Letters, December 3, 2010
Setting the record straight on role of ECAJ
I WANT to compliment The AJN’s coverage over the last two weeks of the annual conference of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the retirement of Robert Goot as president, and my election as his ¬≠successor.
The letters from Georges Teitler and Ivan Singer in last week’s edition (26/11) are also welcome and demonstrate that democratic debate in the community about key issues is as vigorous as ever.
For many decades the ECAJ’s objectives, as stipulated in its constitution, have included a commitment “to support and strengthen the connection of Australian Jewry with the State of Israel”. Standing up for Israel is part of our basic mandate.
The Gen08 Survey found that 82 per cent of Australian Jews define themselves as Zionists. The ECAJ could not completely fulfill its representative role without conveying the community’s feelings on matters so close to its heart to the Federal Government and community organisations with which we have regular contact on a range of issues.
Thirty-nine of the 55 policies comprising the ECAJ’s official platform reflect the intensive work of the ECAJ on the National Education Curriculum, national security legislation, restitution, anti-Semitism, shechitah and a host of other domestic issues. The other 16 concern Israel and international issues.
In reply to Mr Singer, the ECAJ’s constituent body, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, is monitoring the ongoing investigation into the dreadful murder of Mrs Schweitzer. As yet, there is no known evidence linking the murder to the fact that she was Jewish. The ECAJ has made its views known on the Zentai case both publicly and privately to the extent that is proper while the matter is still before the courts.
Dr Danny Lamm
President, ECAJ
Denial of Jewish sites is regular occurrence
I NOTE the Palestinian Authority denying the Kotel as a Jewish religious site (AJN 26/11). In fact, over the years, numerous muftis have issued fatwas that state that the Western Wall (known in Arabic as Al-Burak Wall) is a Muslim holy site, and exclusively so (Qaradawi, Sabry, Wasil, 2004).
Other fatwas along similar lines assert that King Solomon did not build the Jewish Temple, but instead renovated Al-Aksa Mosque, that “Jacob was a Muslim” and that “Dawud [David] and Sulayman [Solomon] were able to create Islamic states in Palestine”.
Such fatwas are from popular and highly respected Islamic scholars such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (chairman of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and last year ranked in the top 10 most influential contemporary Muslims), Dr Nasr Farid Wasil (former mufti of Egypt), and Sheikh Ekrima Sabry (mufti of Jerusalem). As all these fatwas formed part of my thesis, I have them at my fingertips.
It appears to be part of an effort aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the State of Israel, as the state of the Jewish people — if Jews have no religious or national or historic connection with Eretz Yisrael, then a Jewish state in that land has no legitimacy. The fact that Islamic scholars are part of this effort means that such fatwas are directed to all Muslims worldwide (even though fatwas are not binding, as they are a legal advisory opinion) and not just directed to the Muslims of Israel/Palestine.
Julie Nathan
Chatswood, NSW
Double standards in conflict condemnation
SO conflict begins once again between North Korea and South Korea. The cause being North Korea reportedly firing at South Korea, actions widely criticised by many influential or important countries, China exempted.
Hamas, widely recognised as terrorists, bombards Israel regularly with Katyusha and Kassam rockets; Israel defends itself with less aggression than was displayed by Hamas, and is spat on for retaliating. In all the media coverage of Palestinian children allegedly being used as human shields in Operation Cast Lead, I have seen little exposure of Hamas’ targeting of Israeli kindergartens and schools. Negligible publicity of Hamas’ deliberate use of civilian homes to shield explosives manufacturing facilities. Minute, if any, anger about Hamas’ deliberate launching of rockets from populated areas.
Am I wrong in thinking that double standards are being displayed here? The world should treat both of these conflicts with objectivity; the traditional anti-Israel trend should have disappeared before the state was established. This is the point at which moral people stand up and call for justice.
This is the point where we decide not to put ourselves through this blatant bias anymore. Make the call. Israel is our future,
after all.
Philip Rothschild
Caulfield North, Vic
It’s a mad, mad, mad world
ISRAEL passes legislation that makes it near impossible to include East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in any future peace agreements and proposes an amendment to its citizenship laws that would require non-Jews applying for citizenship to declare that Israel is a Jewish democracy.
Now the Palestinian Authority makes the claim that the Western Wall was never part of our Temple.
And Michael Burd gets his letter published where he reckons that many Jewish critics of former US President George W Bush want him back and that the world was a safer place when he was president (AJN 26/11).
Oh, the absurdity of it all.
Henry Herzog
St Kilda East, Vic
Astounded by attack from JNF president
THE letter by the federal president of Jewish National Fund (JNF), Grahame J Leonard (AJN 19/11), is astonishing for the fact that it publicly expressed regret that the JNF had invited me to speak at a fundraising dinner in Sydney on November 8, and also because it implied that in speaking as I did I betrayed the good faith of the NSW leadership.
I said nothing on that night that I had not said in, or could easily be inferred from, publications known to those who invited me — most notably a lecture “Gaza: Morality Law and Politics”, recorded on Slow TV and in two essays in a book of the same name that I edited. Nor did I say anything that is in substance different from opinions expressed by many Israelis, including Amos Oz and David Grossman. The accusation that I had betrayed the good faith of anyone in JNF is as baseless as it is insulting.
Perhaps, though, it is not the ¬≠relatively moderate political opinions that I expressed, but the fact that I expressed political opinions at all, that offended Leonard. He says that JNF is an “apolitical” organisation. I doubt that many people will believe that, but be that as it may: no-one who was at the dinner or who had even read the ad for it could have failed to realise that the discussion was always intended to be political. Our topic, after all, was “Can War in the Middle East be Morally Justified?” (not, as Leonard, says, “Morality in War”).
Was anyone surprised when (to unfailing applause) two of the panellists repeatedly attacked Goldstone and human rights groups that had pretty much unanimously accused Israel of war crimes if not crimes against humanity? Or, when General Yaacov Amidror finished his concluding remarks by saying  (again to resounding applause) that the world loved Israel only when it bled, but Israel would not bleed in order to earn the love of the world. Of course not.
I therefore draw the unsurprising conclusion that the federal president of JNF cannot tolerate even relatively moderate criticism of Israel’s conduct, even though the same criticism is voiced by some of its most distinguished patriots.
The report to which Leonard’s letter is a response (AJN 19/11) refers to the fact that my wife is Israeli. I do not recall saying that in the discussion, but it is true: her family on her mother’s side lived for at least eight generations in Jerusalem. I went to Sydney for three days from London in the midst of a lunatically busy ¬≠schedule (less than a week later I had to go the US to give a lecture and a ¬≠seminar) only because Israel matters to me, and matters to me in large part because my wife’s truthful love for Israel matters to me.
Professor Raimond Gaita
King’s College, London
How can ambassador turn blind eye to bias?
READING the interview with Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem (AJN 12/11) made me wonder whether I had missed something. After expressing the opinion that “overall Australian media outlets are treating us, by and large, fairly”, he then qualifies this by conceding that the Gaza flotilla controversy was an exception.
I have my doubts that Ambassador Rotem is aware of the existence of journalist Paul McGeough. Interesting that The Good Weekend in The Age a few weeks ago contained a six page account by McGeough of the flotilla episode as well as other appallingly biased statements. It’s a long hard road to travel before one can make the assertion that the Fairfax‚Ä®Press is fair in its coverage of the Middle East.
Greg Quittner
Forestville, NSW
comments