Tag Archive for 'israel-lobby'

Ali Abunimah in Australia

Ali Abunimah is a Palestinian who resides in Chicago. As the co-founder of the essential Electronic Intifada website, his goal is to give voice to the Palestinian cause and challenge the dominant Zionist narrative of our time. Leading Jewish blogger Phil Weiss writes that people like Ali should be seriously considered as a major figure in the American debate, yet he remains marginalised. Why? Articulating Palestinian rights has never made people popular.

He’s been in Australia this week and spoken at universities, lecture halls and in the media generating a great deal of interest (not least his article in the Sydney Morning Herald detailing his vision for a one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, also the message of his book, One Country.) He’s explained his ideas elsewhere, too, such as ABC Radio National’s Media Report on the fundamentally flawed reporting of the conflict due to Western bias, ignorance and outright racism. After all, the Israelis are seen as more like “us.”

Last night, in front of an audience of 200 people, I was in conversation with Ali at Sydney’s leading independent bookshop, Gleebooks (photos here.) We covered everything from Zionist attitudes, the rise of Barack Obama and Ali’s belief that the only way to move the issue forward is international isolation of the Jewish state. No country will willingly give up its power, especially when it benefits solely one section of society. Like apartheid South Africa, whites were eventually made to realise that their position was untenable. Furthermore, Israel’s ongoing colonisation of the West Bank has forfeited the possibility of a two-state solution. One-state is now the only answer.

Tonight, at the New South Wales Parliament House, Ali along with a leading Labor and Liberal MP spoke at the 60th anniversary of the al-Nakba commemoration (photos here). It was a moving night of reflections and moderately hopeful thoughts (including tales of the typically ham-fisted attempts by the local Jewish lobby to block access at Parliament House for the event, of which more later.)

Ali said that Israel cannot remain a predominantly Jewish state because Jews themselves will soon be outnumbered by Arabs and Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. The world will then have a clear choice: either support an apartheid state or encourage a single, democratic entity. Suffice to say, years of struggle lie ahead.

Ali is a kind, generous, warm, funny and highly articulate man. It was an honour to spend time with him.

Rudd government reignites campaign against Iranian president

My following article appears in today’s edition of Crikey:

Antony Loewenstein, author of My Israel Question, writes:

In late 2006, hardline Zionists in Israel and the United States raised the possibility of indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” against the Jewish state.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, “Iran is a danger to the entire world, because it envisions a 1,000-year Islamic Reich based on nuclear weapons.” A key problem for the case, casually slipped into the Jerusalem Post, was that, “the court is problematic for Israel — it has stipulated that settlements are tantamount to war crimes — and Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statue upon which it is based.”

Before last year’s Australian election, the then Labor opposition advocated chasing Ahmadinejad in a shameless ploy for the paranoid, Jewish vote. The fact that the case had zero chance of success and was being pursued by leading, discredited neo-conservatives – including former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who again recently advocated “responsible” bombing of Iran — appeared not to bother Kevin Rudd.

Perhaps most concerning was his acceptance of the widely mistranslated Ahmadinejad comment about wanting to “wipe Israel off the map”. In fact, he said nothing of the sort. The Iranian leader is certainly prone to making outlandish comments about Israel and denying the Holocaust, but that’s no more offensive than a host of Israeli leaders advocating the elimination or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

It appears that the Rudd government is still on the case. Yesterday’s front-page story in The Australian breathlessly reported that Attorney-General Robert McClelland is “currently taking advice” on the possibility of pursuing Ahmadinejad. McClelland told the paper that this course of action was preferable to “wholesale invasion of countries”. Well, yes, but what about direct engagement?

Iran’s regional challenge to the American and Israeli-imposed status-quo is the great untold story of the last eight years.

Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan backed the move and Rudd told Sky News that Ahmadinejad’s comments had a “roll-on effect across the Islamic world, particularly those who listen to Iran for their guidance”.

Crikey asked the Attorney-General’s office to clarify the latest developments and a spokesman from his office said that, “the Government strongly supports maintaining pressure on Iran to act as a responsible member of the international community.” Furthermore, “like many in the community, Labor has long expressed abhorrence at the remarks of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We believe the international community should do all it reasonably can to pressure Iran to be a more responsible global citizen.”

Questions about the pressure from the local Zionist leadership on the government went unanswered.

