Professor of Psychiatry, Dr. Sidney Bloch returns to South Africa with his teenage son, full of personal guilt for not having done more to resist the racist apartheid regime. He emigrated immediately after completing his medical studies in Cape Town and lived with a guilty feeling of not having done more to resist apartheid and help even his few fellow coloured students in his year.
I saw the film at its world premiere at ACMI and want to cmpliment everyone involved for it.The film is beautifully shot and well edited. I also wanted to comment afterwards when the discussion and question time was organised but I did not get the chance to do so.
Having participated in one of the first international conventions in Johannesburg after Nelson Mandela was freed, but before the ANC was elected in 1991, I commented to one of our hosts at the time that I could not live in such an affluent environment while being surrounded by such massive poverty,- black or white! Her response was: "who are you to talk -is Australia better towards your natives? Are your Aborigines well off in the Centre while you live in comfort in the coastal cities? You live in a democracy. You can do something about it. We lived until recently under a virtual dictatorship,- you will see that we will change. Will you?"
I think that this film is a personal account of one man's conscience at work. I don't believe it can be extrapolated to a general educational viewpoint about being a 'bystander' versus an activist, which is its intention! All systems which are antidemocratic, be it communism, nazism, racism/apartheid, even theocracies, involve rule by force to make the population submit. The individual needs far more courage to desist and resist than we who live in democracies.
We need to protect each others' individual and minorities' human rights,- because we can do so without fear of reprisals,- at least in theory!So what excuse do we as Australians have for the terrible conditions still existing today in the aboriginal communities up North? The film Samson & Delilah portrays it most vividly (& was shown on SBS also tonight).
South Africans can look after themselves now,- I don't think the film really explores the connection to Australia at all and may not be the educational tool which it was intended to be.
As for comparing Sth. African apartheid with any other country,- as some would with Israel, which is so far removed from the truth as to be pure antisemitic and Arab propaganda,- it is only akin to the American segregation of a past era. Nor can it be compared with the Nazi Holocaust of us Jews,- the deliberate program of obliteration of a whole people!
I shall be returning for the next International Council of Jewish Women's Convention in Cape Town, next May, 2010. I am looking forward to see the changes which were portrayed in the film, but as one of the individuals in the film categorically stated,- racism is in all of us! Personally I don't see it as only racism,- I see it as humans tending to 'like the alike'!There is what may be called "snobbishness", e.g. in the level of personal wealth,or there is the "intellectual snobbishness" in the educational field,- every group will have the "in crowd" and those who will be outside it. Dr. Bloch rejected the Afrikaaners outright as being racists & pro-Nazis, until he met his old coleague who accused the Jewish groups at the University of "sticking to themselves",- a common accusation made towards us Jews!
The reality is that we all tend to "stick together" and label others in groups! It is human nature and nurture,- plus experiences!We tend to treat others the way they treat us,- or we avoid those whom we don't understand. Violence begets violence,- at present, violence throughout the world, be it criminal due to 3rd-world poverty,or anti-democratic or terrorist due to religious fanaticism,or sectarian rivalries, etc. this I am afraid is the greatest threat to democracy and the 'rule of law' in our Western world, (including Israel of course, as it is part of the Western democratic system). This is when governments enact more and more draconian laws which impinge on all our personal freedoms,- until we may wake up one day and find ourselves under a totalitarian regime! Then it may be too late to cry 'help'!
We Jews are usually the first to sense the dangers.
N.B. Dr.Bloch fled to Israel first.
There he met his wife to be, an Australian, so he ended up here!
(MM)
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Ambiguous Status of Women in Religion
The importance of the separation between Religion and State for women’s human rights today.
At a recent concert, I was listening to a performance of Rimsky-Korsakov’s “Scheherazade” and reading the program notes which stated:
“The Sultan Shahriyar, convinced of the duplicity and infidelity of all women, had vowed to slay each of his wives after the first night. The Sultana Scheherazade, however, saved her life by the expedient of recounting to the Sultan a succession of tales over 1001 nights.”
In this one paragraph I one reads about: 1. the power of the male over life and death of his women; 2. the implication that all women are “duplicitous and unfaithful”; 3. the woman’s cleverness and cunning,- albeit used to save her own life, but males,- beware!
Traditionally, women were always viewed with ambiguity in religion... On the one hand, in the Torah we read Solomon’s verses: “who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” This is followed by a list of all the wonderful tasks this virtuous woman whose price is above rubies (it would need to be!) would perform. Her reward? “Her husband is known in the gates, when he siteth among the elders in the land.”
