SBS reality program “GO BACK WHERE YOU COME FROM” is an experiment re Australians’ perception of asylum seekers.
http://www.sbs.com.au/goback
Over 3 nights, a reality-style program is shown of an experiment where 6 volunteers with preconceived ideas against asylum-seekers and refugees in Australia are exposed to the experiences of the actual refugees coming to Australia or waiting for resettlement in various parts of the world. Over 25 days, 3 females and 3 males, ranging in age from 21 to 61, spent a week living with Australian resettled former refugees from various countries. Then they were put on a (supposedly) leaky old boat out of Darwin where they had to experience what desperation would drive anyone to undertake such a journey. Afterwards they were flown to Malaysia and on the final part of their journey 3 were sent to Jordan and 3 to Kenya, as the first destinations of those fleeing their own countries.
Having seen the expressions on the faces of those inexperienced Aussies who were suddenly transported out of their comfort zones into these dangerous, ugly, crowded, dirty foreign environments into the lives of actual refugees was for me quite funny! They had had no idea what they were in for and no one could blame them for being absolutely freaked out with what they were confronted!
For us older Jews who had had refugee experiences ourselves, none of it was so strange, though nowadays we are thankfully too spoilt not to feel exactly the way these volunteers were feeling. The youngest girl was far too immature and spoilt to be able to feel anything for the refugees anywhere at first. She just seemed to hate everything about them and her part in it. The older women related very sympathetically, particularly befriending the children and feeling very sorry for them and their parents. One of the guys could not understand how anyone would put their women and children onto these dangerous boats, while the others said they would do so, just to get out of the hell-holes they would have found themselves in!
I look forward to the concluding segment and to see if all the volunteers changed their views. Personally, after 2000 years of wanderings and constant feelings of insecurity and history of displacement and expulsions, pogroms and eventually the tragedy of the annihilation attempt of our people in the Holocaust of WW2, thankfully we Jews now know we have one place on earth where we are welcome and from where we will never be turned away. This is why most Jews are and must remain staunch Zionists,- from near and far! The protection of Israel,our eternal spiritual Jewish homeland must be every Jew’s sacred duty and responsibility!
Most of us Jewish people have grown up with the need to remain forever vigilant against racism of any kind,- because anti-Semitism is part of it, if not as usual its first manifestation! For successive Australian Governments, it is a dilemma re what to do about the continuing stream of illegal boat-people arriving unexpectedly on our shores! These days of Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism of all kinds world-wide, they are making Australians very nervous and xenophobic. Governments lose elections, or win them by appearing strong against the flood of leaky boats coming across the oceans to Christmas Island, with many of these hapless people being lost at sea in the process of trying to reach the promised land of Australia. Chasing the people-smugglers on the one hand while on the other they are looked upon as saviours by the desperate,this is also very problematic.
Spreading these refugees out among the Pacific island nations sounds to me a better way of handling them, than just putting them behind bars on Australian shores. What is wrong with Howard’s Pacific solution, apart from it being Howard’s? From there they could apply officially to be accepted into Australia and resettled at a proper rate and probably many would be able to do so,- legally. Some may even choose to settle where they are.
It seems to me that the Australian public and the government acts with more alacrity and humanely to safeguard cattle than they do to help the human flotsam and jetsam that comes ashore in Australia as asylum seekers.
MM
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
ANTISEMITISM OR ANTI-ZIONISM?
When does anti-Zionism become anti-Semitism:Address to NCJW
by Philip Mendes
Thursday June 2, 2011
The question as to whether Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are one and the same thing inevitably correlates with attitudes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Those who lean towards the "Greater Israel" end of the spectrum are more likely to answer yes, whilst those who favor the "Greater Palestine" solution are more likely to answer no. As a long-time supporter of Israel but also of two states for two peoples, I sit close to the middle of these two spectrums, and hence my response to the question is necessarily a complex one. That is yes and no.
Historically, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism were two separate ideologies. Anti-Semitism is a racist prejudice that exists independently of any objective reality. It is not about what Jews actually say or do, but rather about what anti-Semites falsely and malevolently attribute to them. As reflected in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it is a subjective stereotyping based on notions of collective Jewish guilt.
In contrast, anti-Zionism (particularly prior to the creation of the State of Israel) was based on a relatively objective assessment of the prospects of success for some Jews in Israel/Palestine. Opposition came from both Jews and the international Left.
However, in recent decades anti-Zionist fundamentalism and anti-Semitism have increasingly converged. Of course, left-wing attacks on Zionism and Israel incorporating anti-Jewish prejudice are different to the traditional anti-Semitism of the far Right. They constitute a form of political, rather than racial anti-Semitism. And most of their key proponents deny being anti-Semites. Nevertheless, this group arguably create an anti-Jewish discourse and the potential for an openly anti-Semitic movement by demonizing all Israeli Jews and all Jewish supporters of Israel as the political enemy.
Three Left positions on Zionism and Israel
Historically, the Australian Left has incorporated a wide spectrum of views on Zionism and Israel ranging from unequivocal support for Israel to even-handedness to hardline support for Palestinian positions. Today, there are arguably three principal Left positions on Zionism and Israel.
One perspective, which can broadly be called pro-Israel, is balanced in terms of favouring a two-state solution, and supporting moderates and condemning extremists and violence on both sides. This is a minority position, but is held by a number of centre-left leaders such as the current Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Julia Gillard and most of her key Ministers, the former British New Labour leader Tony Blair and other prominent New Labour figures, and the former German Greens leader and Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer. It is also supported by a number of social democratic members of parliament in western countries who have formed Friends of Israel groupings, and some social democratic intellectuals and trade union leaders.
Other supporters of this perspective include trade unionists around the world represented by the Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine (TULIP) group, country-specific trade union friends of Israel groups, Left Zionist groups aligned with the Israeli peace movement such as Meretz USA and Ameinu, and the Engage group in the UK which consists of Jewish and non-Jewish academics opposed to proposals for academic boycotts of Israel. In addition, there are a number of small radical pro-Israel groups including the Workers' Liberty group in the UK, and the heterogeneous group of German intellectuals involved in the Anti German Movement.
A second perspective endorses a two-state solution in principle, but in practice holds Israel principally or even solely responsible for the continuing violence and terror in the Middle East. This position, which probably represents the majority of the western Left, is held by many social democrats, Greens and trade unions, and also by some Jews represented in groups such as the Tikkun community in the USA and the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.
This perspective holds that an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the key prerequisite for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation. In general, adherents of this view recognize that not all Israelis are the same, and understand the difference between particular Israeli government policies and the Israeli people per se. Many favour alliances with Israeli Left and peace groups who hold similar viewpoints.
Some components of this second perspective may reasonably be characterized as unbalanced and naïve at best, and as failing to offer a corresponding critical analysis of contemporary and historical Palestinian actions and strategies which have acted as serious barriers to peace. Little reference is made, for example, to the Palestinian rejection of Israeli offers of statehood at Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001, the violence of the Second Intifada directed at mainly Israeli civilians, the 2005 election victory of the extremist fundamentalist group Hamas, and the universal Palestinian demand for the return of 1948 refugees and their descendants to Green Line Israel, rather than the Palestinian Territories. A number of advocates of this view refuse to tolerate viewpoints which defend any Israeli actions, or criticize any Palestinian deeds.
Nevertheless, the rights and wrongs of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories are legitimately subject to a robust international debate. This debate also takes place within the democratic structures of Israel itself. And many of the concerns about either the efficacy or morality of Israeli actions are shared by a significant minority of Israelis and Diaspora Jews.
The third Left perspective I have called anti-Zionist fundamentalism because it is akin to religious fundamentalism. This view, which is held mainly but no longer exclusively by far Left groups, regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist. Adherents hold to a viewpoint opposing Israel's existence specifically and Jewish national rights more broadly which is beyond rational debate, and unconnected to contemporary or historical reality. Suicide bombings and other forms of violence directed specifically against Israeli civilians are viewed as legitimate strategies for eliminating the Jewish state.
This form of anti-Zionism is substantively different to the earlier pre-1948 Left tradition of anti-Zionism. That tradition opposed Zionism as a political movement on theoretical grounds. In contrast, anti-Zionist fundamentalists today wish to eliminate the actual existing nation state of Israel. Israelis and their Jewish supporters are depicted as inherently evil oppressors by the simple process of denying the historical link between the Jewish experience of oppression in both Europe and the Middle East and the creation of Israel. Conversely, Palestinians are depicted as intrinsically innocent victims. In place of the fundamental and objective centrality of the State of Israel to contemporary Jewish identity, anti-Zionist fundamentalists portray Israel as a mere political construct, and utilize ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis and all Jewish supporters of Israel whatever their political views in order to justify their claims.
The purpose of negating the reality of Israel's existence is to overcome the ideological barrier posed by the Left's historical opposition to racism. Any objective analysis of the Middle East would have to accept that Israel could only be destroyed by a war of partial or total genocide which would inevitably produce millions of Israeli Jewish refugees, and have a catastrophically traumatic effect on almost all Jews outside Israel. But advocacy of genocide means endorsing the most virulent form of racism imaginable. So instead anti-Zionist fundamentalists construct a subjective fantasy world in which Israel is detached from its specifically Jewish roots, and then miraculously destroyed by remote control free of any violence or bloodshed under the banner of anti-racism.
Anti-Zionism converges into Anti-Semitism
This fundamentalist discourse is reflected in a number of manifestations of contemporary anti-Zionist rhetoric.
Firstly, there is a pathological and obsessive hatred and demonization of Israel unrelated to the actual actions and reality of that State. These include claims that Israel is the world's worst human rights abuser, or that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. For these critics, Israel becomes a uniquely evil symbol of international imperialism.
Some of this critique seems to be based on the discriminatory notion that because Jews experienced the Holocaust, they have a moral obligation to behave better than any other people. Yet no such obligation is imposed on other historically oppressed groups. Conversely, examples of Palestinian extremism such as suicide bombings and calls for the military elimination of Israel are either denied, or alternatively approved as a rational response to Israeli policies.