A Sydney-based ALP source told Crikey that pursuing Ahmadinejad was a pet project for Rudd, not unlike his slavish motion in parliament in March celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary. The source said that, despite the opposition of many in the ALP, the motion was written with the involvement of the country’s leading Zionist lobby, AIJAC, and was initially far more congratulatory before being tempered.

Regular, public displays of affection for the Jewish state are an article of faith across the political divide. Zionism has become a religion. As we’ve seen with Barack Obama, support for the Palestinian cause virtually guarantees political oblivion.

Blaming the victims

Talking honestly about Palestine in Australia is clearly too challenging for some:

The decision by a Sydney library to dump an exhibition about Palestinian refugees after a visit by counter-terrorism police the night before it opened has been criticised as an act of censorship.

Leichhardt municipal library was to launch the Al-Nakba pictorial exhibition last Friday. A local community group, Friends of Hebron, had developed the display of photos, poems and articles over eight months.

“We set up the exhibition at the library on Thursday night and the librarian … approved the exhibition, and said that it could be seen by children and other people who into the library,” said Carole Lawson, a Friends of Hebron member.

But that night, shortly before the library closed at 8pm, officers from the police counter-terrorism operations arrived at the library.

I’ve been informed that members of the Jewish community and Zionist lobby complained about the existence of the exhibition. That figures. After all, it’s not as if Hebron is a classic example of apartheid.

Hardline Zionism is not the answer

Myths on Who’s Really ‘Pro-Israel’ (by the co-founder of the new moderate Israel lobby, J-Street.)

Old ways no longer work

I sent the following (unpublished) letter to the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday:

Israel’s 60th birthday is being celebrated by Jews the world over but a growing number of global citizens share the view of South African liberation hero Desmond Tutu who said after returning from the Holy Land: “It reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa”. In other words, apartheid.

Peter Manning’s sensitive retelling of history (Opinion, 29/4) is a rare occasion to hear a Palestinian narrative. By explaining the roots of the conflict, Manning articulates the reasons why peace is so unobtainable in the Middle East. Two, often conflicting narratives must be heard.

Zionist head Colin Rubenstein takes the path of empty platitudes. By talking of “two states for two peoples”, he conveniently ignores Israel’s ever-expanding settlements in the West Bank in violation of international law. The unspoken truth about the Jewish state, increasingly articulated by historians the world over, is that Israel has never wanted a resolution of the impasse and simply stalls for time to make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. This is today’s reality.

As a Jew, I can never celebrate a nation that deliberately discriminates against Arabs within its borders.

The lobby gets a refit

The recent launch of new Israel lobby in the US, J Street, is an encouraging sign. Its message is fairly conventional - two states for two peoples - but it’s far more moderate than the current loudest voices in the room, the hardline Zionist extremists (the situation in Australia is little different, hence the success of the initiative I co-founded, Independent Australian Jewish Voices.) A growing number of Jews around the world are sick and tired of being defined by policies that only speak of invasion, occupation and violence.

Co-founder of J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, explains why his group is to important:

“Some of the loudest voices that are beating the war drums are those of either neocons who happen to be Jewish, or established Jewish community leaders who happen to be neocons. This is very disturbing. And it applies not only to Israel but to the whole Middle East — whether it’s American policy towards Iran, or maybe it had some role in the leadup to the war in Iraq. And I think this has made people say, ‘Wait a minute, I may never have been interested in Israel, I may never have been interested in the Jewish community, but these folks are speaking in my name and driving us towards wars and policies that I don’t want to be responsible for.’”

Until the Jewish community accepts that a small group of unrepresentative band of Zionists led the US (and Australia and Britain) into a criminal and futile war against Iraq (and Muslims in general), nothing will change. Jewish blogger Phil Weiss writes:

This is yet another sign that some day soon, or not so soon, the Jewish community will search its soul on the responsibility of Jewish neocons for the greatest foreign-policy debacle of the new century, the responsibility of non-neocon Jewish intellectuals and journalists in giving the neocons cover, and the role of Zionism in Jewish ideas about American power.

When real history isn’t accurate enough

Revealed: how the Zionist lobby attempts to rewrite history and dishonesty change entries on Wikipedia.