Whether in the Bible, old or new Testament, or the Qur’an, women not only have their place alongside and belonging to a male, but the men are admonished to punish them if they “overstep the mark” as it were. In addition, the punishments are described in detail for each offence in the scriptures as though they were God-ordained. Unfortunately, they are humanly imposed. In this way, male power over females is still exercised in many Theocracies and religious fundamentalist communities today. Some of their women, perhaps secure in happy relationships themselves, will assert to be willing participants in such an imposed social order within their communities. Their religious leaders will claim that their religion is protective of women. But are these latter claims genuine and universal? If they were, there would not have been a Holocaust and other atrocities! While for those who do not subscribe to these benign theories, or chained within unhappy relationships, can they opt out? On whose side is the State and its laws?
I pondered on the above when reading extracts of Benazir Bhutto’s book, Reconciliation, which she had just finished before her assassination and as published in The Australian on February 11th, 2008. Under the chapter “Jihad for Women’s Rights”, she stated:
‘Special attention should be paid to organizing women as political, social and economic players in each society. This is especially true for the Islamic world, where women often faced subjugation. This subjugation came not from the message of Islam, which proclaimed the equality of men and women, but from narrow interpretations of Sharia that deliberately promoted subjugation and from political exploitation by ideological clerics.’
This article was followed shortly afterwards by a widely reported comment by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who argued during a lecture, for some elements of Sharia law to be introduced alongside British laws. His comments were greeted by universal condemnation and alarm,- not just criticism,- in the world’s English-language media. In light of the above, women were the first to react in absolute horror at the suggestion. While supposedly meant as an individual optional alternative, the women would be the first to be held to ransom within their communities to be bound by their restrictive Sharia laws within the secular Western democracy of Britain.
Why would anyone want that?
The protection of women’s human rights today is dependent upon the separation of religion and State. For this reason in particular, when Justice Elizabeth Evatt chaired a Government Inquiry into “Multiculturalism and the Law in Australia” , NCJWA in 1990 made a submission not to introduce religious exceptions in areas of marriage and divorce to suit particular ethnic groups, (there were even submissions for legalizing polygamy) because where this separation of religion and State does not exist,- women are almost as badly off today as they would have been in the dark ages.
The Americans are absolutely paranoid about their Constitutional right with respect to the separation of religion and State, even though their Constitution invokes the name of ‘God’. However Religion per se is not mentioned. Their Founding Fathers had fled from European Church-inspired persecutions for their religious beliefs. Therefore while they included their belief in “God” within the State’s Constitution, they avoided mentioning the word Religion in all its various human applications. As the recent visiting philosophy lecturer Dr. Zohar Raviv of Israel stated,- belief in a supreme being, i.e. belief in God is not the same as organized religion,- (which he termed to be “dogma” and human inspired, but still important in conveying moral values and promoting social harmony, perpetuating family traditions and so on. )
Today, people are drawn to religion and religious observance more than ever,- particularly since the downfall of Soviet Communism and the rise of globalization with all its uncertainties. Still, there are many areas of conflict between particularly women’s human rights and the various religions’ laws,- especially in the areas of personal status. We find religious restrictions on women’s dress, including their hair and hair coverings; the various marriage and divorce laws; restrictions on women’s inheritance, on their participation in the ceremonial and hierarchical structures of all orthodox religions., etc. There are also many ‘customary laws’ versed in religious terms such as contraception, and female circumcision, abortion, so that women in countries where there are no State laws on any of these issues.Women need to have the means of redress and escape from their fate, ( unless they are wealthy enough to go elsewhere!) .
This is why many immigrant younger women in England whose families escaped from the tyranny of some of the most repressive religious laws in other countries, have reacted with absolute alarm at the comments made by Archbishop Williams. Islamic laws have not been revised since the first millennium and are ruthlessly imposed on the populations of many countries, including stoning to death on accusations of adultery and jailing women for showing their ankles (Iran) and even jailing a woman for being raped, (Saudi Arabia),- all ordered by the Islamic Courts administering Sharia laws. Then there are African countries suffering the ravages of the AIDS epidemic, where the use of condoms for protection of their sexual partners from being infected. is prohibited by the Catholic Church. Infected males therefore offer no protection to their sexual partners from contagion. Interestingly, the Vatican recently announced the modern version of today’s “7 deadly sins”, but infecting one’s partner with the AIDS virus wasn’t among them!
