Far right, the left’s term for people with normal values and common sense

Found in the US on Powerline, but from our own ABC. Steve Hayward finds it funny, and cannot detect the anti-Trump vitriolic hatreds that lie behind it. In some ways it demonstrates that for those of us who line up behind the Trump agenda, his idiosyncracies don’t affect us even in the slightest. We are outcome-oriented. It is the combination of his values and his ability to achieve ends we support that explain why nothing that the ABC and its dreary stupidity are able to overcome. But the ABC and its mates everywhere on the left never give up since there is no doubt that something like a quarter of the population remain wedded to policies that only do them harm because of the political fashion statements put out by the media.

A few months ago North Korea was developing nuclear weapons and a delivery system that could blow up a million people on a single venture into some nihilist political program. Now such a possibility is the remotest likelihood. What has changed? And who caused that change to happen? And odder than perhaps anything, Trump offered this communist tyrant a vision of a peaceful, prosperous, capitalist North Korea as the longer-term future for his nation. I don’t expect the media to get it. Their politically-driven mental derangement is possibly beyond cure, so will simply have to stew in their bile. Meantime, videos such as the produced by the ABC, may help a few of our citizens to cross into the far right, which is the left’s term for people with normal values and common sense.

The right and the left on the ending of the Korean War

There are two views on North Korea that you can find if you look. The easiest to find is the left-media take that nothing happened, and it’s all a well-worn charade. But then there is this, which I will come to first before looking at the other. This is the positive view, taken from Ace of Spades.

The big news this morning is not only has the summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un taken place but as we were sleeping the two signed an historic agreement whereby the North has agreed to scrap its nuclear weapons program as part of an overall denuclearization of the entire Korean peninsula.

If you were merely to look at this only through the lens of how the Democrat-Left-Media complex judges success, via optics and feelings alone, then this is the biggest thing since Live Aid. But in reality, this truly has the potential to be one of the biggest foreign policy milestones since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Make no mistake; North Korea has been a belligerent, inscrutable and unpredictable enemy that has overtly and covertly stirred up trouble for nearly 70 years and so an extreme degree of caution and wariness is advised in any dealings with them; the foibles and follies of the past three administrations in particular bear this out as their policies have ranged from farcical to disastrous in terms of American interests and global security. I believe that PDT and his new team of Pompeo and Bolton know this going in.

Beyond all the platitudes and proclamations, when you get down to the granular level, the make or break in all of this relies on verification. North Korea is going to have to open up and submit to an inspection process that is antithetical to its nature as the world’s most closed, secretive nation. Can it do this? Will it do this? I suppose the fact that Kim’s willingness to meet face to face with an American president for the first time, and outside of his own country is something of a tell. He is the X factor in all of this. There may be things going on in Pyongyang as well as in his mind that tell him a rapprochement with the US, and more importantly, a concomitant distancing to whatever extent that is possible with China is in his and his nation’s best interests.

That is how you have to see it. Since memories of the rockets that were being launched not all that long ago have receded and will never be brought to mind by the media, the fact that we are now looking at a possibility of genuine peace is extraordinary. But here is the other side, brought to you via Bloomberg.

Donald Trump’s historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was unquestionably a success — for Kim.

By credibly threatening the U.S. with nuclear war, he won a one-on-one meeting with the American president — a longtime strategic goal of his family’s regime. And that’s not all.

Trump tossed in a suspension of military exercises with South Korea, while China suggested revisiting economic sanctions that the White House credits for the summit. Meanwhile, the president showered Kim with praise, calling the dictator who leads one of the planet’s most oppressive and brutal regimes “smart” and “very talented,” declaring the meeting “a great honour” and saying he trusts Kim.

Less clear is what the U.S. got in return. American officials said before the meeting they would insist that Kim agree to the “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement” of his nuclear weapons arsenal. The phrase appears nowhere in Trump and Kim’s statement.

Also missing: basics such as a timetable for Kim to give up his weapons, verification procedures or even a mutual definition of denuclearization. . . .