Zionists admire the blue sky

The Middle East is on fire. Israel is killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But the Australian Jewish News decides to feature on the front page of its website the following “story“:

Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem and his family visited Dreamworld and WhiteWater World on the Gold Coast this week for some holiday thrills.

Rotem tried out the newest ride at Dreamworld, the Mick Doohan Motorcoaster, which features life-size replicas of 500cc racing bikes which zoom to 720km/hour in three seconds.

His family also tackled the Cyclone rollercoaster, Nickelodeon Central and visited Tiger Island before strolling next door to WhiteWater World for more rides…

Dressed in fashionable boardshorts, a cap and comfortable Crocs, the ambassador couldn’t help but praise the blue Queensland skies and the balmy 25-degree heat.

“I sometimes wish Canberra had this weather. It’s lovely and warm, and feels great to be alive,” he said.

Words fail.

Yes, the paper is a serious publication.

More honesty in the debate

Beginning today, a band of liberal Jews intends to transform the terms of the American debate over Israel — among the most delicate, controversial and combustible topics in politics. And right on time for Passover, the Jewish holiday marking deliverance from bondage.

UPDATE: More here.

The Israeli Diaspora soul-searching

My following article appears in today’s Online Opinion:

During Israel’s recent bombardment of Gaza, the Australian Jewish establishment reacted with unreserved support. Israel’s leading human rights organisation B’Tselem reported that the majority of Palestinian victims of the onslaught were civilians.

David Knoll, from the New South Wales Board of Deputies, wrote that, “Israel is using force only when all else has failed”. Vic Alhadeff, from the same organisation, casually suggested “wresting security control of Gaza from Hamas and handing it to any leaders who commit to peace”.

Israeli actions are once again internationally reviled and yet defended by a steadily declining number of people. Uncritical Zionist support for the Jewish state and an addiction to Israeli violence is fast becoming the greatest threat to its future existence. Debate continues to be supplanted by unquestioning solidarity.

From supporting the 2006 Lebanon war to advocating military strikes against Iran, mainstream Jewish voices across the Western world have long attempted to speak with one voice, a rallying cry for support of Israeli actions and defence of its motives. This was enough for decades to build a Zionism that didn’t tolerate dissent, an ideology that thrived and relied on lifelong obedience. However, the last years have seen a profound shift in Jewish public opinion and increasing ambivalence towards the Jewish state, though this is rarely reflected by community spokespeople.

When a recent United Nations report found that Palestinian terrorism was the “inevitable consequence” of Israel’s illegal occupation, Israel reacted with predictable bluster. The study was tarred as a typically biased and anti-Semitic UN study, but the real lessons were conveniently ignored. Most of the world understands that resistance to occupation is a legitimate and legal form of action, whether in Iraq or Tibet, but we are expected to believe that these universal precepts don’t apply in the Palestinian territories as well.

On a range of issues, views that are held by many Israelis are seen as beyond the pale in Jewish circles in the West. A recent poll found that a majority of Israelis believed Israel should hold direct talks with Hamas and yet this startling fact appeared nowhere in the Australian Jewish establishment. It was the exact opposite, with commentators and editorialists debating the ways in which the Hamas government should be obliterated. Diaspora Jews have the luxury of expressing views that are anything but “pro-Israel”.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, claimed by some optimists as heralding a new period of justice and dialogue in American foreign policy, agrees with the Bush administration’s position of shunning contact with Hamas. Prominent Palestinian Rashid Khaliki recently said that Obama’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was “almost indistinguishable from [that of] all the other candidates”. Independent White House candidate Ralph Nader has labelled Israel’s actions in Gaza as “colonial”.

A recent incident at Harvard University highlighted the inability of the Jewish establishment to understand the shifting sands of the debate. A roving exhibition, “Breaking the Silence”, explains the abuses by Israelis soldiers against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Progressive Jewish groups explained the importance of the photographs. “We cannot look the other way”, one said. “We cannot be silent.”

But Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, argued that the exhibition was harmful and should be shelved. The organisers, he said, should not be “promoting programs and material that don’t promote love and respect for Israel.” Such blatant attempts at censoring the realities of Israel are contributing to the gradual disillusionment of young Jews towards the Jewish state.

