Letters (October 23, 2009)

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

A selection of letters published in the AJN print edition of October 23, 2009

Boycott Israeli expertise?

AN Israeli scientist, Professor Ada Yonath,¬† and two Americans have won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (AJN 16/10) for, what the jury described, was work directly assisting the saving of lives and decreasing humanity’s suffering.

A slight setback, I would think, for Antony Loewenstein and Jake Lynch in their quest for a boycott of Israeli academics.

And in order for those calling for the boycott not to be seen as hypocrites, that boycott must also extend to Israeli inventions, such as diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer, mobile phones developed by Motorola in Israel, Pentium MMX computer chips, solar-energy generators, USB flash drives and memory sticks, and water-saving irrigation systems, to mention a few.

HENRY HERZOG
St Kilda East, Vic

Demographic suicide

ISRAEL-BASHING is not criticism of Israel, but rather holding Israel to a different standard, as Stephen Langford does (AJN 16/10).

International law demands either repatriation or compensation for lost property of refugees. Israel has, perfectly legally, opted for compensation.

According to Langford’s definition of “self-determination”, he demands Israel commit demographic suicide by introducing millions of strangers — and, no, Israel was never “their country”, as he states.

It was a part of the defunct Ottoman Empire that was allocated to be the Jewish homeland in 1924. With no great change in land ownership between 1947 and 1948, it seems that those who were tied by property remained and became Israeli citizens, while the rest did what the population of southern Lebanon did in 1982, and what three million Afghanis did before the imminent American invasion, and simply fled.

Now those seeking to destroy Israeli self-determination want to, along with their millions of offspring, be allowed to invade.

In the biggest double standard ever, these same people are demanding Jews get out of the West Bank, abandoning properties they actually own.

MORRY SZTAINBOK
Bentleigh, Vic

Egypt, Jordan set examples

PEOPLE who lived in Israel in 1948 and were not Jewish were not thrown out, as Stephen Langford asserts (AJN 16/10).

They left Israel of their own free will because of the propaganda of the Mufti of Jerusalem and other Arab troublemakers of that time. A young Israel did everything possible for them to stay and not become refugees. But to allow them to return now would be a tragedy for the people of Israel.

Palestinian people have the same rights to build on their land as do Jews on theirs!

If Langford ever visited Israel, he would see for himself how the villages in Wadi Arra between Hadera and Afula have grown in the last couple of years. In the north, Arab villages became towns, while towns became cities.

Terrorism is defined by terrorist activities. In Israel, as anywhere in the world, if you blow up something, you are a terrorist.

What can Israel do until the Palestinians agree that peace is better than legal occupation? Egypt and Jordan understood this and Israel is now at peace with these two countries.

IVAN SINGER
Castle Cove, NSW

Skewed historical narrative

STEPHEN Langford (AJN 16/10) suggests that Israel was founded on the forced expulsion of Palestinians, now prevents their return, and is therefore illegitimate.

Actually, modern Israel was founded with United Nations approval, the plan being that Jewish and Palestinian states would exist side by side.

The Israelis accepted this and agreed to extend full citizenship to non-Jews. Refusing to accept partition, Arab states invaded Israel in the war of 1947-48 and, as occurs in all wars, it triggered refugees.

The reasons Arabs left Israel in 1947-48 are complex. It is simplistic to say they were “thrown out”. Some fled a theatre of war, others did so on orders from Arab commanders, and some were ordered from their villages by Israeli forces who believed Arab army personnel were based in their midst.

UN and Arab policy has since maintained those refugees and their descendants in camps, rather than allowing them to integrate into their new societies, as has occurred for most refugees worldwide.

Presumably, Langford believes that Palestinian refugees should be “allowed to return to what was their country”. The original refugees —- estimated as numbering between 400,000 to 900,000 —- are not frozen in time. They now have children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Currently, the UN Relief and Works Agency claims there are more than four million Palestinian refugees.

To allow these people in would mean the demographic annihilation of the world’s only Jewish state and is actually a refusal to accept Israeli self-determination. The road to peace is not aided by that position.

MICHELLE AND DAVID WEINTROB
Caulfield, Vic

View does not stand up

STEPHEN Langford (AJN 16/10) repeats the allegations that Israel threatened Palestinians with a holocaust. The official he quotes stated that the Palestinians would bring a disaster -— shoah —- upon themselves through their violence. No Jew would dream of inflicting the Shoah on any other people. The Age failed to correct Ed O’Loughlin’s misreporting.

Langford’s understanding of Israel’s self-determination is the Palestinian narrative. History and current facts are, however, different. Benny Morris has repeatedly documented that in the 1948 war started by the Arabs, there was no plan for expulsion; no other refugee group demands repatriation.

Israeli Arabs do have the same rights to build and in point of fact, a blind eye has so far been turned to their illegal construction. The 1.5 per cent of Judea and Samaria on which Jews have settled is hardly an act of colonisation and the Arabs rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer of compensatory territories.

Terrorism is the attacks on “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions and no group that celebrates such attacks, calling them “resistance”, deserves a state.

PAUL WINTER
Sydney, NSW

Balance from The Oz

LES Rosenblatt (AJN 16/10) believes the Jewish community is switching from The Age to The Australian to hear only, as he put it, “what flattered it within the comfort zone of its own unchallenged convictions”.

Perhaps he should consider that, unlike The Age, The Australian is credited with balanced reporting where, apart from criticism, credit is also given where it is due.

