Choice of Kissinger Discredits 9/11 Probe
"His hostility toward the checks and balances of the American system and his consistent endorsement of secret government and secret war make him profoundly unsuited to head a commission on 9/11 at such a sensitive juncture in American history."

Choice of Kissinger Discredits 9/11 Probe
"His hostility toward the checks and balances of the American system and his consistent endorsement of secret government and secret war make him profoundly unsuited to head a commission on 9/11 at such a sensitive juncture in American history."

Land Tax on Principal residences in NSW
"The law specifies that no land tax is due on someone's main home unless the land is worth more than $1.68 million as of January 1, 2003. But tax is due on weekenders or investment properties if the land is worth $261,000 or more. Tax ris charged at 1.7 per cent a year on the amount above the threshold. In 2001 about 15 per cent of the 1547 objections to land tax assessments related to disputes over principal place of residence."

The principle of land value taxation is sound. Ideally, it should be imposed (preferably at state or local government level) at an ad valorem rate on all sites with no exemptions or thresholds. These only provide opportunity for dispute, evasion, and further erosion of the basic priniple.

Land Tax on Principal residences in NSW
"The law specifies that no land tax is due on someone's main home unless the land is worth more than $1.68 million as of January 1, 2003. But tax is due on weekenders or investment properties if the land is worth $261,000 or more. Tax ris charged at 1.7 per cent a year on the amount above the threshold. In 2001 about 15 per cent of the 1547 objections to land tax assessments related to disputes over principal place of residence."

The principle of land value taxation is sound. Ideally, it should be imposed (preferably at state or local government level) at an ad valorem rate on all sites with no exemptions or thresholds. These only provide opportunity for dispute, evasion, and further erosion of the basic priniple.

Lawrence move dismays ALP
"There were a lot of us who thought we were maybe on the back foot when Paul Keating was defending her for a year and maybe we could have had another course, and a lot of people gave her loyalty,"

"Tasmanian ALP backbencher Dick Adams told ABC Radio."She doesn't seem to be able to think that the party was owed anything."

In the gangster mentality of the ALP (as unashamedly reported by the mass media) 'loyalty' is regarded as the chief virtue of an ALP member. That is, assuming that the completely gutless stance of the ALP on the issues of the day (war, immigration) would actually deliver them any success, which it hasnt so far, as Carmen Lawrence has dared to point out.

Lawrence move dismays ALP
"There were a lot of us who thought we were maybe on the back foot when Paul Keating was defending her for a year and maybe we could have had another course, and a lot of people gave her loyalty,"

"Tasmanian ALP backbencher Dick Adams told ABC Radio."She doesn't seem to be able to think that the party was owed anything."

In the gangster mentality of the ALP (as unashamedly reported by the mass media) 'loyalty' is regarded as the chief virtue of an ALP member. That is, assuming that the completely gutless stance of the ALP on the issues of the day (war, immigration) would actually deliver them any success, which it hasnt so far, as Carmen Lawrence has dared to point out.

Opinion piece on New Zealand's role in the "War on Terror"
"When the trumpets sound again for the war against terror, New Zealand should ignore them. Why? Because President Bush's conventional territorial war will not defeat the sneaky malevolence of Islamist terrorists, from al Qaeda or wherever else. If Afghanistan is any guide, this war will flatten much of Iraq and leave it in ruins - a gift to Islamist propagandists throughout the Muslim world, making a bad scene worse.

"Why else? Because American nervousness about incurring casualties means this war could easily end in a cock-up like Gulf War I. Because, as the Bali bombing showed, our involvement would increase the risk of a terror attack in New Zealand, for no corresponding increase in our overall security."

Opinion piece on New Zealand's role in the "War on Terror"
"When the trumpets sound again for the war against terror, New Zealand should ignore them. Why? Because President Bush's conventional territorial war will not defeat the sneaky malevolence of Islamist terrorists, from al Qaeda or wherever else. If Afghanistan is any guide, this war will flatten much of Iraq and leave it in ruins - a gift to Islamist propagandists throughout the Muslim world, making a bad scene worse.