So far, Trump hasn’t shown he’ll avoid the same trap he’s accused his predecessors of falling into: giving North Korea too much without getting anything in return. While the president repeatedly described the document he and Kim signed as “comprehensive,” at 426 words it is anything but — and there is no indication of when or how Kim will follow through on any of his promises.

Fair enough, but the mingy dogs of the left will never say a good word about something done that benefits even their worthless hides, if it is done by someone whose approval they refuse to grant. But we shall see. These are all issues, but with Trump, Bolton and Pompeo on the watch, there is genuine reasons to hope for the best.

UNDERSTANDING THE ATMOSPHERICS: From a comment at Powerline:

Not a formally educated engineer or scientist, but I understand how things work (passed with flying colors the IC2/3 petty officer test without ever going to “A” school. I just looked at the gear and figured out how it worked.)

The one thing I understood very, very quickly (playing around with ham radio as a pre-teen) was signal to noise ratio. Anyone that understands that concept knows what Trump is doing. Lawyers rarely learn this skill. Their avocation (skill set) is to dissect every comma and period for meaning. To skilled/gifted science/engineering types finding the signal and ignoring the noise is easy peasy with Trump.

In other words take him seriously, but not literally — but that is like garlic to a vampire for a lawyer — most lawyers rank way down the scale from vampires

This is also why I know for a fact that man is not controlling the temperature of the atmosphere by using a quick study of signal to noise ratios of temp data over the long term. If you understand that concept and look at the data (even the climate hysterics data) you see for sure that man has nothing to do with climate — except maybe to move to one that suites you.

Harvey and Tommy

How’s he gonna get a fair trial?

Compare and contrast: British Media: Lockstep Lies:

  • Did the Daily Mail’s lawyers have to check with the British government, which had placed a gag order on reporting about the arrest, to make sure that it was permissible to report on the protest, if not directly on the arrest itself?
  • It seems fair to say that the incident has shocked, outraged, and scared people around the world who, until now, had thought of the United Kingdom as a free country.
  • “Britain used to be a bastion of free speech. Today its leaders are behaving like North Korea and Saudi Arabia.” – Geert Wilders, MP; The Netherlands
  • Meanwhile, Robinson remains in jail for daring to exercise his free speech, and what the mainstream media have won back is the right to resume repeating their lockstep lies about who he is and what he stands for.

 

If only 10% of what Robinson said was correct then the barbarians have already won

The usual high minded idiocies from Janet Albrechtsen on Don’t call it censorship when Islam critic’s simply in contempt of court. If you want to find out what she said, you can buy the paper. Here are the top comments starting as usual from the top. You could go on for much longer and not find a single person who agrees with her. And the true sign that she is hiding the actual circumstances is that she uses “grooming” in place of the actual term for what went on, which is rape.

You have got it badly wrong on this one Janet. Very disappointed that you have not properly done your research.

1. If you actually listen to the live stream that Tommy Robinson was putting out, he (i.e. Tommy) was arrested for disturbing the peace. It is blindingly obvious from the live streaming video that he was arrested under false pretences.
2. The local mainstream media was reporting that the trial had reached the sentencing phase and had published the names of the accused. They would not have done this if the trial was ongoing as you have falsely claimed. Tommy just read from news clipping from the local media and whenever he referred to the crimes of those involved he always used the term “alleged”.
3. Tommy asked the police officers in front of the court if he was on courthouse property and they confirmed that he was not. Tommy did this to make absolutely sure that he was not in violation of any court directed media restraining order.

You think Tommy is a radical, well that happens when people are unhappy with the governments who rule, not for their people, but for policies from a group of sycophants (UN). The support he is getting just shows the discontent all over the western world where people died in the past to ensure we were free to express different opinions. We are all worried about the legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren.

He was arrested, charged and sentenced within the space of five hours. It is funny that justice can be so swift when it cares to be.

Tommy was not filming inside the court, he was filming outside the court in a public area. Where was the media blackout during for instance the Rolf Harris trial? Did the daily media frenzy cause a mistrial?

Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner and should be released today!