This inability to recognise a changing intellectual landscape is also playing out in Australia. A leading journalist has reported that when meeting with senior members of the local Zionist lobby, they refused to answer his questions on the “Israel Lobby” thesis by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. There was nothing to discuss, he was told. A best-selling, highly controversial book was deemed beyond candid discussion, a worrying sign that the Jewish establishment pretends that business as usual would suffice.

Two recent studies about American Jews have provided intriguing information about Diaspora attitudes towards Israel. One, at Brandeis University, found that Jewish attachment to Israel has remained largely strong over the last decade. The other, by Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, reveals that inter-marriage and more personalised forms of Judaism have led to a loosening of ethnic loyalties towards Israel. Only 54 per cent polled were comfortable with the very idea of the Jewish State.

Global Jewish attachment to Israel remains mired in a self-centred position, incapable of publicly debating the faltering nature of their favoured state. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel recently found that the Jewish state was overwhelmed by racism, with 50 percent of Israelis not wanting to live in the same apartment block as an Arab nor allowing their children to befriend Arabs.

Such results cry out for Diaspora soul-searching and yet Australian, Zionist spokesman Vic Alhadeff simply mouths the article of faith that, “the core issue is that Israel seeks peaceful co-existence with a Palestinian state.” Thankfully, most of the world simply doesn’t believe him although the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd also ignores the Palestinian tragedy while celebrating the foundation of Israel, describing it as a “custodian of freedom” in a recent parliamentary motion celebrating the country’s 60th birthday.

Was the Israel lobby behind the Iraq war?

Norman Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer discuss the reasons behind the Iraq war on Al-Jazeera English:

From Australia to Canada with love

When Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) launched in 2007, we were accused of being “self-styled radicals” and dangerous. We were clearly so irrelevant - Jewish solidarity on Israel was being challenged and therefore had to be countered - that the Zionist community has spent the last year hilariously demonising us and saying that we were threatening poor, little Israel’s existence.

Now, a group of Canadian Jews are raising their voices against Israeli policies and experiencing a similar response:

Two weeks ago, [Diana] Ralph helped set up the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians, to counter mainstream groups, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canada-Israel Committee, that offer unconditional support for Israeli policies, particularly toward Palestinians.

“Because Israel is doing things in the name of all Jews, we all have a right to criticize the policies of the state of Israel,” she says.

Bernie Farber, chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, says “no one ever says Israel is perfect” and predicts the fledgling group will have trouble finding support.

“It will remain a rump on the edge of Jewish society,” he says.

The alliance is an umbrella organization for 23 local groups across Canada, with more start-ups in the works.

“The floodgates have opened,” Ralph says in a telephone interview from her Ottawa home. “Montreal is meeting, Vancouver is meeting, Winnipeg is meeting.”

It’s almost beyond parody that the established Jewish community dismisses the Canadian initiative in a similar fashion to IAJV. It’s the only language they know. And yet, one year on, IAJV is thriving, generating debate in the Jewish and wider community and many plans in the works.

IAJV has established contact with this Canadian group and remain encouraged that a global network of concerned Jews are starting to show solidarity and challenge the dominant Zionist narrative.

Two faces of the Zionist lobby

Zionist indignation recently followed this news:

The New York-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has condemned a Swiss-Iranian natural gas export deal, accusing Switzerland of financing terrorism.

The Swiss foreign ministry for its part repeated that the agreement violates neither United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme or US laws.

“As the Swiss government pursues its own narrow economic interests, it is bankrolling the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” declared one of the messages in the full-page advertisement the group took out in Tuesday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and several other international and Swiss newspapers.

Unfortunately, Swiss-based journalist Shraga Elam recently reported in German that Israel is purchasing oil from the “evil empire”:

“Israel imports Iranian oil on a large scale even though contacts with Iran and purchasing of its products are officially boycotted by Israel. Israel gets around the boycott by having the oil delivered via Europe. A reliable Israeli energy newsletter, EnergiaNews, reported this last week [March 18] …

“EnergiaNews got the information about the Iran trade from sources with ties to the management of Israeli Oil Refineries Ltd … According to EnergiaNews the Iranian oil is liked in Israel because its quality is better than other crude oils.

“The report by EnergiaNews editor Moshe Shalev states that the Iranian oil reaches various European ports, mainly in Rotterdam. It is bought by Israelis and the necessary European bill of lading and insurance papers are supplied. Then it is transported to Haifa in Israel. The importer is the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co (EAPC), which keeps its oil sources secret.”

