Editorial, August 27, 2010

A blue day

AT the start of this election campaign, The AJN speculated that unlike some Diaspora communities, here in Australia there was no cohesive “Jewish vote”.
But while counting continues and while there appears to be no end to the country’s current political limbo, it seems this might not have been the case, with the Liberals apparently gripping the attention of Australian Jewry.

In Sydney’s Wentworth, incumbent Malcolm Turnbull recorded an enormous swing of more than 11-and-a-half per cent.
As we have outlined in this edition, Turnbull did so with the help of a large and committed team of Jewish volunteers.
But if that is not convincing enough, take one of the Vaucluse polling booths as an example. In that area, home to many Jewish families, Turnbull polled 717 first preference votes, to his Labor opponent’s 61. An extraordinary breakdown in a seat previously considered marginal.
His parliamentary colleague, Michael Danby, recorded a solid win in Melbourne Ports thanks to preferences, however, his Liberal opponent Kevin Ekendahl polled ahead of him in the “Jewish neighbourhoods”.
The polling booth at Glen Eira Town Hall recorded 837 first preference votes for Ekendahl, with Danby well behind on 629 votes.
This makes the arrival of blue-blood Josh Frydenberg on the political scene all the more important for the Jewish community.
With a majority of Australian Jews now appearing to vote with the centre-right faction, the appearance of Frydenberg on the Coalition benches is welcome. Let us not forget that he has his own constituency in Kooyong — but it is an area with concerns similar to those of many Jewish families. It has one of the highest concentrations of independent schools in the country, meaning Frydenberg is highly attuned to education funding debates, and it is home to many medium-income families looking to pay a mortgage and give their children the best opportunities.
It also bodes well that Frydenberg is a foreign policy expert, who has studied, worked and written extensively on geo-strategic issues, including those in the Middle East.
Whatever the make-up of the next government, The AJN wishes him, as well as his new Jewish parliamentary colleagues Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus, behatzlachah (good luck).

Here we go again

ARE they, aren’t they? Will they, won’t they? And what’s the point of it anyway?‚Ä®That just about sums up what has become a fairly common response to the news this week that — well, probably — Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are going to meet face to face next week for the first time since the Olmert government.
There is every reason to be pessimistic about the prospects for this round of talks. The Palestinian Authority is threatening to bolt if Israel unfreezes construction in the settlements after the 10-month moratorium expires in September. It’s unclear if Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem fall within that diktat. Meanwhile, some members of the Israeli Government have previously expressed concern that they lack a true negotiating partner on the Palestinian side. Even if PA President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to compromise for peace, they argue, he lacks the authority among his people to deliver what Israel desires most: a permanent resolution to the conflict.
Likewise, even the optimists cannot deny that Hamas continues to control the Gaza Strip independently of the PA officials in Ramallah, and are as unwavering as ever in their rejection of the very concept of peace with Israel.
It’s all quite rational, yet there’s just one little niggling thing about the wholesale pessimism of the negotiation nay-sayers.‚Ä®It’s not as futile as it seems.‚Ä®In reality, history has shown little correlation between progress in conflict resolution and conventional wisdom.
Let us remember just how uninspiring peace prospects between Israel and Egypt appeared during the Kissinger shuttle diplomacy era of the mid-1970s,  only a couple of years before the breakthroughs that eventually led to the Camp David Accords.
With peace talks as with so many things in life, success often occurs when expectations are the lowest.
It’s also important to remember that, despite the overwhelming sense of deja vu that may appear to accompany the next round of Mid-East peace negotiations, these talks are not the same as the ones in the past.
Both Israeli and Palestinian societies continue to evolve. Geopolitical forces shift. The balance of power in the Middle East and the variables that go into the peace equation constantly change.
For these reasons and more, direct peace talks deserve our support, and guarded optimism.