Zoe Booth on Israel vs Australia

"Written by Zoe Booth, and inspired by her first trip to Israel, this video explores the gap between perception and reality. 

Arriving in Israel for the first time, what she encountered challenged many of the assumptions common in Australia—from fears about safety to deeper questions about identity, cohesion, and national purpose. 

Why does Israel maintain unity despite internal tensions? 

Has Australia’s model of multiculturalism weakened social cohesion? 

And what happens when a country loses confidence in its own identity? 

Drawing on firsthand experience, this is a reflection on two very different societies—and what one might learn from the other."

The Price of Tolerating the Intolerant

Two years ago, the world was shocked by an unprecedented, barbaric attack on a dance festival in Israel. Hamas terrorists launched a massacre of unfathomable proportions, killing countless civilians, taking hostages, and displaying the true horrors of their ideology. The scale and cruelty of the assault made it one of the most horrific terror attacks in recent history. But what followed in the Western world was just as shocking, if not more so.

Before Israel even had the chance to respond to the attack, there were spontaneous demonstrations in major Western cities, celebrating the massacre. The grotesque nature of these rallies was horrifying enough, but even more unsettling was the complete lack of action from Western authorities. Governments stood by as violent, hate-filled protests erupted on their streets. Demonstrators chanted anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and genocidal slogans, some even calling for the destruction of entire nations, including Israel and the West.

These were not isolated events. In the months that followed, the protests only grew, turning into a weekly display of hate — and yet, little was done. Even as the demonstrations turned increasingly violent, with flags of enemy states burned and anti-Western sentiments voiced openly, authorities failed to act. Australia, for instance, saw no charges filed for hate speech in these protests, despite laws explicitly designed to address such behaviour. And the situation was no better in other Western nations. The silence from governments was deafening.

How did we get here? How have we come to a place where our streets are filled with hate, and our governments stand idly by, unable or unwilling to control the chaos? It does not take a genius to recognise that these demonstrations are being orchestrated by Islamists—adherents of an extreme form of Islam that is, at its core, at war with the West. The question then becomes: how did they get here, and why are we allowing them to thrive?

The Price of Tolerating the Intolerant

For years, Western countries have accepted migrants on the belief that they would contribute to the country’s economic and cultural life, living in harmony with existing citizens. The expectation has always been that migrants would assimilate into society, respecting the values of their new home. But as we’ve seen in recent years, some of these migrants—likely a small but vocal minority—have no intention of assimilating at all. Instead, they are working to transform the countries that welcomed them.

The truth is uncomfortable: some of these individuals seek to change the West. They are not just looking for a better life; they are actively trying to remake our societies into something more akin to the countries they left behind. They want a global caliphate. They want Sharia law. And, increasingly, they want to destroy the very values that the West was founded on: freedom, democracy, and secularism.

Why are we tolerating this? Why are we allowing the enemies of the West to freely enter and spread their destructive ideologies? Why has the West opened its doors to those who wish to undermine its very foundations?

The lack of effective vetting and the failure to ensure that those who enter the country are committed to respecting its values are glaring oversights by Western governments. They have allowed the sowing of dissent within their borders, to the detriment of their own citizens.

Australia’s Double Standard

In Australia, this problem is particularly evident. The Australian government has made two glaringly questionable decisions that put the nation at risk.

First, there is the decision to accept 3,000 refugees from Gaza — despite the fact that no other Arab country is willing to take them in. Why would Australia risk importing individuals from a region where many have deep ties to terrorist organisations? It’s a reckless gamble, one that the Australian public has not been given a clear explanation for. Why are we prioritising the relocation of people who may have links to Hamas when our own national security is at stake?

Second, Australia has recently repatriated a number of ISIS brides—women who voluntarily left Australia to join ISIS in its war against the West. These women married ISIS fighters, had children with them, and supported an organisation that was directly responsible for heinous acts of terror. After the defeat of ISIS, they sought to return to Australia, and astonishingly, the Australian government allowed them to come back. This is despite clear laws prohibiting the return of citizens who join foreign enemies.

The weak response from the Albanese government is deeply concerning. These women were part of an organisation bent on destroying the West, and yet the government has quietly allowed their return. The public has no transparency on the vetting process, and we don’t know how many have been brought back. Have they been charged? How thorough was the process? This failure to protect Australia from those who have supported our enemies undermines our national security.

The West Under Siege

It’s time to face the truth: radical Islam is a direct threat to Western societies. And the more we tolerate these ideologies within our borders, the more we risk losing the very freedoms that make the West what it is. These ideologies aren’t about peaceful coexistence; they are about revolution and subjugation. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the real threats within our societies, we are complicit in undermining the values that have long made our nations strong.

We cannot afford to remain silent in the face of this growing danger. It’s time for Western governments to take action — to ensure that they are actively vetting who enters their countries and not tolerating those who seek to destroy the societies they’ve chosen to inhabit.

Until we recognize the true threat posed by radical Islam and take decisive action, we will continue to watch our streets fill with hate and violence. The question is: how much longer will we let this go on before it’s too late?

What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below or share your perspective. 

