Terror Bombing In Najaf

Update from AIJAC

Terror Bombing In Najaf

September 2, 2003
Number 09/03 #01

Today's Update concentrates on Iraq after that massive terror bombing in the Shiite holy city of Najaf that killed leading Shiite cleric Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, along with 80 other people. We begin with an analysis by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA analyst specialising in the Middle East. Gerecht says the bombing is particularly worrying because it risks the American dialogue with leading Shiites, which is essential for democratisation of Iraq to succeed. For his discussion, CLICK HERE.

Finally, opposition leader Simon Crean gave an excellent speech on the Middle East on Sunday to a Jewish community forum. To read what he had to say CLICK HERE

Bombing Democracy in Iraq

By Reuel Marc Gerecht

New York Times, August 31, 2003

Of all the bad news from Iraq recently ó the bombing of the United Nations headquarters, ongoing attacks on coalition soldiers, hints of foreign terrorists being drawn to a holy war ó Friday's car bombing in the Shiite holy city of Najaf is clearly the most worrisome.

The attack, which killed scores of Iraqis, including the prominent cleric Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim ó and which came less than a week after a bomb went off at the home of Mr. Hakim's uncle, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Said al-Hakim ó has convulsed the Shiite community. That should be of vital concern to the United States, whose fortunes in Iraq will rise or fall with the political sentiments of the Shiites, who make up at least 60 percent of Iraq's population.

These bombings were undoubtedly intended to terrorize Iraq's clerical establishment and to snuff out the growing dialogue between mainstream Shiites and Americans. Both ayatollahs had been talking directly to American officials and favored democracy. Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim controlled the only effective Shiite paramilitary force, but had chosen not to direct it against the occupation. This had angered Shiite extremists, notably the young cleric Moktada al-Sadr, leader of a violent faction known as the Sadriyyin.

There is already a lot of finger-pointing, but it may never be totally clear who planned the two bombings: the Sadriyyin, fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, Baath Party loyalists or agents of Iran's hard-core mullahs. Some American officials and Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, quickly blamed anti-American Sunnis.

This may well be true, but it is important to note that the Baath Party loyalists and Sunni fundamentalists, at least until now, have kept their distance from the Shiite south, killing "collaborationists" and American G.I.'s only in the Sunni regions. Killing Americans in the south wouldn't be hard ó many operate there with light security ó and could be the best way to derail the United States' post-Saddam planning. Nor, according to Pentagon officials, have the jihadists coming over the Syrian and Iranian borders tried to attack Americans in the south. (These holy warriors appear to be Sunni.)

It is also possible that the bombings were the result of an unexpected marriage of convenience. When I was in Iraq in June, there was much gossip among Shiites that Mr. Sadr and his Sadriyyin were trying to forge an alliance with Sunni fundamentalists. If so, American G.I.'s may face an ugly two-front war, far worse than the relatively isolated attacks they have endured so far.

Still, whether or not Sunnis were involved in the bombings, the greater concern is that they will spur a Shiite-versus-Shiite tug of war. The Sadriyyin movement has aggressively vied for power with the grand ayatollahs of Najaf. The Sadriyyin are hard-core revolutionaries, spiritual disciples of the "Khomeini of Iraq," Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr, who was killed by Saddam Hussein in 1980.

In recent weeks Moktada al-Sadr had been ramping up his anti-American vitriol. The reason is clear: time is working against him. Local governance in the Shiite regions has been solidifying as American administrators have passed more responsibility to Iraqis. As services improve and Iraqis (slowly) gain confidence in the governing council, the debate over the coming constitutional convention will dominate Iraqi politics. And if Iraqis succeed in drawing up a new, broadly accepted constitution, the radicals know they will be exiled to the fringes of society.

Indeed, the two bombings can be seen as evidence of extremists' failure to gain traction on the "Shiite street." If so, the decision to resort to violence may backfire. Few Shiites, no matter their political views, will countenance violence against such respected figures, or such ghastly slaughter so near the Imam Ali mosque.

It is critical for the American administration to react decisively. Until now it has has shown commendable restraint toward the Sadriyyin movement, not wanting to aid the extremists' recruitment efforts. But if American officials get solid proof that Mr. Sadr's followers were involved in the bombings, the military should move quickly and ruthlessly.

