Rape by Deception -- An Update...

It is not always fatal to rush to judgment on a limited set of facts. However, it is important if you rush to judgment that you have the courage and honour to report the rest of the facts surrounding a case when they come to light. There is a sense of moral responsibility with respect to setting the record straight.

This brings me to the case of rape by deception. Israeli law allows a man to be charged and convicted of rape by deception for lying about who he is in order to gain sexual favours.

The law has been used to convict a number of Israelis who lied about their socio-economic status in order to bed a woman. This absurd law really came under the harsh spotlight of international media scrutiny when Sabbar Kashur was convicted to 18 months in jail for the rape by deception of a young Jewish woman.

The international media at the time, as well as many bloggers and other social media commentators, wrote this off as some form of anti-Arab overt racism. However, the case is far more complex and sad than it first appeared. There are very real arguments that race played a part in this sordid affair, but that it may have in fact worked in Kashur's favour rather than against him. There are always two sides to any story, and I mention that the commentary I was making in the original piece was based solely on the exclusive story of Kashur.

The Hebrew press in Israel has recently taken up the other side of the story, in this instance the woman who was raped. You can find that story at Haaretz online it is in Hebrew. You can find a translation of the article and some commentary on it at Mideast Youth blog. The best English account of the growing alternate case, alternate only in the sense of it being the other side of the story, can be found in an excellent piece written by Lisa Goldman.

There is always the temptation when you get something so wrong that it is embarrassing that you take all necessary measures to remove the embarrassment and pretend that it did not happen, and then hope that no-one ever finds out about it. However, the original piece that I wrote on this case will remain where it is. It is, and will continue to be a lesson, on remembering that there is always an alternate story out there waiting to be written. In any event, I stand by my belief that the law is absurd (at least for now).

The other side of this story is that Kashur brutally raped the young Israeli woman and left her bleeding and hysterical in the building in which he forced himself upon her. The reality is that he was charged with that violent sexual assault. The truth is that the prosecution realised that the victim in this case, the young woman and not Kashur, was going to be problematic as a reliable and credible witness if the case went to trial. Her testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and part truths about her life that the defense would have been able to exploit mercilessly.

The young woman has a story, and it is a tragic story. It is, and must be, one that is noted here. The young woman was a victim of incest, she was raped by her father from the age of six. She worked as a prostitute, and at the time of the violent sexual assault perpetrated against her by Kashur, she was living in a woman's shelter. It is not rocket science to understand that this is a young woman with serious emotional and mental issues to deal with. It is also not rocket science to understand that her life story has left her vulnerable to exploitation by others.

It would seem that she placed her trust in a man that had no intention other than to see whether or not he could extract a sexual favour or two. And, when the young woman resisted, he decided that he could take those favours even if she resisted those advances. A man forcing a woman to have sex with him by any definition is rape. No means no; no ifs, no buts and no maybes.

What is most interesting about this case now that more of the facts have come to light is that the prosecution and the defense seemingly reached a plea agreement in proceeding with this case. This is interesting for many reasons.

First, considering the vulnerability of the victim, why did the defense agree to a plea deal for the lesser charge of rape by deception? It would seem that with such a vulnerable witness that the defense could have continued to pick her testimony apart and that there would have been a good chance that Kashur would have escaped punishment for his crime.

Second, and conversely to the first, why would the prosecution and judges consider the plea deal when it would seem that this was in fact a case where a violent rape had occurred where the perpetrator must be punished, and severely for the crime he has committed.

The answer probably lies in the reality. The defense would undoubtedly have been worried that the sympathy for the victim may have overridden the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and then resulted in a very long custodial sentence. In order to avoid this the defense agrees to plead out to the lesser charge. For the prosecution and the judges, the belief would undoubtedly have been that this is a man who is a violent rapist who must be punished. However, the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony are going to make it very difficult to secure a conviction, so plead out to a lesser charge. It is better that he be punished a little than not at all.