Here is a short video from Konstantin Kisin with another take on this issue. Well worth the five minutes.

Where are the protests demanding Hamas accept peace

In his recent video, “The Extraordinary Silence… And What It Tells Us,” commentator Konstantin Kisin examines what he sees as a revealing quiet from many of the loudest critics of Israel’s war in Gaza. After nearly two years of strident activism the silence that followed President Trump’s proposed Gaza peace plan speaks volumes — not just about the conflict, but about truth, hypocrisy, and moral posturing in public life.

Now, with the second anniversary of October 7th approaching, Kisin turns his attention to the reaction — or rather, the lack of reaction — to Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan for Gaza.

A Plan That Should Please Everyone — But Doesn’t

The Trump plan, delivers almost every demand made by those calling for peace:

• An immediate end to the war

• Israeli withdrawal

• The release of over 2,000 Palestinian detainees in exchange for 20 Israeli hostages

• Humanitarian aid and the reopening of the Rafah crossing

• A non-Israeli, non-Hamas administration of Gaza

• An economic development package

• Commitments against displacement, annexation, and occupation

• U.S.-mediated talks for a “peaceful and prosperous coexistence”

In other words — everything that peace campaigners have been chanting for. And yet, those same campaigners have gone strangely quiet.

The Silence That Speaks

Kisin singles out several high-profile commentators — Crystal Ball, Candace Owens, Owen Jones, and Jeremy Corbyn — for either ignoring or rejecting the plan. Ball, he notes, spent twenty minutes on air insinuating that Hamas shouldn’t take the deal. Owens hasn’t mentioned it at all, preferring to focus on conspiratorial content. Jones and Corbyn, meanwhile, dismissed it as “colonial” and unacceptable.

The result, Kisin argues, is extraordinary silence — a void where there should be celebration. If this really were about stopping genocide, why is there no pressure on Hamas to accept a deal that would stop it immediately?

What the Silence Reveals

This is the moment when rhetoric and reality diverge completely. Hamas, has every right to reject terms it considers unfavourable — just as Ukraine might reject peace on Russia’s terms. But its rejection (or the West’s indifference to that rejection) exposes the true nature of the conflict.

“Far from being genocide,” Kisin says, “it’s a war — a war Hamas started and is losing badly.”

There is a sharp distinction between real genocides — in Rwanda, the Armenian Genocide, or the Holocaust — and wars, however brutal, fought between armed belligerents. The misuse of the word genocide, is not accidental. It’s what Kisin calls a “slide of mouth” — a distortion of meaning that turns aggressors into victims and facts into feelings.

The “genocide” label, has been weaponised to evoke moral outrage and to frame Israel as criminal, regardless of the evidence. But the failure of activists to embrace peace reveals they don’t actually believe their own rhetoric. They know it’s a war — but prefer the emotional power of pretending it’s something else.

Kisin’s Broader Message

Beyond the specifics of Gaza, Kisin’s argument is really about truth and moral integrity in public debate; silence can be more revealing than speech. When those who claim to champion peace fall quiet in the face of an actual peace offer, the mask slips. What’s exposed is not moral conviction, but performative outrage — a market for clicks, likes, and ideological identity.

The suffering of Palestinian civilians, he warns, is being used as content — a source of online engagement rather than genuine empathy.

A Mirror for the West

Kisin’s final message is a challenge to the rest of us. What do we really value — truth or tribal comfort? Are we willing to test our moral positions against reality, or do we prefer to keep signalling virtue while turning away from inconvenient facts?

The extraordinary silence, in other words, tells us more than the noise ever did.

Here is Kisin's YouTube video, well worth a view.

Democracy Deserves Allies, Terror Deserves None

Last week’s UN General Assembly session brought no shortage of political theatre. Headlines were dominated by a handful of Israel’s so-called “allies” rushing to abandon principle and offer premature recognition of a Palestinian state — though, of course, only after certain conditions are met someday. We’ve already dealt with that charade.

What deserves more attention — and respect — are the countries that stood firm, refusing to reward terrorism, refusing to undermine Israel’s right to exist, and refusing to indulge the fantasy that a Palestinian state magically appears while Hamas still holds hostages and openly declares its intent to destroy Israel.

The USA, Germany, Singapore, Italy, New Zealand, and Argentina all held the line. They spoke not just for Israel but for common sense. Recognising a “state” in the current circumstances would only:

• Reward Hamas for October 7th.

• Eliminate any incentive to release hostages.

• Prolong the war by assuring terrorists that violence pays.

• Pretend that statehood conditions exist when in reality they do not.

It is worth stressing that these countries did not merely sit quietly. They offered explicit support for Israel — the only functioning democracy in the Middle East — and reaffirmed their opposition to legitimising terror through diplomatic shortcuts.

Former US President Trump made his view crystal clear with a blistering condemnation of the UN’s anti-Israel obsession. His words carried weight, not least because they contrasted so starkly with the mealy-mouthed fence-sitting of others. And Argentina’s Javier Milei? He didn’t just “speak” — he detonated the chamber. His now-viral address, “Javier Milei DESTROYS The UN’s Anti-Israel Policies Live On Stage!”, was a thunderous defence of democratic Israel and a scathing rebuke of the UN’s hypocrisy.

