Letters (February 12, 2010)
A selection of letters published in the AJN print edition of February 12, 2010
Treatment of Chazan and the NIF is shameful
THE furore over the New Israel Fund (NIF) has highlighted an ugly underbelly in both Australia and Israel.
The NIF and organisations that have received NIF grants work on civil and human rights; social and economic justice; religious pluralism and tolerance for Israeli Arabs and Bedouin citizens; the environment and assistance for immigrants — issues enshrined in Israel’s declaration of independence.
An otherwise little-known organisation accuses the NIF of giving Justice Richard Goldstone the tools to demonise Israel and accuses the head of the NIF of being a self-hating Jew and enemy of the Israel Defence Forces and Israel. The Israeli media, smelling a good story, have raised the hue and cry and the Australian-Jewish establishment has allegedly decided to follow the hounds.
That these accusations are patently false is almost irrelevant. The attack on the NIF is an attack on democracy in Israel. That an organisation and its leader can be pilloried with the images reminiscent of fascist propaganda machines is a serious threat to the wellbeing of that society.
Is dissent now beyond the pale? Is “king or country, right or wrong”, the new catchcry? If Chazan’s visit was indeed cancelled from this end, shame Australia for lack of moral courage to see bully-boy tactics for what they really are. Shame.
Leon Orbach
Meretz Australia
Time for Israel to be more open
FORMER Israeli Knesset member and controversial academic Professor Naomi Chazan’s invitation to speak at a fundraiser at Beth Weizmann Community Centre has been cancelled, either by her sponsor — the Union of Progressive Judaism — or of her own doing. Either way, it seems to be to do with her organisation’s alleged funding of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which contributed substantially to the Goldstone report (The Age 04/02 and AJN 05/02).
In the same edition of The Age, there was also a report about another Israeli academic, Colonel Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, calling for an independent inquiry, as requested by the Goldstone report, on alleged war crimes by the Israeli army during Operation Cast Lead. She said that Goldstone’s report has caused Israel severe international harm and she was concerned that it could turn Israel into “a kind of South Africa (during apartheid) or Serbia”. An inquiry, she claims, would show Israel has nothing to hide and in hindsight, Israel’s decision not to cooperate with the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Commission (HRC) was a mistake.
That is, had Israel cooperated with the HRC, Goldstone would also have got Israel’s side of the story and not relied so much on the evidence of the NGOs, and probably would have produced a more balanced report.
It has also been reported that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is now calling for an independent inquiry, I suspect for the same reasons, but he is meeting resistance from the Israel Defence Forces Chief of Staff and members of his own cabinet.
Surely it is clear by now that if Israel wants to maintain its good standing in the international community, rather than stand alone and give comfort to its detractors, it must show a higher degree of openness.
Henry Herzog
St Kilda East, Vic
Zionist Council had no role in cancellation
IN the flurry of articles and letters regarding the cancellation of Professor Naomi Chazan’s visit to Australia, unfortunately some reports in the media gave an erroneous message, which I seek to clarify here.
The Zionist Council of Victoria (ZCV) had nothing to do with either the invitation to Prof Chazan to come to Australia or the ultimate decision to cancel her visit. The cancellation was not our decision to either make or to influence. The ZCV merely withdrew its co-sponsorship of one of her speaking engagements.
Dr Danny Lamm
President, Zionist Council of Victoria
ZCV discredited by its stance on Chazan
If ever an example was needed to highlight the credibility failure of the ZCV in its public advocacy for Israel, Dr Danny Lamm’s denigration of respected Israeli Professor Naomi Chazan chair of the New Israel Fund (NIF) is a classic demonstration.
Following outrageous accusations made by an obscure Israeli pro-settler fringe group, Im Tirtzu, that the NIF is largely responsible for the UN-sponsored Goldstone report into the January 2009 Gaza conflict, Dr Lamm, president of the ZCV is reported as withdrawing support of Prof Chazan’s engagement in Australia because of her “intolerable” association with the NIF.