And Washington should not tolerate the small stream of holy warriors coming over the Syrian and Iranian borders. Shiite leaders, both the elder clerics and the Sadriyyin, are always assessing America's resolve and capacities, and view our efforts against these foreigners as a test case. The only way to stop the flow of jihadists will be to apply pressure on Syria and Iran to end it; Saddam Hussein was never able to seal the Iranian-Iraqi border, and thousands of additional American troops won't either.

In the long term, America's goal must be to create a civil society among Iraqis of all faiths and races. But the principal focus for now must be helping the Shiites and their senior clergy, our strongest allies in the country. They ó not the United Nations and more foreign troops ó are the key to creating the democracy we have promised.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Put the Iraqis in Charge

Why Iraq is proving much tougher than Afghanistan.

BY BERNARD LEWIS

Wall Street Journal, Friday, August 29, 2003

At first sight one would have expected that Afghanistan would be difficult, Iraq easy. In the one country, we ousted a religious regime, which had the prestige of having liberated the country from the plague of warlordism; in the other, we overthrew a universally detested Fascist-type tyranny. Afghanistan is a remote, mountainous country, with poor and difficult communications; Iraq consists largely of flat river valleys with quick and easy communication. Afghanistan has a strong tradition of regional independence and limited experience of central control; Iraq has known millennia of centralized government, run by a sophisticated and ramified bureaucracy. For these and other reasons, one might have expected that running Afghanistan would be difficult, running Iraq comparatively easy. In fact, the reverse has occurred. In Afghanistan, at first, things did indeed go badly, and there are still problems, both in the country and in the government, but they are manageable. Today with minimal help from the U.S., a central government is gradually extending its political and financial control to the rest of the country and dealing more and more effectively with the problem of the maintenance of order; in Iraq, after an easy and almost unresisted conquest, the situation seems to grow worse from day to day. While the Afghans are building a new infrastructure, Iraqis--or others acting in their name--are busy destroying theirs.
Why this contrast? America's enemies are the same in both places, with the same objectives. The main difference is that in Afghanistan there is an Afghan government, while in Iraq there is an American administration, and the cry of "American imperialism" is being repeated on many sides. Even the most cursory examination will reveal that this charge is ludicrously inept. America has neither the desire nor the skill nor--perhaps most important--the need to play an imperial role in Iraq. But the accusation--and its resonant echoes in the Western and even in the American media--serve a very useful purpose for those whose complaints and purposes against America are in reality quite different.

These anti-American forces fall basically into two groups. The first, and in the long run the more important, come from the camp of al Qaeda and related religious movements. For them, America is now the leader of Christendom, the ultimate enemy in the millennial struggle which they hope to bring, in their own time, to a victorious conclusion. In the writings and speeches of Osama bin Laden and of his allies and disciples, hatred of America is less significant than contempt--the perception that America is a "paper tiger," that its people have become soft and pampered--"hit them and they will run." This perception was bolstered by frequent references to Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia, as well as to the feeble response to subsequent terrorist attacks in the 1990s, notably on the USS Cole and on the embassies in East Africa. It was this perception which undoubtedly underlay the events of Sept. 11, clearly intended to be the opening barrage of a new war against the Americans on their home ground.

The response to this attack, and notably the operations in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, brought a rude awakening, and that is surely why there have been no subsequent attacks on U.S. soil. But the perception has not entirely disappeared, and has been revived by a number of subsequent developments and utterances. Compunction--unwillingness to inflict as well as to suffer casualties--is meaningless to those who have no hesitation in slaughtering hundreds, even thousands, of their own people, in order to kill a few enemies. Open debate is obviously meaningless to those whose only experience of government is ruthless autocracy. What they think they see is division and fear--and these encourage a return to their earlier perception of American degeneracy. Such a return could have dangerous consequences, including a renewal and extension of terrorist attacks in America. By terrorist attacks, they believe, they will encourage those whose response is to say, "Let's get out of here"--perhaps even procure the election of a new administration dedicated to this policy.

The other factor of anti-Americanism has quite a different origin, though there are areas of overlap. During the last few months the fear has often been expressed in Europe and America that democracy cannot succeed in Iraq. There is another, greater, and more urgent fear in the region--that it will succeed in Iraq, and this could become a mortal threat to the tyrants who rule most of the Middle East. An open and democratic regime in Iraq, inevitably with a Shiite majority, could arouse new hopes among the oppressed peoples of the region, and offer a corresponding threat to their oppressors. One of these regimes, that of Iran, purports to be Islamic, and was indeed so in its origins, though it has become yet another corrupt tyranny.