"Why else? Because American nervousness about incurring casualties means this war could easily end in a cock-up like Gulf War I. Because, as the Bali bombing showed, our involvement would increase the risk of a terror attack in New Zealand, for no corresponding increase in our overall security."

Al Qaeda Internet message threatens new attack for end of Ramadan
"You did not understand the reasons for the raids of Washington and New York," said the statement attributed to al Qaeda. "Oh American people, you are the victim of your leaders, but you are also a partner in the war on us. The gift for the holiday is on its way."

This (unauthenticated, and largely unreported) statement might be interpreted as a warning of a terrorist attack at the end of Ramadan, ie 5/6 Dec, but for maximum impact, a strike on America, Americans, or American interests after the attack on Iraq has started would be logical.

Al Qaeda Internet message threatens new attack for end of Ramadan
"You did not understand the reasons for the raids of Washington and New York," said the statement attributed to al Qaeda. "Oh American people, you are the victim of your leaders, but you are also a partner in the war on us. The gift for the holiday is on its way."

This (unauthenticated, and largely unreported) statement might be interpreted as a warning of a terrorist attack at the end of Ramadan, ie 5/6 Dec, but for maximum impact, a strike on America, Americans, or American interests after the attack on Iraq has started would be logical.

Mullah Omar letter blasting U.S.
"America practices and supports terrorism and it is using the fight against terrorism as an excuse for war against Iraq," said the letter. "America and its allies did not reap anything from the attack on Afghanistan except destruction and ruin and the enmity of weakened countries," Omar said in the latest letter. "Afghanistan today is more chaotic than before," he added. Omar in September vowed that his group would not rest until it ousted U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Mullah Omar letter blasting U.S.
"America practices and supports terrorism and it is using the fight against terrorism as an excuse for war against Iraq," said the letter. "America and its allies did not reap anything from the attack on Afghanistan except destruction and ruin and the enmity of weakened countries," Omar said in the latest letter. "Afghanistan today is more chaotic than before," he added. Omar in September vowed that his group would not rest until it ousted U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

The Real Battle at Comdex: Intellectual Property vs. Internet Protocol
"[Barlow] also lamented the industry's success at lobbying both Congress and the largest technology manufacturers to not only require digital rights management (DRM) but to embed DRM schemes in future equipment--including PCs and their operating systems. He said both Intel and Microsoft are already moving ahead with exactly those plans, with or without regulatory encouragement. "I see them changing the matrix of the Internet to a model that's based on surveillance and control. That is in the long term advantage of those who want to control and surveil." He also expressed some disappointment that his own originally optimistic views about the ungovernable nature of cyberspace have failed to prevail against an industry that's hellbent to regulate it."

The Real Battle at Comdex: Intellectual Property vs. Internet Protocol
"[Barlow] also lamented the industry's success at lobbying both Congress and the largest technology manufacturers to not only require digital rights management (DRM) but to embed DRM schemes in future equipment--including PCs and their operating systems. He said both Intel and Microsoft are already moving ahead with exactly those plans, with or without regulatory encouragement. "I see them changing the matrix of the Internet to a model that's based on surveillance and control. That is in the long term advantage of those who want to control and surveil." He also expressed some disappointment that his own originally optimistic views about the ungovernable nature of cyberspace have failed to prevail against an industry that's hellbent to regulate it."

The New York Review of Books: Israelis & Palestinians: What Went Wrong?
This article reads plausibly but one wonders at the truth of so many statements of the Zionist narrative. Leaving aside the failure to mention the crucial fact of US military, economic and diplomatic aid, the following statements might raise eyebrows:

ELON: The establishment of Israel was widely recognized at the time as perhaps the inevitable, even legitimate, result of a war that the Jews had neither started nor provoked; above all it was seen as a legitimate haven for Holocaust survivors and DPs who, in most cases, refused to go back to Poland or Germany. Having been rejected in their former homelands, many of them wanted to go to Israel and only to Israel.