The NIF is an organisation that has funded some 800 organisations in pursuit of its aim to strive for the equality of social and political rights for all Israelis without regard to religion, race or gender. In so doing, it has funded among many others, human rights groups who have critically highlighted human rights abuses in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
The price of a vibrant democracy is a willingness to be self-critical and to expose abuse to the glare of public scrutiny. By its own admission, the ZCV will quite deliberately never be publicly critical of Israel and is now prepared to support nationalist groups such as Im Titzu, which by their nature are intolerant of dissent. Perhaps the most telling aspect of the vilification against Prof Chazan by Im Tirtzu, is their depiction of her in a cartoon in ads in the Israeli press, with a horn coming out of her forehead. In any other context, Dr Lamm would have been shouting “anti-Semitism” at the top of his voice.
Les Rosenblatt and Harold Zwier
Australian Jewish Democratic Society
Not a fan of the New Israel Fund’s Naomi
ISRAELI politician Professor Naomi Chazan does not have a high profile either in Israel or in the Diaspora, so any additional facts about her, such as the following, can help people make truly informed judgements about her and her agenda.
A few years ago, Galilee Arabs blockaded a major public highway. When police arrived on the scene, they were physically attacked.
Prof Chazan reportedly called the Arabs’ actions “a peaceful demonstration”. Enough said?
Leon Poddebsky
Vaucluse, NSW
Military use of phosphorous
TOM Wolkenberg (AJN 29/01) acknowledges that criticism of Israel is unfair when it holds Israel to different, often impossible, standards, but then illustrates just how that’s done with his own criticism of Israel for using white phosphorous.
Most armies in the world find phosphorous invaluable. As Peter Herby, head of the Red Cross mines-arms unit, told the Associated Press on Tuesday, January 13, 2009: “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used, but it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”
Israel is pedantic to a fault in sticking to international guidelines in these matters, and has law courts to happily ensure that. Nevertheless, so many, even in the Jewish community, are prepared to damn Israel for things it simply doesn’t do.
Morry Sztainbok
Bentleigh, Vic
Halachah, social liberalism and Abbott
PHILIP Mendes (AJN 29/01) falls into the trap of over-generalising and trying to compartmentalise Australian Jewry into neat little boxes.
He writes: “With the possible exception of ultra-Orthodox groups, Jews seem to prefer social liberal positions on issues such as abortion, feminism, illicit drugs, gay rights, euthanasia and the monarchy.”
Given that an Orthodox, that is, Torah-practising, Jew (I am not sure where the “ultra” fits in) would not have the option to compromise on matters of halachah, he or she is bound to be opposed to abortion on demand, homosexual unions and euthanasia. However, he or she may conceivably take a more “social liberal” position on republicanism, climate change, control of drug abuse and even prison reform, while identifying with certain, but not all, manifestations of feminism. Sadly, there appears to be no room for shades of grey in Mendes’ tapestry.
Mendes is entitled to his “observations”. Others’ observations may differ. Personally speaking, I recall being at a communal cocktail reception some weeks ago where I found myself in a group reflecting a mix of religiously observant and secular viewpoints.
The topic turned to Tony Abbott and the general assessment was that in the new Opposition Leader we have a man of integrity, honest principle and moral fibre who would put Australia and Australians first and who would, at the same time, be as good for the Jews and for Israel as our present and immediate past leaders have been.
Rabbi Chaim Ingram
Bondi Junction, NSW
Yom Ha’atzmaut vs Australia Day
IN your recent Vox Pop (AJN 29/01), people were asked which day is more meaningful for them — Australia Day or Yom Ha’atzmaut. All of them replied that Yom Ha’atzmaut is more significant for them.
It is very easy to be loyal to a state that you have been educated to sympathise with, but you may have no idea what living there means. Maybe I, as an ex-Israeli, can tell you.
