20th January 2004


In "The Australian" of 20th January was an article by Michael Sexton, NSW Solicitor General, comparing the Palestinian movement with the Algerian and Irish terror campaigns.  In each case a minority of terrorists was able to impose it's will on the majority by forcing withdrawal by the supporting military power.

He noted an important difference in Palestine.  The occupying military power were the people of the land.  He observed that the Palestinian terrorist organizations (like Sinn Fein and the FLN) had no intention whatsoever of permitting the state to survive, and would never negotiate in good faith.  He cited Arafat's refusal of the Clinton package as evidence of lack of good faith.

That Palestinian refusal has been cited since 2000 on these pages.  The reason for increasing Palestinian violence is the positive feedback that results from the propaganda successes granted by journalists following the politically correct concepts of "democratic majority" and "moral equivalence".  The application of those concepts is, in this instance, fatally flawed.

Democracy, as defined by Libertarians, is two wolf people and a sheep person sitting down together to decide on the luncheon menu.  Moral equivalence requires that observers should agree that those wolves have a democratic right to eat the sheep, because there is no absolute moral standard that says that eating sheep people is wrong.  ("Moral equivalence" would contend, for instance, that murder or sex with seriously underage children is only repugnant by our own limited cultural standards, but perfectly OK in another culture.)

The solution previously offered by this column was the integration of a facial recognition programme with ubiquitous video surveillance mapped onto a database showing social and family connections of all persons within Israeli borders.  Predictive inferences could be produced from that database, leading to anticipation of criminal terrorist activity, and rapid punishment of surviving colleagues and family.

To that I would offer a new suggestion.  Journalists worldwide should be encouraged to report news as uninterpreted facts rather than disguised opinions.  Of course there is that nasty problem of "whose" facts should be reported.  I can only suggest a dual system, where the case for both sides of any case should be presented as a debate. Some US shows already do this.  The current situation in Australia where a journalist with editorial independence offers an opinion posed as uncontested fact must end.

It appears that development and application of the integrated surveillance database previously suggested is well advanced within Israel.  Indications are the construction of "The wall", the anticipatory arrest of suicide bombers and the selective rocket attacks being made against terrorist leaders.

I suspect that the problems of Lord Black with the Hollinger board and the Michael Sexton article in Murdoch's rag might be indications that someone has anticipated my above suggested method of winning the propoganda war.

In conclusion, I predict that Arafat might find a reason to leave Palestine in the near future..


Recent announcements are that Australia will partake in development of the US anti ABM system, and that a joint military training facility is planned in Australia.  Other news is the trade agreement, wherein Australians optimistically hope that the US will allow open slather imports of beef and sugar from Australia, and US drug companies hope for the dismemberment of our government drug support scheme (the PBS).

Of course neither will happen.

In each country the people would benefit. The only way the trade could happen would be if the six states and territory of Australia became the next seven states of the union.  (United states of America & Australia?) I don't think that the average Australian would mind too much, but our politicians would hate it, (and they are the ones who would veto it.)  I have no notion what Americans would think.