Welcome to Grappy's Soap Box - a platform for insightful commentary on politics, media, free speech, climate change, and more, focusing on Australia, the USA, and global perspectives.
In recent years, Western developed countries like the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have witnessed a concerning trend - a notable increase in excess non-COVID deaths. While the focus has been primarily on the COVID-19 pandemic, it's essential to shed light on this unexpected and unexplained surge in mortality that has largely gone uninvestigated by our leaders.
Here are some key points to consider:
Excess Mortality Rates In these countries, excess deaths, which are deaths beyond what would be expected based on historical data, have been on the rise. Figures show a substantial increase, ranging from 5% to 20% in the years 2021, 2022, and even continuing into 2023.
Lack of Investigation Despite these alarming statistics, there has been a surprising lack of investigation into the underlying causes of these excess non-COVID deaths. Our political leaders, medical professionals, and even the media have not given this issue the attention it deserves, raising questions about their responsibilities in addressing unexpected changes in mortality rates.
Call for Action It's time for a comprehensive investigation into the factors contributing to excess non-COVID deaths. Understanding the root causes and developing effective strategies to mitigate this trend should be a top priority.
In conclusion, while the COVID-19 pandemic rightfully demanded significant attention, we cannot ignore the, simultaneous and subsequent, unexplained increase in excess non-COVID deaths. It is the duty of our leaders, politicians, healthcare experts, and the media to investigate and address this issue to protect the health and well-being of our societies.This is urgent and overdue!
Following the horrendous terrorist attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas, Israel has declared war not on Gaza, not on Palestinian civilians, but on Hamas. Waging war on Hamas, ensconced in a built-up city surrounded by Palestinian civilians, presents very serious military challenges.
At the same time waging a war against a foe that has no ethical constraints also presents a different set of ethical challenges. Hamas has perpetrated the most horrendous atrocities in their attack on civilians. They raped, burnt, decapitated, over 1000 women, children, the elderly, and even babies. They have taken hundreds of Israeli civilians as hostages, and will again use their own population as hostages, and human shields. Many Western Leaders, including Joe Biden and Anthony Albanese, remind Israel to obey the 'rules of war'. Yet Hamas has absolutely no intention of following any such ‘rules of war”. Hamas has built its infrastructure in schools, mosques and hospitals, and uses the media to claim Israel perpetrates war crimes even when Israel targets the very launch points of terrorist rockets.
This strategy has worked for Hamas well in the past. It only takes a bombing of a hospital together with a few pictures or videos of victims to mobilize a worldwide outcry condemning Israel.
This was demonstrated just this week when Hamas claimed that Israel had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. This led to immediate widespread condemnation of Israel, even before the facts could be fully uncovered. Jordan cancelled a meeting with Biden, Trudeau denounced Israel, and even Albanese again reminded Israel of the rules of war. However, evidence clearly shows that rather than being an Israeli bomb, the explosion was caused by a missile launched by Islamic Jihad that misfired and fell on the hospital parking lot. Interception of communications between Hamas operatives also proves that Hamas knew this even before it called in its media supporters to spread the lie.
So how does Israel follow the rules of war? What is a proportional response? How does Israel protect its citizens, free the hostages, and eliminate Hamas while minimizing the loss of life of Palestinian civilians?
Difficult questions. But who better to shed some light than Alan Dershowitz, emeritus law professor at Harvard? Dershowitz recently posted a discussion on this very subject on an episode of his ‘Dershow’ titled Hamas, Human Shields and Civilians.
I recommend you watch the episode yourself, but here are some of the key points; -
The rules of war do not restrict a military's response to any attack as long as it is directed at the military of the attacking force.
The right to self defence allows a disproportionate response, an overwhelming response, as long as it is directed at the opposing military and military targets
The principle of proportionality requires that any attack against a military target must be evaluated taking into account the likelihood of collateral damage on civilians.
An attack on a hospital operating as a hospital with possibly hundreds of civilians and several enemy militants and arms would not pass this principle.
At the same time, an attack on a mosque with multiple enemy combatants with just a few civilians would be acceptable, despite the collateral harm to civilians.
The judgement is made by the military.
Of course, this is a very short summary, I suggest you watch the video.
In response to Hamas' attack, Israel has closed its borders to Gaza and stopped supplying it with water and electricity. (One could of course ask why doesn't Gaza have its own sources of both. After all, it has received substantial aid over the years and it could easily have built desalination plants and power stations. But it seems they have used all their aid money to build rockets and terror infrastructure. ) Israel has called up reservists and stationed a large ground force ready for a ground attack. It has urged the civilian population to leave Gaza City. This is no easy task of course, and Hamas is telling the population to stay put. Nevertheless, large numbers have left the city.
Israel has committed to turn on both electricity and water once the hostages are returned. They have also been asking Egypt to open its border with Gaza to allow humanitarian aid into the city.
Certainly, the civilians in Gaza have experienced massive upheaval in their lives. No doubt there have been civilian deaths as the extensive bombing will have consequences. And I have total sympathy for them, for they are also victims. Victims of their Hamas leaders.
Disappointingly but not surprisingly it has only taken one week for the sympathy of the world to be washed away by a whole sea of Palestinian supporters. Supporters who seem to have lost their moral compass. They march, shouting antisemitic tropes and denouncing Israel and all Jews. It is unseemly and dangerous. They empower the terrorists when they should be doing the opposite.