Yet, despite the machinations in this sorry and sad case, the prosecution and judges were not able to avoid being labeled as racist for jailing an Arab for a crime that he claims he did not commit and only pleaded guilty to in order to avoid a long custodial sentence. However, as more details and facts come to light, then perhaps perceptions about who the real victim is in this case can be rectified and the record set straight once and for all.

This is a sad case, but it has been an illuminating and educational one on many levels for me.

Perhaps I will revisit this issue in the future. I feel that there is more that needs to be said, I am just not sure at the moment what it is that needs to be said.

"Rape By Deception"...

You have to give it to the Israeli courts, they will be creative in their jurisprudence if it means protecting some absurd sanctity of Jewishness and purity. If you tell lies and mistruths or you misrepresent something, like who you are for example, you might be guilty of deception. But to say you are someone you are not, or to lead someone to believe you are someone you are not, seemingly gets you in a position where you can be guilty of rape by deception.

In essence, if you embellish your personal story to get laid, then you get laid and the other person finds out that you are not who or what you say you are, then you are guilty of raping that other person because they would not have willingly engaged in sexual relations with you if they had known the truth.

This brings us to the case of Saber Kushour. It is a story I came across as I plough through the news online. I found this story at The Guardian here. The article is based solely on the account of Kushour.

The story is a sad tale because Kushour is a married father of two, and irrespective of the outcome of the case he acknowledges that his stupidity has harmed his family.

Kushour is an Arab Israeli who speaks fluent Hebrew without an Arab accent, and obviously passes for a Jew in some circumstances. Perhaps he now wishes that he did not in hindsight. Kushour has been sentenced to eighteen months in jail for the rape by deception of a Jewish woman.

The sex was consensual at the time and lasted a mere 15 minutes. Kushour's case is on appeal and attracting considerable attention in Israel for the underlying racist nature of the sentence and what this says about justice in Israel, and perhaps what is morally acceptable to Israelis in general.

Why has Kushour been sentenced to prison? This is a crude tale, an adulterous tale, where a single Jewish woman propositions a married Arab Israeli man and then has sex with him on a rooftop. To be fair the Jewish woman does not know that Kushour is married. But, Kushour is married and seemingly figured it was a good idea to avail himself of an opportunity to have a casual sexual encounter that his wife would never find out about. Unfortunately for Kushour, the Jewish woman when she found out that Kushour was really an Arab Israeli and not a Jew she lodged a police complaint claiming that she never would have had sex with him if she had known he was an Arab Israeli and not a Jew.

So, what was the legal reasoning of the judge, Zvi Segal, in this case that would allow a decision like this to be reached:

'Judge Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."' (from the Guardian).

The problem with this reasoning is that the woman was clearly not thinking about the sanctity of her body or soul when she engaged in the consensual sexual activity. The reality is she picked a man up off the street and then had sex with him on a rooftop. The judge has seemingly gone above an beyond in constructing his decision based on the need to protect the public interest from smooth talking criminals.

It would seem that Kushour's crime is that he suggested to the Jewish woman that he was a bachelor interested in a long-term relationship. In addition to the failure to be explicit in saying to the Jewish woman. "before we have sex you should know that I am an Arab Israeli, are you still interested in proceeding with our sexual encounter?" However, it must be pointed out that the Jewish woman did not ask about Kushour's lineage either.

The judge has then decided that the Jewish woman would not have 'co-operated' if she had known that Kushour was not a bachelor, and presumably she definitely would not have proceeded had she known he was an Arab Israeli. Yet, I would argue that the simple fact that she picked this man up while he was out buying cigarettes and then had sex with him on a nearby roof suggests that she was not all that interested in a period of courtship, marriage, and then sexual relations.

Kushour might be an adulterer but he is not a rapist.

Note:
If I can find what the appeal court decides in this case I will add a postscript to this post. If the appeal court upholds this decision it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to argue and introduce it in other jurisdictions.

A Report on the Banality of Evil

I am currently reading "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt. I am reading the Penguin Classic version that was originally published in 1963 and the reprint that I have from 2006. I have been wanting to read it for some time, and I finally managed to get a copy from Barnes & Noble when I was in the US in late March.