The selective outrage and hypocrisy is stunning.

Avoiding realities

Israelis ambivalent at 60th celebrations.

As it should be, illegally occupying another nation and people for decades.

(Of course, leading Zionists simply mouth platitudes about Palestinian “terrorism” and conclude that Palestinian independence is an impossibility. They may find themselves overwhelmed soon enough.)

Zionist delusions in full display

Following the Zionist response yesterday in the Melbourne Age to a recent article about Israel’s true history, two letters in today’s edition:

Lamm is wrong …
DANNY Lamm’s “she’s always right” take on Israel (Opinion, 7/4) runs counter to the evidence. Lamm’s line that “Israel and the Palestinian Authority are working together with great difficulty to establish an Israel and a Palestine living side by side together in peace”, is contradicted by Israeli Infrastructure Minister Ben-Eliezer. He has admitted that Israel is only going through the motions, describing Israeli-PA negotiations as “only virtual negotiations”. The only real movement is on the ground, as Israeli settlements continue to expand, pulling the rug of a viable, independent and contiguous Palestinian state from under the feet of the PA. Israel is taking all the right steps along the path to wiping Palestine off the map.

Colin Andersen, Lapstone, NSW

… No, he’s right
WELL said, Danny Lamm. His response to Peter Slezak’s and Antony Loewenstein’s flawed article (Opinion, 31/3) confirms that these two “authors” have earned little respect from the mainstream Jewish community, and also demonstrates how easily they are prepared to dismiss historical accuracy if it gets in the way of their cause. The Independent Australian Jewish Voices will learn that making noise may generate some initial interest, but the public soon loses interest if there is a lack of intellectual substance to accompany it.

Alan Freedman, East St Kilda

We must engage Hamas

My latest New Matilda column is about the need to talk to Hamas and speak honestly about Israel’s ever-expanding occupation:

The international isolation of Hamas has failed. This is not merely the opinion of those who believe that the democratically elected Palestinian Government should be engaged, but includes a number of prominent Israelis, including Yossi Alpher, the former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Life in Gaza, suffering under an economic and military blockade, remains tough. Security has largely been restored due to Hamas security services, although some Gazans complain of a loss of individual rights, press freedom and women’s mobility. Hamas-controlled media continues to broadcast incitement against Jews.

Despite these challenges, Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal reiterated last week his group’s commitment to a two-state solution and the need for the establishment of a sovereign state within the 1967 borders. His call was ignored throughout the world. Even the New York Times recently intimated that forever shunning Hamas was counter-productive.

The Zionist lobby’s road map of delusion

Following my recent joint op-ed in the Melbourne Age - on the reality of life in racially exclusionary Israel/Palestine - today the inevitable response from the Zionist lobby. It’s almost embarrassing in its simplicity and dishonesty. So, below are the tried and true methods of the lobby’s (increasingly futile) points of attack:

- Allege Israel is desperately searching for peace, always has and always will be. Ignore the ever-expanding settlements in the West Bank (a point made powerfully in the current edition of the London Review of Books.)

- Accuse critics of Israel of siding with the enemy, ie. Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran etc. We are, after all, clearly traitors to the cause.

- Ignore the elephant in the room, the illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

- Argue that dissident groups such as Independent Australian Jewish Voices are tiny, meaningless, useless and irrelevant, then spend most of the column talking about them.

- Accuse the US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby, of dishonesty. Despite its faults, the work has triggered a vital debate around the world about the power of the Zionist lobby, something Zionists would rather not discuss, including in Australia.

- Ignore the Israel-led blockade and suffering of Gaza.

- Ignore the Israeli authorities’ sympathy and support for the settler movement.

- Portray Israel, the occupier, as the victim, and the Palestinians, the occupied, as the aggressor.

- Argue that Israeli Arabs have equal rights to Israeli Jews, a lie even acknowledged last week by the world’s leading Jewish News Agency, JTA.

- Demand that the Palestinians are “re-educated” into good, little Zionists who love a Jewish state that discriminates against them.

The Zionist lobby knows that the occupation is embarrassing and the world is increasingly against the Jewish state.

Readers of The Age can see through the propaganda.

Yet another own goal by the lobby.

