HTML Books

Every trial attorney in the United States should read this article. It is a groundbreaking look at a way to give plaintiffs total control of the settlement process.

Don McNay
don@mcnay.com

These four short letters are a reply to an article by Margot Patterson.

Ira Berkowitz says, quite directly, that "genocide aimed at Jews is the Hezbollah agenda." Aaron Misky goes into more detail. He quotes the leader of Hezbollah, who said "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak, and feeble in mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice that I do not say the Israeli." And he asks why the National Catholic Reporter would portray Hezbollah as a reasonable and tolerant organization. Given that Jewish people do read the National Catholic Reporter, does this newspaper truly wish to alienate Jews from Catholics once again?

Henry Kaminer points out that Patterson's "long article about Hezbollah includes everything except the basic facts." Dexter van Zile reminds us that Hezbollah has not restricted itself to ugly words. Eighty-six people died when Hezbollah bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He explains that Hezbollah is in fact "a gang of thugs driven by hate against the Jewish people and unconcerned with the consequences of their aggression.

Patterson has a reply to the letters, and she makes the point that "while Hezbollah is clearly anti-Zionist and rejects the legitimacy of the state of Israel, Hezbollah has stated that it would accept a two-state solution" to the conflict if that is what the Arabs want. I'm unimpressed. You can all read Patterson's original article by following the link from CAMERA to see just how bad it is.

Bat Ye'or argues that to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, more needs to be done than redrawing some borders. Religious hatreds need to be overcome as well. And there must be equality among religions, not an easy goal given that two big religions in the Levant, Christianity and Islam, are tightly allied in opposing equality for Jews. The author says "the clash here is between the liberation of a dhimmi people against their subjugation and death in the grip of dhimmitude."

This lengthy and powerful article shows that the European-Islamic alliance against Israel is counterproductive. And she encourages us to judge future trends by noting:

1) European reactions to Israeli Prime Ministers

2) European boycotts of Israeli products, Israel, and Israelis

3) European reactions to accepting Jerusalem as Israel's capital

4) European anti-Israeli media propaganda whenever Israel is faced by Arab violence

5) European de-Judaization of bibles, and the regarding of Jesus as having been an Arab, not a Jew

I highly recommend this fine article.

This article is in response to an op-ed by Neve Gordon about the Israel Academia Monitor organization. The National Catholic Reporter was happy to run Gordon's piece, while omitting the other article in the pair, by Steven Plaut. This article makes up for this omission.

Plaut explains that Israel Academia Monitor organization's American cousin, Campus Watch (which I can confirm is an excellent organization) has simply published "some of the loopier statements of faculty members who pose as Middle East 'experts.'" Some of the opponents of human rights in the Middle East have attempted to denounce what Campus Watch does as McCarthyism! And now the same label is being tossed at Israel Academia Monitor.

Plaut also points out that Neve Gordon is himself mentioned by Israel Academia Monitor "because of his fanatical anti-Israel propaganda writing, some of which is so extreme that it is carried by neo-Nazi Web sites and by Islamic fundamentalist magazines endorsing al-Qaeda!"

Gordon's reaction to all this is to sue Plaut! But what ought we readers to do? I think we ought to demand that academics adhere to standards, and avoid substituting propaganda for scholarship. And it appears to me that Gordon had not done this.

Should Gordon be fired? Well, that is up to his employer! All I ask is that we have a way to come up with academic standards, and to accredit (or refuse to accredit) those universities and departments that meet (or fail to meet) such standards.

Astute students of history will notice that in 1949, the former British Mandate no longer existed. In its place was the State of Israel. Israel did not encompass all the land of the 1947 Mandate. Jordan illegally occupied most of the rest, a territory that became known as the "West Bank." That territory included the eastern part of Jerusalem.

These facts could lead a student to wonder if part of the reason for all this was that Israel and Jordan were content with such an arrangement. And in fact, Avi Shlaim of Oxford University wrote a ridiculous book in 1988 claiming that there was collusion between Israel and Jordan to achieve this result. This article is Suzanne Gershowitz's review of a book by Yoav Gelber which refutes Shlaim's nonsense.