What first intrigued me about Eichmann was the international law implications of his kidnapping from Argentina and subsequent trial in Israel. The idea that Eichmann was nothing more than a functionary in an evil system is also an interesting way to examine the holocaust; evil perpetrated by ordinary men and women (primarily men).

The reviews of the book are best described as mixed, with some all for the Arendt account and others highly critical of her approach and use of "facts". I guess I will make my own judgment on these issues once I have finished reading the book.

Anyway, I will add a postscript once I have finished. I should also take it of my list of books that I wished I owned seeing that I now own a copy.

Acceptable Collateral Damage?

It is always easy to watch hostilities from afar and make one's judgments based on some ethical or moral code that is removed from the daily threat of violence and death. However, as I sit back and watch another round of Israeli and Palestinian violence, I wonder what is acceptable collateral damage in this time of sophisticated weapons and "surgical strikes".

I find myself wondering how Israel justifies killing women and children in order to kill a self-proclaimed terrorist. Is this as simple as killing them before they kill you. Is it a case of these children would have grown up to be terrorists and they would have been encouraged by their mothers to be so, therefore the best solution is to wipe them out before such a reality can eventuate?

I also find myself questioning the wisdom of firing rockets, homemade or otherwise, by Hamas into Israel.

The issue here is not one of whether Israel has a right to protect itself, it is not even a question in my mind of proportionality. Ask yourself this question, when are wars ever about proportionality? Your answer should highlight the silliness of the idea of proportional responses. To the victors go the spoils, and the victors are those that are left standing. Simply, the idea of proportional response will lead only to a series of ceasefires and temporary truces that never address the fundamental problems that lead to the hostilities in the first place.

The issue for me is what constitutes acceptable collateral damage. The recent Israeli attack that killed Nizar Rayan is an example of why this is a question that must be answered. There is little doubt that Nizar Rayan is a senior leader of Hamas. There is also little doubt that he advocates violence. It has been reported that he even sent one of his own sons on a suicide mission to kill Israelis. There is also little doubt that Israel classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization.

However, in order to kill Rayan, the Israelis decided the best method was to drop a rather large bomb on his house. This bomb was obviously large as it destroyed 12 surrounding house as well as the targeted house. The collateral damage issue here that I want to look at is not the property but the 18 people killed in addition to Rayan. Among the dead were his four wives, two daughters, and a son. This is what I wonder when I am wondering how to answer the question of acceptable collateral damage.

I wonder whether Israel could have put together covert Mossad teams and assassinate Rayan. This would have averted any unnecessary collateral damage. Perhaps questionable in international law however I would assert that killing innocent men, women, and children is also questionable under international law.

I am neither pro-Israel not pro-Hamas or Palestine. I am pro-peace and I am pro-humanity. I am against the killing of innocent men, women, and children in the furtherance of any cause.

So, I pose this question, "what is acceptable collateral damage in a time of conflict?"

Bali 2002 -- A CIA Nuclear Missile Strike?

Abu Bakar Ba'asyir must be feeling like he is not getting enough press coverage and in order to reinvigorate his 15 minutes of fame he has trotted out one of his favourite headline grabbers of years past, the bombings of 12 October 2002 was the work of the CIA.

Now, the Ba'asyir theory goes that a US warship off the coast of Bali fired a missile. He refers to this missile as a micro-bomb and not a regular bomb. The idea being that poor little Amrozi, Samudra, and Mukhlas are being framed by the US, Australia, and the Jews (presumably Israel).

As far as Ba'asyir can see, these would be the only countries that are capable of pulling off a conspiracy of this magnitude. He does though seem to suggest that Amrozi had a role in the first of the two explosions, but that the explosion was minor and at best shattered some glass and maybe wounded a few people but did not kill anyone.

It would seem that the cleric's contention is that Amrozi was a stooge and that the prosecutors in the case known this but are not brave enough to adduce the evidence in court and prove it.

