MIDDLE EAST REALITIES

Jewish leaders, particularly the Zionists, have never considered the rank and file of those calling themselves Jews, as little more than a collectivity to be used to advance a totalitarian programme. Zionist leaders deliberately sacrificed many Jewish lives to advance their totalitarian programme. The Zionist State of Israel was not created as an end in itself, but as a major pawn on an international chessboard. Many rank and file Israelis are increasingly objecting to their role. There were mass Israeli demonstrations against the Lebanon affair, and there are protests now about the way in which the Palestinians are being treated.

Zionist spokesmen, like the Leiblers in Australia, are desperately attempting to cope with the rising tide of anti-Israeli feeling, arguing that the media is being "selective" in its presentation of what is happening in the Israeli occupied territories. Zionist spokesman are objecting strongly to having Israel compared with South Africa. We have, exposed the selective reporting of much of the media over many years, most of which has favoured Zionist propaganda. But not even the media can completely suppress events, which are so dramatic that they break through the censorship rules.

The revelations concerning American TV evangelists like Bakker and Swaggart are such that not even a Zionist dominated media could suppress them. We are not in the moralising business, but observe that there is a type of justice in the fact that Swaggart's rather kinky sex habits were partly exposed by the prostitute Swaggart had used to bring about the downfall of fellow TV evangelist, Bakker. So much for the "Moral Majority" leadership, which as exposed by Grace Halsell in her Prophecy and Politics ($13 posted) has played a major role in having Israel accepted as an "instrument of God" among millions of American Christians. Hopefully, the Swaggart affair will direct attention to the much more important question of how the Zionists have been prepared to allow the TV Evangelists to build up a multi-million empire so long as they consistently supported Israel.

A sequence of events is now exposing realities not about Israel itself, but about many of its supporters. It is futile for Mr. Bill Hayden, speaking on behalf of Prime Minister Hawke, to mildly lecture the Israeli Government on the necessity for a more humane attitude towards the Palestinians, and worse than useless for US Secretary of State, George Schultz, to talk about a "peace agreement" which does not have the support of the International Zionist movement. If the USA so desired, it could force the Israeli government to at least vacate the Arab territories occupied in 1967.

Israel is a parasitic State dependent upon international handouts. But for an American Administration to insist upon Israel agreeing to the only type of policy, which would start to stabilise the Middle East, it would have to challenge the very heartland of International Zionist, which is in the United States. C.H. Douglas predicted that the establishment of the State of Israel would eventually prove a major mistake by Jewish leaders, with events bringing the long-range policies of the Zionists into the open for public discussion. This is what is happening with growing numbers of the Israelis expressing concern about their future.

AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

Columnist Bryce Courtenay writes in The Australian of February 22nd: "Government today believes that, if it can obtain enough power to employ any initiative it desires, it will be able to cure the nation's ills. Which is to say the least arrant nonsense. I have been waiting to see what the people would do in reply and I begin to see the emergence of an idea whose time has come. It's called 'citizens' initiated referendum' or, given its street name, 'voters' veto. Put simply, legislation is passed whereby any person objecting to a proposed piece of legislation, such as the ID card, can collect 100,000 signatures of like-minded people - whereupon the government is forced to hold a referendum so that all of the people can decide whether they want the legislation or want it thrown out ….Watch this idea; its time has come."

The pioneering work by the League of Rights over many years, stressing the necessity for responsible voting, is starting to bear fruit. This is the time to identify activities concerning the Electors Veto, starting with the distribution of the League's special Intelligence Survey. (Recommended reading for those wishing to equip themselves in depth: Conscience Voting, by Jeremy Lee $2.00 posted)

BRIEF COMMENTS

Victorian Liberal leader Jeff Kennett has at last started to climb off the fence on the Cain Government's proposed gun control legislation. The shift by Mr. Kennett is the result of mounting pressure on the Liberal party. There is little doubt now that the gun control issue will lose the Unsworth government a number of seats at the coming NSW State Elections. What has outraged so many people, including those who would hardly know one end of a gun from the other, is the principle involved. What has been proposed is a blatant violation of individual rights. And there is a growing suspicion that there is an attempt to disarm the civilian population.

We have sighted an article which the Federal Shadow Attorney General, Mr. Peter Reith, has prepared on the subject of Initiative and Referendum, and we are most impressed (favourably). Mr. Reith concludes his article thus: "Australia has had a tradition of innovative political organisation. The concept of referendum is not new to Australian politics, but what is new is the right to initiate by citizens outside of the Parliament. "The concept of initiative and referendum had had varying degrees of support from the three major political parties in Australia and 1988 is seen by many as a year for constitutional change. "One item that should at least be high on the agenda is the concept of voter initiated referendums." We can say, "Amen", to that. Mr. Peter Reith is the Federal Member for Flinders (Vic.)

The emergence and growing strength of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (neo-fascist, of course) in South Africa is predictable. The leader of this movement, Eugene T. Blanche, considers that the Botha Government will eventually capitulate to the Black Power movements, notably the A.N.C. (African National Congress), which is heavily Marxist influenced. We use the word, "predictable", as "international pressure" (e.g. sanctions) imposed on South Africa because of World Opinion" (what the mass media are allowed to print) are forcing the Afrikaaners into a traditional response. This with their distrust of the Botha Government. We have always asserted in these pages that White Public Opinion will be the key to the survival, or the eclipse, of South Africa. If the WILL is to survive, then South Africa will survive.

It is sometimes most difficult to get on the same wavelength as scientists and political leaders, and master international political strategists. They seem to be well outside the realm of commonsense, very often, to us. We read (The Age, Melbourne, 29/2) that the "father of the laser", Professor Charles Townes, of the U.S.A., recently visited our shores and voiced misgivings about America's S.D.I. (Strategic Defence Initiative) - "Star Wars". Professor Townes doesn't want to see the U.S.A. leading in "Star Wars" as this would "destabilise the central power balance." This is where it gets crazy. Mr. Gorbachev admitted that the Soviet Union has a "Star Wars" programme of its own, which Professor Townes adds is not very far behind America's "Star Wars". The way the Kremlin has been screaming about Uncle Sam's "Star Wars", one would think that the Kremlin had no answer to it at all. Now, according to Townes, if this "central power balance" is destabilised, there could be "Awesome Consequences". What are they? He doesn't say: but he believes, "for its own protection", the U.S.A. would be forced to share its technology with its adversary. Get it? No, neither do we. Are the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union playing some sort of Big Game? In our old fashioned, quaint way, we have always thought that it was most desirable to gain the advantage over one's adversary. If a technological advantage, then keep it, develop it; don't let the enemy get hold of it. Now we give it to our enemy to "keep the balance".

WAR CRIMES PUSH CONDEMNED