THE MIDDLE EAST TIME BOMB

by Eric D. Butler
Shortly after the Zionist State of Israel had been established at the expense of the dispossessed Palestine people, in 1948, one of America's most distinguished American Jewish scholars, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a graduate of Cornell University and Colombia Law School who had served with the U.S.A. State Department before and after a tour of Army duty in the Middle East, wrote an article for the Reader Digest, entitled "Israel's Flag Is Not Mine". Although publishing the article, The Editors of the Reader's Digest took the unprecedented step of dissociating themselves from the article, which brought a response from all over the world.

Lilienthal said that the establishment of the State of Israel was going to result in disastrous consequences for Judaism as a religion and destabilise the whole of the Middle East. Lilienthal went on to write a series of critical works concerning Zionist Israel, concluding with his major work, The Zionist Connection. The periodic convulsions in the Middle East, including military conflicts, have confirmed Lilienthal's warnings that the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel had placed a time bomb in the Middle East, which must result in periodic disasters.

Current developments concerning Zionist Israel's provocative action in a major building programme in Jerusalem, with widespread international condemnation and violent Palestinian reactions, confirm that the time bomb is still ticking and threatening further explosions. Even the Howard Government, which generally shuns any suggestion of being critical of Israel, has felt that events have left it with little option but to join in the chorus of criticism of Israel at the United Nations.

The reaction of the Jewish press in Australia, which claims to reflect the view of the Jewish community, highlights the Lilienthal theme that irrespective of where they lived, Jewish people are subject to constant pressure to put loyalty to Zionist Israel ahead of loyalty to the countries in which they live. Australia's first Australian born Governor General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, foresaw the problem of asking Jews to have a type of dual loyalty. He was a strong critic of Zionism and said his primary loyalty was to Australia. Sir Isaac was bitterly criticised by Zionists for refusing to support Zionism.

It was the famous British writer Douglas Reed who observed that because the great majority of people did not read the Zionist press, they had little or no understanding of Zionist power politics. The great majority of Australians would not be aware that, according to The Australian Jewish News of March 21st, "Jewish community leaders have reacted with concern and anger to Australia's warnings in the United Nations and elsewhere that Israel's decision to build 650 homes for Jews, at Har Homa, in South Jerusalem could lead to violence and jeopardise the peace process."
The Jewish press reports that Jewish leaders are considering approaches to Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to protest that Australia should have been more even handed on the issue.

Although the U.N. resolution condemning Israel is not legally binding and will not result in any type of action against Israel, Zionist leaders are making it clear that any type of criticism of Israel is unacceptable. The Australian Government is unable to ignore the international implications of Australia being perceived to support a Zionist project, which has already produced violent reactions from the Palestinians. There is also the question of a well-known Australian businessman, Mr. Joe Gutnick, who helped to finance Israeli's Prime Minister at the last Israel Elections and who is now financing the controversial Israeli buildings on the West Bank close to the area in which the Palestinians reside.

Terrorist acts of any kind are repugnant to all civilised people. But in attempting to understand the volatile Middle East situation, it is essential to understand the background of the Middle East situation; that Zionist Israel was born with savage acts of terrorism by the Zionists, first against the British when they were attempting to maintain law and order before the U.N. voted to establish the State of Israel, and then against the Palestinians. Desperate people resort often to desperate measures.

Not without significance is the fact that it was the United States alone which sided with Israel in the latest crisis. The United States has consistently used the power of the veto at the United Nations to prevent any real action against Israel. The reason for this is simple: As Lilienthal warned, American foreign policy has been dominated by the massive Zionist influence on American domestic and foreign policies.

Criticism of the Howard Government by Australian Zionists highlights once again the destructive influence of multiculturalisin. Zionist leaders have been strong supporters of multiculturalism and critics of those who oppose present immigration policies. Their mastery of Talmudic dialectics is demonstrated by the ease with which they condemn those who suggest that Australia should follow the lead of Israel concerning immigration. Multiculturalism is not tolerated in Zionist Israel.

There is considerable conjecture as to why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking such provocative action concerning Jerusalem at the present time. Clearly he wishes to create a situation in which the Palestinians and their leaders will be blamed for any breakdown in what is still referred to as "the peace process". The reality is that no genuine peace is possible in the Middle East until the Palestinians are given genuine justice. This means that the West will have to grasp firmly the Zionist poisoned splinter, which has been festering in the Middle East for over half a century.

Those who genuinely wish to understand the realities of the Middle East would do well to study Dr. Lilienthal's Zionist Connection, $28.00 posted.