CHOMSKY (Fateful Triangle): As for the wretched survivors of Hilter's holocaust themselves, it is likely that many - perhaps most - would have chosen to come to the United States had this opportunity been offered, but the Zionist movement, including American Zionists, preferred that they settle in a Jewish state... Roosevelt's advisor Morris Ernst wrote in 1948 of his shock at the refusal of American Jewish leaders to consider the possibility of giving "these beaten people of Europe a choice" to go to the US or Palestine.

ALON: The 1967 war was the great watershed. It interrupted a decade of gradual détente between Israel and Egypt... Israel was at first praised in the West for scoring a spectacular victory in a war largely provoked by the bizarre miscalculations of the Egyptian and Syrian rulers.

CHOMSKY: The former Commander of the Air Force... stated there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies." Menachem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

ALON: The truth was that despite the "Three No's" of Khartoum, (no Arab recognition, negotiation or peace with Israel), direct negotiations with Jordan began soon after the Six-Day War, by 1970 with King Hussein himself. Even while Golda Meir was publicly lamenting, "If the Arabs would only sit down with us at a table like decent human beings and talk!," her representatives were secretly meeting the King. (Alon makes no mention whatever of Sadat's peace offer of 1971, apparently this has been erased from history).

CHOMSKY: After Nasser's death, the new President Sadat moved at once to implement peace with Israel. In February 1971, he offered Israel a full peace treaty on the pre-June 67 borders.... This offer caused much distress in Israel (it caused "panic" in the words of the well-known Israeli writer Amos Elon)"

Well, well, now wouldnt this make you laugh. Is this the same Amos Elon whose article we now are examining? The credibility of writers like Elon and the Zionist narrative in general is shot to pieces, but how many readers of the New York review of books would realise that?

Continuing with Chomsky: "Apparently under Kissinger's influence, the Nixon Administration decided to suspend State Department efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement in accordance with the international consensus and the explicit proposals of Egypt. An envoy was sent to a conference of US Ambassadors in the mideast... to a man the US ambassadors replied that if the countries in the Mideast concluded that the process itself had ended, there would be a disastrous war. Sadat also repeatedly warned that he would be forced to resort to war if his efforts at a peaceful settlement were rebuffed. Nahum Goldman observed that Sadat has conducted a daring policy by declaring himself ready to recognise Israel, and that if he cannot show results, the army will be compelled to launch a war."

ALON: As a result, on both sides now, the extremists are dominant: in Israel and Palestine they veto all progress toward peace.

Me: As indicated above, according to Chomsky's narrative, it is the US, beginning with the Kissinger regime and sustained since then up to the present day, that vetoes all progress towards the internationally accepted political settlement, ie a two state solution based on the (1967) green line. Alon's article can only be regarded as propaganda and disinformation which serves to obscure this central fact. Of course, as some people maintain, Chomsky could be "biased" and "lying", but it doesnt seem that way to me. Rather it seems that virtually the entire mainstream of the Zionist/Israeli/US narrative is "biased and lying" and Chomsky is nearly alone in telling the truth. How can you lie about a basic historical fact like Sadat's 1971 peace offer? Of course you cant, especially when you yourself are on record (as Alon is) as writing about it at the time it occurred. But what you can do is put it in Orwell's famous "Memory Hole". Then it simply disappears from history, and people consuming news and media today would never know about it...

