Editorial (February 12, 2010)
Taking a stand against Iran
THE expression “Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it” could almost as easily be referring to most of the world’s response to Iran’s unrelenting march towards nuclear armament.
The Islamic Republic’s obstinate nuclear program, for those who have been tracking its progress over the years, has developed as steadily and surely as an apocalyptic train wreck played out in slow motion, with all the horror and frustration etched upon the faces of those who truly recognise its danger.
And while it’s true that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a worldwide hazard, it did not take Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s thinly veiled threat against Israel this week to remind anyone which country would be targeted first and foremost in Teheran’s nuclear crosshairs.
Talk, as it is said, is cheap. If statements were sanctions, then Iran would have surely backed off its perilous path long ago, under the weight of world concern. Statements, however, aren’t sanctions, and press conferences are not inspections. That’s why it is so encouraging that Australia has emerged as one of the global leaders when it comes to taking concrete steps to show Teheran that the world means business regarding nuclear non-proliferation.
While many other countries are still talking about what they may or may not be willing to do in order to help the cause, Australia has been stepping up to the wicket and making a difference. Australia has already fully implemented United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737, 1747 and 1803, which impose sanctions on Iran.
However, since October 2008, this country has also implemented additional autonomous sanctions against the Islamic Republic that go beyond the letter of the resolutions and include common sense spot-trade embargoes, such as the recent stoppage of a shipment that reportedly contained Australian pumps that could have been used for nuclear development.
It’s a truth in diplomacy that words can only be effective if they are backed by the credible threat of a response. So, when Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith issued a strong statement on Monday in the wake of Iran’s latest provocation over the weekend, you can rest assured Iran took notice.
For as long as Australia continues to back its words with deeds, it cannot be ignored. It is a lesson that other world powers would do well to heed — before it is too late.
Lessons from the Chazan affair
IN recent days, the mere mention of the name Naomi Chazan has sparked furious debate. The controversy has centred not merely on the allegations that the group she heads, the New Israel Fund (NIF), offers financial support to organisations that contributed to the Goldstone report, but also on the nature of the group itself, with questions raised in the media regarding its loyalty to the state, the sources of its funding and the power it wields.
However, while many decry the NIF’s agenda and the causes it champions, there are equally those, both in Israel and overseas, who have no hesitation in describing themselves as committed Zionists and who have rallied behind Professor Chazan to express their support. They hail the organisation as a symbol of Israel’s democratic ideals and of the Jewish State’s belief in social justice.
On the surface it may have been dismissed as little more than a political skirmish between the Right and Left wings, and some have sought to portray it in this light. But with claims and counterclaims flying backwards and forwards, serious charges are being levied and need to be addressed.
Nowhere outside Israel are the repercussions — not to mention the recriminations — being felt more keenly than here in Australia. The fact that Prof Chazan was due to speak here this month brought the dispute onto these shores, and simmering differences are now boiling over, with various groups and individuals using the NIF as the hook on which to hang their contrasting views of Israel and Zionism.
Before rushing to pass judgement on the wisdom of inviting Prof Chazan, we must, of course, remember that this would not have been the first occasion she would have spoken in Australia as a guest of a communal organisation. This time around, however, the trip has been cancelled and there is no question that it was the right decision. Irrespective of where one stands on Prof Chazan’s personal politics or the remit of her organisation, the controversy surrounding her presence would, without a doubt, overshadow the primary purpose of her visit — namely fundraising for Israel.
It remains to be seen how the drama surrounding the NIF will unfold, but the experience offers a salutary lesson that our fundraisers would do well to heed in the future. Yes, speakers must be interesting, inspirational and even challenging if they are to engage an audience. But in those instances where the intention is to unite the community behind an appeal for Israel, inviting those who may also be very divisive can ultimately prove counterproductive.
comments