In heated agreement
Malcolm Fraser is wrong when he writes about the influence of the Jewish lobby. But it is understandable how he sometimes reaches that conclusion.
ALBERT DADON
I WAS surprised last week to discover that Malcolm Fraser and Ron Weiser had something in common. Apparently, they both believe in the influence of the Jewish lobby.
These are Dr Weiser’s exact words, published last week on his AJN blog “As long as there is a continuing consensus in the leadership of Australia Jewry, and within the main body of Australian Jewry itself, without significant or influential Jews breaking that consensus — we can remain reasonably confident about the direction of Australian government policy.”
Meanwhile, the former prime minister argued in The Age (11/08/09) that “fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby in Australia has so far prevented Australian governments taking effective action”.
Essentially, they are both in heated agreement. Of course, they come from different angles: Dr Weiser appears to think that influencing the Government is a good thing while Fraser seems to think it is a bad thing.
Some people in our community have already been up in arms about Fraser. But, as far as I know, not a word has been written about Dr Weiser’s curious statement.
For the record, Dr Weiser is an avowed Zionist. His track record of service to Israel and the Australian Jewish community over the course of almost four decades is without parallel. That is not in question. The underlying premise of his statement is in question because it appears to justify Fraser’s stance.
There are two problems with Dr Weiser’s comment. First, debate needs to take place in our community, despite his apparent belief that it be quashed in place of groupthink. When was US President Barack Obama’s proposed policy of freezing all Israeli settlements ever debated in our community?
While I do not entirely endorse Obama’s proposition, some Israelis believe it has merit. In 1999 when Ehud Barak was prime minister he told The Jerusalem Post: “Every attempt to keep hold of this area as one political entity leads necessarily to either a non-democratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a bi-national state and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state that might then become another Belfast or Bosnia.”
Why should we ignore a similar stance by former prime minister Ariel Sharon, who unilaterally evacuated the Jews from Gaza and formed a new party to enable him to push forward with the process of evacuation, which his Likud Party was not prepared to support? More recently, Sharon’s successor, Ehud Olmert, held views on the West Bank settlements that were not dissimilar to those expressed by Barak.
Netanyahu’s position began to shift to a two-state solution with the Palestinians as he declared his new stance in June this year at Bar-Ilan.
Israelis are currently upset with Obama because he has not engaged with them. He appears to want to implement an existential policy for Israel from afar. As a vibrant democracy and an open society everything in Israel is scrutinised – even what seems to be the most invalid of ideas are put to the democratic test.
Why should Obama’s ideas not be tested in a public debate? Dr Weiser’s statement tells us he believes that a narrow, homogenous way of thinking is our strength; whereas, I believe that the plurality of our ideas is our strength.
Israel, itself, thrives on self-criticism – the Kantian quality that is shared in open societies. The mere fact that I am wholly opposed to Dr Weiser’s latest argument is proof of our pluralism and dismantles his notion that the consensus is never broken between us.
Secondly, Dr Weiser’s statement gives credit to “Jewish leaders” for the continued favourable government policy towards Israel.
Our Australian Arab friends are much better organised than what most in the Jewish community believe. They enjoy the same access to our politicians as we all have in a democratic society and they use that access as we do. Both sides of the parliament are provided with arguments by Australian Arabs and Jews almost on a daily basis.
The fact that government policy appears to be sympathetic to Israel, albeit not always, is credit to the common sense and moral clarity of our political leaders on both sides of politics.
Recognising this and giving credit where it is due would go a long way towards exposing the credulous ideas of Fraser and his followers.
Fraser’s latest “great” idea is for Israel and the West to engage in dialogue with Hamas. Although he is entitled to his view, he is misguided.
I have told the former prime minister in person that he has misunderstood our community, that pluralism is alive and well among the Jews. But thanks to Dr Weiser, I am not sure he believes me.
Albert Dadon is founder and chair of the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange and the Australia Israel Leadership Forum.
comments