The New York Review of Books: Israelis & Palestinians: What Went Wrong?
This article reads plausibly but one wonders at the truth of so many statements of the Zionist narrative. Leaving aside the failure to mention the crucial fact of US military, economic and diplomatic aid, the following statements might raise eyebrows:

ELON: The establishment of Israel was widely recognized at the time as perhaps the inevitable, even legitimate, result of a war that the Jews had neither started nor provoked; above all it was seen as a legitimate haven for Holocaust survivors and DPs who, in most cases, refused to go back to Poland or Germany. Having been rejected in their former homelands, many of them wanted to go to Israel and only to Israel.

CHOMSKY (Fateful Triangle): As for the wretched survivors of Hilter's holocaust themselves, it is likely that many - perhaps most - would have chosen to come to the United States had this opportunity been offered, but the Zionist movement, including American Zionists, preferred that they settle in a Jewish state... Roosevelt's advisor Morris Ernst wrote in 1948 of his shock at the refusal of American Jewish leaders to consider the possibility of giving "these beaten people of Europe a choice" to go to the US or Palestine.

ALON: The 1967 war was the great watershed. It interrupted a decade of gradual détente between Israel and Egypt... Israel was at first praised in the West for scoring a spectacular victory in a war largely provoked by the bizarre miscalculations of the Egyptian and Syrian rulers.

CHOMSKY: The former Commander of the Air Force... stated there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies." Menachem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

ALON: The truth was that despite the "Three No's" of Khartoum, (no Arab recognition, negotiation or peace with Israel), direct negotiations with Jordan began soon after the Six-Day War, by 1970 with King Hussein himself. Even while Golda Meir was publicly lamenting, "If the Arabs would only sit down with us at a table like decent human beings and talk!," her representatives were secretly meeting the King. (Alon makes no mention whatever of Sadat's peace offer of 1971, apparently this has been erased from history).

CHOMSKY: After Nasser's death, the new President Sadat moved at once to implement peace with Israel. In February 1971, he offered Israel a full peace treaty on the pre-June 67 borders.... This offer caused much distress in Israel (it caused "panic" in the words of the well-known Israeli writer Amos Elon)"

Well, well, now wouldnt this make you laugh. Is this the same Amos Elon whose article we now are examining? The credibility of writers like Elon and the Zionist narrative in general is shot to pieces, but how many readers of the New York review of books would realise that?

Continuing with Chomsky: "Apparently under Kissinger's influence, the Nixon Administration decided to suspend State Department efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement in accordance with the international consensus and the explicit proposals of Egypt. An envoy was sent to a conference of US Ambassadors in the mideast... to a man the US ambassadors replied that if the countries in the Mideast concluded that the process itself had ended, there would be a disastrous war. Sadat also repeatedly warned that he would be forced to resort to war if his efforts at a peaceful settlement were rebuffed. Nahum Goldman observed that Sadat has conducted a daring policy by declaring himself ready to recognise Israel, and that if he cannot show results, the army will be compelled to launch a war."

ALON: As a result, on both sides now, the extremists are dominant: in Israel and Palestine they veto all progress toward peace.

Me: As indicated above, according to Chomsky's narrative, it is the US, beginning with the Kissinger regime and sustained since then up to the present day, that vetoes all progress towards the internationally accepted political settlement, ie a two state solution based on the (1967) green line. Alon's article can only be regarded as propaganda and disinformation which serves to obscure this central fact. Of course, as some people maintain, Chomsky could be "biased" and "lying", but it doesnt seem that way to me. Rather it seems that virtually the entire mainstream of the Zionist/Israeli/US narrative is "biased and lying" and Chomsky is nearly alone in telling the truth. How can you lie about a basic historical fact like Sadat's 1971 peace offer? Of course you cant, especially when you yourself are on record (as Alon is) as writing about it at the time it occurred. But what you can do is put it in Orwell's famous "Memory Hole". Then it simply disappears from history, and people consuming news and media today would never know about it...

PM John Howard on Preemptive strikes by Australia and changing the UN charter
"REPORTER: Now, you've been arguing for a new approach to pre-emptive defence, you want the UN to change its charter, I think. Does that mean that you ... if you knew that, say, JI people in another neighbouring country were planning an attack on Australia that you would be prepared to act?