Some of these regimes are officially classified as our friends and allies, and dealing with them presents a number of problems. There are no such problems in dealing with Iran, an avowed enemy, and undoubtedly a major force behind the troubles in Iraq, in Palestine and elsewhere. Some have argued that the remedy is to "build bridges" to the present regime in Iran. Even if successful, the best that such a diplomacy could accomplish would be to establish the same kind of friendship with Iran as we have with Saudi Arabia--hardly model. More realistically, such overtures could certainly achieve two immediate results--to earn the contempt of the government and the mistrust of the people. The calculation of the present regime in Iran is well known, and dates back to the first Gulf War. If Saddam Hussein had possessed nuclear weapons, the Americans would have left him alone, and he would have kept Kuwait and probably other places too. It was then that the mullahs decided that they must have these weapons, which would enable them to enjoy the same kind of immunity as North Korea. They are working desperately to that end, and the Middle East situation will take a significant turn for the worse if they are given the time to achieve it. Opinions may differ on how to handle them, but surely the worst of all options is the line of submissiveness, which can only strengthen the perception of American weakness.

What then should we do in Iraq? Clearly the imperial role is impossible, blocked equally by moral and psychological constraints, and by international and more especially domestic political calculations. An inept, indecisive imperialism is the worst of all options, with the possible exception of subjecting Iraq to the tangled but ferocious politics of the U.N. The best course surely is the one that is working in Afghanistan--to hand over, as soon as possible, to a genuine Iraqi government. In Iraq as in Afghanistan, a period of discreet support would be necessary, but the task would probably be easier in Iraq. Here again care must be taken. Premature democratization--holding elections and transferring power, in a country which has had no experience of such things for decades, can only lead to disaster, as in Algeria. Democracy is the best and therefore the most difficult of all forms of government. The Iraqis certainly have the capacity to develop democratic institutions, but they must do so in their own way, at their own pace. This can only be done by an Iraqi government.

Fortunately, the nucleus of such a government is already available, in the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmad Chalabi. In the northern free zone during the '90s they played a constructive role, and might at that time even have achieved the liberation of Iraq had we not failed at crucial moments to support them. Despite a continuing lack of support amounting at times to sabotage, they continue to acquit themselves well in Iraq, and there can be no reasonable doubt that of all the possible Iraqi candidates they are the best in terms alike of experience, reliability, and good will. It took years, not months, to create democracies in the former Axis countries, and this was achieved in the final analysis not by Americans but by people in those countries, with American encouragement, help and support. Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress deserve no less.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" (Oxford, 2002).

Israelís Search for Peace in the Middle East

Simon Crean - Leader of the Opposition

Transcript - Werdiger Family Hall, St Kilda, Melbourne - 31 August 2003

Introductions

I want to thank Mark Leibler, Colin Rubenstein, Jeremy Jones and Michael Lipschutz for their generous support in hosting tonight's event. They have provided strong leadership for the Australian Jewish community in these challenging times.

I also want to thank Dr Danny Lamm for his kind words of introduction.

The Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the State Zionist Council of Victoria and the Jewish Community Council of Victoria provide important links between Australia and Israel, and they help create a stronger and more vibrant multicultural Australia through their educational, cultural, religious and sporting events. I pay tribute to you tonight.

I am very pleased to see Gaby Levy, Israel's Ambassador to Australia, here also, and I thank him for delaying his trip to PNG to hear my speech.
--------------------

It is an honour for me to be here, among so many familiar faces and friends of long standing and at a time of such profound importance to the people of Israel and the Middle East.

Developments over the past few months and days have been watched closely by all those in this room and those around the world who still hope for a lasting peace in the Middle East region and a brighter future for the people of Israel.

Sadly, just over a week ago, on what many people are now calling ëBlack Tuesday', our hopes were shattered when a Hamas murderer stepped onto a bus in Jerusalem, and without any regard for innocent human life, detonated yet another bomb.

He killed 20 people, including 3 children, and injured more than 100.

This indiscriminate killing and wounding of innocent men, women and children has shocked and revolted the entire international community.

No one can see pictures of an innocent young child with a bloodied face, and not feel the pain and outrage of the Israeli people.

The tragedy was compounded when this despicable act coincided with another bomb in Baghdad that killed many UN workers, including another close friend of Australia, Sergio di Mello.

And it was worsened further still on Friday night when more than 80 people were killed in Najaf. The fact that this atrocity happened at a holy site ? the Tomb of Ali ? demonstrates that these terrorists have no respect for Islam as well as no respect for human life.