For devout Jews, religious divorce can be very problematic when there is no ‘Get’ granted by either partner, but usually by the male who can use blackmail to gain financial advantages in the divorce process. There are many “‘chained women”’ as a result, ‘agunot’ in Hebrew,- particularly in Israel where all laws of personal status are regulated by the Rabbinate. Many women’s groups are working very hard to get this anomaly rectified from within the religion, particularly the International Council of Jewish Women and all its affiliates around the world. Sadly, the religious male supremacy in the political structure of the State makes it virtually impossible to shift the Rabbinate,- claiming divine authority in the Torah for this law. However, the Israeli State judiciary does have the means to impose heavy penalties on recalcitrant spouses who refuse to grant a Get to their partners.
In Turkey, it has recently been announced that a review of Islamic traditions (apparently not their laws) is being undertaken with a view to bring them up-to-date, i.e. up to modern standards of women’s and all human rights. Turkey is also struggling to maintain its strict separation between the dominant Islamic religion and a secular Constitution established by Gamal Ataturk in the early1920s and jealously guarded by the military.
Tradition, tradition, tradition, -as Tevyeh the milkman cried out. While it is important to maintain our traditions for future generations, we must recognize that some archaic customs and traditions are not worth preserving. The State should guard against them. Unlike Archbishop Dr. Williams, I believe that religion and traditions are the domains of the individual. The democratic State is the repository of the laws to protect our human rights (not always successfully e.g in dictatorships) and the rule of law must reign above all.
Long live our liberal democracies where this exists and women should be particularly thankful to be living in Australia today.
See the transcript of the ABC Radio National 'Background Briefing' program of 13/4/08
Haredi community in Israel.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2211143.htm
At a recent concert, I was listening to a performance of Rimsky-Korsakov’s “Scheherazade” and reading the program notes which stated:
“The Sultan Shahriyar, convinced of the duplicity and infidelity of all women, had vowed to slay each of his wives after the first night. The Sultana Scheherazade, however, saved her life by the expedient of recounting to the Sultan a succession of tales over 1001 nights.”
In this one paragraph I one reads about: 1. the power of the male over life and death of his women; 2. the implication that all women are “duplicitous and unfaithful”; 3. the woman’s cleverness and cunning,- albeit used to save her own life, but males,- beware!
Traditionally, women were always viewed with ambiguity in religion... On the one hand, in the Torah we read Solomon’s verses: “who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.” This is followed by a list of all the wonderful tasks this virtuous woman whose price is above rubies (it would need to be!) would perform. Her reward? “Her husband is known in the gates, when he siteth among the elders in the land.”
Whether in the Bible, old or new Testament, or the Qur’an, women not only have their place alongside and belonging to a male, but the men are admonished to punish them if they “overstep the mark” as it were. In addition, the punishments are described in detail for each offence in the scriptures as though they were God-ordained. Unfortunately, they are humanly imposed. In this way, male power over females is still exercised in many Theocracies and religious fundamentalist communities today. Some of their women, perhaps secure in happy relationships themselves, will assert to be willing participants in such an imposed social order within their communities. Their religious leaders will claim that their religion is protective of women. But are these latter claims genuine and universal? If they were, there would not have been a Holocaust and other atrocities! While for those who do not subscribe to these benign theories, or chained within unhappy relationships, can they opt out? On whose side is the State and its laws?
I pondered on the above when reading extracts of Benazir Bhutto’s book, Reconciliation, which she had just finished before her assassination and as published in The Australian on February 11th, 2008. Under the chapter “Jihad for Women’s Rights”, she stated:
‘Special attention should be paid to organizing women as political, social and economic players in each society. This is especially true for the Islamic world, where women often faced subjugation. This subjugation came not from the message of Islam, which proclaimed the equality of men and women, but from narrow interpretations of Sharia that deliberately promoted subjugation and from political exploitation by ideological clerics.’
This article was followed shortly afterwards by a widely reported comment by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who argued during a lecture, for some elements of Sharia law to be introduced alongside British laws. His comments were greeted by universal condemnation and alarm,- not just criticism,- in the world’s English-language media. In light of the above, women were the first to react in absolute horror at the suggestion. While supposedly meant as an individual optional alternative, the women would be the first to be held to ransom within their communities to be bound by their restrictive Sharia laws within the secular Western democracy of Britain.
Why would anyone want that?
The protection of women’s human rights today is dependent upon the separation of religion and State. For this reason in particular, when Justice Elizabeth Evatt chaired a Government Inquiry into “Multiculturalism and the Law in Australia” , NCJWA in 1990 made a submission not to introduce religious exceptions in areas of marriage and divorce to suit particular ethnic groups, (there were even submissions for legalizing polygamy) because where this separation of religion and State does not exist,- women are almost as badly off today as they would have been in the dark ages.