In a sea of moral cowardice, these voices matter. They remind us that appeasement has a cost, that terrorism should never be rewarded, and that Israel — under relentless attack simply for existing — deserves allies willing to stand by principle rather than posture for applause.

The UNGA proved, once again, that international politics is too often about optics, not outcomes. But some nations still understand the basics: democracy deserves defending, terror deserves no reward, and statehood must be earned — not handed out as a consolation prize for mass murder.

Here is Javier Milei's speech.

The UN’s Anti-Israel Obsession Exposed

Colonel Richard Kemp, a man who knows the realities of war far better than most, has once again cut through the fog of diplomatic double-speak. In his recent remarks (see video: “Colonel Richard Kemp Drops a Bombshell on the UN’s Gaza Agenda”), Kemp lays bare what many of us already suspect—the United Nations is not a neutral arbiter in the Israel–Palestine conflict. Far from it.

A One-Sided Agenda

According to Kemp, the UN’s Gaza agenda is riddled with bias, built not on fairness or fact, but on an entrenched hostility toward Israel. Instead of acknowledging Hamas’s terrorism, its systematic use of civilians as human shields, or its repeated rejection of peace, the UN singles out Israel for condemnation. Every civilian casualty is laid at Israel’s door, with little or no attention given to the deliberate strategies of Hamas that cause those casualties in the first place.

Rewarding Terrorism

This is not just sloppy diplomacy—it is dangerous. By vilifying Israel while ignoring Hamas’s war crimes, the UN effectively rewards terrorism. It hands Hamas a propaganda victory, undermines Israel’s right to defend itself, and sends a chilling message to other democratic nations: if you defend your people against terrorism, expect the world’s leading international body to brand you the aggressor.

An Echo Chamber of Bias

Kemp’s criticism is blunt but accurate. The UN, once conceived as a guarantor of peace and justice, has become an echo chamber for anti-Israel sentiment. Its agencies and commissions churn out resolutions condemning Israel at a rate wildly disproportionate to any other conflict or human rights issue on the planet. Millions can die in Syria, Yemen, or Sudan, but Israel is the one dragged into the dock again and again.

Why It Matters for Australia

Why does this matter for us in Australia? Because our own government increasingly takes its cues from UN talking points. The Albanese government’s drift towards recognition of a Palestinian state, and its habit of equivocating on Israel’s right to self-defence, reflect this broader international trend. If we don’t call out the UN’s blatant double standards, we tacitly endorse them.

A Crisis of Integrity

Colonel Kemp is right. The UN has abandoned its integrity. Until it confronts its institutionalised bias, it will continue to empower the very forces of violence and extremism it was founded to resist. Israel deserves fair treatment. And so does the truth.

Here is the interview with Colonel Richard Kemp.

 

https://youtu.be/aF92WZisULU?si=Fo2wvm6CigeBIkCx

Albanese Abandons Israel and Australia's Jewish Community

The Albanese government’s recent actions signal a troubling shift—and not in a good way. From cancelling an Israeli MP’s visa to fast-tracking recognition of a Palestinian state, these moves have ignited diplomacy-free chaos. At the centre? The Australian Jewish community is increasingly feeling abandoned.

The Visa Strip: A Last-Minute Shock

Just days ago, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke abruptly cancelled the visa of Simcha Rothman—a member of the Israeli Knesset—who was due to visit and speak to Jewish community groups. The surprising rationale: his condemnation of Hamas might “upset” Australia’s Muslim community. This wasn't just bad optics; the Australian Jewish Association called it a “viciously antisemitic move” and warned Jewish community members that they are now feeling unwelcome.

Recognition of Palestine: Diplomatic Detonation

But the visa drama was just the spark. On August 11, 2025, the government announced it would recognise a Palestinian state—even before a peace deal—deepening a rift with Israel. The reaction was fierce: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Albanese of betraying Israel and “abandoning Australia’s Jews,” calling him “weak” and claiming his reputation is now irreversibly tarnished.

Diplomatic Tit-for-Tat Escalates

Israel didn’t hold back. In retaliation, it revoked visas for Australian diplomats assigned to the Palestinian Authority, signalling a severe diplomatic strain.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong slammed the backlash as “unjustified,” asserting that dialogue—not confrontation—is the path forward toward peace.

Jewish Australians Feeling Forsaken

This isn’t just diplomacy missteps—it’s real anxiety in the Jewish community. The sudden visa cancellation isn't isolated; it follows previous denials for prominent Israeli figures. The pattern, Jewish leaders say, has been disheartening—and dangerous.

What It All Signals

• Mismanaged Diplomacy? Opposition voices are already accusing the government of bungling a traditional alliance and compromising national credibility.

• Jewish Community at Risk? Labels of favouritism toward one group over another aren’t just words—they carry real consequences for safety and societal cohesion.

• Diplomatic Fallout: Strained ties could jeopardise bilateral cooperation in security, economy, research, and more.