The bombing in Najaf demonstrates how critical it is to end terrorism in Iraq. The international community must make stronger efforts to rebuild Iraq and make it more secure, because only when there is stability in Iraq will there be stability in the broader region.

I can only begin to understand the suffering and pain of the families who have lost their loved ones in these callous attacks.

However, I do know that terrorism is the enemy of democratic, free people everywhere.

From these tragic events, we must renew our determination and our commitment to fight terrorism on all fronts, wherever it is found.

There can be no justification, whatever the cause, for the killing of innocent people.

Terrorism, whether it is in Jerusalem or Baghdad, Jakarta or Najaf, must be stopped.

Beyond the human tragedy of these attacks, further damage has been done. The Jerusalem bombing could destroy the peace process. For the sake of the people of Israel, and indeed of the Palestinian people, I hope it doesn't.

Destroying the peace process is what the terrorists want. That is precisely why they cannot and must not be allowed to succeed.

In recent months we had watched with guarded optimism but with renewed hope as the first steps were taken towards implementing the Road Map for Peace.

We were encouraged by some of the statements coming from the Palestinian leadership that they were prepared to negotiate and were determined to put an end to the terrorist violence.

We cautiously welcomed the announcement by Hamas and Islamic Jihad that they would implement a ceasefire.

But words come easily. Actions are a critical test.

The action in Jerusalem on the night of 19 August shattered the ceasefire.

Today, terrorists remain on the streets and un-deterred.

Now, more than ever, renewed concrete action is needed ? this time to destroy the infrastructure of terrorism and to root out and arrest the terrorists.

The world must recommit itself to eradicating the scourge of terrorism, wherever it is found.

The terrorist leaders must be isolated and delivered to justice, their networks destroyed and their moral justifications exposed as the rationalisations of fanatics. As the hollow and evil lies they are.

This cannot be and will not be done by any single nation acting alone, no matter how large, how powerful or how important that nation is.

We have to draw on the collective will of all in the civilised world committed to eliminating terrorism.

By acting together we can make sure there is no place to run and no place to hide for the world's terrorists.

It was this cooperation ? with our friends in Indonesia ? that saw the Bali bombers brought to justice.

Our duty, as a member of the community of nations and as fellow human beings, is to bring about an international solution ? not just to end terrorism, but also to bring peace to a troubled, unsettled world.

Security is the key to peace

Tonight, I want to talk about Labor's ongoing approach to Israel and the Middle East peace process. To reinforce Labor's commitment and policy direction.

I also want to discuss some areas where I think Australia could be doing more to assist the peace process in the Middle East.

My theme tonight is security ? security for individuals, for communities and for countries ? because without it there can be no social or economic development.

The fact is, terrorism is a global threat ? and we must deal with it globally, regionally and domestically if we are to defeat it.

We must protect each other, and we must also protect the values and freedoms that define our democratic tradition.

In large part, it is because of our common democratic heritage and our shared values of freedom and the rule of law, that Labor's historical commitment to the State of Israel is so enduring.

That is why I will never retreat from my commitment to Israel.

Since September 11 2001 we have faced multiple terrorist attacks around the world.

88 Australians were killed in Bali, but this global terrorist war has touched all nations, everywhere.

The people of Israel and Jewish communities both here in Australia and overseas understand the significance of security perhaps more than many others.

We should never forget the struggle of the Jewish people throughout the Holocaust, the several bloody wars fought against neighbouring Arab states, and the ongoing anti-Semitism.

For Israelis, security is not an abstract ideal.

It is not just the subject of polite academic conversation.

It is a fundamental part of life itself.

I remember standing on Golan Heights during my most recent visit to Israel two years ago, looking out across the northern border.

From there, you quickly begin to understand the strategic reality that Israel faces.

The distance to the Syrian border is the same distance from Queenscliff to Geelong.

Security for Israel is not just a right, it is also defined by its geography and topography.

Peace in the Middle East cannot be secured without addressing security for Israel.

The Road Map for Peace

Australians have praised the Government and the people of Israel for their fortitude in pushing ahead with the peace process, despite the constant threat of terrorist violence.

Just last week, the Australian Parliament passed a Motion welcoming Israel's commitment to the Road Map.

I used that opportunity to articulate Labor's policy on Israel.

Little did we know that less than 24 hours later, peace would be shattered by yet another terrorist bomb in Jerusalem.