A group of six or seven police officers arrested Robinson with minutes. Where were all these police officers when it came to arresting the grooming and rape gangs? Girls were begging for help from the police for years and they did nothing for years. But when Robinson opens his mouth it only takes minutes for them to act.

I thought the trial was before a judge not a jury? How would Robinson prejudice a trial if there is no Jury to influence?

Yeah, nah. Filming from outside court is contempt? What is the world coming to? Over-reach from the judge. Over-reach from the police.

The police have harassed his wife, children, mother and other members of his family to put pressure on him. If this is justice, we are all in big trouble!!!!

Janet listen to Paul Weston’s take on YouTube regarding Tommys arrest and you might think differently. Tommy Robinson is a hero but also an embarrassment to the establishment because he has been calling out the rape gangs for years and the police and the politicians would do nothing about it until recently. Theresa May has issued a ban on reporting anything to do with Tommy’s arrest and there are many who now claim that Britain is now a fully fledged totalitarian state.

“Searching for truth must be our mission in a liberal democracy”. Sure. And also: We must establish impregnable frontiers to protect our liberal democracy. We now encourage inflow of peoples whose cultures of origin contain no notion of empirical truth. In fact, such pursuit is forbidden for those few denizens of such cultures are capable of it. And our school and university systems have restricted the development of empirical capabilities. This imperative, of maintaining strong boundaries to safeguard our liberal democracy has been badly neglected in recent decades. Terrifyingly, the stamping out of the pursuit of empirical truth is a favorite method, and core aim, of our domestic Left.

I’m with Tommy. You are wrong on this one Janet

It’s pity that UK law is not applied with equal enthusiasm to all who transgress the UK’s laws. For example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s AHA Foundation sent a newsletter of 26 May, 2018 stating inter alia: “Despite having legislation in place since 1985, the United Kingdom has failed to prosecute any perpetrators of FGM. Even though mandatory reporting through the NHS has recorded 5,391 new incidents of FGM in 2016-17. A number of UK FGM cases have been brought to court, including two sets of parents earlier this year who had their daughters mutilated, yet they have all failed to land a conviction. The UK Commons Home Affairs Select Committee said the lack of convictions for FGM was a “national scandal”. One explanation is a lack of appetite among police to enforce the law.” [Emphasis added]

Robinson is a British man fighting against the Islamic takeover of Britain. That is all that matters.

Regardless of any prejudicial risk to a trial there is an inherent suspicion in UK that publicity about these crimes, which have occurred in several cities, is intended to be deliberately kept from the public on account of an expectation of personal and public racism. The failure to investigate and prosecute other similar crimes has fed into this and many people feel that the perception of racism has become the overwhelming aspect of policing, which surely cannot be right?

The reason for the emergence of Tommy Robinson is the same reason for the emergence of Donald Trump. In both cases the citizens had been let down by a self serving political class.

I watched a Tommy Robinson speech on You Tube yesterday, having never heard of him before. I appreciate that I only heard his side of the story, but if only 10% of what he said was correct then the barbarians have already won.

And here’s to you, Mr Robinson

We will start with Mark Steyn with his title taken from Kipling: “Tommy this, an’ Tommy that …an’ Tommy go away”. He has actually gone away, into the first British gulag, imprisoned for his political opinions, and placed in an environment where death is a genuine possibility. This is the backstory, in case you still don’t know:

On Friday, Robinson was livestreaming (from his telephone) outside Leeds Crown Court where last week’s Grooming Gang of the Week were on trial for “grooming” – the useless euphemism for industrial-scale child gang rape and sex slavery by large numbers of … men with the active connivance (as I pointed out to the Sky guys) of every organ of the state: social workers, police, politicians. Oh, and also the media.

Surely not, you say. This is how things work in a totalitarians state. And quite so, that is exactly how things work in a totalitarian state.

And this: UK in shock as judge covers up Soviet-style disappearance of journalist. From which:

According to Fox News:

Sources with knowledge of Robinson’s case spoke on condition of anonymity in part because of fear they would be arrested for contempt. One told Fox that Robinson’s lawyer warned that, considering the presence of … gang members in prison, a 13-month sentence was tantamount to a death sentence.