Part of the reason for Shlaim's book was to make an argument that the Israelis bear responsibility for the fact that many Arabs fled the Mandate territory. While it seems illogical to make such an argument, given that the Arabs fled during an aggressive war that they started, that did not stop Shlaim. And Gershowitz takes the trouble to point out that there is a difference between Shlaim's book and Gelber's "careful historical research." As Gershowitz says:

"Too often, professors subsume scholarship to their own political agendas. It has become fashionable among many historians to substitute theory for research or omit evidence that undercuts their thesis."

I agree. And I recommend this article.

As a member of the Security Industry, I found Mr. Gough's information very helpful. This is a must read for anyone connected to IT Security.

Jeff Brandt
Security Corporation

`Whitlam and Modern Labor - It's Time Again' - Edited by Jenny Hocking and Colleen Lewis, published by Circa
Reviewer: Tristan Ewins

As Jenny Hocking and Colleen Lewis argue in this landmark title from Circa publishing, "[To] dismiss.. Whitlamism as mere nostalgia fails to recognize that it is not a yearning for the past, but a concern for the present" which causes progressive thinkers to look, still, to the `brief outbreak of social democracy' from 1972 to 1975 in search of inspiration. Comprising twenty-one chapters from a host of progressive public figures and thinkers, this book provides in-depth analyses of the Whitlam government and its relevance for contemporary political debate, examining the policies of the ALP, past and present, and ultimately advocating an end to the narrow, uninspired pragmatism that has gripped that party for far too long.

Provision of legal aid, equal opportunity and equal pay for women, introduction of universal public health care via `Medibank', removal of censorship, establishment of the `Racial Discrimination Act', ambitious urban and regional development programs, the release of `conscientious objectors', free tertiary education, radical expansion of public education funding and participation, the Disadvantaged Schools Program, an official commitment to full employment, women's health programs and shelters, school dental services: the list of Whitlam achievements is truly staggering when compared with the timidity of today's Labor Party.

And yet, as Nathan Hollier notes, "there is a special desire to control interpretations of the period": a tendency amongst some to be dismissive of the Whitlam years. By this reckoning, the "hegemonic neo-liberal interpretation" is effectively "enforced" through the "mass media", resulting in a "managed exclusion of policy alternatives from public dialogue." As Tim Rowse observes, leading opinion-makers such as Paul Kelly "equate modernity" with "hard-liberal" political economy, lambasting all opponents of the current neo-liberal orthodoxy as "sentimental traditionalists." Andrew Scott reflects how, during the Hawke years, "in the Cabinet room... the worst insult.. [was to be referred to as an] "unreconstructed Whitlamite".

Caricatures that equate `Whitlamism' (and thus social democracy), with `economic irresponsibility and incompetence', however, pointedly ignore the context in which this government operated: a slowing of the world economy with the end of the long boom, compounded by the first `oil shock', and unrelenting opposition to a comprehensive prices and incomes policy. As opposed to those such as Kelly, who played such an important role in legitimizing and championing the turn by Hawke and Keating to `neo-liberalism with a human face', contributors to this title insist that an alternative modernity remains possible: one not characterized by an almost total closure of the political field. On this understanding, `modernisation' is an essentially vague and contested term: according to Scott, a `catchword'. The construction of an artificial binary opposition, here, between `modernisation' and `tradition', serves only to obscure the real political and moral choices facing policy makers today.

Whitlam himself, who has contributed a frank evaluation of his government's achievements as part of this expansive collection, is scathing of the situation whereby "free universities [were] abandoned by a Labor government." Scott, meanwhile, is particularly despairing of the surrender of the Whitlam legacy by subsequent Labor governments and oppositions, noting the insatiable pursuit of privatization, even against existing ALP platforms. He notes a propensity for modern Labor to "opt out" of the tax debate with the relinquishment of any real commitment to a "progressive, fair and equitable" taxation system. With an ALP that is "scared either to tax or spend", Labor might well be able to `tinker around the edges' in health and education, but there is little hope of a qualitative alternative: of extending or consolidating the welfare state and the social wage in any significant way. Gwen Gray reflects the feeling of many progressive Australian thinkers and activists, confessing her fear that, in light of the ALP's support for the Coalition's tax-funded private health insurance rebate, "it is not possible to be confident that Medicare will survive."