The Parliament again addressed the issue in a condolence motion.

As many of you know, Labor has been a strong and forceful advocate for an effective peace process in the Middle East and a two-state solution.

This has been Labor's consistently stated and resolute policy for more than a decade.

And Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, and I have repeated it on many occasions.

Labor supports the negotiation of a just, enduring and comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, based on the principle of land for peace.

Labor condemns all acts of terrorism, whatever the motivation and whoever the perpetrators.

And we have urged all parties to the peace process to exercise maximum restraint and deprive the enemies of peace the opportunity they seek through such violence to disrupt the negotiations.

Every effort must be made to re-commit to the Road Map and to persevere in its faithful implementation.

But the first and most important task in achieving the vision of a two-state solution is security.

The international community must make security for both Israelis and Palestinians the cornerstone upon which peace can be built.

In this regard, the Palestinian leadership have a direct responsibility to undertake immediate efforts on the ground to stop terrorism.

As outlined in the Road Map, this will require a demonstrable commitment from the Palestinian Authority to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure; including disarming and arresting individuals associated with the most extremist groups HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades.

Not enough has yet been done to disarm those groups, but Palestinian leaders such as Abu Mazen and Security Minister Mohammad Dahlan have made some welcome progress. Their efforts must be supported.

We remain concerned that young Palestinian children are still being taught that martyrdom is honourable.

There is no honour in murder, and none in training those who do it.

I would again urge the Palestinian leadership to fulfil the expectations of the Road Map and immediately to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism.

I know that this will be a difficult task.

And it is one that the new Palestinian leadership should not be expected to do alone.

The international community, including Australia, should be prepared to assist where possible in bringing these terrorist groups to account.

Phase 1 of the Road Map also requires a commitment from Israel to do what is necessary for a democratic, independent and viable Palestinian state to be established.

Both parties have accepted this goal.

Progress to date on the Phase 1 commitments has been limited, but not insignificant.

We believe that every effort should be made to support Prime Minister Abu Mazen as he seeks to implement the Road Map and reform the Palestinian security services.

But the extent to which he has the political authority to dismantle the terrorist groups remains to be seen.

For its part, Israel has made some important concessions in recent months.

The release of Palestinian prisoners and the dismantling of unauthorised settlements in the West Bank have been important confidence-building measures.

Further steps in this direction will be needed.

But peace will only be achieved when there is the political will to end terrorism.

One of the points about the Road Map that is often overlooked is the role played by the four external sponsors ? the so-called Quartet: the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

Above all, this latest peace initiative would not have been possible without the leadership and resolve of the US Government.

The Bush Administration, and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in particular, must be given credit for the courage they have shown in bringing the two sides of the peace process together.

As the Aqaba Summit showed, political commitment is possible when the political will is there.

States neighbouring Israel also have a direct responsibility to support the peace process.

Any external support for terrorist efforts to undermine the peace process will be met with the strongest international condemnation and must result in the gravest consequences.

Syria and Iran especially, should be under no illusion: continuing support for terrorist organisations will not be tolerated.

Regrettably, following the bombing in Jerusalem, progress on Phase 2 of the Road Map is now stalled.

We hope the process can be put back on track. The convening of the first international conference scheduled for later this year provides a perfect opportunity.

The vision of a Palestinian State by 2005 is an ambitious one ? but it remains possible if there is a determination to commit to peace and to accept the responsibility of security.

Australia's Role in the Middle East Peace Process

There should be no question about the strength of Labor's commitment to Israel as an independent, democratic, Jewish state.

Let me be very clear: under my leadership Labor's support for the right of Israel to exist behind secure borders in a peaceful Middle East has not only been longstanding, it will remain unequivocal and unshakeable.

Support for Israel must not only be strong, it must be bipartisan.

And I want to thank those members of the Jewish community who are doing their best to ensure that it remains so.

Labor's support for Israel is a fundamental part of our broader commitment to the rights of small and medium powers, to the importance of promoting democracy, and to our joint security interests in having a world where terrorism and violence are not the daily currency of political action.

That support has grown out of a long history of political, intellectual and cultural links between the Labor Party, the Australian Jewish community and Israel.

I was delighted earlier this year to host the former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak during his stay in Canberra. As you know, Ehud Barak is a Labour man, but, more importantly, he is a soldier, a statesman and a man of peace. A man who lost the Prime Ministership in the pursuit of peace.

