Letters, August 13, 2010

Get The AJN Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Facts on Lebanon border clash are clear

ARTICLES in the Australian press describing the clash on the Israel-Lebanon border implicitly suggest that it isn’t clear which side fired the first shots that cost a number of lives on both sides.

The facts of the matter, however, appear to be clear. Israel wanted to remove some bushes, which were encroaching on the border fence. The border fence is situated some distance behind the actual border line — this is done so that Israeli soldiers can maintain the fence and its immediate ¬≠surrounds.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) contacted the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping force, and informed them that this work was going to take place so that they could inform the Lebanese army that it was just routine maintenance.

Soldiers from UNIFIL in fact were on site to observe the Israeli maintenance work and can be seen standing next to Israeli soldiers in photographs and film taken at the time.

Israel claims that the “border clash” — which the IDF had taken all possible steps to avoid — occurred when Lebanese soldiers opened fire on Israeli soldiers who were not acting aggressively. Israeli soldiers briefly returned fire before using loudspeakers to call in Arabic for an immediate ceasefire.

It is surely beholden on UNIFIL as a neutral observer to state exactly what led up to the border clash and, in particular, to clearly state which side fired first.

Church boycott is morally wrong

I WAS horrified to see the article (AJN 30/07) that Christians would be encouraged to boycott Israeli goods.

I am a Christian, and an Anglican, and I certainly do not agree with that proposal! Israel is very close to God’s heart, and anything I can do to help I will do.

Boycott statement was no surprise

I SAY this with the utmost respect, but am puzzled by comments made by Robert Goot and Anita Shroot at being unpleasantly surprised and shocked and reeling from the stance taken by Australia’s roof Christian body (AJN 30/07) supporting boycotts of goods produced in Israeli settlements.

The Jewish people and Israel are going through a particularly trying time experiencing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

The Islamist propaganda machine is gaining momentum by the day, using Palestinian refugees, the occupation and blockade of Gaza as their tools in their quest to delegitimise Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and there appears to be no end in sight regarding the hostage taking of Gilad Shalit or the whereabouts of Ron Arad and other Israeli MIAs.

Since Roman times, Jews have been slaughtered in their millions as we all know  and it will continue for many years to come.

I am not a doomsayer. It is simply historical fact. There have also been attempts to convert us to Christianity and Islam over the centuries. We will continue to survive, perhaps with dwindling numbers, but must fight back, through every means possible — not only on the battlefield but through caring for others less fortunate and re-educating people who treat us as pariahs.

We have an advantage over many in the fields of science, medicine, law and the arts. By using these skills we can help others and perhaps promote peace.

Labor preference call is hypocritical

IT is a bit rich for Michael Easson (AJN 06/08) to ask Jewish Liberal voters to preference Labor rather than The Greens. He suggests doing so because, unlike Labor, The Greens are allegedly anti-Israel.

While Mr Easson’s political support for Israel within the Labor Party is well-known, the knee-jerk sanctimonious reaction of both Kevin Rudd and his foreign minister, Stephen Smith, over the Dubai passport affair is not easily forgotten.

Moreover, if The Greens are so bad, why has Labor entered into a formal preference swap in this election in both Houses?

Rather than preference deals, surely it would be better for Labor supporters of Israel to do whatever they can to minimise the chance of Greens control of the Senate?

How to not vote for The Greens

MICHAEL Easson is 100 per cent correct in urging Liberal readers living in the electorates of Melbourne and Sydney to not follow the Liberal “how to vote” card if they want to stop the possible election of two Greens candidates to the House of Representatives (AJN 06/08).

However, Michael offers no advice to Labor readers on the dangers of handing the balance of power in the Senate to the Greens if they vote “1” above the line for Labor on the white ballot paper for the Senate.

By voting like this, Labor readers will automatically send their second preferences to The Greens and with it possibly the balance of power in the Senate. To ensure this does not happen, Labor voters should not vote “1” for Labor above the line on the white ballot paper. Labor voters can still vote “1” for Labor in the Senate and reduce the chance of The Greens getting the balance of power in the Senate by numbering all the squares below the line. They can show their abhorrence of The Greens policies by numbering their six candidates 79-84 in NSW and 55-60 in Victoria.

Control of the Senate by The Greens holding the balance of power should be of far greater concern to persons worried about The Greens policies than two Greens candidates in Melbourne and Sydney exercising very minimal influence in the House of Representatives.