Ba'asyir is allegedly the spiritual head of the Jemaah Islamiyya or JI. It is an allegation because he maintains that he has never been involved and that anyone claiming that they know him to be involved are kidding themselves. His did do some jail time for being part of an evil conspiracy. The court while sentencing him stated that he had given his approval for the bombings but had not been involved in any other way.

However, he is about to split from the Indonesian Mujaheddin Council and form a new organization concerned with the implementation of "pure" Islamic Law called the Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid. The plan is to launch this new organization on 25 October 2008.

If the speculation turns out to be true as it relates to the execution dates of Amrozi, Samudra, and Mukhlas, then maybe he will be launching this new group on the day of the bombers executions.

Then again, maybe not! Current speculation also has people saying that despite the chatter to the contrary the government is concerned about the impact the executions might have on their chance of re-election.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack?

I am an advocate of free speech. I have never considered free speech to be an absolute right but rather one that is modified by defamation laws and protected by an ability to prove what one says.

However, it seems that this freedom of speech is slowly but surely being whittled away as vilification and hatred laws are introduced to the regulatory framework and discourse is restricted to agreed truths that cannot be questioned.

This is a direct attack on the freedom of speech! The cartoon is a statement about the Canadian Human Rights Commission system and it can be found here at the FreedomSite Blog.

I have always wondered for example why it was wrong to publish a cartoon of Muhammad, or more specifically how that was any more wrong than say publishing a cartoon of Jesus or Buddha or some other religious icon?

I have always wondered why there cannot be academic debate say on the holocaust or why saying that the numbers of Jews killed under the "Final Solution" might not have been six million. To my mind there is no doubting that Nazi Germany as led by Adolf Hitler adopted a policy known as the "final solution" and that the purpose was to rid Europe of the Jews.

Yet, I do not understand the fear of having to defend this position. If someone questions whether the gas chambers were capable of poisoning the number of people claimed, then they are labeled anti-Semitic and threatened with jail. Where is the free speech in that and who is protecting the rights of these people to exercise their right to free speech?

Or is it the case that when you want to talk about Muhammad or Israel or other things you can only do so within the "agreed" discourse and to stray from this very limited path makes you a criminal?

Whatever happened to the idea that I might disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

How can we ever live in a truly functioning democracy if the narrative and the discourse is dictated by the few? Many vilification and hatred and denial laws are used purely for the purpose of stifling legitimate debate. And, this is a sad development and sets back our ability to live in peace and harmony with each other as these laws foster the ill-will and hatred that they seek to overcome.

It is time that we started behaving like adults rather than allowing our politicians to regulate us like we are children.

The freedom of speech must be a freedom to disagree, a freedom to challenge, and a freedom to question. Anything less makes a mockery of the freedom of speech as a legitimate human right.

Thus endeth the sermon!

Ahmadinejad and Israel

History is often said to repeat itself and perhaps is does so because people fail to learn the lessons of the past. I am not sure that there is any history to repeat on this one, but it is a good example of a one trick pony and a bloke that will never learn. Unfortunately, as much as one would like to dismiss this bloke as a raving lunatic, he cannot be dismissed so easily. This is particularly the case where the Iranian state is looking to develop nuclear capacity and the ongoing rhetoric of hatred leveled at Israel and all states that support the existence of Israel.

The latest salvo across the bow of the West is that Israel will not survive in any form and the restatement regarding the holocaust as being a fake and that the only holocaust that the Israelis have been involved in is the perpetration of a holocaust against the Palestinians.

What Israel has done in the Palestinian territories is perhaps sufficient for a claim of genocide and there have been legal arguments advanced in support of such a claim. This though does not prove that the holocaust perpetrated against the Jews during WWII is fake or a beat up. The holocaust against the Jews occurred and there is sufficient documentary evidence to support such a conclusion. Whether it was six million, or five million, of 4 million, or 1 million Jews that were murdered is irrelevant, it was still an organized, planned, systematic extermination of a group of people.

It is more likely though that Ahmadinejad's latest outburst has more to do with domestic politics in Iran. It seems that Ahmadinejad's grip is slipping as he and his policies fail to deliver for the Iranian people. This may be nothing more than an attempt at diverting attention from the failings at home.