Secondly, there are proposals for academic and other boycotts of Israel based on the ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis. The aim of such caricatures is to impose pariah status on the whole Israeli nation. These proposals single out Israelis in that no such boycotts are proposed against other countries or nations involved in territorial expansion or human rights abuses. These campaigns have resulted in a number of examples of discrimination against Israeli scholars and researchers in British academic institutions.
Thirdly, there is the extension of the denunciation of all Jewish Israelis to all Jews - Zionist or otherwise - who are supportive of Israel's existence. These Jews are collectively denounced via group libel as accomplices of racism and genocide whatever their actual ideological and political position on solutions to the conflict.
For example, John Docker, one of the key Australian proponents of an academic boycott of Israel, has attacked all Jews who support Israel.
According to Docker,
The Australian Jewish community lies in moral ruins. Australian Jewish leaders and intellectuals have disgraced themselves, have engaged in written and verbal abuse, misrepresentation, insult and slander, and have lost their honour and dignity due to their implicit support...for the past and continuing genocidal assault on the indigenous peoples of Palestine.
Another Australian academic Ned Curthoys argues that left-wing Jews who defend Israel's right to exist should effectively be excluded from progressive political discourse. A Canadian academic Michael Neumann is even harsher, accusing Jews of "complicity in Israeli crimes against humanity" no different to the complicity of Germans in Nazi war crimes. And Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), has declared that Jews who support Israel are not welcome in South Africa, and should be coerced to leave. He also called on COSATU's members to boycott Jewish-owned businesses.
This collective labelling of all Jewish supporters of Israel as evil inspired a number of UK student unions in the 1970s and 80s to disaffiliate Jewish student societies on the prejudiced grounds that they were Zionist and hence allegedly racist. Similarly, the 2001 United Nations anti-racist conference in Durban was blighted by a hysterical anti-Semitic campaign involving the public vilification, intimidation and harassment of Jews by numerous non-governmental organisations.
And small sections of the German new Left translated their anti-Zionist beliefs into action via violent attacks on Jews. One example was the November 1969 bombing of the Jewish Community Centre in West Berlin during a Kristallnacht commemoration ceremony. The second example was the participation of two West German revolutionaries in the 1976 Entebbe terrorist attack on an Air France plane flying from Tel Aviv to Paris which involved the segregation of the Jews (not just Israelis) from all the other passengers to keep them as hostages.
Fourthly, there are stereotypical descriptions of Jewish behaviour, and attacks on alleged Jewish global power, wealth and influence. Conspiracy theorists accuse Jews of controlling western governments, finance and the media; planning the 9/11 attacks; and responsibility for the US-led war in Iraq.
For example, during the Australian controversy over the awarding of the Sydney University peace prize to Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi, a number of commentators accused the Jewish community of exerting undue financial and political influence. In the UK, the prominent weekly magazine New Statesman published in January 2002 a front cover depicting a golden star of David piercing a union flag. The cover and an accompanying article titled "a kosher conspiracy" implied that a rich and powerful Jewish lobby was unduly influencing media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian issues. And Perry Anderson, the editor of New Left Review, claimed that powerful Jews used their disproportionate influence in business, media and government to control American policies towards Israel.
Finally, deliberate attempts are made to diminish and trivialize the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis. For example, numerous critics have equated the Star of David with the swastika, former Prime Minister Sharon with Hitler, claimed that the Israeli army is the equivalent of the Nazi SS, and argued that the 2009 Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip was reminiscent of the Nazi assault on the Warsaw Ghetto. These analogies do not appear to be used in regards to any other international conflicts, and seem to be motivated solely by a desire to offend and hurt Jews.
According to Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland:
If anti-Zionists wonder why Jews find this anti-Semitic, perhaps they should imagine the Black reaction if the civil rights movement - or any other vehicle of Black liberation - was constantly equated with the white slave traders of old. It feels like a deliberate attempt to find a people's rawest spot - and tear away at it. To put it at its most basic: Jews are being compared with those who murdered our families.
The UK-based Australian journalist John Pilger has regularly used this analogy, arguing, for example, that an Israeli attack on Gaza constitutes a "final solution to the problem of the Palestinians" similar to the "Nazi strangulation of the Warsaw ghetto". In a further article published in 2009, he included eight separate equations of Israel's actions in Gaza with the Nazi Holocaust.
Recent Developments
The convergence of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was particularly apparent during the recent debate over the attempted introduction of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) policy by Marrickville Council. Three particular developments are worth noting:
BDS proponents are dishonest
Firstly, many key anti-Zionist fundamentalists disingenuously deny being anti-Israel, and in some cases, even claim to be pro-peace.
For example, Marrickville Council mayor Fiona Byrne, denied in The Drum 13 January that her BDS proposal was an anti-Israel resolution, or in any way implied support for the abolition of Israel.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42988.html
Elsewhere, she claimed to support a peaceful solution, two states or otherwise. Which means she is not sure whether she supports a peaceful two-state solution, or a genocidal war to destroy Israel.
Lee Rhiannon, the national Greens Senator, also denied on Sky News on 14 April that the BDS campaign was anti-Israel.
Similarly, Mommar Mashni, a representative of the Australians for Palestine lobby group, stated in The Australian on both 16 and 19 April, that the BDS campaign was a peaceful movement dedicated to a two-state solution.
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, a self-described peace researcher and Director of the University of Sydney Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, opined in crikey.com that a BDS would be more successful than the various failed international peace initiatives in promoting a viable two-state solution.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/07/chewing-up-the-greens-the-israel-boycott-backlash/
And Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees from the University of Sydney also asserted that the BDS would be successful in ending decades of Israeli-Palestinian violence.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/boycott-israel-and-do-without-a-host-of-mod-cons/story-fn558imw-1226032253771
The problem with this analysis is that the leading Palestinian proponents of BDS do not seek an end to the occupation to facilitate a peaceful two-state solution, but rather the demonization of all Israeli Jews and the delegitimization of Israel. The key statement distributed by the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in July 2004 is crystal clear that the first and foremost priority is to reverse the events of 1948 that lead to the Palestinian refugee tragedy, whereas ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 is only identified as a secondary task.
http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=869
A recent clarification by Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the global BDS movement in New Matilda 2 May 2011, is even blunter. He claims that the BDS movement has no position on a one or two-state solution. It neither formally supports the existence of Israel, or formally supports its destruction by military or demographic means. But he then admits that his own position favours the abolition of Israel and its replacement by an Arab State of Greater Palestine. For Barghouti, the national rights of the Palestinians take absolute precedence over the rights of what he calls euphemistically the "other inhabitants of the land". So much for the two-state solution.
BDS proponents malevolently exploit the willingness of self-denying Jews to vilify their own people
The BDS campaign has tapped into the long history of radical Left anti-Semitism whereby a small number of unrepresentative token Jews (some would call them "Uncle Toms" but I prefer the term "self-denying" Jews since they deny any feeling of solidarity with other Jews who are oppressed or attacked) are opportunistically encouraged to exploit their own religious and cultural origins in order to vilify their own people. This happened in 1929 when American Jewish Communists were obliged to defend the anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine. It happened again in 1952/53 when Jewish Communists were rolled out to endorse Stalin's anti-Semitic Slansky show trial and Doctors Plot. It has happened many times since 1967 when left-wing Jews are pressured to publicly conform to the anti-Zionist fundamentalism of the far Left.
The radical Left would never employ such techniques against other historically oppressed groups. They would not publish the views of Indigenous Australians who completely oppose land rights, or demand that a feminist journal publish the views of women who totally oppose abortion. They would certainly not publicize the views of Palestinians or Arabs who support Zionism.
But during the BDS debate this offensive and ridiculous misrepresentation of Jewish views was prominent. For example, Lee Rhiannon claimed that "many Jewish communities support this work". In fact, no Jewish communities support the BDS. Rhiannon was referring to a handful of Jewish individuals and tiny Jewish organizations on the far Left. The Jewish community group in Marrickville, the Inner West Jewish Community and Friends Peace Alliance which is left-oriented and strongly supportive of a two-state solution, devoted considerable time and resources to opposing the Marrickville BDS proposal.
Similarly, Fiona Byrne proudly cited support from the NSW Jews against the Occupation group which has about 10 members, and also claimed support from "a growing number of Jews from all over the world". Stuart Rees argued on 2 April that the BDS campaign was encouraged by "many Israeli citizens" (maybe a dozen), and Samah Sabawi argued on the Australians for Palestine website that the BDS campaign has been supported by "a growing number of Diaspora Jews and Israelis".
In fact, the only prominent Jewish supporter of BDS is Antony Loewenstein, the same self-denying Jew who uses the term "Zionist" as a form of abuse, and who has called for a public inquiry into the alleged power and influence of the Jewish lobby in Australia.
The increasing capture of academic and media journals and institutions by the powerful pro-Palestinian lobby
This lobby now controls the Middle East policy of journals such as Overland, Arena, New Matilda (better known as New Palestine) and Crikey.Com, the Sydney University Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the NSW Greens, and a number of trade unions such as the NSW Teachers Federation which support BDS.
These organizations fanatically exclude alternative left-wing Jewish views defending Israel's existence. Most of them have their own self-denying "Court" Jews that toe the party line. Overland use Michael Brull and Antony Loewenstein, Arena use Les Rosenblatt, CPACS use Loewenstein and John Docker, and New Matilda and Crikey.Com both use Loewenstein.
________________________________________
Thank you Philip Mendes for a most lucid analysis to the National Quadrennial Conference of NCJWA in Melbourne this week. My sole consolation re the fundamentalist Far Left is that probably a greater number of fundamentalists of the Far R, for various reasons of their own, prefer the Jewish State to the Islamic ones. In addition, the number of ordinary citizens in the middle who are not high-profile, perhaps the silent majority, are no friends of the Arab States and are inimical to Islamic Sharia laws in those countries,- whether they like Jews or not. In addition,- another thing in favour of the Jewish State is that no Australians or Americans need to go and fight there, nor get killed to protect the Jews as they supposedly are trying to do the Moslems in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Lybia. The do-gooders of the Left who try to help the Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the WBank, supposedly on humanitarian grounds,- these are the true anti-Semites or the Arabs" and Palestinians" "useful idiots" from the naive West!