For Carmen Lawrence, the condition of modern Labor is heart-breaking. As the outspoken Labor MP relates: "[Technocratic] and incremental social change is not enough to make [one] get out of bed in the morning - I'm certainly finding it harder and harder." Notably, Lawrence traces the relatively radical tenor of the Whitlam years to "the explosion of the mass movement against the Vietnam War and the upsurge of student radicalism in the late 1960s." Lawrence's remembrances are reinforced by Hollier's conclusion that the real downfall of Labor has been, "an intellectual and organizational failure to.. effectively suffuse its principles throughout society." This, in turn, raises the poignant question of whether the popular support base for a genuine social democratic agenda can be mobilized through force of collective will, or rather, more pessimistically, whether it was only the `organically radicalising' experience of Vietnam which provided the `window of opportunity' for Labor under Whitlam. The role the radical Cairns, here, in providing the relativities within Labor that allowed Whitlam's agenda to emerge as `mainstream', ought also not be underestimated.

Perhaps the last say is best given to the great man himself (Whitlam), who once declared,

"We must not all fall into the defeatism that accepts that the Australian electorate is so naturally conservative that it will never accept real reform or genuine change."

As the ALP National Conference approaches, all concerned factions and interests would do well to keep these words in mind. What is more: Latham, who views himself as a Whitlam protégé, would be well advised to consider how he might extend as well as preserve the legacy of his mentor. The Whitlamite legacy of the social wage can only be preserved and improved by maintaining or even expanding government revenue as a proportion of GDP, whilst simultaneously reforming the structure of the tax mix, in the interests of equality and distributive justice. Left interests whose support was crucial in elevating Latham to the leadership need to be pressing this point home as firmly as possible, ensuring a clear and unequivocal commitment to these objectives in the Party platform.

Although reflecting a deep dissatisfaction with modern Labor, this title, is underscored by a resilient optimism: an optimism for which the cause of democratic socialism is not yet irretrievably lost, and for which courageous leadership from within Labor may yet lead to the day where, once again, we can declare, "It's Time".


Tristan Ewins


Tristan Ewins is a freelance writer and long-time member of the Socialist Left grouping of the Australian Labor Party

If you're new to programming and javascript, this is a great resource for getting you started. The video keeps the concepts and examples simple without dumming anything down, which is extreemly helpful. I found the personal insights by Dori especially enlightening. They provided good context for how javascript fits into the web development world.

Australia's Jean Devanny was an author, political activist and women's liberationist. Biographer Carole Ferrier's Jean Devanny: Romantic Revolutionary is a detailed, engaging, and informative political and literary biography providing the reader with a complete account of her life, times, and accomplishments. Devanny arrived in Sydney, Australia in 1929 from New Zealand. Here first novel, "The Butcher Shop" having been banned in politically turbulent New Zealand at the time. In the 1930s she joined the Communist Party and rapidly gained fame as a redoubtable public speaker. She clashed periodically with the party line under Stalin, and her open marriage and rumored love affairs led to a great many complications for her personal and professional life. Interested in issues of race, gender and sexuality, as well as class, Devanny was decades ahead of her time in her thinking on these questions. An outstanding work, Jean Devanny: Romantic Revolutionary is an impressive and clearly recommended biography which draws upon primary sources, oral history material from people who knew Devanny, as well as unpublished archives and manuscripts.

Those of us who follow the Arab war against Israel are often perplexed by the emphasis many people place on Levantine Arab refugees. As Mandel reminds us, we hear that there are three million of these refugees, and that Israel is responsible for their plight. But Mandel also points out that the problem of the Arab refugees from Israel were caused not by the creation of Israel but by the war that Arabs launched against it. And that the aggressors are responsible. In addition, while refugees have a number of rights, repatriation is not typically one of them. I would add that most of the so-called refugees are not those who actually used to live in Israel but are merely those who claim to be the descendants of those who did.

In any case, this article deals almost entirely with a group of roughly equivalent size that became genuine refugees, namely the Jews from Arab lands. As the author shows, most of them truly were "compelled to emigrate." The Arabs who kicked them out did not do so out of a need to defend themselves. Instead, "they merely turned on an unwanted, exploitable minority."

We get to read about the Jews of Iraq, a nation which got rid of its Jews in the twentieth century, bringing an end to 25 centuries of Jewish history there. And of Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Algeria. Of Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. It's amazing. Overall, these nations basically chased away 99% of their Jews. Meanwhile, they accuse Israel, which has a million Arabs in its population, of ethnic cleansing!

This is a very good article, and I highly recommend it.