“Tommy’s lawyer said he will likely die in jail given his profile and previous credible threats, and the judge basically said he doesn’t care,” the source said. “He sentenced him to 13 months in prison.”

This is our world. It’s like suddenly finding oneself somewhere in Germany on the morning of the 31st of January 1933.

Rhodes to ruin

The only thing Rhodes has correctly stated is this:

“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Applies to him as well. The video comes from The Rough ‘Final Year’ of Ben Rhodes. Enjoy, but it’s a shame it took eight years of idiocy to set it up.

The ABC and its moral sickness

This is the transcript from Q&A on Monday in which the ABC provided oceans of time for a defender of murderers and terrorists to provide excuses why Palestinians were trying to invade Israel as a result of which around 60 ended up dead. Via Andrew Bolt: SHARRI MARKSON: ON THE ABC’S LATEST ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS. The left is morally sick. They cannot bear listening to the other side, and won’t allow anyone else to do so if they can help it. Just look at the paragraph blocks for Randa Abdel-Fattah – who is then followed by Peter Singer, for heaven’s sake – relative to Greg Sheridan.

AMIN ABBAS

Thanks, Tony. Palestinians are often held accountable for crimes committed against them. Last week, the Israeli Army killed 60 unarmed protesters, including many women and children, and injured 2,000, all in a single day. The UN Human Rights Council called for an independent investigation, in which only two countries voted against it – Australia and the US. When will the Australian government stop using the line that Israel has the right to defend itself? And will it, for once, call for the Palestinians’ human rights to be defended?(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES

Greg Sheridan.

GREG SHERIDAN

Thanks, Tony, for coming to me first on that question.(LAUGHTER)

GREG SHERIDAN

So, look, this is a very emotional and difficult issue. The death of 60 people is a terrible tragedy. And there’s plenty of moral blame to go around. I’ll make a couple of points to you. The United Nations Human Rights Council… Depends where we want to start in the debate, but the United Nations Human Rights Council has zero credibility. It never investigates its members such as Cuba or China, and it has had more resolutions against Israel than against all other nations on earth put together. Now, even if you are a critic of Israel, you cannot believe that it is responsible for more human rights abuses than all the other nations of the whole earth put together – the North Korean labour camp, gulag, 400,000 dead in Syria and so on. So as an organisation, it has zero credibility. And therefore, I think the Australian government was right to refuse to endorse that investigation. Now, the business of the demonstrations is tremendously contested. We’re not going to have time to go through all the detail. If it is the case that the Israelis used unnecessary force, that should be investigated. And I would have faith in the Israeli legal system to investigate it.(AUDIENCE MURMURS)

GREG SHERIDAN

Because it has done so and it has convicted and sent to jail its own soldiers in the past. However, a few things are important to bear in mind. Hamas, which controls Gaza, is a designated terrorist organisation under Australian law, under European law, throughout the states of the European Union, under American law.

TONY JONES

Greg, we’re going to come to a question on Hamas in a moment, so… But just… Australia was one of two countries. The United States and Australia.

GREG SHERIDAN

Yeah, many countries…

TONY JONES

Why did Australia choose to side with the United States?

JANE HUME

Three abstained.

GREG SHERIDAN

Well, I think a number of countries abstained. And in the United Nations…in a similar resolution in the United Nations…

TONY JONES

It makes a point when you vote against something. Abstaining is, “We don’t want to get involved in this argument.”

GREG SHERIDAN

Well, I think we were right to vote against it, because it was…the organisation has no credibility. But, look, a couple of critical points here. In the United Nations General Assembly, many nations, many like-minded nations to us, abstained from the UN Gen…as we did, in the UN General Assembly room. But, look, I just want to continue this thought about Hamas for a second. It’s terribly important.

TONY JONES

No, no. Come back to it, Greg. ‘Cause we are going to have a question on that, I promise you.

GREG SHERIDAN

OK.