Bottom Line

Australia’s shift from a steadfast Israeli ally to a political pivot toward Palestinian recognition signals a recalibration of foreign policy—but at what cost? Jewish Australians warn the government’s moves feel hostile, not just policy-driven. With diplomatic tensions multiplying, it's a fragile time to abandon long-standing alliances. The government needs to urgently engage with Jewish communities—not silence them.

Here is a recent video with Chris Kenny and Alex Ryvchin of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry highlighting the concerns of the Jewish Community.

Demonising Israel - Another Low from Labor

You’d think with all the chaos in the world, our government might spend its time on issues that actually matter to Australians — energy prices, housing, cost of living. But no. The Albanese Labor government has decided that its moral mission is to demonise Israel.

In a blistering and much-needed critique, Chris Kenny lays bare the hypocrisy and intellectual laziness of Labor’s latest foreign policy posture in his Sky News video, “Hamas propaganda’: Demonisation of Israel ‘sinking to new depths’”.

Let’s be clear. Israel has been under attack. Again. Yet the Labor government seems more concerned about how Israel defends itself than why it has to.

Kenny rightly points out the disgraceful double standard: Israel is blamed for defending its citizens, while the actual perpetrators of violence — Hamas — are given a pass. Worse, their propaganda is parroted by Western media and politicians who should know better.

Australia once stood firmly with democratic allies. Now, under Labor, we wobble toward the woke brigade — more worried about “optics” than facts. This isn’t a balanced foreign policy. It’s appeasement masquerading as principle.

And it sends a dangerous message: terrorism might work if you spin it right.

The truth is, moral clarity matters. And on this, Labor is failing badly.

Premature Ceasefire?

It has been messy. After widespread acclaim for the US operation to end Iran's nuclear program through intensive strikes by the US, including the deep penetration MOPs, Trump has been speedy in announcing a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. 

It was not a fully negotiated affair, with Iran denying, then accepting, Israel accepting, then accusing Iran of breaking, and with missiles killing Israeli civilians. It also had a rather truculent Trump denouncing both Israel and Iran as if they were equally guilty of the violations. Bibi complied but was most probably smarting. It was another unedifying Trump performance. But, so far, the ceasefire is holding.

That seems to have been Trump's objective, but is it wise?

Israel had total control of the air and was systematically disarming the IRGC. The ceasefire stopped their momentum. Had they continued for a few more days, the regime may have suffered terminal damage and allowed for a popular uprising to replace the regime that has terrorized its people for over four decades.  Now, that may not happen. The IRGC has already been out rounding up anyone who showed support for the Israelis and could pose a threat to their rule. 

Equally significantly, there have been reports that the IRGC relocated enriched Uranium before the attacks on the known nuclear sites and even claims that the level of destruction of the sites was not as extensive as has been reported. If there is truth to such claims, it would make all that Israel and the US have invested into this battle be for naught.

Given the bombing occurred quite recently , it is too early to evaluate the veracity of such claims, but they are important. Once a ceasefire is in operation it becomes far more difficult to assess the truth, and more difficult to react if further bombing is required.

I am generally a Trump supporter, but I really cannot see the urgency in pushing a ceasefire before assessing the status of the nuclear program after the bombing.  Also, Trump has made it clear that he forced Israel to accept this ceasefire. Given Israel had taken all the risks of attacking Iran, executed the battle over 12 days, and had suffered 1000 missiles raining on her civilians, Israel should have had the choice of whether it wanted a ceasefire and when it should have been called.

Not good, Mr Trump!

Thank You Mr. President, Thank You America, Thank You Israel

It happened! After what looked like endless vacillation, Trump gave the order to destroy Iran's nuclear sites using the US's bunker buster munitions. The reports to date indicate it was a total success. But let's be a bit cautious, it will require verification. No doubt it will be confirmed or otherwise in the coming days.

Hopefully, the sites are truly inoperative, but even if not, Trump, the US and Israel have had a significant victory. After decades of threatened terror by Iran's Islamists, the West has fought back.

Why did it take so long? A good question. I think the reaction from the world is at least a part of the story. Instead of universal acclaim for making the world safer, the media keeps giving mixed messages. Sure enough, there are plenty who do recognise the importance of the action and welcome it. But many nay-sayers seem to spout an endless stream of negative consequences. Yes, some are voicing fears about what may happen, and this would be reasonable if it gave some recognition to the necessity of the strikes. But no, they claim the strike was unjustified and cite the consequences that have not yet occurred as justification for not striking. Mmm, sounds like cowardice. It is an argument for inaction for fear of potential negative impacts. That is called appeasement, and we know what happens to appeasers. I think it was Churchill who said it best,  "An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".  It is that same cowardice that tries to appease bullies, and is at least one reason that Iran's Islamists have managed to get away with it so long.

But today we can celebrate. The world is a safer place due to the courage of Israel, the US and Donald Trump in facing up to the bullies. 

The Gatestone Institute has the moral compass to recognise this in its article "Thank you, Mr. President, Thank You, America, Thank You, Israel."

