Letters, October 15, 2010

Baker’s wrong to call for criticism

WHILE reading Mark Baker’s cynical opinion piece (‘Saddened by the sense of censorship’, (AJN 08/10), I felt as if Jewish values were being shot down from the air. The notion that being pro-Israel constantly, is ‘counterproductive’; that it ‘wont wash with a younger generation of Jews’, is clearly fallacious. I am 17 years old (fairly young), and have a reasonably large involvement with Bnei Akiva Melbourne. I believe that I speak for most, if not all, of the Bnei members, that if you are a real believer in Zionism, always publicly support Israel; there is enough condemnation and animosity towards the Jewish State for merely existing, without us adding our torches to the flames of hate.
Evidently, people can, and usually do, voice what they believe to be the correct opinion in a dispute. We cannot force them to do otherwise, but if it negates and counteracts the values that our ancestors have stalwartly held for millennia, then we do have the right to tell them, “I believe you are wrong”, and they us, if need be. I disagreed with the plan to withdraw all Israelis from Gush Katif in 2005, but presented an unyielding stance in support of Israel when in public. If the Jews themselves are not in full support of Israel, who will be?
I was dismayed to read that Mr Baker hinted that Jewish values are values set by people who are Jewish. Jewish values source from the Torah, which ironically, was not mentioned once in the article on ‘censorship’. Therefore, please, think carefully before criticising Israel in public domain; everybody makes that small but significant difference.
Philip Rothschild
Chanich, Bnei Akiva Melbourne

Our right to express divergent views

IN response to Mark Bakers article ‘Saddened by the sense of Censorship’ one of the greatest dangers in the Diaspora for Jews is the reluctance of Jewish leaders to publicly show anything other than stubborn defence of Israel in the face of questionable, hard-line or overly violent responses. My love for Israel is not negated when I am deeply disappointed at some of the Government’s actions. Our non-Jewish communities are longing for us to show our aching hearts, our empathy, and our moral discernment. Without it, we are seen as non caring, bigoted and profoundly self interested, not only by the non-Jewish community but by many in the Jewish community as well. I believe this ‘censorship’ is a threat in terms of both anti-Semitism and Jewish continuity. I yearn to be represented in the nuanced reality of our community, will support those with alternative views, and will claim my right to express them.

Academic arguments don’t negate our duty

ADDUCING, at first, traditional arguments of concerns for the worldwide anti Israel propaganda onslaught, Mark Baker’s transition to advocating open criticism from Jewish quarters baffles the reader. Mark Baker, mainly as an educator in matters Jewish, is simply defending one’s right, if not the actual obligation, to educate Jews in the mastery of criticism of, you guessed it, Israel. Encouragement from his professional quarters could only mean that, for the sake of enriching a democratic spirit of Diaspora Jewry,¬† communal integration¬† could only be achieved if Jews would be really efficient at “denouncing” publicly shortcomings in Israel’s behaviour.¬† According to his rationale, strengthening divisions through plurality of views is the catalyst for a corresponding strengthening of the Jewish community, apparently suffering from an exclusion from its fold of centrifugal elements. Let’s be clear, Israel contains a myriad of expressed views on everything, however, one fairly homogenous view is that us, The Diaspora, have not quite grasped the understanding that unqualified support for the embattled state of Israel is much more important than the superbly crafted academic notions of ecumenical diversity of conflicting stances.

Many still succumb to ancient libel

FROM the article about a swastika etched on a freezer door  at APS on February 24 last (<I>AJN<P> 08/15),  the perpetrator as well as many others still believe that it was the Jewish people who killed Jesus. Yes, it happened in the Land of Israel, but this was at the time  occupied by the ancient Romans whose recognised method of punishment was crucifixion.
It is well known that alongside of Jesus two others were crucified at the same time, who had nothing to do with Jesus or religion but were punished for thieving.
People should first get their facts right.