The Americans are absolutely paranoid about their Constitutional right with respect to the separation of religion and State, even though their Constitution invokes the name of ‘God’. However Religion per se is not mentioned. Their Founding Fathers had fled from European Church-inspired persecutions for their religious beliefs. Therefore while they included their belief in “God” within the State’s Constitution, they avoided mentioning the word Religion in all its various human applications. As the recent visiting philosophy lecturer Dr. Zohar Raviv of Israel stated,- belief in a supreme being, i.e. belief in God is not the same as organized religion,- (which he termed to be “dogma” and human inspired, but still important in conveying moral values and promoting social harmony, perpetuating family traditions and so on. )
Today, people are drawn to religion and religious observance more than ever,- particularly since the downfall of Soviet Communism and the rise of globalization with all its uncertainties. Still, there are many areas of conflict between particularly women’s human rights and the various religions’ laws,- especially in the areas of personal status. We find religious restrictions on women’s dress, including their hair and hair coverings; the various marriage and divorce laws; restrictions on women’s inheritance, on their participation in the ceremonial and hierarchical structures of all orthodox religions., etc. There are also many ‘customary laws’ versed in religious terms such as contraception, and female circumcision, abortion, so that women in countries where there are no State laws on any of these issues.Women need to have the means of redress and escape from their fate, ( unless they are wealthy enough to go elsewhere!) .
This is why many immigrant younger women in England whose families escaped from the tyranny of some of the most repressive religious laws in other countries, have reacted with absolute alarm at the comments made by Archbishop Williams. Islamic laws have not been revised since the first millennium and are ruthlessly imposed on the populations of many countries, including stoning to death on accusations of adultery and jailing women for showing their ankles (Iran) and even jailing a woman for being raped, (Saudi Arabia),- all ordered by the Islamic Courts administering Sharia laws. Then there are African countries suffering the ravages of the AIDS epidemic, where the use of condoms for protection of their sexual partners from being infected. is prohibited by the Catholic Church. Infected males therefore offer no protection to their sexual partners from contagion. Interestingly, the Vatican recently announced the modern version of today’s “7 deadly sins”, but infecting one’s partner with the AIDS virus wasn’t among them!
For devout Jews, religious divorce can be very problematic when there is no ‘Get’ granted by either partner, but usually by the male who can use blackmail to gain financial advantages in the divorce process. There are many “‘chained women”’ as a result, ‘agunot’ in Hebrew,- particularly in Israel where all laws of personal status are regulated by the Rabbinate. Many women’s groups are working very hard to get this anomaly rectified from within the religion, particularly the International Council of Jewish Women and all its affiliates around the world. Sadly, the religious male supremacy in the political structure of the State makes it virtually impossible to shift the Rabbinate,- claiming divine authority in the Torah for this law. However, the Israeli State judiciary does have the means to impose heavy penalties on recalcitrant spouses who refuse to grant a Get to their partners.
In Turkey, it has recently been announced that a review of Islamic traditions (apparently not their laws) is being undertaken with a view to bring them up-to-date, i.e. up to modern standards of women’s and all human rights. Turkey is also struggling to maintain its strict separation between the dominant Islamic religion and a secular Constitution established by Gamal Ataturk in the early1920s and jealously guarded by the military.
Tradition, tradition, tradition, -as Tevyeh the milkman cried out. While it is important to maintain our traditions for future generations, we must recognize that some archaic customs and traditions are not worth preserving. The State should guard against them. Unlike Archbishop Dr. Williams, I believe that religion and traditions are the domains of the individual. The democratic State is the repository of the laws to protect our human rights (not always successfully e.g in dictatorships) and the rule of law must reign above all.
Long live our liberal democracies where this exists and women should be particularly thankful to be living in Australia today.
See the transcript of the ABC Radio National 'Background Briefing' program of 13/4/08
Haredi community in Israel.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2211143.htm
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
DEMOCRACY: ITS MEANING IN PRACTICE.
THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY
Democracy has to start at home!
In our home, we were and are very democratic.
When we were an extended family, we discussed everything and acted as the elders told us to.
When we were just 4, we discussed everything, but the kids did as they were told,- by the parents.
I.E. :
They were given freedoms on a long 'leash',- but that 'leash' was reined-in as soon as they took advantage of this freedom to their detriment!
Now when we are jus 2 of us,- we discuss everything, but we do ,- what?
We have to give and take!
That is democracy! A democracy which can work for two very easily,- or you divorce!
Institutional, national or company, etc. democracies are just the same on a grander scale: some take advantage of the freedoms of the individual, to the detriment of everyone else. They have to be reined in, restricted, locked-up, locked-out, expelled, legislated against, or whatever.