Not all Musims hate Israel

It is unusual for prominent Muslims to put their head above the parapet and expose themselves to the Islamists who threaten physical violence against those who do not follow the Islamists' dogma. Yet, a prominent and outspoken Imam in France has broken the spell. Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, of Drancy near Paris, has penned a piece praising Israel and the Jewish people.

It is a short piece but well worth a read, especially as such direct praise of Israel and Jews is so rare in our hate-driven world. Read the article "Israel: A Nation of Miracles"

Israel Pre-emptive Attack

 A few hours ago, Israel launched its much-anticipated surprise attack on Iran. It was not unexpected, but its timing may have been. It is too soon to gauge its success, though initial reports show -

• a large operation with some 200 planes
• Minor reported damage to Israel from Iran's defence systems
• widespread damage in many locations in Iran
• targets included anti-aircraft defence, high-value military personnel, missile manufacturing sites and most importantly, nuclear weapons factories
• The 'neutralization' of some senior personnel has been acknowledged by Iran, including the head of the IRGC
• Iran, Khamanei has vowed retaliation, and drones have been launched against Israel

These are but a few hours after the attack, so much too early to draw conclusions.

Israel has been a victim of unwarranted aggression by Iran for decades. Iran has been threatening, has been using proxies for direct attacks and just a few months ago launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles against Israel. Iran has declared war on Israel and has used everything in its power to attack Israel for decades. Israel has taken this step only due to the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. 

So, by any fair evaluation, Israel was justified, and the free world will be better off if it succeeds. Success would be the elimination of Iran's nuclear threat. Even greater success would be the elimination of the terrorist theocracy that took control of Iran in 1979.

We can all hope that Israel achieved the former, and that the freedom-loving people of Iran take the opportunity of Iran's weakness to overthrow the regime.

A recent update.

The era of laser warfare has arrived

Science fiction stories are replete with laser weapons. They are the weapon of choice in space, depicted as coloured beams of light shot like arrows at enemy spaceships to invariably turn the target into explosive debris, often with unscientific thunderous noise. Even land-based confrontations use laser pistols to shoot at enemies, again with immediate dramatic annihilation. The enemy is frequently vaporised, sometimes exploded or just eviscerated. These weapons have, however, remained science fiction until now.   

Israel, among many other countries, has been experimenting with so-called directed-energy weapons, laser guns, to destroy enemy projectiles, be they aircraft, missiles, or drones.  However, such laser weapons have remained experimental despite some successful testing. That has now changed. In the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, Israel used its Iron Beam laser weapon to destroy incoming missiles and drones.  Despite some limitations, it was a valuable asset in preventing missile penetration into civilian areas. 

Israel's much-vaunted Iron Dome system has one major shortcoming: cost. The rockets used to destroy incoming missiles cost $50,000 each. This is a relatively expensive defence system because incoming drones may cost only a few hundred dollars.

However, Laser Weapons redress this imbalance. A single shot that can destroy an incoming drone costs only a few dollars of electric energy. This rebalances such warfare towards the defending side.

Given the widespread aerial attacks on Israel, this is a most welcome development. 

However, laser weapons will not be limited to defensive roles. They can be equally used for offence and no doubt they will be. 

For some more background on Israel's Iron Beam see Israel just used a laser weapon in combat - here's what happened!

Kisin responds to criticism of his Israel video

A week ago I posted an article featuring Konstantin Kisin's recent YouTube video discussing why he was supporting Israel together with some introductory comments (Kisin's case for Israel.  

I feel Kisin's video was a valuable contribution to this very widely discussed issue because it is comprehensive and clear. It covered all the arguments and his analysis is easy to understand and hard to refute.

Yet, it has elicited some responses, and Kisin has reacted by publishing a second video refuting the critique. 

This time I shall simply post it, without comment. It is self explanatory.

https://youtu.be/T3rzdQYjE_g?si=UZ1pzFJYNTxgGAg1

Kisin's case for Israel

It has now been a year since the October 7 massacre of innocents that changed the world. While the world has seen many terrorist attacks, and many, disproportionately many, on Israel, the reaction of many in the Western world has been shocking. Instead of universal condemnation of a terrorist attack—the worst in terms of numbers and barbarity against Israel in its 75-year history—the event triggered a range of responses. These included celebration of the event, support for Palestinians following Israel’s response, repeated demonstrations in support not only of Palestinians but of Hamas, condemnation of Israel and all Jews, and antisemitic attacks on Jews around the world.

It seems this massacre exposed a hidden rift in our society. The event revealed the underlying values of many of our fellow citizens who do not share our values. It also exposed the weakness of politicians, business leaders, media commentators, and academics to speak out against the blatant vilification of Israel and Jews. By their inaction, these leaders have allowed antisemitic feelings, perhaps previously hidden, to become open. This has led to a breakdown of our communities and will take decades to heal.

Of course, there are many—in fact, a majority in most of the Western world—who do share our values, and slowly they are becoming more vocal about the failure of their leaders to speak up in support of fellow citizens and Israel’s right to defend itself.