I wanted Labor's policy informed by the views of someone who has tried as hard as any to advance the twin needs of peace and security for Israel and the Palestinian people.

At a breakfast I hosted, a large and representative cross section of caucus members were able to put their toughest questions to him, and he answered them.

These strong links, first established under two great Labor leaders Ben Chifley and Bert Evatt in the 1940s, have been maintained by generations of Australian politicians.

As Chair of the UN Committee on the Partition of Palestine, Evatt's key themes were to articulate an independent line from the United Kingdom, to support for the rule of international law and his own unerring sense of justice for the Jewish people.

Evatt did not accept the proposition that Australia should play a secondary or backseat role on the big questions of international security.

He was determined to see Australia take the lead, despite criticism from his political contemporaries.

His leadership on the Palestine question has been widely acknowledged in Israel and around the world.

Labor has always taken a fair and balanced approach to the issue of Palestinian self-determination.

In September 1993, following Palestinian agreement to the landmark Oslo accord, the then Labor Government amended its policy to recognise the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as ëthe representative of the Palestinian people' and was supported by the then opposition.

Since then, we have maintained regular contact with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian community in Australia at all levels ? as of course has the government.

There is strong bipartisan support for the twin goals of security for Israel and self-determination for the Palestinians.

The question is: what role should Australia now play in the peace process?

The current Australian government has not sought to play a more direct role in the current Middle East peace process.

The Howard government has taken a constructive but mostly pragmatic view of these moves towards peace.

I believe that we can do more.

We need to re-capture some of the concerned activism and foreign policy engagement of Evatt's leadership on the Middle East.

It is in Australia's national interests that we are engaged more directly.

A more peaceful Middle East region will also lessen pressures for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

And, in economic terms, the region represents a new and emerging market for Australian goods and services that can only be developed if the political situation is stable.

The delegation I led to Israel in 2001 looked not only at issues of peace and security, but other areas of mutual interest that could benefit from further bilateral co-operation. These included agricultural development, science and technology, education and culture. All issues I will pursue actively in government.

I strongly believe that Australia should be more actively engaged in the Middle East peace process ? working with like-minded countries and international organisations to promote the Road Map.

We should also devote more of our diplomatic resources towards engaging in the technical and legal issues that confront the negotiators.

We should consider offering Australian experts for the international monitoring and compliance teams that will be required under Phases 2 and 3 of the Road Map.

Perhaps most importantly, we should be using our diplomatic contacts in the Arab countries and Iran to encourage support for the peace process, including demanding an end to the state sponsorship of terrorism.

There are other steps that the Australian Government should also be taking at home.

Earlier this year, I initiated a Private Members Bill in the Parliament to outlaw the Hizbollah terrorist organisation.

I am pleased the Government adopted that proposal. It sends a clear signal to the international community that Australia does not and will not tolerate terrorism.

In line with our decision on Hizbollah, Labor has asked the Government to review whether the Al-Manar television station is contravening the Criminal Code.

We have not yet heard the Government's response to this important issue.

We also remain deeply concerned by continuing acts of violent anti-Semitism and racism against the Jewish community both in Australia and overseas, such as the recent attacks against the Courage to Care exhibition at the Liverpool Regional Museum in Sydney.

Such acts have no place in our modern, tolerant, multicultural society.

We must expose anti-Semitism for what it is, and ensure that there are appropriate legal consequences.

I am very conscious of the security threat to the Jewish community here in Australia, and I continue to receive regular briefings from ASIO on this issue.

I am encouraged by the work of the Community Security Group and I will fully support their efforts to provide better security at Jewish institutions around the country.

Conclusion

After nearly three years of the intifada, Israelis and Palestinians have suffered greatly.

And yet, despite the horror and mayhem of repeated terrorist attacks, the majority of Israelis continue to support a two-state solution.

There is a real opportunity here.

There is international support and political will to achieve an outcome.

There is a comprehensive peace plan - in the form of the Road Map.

If the Palestinian Authority is prepared to undertake genuine reform, to crack down on the terrorist groups, to end the incitement and violence, they will find an Israel and a world that is ready and willing to negotiate.

The peace process may be far from completion but it must not be allowed to fail.

Failure would be a win for the terrorists.

Together, we must ensure that does not happen.

As we approach Rosh Hashanah, where we seek assurances and guarantees from God to grant us a happy and healthy New Year, so I assure and guarantee the Jewish community here today that they will always have my support, and so will the State of Israel.