What would they do if they were in Israel's position? What do they think Israel should do to protect its citizens? What would they think was reasonable?
Given that none of this would have happened to Gazan civilians if Hamas had not launched its attack, if you need to blame anyone it should be the aggressor. After all, whose fault is it if your own citizens die as a result of the war you started?
Despite the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli mob blaming Israel for the death of Gaza's civilians, that view is morally bankrupt. Each and every death resulting from Hamas' direct attack, and Israel's response to prevent such attacks must be blamed on Hamas. It is as simple as that.
Following Hamas' atrocities in Israel, the media are awash with commentary, so I will keep my comments short.
I am shocked by the willingness of so many people living in Western democracies to use moral blinkers to avoid condemning Hamas for its barbaric acts. You do not have to agree with Israel in any way, nor do you have to give up your support for Palestinians, to damn Hamas' massacre, rape and abduction of babies, women and the elderly. Yet so many are siding with Hamas. It is appalling and incomprehensible.
Perhaps these people have been fed too long on anti-Israel rhetoric and perhaps they do not know the history. If so Ben Shapiro's recent video may correct some misconceptions.
In one of my recent discussions on X (Twitter), with Captain Chaos, I commented that the GAP could be addressed in ways that did not require changing the Constitution. I then sent a link to my post Are we perpetuating the GAP? This then led to a range of comments. At this point, I thought I could address this better in a post. So this post provides a bit more clarification on my post as well as addressing Captain Chaos' points.
So here is a recap of the discussion so far; -
Several points - the $30 billion is not a valid amount for argument's sake, that is known. As a city based observer, is relatable to 'bureaucracies' and those without knowledge & experience doing what they think is needed as opposed to knowing what is needed. You overlook the why
Which did suspend the racial discrimination act. Since that time the insinuation that there is an epidemic of abuse (child) has been left unsubstantiated In fact, in recent months the unsubstantiated allegation was repeated by both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton, without evidence
Captain Chaos did agree with my response in a post. So here goes.
Before addressing Captain Chaos' points, let me re-state my position on a couple of issues.
My position on the Voice is primarily because the proposed Constitutional change would re-introduce racial discrimination, eliminated in the referendum of 1967, into our foundational document. (More details at Why I am Voting NO on the Voice ). As I noted in that post I do not have a strong issue with legislating the Voice and evaluating if it works.
However, we have tried multiple bodies representing indigenous Australians all with the objective of being an intermediary between the local communities and all levels of government. For example, if you read the mission statement for the NIAA you will find it aligns closely with the intent of the Voice. So while these bodies have been established in the past the GAP has not been reduced. So we really have to find out why that hasn't worked and consider alternative suggestions.
With regard to Captain Chaos's points
As a city based observer, is relatable to 'bureaucracies' and those without knowledge & experience doing what they think is needed as opposed to knowing what is needed.
Yes, I do not claim to know 'what is needed'. Nor do I claim specific knowledge or experience. My suggestions are exactly that, suggestions.
You overlook the why. Why is a First Nation's male more likely to go to prison than University?
Why are there problems with social cohesion?
I do not overlook the why, but admit I do not go into the specifics. I have not analysed the individual issues that make the difference between indigenous and non-indigenous but rather focused on what is different in the way we govern the two groups. So if we are getting different outcomes then maybe our governing them differently is contributing to the different outcomes.
Me personally I would not have implied that they are more violent, abusive and truancy inclined.
Do you have actual evidence for that?
The statistics on domestic violence, truancy, and incarceration rates speak for themselves.
Also note the intervention did suspend the Racial Discrimination Act.
Since that time the insinuation that there is an epidemic of abuse (child) has been left unsubstantiated
In fact, in recent months the unsubstantiated allegation was repeated by both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton, without evidence That's been reported in the media & both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton have failed to make reports of the alleged abuse that they are required to do, by law, to investigating authorities.
I could continue, however, I think what I have outlined suffices, check your preconceptions
The 'intervention' was in response to the Little Children are Sacred report published in June 2007, being the findings of an inquiry into child sexual abuse in the NT commissioned by the Northern Territory Government. The report provided shocking evidence of domestic violence and sexual abuse. So it was not without a basis. Also with regard to Jacinta Price, I think she has personal experience through her exposure to indigenous life. You cannot both accept there is a GAP and then dismiss the symptoms that are evidence of the GAP.
Again I do not profess to be anything but an interested observer. If we have invested substantially in closing the GAP over decades, and have seen no results, we should certainly have a good look at what we have been doing, and look to do something else.
Rishi Sunak set the template for how to respond to the barbaric atrocities perpetrated against innocents in Israel. He attended a service at Finchley United Synagogue and delivered a heartfelt speech that resonated not only with the Jewish community but all civilised people learning of the massacre.
He did not hesitate to call out the weak, apologists, both politicians and media commentators, who provide lukewarm condemnation of Hamas and use weasel words labelling the perpetrators as 'militants'.
"The people who support Hamas are fully responsible for this appalling attack.
They are not militants. They are not freedom fighters.
They are terrorists.
And their barbaric acts, are acts of evil."
His clarity is a lesson, people do not want our commentators to be 'meek and gentle with these butchers'.
They want the moral clarity that there is never any justification for attacks on civilians.