The Zionist land grabs go on

Following my joint op-ed in yesterday’s Age newspaper, the following letters appear in today’s edition:

IT IS refreshing to see the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Opinion, 31/03) discussed in such a dispassionate manner. No emotive rhetoric denouncing the other side’s horrors but conveniently ignoring their side’s horrors, but simply the facts as they really are. Here is some more startling truth: the Israeli Government does not want peace with the Palestinians, at least not yet. By previously playing Hamas against Fatah, and now playing Fatah against Hamas, the Government has been able to proceed with the unfettered building of more settlements in the West Bank.

I dread to wonder when this process of claiming Palestinian land will finally stop. It might seem unpalatable for some people that this could be the case, but you need to separate rhetoric from action. The fact is that Israel has been taking Arab land since the declaration of Israel as a state. It would be naive to imagine that this was never the intended outcome.

Paul Gosling, Langwarrin

Nothing but more prejudice
WHAT we have to strive for amid the plethora of opinions on Israel is tolerance, moderation and open-mindedness. The last things we need in this raging debate are articles that are extreme and inflammatory.

Peter Slezak and Antony Loewenstein have written such an article. They accuse Israel of “ethnic-cleansing” and of killing innocent civilians. They accuse past leaders and heroes of being bigoted and ruthless, and half the population of being inherently racist. These accusations portray Israel as a bloodthirsty, inhumane and racist nation. This is not only unbelievably false, but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Israel’s problems and mistakes, although undeniable and regrettable, do not define Israel as a whole, just as suicide bombers do not define Palestinians as a whole.

Primarily, Israel is a vibrant democratic state that upholds concepts of pluralism and freedom, and that is what Slezac and Loewenstein omit from their article. Have they helped us take a step towards tolerance, moderation and balanced dialogue, or have they incited more hatred, created more polarised views and instigated more extremism in a context in which extremism is the root of all evil? The irony of their final plea for “balanced dialogue” is almost palpable.

Oscar Schwartz, Toorak

All have things in common
THE articles by Peter Slezak and Antony Loewenstein and that of Dvir Abramovich, although different in content, both indicate a way forward in the Palestinian region: a single, democratic, and secular state that can be a religious homeland for all who want such, without being a religious state for any. Whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, whether indigenous Semite or more recent migrants — all have common interests that far outweigh their differences. All are deserving of equal treatment under the law without ethnic or religious distinction, all are deserving of security of home and all are deserving of a just resolution to past conflicts.

The problems of the Palestinian region will not be solved while there are some who seek dominance for their religion or nationality over the rights of others.

Lev Lafayette, Ripponlea

Prescription for conflict
PETER Slezak and Antony Loewenstein claim that speaking honestly about Israelis and Palestinians is fraught, which is probably why they have chosen not to do so. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israel’s other citizens, and far more than Arabs in any other Middle East state, yet Slezak and Loewenstein accuse Israel of discrimination and “ethnic cleansing”. They also blame the conflict and occupation on Israel, rather than the constant Palestinian refusal to accept land in return for acceptance of Israel’s right to exist in peace.

Similarly, despite their token condemnation of Hamas and Hezbollah rocket fire, they are far more critical of Israel’s efforts to defend its citizens. To ignore the facts that every aspect of Israel’s conduct they object to is the direct result of Palestinian or Arab terrorism or intransigence belies their claim to be true friends of Israel. It is a prescription for continued conflict, not for peace.

Justin Lipton, Melbourne

The more Jewish opinions the better

Last year I co-founded Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) as a forum for alternative Jewish perspectives. The last year has seen a host of campaigns and media coverage. Try here, here and here.

Now, two original signatories, Peter Slezak and Eran Asoulin, have started blogging on the site, with more to come.

The aim is to “widen the debate to include a range of opinions not reflected in mainstream Jewish media or official community organizations. As part of this effort, our blogs provide a forum for independent Jewish opinions that are, of course, those of their authors and not those of IAJV organizers or signatories of any IAJV petitions or statements.”

Self-defence or brutal occupation?

The following article, co-written with a colleague, appears in today’s Age newspaper:

On the world stage, Israel has been traditionally cast as David in a battle against Goliath. But this is too simplistic, for Israel is not without its sins, write Peter Slezak and Antony Loewenstein.

