Letters, April 22, 2011
Report still stands
RICHARD Goldstone’s remarks concerning the report on Operation Cast Lead are no vindication for Israel’s actions in Gaza. In particular, Israel only loses credibility if it continues to attack the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) rather than engaging in transparent and swift investigation of many outstanding claims.
Goldstone said if more information had been forthcoming from Israel, the section concerning intentional killing of civilians by Israel would have been different. That is an important qualification, and does not represent a vindication. Israel refused to cooperate with Goldstone in the first place in providing accurate information, and it has continued to not cooperate.
But what of the rest of the first report, or the additional report released on March 18 by the HCR, which continues to be critical of Israel and Hamas? Has that report been “qualified” or “disowned” by Goldstone? Not at all. It also needs to be observed that the committee again spoke with Gilad Shalit’s father. The committee and the ordinal Goldstone Report called for his release.
In fact, here are Goldstone’s most recent remarks about the report as a whole: “I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time.”
Of 400 Israeli investigations, there have been 52 criminal investigations. So far, only three cases have been submitted to prosecution; two have resulted in convictions, while the trial of one case is still ongoing.
This lack of movement is unacceptable. Likewise, the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS) supports the critical attitude taken towards Hamas crimes in the supplementary report.
Larry Stillman and Sivan Barak
Executive, AJDS
In defence of Chazan
IT IS disappointing that The AJN selected for publication a letter that vilified Naomi Chazan and the New Israel Fund (NIF) and cast aspersions on the Progressive Jewish movement in Australia (AJN, 15/04)
Naomi Chazan has strong Zionist credentials and an impressive record in Israeli public life. She is a professor emeritus at the Hebrew University and has completed three terms as a member of the Knesset, where she advocated strongly for legislative reform in areas such as gender equality and consumer affairs.
Naomi Chazan has also worked hard in other ways to strengthen Israel as a democratic Jewish state, including through her presidency of the NIF. For more than 30 years, the NIF has provided financial support to organisations in Israel that have contributed to strengthening equality, democracy, and civil and human rights for all citizens of Israel, including Arab Israelis, Bedouin and other minority groups.
Some of the achievements of this work have been referred to by the Israeli government when describing the strength and vibrancy of Israeli democracy.
The letter published last week echoes recent unjust attacks on NIF in connection with the Goldstone Report. A few NIF grantees supplied information or made submissions to the Goldstone Commission, as was their democratic right. So too did a number of Australian lawyers, including myself and others in leadership positions in the Australian Jewish community. Information from Israeli Government sources was also made available informally to the Goldstone Commission.
None of these organisations or persons are responsible for what the Goldstone Commission did or did not do with those submissions and all the other evidence that was available to it.
Vilifiers of NIF should perhaps read again the Zionist vision in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, which NIF has worked tirelessly to realise. Most Australian Jews do, I believe, share that vision.
Robin Margo
Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW
Creating new leaders
IAN Bersten’s letter (AJN 08/04) suggests communal organisations do not act to ensure the future of the Australian Jewish community.
WIZO encourages young membership in many ways because we are acutely aware of the future of our movement and the future of the community. We begin by participating in bat-mitzvah classes and teaching the value of tzedakah. We are in touch with the youth movements and encourage and support their visits to Israel.
By connecting young Jewish women at a grassroots level to WIZO and to Israel, we also connect their families and thus contribute to the continuity of the Jewish community in Australia. We hold functions of general interest to young women and activities for school holidays and for the chagim so our young members see the relevance of belonging to WIZO. We encourage young members to join our executive and have twice had WIZO Australia members heading the WIZO Aviv (young members) portfolio on the World WIZO Executive in Israel.
It is easy to pass the blame for this situation onto “the organisations” not knowing exactly what they are doing and whether the rot would have set in much earlier without their activities.
Gilla Liberman
President, WIZO Australia
Smearing Limmud-Oz
AS a participant and lecturer at five of the previous Limmud-Oz events in Sydney and Melbourne, I am jealous of its reputation. It is one of the finest, most educative and entertaining programs for the Jewish community.
Those who know Limmud-Oz understand that within its curriculum of Jewish and Israeli topics, it is an event which encourages discussion, and never shies away from controversial subjects. But recently, an anonymous email has been circulating, criticising the organisers of Limmud-Oz in Sydney for incorporating into its rostrum of speakers somebody who advocates the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The email writer tells us that Samah Sabawi is one of the lecturers invited to speak at the event in July.
This is completely untrue and threatens to damage the reputation of Limmud-Oz. The email writer says “we know she was invited to speak at Limmud-Oz”. Not true. Sabawi will not be appearing, and will have no platform. Perhaps BDS will be discussed, because that’s the nature of free and untrammelled discourse, but not as a position which is advocated by those invited to teach.
The other name which the email writer casually throws around as though it were some disease, is that of Naomi Chazan, a distinguished Israeli academic and politician. Chazan is chair of the New Israel Fund and was invited to Australia by them and the Union of Progressive Judaism. She is their guest, and Limmud-Oz has afforded her the opportunity to share her views. Many in the audience will disagree with her, and make their points known.
But is the anonymous email writer seriously saying that an educational event like Limmud-Oz shouldn’t include many different perspectives and allow the audience to decide? There’s a huge difference between the respective views of Chazan and Sabawi.
Limmud-Oz is a jewel in our community’s crown, and baseless emails must not be allowed to go unanswered if their intent is to sully its reputation.
Alan Gold
Leura, NSW
comments