Posted by MM on 2011-06-03 14:21:56 GMT
by Philip Mendes
Thursday June 2, 2011
The question as to whether Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are one and the same thing inevitably correlates with attitudes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Those who lean towards the "Greater Israel" end of the spectrum are more likely to answer yes, whilst those who favor the "Greater Palestine" solution are more likely to answer no. As a long-time supporter of Israel but also of two states for two peoples, I sit close to the middle of these two spectrums, and hence my response to the question is necessarily a complex one. That is yes and no.
Historically, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism were two separate ideologies. Anti-Semitism is a racist prejudice that exists independently of any objective reality. It is not about what Jews actually say or do, but rather about what anti-Semites falsely and malevolently attribute to them. As reflected in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it is a subjective stereotyping based on notions of collective Jewish guilt.
In contrast, anti-Zionism (particularly prior to the creation of the State of Israel) was based on a relatively objective assessment of the prospects of success for some Jews in Israel/Palestine. Opposition came from both Jews and the international Left.
However, in recent decades anti-Zionist fundamentalism and anti-Semitism have increasingly converged. Of course, left-wing attacks on Zionism and Israel incorporating anti-Jewish prejudice are different to the traditional anti-Semitism of the far Right. They constitute a form of political, rather than racial anti-Semitism. And most of their key proponents deny being anti-Semites. Nevertheless, this group arguably create an anti-Jewish discourse and the potential for an openly anti-Semitic movement by demonizing all Israeli Jews and all Jewish supporters of Israel as the political enemy.
Three Left positions on Zionism and Israel
Historically, the Australian Left has incorporated a wide spectrum of views on Zionism and Israel ranging from unequivocal support for Israel to even-handedness to hardline support for Palestinian positions. Today, there are arguably three principal Left positions on Zionism and Israel.
One perspective, which can broadly be called pro-Israel, is balanced in terms of favouring a two-state solution, and supporting moderates and condemning extremists and violence on both sides. This is a minority position, but is held by a number of centre-left leaders such as the current Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Julia Gillard and most of her key Ministers, the former British New Labour leader Tony Blair and other prominent New Labour figures, and the former German Greens leader and Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer. It is also supported by a number of social democratic members of parliament in western countries who have formed Friends of Israel groupings, and some social democratic intellectuals and trade union leaders.
Other supporters of this perspective include trade unionists around the world represented by the Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine (TULIP) group, country-specific trade union friends of Israel groups, Left Zionist groups aligned with the Israeli peace movement such as Meretz USA and Ameinu, and the Engage group in the UK which consists of Jewish and non-Jewish academics opposed to proposals for academic boycotts of Israel. In addition, there are a number of small radical pro-Israel groups including the Workers' Liberty group in the UK, and the heterogeneous group of German intellectuals involved in the Anti German Movement.
A second perspective endorses a two-state solution in principle, but in practice holds Israel principally or even solely responsible for the continuing violence and terror in the Middle East. This position, which probably represents the majority of the western Left, is held by many social democrats, Greens and trade unions, and also by some Jews represented in groups such as the Tikkun community in the USA and the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.
This perspective holds that an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the key prerequisite for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation. In general, adherents of this view recognize that not all Israelis are the same, and understand the difference between particular Israeli government policies and the Israeli people per se. Many favour alliances with Israeli Left and peace groups who hold similar viewpoints.
Some components of this second perspective may reasonably be characterized as unbalanced and naïve at best, and as failing to offer a corresponding critical analysis of contemporary and historical Palestinian actions and strategies which have acted as serious barriers to peace. Little reference is made, for example, to the Palestinian rejection of Israeli offers of statehood at Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001, the violence of the Second Intifada directed at mainly Israeli civilians, the 2005 election victory of the extremist fundamentalist group Hamas, and the universal Palestinian demand for the return of 1948 refugees and their descendants to Green Line Israel, rather than the Palestinian Territories. A number of advocates of this view refuse to tolerate viewpoints which defend any Israeli actions, or criticize any Palestinian deeds.
Nevertheless, the rights and wrongs of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories are legitimately subject to a robust international debate. This debate also takes place within the democratic structures of Israel itself. And many of the concerns about either the efficacy or morality of Israeli actions are shared by a significant minority of Israelis and Diaspora Jews.
The third Left perspective I have called anti-Zionist fundamentalism because it is akin to religious fundamentalism. This view, which is held mainly but no longer exclusively by far Left groups, regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist. Adherents hold to a viewpoint opposing Israel's existence specifically and Jewish national rights more broadly which is beyond rational debate, and unconnected to contemporary or historical reality. Suicide bombings and other forms of violence directed specifically against Israeli civilians are viewed as legitimate strategies for eliminating the Jewish state.
This form of anti-Zionism is substantively different to the earlier pre-1948 Left tradition of anti-Zionism. That tradition opposed Zionism as a political movement on theoretical grounds. In contrast, anti-Zionist fundamentalists today wish to eliminate the actual existing nation state of Israel. Israelis and their Jewish supporters are depicted as inherently evil oppressors by the simple process of denying the historical link between the Jewish experience of oppression in both Europe and the Middle East and the creation of Israel. Conversely, Palestinians are depicted as intrinsically innocent victims. In place of the fundamental and objective centrality of the State of Israel to contemporary Jewish identity, anti-Zionist fundamentalists portray Israel as a mere political construct, and utilize ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis and all Jewish supporters of Israel whatever their political views in order to justify their claims.
The purpose of negating the reality of Israel's existence is to overcome the ideological barrier posed by the Left's historical opposition to racism. Any objective analysis of the Middle East would have to accept that Israel could only be destroyed by a war of partial or total genocide which would inevitably produce millions of Israeli Jewish refugees, and have a catastrophically traumatic effect on almost all Jews outside Israel. But advocacy of genocide means endorsing the most virulent form of racism imaginable. So instead anti-Zionist fundamentalists construct a subjective fantasy world in which Israel is detached from its specifically Jewish roots, and then miraculously destroyed by remote control free of any violence or bloodshed under the banner of anti-racism.
Anti-Zionism converges into Anti-Semitism
This fundamentalist discourse is reflected in a number of manifestations of contemporary anti-Zionist rhetoric.
Firstly, there is a pathological and obsessive hatred and demonization of Israel unrelated to the actual actions and reality of that State. These include claims that Israel is the world's worst human rights abuser, or that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. For these critics, Israel becomes a uniquely evil symbol of international imperialism.
Some of this critique seems to be based on the discriminatory notion that because Jews experienced the Holocaust, they have a moral obligation to behave better than any other people. Yet no such obligation is imposed on other historically oppressed groups. Conversely, examples of Palestinian extremism such as suicide bombings and calls for the military elimination of Israel are either denied, or alternatively approved as a rational response to Israeli policies.
Secondly, there are proposals for academic and other boycotts of Israel based on the ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis. The aim of such caricatures is to impose pariah status on the whole Israeli nation. These proposals single out Israelis in that no such boycotts are proposed against other countries or nations involved in territorial expansion or human rights abuses. These campaigns have resulted in a number of examples of discrimination against Israeli scholars and researchers in British academic institutions.
Thirdly, there is the extension of the denunciation of all Jewish Israelis to all Jews - Zionist or otherwise - who are supportive of Israel's existence. These Jews are collectively denounced via group libel as accomplices of racism and genocide whatever their actual ideological and political position on solutions to the conflict.
For example, John Docker, one of the key Australian proponents of an academic boycott of Israel, has attacked all Jews who support Israel.
According to Docker,
The Australian Jewish community lies in moral ruins. Australian Jewish leaders and intellectuals have disgraced themselves, have engaged in written and verbal abuse, misrepresentation, insult and slander, and have lost their honour and dignity due to their implicit support...for the past and continuing genocidal assault on the indigenous peoples of Palestine.
Another Australian academic Ned Curthoys argues that left-wing Jews who defend Israel's right to exist should effectively be excluded from progressive political discourse. A Canadian academic Michael Neumann is even harsher, accusing Jews of "complicity in Israeli crimes against humanity" no different to the complicity of Germans in Nazi war crimes. And Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), has declared that Jews who support Israel are not welcome in South Africa, and should be coerced to leave. He also called on COSATU's members to boycott Jewish-owned businesses.
This collective labelling of all Jewish supporters of Israel as evil inspired a number of UK student unions in the 1970s and 80s to disaffiliate Jewish student societies on the prejudiced grounds that they were Zionist and hence allegedly racist. Similarly, the 2001 United Nations anti-racist conference in Durban was blighted by a hysterical anti-Semitic campaign involving the public vilification, intimidation and harassment of Jews by numerous non-governmental organisations.
And small sections of the German new Left translated their anti-Zionist beliefs into action via violent attacks on Jews. One example was the November 1969 bombing of the Jewish Community Centre in West Berlin during a Kristallnacht commemoration ceremony. The second example was the participation of two West German revolutionaries in the 1976 Entebbe terrorist attack on an Air France plane flying from Tel Aviv to Paris which involved the segregation of the Jews (not just Israelis) from all the other passengers to keep them as hostages.
Fourthly, there are stereotypical descriptions of Jewish behaviour, and attacks on alleged Jewish global power, wealth and influence. Conspiracy theorists accuse Jews of controlling western governments, finance and the media; planning the 9/11 attacks; and responsibility for the US-led war in Iraq.
For example, during the Australian controversy over the awarding of the Sydney University peace prize to Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi, a number of commentators accused the Jewish community of exerting undue financial and political influence. In the UK, the prominent weekly magazine New Statesman published in January 2002 a front cover depicting a golden star of David piercing a union flag. The cover and an accompanying article titled "a kosher conspiracy" implied that a rich and powerful Jewish lobby was unduly influencing media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian issues. And Perry Anderson, the editor of New Left Review, claimed that powerful Jews used their disproportionate influence in business, media and government to control American policies towards Israel.