There is no one rule that fits all. There is no law that says: we are all equal, -full stop.
We are all equal before the law,- fair enough!
But kids, adults, the able and disabled, the old and the young,- the crooks, the saintly, the clever and the idiots,- the poor and the rich, etc., etc.,- sorry, not one of us would claim equality on all fronts all our lives with everyone else!
One can repeat one's "democracy dogma" as much as one likes. The ideal may be in heaven, but on earth, my/our home is my/our castle and I/we set the rules.
If my home is on Crown land,- or if someone else has claims on my land,- we still have tenancy rights enshrined in laws. I don't expect to be shot at and murdered by the landlord,- but if I overstep my rights, the landlord will have a right to evict me via the correct enforcers of the law. I will have to accept it, like it or not,- if I am normal, of course!
If my neighbors overstep their rights to build a structure which adversely affects my property rights,- then there are also laws and avenues to appeal for both parties. Both will have to accept whatever the rulings,- if we are normal human beings!
On the other hand, if a potential mass-murderer were to live next door to any of us,- whose rights take precedence in a democracy? His or ours? He stays and we move?
I wouldn't!
ISRAEL,- THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL HOMELAND.
Every nation has its problems and every nation deals with it as it sees fit, including our Oz (AUSTRALIA).
Dictatorships a-la-Zimbabwe or Iraq or past and present others,- need outside help to free their citizens.
But I don't think that democratic Israel needs anyone's lecturing on how to deal with its potential enemies within, as long as no one comes to help her deal with her actual enemies,- i.e. the former's brethren-, without!
The following is a Letter to the Editor, of The Age newspaper, Melbourne.
Monday 21 May, 2007.
Disingenuous claim
THERE is no doubt that the Holocaust was a terrible crime against humanity and that the establishment of a refuge for Jews in 1948 was a justifiable step. It is also true that Israel has faced many difficulties from its neighbours.
However, to imply that all citizens in the Jewish state have equal rights, as Philip Chester and Danny Lamm do, is disingenuous.
Those with "Jewish nationality" have all sorts of privileges in terms of employment and loans for housing and education. Most land is reserved for Jewish use. Immigration, quite obviously, favours Jews over non-Jews. The fact that the Israeli Government may not discriminate between citizens does not appear to prohibit non-state institutions from doing so.
Israel would like to be seen as a democratic state like any other. However, no other democracy privileges a particular ethnicity the way Israel does. There is a real conflict between a state being defined as "Jewish" and it being truly democratic. This is, no doubt, a difficult acknowledgement to make, but it is an issue that must ultimately be faced.
Instead of being the Promised Land for the Chosen People, if Israel would move to becoming a secular state embracing compassion, freedom and justice, for all citizens equally, it would truly be a light to the world.
John Perkins, St Kilda
-------------------------------------------
My reply to the Editor, The Age.
Disingenuous claim indeed, by John Perkins, St Kilda
If the world had stopped the evil killing and hatred of the Jewish people long, long ago, then perhaps Jews would not have needed to be a "people apart" in their own ethnic State.
But I don't know about being a "chosen people",- I would rather God and the world chose someone else for a change!
As for democracy,- if her neighbors and detractors were trying even 1% to be as fair and reasonable as Israel is trying to be towards all its citizens,- the whole world would be a better place.
For the time being, democracy in Israel is as good as its enemies allow it to be. It is a beacon of light to her neighbors.
But to be a "light on to the nations" requires a willingness by the nations to live in light, not in darkness!
MM
Democracy has to start at home!
In our home, we were and are very democratic.
When we were an extended family, we discussed everything and acted as the elders told us to.
When we were just 4, we discussed everything, but the kids did as they were told,- by the parents.
I.E. :
They were given freedoms on a long 'leash',- but that 'leash' was reined-in as soon as they took advantage of this freedom to their detriment!
Now when we are jus 2 of us,- we discuss everything, but we do ,- what?
We have to give and take!
That is democracy! A democracy which can work for two very easily,- or you divorce!
Institutional, national or company, etc. democracies are just the same on a grander scale: some take advantage of the freedoms of the individual, to the detriment of everyone else. They have to be reined in, restricted, locked-up, locked-out, expelled, legislated against, or whatever.
There is no one rule that fits all. There is no law that says: we are all equal, -full stop.
We are all equal before the law,- fair enough!
But kids, adults, the able and disabled, the old and the young,- the crooks, the saintly, the clever and the idiots,- the poor and the rich, etc., etc.,- sorry, not one of us would claim equality on all fronts all our lives with everyone else!