Israel is a tough place to live with a drab future. More than 60 years after declaring its independence, it is a place where most people can only dream of the living standard of the average Jewish-Australian family. A steadily decreasing rate of the population participates in the burden of security service and taxes, corruption is widespread and most public systems are collapsing.
In addition, a large number of young people dream of emigrating to a better place. What used to be the core concept of Israel — being a Jewish and democratic state — is being torn apart from both the left-wing elite — which aims for a non-Jewish, non-Zionist and possibly bi-national state — and the radical religious right-wing, which aims at establishing a halachic state.
Is that the state that so many Australian Jews sympathise with?
Personally, I stopped celebrating Yom Ha’atzmaut when I migrated to Australia.
Ron Burdo
St Kilda East, Vic
Medical technology on Shabbat
MATTHEW Wagner’s article, in which it is suggested that people with artificial arms and legs operated by Brain Computer Interface or BCI would not be keeping Shabbat (AJN 29/01), sounds ridiculous. A person with a prosthesis that replaces a hand or leg is immobilised without the use of them.
This would also be a problem for people who wear digital hearing aids or pacemakers. I could not hear if I couldn’t turn on my hearing aids. A person with a pacemaker must have it continue to work on Shabbat.
The first rule in keeping Shabbat is to care for a working body.
Frayda M Cooper
Wahroonga, NSW
Jewish perspective on organ donation
FOR years I have been a strong believer in the value of organ donation after death. It just seems to be an obvious morally correct decision — helping to save the lives of others. However, I was never really sure of the halachic position. I was under the impression it was something that had been chucked in the “too hard” basket, and for this reason many Jews, including many non-observant Jews, didn’t consider donating their organs.
Recently, I decided to look further into the issue and discovered hundreds of Orthodox rabbis around the world, including the Chief Rabbi of Israel, support organ donation after brain death, if it can be used to save the life of another. The site www.hods.org has a wealth of information on the halachic and medical issues in multiple languages, including English, Hebrew and Yiddish.
While part of me is extremely glad that there is now halachic support for organ donation after brain death, another part of me is appalled that there is so little general awareness and discussion of the issue in much of the Jewish community. We are talking about a mitzvah that can save the lives of others, even when we are at the point of death.
I urge people to familiarise themselves with organ donation and discuss their views with their families and friends. Maybe I have a strange perspective, but I find it very comforting to think that even when I have no further use for my body, it may help others in living a healthier and longer life.
Margaret Bozik
Hurstbridge, Vic
Gandel Shoah program is invaluable
I HAVE just returned from participating in the inaugural Gandel Holocaust Studies Program for Australian Educators at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the Gandel family Charitable Trust, the Adelson Family Foundation, the New South Wales Joint Committee for Jewish Higher Education and the Sydney Jewish Museum for so generously supporting this valuable Holocaust education initiative.
The course itself, superbly led by¬† Orit Margaliot (most ably supported by Dr Daniel Feldman, Richelle Budd-Caplan, Dorit Novak and Shulamit Imber) was brilliantly organised and the standard of lectures and seminars was truly outstanding — including two lectures by the world’s leading historian of the Holocaust, Yehuda Bauer.
Participants in the course came from all over Australia, from urban and country areas and from all spheres and levels of education — whatever their level of knowledge or experience teaching the Holocaust all¬† participants benefited greatly from the quality of the program and the warm and friendly welcome that we received from everyone at Yad Vashem’s International School for Holocaust Studies.
The Gandel Holocaust Studies Program is to be run on an annual basis and I would warmly commend anyone in Australia involved in Holocaust studies — at whatever level — to give serious consideration to applying to undertake this course — I am certain that anyone fortunate enough to be selected to participate will not be disappointed.
Dr Bill Anderson,
Consultant historian, Jewish Holocaust Museum and Research Centre, Elsternwick, Vic
If you would like to submit a letter, email letters@jewishnews.net.au