Finally, deliberate attempts are made to diminish and trivialize the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis. For example, numerous critics have equated the Star of David with the swastika, former Prime Minister Sharon with Hitler, claimed that the Israeli army is the equivalent of the Nazi SS, and argued that the 2009 Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip was reminiscent of the Nazi assault on the Warsaw Ghetto. These analogies do not appear to be used in regards to any other international conflicts, and seem to be motivated solely by a desire to offend and hurt Jews.
According to Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland:
If anti-Zionists wonder why Jews find this anti-Semitic, perhaps they should imagine the Black reaction if the civil rights movement - or any other vehicle of Black liberation - was constantly equated with the white slave traders of old. It feels like a deliberate attempt to find a people's rawest spot - and tear away at it. To put it at its most basic: Jews are being compared with those who murdered our families.
The UK-based Australian journalist John Pilger has regularly used this analogy, arguing, for example, that an Israeli attack on Gaza constitutes a "final solution to the problem of the Palestinians" similar to the "Nazi strangulation of the Warsaw ghetto". In a further article published in 2009, he included eight separate equations of Israel's actions in Gaza with the Nazi Holocaust.
Recent Developments
The convergence of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was particularly apparent during the recent debate over the attempted introduction of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) policy by Marrickville Council. Three particular developments are worth noting:
BDS proponents are dishonest
Firstly, many key anti-Zionist fundamentalists disingenuously deny being anti-Israel, and in some cases, even claim to be pro-peace.
For example, Marrickville Council mayor Fiona Byrne, denied in The Drum 13 January that her BDS proposal was an anti-Israel resolution, or in any way implied support for the abolition of Israel.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42988.html
Elsewhere, she claimed to support a peaceful solution, two states or otherwise. Which means she is not sure whether she supports a peaceful two-state solution, or a genocidal war to destroy Israel.
Lee Rhiannon, the national Greens Senator, also denied on Sky News on 14 April that the BDS campaign was anti-Israel.
Similarly, Mommar Mashni, a representative of the Australians for Palestine lobby group, stated in The Australian on both 16 and 19 April, that the BDS campaign was a peaceful movement dedicated to a two-state solution.
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, a self-described peace researcher and Director of the University of Sydney Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, opined in crikey.com that a BDS would be more successful than the various failed international peace initiatives in promoting a viable two-state solution.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/07/chewing-up-the-greens-the-israel-boycott-backlash/
And Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees from the University of Sydney also asserted that the BDS would be successful in ending decades of Israeli-Palestinian violence.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/boycott-israel-and-do-without-a-host-of-mod-cons/story-fn558imw-1226032253771
The problem with this analysis is that the leading Palestinian proponents of BDS do not seek an end to the occupation to facilitate a peaceful two-state solution, but rather the demonization of all Israeli Jews and the delegitimization of Israel. The key statement distributed by the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in July 2004 is crystal clear that the first and foremost priority is to reverse the events of 1948 that lead to the Palestinian refugee tragedy, whereas ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 is only identified as a secondary task.
http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=869
A recent clarification by Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the global BDS movement in New Matilda 2 May 2011, is even blunter. He claims that the BDS movement has no position on a one or two-state solution. It neither formally supports the existence of Israel, or formally supports its destruction by military or demographic means. But he then admits that his own position favours the abolition of Israel and its replacement by an Arab State of Greater Palestine. For Barghouti, the national rights of the Palestinians take absolute precedence over the rights of what he calls euphemistically the "other inhabitants of the land". So much for the two-state solution.
BDS proponents malevolently exploit the willingness of self-denying Jews to vilify their own people
The BDS campaign has tapped into the long history of radical Left anti-Semitism whereby a small number of unrepresentative token Jews (some would call them "Uncle Toms" but I prefer the term "self-denying" Jews since they deny any feeling of solidarity with other Jews who are oppressed or attacked) are opportunistically encouraged to exploit their own religious and cultural origins in order to vilify their own people. This happened in 1929 when American Jewish Communists were obliged to defend the anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine. It happened again in 1952/53 when Jewish Communists were rolled out to endorse Stalin's anti-Semitic Slansky show trial and Doctors Plot. It has happened many times since 1967 when left-wing Jews are pressured to publicly conform to the anti-Zionist fundamentalism of the far Left.
The radical Left would never employ such techniques against other historically oppressed groups. They would not publish the views of Indigenous Australians who completely oppose land rights, or demand that a feminist journal publish the views of women who totally oppose abortion. They would certainly not publicize the views of Palestinians or Arabs who support Zionism.
But during the BDS debate this offensive and ridiculous misrepresentation of Jewish views was prominent. For example, Lee Rhiannon claimed that "many Jewish communities support this work". In fact, no Jewish communities support the BDS. Rhiannon was referring to a handful of Jewish individuals and tiny Jewish organizations on the far Left. The Jewish community group in Marrickville, the Inner West Jewish Community and Friends Peace Alliance which is left-oriented and strongly supportive of a two-state solution, devoted considerable time and resources to opposing the Marrickville BDS proposal.
Similarly, Fiona Byrne proudly cited support from the NSW Jews against the Occupation group which has about 10 members, and also claimed support from "a growing number of Jews from all over the world". Stuart Rees argued on 2 April that the BDS campaign was encouraged by "many Israeli citizens" (maybe a dozen), and Samah Sabawi argued on the Australians for Palestine website that the BDS campaign has been supported by "a growing number of Diaspora Jews and Israelis".
In fact, the only prominent Jewish supporter of BDS is Antony Loewenstein, the same self-denying Jew who uses the term "Zionist" as a form of abuse, and who has called for a public inquiry into the alleged power and influence of the Jewish lobby in Australia.
The increasing capture of academic and media journals and institutions by the powerful pro-Palestinian lobby
This lobby now controls the Middle East policy of journals such as Overland, Arena, New Matilda (better known as New Palestine) and Crikey.Com, the Sydney University Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the NSW Greens, and a number of trade unions such as the NSW Teachers Federation which support BDS.
These organizations fanatically exclude alternative left-wing Jewish views defending Israel's existence. Most of them have their own self-denying "Court" Jews that toe the party line. Overland use Michael Brull and Antony Loewenstein, Arena use Les Rosenblatt, CPACS use Loewenstein and John Docker, and New Matilda and Crikey.Com both use Loewenstein.
________________________________________
Thank you Philip Mendes for a most lucid analysis to the National Quadrennial Conference of NCJWA in Melbourne this week. My sole consolation re the fundamentalist Far Left is that probably a greater number of fundamentalists of the Far R, for various reasons of their own, prefer the Jewish State to the Islamic ones. In addition, the number of ordinary citizens in the middle who are not high-profile, perhaps the silent majority, are no friends of the Arab States and are inimical to Islamic Sharia laws in those countries,- whether they like Jews or not. In addition,- another thing in favour of the Jewish State is that no Australians or Americans need to go and fight there, nor get killed to protect the Jews as they supposedly are trying to do the Moslems in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Lybia. The do-gooders of the Left who try to help the Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the WBank, supposedly on humanitarian grounds,- these are the true anti-Semites or the Arabs" and Palestinians" "useful idiots" from the naive West!
Posted by MM on 2011-06-03 14:21:56 GMT
Monday, May 16, 2011
MYTHS AND FACTS: The 'Nakba'
Had There Been No War, There Would Be No Nakba
May 15, 2011 |
Eli E. Hertz
Starting a civil war in 1947 after the Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan, Palestinian Arabs became belligerents in the conflict. Rather than accept a Jewish state after five-and-a-half months of warfare, Palestinian Arabs called upon their brethren from seven surrounding countries to invade and crush the nascent Jewish state.
The Arab League's April 10, 1948 decision to invade on May 14 to "save Palestine,"as the British Mandate ended, marked a watershed event, for it changed the rules of the conflict. Accordingly, Israel bears no moral responsibility for deliberately banishing Palestinian Arabs in order to "consolidate defense arrangements" in strategic areas, as the Jewish people organized to battle seven well-equipped and well-trained aggressor armies. With the pending invasion following Israel' s declaration of independence, it is no exaggeration to say the new Jewish state's very existence hung in the balance.
The new Jewish state found it imperative to eliminate all potential pockets of Arab resistance in key areas if it was to survive. Dislodging all Arab inhabitants from sensitive areas in proximity to Jewish settlements, establishing territorial continuity between blocs under Jewish control, and ensuring control of key transportation arteries were a military necessity. As May 14 approached, Israel could not afford to risk a Fifth Column at its rear to add to all other aspects of its militarily inferior situation. The cost of defeat was hammered home by a stream of dire warnings from Arab capitals, with perhaps the most chilling for Israel coming from Jamal Al-Husayni as vice-chairman of the Arab Higher Committee [AHC], who publicly declared:
"The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the Final Solution of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."
Three years after world Jewry had lost a third of its people in the Holocaust, Israelis were not about to test whether Al-Husayni's words were merely rhetoric or a real threat, and so they prepared for the worst.
The cost to Israel to halt the Arab onslaught and gain the upper hand was horrendous. During the first four weeks following the Arab invasion, 1,600 Israelis were killed - a quarter of all the war's casualties. It was as if on a per capita basis the U.S. military lost 80,000 soldiers in Iraq in one month.
Objectively, the claim that Palestinian Arabs were innocent bystanders ignores the facts: The sides in the conflict were not two rival empires - outsiders, or rival caliphs. It was a conflict between two national or ethnic groups. Palestinian Arabs represented one side in the conflict - and in fact the side responsible for starting the war.
The Palestinians were responsible for escalating the war - a move that cost the Jews thousands of lives and Palestinians their homes. By their own behavior, Palestinians assumed the role of belligerents in the conflict, invalidating any claim to be hapless victims. Explains scholar Benny Morris:
"One of the characteristics of the Palestinian national movement has been the Palestinians' view of themselves as perpetual victims of others: Ottoman Turks, British officials, Zionists, Americans - and never to appreciate that they are, at least in large part, victims of their own mistakes and iniquities."
The United Nations Charter, international law, humanitarian law, and conventions such as the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Victims of War make no mention of a "Right of Return." The claim of innocent refugee status does not apply.