Speaking honestly about Israel and Palestine has always been fraught. Contrary to popular perception, the official public voice of the Australian Jewish community is not without dissent among Jews around the country. Indeed, there is a belief among some that the mainstream view is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with the facts, and that Israel and its supporters can no longer justifiably portray the Jewish state as victim, acting only in self-defence.

In their controversial book The Israel Lobby, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt point out that the popular image of David confronted by Goliath, cultivated to maintain Jewish support, is the reverse of the truth. Even from the 1948 War of Independence, well before large-scale US aid, Israeli military power was always superior to that of its neighbours.

Notwithstanding Israel’s military strength, the recent Lebanon war was not just the military disaster to which the Winograd report confined its attention, but a disproportionate response to supposed provocation and involved large-scale war crimes.

While rockets from Hezbollah or Hamas fired on civilians are undeniably crimes, the excesses of Israeli military action, collective punishment and targeted assassinations may be condemned in the same terms and are harder to see as self-defence.

Even more difficult to justify as self-defence is a brutal 40-year military occupation and nearly half a million Israeli settlers on Palestinian land in violation of international law. Despite pious rhetoric from Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that echoes that of US leaders, the very possibility of a just two-state solution appears remote.

The discrepancy between popular image and tragic reality is not new. For example, conveniently forgotten amid the rhetoric of “existential threat” and Israeli virtue is the 1982 invasion of Lebanon that caused around 20,000 civilian deaths that cannot conceivably be characterised as unintended “collateral damage”. These do not include thousands of victims at Sabra and Shatila for which then defence minister Ariel Sharon was found personally culpable. Such ugly truths have become difficult for Jews to condone in silence.

Despite the efforts of the local Israel lobby, such uncomfortable facts have been highlighted by the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, Israel’s press and academia. For all its faults, Israel has a vigorous and more open intellectual culture and media where the myths sustaining Diaspora communities have been overturned.

For example, a poll conducted by the daily newspaper Haaretz and Tel-Aviv University revealed that nearly two-thirds of the Israeli population wants to negotiate directly with Hamas, contrary to typical media representations of the so-called “peace process”. In reality, the “peace process” is a US-driven policy — in this case subverting the elected Palestinian Government through funding and arming Fatah proxies and their attempted coup in Gaza.

Despite outrage in the Jewish community at the common description of Israel as a racist state responsible for “ethnic cleansing”, the evidence to warrant such confronting language is undeniable. Israel is not the state of its citizens but only of the Jewish people, thereby officially discriminating against a fifth of its population, quite apart from the many administrative, financial and other systematic ways in which Israeli Arabs are disadvantaged.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel recently found that half of Israelis would not live in the same building as Arabs, would not let them into their homes and would not allow their children to befriend them.

The systematic, planned dispossession of Palestinians since 1948, and accompanying atrocities such as the massacre at Deir Yassin in 1948 are rarely discussed in the West, even though they have been extensively documented by Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappe in his recent book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

The Zionist myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land” continues to be propagated despite being exposed by several Jewish historians as a fraud that has hidden the real tragedy of Palestinian dispossession. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, privately wrote that “We must expropriate gently” and Arab expulsion must be discreet.

Leading Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote that the country’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and defence minister, Moshe Dayan, “repeatedly voiced the hope that Israel could complete its historic mission and round out its borders (as well as expel its own, inconvenient Arab minority)”. Ben-Gurion had said as early as 1938: “I support compulsory transfer (of Palestinian Arabs). I do not see in it anything immoral.”

Facing these facts in the Jewish community is discouraged by those who, in American broadcaster Ed Murrow’s familiar words, confuse dissent with disloyalty. Those who voice them are denounced as anti-Semitic or ostracised as “self-hating” Jews. It is revealing that the intense debate about the role of the Israel lobby in the US has not featured in the Australian Jewish community — a symptom of the local lobby’s success in discouraging dissent from the official line.

However, the true friends of Israel are not those who serve as propagandists for official myths but those who stand with the many Israelis to condemn not only the crimes of Palestinians, but also those of the state of Israel. Independent Australian Jewish voices who speak out against crimes committed in their name recognise a responsibility to the wider community, especially Australian Palestinians, to participate in a more balanced dialogue.

Dr Peter Slezak lectures in philosophy at the University of NSW. Antony Loewenstein is a journalist and author of My Israel Question (MUP 2007).