One can repeat one's "democracy dogma" as much as one likes. The ideal may be in heaven, but on earth, my/our home is my/our castle and I/we set the rules.
If my home is on Crown land,- or if someone else has claims on my land,- we still have tenancy rights enshrined in laws. I don't expect to be shot at and murdered by the landlord,- but if I overstep my rights, the landlord will have a right to evict me via the correct enforcers of the law. I will have to accept it, like it or not,- if I am normal, of course!
If my neighbors overstep their rights to build a structure which adversely affects my property rights,- then there are also laws and avenues to appeal for both parties. Both will have to accept whatever the rulings,- if we are normal human beings!
On the other hand, if a potential mass-murderer were to live next door to any of us,- whose rights take precedence in a democracy? His or ours? He stays and we move?
I wouldn't!
ISRAEL,- THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL HOMELAND.
Every nation has its problems and every nation deals with it as it sees fit, including our Oz (AUSTRALIA).
Dictatorships a-la-Zimbabwe or Iraq or past and present others,- need outside help to free their citizens.
But I don't think that democratic Israel needs anyone's lecturing on how to deal with its potential enemies within, as long as no one comes to help her deal with her actual enemies,- i.e. the former's brethren-, without!
The following is a Letter to the Editor, of The Age newspaper, Melbourne.
Monday 21 May, 2007.
Disingenuous claim
THERE is no doubt that the Holocaust was a terrible crime against humanity and that the establishment of a refuge for Jews in 1948 was a justifiable step. It is also true that Israel has faced many difficulties from its neighbours.
However, to imply that all citizens in the Jewish state have equal rights, as Philip Chester and Danny Lamm do, is disingenuous.
Those with "Jewish nationality" have all sorts of privileges in terms of employment and loans for housing and education. Most land is reserved for Jewish use. Immigration, quite obviously, favours Jews over non-Jews. The fact that the Israeli Government may not discriminate between citizens does not appear to prohibit non-state institutions from doing so.
Israel would like to be seen as a democratic state like any other. However, no other democracy privileges a particular ethnicity the way Israel does. There is a real conflict between a state being defined as "Jewish" and it being truly democratic. This is, no doubt, a difficult acknowledgement to make, but it is an issue that must ultimately be faced.
Instead of being the Promised Land for the Chosen People, if Israel would move to becoming a secular state embracing compassion, freedom and justice, for all citizens equally, it would truly be a light to the world.
John Perkins, St Kilda
-------------------------------------------
My reply to the Editor, The Age.
Disingenuous claim indeed, by John Perkins, St Kilda
If the world had stopped the evil killing and hatred of the Jewish people long, long ago, then perhaps Jews would not have needed to be a "people apart" in their own ethnic State.
But I don't know about being a "chosen people",- I would rather God and the world chose someone else for a change!
As for democracy,- if her neighbors and detractors were trying even 1% to be as fair and reasonable as Israel is trying to be towards all its citizens,- the whole world would be a better place.
For the time being, democracy in Israel is as good as its enemies allow it to be. It is a beacon of light to her neighbors.
But to be a "light on to the nations" requires a willingness by the nations to live in light, not in darkness!
MM
Thursday, May 03, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21660439-25377,00.html
THE AUSTRALIAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rare support for democracy in a sea of misunderstanding
Despite its mistakes, Israel is a legitimate nation should not be treated as a pariah, writes foreign editor Greg Sheridan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03may07
WHEN you're young, you think that every piece of mail is going to be that special letter that recognises your brilliance. As you get older, you realise that most pieces of mail are bills. But recently I did get a remarkable piece of mail. It told me that if I would accept, I would be awarded the Jerusalem Prize.
Sponsored jointly by the Israeli Government and the local Jewish community, it is awarded to people who have supported Israel conspicuously.
Since I believe that Israel is a democracy in good standing I was delighted to accept the award, which has been won by sundry heads of government, foreign ministers, social democrat and conservative European politicians and many others over the years.
Its previous Australian recipients include Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, and Frank Sartor, formerly lord mayor of Sydney and now a minister in the NSW Labor Government.
Since the award was announced I have had a certain amount of mail urging me not to accept it. I must disappoint these folks, many of whom have written in good will and some detail, for I am greatly honoured to receive the Jerusalem Prize. I cannot accept the idea that Israel is an illegitimate state, or not really a democracy, or that it should be treated as a pariah.
It goes without saying that in accepting this award I do not compromise my independence as a commentator. I have often been critical of Israeli policies. Last year I opposed its military operation in Lebanon.