TONY JONES

Uh, Randa.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

Where do I start? Let’s start with why Palestinians are protesting in Hamas…in the Gaza strip. I think it’s important to put this into context if we’re really to make sense of this conflict. They are protesting a brutal siege. They are an open-air prison – the largest concentration camp in the world, as it has been described by a prominent Israeli sociologist. They are about 1.8 million people in a size of about 355 square kilometres. There’s about 41km by 10-12km. They have a blockade for the last 11 years. Israel described it as economic warfare, where they were calculating the number of calories that Palestinians could live under, just short of starvation. They have a population of 75% under the age of 25. 51% of those are children. 97% of the water is poisonous. It is undrinkable. And why is that? Because Israel denied them a water desalination plant and bombed their water treatment facility in the 2008 and 2009 siege.It is an area that is trying to send a message to the world that, after 11 years of being besieged, of being traumatised, of having no sense of dignity or hope and being trapped – they’re not even allowed to leave – they’re trying to tell the world, “Wake up. It’s been 11 years now. What more do we have to do for you to take notice?” And they did it in a non-violent protest. And what were they met with? Nuclear-armed state drones. They were met with live fire by snipers. They were met with people who… The IDF tweeted and then quickly took it down, tweeted that they acted precisely, that they knew exactly where those bullets were landing. And as Lieberman said, he said that every person there at the protest was a Hamas operative. Was Leila Ghandoor, an eight-month-old baby who died, a Hamas operative? He said that there were no innocent people in Gaza.And this is the dehumanising rhetoric that we get when it comes to the Palestinians. That when they protest against something that we would all protest against, they are considered terrorists, and they are blamed for their own murder, as Julie Bishop implied in her tweet, where she put first, before any criticism of Israel, that the Palestinians should exercise restraint. So she is clearly siding there with people who are using expanding bullets on children, on people who are protesting, people who are 700m from a perimeter fence.So, yes, I’m angry on behalf of Palestinians that it takes us this long for the world to wake up. Wake up to what’s happening to Palestinians under our watch. It’s a shame. It’s a disgrace that Australia voted against something that doesn’t even need an investigation. It’s no mystery. It’s no mystery what happened. There’s live testimony. There’s video evidence. There’s photographic evidence. We don’t need another investigation, and then what’s going to happen after that? Nothing. Nothing.

TONY JONES

Greg, I’m going to bring you in because…(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES

OK. Thank you very much. Greg? I think that, like some of the audience, you reacted when Randa said it was a non-violent demonstration. I presume that’s because there were stone-throwers among the crowd?

GREG SHERIDAN

Uh, well, no. Tony, I don’t want to say anything which I haven’t said, if you know what I mean. So, look, you’ve gotta give me a couple of sentences of context if I’m to answer this. The Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and they said, “Make this place work and we’ll have a partnership together.” They had six open points. They thought a lot of people from Gaza would come in and work in Israel. They left behind their agricultural industry, and so forth. Now, because of Hamas, which took power and murdered many, many Palestinians…

TONY JONES

OK, Greg, I’m going to interrupt you, only to go to…

GREG SHERIDAN

No, you… No, look, you’ve got to let me…you’ve got to let me give context.

TONY JONES

I will, I promise you.

GREG SHERIDAN

It’s not fair…

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAHBut that’s not what it’s like.

GREG SHERIDAN

It’s not fair to allow all this emotion…

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

If you have a fish bowl…

GREG SHERIDAN…and then to prevent me from having any…

TONY JONES

I’m not preventing you. I’m going to the audience.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

If you have a fish bowl and you control…

TONY JONES

Both of you, if you just hang on for one second.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

…you control the food that you can give it, don’t you control that fish bowl?

TONY JONES

We’ve got a question from Josh Gladwin. Go ahead, Josh.GAZA00:47:32

JOSH GLADWIN

Hi guys. Um, cool story, Randa. According to American lawyer and academic Alan Dershowitz, the most recent Hamas provocations, having 40,000 Gazans try and tear down the border fence and enter Israel with Molotov cocktails and other improvised weapons, are part of repeated Hamas tactics that he has called the Dead Baby Strategy. Hamas’s goal is to have Israel kill as many Gazans as possible, so that the headlines always begin and often end with the body count. Do you agree?