Many commentators have analyzed the events of the past year. Recently, I came across a compelling analysis by Konstantin Kisin. He is an articulate and compelling debater, having won acclaim in his Oxford Union debate a few years ago. His analysis of Israel’s war provides a structured examination of the arguments for and against Israel. You can see the YouTube video below, and I strongly recommend it.

If you do not have the time here is a summary generated by NoteGPT

Summary

Konstantin Kisin shares his journey from neutrality to a clearer stance on Israel’s conflict, applying first principles thinking to analyze arguments from both sides.

Highlights

• 🗣️ Kisin initially had no opinion on the Israel conflict before the October 7th attacks.
• 📚 He engaged deeply with various perspectives to understand the complexities involved.
• 🔍 First principles thinking helped him dissect the arguments surrounding the conflict.
• ⚖️ Kisin compares October 7th to other historical terrorist attacks, emphasizing its unprecedented severity.
• 🏗️ He argues that the legitimacy of Israel cannot be dismissed based on historical grievances alone.
• 💔 Kisin addresses civilian casualties, stressing that responsibility lies with Hamas for their tactics.
• 📊 He concludes that Israel’s military actions, while tragic, are necessary for its survival against ongoing threats.

Key Insights

• 🔄 Importance of Context: Understanding the historical and emotional contexts is crucial but can often cloud logical arguments. Kisin emphasizes the need to strip away emotional narratives to grasp the core issues. 🌍
• ⚔️ Comparative Analysis: By comparing October 7th to other terrorist attacks like 9/11, Kisin highlights the disproportionate impact and severity of the violence against Israel, which serves to contextualize the response. 📈
• 🏛️ Legitimacy of States: The legitimacy of Israel’s existence is challenged by some, but Kisin argues that many nations were formed through similar histories of conflict, complicating the argument against Israel. 🌐
• 🔄 Nature of Warfare: Kisin points out that civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality of war, but emphasizes who holds responsibility for their safety and the ongoing violence. 📉
• 🎯 Hamas’s Strategy: The tactics employed by Hamas are designed to maximize civilian casualties, which Kisin argues shifts the moral responsibility back to Hamas rather than Israel. 🎭
• 📊 Casualty Ratios: He presents statistics showing that Israel is successful in minimizing civilian casualties compared to historical urban warfare, countering claims of indiscriminate attacks. 📊
• ⚖️ International Perspective: Kisin notes that any nation under similar threat would respond similarly to Israel, highlighting a double standard in international criticism. 🌍

Appeasement leads to escalation

For too many months we have seen repeated demonstrations claiming support for innocent Palestinians in Gaza, while screaming anti-Semitic and genocidal slogans. The protests are not 'peaceful' and 'non-violent' as sometimes reported. Too often, masked demonstrators take over the streets and any bystanders are intimidated. Many, especially those who are Jewish are assaulted. If you carry a sign supporting Israel you are in danger. 

The police have generally tried a hands-off approach, hoping that the demonstrators will dissipate their aggression without violence. They have gone out of their way to remove any possible trigger by asking Israel supporters to move on and even resorting to arresting them. 

Look at this video highlighting the experience of an independent reporter attending one of the demonstrations. The video covers the whole saga, showing the attempt by the Police to ignore the assault but having to act once the assault was given sufficient publicity.

However, appeasement has not worked. The demonstrations have become increasingly confrontational and violent. This is exemplified by the most recent violent scenes in Melbourne where some 25,000 protestors clashed with police. 

"Thousands of anti-war protesters clashed with police outside the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, disrupting the Land Forces International Defence Expo. The demonstration, one of Melbourne's largest in decades, saw protesters throw projectiles and manure at police, who responded with pepper spray and batons. Over 25,000 demonstrators rallied against the weapons expo, with tensions escalating as officers on horseback attempted to control the crowd. Traffic chaos ensued, and several protesters were arrested. " The Australian, Sep 11 2024

Appeasement does not work! Ask Neville Chamberlain. Appeasement only leads to escalation.

What should the police do? Simply enforce the law, without fear or favour. That's all!

Did Israel Carpe the Diem?

A few days ago I speculated on the range of options Israel had for their response to Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israel. (see my earlier Carpe Diem )

If you listen to the mainstream media it was 'ho-hum'. More significantly if you listen to Iran's comments it was also 'ho-hum, nothing to see here, not even a scratch'. So is this true?

Perhaps we should take a short detour and revisit Iran's attack. There is no doubt Iran's was a large scale direct attack on Israeli territory. Over 300 projectile weapons were directed at a wide range of military and non-military targets within Israeli territory. They included ballistic and cruise missiles, and drones. By all accounts a large majority of the drones were shot down even before they reached Israeli air-space, and virtually all the missiles were shot down without hitting their targets. The only injury reported is of a single young girl hit by shrapnel resulting from the destruction of one of the missiles.

Most significantly Israel was assisted by the US, UK and Jordan in directly shooting down the drones and missiles, and ground assistance (radar intelligence) was also provided by Saudi Arabia and UAE. The willingness of these Sunni states to join in protecting Israel from the Iranian attack is notable.