"HOWARD: Oh yes, I think any Australian Prime Minister would. I mean, it stands to reason that if you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country, either of a conventional kind or of a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity then of course you would have to use it."

John Howard is a clown who can hardly be taken seriously. Presumably this statement, along with so much else of his appalling racist, nationalist and militarist posturing, in intended only for domestic consumption. The option of "preemptive military strikes" belongs either to military superpowers who do not fear retaliation or madmen who wish to start wars. Which of these, pray tell Mr Howard, is Australia?

The suggestion floated by Howard and Defence Minister Hill of altering the UN charter to allow preemptive strikes also defies credulity. For an arrogant hyperpower like the US such an idea makes some sense. Everybody else, including Australia, would be expected to support the concept of collective security and national sovereignty as embodied in the UN charter. Possibly Mr Howard and Mr Hill, deluded by their relationship with the US and the UK, echo these ideas with some seriousness, but reality must set in sooner rather than later.

Howard's approach in general to terrorism and international affairs demonstrates how much a white colonial subject he really is and how real the need is for Australia to definitively cut the apron strings with the UK and the US and connect with our own region. Abolishing the monarchy, withdrawing from the ANZUS treaty, closing American bases, banning nuclear weapons in the region and seeking security by working with our Asian neighbours under the umbrella of the the UN charter instead of relying on sheer US military dominance are the decisive steps.

Australia could be working with its Oceanic and ASEAN neighbours to develop a South East Asian/Oceanic union on the model of the European community. A few decades ago the Europeans were at each other's throats in the most vicious wars in human history. Now they are at peace and united. How much vision does it really take to see that as the future instead of the unreconstructed racism, imperialism, militarism, neo-colonialism and hegemonism as effectively practiced by the US, the UK and Australia? John Howard: barbed wire, concentration camps, racism, SAS troops, and "preemptive strikes".

PM John Howard on Preemptive strikes by Australia and changing the UN charter
"REPORTER: Now, you've been arguing for a new approach to pre-emptive defence, you want the UN to change its charter, I think. Does that mean that you ... if you knew that, say, JI people in another neighbouring country were planning an attack on Australia that you would be prepared to act?

"HOWARD: Oh yes, I think any Australian Prime Minister would. I mean, it stands to reason that if you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country, either of a conventional kind or of a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity then of course you would have to use it."

John Howard is a clown who can hardly be taken seriously. Presumably this statement, along with so much else of his appalling racist, nationalist and militarist posturing, in intended only for domestic consumption. The option of "preemptive military strikes" belongs either to military superpowers who do not fear retaliation or madmen who wish to start wars. Which of these, pray tell Mr Howard, is Australia?

The suggestion floated by Howard and Defence Minister Hill of altering the UN charter to allow preemptive strikes also defies credulity. For an arrogant hyperpower like the US such an idea makes some sense. Everybody else, including Australia, would be expected to support the concept of collective security and national sovereignty as embodied in the UN charter. Possibly Mr Howard and Mr Hill, deluded by their relationship with the US and the UK, echo these ideas with some seriousness, but reality must set in sooner rather than later.

Howard's approach in general to terrorism and international affairs demonstrates how much a white colonial subject he really is and how real the need is for Australia to definitively cut the apron strings with the UK and the US and connect with our own region. Abolishing the monarchy, withdrawing from the ANZUS treaty, closing American bases, banning nuclear weapons in the region and seeking security by working with our Asian neighbours under the umbrella of the the UN charter instead of relying on sheer US military dominance are the decisive steps.