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

Oh, poor Israel. We’re forcing it to murder us. And look at what the Palestinians are up against. And I don’t even need to make this up. The IDF tweeted a pictorial inventory of Hamas weapons of war. Let me explain what was on that inventory – arson kites, Molotov cocktails, wire cutters, rope for fence, disabled civilians, children. So that’s basically telling us, in the IDF’s eyes, these are weapons of war – children, disabled civilians – and they are therefore legitimate targets. So instead of blaming Hamas and blaming Palestinians for being murdered, how about we actually look at the people who are actually shooting people and killing babies?(APPLAUSE)

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

And not just that – what I find so contemptible about this is the dehumanisation of Palestinians. The way that we, in a very racist way, assume that they are puppets and pawns of Hamas. They are human beings with free will.

JOSH GLADWIN

Human shields.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

No. Oh, excuse me. Not human shields. They have dignity, they have free will, they have agency, and they are not some monolithic mass of Arabs. Each one of them there is there for a purpose – to protect and to defend themselves. And they haven’t given up on their right to freedom. And this is what frustrates Israel so much, and its apologists – that we are still there. This is the circle that Israel cannot square. That it wants to maintain and establish an ethno-racial exclusive Jewish nation, but the Palestinian people are there, and we won’t disappear.

JOSH GLADWIN

So why does Egypt have a blockade against Gaza?

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

It’s disgraceful. Egypt’s complicity…

JOSH GLADWINWhy not blame Egypt as well?

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

OK, Egypt, it’s disgraceful. You are complicit. But the problem is Israeli occupation and the siege. (APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES

OK, now, I’ll stop… Greg, that is a question about Hamas. You can talk about Hamas now.

GREG SHERIDAN

OK. OK.(LAUGHTER)

TONY JONES

But I do want to hear from the other panellists.

GREG SHERIDAN

So, very briefly, look, I would honestly urge people to read about this. It’s very difficult to deal with properly in a few sentences in a TV panel. Let me just give you a few points of context. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and said, “Let’s make this work together. If you work together, you can have a very prosperous economic future.” The situation of life in Gaza is terrible, almost entirely because of the actions of Hamas, which murdered…when it took power, murdered hundreds of other Palestinians. Murdered dissidents, threw homosexuals off the rooftop, murdered Fatah and Palestinian Authority people. One of the reasons conditions in Gaza are so bad today is because the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah decided to sanction Hamas in Gaza and stop paying the salaries of Palestinian Authority workers in Gaza.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

Greg, this is just nonsense. Was Hamas behind Operation Protective Edge, in which 2,200 Palestinians in 2014 were killed? In which 6,000 airstrikes, 50,000 artillery shells, 18,000 homes destroyed, 56 medical clinics destroyed, seven UNRWA schools destroyed, 17 medical clinics? Don’t believe me. Look it up.

GREG SHERIDAN

So…

TONY JONES

Sorry, I’m going to interrupt both of you just for a minute…

GREG SHERIDAN

You’ve got to let me…you’ve got to let me get my defence in.

TONY JONES

Yes, Greg. It’s a flowing discussion, and we’ll come back to you.

GREG SHERIDAN

Yeah, but, I mean, somehow or other, the TV and the people who hate Israel hate this essential context. They hate the context. Now, Hamas is a terrorist organisation, which has murdered many, many, many Palestinians. Don’t believe me. Just google the Hamas Charter and you’ll see it is rank, vicious, foul anti-Semitism. It incites murder. Every time it gets across the border, it kills Israeli civilians. Major General Jim Molan of the Australian Army…

TONY JONES

Greg, he’s on next week and he can talk for himself.

GREG SHERIDAN

…he’s investigated… No, no. Let me finish this sentence.

TONY JONES

No, I have to let the other panellists speak.

GREG SHERIDAN

Let me just finish this sentence.

TONY JONES

OK.