In many respects, Israel's success in repelling Iran's attack was already disarming for Iran. A miracle according to the account below.

After the large-scale attack by Iran, Israel's response seems minor. While Iran's attack was a major television extravaganza with extensive coverage by all media. Direct footage of projectiles being destroyed over Israel, including quite dramatic footage over the Al Aqsa mosque. 

In contrast, the attack on Iran was not covered widely at all. There were some reports of explosions around a military base in Isfahan. Iran reported they had shot down a number of drones. We also heard some sites in Syria and Iraq were bombed. No casualties were reported. Israel has not commented on its attack, at all. This allowed Iran to downplay the attack as insignificant. But is this true? Perhaps not.

Several reports have emerged that praise the strategic success of Israel's attack. The video below titled

No one could believe this happened! Finally Israel's supersonic missiles broke through Iran defense!

highlights Israel's success in penetrating Iran's air defences. 

I guess time will tell, but so far Israel has -

• successfully defended its territory against a direct attack by Iran with over 300 projectiles
• forged a de-facto allegiance with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE against Iran (this will not be publicized but when it came to action they were there )
• penetrated Iran's best air defence and bombed selected targets within Iranian territory in one of their largest cities
• demonstrated its defensive and offensive superiority
• allowed Iran to walk away from further aggression without losing face

All round not too bad.

Who is to blame?

We have seen this story before. A bank robbery has gone wrong, the police have the bank surrounded with the 4 would-be-robbers holding twenty hostages. The police negotiator using his best patient and compliant manner has offered food, and has calmed the trigger-happy gunmen. The barter is simple, they want their freedom in exchange for the freedom of the hostages. As always it is a long and complex negotiation. Lots of pizza is delivered. The delivery man is an undercover cop, who sizes up the locations of the gangsters, the hostages and the layout. The SWAT team is already on site, ready and eager to get their hands on the bastards, but the negotiator holds them off feeling he can avoid bloodshed. 

It has taken 10 hours and everyone is tired and edgy. A gunshot rings out. Something has happened. The SWAT team is given the go-ahead to bring the stand-off to an end.

Flash-bangs, gun fire, sniper action, and all is over in just a minute. The result?

All gunmen were shot, 18 hostages were safe, but one hostage had been shot by one of the robbers, and another was shot and killed when a SWAT team member aiming at a gunman accidentally shot a hostage.

So who is to blame for the death of the hostage? Not who caused the death but who is to blame? The law is clear on this. If someone is killed during a felony the perpetrator of the felony is responsible and will be charged with murder.

So why am I raising this?

Apply this to the recent accidental deaths of aid workers in Gaza. Who is to blame? Israel has accepted that it was responsible for the deaths, and has taken action to punish the perpetrators. But who is to blame for the deaths?

In a court of law, it would be Hamas. So it should be in all our minds. Had Hamas not broken the peace on Oct 7, none of the deaths would have occurred.

World opinion is being manipulated for various reasons that I won't get into here. So all the more we need to maintain moral clarity. In Gaza there would be no civilian deaths, no widespread damage to infrastructure, no upheaval in the daily lives of citizens and no food shortages had Hamas not started a war by massacring innocent civilian Israelis and taking many hostage. Hamas started the war, and every death including the death of the aid workers, is on their head.

10 Questions to be answered before a Palestinian state is proposed!

With the war between Israel and Hamas still raging, the Western world has dusted off the Two-State solution. There have been extensive noisy marches in Western cities in support of the Palestinian victims of this war. Too often the chants at these rallies are antisemitic and even genocidal. Any reasoned analysis cannot place blame on Israel for this war. Nevertheless, governments do need to show some sort of action to their voting public, especially their Muslim base, so they triangulate the issue by calling for a Two-State solution, with two countries, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peaceful harmony. Never mind the refusal by Palestinian leaders to accept a state some 7 times in the last 7 decades. Never mind the example of what happened when Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005 thereby establishing a de-facto Palestinian state. There was no peaceful co-existence. The dream turned into a nightmare for Israel with 20 years of terrorist attacks, rockets raining down on its cities and the most recent massacre of its citizens in an unprovoked attack. So one must ask "What do these Western leaders really think?" Are they deluding themselves, or are they just playing petty politics trying to keep faith with their Muslim voters? Certainly, the Israelis now have no illusions, with the virtually unanimous rejection of a two-state solution.

In response to the revival of the push for the 2-stte solution Steven Zipperstein in his blog raised the question "What would the Palestinian state of a two-state solution look like?

In response he has posed 10 questions, the answers to which would define this new state. 