Australia could be working with its Oceanic and ASEAN neighbours to develop a South East Asian/Oceanic union on the model of the European community. A few decades ago the Europeans were at each other's throats in the most vicious wars in human history. Now they are at peace and united. How much vision does it really take to see that as the future instead of the unreconstructed racism, imperialism, militarism, neo-colonialism and hegemonism as effectively practiced by the US, the UK and Australia? John Howard: barbed wire, concentration camps, racism, SAS troops, and "preemptive strikes".

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
The writer of this article discredits his most important points against American Imperialism by insisting on spending most of his time labouring an improbable and unnecessary assumption, that the World Trade Centre demolition was in fact planned by the Bush Administration. High level plots and conspiracies are possible (the Kirov murder is perhaps the most outstanding example), but Ockham's razor applies. There is sufficient motive and resentment amongst Arab Muslims regarding the situation in Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to consider the making of such an attack, as everyone should appreciate by now. As for the organisation and planning of it, it is a remarkable feat although Bin Laden himself, in a cave in Afghanistan, may not have been directly involved in that planning.

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
The writer of this article discredits his most important points against American Imperialism by insisting on spending most of his time labouring an improbable and unnecessary assumption, that the World Trade Centre demolition was in fact planned by the Bush Administration. High level plots and conspiracies are possible (the Kirov murder is perhaps the most outstanding example), but Ockham's razor applies. There is sufficient motive and resentment amongst Arab Muslims regarding the situation in Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to consider the making of such an attack, as everyone should appreciate by now. As for the organisation and planning of it, it is a remarkable feat although Bin Laden himself, in a cave in Afghanistan, may not have been directly involved in that planning.

John Pilger: Blair has made Britain a Target (2001)
"Tony Blair is endangering the people of this country as well as Britons abroad. His willingness to join Bush's "crusade" and use military force will neither avenge nor bring justice to nor honour the memory of the ordinary people who died so terribly in America last week because this will almost certainly lead to a gratuitous slaughter of more innocents in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. It also risks nurturing a new generation of suicidal killers. Two years ago, Denis Halliday, the assistant secretary general of the United Nations who resigned over the Anglo-American-imposed embargo of Iraq, told me: "We are likely to see the emergence of those who may well regard Saddam Hussein as too moderate and too willing to listen to the west. Such is the desperation of people whose children are dying in their thousands and who are bombed almost every day by American and British planes." "

John Pilger: Blair has made Britain a Target (2001)
"Tony Blair is endangering the people of this country as well as Britons abroad. His willingness to join Bush's "crusade" and use military force will neither avenge nor bring justice to nor honour the memory of the ordinary people who died so terribly in America last week because this will almost certainly lead to a gratuitous slaughter of more innocents in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. It also risks nurturing a new generation of suicidal killers. Two years ago, Denis Halliday, the assistant secretary general of the United Nations who resigned over the Anglo-American-imposed embargo of Iraq, told me: "We are likely to see the emergence of those who may well regard Saddam Hussein as too moderate and too willing to listen to the west. Such is the desperation of people whose children are dying in their thousands and who are bombed almost every day by American and British planes." "

The Freenet Project
"Freenet is not a quick and easy way to swap pictures or MP3s. It requires investments from the user, but the rewards are much greater than with a quick-and-dirty peer-to-peer network like Napster. There is the same difference between Freenet and Napster as between Jabber and AIM: one is a technology platform built on solid ground while the other is just a product. Hopefully as time pass, the situation should improve and simpler applications should appear. World domination is planned for 2007, two years later than Linux."

The Freenet Project
"Freenet is not a quick and easy way to swap pictures or MP3s. It requires investments from the user, but the rewards are much greater than with a quick-and-dirty peer-to-peer network like Napster. There is the same difference between Freenet and Napster as between Jabber and AIM: one is a technology platform built on solid ground while the other is just a product. Hopefully as time pass, the situation should improve and simpler applications should appear. World domination is planned for 2007, two years later than Linux."

Malaysia: Reject First Strike doctrine
"Veteran Malaysian opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said today the Association of Southeast Asian Nations should collectively reject the pre-emptive strike doctrine adopted by US President George W Bush after the September 11 attacks and now being echoed by Howard."