I guess you cannot teach an old dog new tricks after all.

Samir Qantar -- Hailed A Hero

Samir Qantar (pictured) was Lebanon's longest serving prisoner incarcerated in Israel. Qantar was the biggest beneficiary of a prisoner swap and the exchange of remains that has been recently completed. Samir Qantar was a young 17-year-old when he was sentenced to five life terms for committing triple murder. One of Qantar's victims was a 4-year-old child.

As I have posted previously there is no excuse for the killing of a child. This does not change when the killer is a 17-year-old youth. At 17 you already know the difference between right and wrong and you would know that killing a 4-year-old is wrong.

Qantar has returned home to Aabey, southeast of Beirut, to a hero's welcome. It would seem that Qantar's political passion and love of the struggle has not dwindled after almost 29 years in prison. In fact Qantar remains proud and has no regrets or remorse for his actions and said the following, "I feel enormous joy because I have returned to the ranks of the resistance and to my family." Not missing a beat it seems his first change of clothes was to don a Hezbollah military uniform.

Qantar is being hailed as a hero whenever his name is mentioned, Lebanese are sacrificing lambs in his honour,and people are claiming that "Samir Kantar is the son of all the Lebanese".

It is a strange move on Hezbollah's part to be quite so vocal in claiming victory and Qantar being so vocal in his pride with respect to killing a child. My guess is that Qantar will be killed in a pre-emptive missile attack or some other military strike or assassinated in some other manner.

I watched the film "Munich" recently. I suspect that as most films do some liberties were taken with the story to make it into a movie script. However, even if a smidgeon of it is true then Qantar must be wary of what is coming his way. There will definitely be no peace for Qantar and he will not grow old while he is being stalked by Mossad. Sooner or later the game will be up. He might have in fact been safer in an Israeli prison.

I reiterate, child killers like Qantar are not heroes. It makes no difference whether he committed this crime as a 16, 17, or 30 year old. There is no honour in killing children and the murder of children must not be what the resistance is about!

The Israel -- Hezbollah Prisoner Swap is Underway

Hezbollah really needs to spend some money and recruit some good public relations people, as they simple have absolutely no idea on how to handle a significant event! In an earlier post I alluded to the cruelty of playing up the possibility that the two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, that Hezbollah was required to hand over under the deal, were alive. The reality, as most people expected, was finally confirmed today.

Hezbollah handed over two black coffins today to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC then drove the coffins into Israel. The remains were confirmed to be those of Goldwasser and Regev (photo by Issam Kobeisy / Reuters).

The second reason Hezbollah needs some PR people is this statement by one Mr. Safa who was operating as the spokesperson for Hezbollah, "We are now handing over the two imprisoned Israeli soldiers, who were captured by the Islamic resistance on July 12, 2006, to the ICRC." He then went on with this, "The Israeli side will now hand over the great Arab mujahid (holy warrior) ... Samir Qantar and his companions to the ICRC." I am using PR people here in the manner that most organizations would use them for crisis or message management.

There is nothing holy about Samir Qantar. Qantar is a cold-blooded child killer, plain and simple. His release is sure to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many Israelis. To rub salt into this wound Hezbollah has a wide range of festivities planned to celebrate the release. There should be little doubting why some countries want to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization when you celebrate child killers as holy warriors or mujahideen. Any legitimacy that an organization might have had is lost when it glorifies child killers.

I wonder who is getting the best deal in all this prisoner swapping and the returning of remains?

Israel and Hezbollah -- Prisoner Swap

This prisoner swap might not be one for the ages but it is an interesting step for both Israel and Hezbollah to be taking at this point in time. The UN-brokered deal calls for Israel to release prisoners, chief among them, Sami Kuntar, in exchange for two captured Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who have been presumed killed after their capture in 2006.

The deal is not a done deal as it still requires Lebanon to be forthcoming with information relating to an Israeli airman, Ron Arad, who was shot down over Lebanon in 1986. Lebanon has indicated that it is willing to do this but as yet has not released a final report as promised.

