Letters, August 6, 2010
Church resolution reveals failure of interfaith
THE National Council of Churches of Australia’s resolution encouraging a boycott of Israel is absolutely indefensible, and makes a mockery of both mutual tolerance and “interfaith” dialogue (AJN 30/07). It is abundantly clear in the case of Israel, as in countless instances in Jewish history, an exception has been made of Jews.
If the churches were fair dinkum about their human rights concerns they would have boycotted Sudan, Saudi Arabia and so many other Islamic countries for their real human rights abuses and treatment and discrimination of non-Muslim minorities.
No mainstream church group has ever openly sided with Jews, publicly criticising Iran’s President Amadinajad over his promotion of Holocaust denial and anti Semitic rhetoric or criticising Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism. There are so many other examples of the church’s hypocrisy in singling out the Jewish state as their ‘pet’ cause. Even some Christians who have seen the NCAA statement find it incomprehensible that it does not mention Palestinian/Hamas discrimination of Christians in Gaza.
Jewish interfaith advocates should start insisting on some reciprocity and public support for the Jewish narrative in the Israel/ Palestinian, Arab Muslim conflict otherwise they are wasting their time
Michael Burd
Toorak, Vic
We should take note of our friends
I READ with disquiet your report on the reaction of a number of our “community leaders” to the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCAA) motions calling, inter alia for an end to the Gaza blockade, and the possible “boycott of goods produced by Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories: (AJN 30/07). Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president , Robert Goot was taken by surprise, and felt let down by people we have “long thought of as our friends”. ECAJ vice president Dr Anita Shroot was shocked and reeling and says she has friends who were there. Josie Lacey a senior member of the NSW Board of Deputies was “incredibly disappointed” —these people have been my friends, she said.
These emotional reactions do no one any good, and frankly are an embarrassment. There is no point sticking our communal heads in the sand and pretending that just because these people are our friends, they should agree with what happens in Israel and that they should keep silent if they don’t. I would have thought it was our real friends who should be able to disagree with us and tell us what they think , and still be our friends. Clearly NCAA and zillions of others around the world disagree strongly with much of what is happening in Israel today. I think it would serve our community’s very best interests if we had more friends who could tell us what they think, and yet continue to be our true friends . It would be even more valuable if our leaders (inside and outside Israel)could ¬†listen more carefully to these other points of view. I don’t pretend to have the answers, but it is possible, just possible that what is going on in Israel and the issues which people like NCAA are challenging, really requires a fresh look and a different/fresh approach. If Israel’s differences are going to be resolved then it will ¬†take a lot of listening with an open mind not just to our own opinions, but to the point of view or our friends, more particularly those friends who disagree with what our people do, but are nevertheless willing to remain our friends.
We may or may not like the motions , but if they come from our friends, then we owe them the respect they deserve as our friends — and we should listen, take note and give serious weight to what they are saying.
Mike Lyons
Bondi Beach NSW
Ya’ari’s misplaced faith in peace prospects
Body:
EHUD Ya’ari states that the time for peace is now, while Mahmoud Abbas is around, because his successors would not be able to (AJN 23/07). He fails to note that Abbas’ successors might discard the deal, but keep the land.
Ya’ari informs us of two conciliatory statements by Abbas that have not been in the media. He fails to mention that Abbas told Arab states that the PA would join any fight against Israel that they started, that the PA is engaging in hostile acts short of shooting, and is continually setting new preconditions for resuming direct negotiations. His earlier demands were for Israel’s unconditional surrender, with direct meetings only to sign the treaty. His latest demand is for international forces in “Palestine”. Like the ones in Lebanon criticising IAF overflights while ignoring Hezbollah’s rearming.
Ya’ari claims that the USA’s attitude has changed. Abbas solemnly promised Obama to stop incitement. He lied; incitement continues along with a refusal to negotiate. in defiance of past agreements. Instead of criticising the PA’s deceit and intransigence, the Obama has upgraded its mission’s status as a reward for saying the right things in the US.
It is wishful thinking on Ya’ari’s part that he believes that Abbas believes that a failure of talks would lead to a loss of country and mass emigration. What concerns Abbas is getting back control of Gaza from Hamas. What should concern Ya’ari is what Israel would be committed to if a peace deal is signed and Palestine (Gaza) upgraded its war on Israel after the blockade ended.
Peace industrialists would be well advised to note Nobel Laureate Prof Aumann’s conclusion based on game theory: better no peace than a bad one.
Paul Winter
Chatswood, NSW
Just how genuine are Arab League’s intentions?
READING about the Arab League’s conference in Egypt, it is surprising to learn that direct talks may be on the cards.
The question is can we trust the League? Are they sincere and is a saner outlook on the situation finally prevailing.
Direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel need a great deal of goodwill and commitment.
Most importantly, if any Arab Country still refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist, then the whole move could be frustrated. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.
If people in the Arab world tried to understand the Jewish citizens in Israel, they would realise that they do not want to spend their money on constant defence equipment and armament.
Israel wants peace to progress more than ever. Israel wants to share with the world its knowhow and achievements in many areas from science to medicine.
If that understanding is embedded in the minds of the Arab world, then we may have a chance to have peace.
Tom Sinclair
Bondi Junction, NSW
Don’t let Greens benefit from vote preferences
ON current trends, the Greens have a chance of winning the Federal seat of Melbourne and perhaps even the seat of Sydney at the election. They can only do so, however,  on Liberal preferences.
Those thinking of voting Liberal should know that they do not have to follow the Liberal how-to-vote ticket, as this would give deliberate legitimacy to the Greens’ continued anti-Israel stance.
Over the last three years, the Greens have passed anti-Israel motions, made statements and adopted ¬†various policies inimical to Israel’s interests — as well as organising rallies accusing Israel of war crimes. For example, on January 16. 2009,during the Gaza conflict, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told a rally supporting the Palestinians: “We’ve heard there is a ceasefire but Israeli military have not retreated from Gaza.” To rousing cheers, she said: “It is time for Prime Minister Rudd to come out and condemn the violence” and “to say no child should be used as collateral in a civilian massacre”.
While the Greens seek to disguise the extremity of their attitudes towards Israel, Dr. Philip Mendes summed up the stark difference between the mainstream of the Labor Party and the Greens when he wrote in an opinion piece for Online Opinion: “The political Left is also divided on Israel/Palestine. One perspective – that held by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) leadership, a significant number of ALP MPs from all factions, and some social democratic intellectuals and trade union leaders – is balanced in terms of supporting moderates and condemning extremists and violence on both sides.
“A second perspective – that held by the Australian Greens, some of the ALP and trade union Left, Christian aid organisations, and probably a majority of Left intellectuals – supports a two-state solution in principle, but in practice holds Israel principally or even solely responsible for the continuing violence and terror in the Middle East.”
The Greens’ position on Israel is not the only policy to consider on the question of preferencing them before Labor.
The Greens’ education policy is quite hostile to non-government schools — especially those defined ambiguously as “the very wealthiest private schools.” The potential threat to Jewish schools is manifest.
There are good people who support and belong to the Greens. As they become a more significant force, their leadership needs to repudiate the far left perspective. Until then, Labor deserves support in a second preference from Liberal voters.
In considering  how to vote next month,  the community needs to think carefully about giving any encouragement to parties like the Greens and One Nation that have policies  that are incompatible with the  values and attitudes of most Australians.
I am a Labor person. I would do the same in the reverse. So I ask my Liberal friends to think carefully before they vote.
Michael Easson AM,
Strathfield NSW
comments