To view this article on the web.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=204
See also: Resolution 194: The Aftermath of the 1948 Arab Invasion.
________________________________________
N.B.1948 was the year when Chinese Communists won over the nationalists. 1948 was the year India won its independence from the British and Partition took place between it and Pakistan, Bangladesh,- much went on at that time,- why is the world only worried about the Palestinians’ ’48 Nakba? There are plenty of other tensions in Asia still going on,- conflicts over borders, ethnic divisions and violence, etc. More Muslims are killing each other over there than anyone else is killing them.
Much of it is the British Empire’s fault in the first place.
The Palestinians have only themselves to blame,- had they not allowed themselves to be the Arab Nations’ pawns after ’48 and instead reached an accommodation with the 'infidels', the Jews, they would be living and laughing today in peaceful coexistence in a modern, democratic-style state alongside Israel.
Now they want to destroy it,- but they won’t,- they will just destroy themselves even more.
Who can trust such people with such inbred hatreds nowadays?
MM
________________________________________
May 15, 2011 |
Eli E. Hertz
Starting a civil war in 1947 after the Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan, Palestinian Arabs became belligerents in the conflict. Rather than accept a Jewish state after five-and-a-half months of warfare, Palestinian Arabs called upon their brethren from seven surrounding countries to invade and crush the nascent Jewish state.
The Arab League's April 10, 1948 decision to invade on May 14 to "save Palestine,"as the British Mandate ended, marked a watershed event, for it changed the rules of the conflict. Accordingly, Israel bears no moral responsibility for deliberately banishing Palestinian Arabs in order to "consolidate defense arrangements" in strategic areas, as the Jewish people organized to battle seven well-equipped and well-trained aggressor armies. With the pending invasion following Israel' s declaration of independence, it is no exaggeration to say the new Jewish state's very existence hung in the balance.
The new Jewish state found it imperative to eliminate all potential pockets of Arab resistance in key areas if it was to survive. Dislodging all Arab inhabitants from sensitive areas in proximity to Jewish settlements, establishing territorial continuity between blocs under Jewish control, and ensuring control of key transportation arteries were a military necessity. As May 14 approached, Israel could not afford to risk a Fifth Column at its rear to add to all other aspects of its militarily inferior situation. The cost of defeat was hammered home by a stream of dire warnings from Arab capitals, with perhaps the most chilling for Israel coming from Jamal Al-Husayni as vice-chairman of the Arab Higher Committee [AHC], who publicly declared:
"The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the Final Solution of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."
Three years after world Jewry had lost a third of its people in the Holocaust, Israelis were not about to test whether Al-Husayni's words were merely rhetoric or a real threat, and so they prepared for the worst.
The cost to Israel to halt the Arab onslaught and gain the upper hand was horrendous. During the first four weeks following the Arab invasion, 1,600 Israelis were killed - a quarter of all the war's casualties. It was as if on a per capita basis the U.S. military lost 80,000 soldiers in Iraq in one month.
Objectively, the claim that Palestinian Arabs were innocent bystanders ignores the facts: The sides in the conflict were not two rival empires - outsiders, or rival caliphs. It was a conflict between two national or ethnic groups. Palestinian Arabs represented one side in the conflict - and in fact the side responsible for starting the war.
The Palestinians were responsible for escalating the war - a move that cost the Jews thousands of lives and Palestinians their homes. By their own behavior, Palestinians assumed the role of belligerents in the conflict, invalidating any claim to be hapless victims. Explains scholar Benny Morris:
"One of the characteristics of the Palestinian national movement has been the Palestinians' view of themselves as perpetual victims of others: Ottoman Turks, British officials, Zionists, Americans - and never to appreciate that they are, at least in large part, victims of their own mistakes and iniquities."
The United Nations Charter, international law, humanitarian law, and conventions such as the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Victims of War make no mention of a "Right of Return." The claim of innocent refugee status does not apply.
To view this article on the web.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=204
See also: Resolution 194: The Aftermath of the 1948 Arab Invasion.
________________________________________
N.B.1948 was the year when Chinese Communists won over the nationalists. 1948 was the year India won its independence from the British and Partition took place between it and Pakistan, Bangladesh,- much went on at that time,- why is the world only worried about the Palestinians’ ’48 Nakba? There are plenty of other tensions in Asia still going on,- conflicts over borders, ethnic divisions and violence, etc. More Muslims are killing each other over there than anyone else is killing them.
Much of it is the British Empire’s fault in the first place.
The Palestinians have only themselves to blame,- had they not allowed themselves to be the Arab Nations’ pawns after ’48 and instead reached an accommodation with the 'infidels', the Jews, they would be living and laughing today in peaceful coexistence in a modern, democratic-style state alongside Israel.
Now they want to destroy it,- but they won’t,- they will just destroy themselves even more.
Who can trust such people with such inbred hatreds nowadays?
MM
________________________________________
Sunday, March 27, 2011
THE SUN'S EFFECTS ON EARTH'S CLIMATE, WEATHER, GLOBAL WARMING
Looking down on earth from above!
How does the sun affet us directly on earth?
Recent lectures on board the Queen Elizabeth liner cruising from Australia to Asian ports on its maiden world voyage,were excellently delivered by Prof. Richard Holdaway,Director of Space Science and Technology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories,- who explained how space technology via exploratory space crafts and satellites is increasing our knowledge and clarifying much of nature's changes on our earth.
Hundreds of outer space probes have been launched to far away planets and galaxies to the extent that what was once science fiction is now much more in the realms of fact.The instruments which transmit back to earth the information is mind boggling in their complexity and for the detailed information transmitted.
In the 3rd of his 3 lectures he concentrated on the issue of our weather forecasting and aspects of "climate change and global warming,- fact or fiction?"
Infra red technology transmits visually the various heat levels in the oceans and on land. He projected pictures of the warm Pacific ocean showing in red the El Ninio effect for example;plus the same effect as seen on pictures of 500sq. miles of denuded jungle forests (illegally in one month) in the Amazon region of S. America which can have a much more devastating effect on climate change if we denude our forests of trees, than anything else that humans do in industrialized developed countries.
(N.B. We must be aware that we and all living creatures breathe in Oxygen and we breathe out the end product of our metabolic cycles,-as CO2. Photosynthesis in plant life does the reverse,- they use the CO2 and release O2. Population increases require more animal husbandry for food and land clearing for living space and timber for housing.)
The effect of Sulphur dioxide fumes from the volcanic eruptions as e.g. from Mt. Pinantbo of one week which spread over 20 months all over Europe is far more deadly than anything we can do.
The "Ozone hole" expands and contracts with the seasons,- largest over the Antartic where no human involvement occurs, but not worse since the last 200years.
Solar storms are the most important to look out for as they affect our earth the most.(Wikipedia records the effects of the 1859 Solar Storm as recorded at the time). These magnetic effects are seen as aurorae and are deflections of immense solar radiant energy by earth's magnetic field. However they can affect our satellites rotating in outer space through their instruments being flooded by high energy photons, which then affect almost every aspect of our high-tech controlled lives on earth these days. Therefore there is now a stationary satellite (ACE),-one million miles above the earth, magnetically balanced between the earth and the sun so that it does not rotate around the earth as the others do,- which can alert within 10secs. whenever such a solar explosion occurs, allowing monitors to switch-off sensitive instruments in satellites and space crafts before they can affect our e.g. electricity grid, (as happened in Canada in the '90s), telecommunications, etc.
As for CLIMATE CHANGE, Professor Holdaway was adamnant that human-produced CO2 is not the main greenhouse effect causing global warming at present, but it is the water vapour which does that! And humans have no control over it!
While governments and politicians look to raise revenues through taxes,- the real facts are:
1. CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES,- IT HAS BEEN DOING IT OVE MILLIONS OF YEARS.
2. EARTH HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER IN THE PAST.
3. There are 3 causes for global warming and though humans are adding to it, we are just the third part.
a)Solar activity.- We are also getting nearer to the sun until in 5million years we shall disappear altogether!
b)Nature,- e.g. volcanoes;oil fields burn-off; deforestation; ocean evaporation,
c) Human activity.
500 years ago we were much warmer,- there were no cars and factories spewing out CO2.Actually, volcanoes can sometimes cool as well as warm,- i.e. it is not just about us and we must beware the great 'CO2 myth'! At the moment we are in a period of global warming, but it is not just about us. We humans are just part of the equation.
The polar ice is not getting thinner. (He showed a funny cartoon about 2 penguins,- one falls into a hole in the water, the other is quite ok). The temperature on earth is primarily determined by the energy coming to earth via solar radiation and energy leaving the earth through infra-red radiation
How does the sun affet us directly on earth?
Recent lectures on board the Queen Elizabeth liner cruising from Australia to Asian ports on its maiden world voyage,were excellently delivered by Prof. Richard Holdaway,Director of Space Science and Technology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories,- who explained how space technology via exploratory space crafts and satellites is increasing our knowledge and clarifying much of nature's changes on our earth.
Hundreds of outer space probes have been launched to far away planets and galaxies to the extent that what was once science fiction is now much more in the realms of fact.The instruments which transmit back to earth the information is mind boggling in their complexity and for the detailed information transmitted.
In the 3rd of his 3 lectures he concentrated on the issue of our weather forecasting and aspects of "climate change and global warming,- fact or fiction?"
Infra red technology transmits visually the various heat levels in the oceans and on land. He projected pictures of the warm Pacific ocean showing in red the El Ninio effect for example;plus the same effect as seen on pictures of 500sq. miles of denuded jungle forests (illegally in one month) in the Amazon region of S. America which can have a much more devastating effect on climate change if we denude our forests of trees, than anything else that humans do in industrialized developed countries.
(N.B. We must be aware that we and all living creatures breathe in Oxygen and we breathe out the end product of our metabolic cycles,-as CO2. Photosynthesis in plant life does the reverse,- they use the CO2 and release O2. Population increases require more animal husbandry for food and land clearing for living space and timber for housing.)
