Letters, June 10, 2011

Peace award for Chomsky is farcical

THE awarding of the Sydney Peace Prize to Noam Chomsky for his work on behalf of peace and human rights must be ironic given his past apology for those who abuse the human rights of Holocaust survivors.

In 1979-80, Chomsky defended the opinions of Robert Faurisson, a far Right anti-Semitic professor of French literature who denied that the Nazi gas chambers ever existed. Firstly, Chomsky signed a petition drawn up by prominent American Holocaust denier Mark Weber in defence of Faurisson’s civil rights. Chomsky also wrote a sympathetic preface to a book by Faurisson in which he stated that “the fact that Faurisson denied the existence of gas chambers plainly did not demonstrate that he was a Nazi or anti-Semite”, and that “denial of the worst atrocities, even the Holocaust, does not in itself suffice to prove racism or Nazism”. Chomsky concluded that Faurisson appeared to be a “relatively apolitical liberal”.

Chomsky’s failure to recognise the anti-Semitic implications of Holocaust denial, and his decision to provide a political character reference for a leading figure in the international neo-Nazi movement was astounding. The overall effect of his statement was to promote a reversal of the roles of Nazi persecutor and Jewish victim.

Philip Mendes

Kew, Vic

Golan clash obscures true tragedy in Syria

SYRIA was quick to announce this week that 18 people had been killed by IDF troops while trying to breach the Israeli border. These demonstrators could only have been there if sanctioned by the Syrian Government.

Would the Syrian Government please announce how many of its own citizens have been killed in the past weeks by Syrian troops while involved in peaceful demonstrations against the continued dictatorship of the self-appointed leadership of the Assad family. International media, banned from entering and reporting, are estimating more than 800 deaths.

Was the attempted border purge an attempt at distraction? And will international media fall for it?

Rosie Elsass

Brighton, Vic

Ameinu attack on Bibi Netanyahu unwarranted

JOHNNY Baker, the head of Ameinu, believes that both Binyamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama “squandered a unique chance to move the peace process forward” (AJN 03/06).

While Baker blamed Obama for failing to spell out clearly that the Palestinians’ claim for a right of return would have to be solved within the borders of any new Palestinian state, he could not identify any specific failure on Netanyahu’s part yet nevertheless characterised his stunning diplomacy in front of the US Congress as “rejectionist”. This ignores Netanyahu’s open invitation to Abbas and Fatah to choose peace with Israel over their pact with Hamas.

On the other hand, he correctly conceded that it is “probably right” that “there really is no one to deal with” and that “the Palestinian leadership, particularly in its current guise, will never make an accommodation”.

Given his honest concession, why then pretend there was anything to squander at all?

Geoff Bloch

Caulfield, Vic

Orthodox rabbis reject same-sex union call

WE, the executive and members of the Rabbinical Council of NSW (RCNSW) totally reject the statement of the Rabbinic Council for Progressive Rabbis on same-sex union (AJN 03/06).

The Torah, basis of all Judaism, explicitly prohibits homosexuality. Therefore the rabbinate cannot condone a homosexual lifestyle. Moreover Judaism believes in the promotion in the wider society of the basic moral and ethical principles enshrined in the Noachide Code one of which is the proscription of homosexual relations.

No Torah-abiding Jew can ever make peace with the notion of legalising or validating homosexual union in any society of which he or she is a part.

Rabbi Yosef Feldman

President, RCNSW

Progressive view on unions is not halachic

I REFER to the report “Rabbis take up same-sex cause” (AJN 03/06).

“The Rabbinic Council of Progressive Rabbis has called upon the Australian Government to permit same-sex couples to marry” stating “Judaism teaches all human beings are created in the image of God, and are therefore entitled to full dignity and equality.”

Judaism teaches that, but it is erroneous to suggest that Judaism therefore condones same-gender marriage.

Traditionally, at the afternoon service on Yom Kippur the Torah reading is Leviticus XVIII (forbidden sexual relations), chosen for that moment, because the sanctity of conjugal relations is the cornerstone of Jewish teaching.

Beyond the Jewish community, this statement will be perceived as authoritative, on behalf of the Jewish people, implying Jewish teaching supports same-gender marriage. Jewish teaching does not. And those rabbis do not represent the majority of the Jews of Australia. The extent of possible adverse perception by the wider community, and misuse by our enemies, can not be foreseen or exaggerated.

Michael Sydney Cohen

Malvern, Vic

Moetzah doesn’t speak for us all

IN his contemporary perspective on the ninth of the Ten Commandments, Progressive Rabbi Gersh Lazarow (AJN 03/06) eloquently declares: “When you twist, bend, misrepresent or distort truth in order to make a point or gain some advantage …. you engage in an act of rebellion against Me (i.e. God). Any deviation from truth is a misrepresentation of truth and therefore a misrepresentation of Me”.

It is a great pity that his colleagues on the Progressive Moetzah did not heed his words last week. The irony of their timing, in a week when the rest of the religious Jewish world will be reaffirming (on Shavuot) its commitment to the truth of the Torah, and its commandments, could not be greater.

It is a travesty of the truth to equate the principle of humans being created in God’s image with homosexual union. By the same token, they or some other group posturing under the banner of tikkun olam (mending the world) could advance the ‘image of God’ argument to advocate euthanasia on demand or even genetic manipulation to produce a master race. Such synonymy would be equally fallacious. And to ignore or deny the fact that the Torah, source of all Judaism, specifically outlaws that which they seek to make legal is a distortion of the gravest proportions.

More reprehensible still is their statement, “The Jewish people are all too familiar with discrimination and worse, and we reject it, however rationalised.”

Who gave this group a mandate to speak on behalf of the entire Jewish people? I believe that many in the Jewish community will be angered, as I am, at having been implicated against their will in an isolated policy of misguided activism that draws undue attention to us as Jews, and could result in the very anti-Semitism to which the Moetzah’s statement alludes.

No, it is not “necessary that the rest of the community responds to the new policy with respect”, as stated in the AJN editorial. And certainly not a “policy” which no other single religious demonination in Australia has endorsed. Judaism respects all people, it does not have to respect all ideologies or policies.

We are permitted and even required to deplore certain practices, but we must love the practitioners still for their  innermost being and potential, made as they are be-tselem Elokim, in the image of the Creator.

Rabbi Chaim Ingram

Bondi Junction, NSW

Be wary of NIF’s selective stance

INVOLVEMENT in the New Israel Fund (NIF) is not the “no brainer” that  former AUJS President Liam Getreu believes. (AJN 03/06)

NIF policy on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is stated on its web site as follows: “The NIF opposes the global (or general) BDS movement, views its use of these tactics as counterproductive, and is concerned that segments of this movement seek to undermine the existence of the state of Israel.

“NIF will not fund global BDS activities against Israel nor support organisations that have global BDS programs. NIF opposes the occupation and subsequent settlement activities. NIF will not exclude support for organisations that discourage the purchase of goods or use of services from settlements.”

NIF clearly seeks to encourage the application of BDS to the  goods and services produced by 500,000 Jews who have gone to live in the West Bank over the last 40 years with the approval of successive Israeli governments of all political persuasion.

This amounts to gross and unfair discrimination and promotes denigration of those Jews living in the West Bank based on their address and nothing else. NIF is entitled to oppose settlements. It should not be encouraging policies designed to discriminate between Jews living on either side of the 1967 armistice line.

As Getreu writes: “The dream of Israel was to create a democracy with equal rights for all.”

In its selective application of BDS, the NIF falls far short of this ideal.

David Singer

Darling Point, NSW