Lim, in a statement, called the doctrine "a most dangerous form of state terrorism as it would make a nonsense of the UN Charter ... With such an idea, the line between self-defence and aggression becomes hopelessly blurred."

Malaysia: Reject First Strike doctrine
"Veteran Malaysian opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said today the Association of Southeast Asian Nations should collectively reject the pre-emptive strike doctrine adopted by US President George W Bush after the September 11 attacks and now being echoed by Howard."

Lim, in a statement, called the doctrine "a most dangerous form of state terrorism as it would make a nonsense of the UN Charter ... With such an idea, the line between self-defence and aggression becomes hopelessly blurred."

Australian Pre-emptive strike overseas 'would be act of war'
"Malaysia and Indonesia have warned that any pre-emptive strike by Australian forces against terrorists on their soil would be an act of war."

Australian Pre-emptive strike overseas 'would be act of war'
"Malaysia and Indonesia have warned that any pre-emptive strike by Australian forces against terrorists on their soil would be an act of war."

CHOMSKY on method: Violence or Non-Violence?
"The next question that arises has to do with the methods of struggle to achieve such ends. Here the primary question is whether these methods should be violent or non-violent. Here we have to distinguish two kinds of questions: moral questions and tactical questions. With regard to the moral questions, my own personal view is that a very heavy burden of proof is required for anyone who advocates or undertakes the use of violence. In my view that burden of proof can very rarely be met. Non-violent protest is more appropriate morally, and tactically as well. However, there is a fundamental principle of non-violence: "you do not preach non-violence unless you are willing to stand alongside to the people who are suffering the repression." Otherwise, you can?t give that advice. I'm not in a position to stand next to the people who are suffering repression, so I can only express my opinion, but not give advice."

CHOMSKY on method: Violence or Non-Violence?
"The next question that arises has to do with the methods of struggle to achieve such ends. Here the primary question is whether these methods should be violent or non-violent. Here we have to distinguish two kinds of questions: moral questions and tactical questions. With regard to the moral questions, my own personal view is that a very heavy burden of proof is required for anyone who advocates or undertakes the use of violence. In my view that burden of proof can very rarely be met. Non-violent protest is more appropriate morally, and tactically as well. However, there is a fundamental principle of non-violence: "you do not preach non-violence unless you are willing to stand alongside to the people who are suffering the repression." Otherwise, you can?t give that advice. I'm not in a position to stand next to the people who are suffering repression, so I can only express my opinion, but not give advice."

First strike could strand troops: defence expert
The practicalities of Prime Minister John Howard's first-strike policy against terrorists have been questioned by a leading defence analyst, Michael O'Connor from the Australian Association.

First strike could strand troops: defence expert
The practicalities of Prime Minister John Howard's first-strike policy against terrorists have been questioned by a leading defence analyst, Michael O'Connor from the Australian Association.

Barak's Legacy: The Myth of the "Generous Offer"
"Many American and Israeli officials who were present during the Camp David summit have worked long and hard to debunk this version of events yet Barak' s version still holds sway. But many are coming to see Barak as a politician who plays on the worst fears of his constituency simply to present his own failures in a more favorable light. Barak's offer, in fact, proposed a Palestinian state that would have been fractured by Israeli settlement blocs and bypass roads that would have made life for Palestinians extremely difficult. It gave Palestinians no common border with any Arab state, very limited sovereignty in Jerusalem and equally limited control of the scant but crucial water resources of the West Bank. And, perhaps most important of all, this offer was presented to Arafat as a "take it or leave it" proposal, as both Barak and Clinton made it clear that Israel would go no further than this offer. In addition, because Barak built even more settlements than his right-wing predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, it was even more difficult for Arafat to accept his "generous offer." "