My views are unusual in the commentator class but they are mainstream in Australian politics. In a fine address to a gathering of Labor Friends of Israel last week, Labor
leader Kevin Rudd praised the "vibrancy of Israel's democracy". He said that both Hamas, the dominant political grouping among the Palestinians, and Hezbollah, are terrorist organisations and "you can't negotiate with terrorists".
"Israel's strategic challenges," he said, "are great and that's why it's important that the modern state of Israel and its govern-
ment has friends around the world. And I simply state unequivocally that we remain a strong and close friend of Israel in good times and bad."
This is truly a bipartisan position in Australia. Israel has probably never had a better friend as Prime Minister than John Howard. This was evident in Howard and Downer's decision, along with only a handful of others, to vote at the UN in 2004 against a resolution to condemn Israel's security barrier, following a ruling against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
Again, Rudd's view is enlightening. He criticised the vote but argued not that Canberra should have voted against Israel, merely that it should have abstained. Rudd's star new candidate for Eden-Monaro, the distinguished former colonel and military lawyer, Mike Kelly, has argued in a legal journal that the ICJ was wrong and that Israel's security barrier is legal.
But let's pull back and look at a bit of history. There have always been Jews in Palestine. Israel was created by a resolution of the UN to partition Palestine between the Jewish and Palestinian populations. When Israel was founded in 1948 it was immediately attacked by the massed armies of five Arab neighbours.
Twice more Israel had to fight wars of national survival against the armies of its Arab neighbours - in 1967 and 1973. And all through from that time to this, with only fairly brief pauses, it has been subject to terrorist attacks.
In 2000, in Camp David and in subsequent negotiations, the government of the then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians their own nation on more than 95 per cent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and part of East Jerusalem. There was also the offer of some land from Israel proper to compensate for that part of the West Bank which is in effect predominantly Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem.
But this offer of land was in exchange for the Palestinians, and Israel's Arab neighbours, embracing peace - accepting Israel's legitimacy, ending their hate-filled and anti-Semitic propaganda designed to make schoolchildren despise the Jews, and stopping terrorist and other attacks on Israel.
The then Palestinian Authority, led by Yasser Arafat, walked away from this offer and did not even make a counter offer, because, like some of the leaders of neighbouring nations, he had never accepted that Israel had a right to exist at all.
None of this means that Israel is beyond criticism. Israel, like any democratic nation, makes plenty of mistakes and sometimes it makes moral mistakes. But it is a robust democracy founded on decent values and it tries to correct its mistakes. This week's Winograd Report on last year's Lebanon action was fiercely critical of Ehud Olmert's Government. That suggests Olmert made some mistakes. But the bigger story is what a vibrant, genuine, problem-solving democracy Israel is to commission such a report and let its findings go where they may. Moreover, the question is not whether Israel is perfect, but are its actions reasonable for a democracy under such constant threat and attack. How would we react in circumstances similar to those Israel faces?
Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are all different, yet they are all intimately related. They draw from diverse sources, yet they are all, in their virulent forms, fundamentally irrational and evidence of psychological and ideological dysfunction rather than genuine analysis.
Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the deaths of near enough to 1.5 million Iraqi Arabs and Iranians. He killed 300,000 to 400,000 of his own citizens deliberately and a million or more died in the wholly unjustified war he launched against Iran. Anyone who was seriously concerned about Muslim suffering in the Middle East would have concentrated on Saddam all the years he was in power.
Yet the UN, and the Left internationally, focuses with obsessive zeal on Israel. I once interviewed Abdurrahman Wahid, the former president of Indonesia and a great Muslim leader, and asked him about the Middle East. Israel, he told me, "is a democracy in a sea of misunderstanding".
Commentators should write about Israel the same as they write about any other nation, with a desire to tell the truth, know the facts and make judgments based on civilised values. I agree with Wahid. Israel is a democracy - that fact speaks for itself.
privacy terms © The Australian
THE AUSTRALIAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rare support for democracy in a sea of misunderstanding
Despite its mistakes, Israel is a legitimate nation should not be treated as a pariah, writes foreign editor Greg Sheridan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03may07
WHEN you're young, you think that every piece of mail is going to be that special letter that recognises your brilliance. As you get older, you realise that most pieces of mail are bills. But recently I did get a remarkable piece of mail. It told me that if I would accept, I would be awarded the Jerusalem Prize.
Sponsored jointly by the Israeli Government and the local Jewish community, it is awarded to people who have supported Israel conspicuously.