WHY SENATOR O'CHEE BUCKS NATIONALS ON WIK

by David Thompson
The grip of Party politics is such that it is rare that a Member of Parliament dares to oppose Party policy. As such the influence of Parties on policies is a corrupting element that frustrates genuine representation. Why then, is Queensland's Senator Bill O'Chee threatening to defy the National Party and the Coalition if the Commonwealth fails to legislate to extinguish native title on leasehold land?

O'Chee, not noted for defiance of National Party policy, has delivered an ultimatum on the High Court's Wik decision. But it is not clear whether Senator O'Chee's primary concern is for Queensland pastoralists and miners, or for the political future of Senator O'Chee. It is clear that Senator O'Chee is painfully aware that he must face his constituents at the next election, as his six-year term expires next year. It is also clear that the National Party is in serious electoral trouble. Last week's local government elections in Queensland showed a swing back toward the A.L.P.

The National Party's betrayal of shooters with the firearms legislation has not been forgotten, and the growing influence of Campbell's Australia First is clearly being felt. The Queensland State election must be held by next year, and the support for Australia First may be one of the major surprises.

Now registered in Queensland as a political party, Australia First organisers are receiving growing support, and a steady increase in membership. The steady building of a branch structure at grassroots level has not gone unnoticed by the National Party, especially since many of the new branches are forming out of remnants of National Party branches. Some of the Australia First candidates could be expected to be former Nationals, and many of those manning polling booths for Campbell's Australia First could also be expected to be former National Party volunteers. No wonder Senator O'Chee is worried. The results of the State elections might give Senator O'Chee an indication of the security of his political future.

If the signals from the electorate are sufficiently strong for O'Chee to take the stand he has, Mr. Fischer and Mr. Howard may eventually get the message that the Aboriginal issue is one, which is capable of changing voting patterns. The election of the Independent Member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, originally endorsed by the Liberal Party, showed the strength of feeling about Aboriginal and other issues.

Senator O'Chee is to be congratulated for his willingness to defy Tim Fischer and the Party on native title. Perhaps he might consider whether there are other issues on which he could take as strong a political stand? If he sniffs the electoral breeze carefully enough, he will find that there are untapped wells of support for politicians who are prepared to face unfashionable issues and give expression to alternative views, even if they are not necessarily politically correct.
If the interests of leaseholders and the interests of Senator O'Chee happen to coincide in this case, all the better.

THE P.N.G. "RIOTS"

The gravity of the crisis in Papua New Guinea should not be underestimated, but the scenes of rioting in Port Moresby on television screens last week should not necessarily be taken to be an expression of disgust with Prime Minister Chan's handling of the Bougainville problem. Other press reports indicate that much of the looting was sheer opportunism, and could have been an expression of other resentments.

One newspaper report by a correspondent in Port Moresby opened by quoting a young man on his reasons for being in the streets. "Do you know what's happening?" he yelled. "We are going to loot the Chinese stores." (The Australian, 20/3/97).

To many of the rather youthful rioters, the Chinese business people appear to be extremely wealthy, and are beginning to dominate street-level retailing and commerce, as they have in other parts of the world. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir, was involved in a bitter exchange with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yu about the assimilation of Chinese into other communities. "We must accept the fact that the Chinese are not a group that could be assimilated easily," he said. "Once the Frenchmen or Germans move to the United States, they become Americans, they speak American English, accept American customs and norms, but not the Chinese. You can see Chinatowns all over the world, but not French or German towns."

The recent wave of reaction to ethnic minorities, especially the Chinese, in Asia highlights the Asian sensitivities concerning racial and cultural matters. Australians too often see Asians simply as "Asians", without differentiating between cultures and racial groups. The Asians themselves, however, are highly sensitive to this. In the first quarter of 1997, there have been riots in Indonesia in which Chinese ethnic minorities have been attacked, and property destroyed. Chinese businessmen in the Philippines have been kidnapped for ransom, and Dr. Mahathir's Malaysia has formal policies that discriminate in favour of the native Malays against the more commercially successful Chinese.

The Chinese presence in other countries is also felt. Perhaps Communist China itself has contributed to the resentment against expatriate Chinese, by calling on them to assist China to become an international trading and political power. China has made it almost impossible to renounce Chinese citizenship, which does not assist Chinese to assimilate into other communities. Evidently the architects of Australian multiculturalism were unaware of such difficulties.