The effect of Sulphur dioxide fumes from the volcanic eruptions as e.g. from Mt. Pinantbo of one week which spread over 20 months all over Europe is far more deadly than anything we can do.
The "Ozone hole" expands and contracts with the seasons,- largest over the Antartic where no human involvement occurs, but not worse since the last 200years.
Solar storms are the most important to look out for as they affect our earth the most.(Wikipedia records the effects of the 1859 Solar Storm as recorded at the time). These magnetic effects are seen as aurorae and are deflections of immense solar radiant energy by earth's magnetic field. However they can affect our satellites rotating in outer space through their instruments being flooded by high energy photons, which then affect almost every aspect of our high-tech controlled lives on earth these days. Therefore there is now a stationary satellite (ACE),-one million miles above the earth, magnetically balanced between the earth and the sun so that it does not rotate around the earth as the others do,- which can alert within 10secs. whenever such a solar explosion occurs, allowing monitors to switch-off sensitive instruments in satellites and space crafts before they can affect our e.g. electricity grid, (as happened in Canada in the '90s), telecommunications, etc.
As for CLIMATE CHANGE, Professor Holdaway was adamnant that human-produced CO2 is not the main greenhouse effect causing global warming at present, but it is the water vapour which does that! And humans have no control over it!
While governments and politicians look to raise revenues through taxes,- the real facts are:
1. CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES,- IT HAS BEEN DOING IT OVE MILLIONS OF YEARS.
2. EARTH HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER IN THE PAST.
3. There are 3 causes for global warming and though humans are adding to it, we are just the third part.
a)Solar activity.- We are also getting nearer to the sun until in 5million years we shall disappear altogether!
b)Nature,- e.g. volcanoes;oil fields burn-off; deforestation; ocean evaporation,
c) Human activity.
500 years ago we were much warmer,- there were no cars and factories spewing out CO2.Actually, volcanoes can sometimes cool as well as warm,- i.e. it is not just about us and we must beware the great 'CO2 myth'! At the moment we are in a period of global warming, but it is not just about us. We humans are just part of the equation.
The polar ice is not getting thinner. (He showed a funny cartoon about 2 penguins,- one falls into a hole in the water, the other is quite ok). The temperature on earth is primarily determined by the energy coming to earth via solar radiation and energy leaving the earth through infra-red radiation
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Queen Elizabeth maiden world cruise: Syd.-Singapore sector
Celebrating Ernie's 80th birthday on board the newest Cunard liner QUEEN ELIZABETH was a wonderful experience.
The liner is state-of-the-art latest design luxury cruise liner with some 2000 passengers and nearly as many crew members on board.
The service was 5star, the food was on average 4star quality, the amenities and entertainment 5.5star quality.
An unbelievable number of passengers were on board for the full 105day journey and not for the first time! Most were returning passengers who must be travelling on Cunard world voyages year after year, accumulating points to give them many advantages in cost and special privileges on board.
For those of us with European backgrounds and Aussie egalatirian larrikin bents,the upper-crust English pomp and circumstance is perhaps not as appealing as some of the other cruise liners can provide, but it was nevertheless a very enjoyable and interesting holiday comparable with any 5star resort such as a Club Med, say!
The interesting aspects were the various lecturers on board, classes, theater productions, star entertainers,films and the fantistically well equipped 2 level library!Most lecturers were retired VIPs like politician former FM Alexander Downer (before we boarded, but his lecture was still shown on the internal TV station when we arrived on board)who examined the international political scene as it affects our part of the world in Australia; General (Ret.) Peter Cosgrove who spoke about his experiences leading the Australian army through its various crises; a retired geographer who was the "destinations lecturer"; and the lecturer whom I found themost interesting,- Professor Richard Holdaway, Director (not retired!)Space Science and Technology, RUTHERFORD APPLETON LABORATORIES (see separate blog).
Classes consisted of computer technologies, bridge lessons for beginers andintermediates and various dancing, plus arts and craft lessons. There was certainly something for everyone on every day that we were atsea! Luckily, we had quite a few days on the oceans sailing from Australia to the Asian ports and luckily the seas were kind to us and very calm to keep the ship steady and on course! We avoided the aftermath of the disastrous tsunami after the earthquakes in Japan and except for one day on Ko Samui island, Thailand, we had no bad wether anywhere.
IN CONCLUSION.
The one drawback for large liner cruising is the fact that shore-visits and sightseeing are often too limited. These large liners often cannot berth near the centre of the cities because the ports are not big enough to hold them. They end up being moored at container terminals or anchored far out in the bay and passengers are ferried by tenders to shore. This all takes time, so the sightseeing possibilities are of necessity limited. Therefore cruising is not for the serious sightseer of the various countries or cities where they happen to stop! The attraction has to be the cruise and the ship as a holiday destination per se.
See my web album 1:
Miriam's Topical Topics.: Queen Elizabeth maiden world cruise: Syd.-Singapore sector
View Album2.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=108084405371853566621⌖=ALBUM&id;=5587852240888193617&authkey;=Gv1sRgCL6Pp5WGl_vv7wE&feat;=email
The liner is state-of-the-art latest design luxury cruise liner with some 2000 passengers and nearly as many crew members on board.
The service was 5star, the food was on average 4star quality, the amenities and entertainment 5.5star quality.
An unbelievable number of passengers were on board for the full 105day journey and not for the first time! Most were returning passengers who must be travelling on Cunard world voyages year after year, accumulating points to give them many advantages in cost and special privileges on board.
For those of us with European backgrounds and Aussie egalatirian larrikin bents,the upper-crust English pomp and circumstance is perhaps not as appealing as some of the other cruise liners can provide, but it was nevertheless a very enjoyable and interesting holiday comparable with any 5star resort such as a Club Med, say!
The interesting aspects were the various lecturers on board, classes, theater productions, star entertainers,films and the fantistically well equipped 2 level library!Most lecturers were retired VIPs like politician former FM Alexander Downer (before we boarded, but his lecture was still shown on the internal TV station when we arrived on board)who examined the international political scene as it affects our part of the world in Australia; General (Ret.) Peter Cosgrove who spoke about his experiences leading the Australian army through its various crises; a retired geographer who was the "destinations lecturer"; and the lecturer whom I found themost interesting,- Professor Richard Holdaway, Director (not retired!)Space Science and Technology, RUTHERFORD APPLETON LABORATORIES (see separate blog).
Classes consisted of computer technologies, bridge lessons for beginers andintermediates and various dancing, plus arts and craft lessons. There was certainly something for everyone on every day that we were atsea! Luckily, we had quite a few days on the oceans sailing from Australia to the Asian ports and luckily the seas were kind to us and very calm to keep the ship steady and on course! We avoided the aftermath of the disastrous tsunami after the earthquakes in Japan and except for one day on Ko Samui island, Thailand, we had no bad wether anywhere.
IN CONCLUSION.
The one drawback for large liner cruising is the fact that shore-visits and sightseeing are often too limited. These large liners often cannot berth near the centre of the cities because the ports are not big enough to hold them. They end up being moored at container terminals or anchored far out in the bay and passengers are ferried by tenders to shore. This all takes time, so the sightseeing possibilities are of necessity limited. Therefore cruising is not for the serious sightseer of the various countries or cities where they happen to stop! The attraction has to be the cruise and the ship as a holiday destination per se.
See my web album 1:
Miriam's Topical Topics.: Queen Elizabeth maiden world cruise: Syd.-Singapore sector
View Album2.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=108084405371853566621⌖=ALBUM&id;=5587852240888193617&authkey;=Gv1sRgCL6Pp5WGl_vv7wE&feat;=email
Friday, February 18, 2011
GENES AND LONGEVITY.
Ecuadorean Villagers May Hold Secret to Longevity
[There are some practitioners who believe in injecting patients with Growth Hormone as a preventive of the diseases of the aged and therefore they believe it promotes longevity!The observations described below and the study of a particular group of villagers in Ecuador with stunted growth, may show that in fact it is not the Growth Hormone but it is a genetic defect which prevents the GH from acting which may have such beneficial effects as preventing cancer and diabetes in these people. Their condition is known as the Laron-syndrome and they are presumed to be descendants of Conversos,- Sephardic Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition.]MM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17longevity.html?ref=world&pagewanted;=print
February 16, 2011
Ecuadorean Villagers May Hold Secret to Longevity
By NICHOLAS WADE
People living in remote villages in Ecuador have a mutation that some biologists say may throw light on human longevity and ways to increase it.
The villagers are very small, generally less than three and a half feet tall, and have a rare condition known as Laron syndrome or Laron-type dwarfism. They are probably the descendants of conversos, Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal who were forced to convert to Christianity in the 1490s but were nonetheless persecuted in the Inquisition. They are also almost completely free of two age-related diseases, cancer and diabetes.
A group of 99 villagers with Laron syndrome has been studied for 24 years by Dr. Jaime Guevara-Aguirre, an Ecuadorean physician and diabetes specialist. He discovered them when traveling on horseback to a roadless mountain village. Most such villages are inhabited by Indians, but these were Europeans, with Spanish surnames typical of conversos.
As Dr. Guevara-Aguirre accumulated health data on his patients, he noticed a remarkable pattern: though cancer was frequent among people who did not have the Laron mutation, those who did have it almost never got cancer. And they never developed diabetes, even though many were obese, which often brings on the condition.
“I discovered the population in 1987,” Dr. Guevara-Aguirre said in an interview from Ecuador. “In 1994, I noticed these patients were not having cancer, compared with their relatives. People told me they are too few people to make any assumption. People said, ‘You have to wait 10 years,’ so I waited. No one believed me until I got to Valter Longo in 2005.”
Valter D. Longo, a researcher on aging at the University of Southern California, saw the patients as providing an opportunity to explore in people the genetic mutations that researchers had found could make laboratory animals live much longer than usual.
The Laron patients have a mutation in the gene that makes the receptor for growth hormone. The receptor is a protein embedded in the membrane of cells. Its outside region is recognized by growth hormone circulating through the body; the inside region sends signals through the cell when growth hormone triggers the receptor.