Since I believe that Israel is a democracy in good standing I was delighted to accept the award, which has been won by sundry heads of government, foreign ministers, social democrat and conservative European politicians and many others over the years.
Its previous Australian recipients include Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, and Frank Sartor, formerly lord mayor of Sydney and now a minister in the NSW Labor Government.
Since the award was announced I have had a certain amount of mail urging me not to accept it. I must disappoint these folks, many of whom have written in good will and some detail, for I am greatly honoured to receive the Jerusalem Prize. I cannot accept the idea that Israel is an illegitimate state, or not really a democracy, or that it should be treated as a pariah.
It goes without saying that in accepting this award I do not compromise my independence as a commentator. I have often been critical of Israeli policies. Last year I opposed its military operation in Lebanon.
My views are unusual in the commentator class but they are mainstream in Australian politics. In a fine address to a gathering of Labor Friends of Israel last week, Labor
leader Kevin Rudd praised the "vibrancy of Israel's democracy". He said that both Hamas, the dominant political grouping among the Palestinians, and Hezbollah, are terrorist organisations and "you can't negotiate with terrorists".
"Israel's strategic challenges," he said, "are great and that's why it's important that the modern state of Israel and its govern-
ment has friends around the world. And I simply state unequivocally that we remain a strong and close friend of Israel in good times and bad."
This is truly a bipartisan position in Australia. Israel has probably never had a better friend as Prime Minister than John Howard. This was evident in Howard and Downer's decision, along with only a handful of others, to vote at the UN in 2004 against a resolution to condemn Israel's security barrier, following a ruling against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
Again, Rudd's view is enlightening. He criticised the vote but argued not that Canberra should have voted against Israel, merely that it should have abstained. Rudd's star new candidate for Eden-Monaro, the distinguished former colonel and military lawyer, Mike Kelly, has argued in a legal journal that the ICJ was wrong and that Israel's security barrier is legal.
But let's pull back and look at a bit of history. There have always been Jews in Palestine. Israel was created by a resolution of the UN to partition Palestine between the Jewish and Palestinian populations. When Israel was founded in 1948 it was immediately attacked by the massed armies of five Arab neighbours.
Twice more Israel had to fight wars of national survival against the armies of its Arab neighbours - in 1967 and 1973. And all through from that time to this, with only fairly brief pauses, it has been subject to terrorist attacks.
In 2000, in Camp David and in subsequent negotiations, the government of the then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians their own nation on more than 95 per cent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and part of East Jerusalem. There was also the offer of some land from Israel proper to compensate for that part of the West Bank which is in effect predominantly Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem.
But this offer of land was in exchange for the Palestinians, and Israel's Arab neighbours, embracing peace - accepting Israel's legitimacy, ending their hate-filled and anti-Semitic propaganda designed to make schoolchildren despise the Jews, and stopping terrorist and other attacks on Israel.
The then Palestinian Authority, led by Yasser Arafat, walked away from this offer and did not even make a counter offer, because, like some of the leaders of neighbouring nations, he had never accepted that Israel had a right to exist at all.
None of this means that Israel is beyond criticism. Israel, like any democratic nation, makes plenty of mistakes and sometimes it makes moral mistakes. But it is a robust democracy founded on decent values and it tries to correct its mistakes. This week's Winograd Report on last year's Lebanon action was fiercely critical of Ehud Olmert's Government. That suggests Olmert made some mistakes. But the bigger story is what a vibrant, genuine, problem-solving democracy Israel is to commission such a report and let its findings go where they may. Moreover, the question is not whether Israel is perfect, but are its actions reasonable for a democracy under such constant threat and attack. How would we react in circumstances similar to those Israel faces?
Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are all different, yet they are all intimately related. They draw from diverse sources, yet they are all, in their virulent forms, fundamentally irrational and evidence of psychological and ideological dysfunction rather than genuine analysis.
Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the deaths of near enough to 1.5 million Iraqi Arabs and Iranians. He killed 300,000 to 400,000 of his own citizens deliberately and a million or more died in the wholly unjustified war he launched against Iran. Anyone who was seriously concerned about Muslim suffering in the Middle East would have concentrated on Saddam all the years he was in power.
Yet the UN, and the Left internationally, focuses with obsessive zeal on Israel. I once interviewed Abdurrahman Wahid, the former president of Indonesia and a great Muslim leader, and asked him about the Middle East. Israel, he told me, "is a democracy in a sea of misunderstanding".
Commentators should write about Israel the same as they write about any other nation, with a desire to tell the truth, know the facts and make judgments based on civilised values. I agree with Wahid. Israel is a democracy - that fact speaks for itself.
privacy terms © The Australian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)