Treasury "experts", would enable Queenslanders to move in a genuine anti-Socialist direction.