The Laron patients’ mutation means that their growth hormone receptor lacks the last eight units of its exterior region, so it cannot react to growth hormone. In normal children, growth hormone makes the cells of the liver churn out another hormone, called insulinlike growth factor, or IGF-1, and this hormone makes the children grow. If the Laron patients are given doses of IGF-1 before puberty, they can grow to fairly normal height.
This is where the physiology of the Laron patients links up with the longevity studies that researchers have been pursuing with laboratory animals. IGF-1 is part of an ancient signaling pathway that exists in the laboratory roundworm as well as in people. The gene that makes the receptor for IGF-1 in the roundworm is called DAF-2. And worms in which this gene is knocked out live twice as long as normal.
The Laron patients have the equivalent defect — their cells make very little IGF-1, so very little IGF-1 signaling takes place, just as in the DAF-2-ablated worms. So the Laron patients might be expected to live much longer.
Because of their striking freedom from cancer and diabetes, they probably could live much longer if they did not have a much higher than usual death rate from causes unrelated to age, like alcoholism and accidents.
Dr. Longo said he believed that having very low levels of IGF-1 was the critical feature of the Laron patients’ freedom from age-related diseases. In collaboration with Dr. Guevara-Aguirre, he exposed human cells growing in a laboratory dish to serum from the Laron patients. The cells were then damaged with a chemical that disrupts their DNA. The Laron serum had two significant effects, the two physicians reported on Wednesday in Science Translational Medicine.
First, the serum protected the cells from genetic damage. Second, it spurred the cells that were damaged to destroy themselves, a mechanism the body uses to prevent damaged cells from becoming cancerous. Both these effects were reversed when small amounts of IGF-1 were added to the serum.
Dr. Longo said that some level of IGF-1 was necessary to protect against heart disease, but that lowering the level might be beneficial. A drug that does this is already on the market for treatment of acromegaly, a thickening of the bones caused by excessive growth hormone. “Our underlying hypothesis is that this drug would prolong life span,” Dr. Longo said. He said he was not taking the drug, called pegvisomant or Somavert, which is very hard to obtain.
A strain of mice bred by John Kopchick of Ohio University has a defect in the growth hormone receptor gene, just as do the Laron patients, and lives 40 percent longer than usual.
Dr. Longo said that his report had first been submitted to Science, a better-known journal, which turned down the paper because of an adverse report from one reviewer.
Andrzej Bartke, a gerontology expert at Southern Illinois University, said that the new result was “very important” and that the authors had done a fine job in following the patients and generating high-quality data. “This fits in with what we are learning from studies in animals about the relationship of growth hormone to aging, because both cancer and diabetes are related to aging,” Dr. Bartke said.
The longest-lived mouse on record is one studied by Dr. Bartke. It had a defect in its growth hormone receptor gene, just as do the Laron patients. “It missed its fifth birthday by a week,” he said. The mouse lived twice as long as usual and won Dr. Bartke a prize presented by the Methuselah Foundation (which rewards developments in life-extension therapies) in 2003.
Dr. Guevara-Aguirre said he had been struggling to get sufficient IGF-1 to treat 30 of his patients before they reached puberty, at which point it will be too late. He said his group of Laron patients, the largest in the world, had provided essential data for drug companies making IGF-1, and he chided the companies for not reciprocating by providing the drug for his patients.
Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Florida who has worked with Dr. Guevara-Aguirre, took a similar position. “Considering that the drug companies needed the initial studies to determine dosage and efficacy, it seems ironic that we should have so much difficulty getting the drug,” he said.
Ownership of the drug has passed through several companies’ hands, so any initial obligation may have been weakened. Dr. Guevara-Aguirre also said he believed that the government of Ecuador should do more to help get the drug for his patients.
Dr. Harry Ostrer, a geneticist at New York University who is exploring the Laron patients’ degree of Sephardic ancestry, said that he had seen several of Dr. Guevara-Aguirre’s patients in Quito, Ecuador’s capital, and that they were “remarkably youthful in appearance.”
[There are some practitioners who believe in injecting patients with Growth Hormone as a preventive of the diseases of the aged and therefore they believe it promotes longevity!The observations described below and the study of a particular group of villagers in Ecuador with stunted growth, may show that in fact it is not the Growth Hormone but it is a genetic defect which prevents the GH from acting which may have such beneficial effects as preventing cancer and diabetes in these people. Their condition is known as the Laron-syndrome and they are presumed to be descendants of Conversos,- Sephardic Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition.]MM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17longevity.html?ref=world&pagewanted;=print
February 16, 2011
Ecuadorean Villagers May Hold Secret to Longevity
By NICHOLAS WADE
People living in remote villages in Ecuador have a mutation that some biologists say may throw light on human longevity and ways to increase it.
The villagers are very small, generally less than three and a half feet tall, and have a rare condition known as Laron syndrome or Laron-type dwarfism. They are probably the descendants of conversos, Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal who were forced to convert to Christianity in the 1490s but were nonetheless persecuted in the Inquisition. They are also almost completely free of two age-related diseases, cancer and diabetes.
A group of 99 villagers with Laron syndrome has been studied for 24 years by Dr. Jaime Guevara-Aguirre, an Ecuadorean physician and diabetes specialist. He discovered them when traveling on horseback to a roadless mountain village. Most such villages are inhabited by Indians, but these were Europeans, with Spanish surnames typical of conversos.
As Dr. Guevara-Aguirre accumulated health data on his patients, he noticed a remarkable pattern: though cancer was frequent among people who did not have the Laron mutation, those who did have it almost never got cancer. And they never developed diabetes, even though many were obese, which often brings on the condition.
“I discovered the population in 1987,” Dr. Guevara-Aguirre said in an interview from Ecuador. “In 1994, I noticed these patients were not having cancer, compared with their relatives. People told me they are too few people to make any assumption. People said, ‘You have to wait 10 years,’ so I waited. No one believed me until I got to Valter Longo in 2005.”
Valter D. Longo, a researcher on aging at the University of Southern California, saw the patients as providing an opportunity to explore in people the genetic mutations that researchers had found could make laboratory animals live much longer than usual.
The Laron patients have a mutation in the gene that makes the receptor for growth hormone. The receptor is a protein embedded in the membrane of cells. Its outside region is recognized by growth hormone circulating through the body; the inside region sends signals through the cell when growth hormone triggers the receptor.
The Laron patients’ mutation means that their growth hormone receptor lacks the last eight units of its exterior region, so it cannot react to growth hormone. In normal children, growth hormone makes the cells of the liver churn out another hormone, called insulinlike growth factor, or IGF-1, and this hormone makes the children grow. If the Laron patients are given doses of IGF-1 before puberty, they can grow to fairly normal height.
This is where the physiology of the Laron patients links up with the longevity studies that researchers have been pursuing with laboratory animals. IGF-1 is part of an ancient signaling pathway that exists in the laboratory roundworm as well as in people. The gene that makes the receptor for IGF-1 in the roundworm is called DAF-2. And worms in which this gene is knocked out live twice as long as normal.
The Laron patients have the equivalent defect — their cells make very little IGF-1, so very little IGF-1 signaling takes place, just as in the DAF-2-ablated worms. So the Laron patients might be expected to live much longer.
Because of their striking freedom from cancer and diabetes, they probably could live much longer if they did not have a much higher than usual death rate from causes unrelated to age, like alcoholism and accidents.
Dr. Longo said he believed that having very low levels of IGF-1 was the critical feature of the Laron patients’ freedom from age-related diseases. In collaboration with Dr. Guevara-Aguirre, he exposed human cells growing in a laboratory dish to serum from the Laron patients. The cells were then damaged with a chemical that disrupts their DNA. The Laron serum had two significant effects, the two physicians reported on Wednesday in Science Translational Medicine.
First, the serum protected the cells from genetic damage. Second, it spurred the cells that were damaged to destroy themselves, a mechanism the body uses to prevent damaged cells from becoming cancerous. Both these effects were reversed when small amounts of IGF-1 were added to the serum.
Dr. Longo said that some level of IGF-1 was necessary to protect against heart disease, but that lowering the level might be beneficial. A drug that does this is already on the market for treatment of acromegaly, a thickening of the bones caused by excessive growth hormone. “Our underlying hypothesis is that this drug would prolong life span,” Dr. Longo said. He said he was not taking the drug, called pegvisomant or Somavert, which is very hard to obtain.
A strain of mice bred by John Kopchick of Ohio University has a defect in the growth hormone receptor gene, just as do the Laron patients, and lives 40 percent longer than usual.
Dr. Longo said that his report had first been submitted to Science, a better-known journal, which turned down the paper because of an adverse report from one reviewer.
Andrzej Bartke, a gerontology expert at Southern Illinois University, said that the new result was “very important” and that the authors had done a fine job in following the patients and generating high-quality data. “This fits in with what we are learning from studies in animals about the relationship of growth hormone to aging, because both cancer and diabetes are related to aging,” Dr. Bartke said.
The longest-lived mouse on record is one studied by Dr. Bartke. It had a defect in its growth hormone receptor gene, just as do the Laron patients. “It missed its fifth birthday by a week,” he said. The mouse lived twice as long as usual and won Dr. Bartke a prize presented by the Methuselah Foundation (which rewards developments in life-extension therapies) in 2003.
Dr. Guevara-Aguirre said he had been struggling to get sufficient IGF-1 to treat 30 of his patients before they reached puberty, at which point it will be too late. He said his group of Laron patients, the largest in the world, had provided essential data for drug companies making IGF-1, and he chided the companies for not reciprocating by providing the drug for his patients.
Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Florida who has worked with Dr. Guevara-Aguirre, took a similar position. “Considering that the drug companies needed the initial studies to determine dosage and efficacy, it seems ironic that we should have so much difficulty getting the drug,” he said.
Ownership of the drug has passed through several companies’ hands, so any initial obligation may have been weakened. Dr. Guevara-Aguirre also said he believed that the government of Ecuador should do more to help get the drug for his patients.
Dr. Harry Ostrer, a geneticist at New York University who is exploring the Laron patients’ degree of Sephardic ancestry, said that he had seen several of Dr. Guevara-Aguirre’s patients in Quito, Ecuador’s capital, and that they were “remarkably youthful in appearance.”