Kuntar is a killer. He might be a hero to Hezbollah, but to just about everyone else he is a cold-blooded killer. He shot and killed an Israeli man in front of his four-year old daughter and then smashed the young girls head against a rock with the butt of his rifle and then tossed her body into the sea.

I do not care if you feel you are fighting a war of liberation or freedom or whatever, there is simply no justification for killing children. This was not collateral damage, but rather a pre-meditated attack in response to the signing of an Israeli - Egyptian Peace Accord at Camp David in 1978. This signing probably cost Anwar el-Sadat his life as well several years later in 1981.

Kuntar at the time was working on the orders of the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF). The PLF tried to secure Kuntar's release in 1985 and orchestrated the hijacking of the Italian Cruise ship the Achille Lauro. The PLF were unsuccessful in this attempt. It seems where the PLF has failed Hezbollah may have succeeded.

Interestingly, the Hezbollah leadership are playing up the idea that the two Israeli soldiers might still be alive by labeling the Israeli attempts to formalize the status of the soldiers as "killed in action", speculative. If these two soldiers are not alive then this is plain and simple, cruel.

Perhaps the release of Kuntar and other prisoners is worth it to the families of the two soldiers that are to be released and to the Israeli people. I wonder how the family of Kuntar's victims feel about the pending release.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the problems of the Middle East are complex.

It also does not take a rocket scientist to know that rhetoric like this means that the problems of the Middle East are not going to be resolved any time soon.

With this post I am not stating a position in favor of one or the other. For me the holocaust perpetrated against the Jews is a historical fact that cannot be disputed. Whether it was six million or five or four is irrelevant in the big scheme of things because they are numbers that many of us just cannot comprehend. The numbers are obviously relevant to those who lost loved ones during the course of the perpetration of this evil. My point though is that for most of us the numbers are so huge that it makes comprehension difficult.

If it was four million then this is the same number of people who live in Sydney. Try imagining a here one day gone the next scenario. One day Sydney is a bustling city the next day it is devoid of citizens, trucked and trained to camps. Scary thought.

Is what is happening in Gaza a holocaust? Not on the scale of the holocaust perpetrated against the Jews during the Second World War. However, serious questions must be asked as to whether the consistent and widespread targeting of Palestinians constitutes a genocide? This post does not lend itself to a detailed debate of the legal issues, but it is worth thinking about.

The Middle East issues are not going to be resolved with dialogue alone. These issues are going to require us to look deep within ourselves to our core humanity and make some hard decisions about the sort of world in which we want to live.

Should we be scared by rhetoric such as this? The simple answer is, Yes! If enough people start believing in it then perhaps this will metamorphose into the next clash of civilizations. Simply, two diametrically opposed views such as these can only mean bloodshed, and lots of it.

The screen capture is of Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi, Head of the Department of Islamic Studies at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, and are from an interview which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on 29 February 2008. Al-Aqsa TV is a satellite news channel run by Hamas. This is old news but I only just found it and I find it to be interesting and important at the same time as it characterizes for me the intractable nature of the problem.

Some of what was said includes the following:

"we will not be satisfied even if all the Jews are killed. So what are we supposed to say in the face of the Gaza holocaust? What compensation will satisfy us? By Allah, we will not be satisfied even if all the Jews are killed."

"One of the important things that we must tell people is that what is going on in Palestine today is a real holocaust. This is the real holocaust. A holocaust is not the burning of 50-60 Jews in Germany or Switzerland, but the Jews continue to call it the Holocaust."

The interview was recorded in Arabic and I must confess I cannot read, write, or speak Arabic and have relied on translations provided by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). I hope they are accurate. The links I have included will direct anyone interested to the original Arabic language versions.

Israel and Hamas

It is interesting that when the focus or spotlight is on you in a bad way the easiest way to shift the spotlight is to demonize someone or something else. Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, has been doing it tough of late with corruption scandals swirling all around him and with allegations surfacing of his direct involvement. Hence, the warning issued by Olmert that this cease fire or truce that is scheduled to come into force on Thursday is Hamas' last chance. It seems that if Hamas does not play ball and behave then Israel is prepared to strike deep into the heart of the Gaza Strip.