BRIEF COMMENTS

With the elections scheduled for May 1st, all the major British political groups have obviously picked up the grassroots resentment to British interests being merged into "Europe". Every Party now attempts to campaign on resistance to some aspect of the European Union. Echoes of the drive towards the injured States or Europe attempted by Napoleon and Hitler obviously unsettle the British. The most ridiculous bureaucratic overkill makes them very edgy, even on relatively insignificant matters. For example, the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals threatens some of Britain's most popular dog breeds. It seeks to regulate which breeds are acceptable, and dogs like the cocker spaniel (whose ears are "too long"), the dachshund (legs "too short"), the basset (legs "abnormally positioned") and the bulldog ("markedly folded skin" and "abnormally positioned teeth") would be threatened. But who said the Englishman's dogs were relatively unimportant?

* * * * *

The Victorian council amalgamation programme has already started to show results, with recent reports indicating that the drive for "efficiency" has reduced the number of council inspectors. According to food bacteria testers, this undermines the food safety standards. After the amalgamation of Northcote and Preston Councils three years ago, the number of food inspectors was cut from nine to five, although they still have to check the same number of businesses. This is the district in which the Lago Smallgoods factory produces the meat products that appear to have been responsible for several deaths in Victoria recently.

A REMARKABLE PORT LINCOLN MEETING

Adelaide's morning daily paper, The Advertiser, of Tuesday, March 18th, on page 4, carried a story of a meeting of "outraged" Port Lincoln citizens who were upset because controversial Mayor Peter Davis had chaired a meeting for the "extremist" League of Rights, addressed by Eric Butler. But the most remarkable feature of this meeting was that no such meeting took place!
It will be recalled that while the Keating Labor Party had been in office, Mayor Davis had also chaired a meeting for Eric Butler.

Several Weeks later The Advertiser ran a story, which led to the Labor Minister for Immigration, Senator Bolkus, stripping Davis of the right to continue conducting naturalisation ceremonies. This action led to a nationwide campaign concerning the Port Lincoln Mayor, who continued to speak out on multicultural and associated issues.

He made it clear he was supporting Graeme Campbell's Australia First Party. This led to a desperate attempt to get the State Government to act by a mass resignation of Port Lincoln Councillors resigning allegedly in protest against the Mayor misusing his position. But because one Councillor refused to resign, Mayor Davis was legally able to continue presiding over a Council of one. At the subsequent by-election to fill the Council vacancies, the Mayor's opponents were routed. There was no argument that Mayor Davis had the support of the overwhelming majority of ratepayers.

There was considerable publicity concerning another visit by Eric Butler and the fact that the Mayor would be chairing his meeting on Monday, March 17th. Media representatives were invited to meet with Eric Butler before the meeting and to attend. A report was relayed to the Mayor that The Advertiser had a plane on standby at Port Augusta ready to fly to Port Lincoln to film what allegedly would be a major protest at the meeting. Advised of the threat, the Mayor requested that the local police have a plain-clothes representative present.

Eric Butler was interviewed by sections of the media before the meeting, which was filmed. In opening the meeting Mayor Davis said he was chairing the meeting both as a citizen and the Mayor. He made it clear that he was proud to be associated with Eric Butler and the League of Rights, which he had supported over many years. The meeting was orderly with Eric Butler being asked a number of questions. There were no protests outside the meeting and no evidence of any "outrage" by those present. But this did not deter The Advertiser from running a "beat up" story of an event which they obviously were convinced would happen.

As a result of the meeting, Eric Butler was seen on television throughout parts of South Australia. Mayor Davis had ended the speculation concerning his future by announcing that he will be again standing for Mayor at the next Municipal Elections. He says he is not actively campaigning, merely asking to be judged on the service he has given.

POLICE FORCED INTO POLITICAL CORRECTION

The recommendation that Australia's police forces drop racial distinctions from their descriptions of suspects is stupid and ham fisted. It is political "correctness" taken to a ludicrous extreme. It was difficult enough to generate community co-operation when the metric measurements replaced imperial measurements, and the height of suspects became only a vague suggestion. But now, instead of describing a suspect as "black", Indian, Maori, Middle Eastern, etc., police are restricted to just three descriptions: Caucasian, Aboriginal and Asian, with any other description becoming "other". The decision follows representations from the Arabic Council, whom we would have expected to have more sense.

It is not only in the best interests of the police to be able to accurately describe suspects, but it is in the best interests of the ethnic groups themselves. For example, the heroin trade is dominated by Vietnamese, and many Vietnamese parents were shocked to learn of the penetration of the heroin trade into their group. They are now reported to be taking steps to redress the problem, including the measure of taking youth drug pushers back to Vietnam for a year to show them how lucky they are to have been able to come to Australia.