Underestimating offensiveness of the swastika

WITH due respect to Commissioner Ian Cambridge (<I>AJN<P> 08/10), if the swastika is the symbol of the “worst of human nature” , which it is, why should the “sensitivity'” of non Jewish people be lesser to that of Jews.
I would like to remind the commissioner that non -Jews also perished under the sign of swastika. I think evil does not know religious differences.
Is the discrepancy caused by ignorance of history or lack of understanding?

Dershowitz wrong to back Obama on freeze

THE organisers of the Alan Dershowitz event at Central Synagogue are to be highly commended. It would be no understatement to say that the event was packed to the bimah and that the atmosphere was “electric”. Truly, it was an honour to be in the presence of such an eloquent and ardent defender of Human Rights, the Legal Process and of course the State of Israel.
There was perhaps only one sour note of the evening.This off key clanger was Dershowitz’s admission that he supports President Obama’s line that the settlement freeze should be extended.
This anti-settlement position would not seem to square with Dershowitz’s uncompromising defense of human rights in virtually every other context. For it is difficult to explain the Palestinian Authority’s desire to expel all the Jews from the areas they wish to control in the West Bank¬† as anything other than a program of ethnic cleansing. Many far-left Palestinian sympathisers repeatedly claim that Israeli settlements are illegal as they represent “an occupier’s” transfer of population into an “occupied territory”. These claims are demonstrably false.
The West Bank is not ‘Occupied Palestine’ as no such state was setup prior to Israel gaining control of the area in its victorious defensive war of 1967. Many tens of thousands of the self same Palestinians are actually of Jordanian extraction having been illegally “transferred” there between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan occupied the area after Israel’s War of Independence.
Even if one could successfully argue that Jewish communities were ‘illegally’ placed there decades ago by the whims of war, it would none the less be equally “unlawful” to remove them now. “Occupation” is after all nine tenths of the law. I imagine that Professor Dershowitz would not be advocating that millions of “illegal” Mexicans should now be deported from the USA nor would he support curbs on them extending their families, homes and school facilities.
Even in the unlikely event that Obama has his way and another Palestinian “state” is to be setup in addition to the existing territories of Hamas-run Gaza and Jordan then one would assume that there would be caveats. These would include the necessity to setup a state which supports human rights, democracy, the rule of law and equal rights for all minorities. The litmus test of such a state would be its ability to accept as equals a sizeable Jewish minority of “settlers” just as Israel accepts a sizeable Israeli Arab population.
It would, indeed, behoove a man of Professors Dershowitz’s renown, abilities and principals to now advocate for the rights of settlers by inscribing a new book “The Case for Settlement” to occupy pride of place next to his other great works, <I>The Case for Israel<P> and the <I>The Case for Peace<P>.

Be wary of being on first name terms

THE recent event at Central Synagogue with Alan Dershowitz and Peter Hartcher was an evening not to be missed. Kol hakavod to the organisers, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Jewish Care.
Just one little carping criticism, though: why in the introduction and thank-you speeches is Dershowitz referred to as “Alan Dershowitz” while Hartcher becomes “Peter”? Is it because of the peculiar Australian custom that the local, lesser important man must be a mate on first name terms whereas the prominent American speaker merits the proper full title? Bit demeaning for “Peter”, I would have thought.

Failure to show respect in a house of worship

ATTENDING Central Synagogue for the Alan Dershowitz cultural evening recently, I was left to wonder whether the wearing of a kippa within the sanctuary is still de rigueur.
Certainly a significant minority of my co-religionists appeared so fascinated by the¬† evening’s discussion that they seemed to forget that they were within a house of worship.
They could have taken cues from a non-Jewish guest and member of the panel who had the respect and decency to conform to our traditions.
Not being the first occasion that this has been observed, at Central Synagogue, it has caused me to wonder whether a formal referendum is needed.
If this issue is beyond debate, could the board of management and clergy please act within  their  jurisdiction. After all, who  amongst us would dare enter a mosque for whatever reason, immodestly attired or without first removing their shoes?