In the Israeli PM's own words, the people of Gaza are "pissed off with Hamas".

Now I am not pro-Hamas. In fact I have no problem with it being labeled an extreme and fundamentalist organization. The problem as I see it is that Hamas is now a democratically elected entity. The "West", and primarily the US, severely misunderstood the social and political dynamics when there was agreement to the idea of Hamas participating in Palestinian elections.

There seems little doubt that Hamas is anti-Israel and this means, in my mind at least, that any kind of truce will be short-lived. I just do not believe that Hamas has the sort of governance control it needs to reign in the militants and stop the rocket attacks. I hope I am wrong. I would love to see genuine peace in that part of the world in my life time. Yep, the eternal optimist!

The Israeli PM has close links to Australia and has family members living in Australia. In fact his cousin is married to the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and an aunt in Sydney.

The PM has grand plans of making peace with Lebanon and Syria. The plan even includes opening an Israeli Embassy in Damascus. Now this kind of peace would significantly change the geo-political dynamic of the region for the better. However, before any of these grand plans are likely to come to fruition the PM needs to survive the corruption allegations that by all accounts have two possible outcomes; resignation or new elections.

In any event there seems to be an open invitation to the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, to visit Israel. This comes on the heals of the Australian Federal Parliament passing a resolution that commemorated Israel's first 60 years of existence in March of 2008.

Maybe I will write more on this Middle East stuff in the future because I am an opinionated bugger on this issue!

Wolf Whistling - An Appropriate Response?

Nah, this is a story out of New Zealand and it does not involve sheep or rugby!

The story involves and Israeli tourist and some New Zealand road workers who couldn't help themselves from giving a wolf whistle or two as this obviously good looking young tourist walked past their place of work.

It would seem that the tourist has been in NZ for a while and has been subjected to the whistles over a period of time. Perhaps this is a lesson in when enough is enough.

Anyway, after being whistled at on her way to the ATM presumably to draw some cash, she decided the best way to give these fellas a lesson was to strip off all her gear and give them an eyeful of what they were really whistling at.

Once she drew her cash she apparently put her gear back on and went on her merry way! Well, at least she would have if she had not been detained by the police.

Lucky for her she was just given a warning and told that this was inappropriate behaviour in NZ. I would have figured it probably would have been inappropriate behaviour in Israel too! That's just me though!

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

The former US President is intending to meet up with Hamas leaders as well as leaders from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. He will also be meeting up with representatives of Fatah which is Hamas' main rival in the Palestinian territory.

Hamas is listed on a US list of terrorist organizations. So, in some ways it is an interesting turn of events that a former President of the US is going to pay a courtesy call to a group that the country he formerly led characterizes as a bunch of terrorists. Nevertheless, perhaps his point is valid; that if there is to be true peace with justice in the region then the views of Hamas need to be known and worked into the equation with all the other divergent views raging within the Palestinian debate, including those of Israel.

Despite Ahmadinejad's warnings of wiping Israel of the face of the map the likelihood of that happening is about as likely as Israel wiping Iran of the face of the map! They might go to war and kill most of each others citizens but the land will not disappear and neither will the idea that Israel exists. The arguments about nation building, success or failure, as it relates to Israel is not this argument and not for this blog entry.

However, the current US position is that Hamas is an impediment to peace and that nothing constructive can come from any meeting between Carter and Khalid Meshaal, the exiled leader of Hamas.

We need a world at peace to focus on those matters that we must address in order to sustain us!

On a side note the presumptive nominee from the Democratic Party in the US, Barack Obama, has come out and said that he would not meet with Hamas which is kind of strange considering he has previously said that his foreign policy would be based on active engagement of rogue leaders and States (at least as the US sees them) such as Raul Castro (Fidel before him) in Cuba and Ahmadinejad in Iran. So, why not Hamas? A different blog entry I suppose!