GREG SHERIDAN

He investigated the Israeli Defense Force in detail, and said that it exercises the same moral restraint and the same ethical practice as any Western army would.

TONY JONES

OK. Thank you.(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES

Now, Peter Singer, you’ve been critical of both Hamas and Israel. So let’s hear your…

PETER SINGER

Exactly. I am critical of both of them, and I think the situation is a tragic one and it has resulted in the tragedy that we’re talking about this time. But clearly there are extremists on both sides. And, you know, there was hope some years ago, when Rabin was prime minister, for example. But, sadly, he was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli and hopes for peace went down. And since then, I think, both sides have gone to extremes. Certainly, the Israeli government has gone to extremes and has not shown signs of really being interested in negotiating peace or stopping settlements. But on the other hand, you have to say, as far as Hamas is concerned particularly, Greg is right – they are a terrorist organisation, they are firing rockets into Israel, they are openly trying to kill Israelis where they can, and they did reject offers of cooperation back when Israel left Gaza. So that’s a tragedy for the people of Gaza. And it’s very hard to see a way out.

TONY JONES

Let’s go to the original question, which was asking about Australia’s vote to reject the investigation into an incident which killed a large number of people and wounded thousands. What’s your view on that?

PETER SINGER

I would have liked to see an investigation, both into why Israel used live fire and could not find a less lethal way of preventing people from attacking and cutting through the fence, but also why Hamas was inviting people to go to the fence when Israel had made it clear that it was going to use force to prevent people, that there clearly was a risk of live ammunition, of people being killed. And why people would go there with their children and babies actually, you know, is mind-boggling to me. What kind of a person would you have to be to say, “I’m gonna take my baby to this area where there’s likely to be firing.”(APPLAUSE)

TONY JONES

Jane.

JANE HUME

The reason why Australia voted against this inquiry was because we believed that it was already being prejudged, that the UN Human Rights Council had already prejudged the outcome. And you could tell that from its language. It didn’t include Hamas in any of the terms of reference of that inquiry. It only included Israel. It included not just Gaza, but also Jerusalem and the West Bank, which weren’t necessarily involved in this particular incident. In fact, it didn’t cite this particular incident at all. And it had an unlimited time period over which it wanted to look at Israeli behaviour. So we felt that it was inappropriate, the way that it had been…the way it had been phrased. Now, Australia has supported these independent inquiries in the past. It supported an independent inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. So it wasn’t necessarily that…the idea of an inquiry that was the problem. It was the fact that we felt they were already had…had already come up with an outcome.

TONY JONES

OK, we’ve got someone with their hand up over there. I’m going to get a microphone to you. Just hang on. For a comment, hopefully. Go ahead.

MAN

Just a very quick question.

TONY JONES

OK.

MAN

To Greg in particular, but to others. If you were a young man in Gaza, what would you do?

GREG SHERIDAN

Well, uh, look, the quality of life in Gaza desperately needs to be improved. That should be the number one priority of everybody. And it would be improved if Hamas would cooperate with the Palestinian Authority, if it didn’t misuse aid to make attacks on Israel and so on. But the whole… Egypt itself maintains its own blockade with Gaza, because Gaza is constantly threading terrorists back and forth into the Sinai. It is a terrible tragedy for the poor, innocent people of Gaza that they have such a shocking group of terrorists ruling them.

MAN

But what would you do? What would you do if you were there as a young man now?

GREG SHERIDAN

Try to get Hamas out of government. And the courageous Palestinians who have tried to do that have mostly ended up dead.

TONY JONES

OK, Julie, we haven’t heard from you

.JULIE COLLINS

Well, I think the whole…the deaths recently was a bit of a tragedy and, you know, I think the arguments that we’re hearing here tonight at the table show how complex an issue this is. I mean, Labor yesterday called for the government to explain its vote in the UN. We were very concerned that we were one of only two countries to actually vote against it. As we’ve heard, some countries did abstain. But the question would be, well, why didn’t Australia abstain? Why didn’t we talk about, perhaps, supporting another investigation with a differently-worded motion? I mean, we’re not in government, we don’t know what the negotiations around that were. But, clearly, I think both sides, if there was an investigation, would welcome it, so that we can actually get to the bottom of what happened. Let’s not forget, 60 people died. I mean, it is heartbreaking that this continues to happen. This conflict has been going on for a long time. A two-state solution is the only solution, and we need to de-escalate things, not keep inflaming them.