DR RACHEL BIRATI
North Balwyn, Vic

AJDS out of step

YET again we are forced to endure Les Rosenblatt of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS) asserting that the mainstream Jewish community is out of step with reality, and that his organisation is the only one courageous enough to say the tough words that need to be said.

His articles about the Paul Ramadge evening turned up everywhere, but in an audience of around 200 people, it appeared only he and one other member of the AJDS supported the way The Age covers the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Yet despite all its community noisiness, the AJDS has policies that don’t stand up to the rigour of critical scrutiny. For example, it has no problem accepting 56 Islamic states in the world, but does have a problem in accepting one Jewish state, and the fact that any future Palestinian state would be Islamic in nature (their charter says so), and Jew-free, does not seem to register any interest.

The AJDS actively engages and supports the Palestinian lobby groups in their criticism of Israel, and its policies would essentially sacrifice Israel’s Jewish identity as part of some pipedream of everlasting peace in the Middle East.

ALAN FREEDMAN
St Kilda East, Vic

World was silent on rockets

I BELIEVE Justice Richard Goldstone is a lofty and idealistic person. However, if you follow the conclusions of his report, then many countries and organisations lose the high moral ground. Both the United Nations (UN) Security Council and UN Human Rights Council deliberately overlooked the firing of rockets into Israel. Maybe if there had been strong universal condemnation of the firing of these rockets, a war may not have been necessary.

JOHN BEAR
Maroubra, NSW

McCarthyist approach?

I NEED to say that I found Isi Leibler’s Viewpoint article (AJN 16/10) quite alarming. When I read about Jews being considered “renegade” when they express “odious” views that stray from “legitimate” ones, with concluding recommendations to “exorcise” them from our “mainstream” on the basis of their views, I begin to think of McCarthyism.

Perhaps the next piece will provide a list of “legitimate” views and a list of “odious” views that will help community members stay on the right path, and prevent being “exorcised”?

I do find articles in Ha’aretz interesting and thought provoking, often prompting the reader to consider the impact of events on those involved on both sides of this terrible conflict.

Hopefully I am not one of those now scheduled to be “exorcised”. Of course, while Leibler’s article quotes the first phrase in Hillel’s famous dictum “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?”, it also selectively omits the next important sentence in this dictum, “If I am only for myself, then what am I?”

DAVID FORBES
Elsternwick, Vic

Listing our demons

WHERE would we Australian Jews be without our demons? Without (in no particular order) The Age, the ABC, SBS, Antony Loewenstein, the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Barack Obama, Justice Richard Goldstone, Louise Adler, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the Australian Labor Party? Forget the KKK, the British National Party and the Holocaust deniers. They belong to the past.

Besides, we have Isi Leibler (AJN 16/10) to defend us against all of them.

STEVE BROOK
Elwood, Vic

Iranian nukes far-fetched

ON the balance of probabilities, the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear bomb seems small. Those who called the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) correctly seven years ago, like the International Atomic Energy Association, are telling us that Iran is not preparing a bomb. In a mirror image, those who made the most fanciful claims about Iraqi WMDs are clamouring again, only this time the bomb is Iranian. The choice of who to believe seems self-evident.

But not so fast: the point is that even sceptics take insurance and they do so even when the risk is small. So those who care about Israel and its future cannot be sure of Iran’s intentions, and therefore we should try to counter the risk, whatever its size.

Fortunately, we can take the lead from Israeli President Shimon Peres. Addressing the opening of the winter Knesset session, President Peres said: “In my opinion, if we move forward with peace and make peace with the Palestinians, and if we start negotiations with Syria and Lebanon, we will remove the main pretext for the Iranian madness — against us and against the other residents of this region.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself. We should support all moves to make that peace.

SOL SALBE
Maidstone, Vic

Local Muslims must take a stand

I AGREE wholeheartedly with the Jewish Community Council of Victoria that the Muslim communities here need to take a stand on terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. I do not see that Muslims should be affronted when Australian troops risk their lives to help Muslims obtain their freedom from oppressive, despotic rulers.

We saw those TV shots of crowds rejoicing in the streets after the Taliban and then Saddam were defeated. The final results were there for all to see, whatever our thoughts on the commitment.

If Muslims at interfaith groups want to defend their faith against extremism and misinterpretation, they must clearly tell us why these terrorists are wrong and take a public stand against them.

I don’t envy the position of Muslims acting in good faith as good citizens, but they do have to accept what so many are doing in the name of Islam and take appropriate measures.

Life can be cruel, but Muslims are on the back foot in western countries and they alone can improve their image.

PETER COHEN
Caulfield North, Vic

Progressive policy on weddings

REGARDING the article “Edelsten on that dress and his wedding” (AJN 16/10), in order to avoid any misunderstanding, it is important to note that Temple Beth Israel and its rabbis have no role or involvement in the forthcoming wedding described in the article.

Progressive rabbis in Australia do not officiate at weddings between Jews and non-Jews. There is no exception to this rule.

Non-Jews seeking to become Jewish through the Progressive Movement may only do so by participating in our conversion process, which has rigorous guidelines and requirements.

The candidate must show sincere commitment to Judaism and the Jewish people, undergo a course of study that lasts a year minimum, be actively involved in the life of a congregation, write essays and papers demonstrating their knowledge and testifying to their spiritual journey, appear before a beth din and undergo appropriate rituals including immersion (mikveh).

Only when that process has been completed will we discuss officiating at a chuppah.

RABBI FRED MORGAN
Senior Rabbi, Temple Beth Israel

If you would like to submit a letter, email letters@jewishnews.net.au