Barak's Legacy: The Myth of the "Generous Offer"
"Many American and Israeli officials who were present during the Camp David summit have worked long and hard to debunk this version of events yet Barak' s version still holds sway. But many are coming to see Barak as a politician who plays on the worst fears of his constituency simply to present his own failures in a more favorable light. Barak's offer, in fact, proposed a Palestinian state that would have been fractured by Israeli settlement blocs and bypass roads that would have made life for Palestinians extremely difficult. It gave Palestinians no common border with any Arab state, very limited sovereignty in Jerusalem and equally limited control of the scant but crucial water resources of the West Bank. And, perhaps most important of all, this offer was presented to Arafat as a "take it or leave it" proposal, as both Barak and Clinton made it clear that Israel would go no further than this offer. In addition, because Barak built even more settlements than his right-wing predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, it was even more difficult for Arafat to accept his "generous offer." "

5 reasons to stop US military aid to Israel

5 reasons to stop US military aid to Israel

Israel's Choice: Annexation, Withdrawal or Expulsion
"Jerusalem: Returning to Israel after an extended absence can be a disturbing experience. On the way back from the airport to my Jerusalem apartment, I noticed new posters tacked onto utility poles and bridges along the highway. They read: Transfer= Peace and Security. The meaning was unambiguous: Israel must expel the 3 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories--and perhaps even its own Palestinian citizens--in order to achieve peace and security.

"While racist slogans have become pervasive in Israel, it was this particular message--the notion of expulsion as a political solution--that unhinged me. One does not need to be a Holocaust survivor to recognize the phrase's lethal implications."

Israel's Choice: Annexation, Withdrawal or Expulsion
"Jerusalem: Returning to Israel after an extended absence can be a disturbing experience. On the way back from the airport to my Jerusalem apartment, I noticed new posters tacked onto utility poles and bridges along the highway. They read: Transfer= Peace and Security. The meaning was unambiguous: Israel must expel the 3 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories--and perhaps even its own Palestinian citizens--in order to achieve peace and security.

"While racist slogans have become pervasive in Israel, it was this particular message--the notion of expulsion as a political solution--that unhinged me. One does not need to be a Holocaust survivor to recognize the phrase's lethal implications."

Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq
"D-Day of December 8th quietly approaches - the day Iraq must provide the UN Security Council with a complete accounting of its weapons programs, plus its civilian chemical/biological/nuclear production and research activities. Even though UN weapons inspectors have criticized the December 8th deadline as unrealizable, the consequences for missing it will be catastrophic: Iraq will be in "material breach" of UN resolution 1441, and therefore subject to swift and decisive military action.

"But at this point, UN 1441 seems little more than a whitewash pretext for a US-led attack on Iraq. With US warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-fly zone, bombing raids against Iraq ongoing, multiple aircraft carriers on alert and 60,000 US troops currently in or around the Persian Gulf, it's clear the war has already begun, "material breach" or not. When it's convenient for the Bush administration, Iraq will be found to have violated some aspect of the UN resolution, and the current buildup and covert military activity will explode into an all-out attack."

Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq
"D-Day of December 8th quietly approaches - the day Iraq must provide the UN Security Council with a complete accounting of its weapons programs, plus its civilian chemical/biological/nuclear production and research activities. Even though UN weapons inspectors have criticized the December 8th deadline as unrealizable, the consequences for missing it will be catastrophic: Iraq will be in "material breach" of UN resolution 1441, and therefore subject to swift and decisive military action.

"But at this point, UN 1441 seems little more than a whitewash pretext for a US-led attack on Iraq. With US warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-fly zone, bombing raids against Iraq ongoing, multiple aircraft carriers on alert and 60,000 US troops currently in or around the Persian Gulf, it's clear the war has already begun, "material breach" or not. When it's convenient for the Bush administration, Iraq will be found to have violated some aspect of the UN resolution, and the current buildup and covert military activity will explode into an all-out attack."