A former police superintendent in Victoria wrote that during inquiries, knowledge of the nationality of the suspect was important information, because it substantially reduced the search area and directed inquiries into particular areas that helped to conserve police resources and improve the chances of solving crime.

The emergence of the more feral features of the multicultural society is no surprise to those who have warned about it for years. We suggest that each of the social problems generated by the multicultural experiment be identified for what they are: not a random problem, but the specific result of policy. The policy of experimental multiculturalism should be opposed wherever practical and political representatives forced to accept accountability for it. This is not a racist approach, but a social responsibility. No responsible scientist would carry out an experiment without carefully observing, recording and reporting the results of the experiment.

SCOUTS ATTACK HANSON

Reports from last week's press indicate that the leadership of the Australian scouting movement has broken a 90-year political silence to attack Pauline Hanson's views on multiculturalism. Chief Scouting Commissioner of Australia, Dr. William Wells, used his editorial to support multiculturalism. He wrote: "Let us be proud of what scouting has achieved in the past, but let us all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that, through scouting, young people and adults learn to respect each other, listen to each other, and to live peacefully in this great multicultural country."

It is not clear whether Dr. Wells has actually read Hanson's views, such as her maiden parliamentary speech, but it is clear that he misjudges the situation. It is irresponsible to attempt to force scouts to ignore reality and even a form of social engineering to do so to children. The reality is that ethnic, cultural, religious and racial differences divide communities. Dr. Wells will find that children are part of communities, and if he bothers to investigate schoolyard situations, he will find that the friction generated by multiculturalism runs as deeply as it does elsewhere.

Wells clearly misrepresents Hanson if he is suggesting that she encouraged intolerance and bigotry. He would benefit from reading her own words, rather than views ascribed to her. The teaching of respect and tolerance among scouts for minority groups is laudable, but where that respect is not accorded to mainstream groups by minorities, resentment is inevitable. Respect and tolerance for people of any background are virtues, and the scouts should be congratulated for teaching them. But that tolerance should not be extended to divisive and destructive policies.

Ms. Hanson is the elected representative of an electorate of presumably in excess of 50,000 people in the Ipswich area. Is Dr. Wells respectful and tolerant of the views of Pauline Hanson and her constituents, or are they to be singled out for contempt? Not a very good example to set for children in his care. Perhaps someone should point this out to Dr. Wells.

FROM THE PRESS

MPs must act on Mabo - from Sun-Herald, March 19th, 1997
"With a background in law and politics over a long period, I am very concerned for Australia as a result of the original Mabo decision of the High Court and its recent Wik decision. I was therefore very pleased to read that former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs said when the matter of native title was under discussion at a conference of the Samuel Griffith Society recently that the parliament could, as it had on previous occasions, reverse the law as interpreted by the High Court.
I believe that the path which the High Court quite unnecessarily opened up is a most dangerous one for all of us for many reasons, including the following:
1. The Mabo decision created confusion by the majority judges moving in their judgments into the political field. It should be noted that the one dissenting judge Sir Daryl Dawson said in this regard: 'If traditional land rights (or at least rights akin to them) are to be afforded to the inhabitants of the Murray Islands the responsibility both moral and legal lies with the legislature and not with the courts.'
2. The confusion caused by the Mabo decision is huge, widespread and getting worse. I understand that there are 466 native title claims, not one of which has yet reached a final decision by a court. I am informed that these claims already cover 34 percent of Australia's land and that following the Wik case claims could extend to 78 percent of our land. Let us be clear. These claims affect all Australians in all States. At present, they directly affect pastoralists, miners and different groups of Aborigines. Where does it all end? All freehold land came from the Crown - can anyone be sure that the Crown had a right to alienate freehold land in the first instance.
3. The confusion caused by Mabo has been made much worse by the Wik decision; incidentally a 4-3 decision. What a fine balance to affect the future of all Australians!
4. The decisions have divided Australia and will continue to cause more divisions than ever. No one gains by division, including Aboriginal citizens. The economic affects of dividing Australian land and the Australian people are frightening.

My conclusion is that the only way out of the confusion and division is for the Commonwealth Parliament (with legislation if necessary by the States) to act to extinguish native title. Remember, judges are not elected.
All I want to see is a common purpose for our nation - a nation united in the interests of everyone who was born here including, of course, Aboriginal Australians and everyone who lives here - whenever they came and wherever they came from - and who wants Australia to be their home.
Finally, action is needed and this must come from the elected representatives of the people in the parliaments of Australia."
Vernon Wilcox, Q.C., Melbourne (Attorney-General in the Bolte Government)