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Age of Feminism. Marriage and Family: how to make it work
Misguided feminism is not good for marriage.
We recently celebrated our wedding anniversary which falls on "Australia Day".
Our newly married young niece asked me in wonder: how is it to be married for all this time? We won't get there,- we marry later in life these days.
That is true,- but is that the only reason?
Most of our friends (at least those who have survived), are still married to their original partners after half a century and more of marriage. In one case, after 66 years,- they were teenagers when they tied the knot!How many marriages last past the first 20 years, let alone longer these days?
We then had a heated discussion among us 'oldies',- who was better off,- those of us who did not expect our husbands to do all the things that modern young men do for their babies and families,- or today's families which seem to break up at an alarming rate?
The "LIFE" supplement of this week's Sunday Age had an article about "the marriage mystique" which described a new book by a writer who claimed that feminism is good for marriage. She asked, "who would want to go back to the old-style marriages",- i.e. where the women knew their place,- in the home and nothing else? She stated that feminism is good for marriage because it is based on equality and shared responsibilities.
I wrote in reply:
There is no “marriage mystique” (THE AGE,Sunday Life, 30/1/11). The institution of marriage,- good, bad and indifferent has been around forever.
I was a ‘women’s libber’ as a youthful wife, then a young working mother, a feminist activist and leader. Looking at the younger generation of married couples today, I can foresee whose marriages will last the distance of my generation and whose will not.
It is not about feminism but about the ‘me’ generation. It is about self-centredness not feminism on some young women’s part on the one hand, while on the other their young men are attempting to fulfil the ‘new-age’ man’s expectations as father and partner while pursuing full-time occupations to the level of exhaustion.
True feminism dictates that marriage should be about a relationship-based union between equals who work out how to manage their life together, not only about who has to help whom and do what when.
Home and family is our most important of institutions and it should not fail us,- for the sake of the welfare of our future generations. It has to be managed to the best advantage for all within it. If only the Government would recognise it like any business, then the working marriage-partners could manage to employ home help and enjoy best-practice family relationships,- with the required help as a tax deductible entity. Then the parents could give to each other and to their children quality time, even if not always quantity time,- without the guilt complex.
What I now see among my peer group who like me, are celebrating half a century and more of happy life partnerships, is that some are exhausted caring for the grandkids while their kids are exhausted and stressed parents,- who sadly, too often seem eventually to just walk away from their family responsibilities,- to obtain a bit of ‘freedom before it’s too late’ they say!
I call many of today’s young-marrieds not bad people, just bad managers of their family lives! The government could do more for the institution of “home and family” to help them out,- not only build more day-care centres but more assistance for ‘helpers in the home’ to ease the stress on everyone,- young and old.
How did we manage then?
Firstly, when new babies entered the family, we did not wake up our husbands to feed them because they needed to get up early to go to work.We who stayed home in the early days with a new baby,organized ourselves to take a nap during the day.
(Some grandmothers I knew even paid for a mothercraft nurse for a few weeks to help their daughters with their first babies!)
Eventually, I found part time work and employed a baby-sitter for a few hours,- more to give myself a break from domesticity than for the money, as there was none left over for me.
Later, I returned to my career and could earn enough for better home help. This person was my housekeeper,- not just a baby-sitter. She cleaned the house, picked up the children from the nearby school, fed them so that by the time we came home from work, my husband and I could spend some quality time with the children before putting them to bed. I always prepared our food the night before so that my housekeeper could put it in the oven if necessary and have it ready for us when we got home.She came in the afternoons for a few hours 2-3 times a week, other times we had rosters with friends and sometimes my mother.
My mother and father were our back-up helpers,- they were the grandkids' spoilers!
They could assist us a little financially when we were in trouble,- as most young people can be,- but I never expected them to take over the responsibilities I see grandparents taking on nowadays.
Eventually, I had to retire from full-time work as it became too demanding in my profession and I felt young teenagers needed parents more to supervise their activities.When they were old enough to be independent, then I undertook a full-time workload again,- in another field.
Throughout,my husband like most of his contemporaries was a terrific father and companion for his growing children. Both of us understood the limits of our ability to manage our work-life responsibilities and paid for whatever home-help we needed to ease our burden in the home.
What I always resented was the fact that none of the expenses incurred in making our home and family life more bearable, were included as tax-deductable items from my income. Only when I was a full-time "housekeeper", could the man-of-the-house deduct something from his income. This is the anomaly which was never corrected. The home-help was paid in cash which she never had to declare,- so much so that eventually she could afford investment properties,- while most of my salary went to her.
Did I want to be a "housewife"? No,- I was trained to be more than that and I wanted to use my qualifications as far as I could,- but eventually I had to give up because to me, my family's welfare came first. It was my decision,- nobody forced me to do anything,- it was my choice when I did what, for whom and how.
53 years on, we are still together and I am grateful to be spared to still enjoy our life together.But we still pursue individual interests,- "we married for better or worse, but never for lunch"! My advice to most young people,_ it's a 50:50 chance in the choice for a partner,- 50% in the person and 50% in the training,- of each other!
MM
We recently celebrated our wedding anniversary which falls on "Australia Day".
Our newly married young niece asked me in wonder: how is it to be married for all this time? We won't get there,- we marry later in life these days.
That is true,- but is that the only reason?
Most of our friends (at least those who have survived), are still married to their original partners after half a century and more of marriage. In one case, after 66 years,- they were teenagers when they tied the knot!How many marriages last past the first 20 years, let alone longer these days?
We then had a heated discussion among us 'oldies',- who was better off,- those of us who did not expect our husbands to do all the things that modern young men do for their babies and families,- or today's families which seem to break up at an alarming rate?
The "LIFE" supplement of this week's Sunday Age had an article about "the marriage mystique" which described a new book by a writer who claimed that feminism is good for marriage. She asked, "who would want to go back to the old-style marriages",- i.e. where the women knew their place,- in the home and nothing else? She stated that feminism is good for marriage because it is based on equality and shared responsibilities.
I wrote in reply:
There is no “marriage mystique” (THE AGE,Sunday Life, 30/1/11). The institution of marriage,- good, bad and indifferent has been around forever.
I was a ‘women’s libber’ as a youthful wife, then a young working mother, a feminist activist and leader. Looking at the younger generation of married couples today, I can foresee whose marriages will last the distance of my generation and whose will not.
It is not about feminism but about the ‘me’ generation. It is about self-centredness not feminism on some young women’s part on the one hand, while on the other their young men are attempting to fulfil the ‘new-age’ man’s expectations as father and partner while pursuing full-time occupations to the level of exhaustion.
True feminism dictates that marriage should be about a relationship-based union between equals who work out how to manage their life together, not only about who has to help whom and do what when.
Home and family is our most important of institutions and it should not fail us,- for the sake of the welfare of our future generations. It has to be managed to the best advantage for all within it. If only the Government would recognise it like any business, then the working marriage-partners could manage to employ home help and enjoy best-practice family relationships,- with the required help as a tax deductible entity. Then the parents could give to each other and to their children quality time, even if not always quantity time,- without the guilt complex.
What I now see among my peer group who like me, are celebrating half a century and more of happy life partnerships, is that some are exhausted caring for the grandkids while their kids are exhausted and stressed parents,- who sadly, too often seem eventually to just walk away from their family responsibilities,- to obtain a bit of ‘freedom before it’s too late’ they say!
I call many of today’s young-marrieds not bad people, just bad managers of their family lives! The government could do more for the institution of “home and family” to help them out,- not only build more day-care centres but more assistance for ‘helpers in the home’ to ease the stress on everyone,- young and old.
How did we manage then?
Firstly, when new babies entered the family, we did not wake up our husbands to feed them because they needed to get up early to go to work.We who stayed home in the early days with a new baby,organized ourselves to take a nap during the day.
(Some grandmothers I knew even paid for a mothercraft nurse for a few weeks to help their daughters with their first babies!)
Eventually, I found part time work and employed a baby-sitter for a few hours,- more to give myself a break from domesticity than for the money, as there was none left over for me.
Later, I returned to my career and could earn enough for better home help. This person was my housekeeper,- not just a baby-sitter. She cleaned the house, picked up the children from the nearby school, fed them so that by the time we came home from work, my husband and I could spend some quality time with the children before putting them to bed. I always prepared our food the night before so that my housekeeper could put it in the oven if necessary and have it ready for us when we got home.She came in the afternoons for a few hours 2-3 times a week, other times we had rosters with friends and sometimes my mother.
My mother and father were our back-up helpers,- they were the grandkids' spoilers!
They could assist us a little financially when we were in trouble,- as most young people can be,- but I never expected them to take over the responsibilities I see grandparents taking on nowadays.
Eventually, I had to retire from full-time work as it became too demanding in my profession and I felt young teenagers needed parents more to supervise their activities.When they were old enough to be independent, then I undertook a full-time workload again,- in another field.
Throughout,my husband like most of his contemporaries was a terrific father and companion for his growing children. Both of us understood the limits of our ability to manage our work-life responsibilities and paid for whatever home-help we needed to ease our burden in the home.
What I always resented was the fact that none of the expenses incurred in making our home and family life more bearable, were included as tax-deductable items from my income. Only when I was a full-time "housekeeper", could the man-of-the-house deduct something from his income. This is the anomaly which was never corrected. The home-help was paid in cash which she never had to declare,- so much so that eventually she could afford investment properties,- while most of my salary went to her.
Did I want to be a "housewife"? No,- I was trained to be more than that and I wanted to use my qualifications as far as I could,- but eventually I had to give up because to me, my family's welfare came first. It was my decision,- nobody forced me to do anything,- it was my choice when I did what, for whom and how.
53 years on, we are still together and I am grateful to be spared to still enjoy our life together.But we still pursue individual interests,- "we married for better or worse, but never for lunch"! My advice to most young people,_ it's a 50:50 chance in the choice for a partner,- 50% in the person and 50% in the training,- of each other!
MM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