I will let you read the full article, which I recommend. But here are the questions

1. Will the State of Palestine sign a peace treaty with Israel on Day One? Or will it view Israel as an enemy?
2. Will the State of Palestine be a democracy or an autocracy? Will it be secular or theocratic? Will Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations be banned, or will they be allowed to play a role in governing the State of Palestine?
3. Will the State of Palestine have an army, or will it agree to be demilitarized?
4. Will the State of Palestine abide by the broken commitments the PLO undertook in the Oslo Accords to renounce terrorism? Will the State of Palestine continue the Palestinian Authority’s pay-for-slay policy for terrorists and their families?
5. Will the State of Palestine maintain trade and other economic relations with Israel? Will it renounce the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel?
6. Will the State of Palestine stop teaching its schoolchildren to hate Jews? 
7. Will the State of Palestine aspire to borders stretching “from the River to the Sea”? Or will it be content with statehood encompassing only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
8. Will the State of Palestine drop the various cases it is pursuing against Israel in the international courts?
9. Will the State of Palestine establish alliances with Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, and the Houthis?
10. Will the State of Palestine agree to regular and robust international inspections to ensure it is not digging attack tunnels, acquiring or building rockets and other weapons of war, or undertaking any form of potential military or terrorist action against Israel?

These are excellent questions. No one should be proposing a state for the Palestinians without being very clear about the type of state they are proposing. Israel deserves peace for its citizens. It cannot be guaranteed without restrictions on the type of Palestinian state that is established. 

What is life like for citizens of Gaza?

The war between Hamas and Israel has been going for 3 months. It has wrought devastation for Gaza and its citizens. It has also spawned many vocal, often antisemitic rallies, marches, and convoys in support of "Palestine"/Hamas in most Western Cities. 

Given Hamas started this war, many, most probably a large majority, believe Israel had no choice but to fight back and that if Israel were successful in eliminating Hamas, it would liberate Gazans from their oppression by Hamas. Most Western media have given some twisted legitimacy to Hamas's atrocities in an inverted morality, blaming the victims for the crimes of Hamas. No doubt it is partly support for the weaker party, support for the innocent victims, and partly anti-Israel and antisemitic bias. 

While this is widely debated in the Western media there is very little coming out of Gaza. Perhaps this is not surprising given Hamas' absolute control of Gaza's citizenry. Nevertheless, we have had some snippets of dissent mainly on the Middle East-based media, Egypt, Al Jazeera etc.

In November a longer piece titled "What Is Life Like for Palestinians in Gaza? was posted on YouTube. Using video snippets and commentary by Gaza's citizens together with historical footage from a wide range of media, it paints a different picture than we are traditionally shown in our Western media. Life in Gaza is terrible and it seems Gazans, at least some would love to get rid of Hamas and be allowed to live their lives without Hamas' oppression.

So well worth view!

https://youtu.be/PgAq-9_4Rzs?si=4R9dUk1cTiAFRDXx

Progressives are driven by ideology not conviction

Too many home truths in Gemma's most recent article Progressives in lock-step with Hamas ideology published in the Weekend Australian. it exposes too many home truths to hide behind a paywall, but nevertheless I quote jsut a few relevant snippets, and encourage you all to subscribe to the Australian. In MHO it is the only old-school daily newspaper worth the subscription.

Thank you, Gemma, for articulating what to some of us is somewhat obvious, but that so many seem to miss, avoid or even cover-up. We need the light of truth to spread as widely as possible.

I have selected some sections that I found particularly poignant.

"We are living in an age of ideology, not conviction. We are being governed by people who favour form, not substance. There is an obsession with feeling over fact, perception over reality and an absolutely hysterical addiction to victimhood."

"The slaughter in Israel on October 7 opened the world's eyes to many things, two of which are relevant here. First, the venomous, inexplicable hatred that still exists towards the Jewish people that is not only excused but perpetuated by the progressive political left; and the undeniable truth that ideology rules moral clarity and at a terrible cost.|"

"Only the ideologically obsessed would be demanding a ceasefire in Gaza without an immediate concurrent surrender by Hamas, and a release of the remaining living hostages. The fact these hostages still are being held and the international community is even talking about a ceasefire is insanity. Israel is the only nation on earth that needs to defend itself for defending itself. If that doesn't embody the curse of rotten ideology, then nothing does."

Since the start of the war that Hamas started and, God willing, Israel will finish, the ideologically driven mainstream media for the most part has demonstrated in dangerous clarity how ideologically driven it has become. Who can forget the bombing of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in the Gaza Strip on October 17? Mainstream media, for the most part, breathlessly reported 500 killed and blamed the Israel Defence Forces.

We now know it to have been a tragic own goal, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket fired from within Gaza that fell short of its Israeli target. The death toll, about 100. Mainstream media took days to correct the mistake. Some never did. It's certain that truth is a casualty of war but to an even greater degree it is one of ideology. Since October 7, the phase has been coined: no Jews, no news. Terribly, awfully true.

Only ideology could cause the Western left and its cronies to fawn over Gaza, chant Free Palestine, when Gazan society is the embodiment of everything they purport to be against. A place where being gay is a death sentence, where marital violence is condoned by law, as is intra-family sexual violence, where religious dogma rules and disagreeing with Hamas (the government) will get you a bullet in the back of the head.

"George Orwell was right when he said in a time of deceit, telling the truth becomes hate speech."

"But I am one who, perhaps foolishly, lives in hope. Hope that the more this idiocy is laid bare (special thanks to the Free Palestine brigade and the brains trust at Just Stop Oil) the greater and more aggressive the pushback will be. Our future depends on it."

Hear! Hear!