TONY JONES

Randa, I’ll come to you, and you can perhaps answer the question, because I saw you nodding when that gentleman said, “What would you do?”

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

I think it’s an excellent question, because what would the international community have the Palestinians do? They have tried armed resistance in response to occupation, they have tried peaceful, you know, non-violent resistance in the first and second intifada, which was brutally, brutally shut down. They have tried poetry – a poet last week was imprisoned for her poetry. They try peacefully protesting, and they are shot down. So how…what would you have the Palestinians do? There are countless United Nations resolutions that Israel is clearly violating and flouting. The idea that this conflict is complex is something people use as a way to sort of…to deflect attention from what is really a very clear issue here, which is that you have an illegal occupation. You have Israel, which has made the possibility of a two-state solution impossible. There is no viable, contiguous Palestinian state for the Palestinians because Israel has, in violation of international law, transferred 750,000 illegal settlers into the West Bank, taken 80% of the water aquifers. I’ve been on the roads that go through the West Bank that are only allowed for settlers, so that settlers never have to meet those pesky Palestinians. They can live in their own little bubble, in their little West Bank colonies. Then you have Israeli Arabs…

TONY JONES

Randa, we’ve got to come to a final question, so I’ll get you to sum up quickly.

RANDA ABDEL-FATTAH

What would you have the Palestinians do? They… What broke me about this protest is not that they were resisting Israel. It’s not that they were sending a message to Israel. They were sending a message to the world. “This is our cage. We’re rattling this cage. Help us, because we are besieged and no-one is coming to our aid.” So that’s what, for me, is the message here. Listen to Palestinians. Don’t believe Greg. Go and read what you can see. Go on Twitter. You’ll see photos, you’ll see video testimony and evidence, and that’s all you need to make a moral decision.

TONY JONES

Alright.

Dangerous to our freedom and our culture

From The Conservative Case for Breaking Up Monopolies Such as Google and Facebook

Tucker Carlson

@TuckerCarlson

The big digital monopolies demand that we conform to their worldview and shut us down when we dissent. They have too much power. They are are threat to this country. Congress is doing nothing about it. It’s time to complain, while we still can. @FoxNews

When he tweeted these words, Carlson was expressing a sentiment that many on the right have come to embrace. People are concerned, with good reason, that big tech companies discriminate against conservatives. Numerous conservative outlets have had their videos demonetized on Google’s YouTube. PragerU is appealing their loss in a lawsuit over that. A study by The Western Journal showed that a change to Facebook’s algorithm disproportionately harmed conservative sites.

In normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem for government to solve, but social media has come to dominate our national conversation. Large political websites thrive or die based on changes to Facebook and Google algorithms. Everyone from cable news to newspapers to online-only publications create and tweak their content based on how they think it will play on social media. A study has also shown that Google search results can have a frighteningly large impact on elections.

 

Getting their priorities right

Which is the main story and which is the also ran?

 

Political madness

On behalf of no principle, no actual evidence of wrong doing, in the midst of a presidential term that is solving many problems both international and domestic that had looked insoluble, we have the American left, dangerous always, but now acting well beyond any kind of temperate zone of sense and proportion. They recognise, along with the Republican fake conservatives and the left’s media enablers, that if Trump succeeds, as he appears to be doing, there will be a political realignment that will leave them out in the freezing cold for at least a generation.

They would rather ruin our Western civilisation and our civic norms than allow Donald Trump to show the world how it is done.

Here some thoughts to mull over as the media-administrative state conspiracy continues to rock along.

SHOW ME THE MAN AND I’LL FIND YOU THE CRIME. Roger Simon asks, Worse than Beria? Mueller Could Damage the World.

TRUMP DOCTOR TURNS: I FELT LIKE A SLAVE…