A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
This time Loewenstein, you went too far
|
As a Jew who is used to reading controversial pieces about Israel (and as someone who was friends with him at uni) I have been content to let the views of Antony Loewenstein go through to the keeper. He is a passionate man who is entitled to his opinions even though some of his facts have been proved wrong and some of his conclusions questionable. I also haven’t minded him having a go at some of the more conservative voices in the Jewish community as it has brought some greater diversity to our internal debates and highlighted to the broader community the fact that not all Jews in Australia subscribe to the mindset that the Israeli Government (whoever they may be and whatever policies they may pursue) can do no wrong. However, his Crikey piece yesterday goes way too far for me and should be rejected more broadly. In essentially calling for (and lending his support to others who are undertaking) a boycott of Israel, Antony is calling for action which would punish the whole of a country for the extreme political views of a few. The Israel that I know and have visited over many years is a country of contrasts with a growing secularism and a yearning for peace and reconciliation among Jews and Palestinians/ Arabs. It is a country that encourages amazing ingenuity in fields as diverse as computing and the arts. It is a democracy, albeit at times a flawed one, that in the one Parliament covers the spectrum of opinion in Israel — from doves to hawks. It is a country more complex than the headlines and well worth the world engaging with and not shunning. People are entitled to not agree with Israeli Government policy — but Israel is not a Burma, a North Korea or an Iran. The nature of a democracy is that sometimes a minority extreme view can negatively influence the political mainstream and Israel certainly suffers regularly from unwieldy coalitions that have slowed moves to peace. Australia has had this too, with Senators Harradine and now Fielding having the balance at power and forcing minority positions on niche policy areas despite having virtually no mainstream support. And remember how to the rest of the world Pauline Hanson for a time defined Australians view on race despite having limited support nationally. To call for a boycott that would hurt the many Israelis who voted for engagement and peace as much (if not more) than the few who voted against it is a self defeating and needlessly cruel attack on a people that have already suffered as a result of years of conflict. While Antony says it is not an attack on democratic Israel there is really no other way to see it than a stunt that seeks to do just that. Worse still it is yet another attempt at delegitimising an entire country and its people including the poor and vulnerable (Arab as well as Jewish Israelis) who rely on the sort of social and economic support Governments can only deliver with a strong economy. Antony has at times courageously highlighted the real pain felt by many Palestinians and may find it a pain he values more highly than that of Jewish victims of the many wars and attacks but a vengeful boycott of Israel is the worst way of bringing about the political change needed to address this situation. Contributions such as yesterday’s and the sense that Antony will jump on any bandwagon, with anyone — regardless of their own respect for human rights — who criticises Israel, will only lose him more support from Australian Jews yearning for the sort of peace that I know my relatives in Israel are desperately hoping (and voting) for. |
|
|
11 Comments
I am old enough to remember the same arguments being used against boycotts of South Africa in the apartheid era, (and they were wrong then too).
“Antony has at times courageously highlighted the real pain felt by many Palestinians and may find it a pain he values more highly than that of Jewish victims of the many wars and attacks…”
It’s that sort of thinking that just keeps these intractable conflicts going, and going, and going.
We can punish the whole of North Korea for the extreme view of one, but we cannot boycott Israel for the view of a majority of Israelis. After all, it is the majority of Israel that voted against peace, and only a few voted for it. The pains suffered by Palestinians are as real and high as those suffered by the Israelis. The only difference is that the Israelis are now not suffering any pains from wars and attacks, but the Palestinians are, from oppressive occupation and inhumane blockade of Gaza. By the way, the sufferings are imposed by Israel on all Palestinians, not just the few extremists.
The reality is that since Israel was founded sucessive governments have continued with (seemingly) stronger and more deadly attacks and sanctions on the Palestinians.
In fact, ALL Palestinians suffer from Israeli restrictions on their freedoms and attacks on their country and people and that is condoned by the majority of the Israeli people (who continue to elect governments who implement these policies).
It seems perfectly reasonable, then, to suggest that in return the Israel should be subject to such non-violent retribution as sanctions.
It is certiainly not “going to far”, as David Imber suggests.
We should have equal respect for the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, but Imber is clearly putting the rights of “ordinary” Israelis above “ordinary” Palestinians.
A great article David.
Too many of my ignorant Lefty mates (whose only connection to Middle East is a Kebab run on Friday night after the Kingston Hotel) miss this point - that blaming all Israeli’s for the actions of the elected minority coalition government is like saying all Australians are racist because the majority voted for Howard, Ruddock and by extention, the spunky Pauline Hanson.
Okay, besides the fact she’s hot, I reckon most Aussie’s are racist and stupid - but the point is John Howard didn’t speak for us - he spoke for only a few. But, say the above Crikey readers, from 1996-2007, Australians MUST have supported the detention of asylum seekers and the locking up of Hicks etc because the majority elected government instituted these repressive and inhumane laws, right? That makes sense doesn’t it? We elected Howard, so we’re collectively responsible and to blame for whatever Howard and his merry men did in our name?
David’s point is that if we blame ‘the people’ for their government, then all Iranians are Holocaust denying terrorists, all Russians are state sponsored Muslim killing terrorists, all Chinese are Tibetan killing terrorists and so on.
And a question: what should we do to the Palestinians who will suffer if Hamas institute Sharia law throughout Gaza? Surely, having elected Hamas, ALL Palestinians support the repression of women, the banning of women from public office, the banning of women from university, the stoning of women for adultary and the execution of trade unionists and moderates?
Nuthin’ I spose, given that they elected this form of governance, right?
I’m in favour of a boycott on Israel. I don’t agree that Israel is a Burma, Iran or Nth Korea - it’s worse. It drones on about democracy, peace ad nauseum while it practices some of the most vicious, cruel and oppressive policies/actions that would be well at home in the countries mentioned .In short, Israel is now the oppressor! Israel has revolting weapons(usually supplied by the US) including nuclear weapons. israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (while Iran is?) and arrogantly doesn’t even admit to having any let alone being ordered to allow in UN Inspectors. Why is that? Why is Israel given special treatment? Why does Israel force women to give birth in the freezing cold at checkpoints, and then allow the babies to freeze to death? Why do Israeli soldiers torment Palestinian kids on their way to school(those that haven’t been blown up recently, that is)? I have no sympathy for Israelis any more - that subsided several years ago. I don’t believe that I’m unique! Murder, viciousness and absolute bloody minded cruelty is a daily occurence - sickening! They treat Arabs in the country with as much ‘democracy’ as they do Palestinians! Zilch!
There’s a myriad of other so-called ‘check points’ and other revolting and oppressive incidents every day. I haven’t even mentioned squashing visiting US or Canadian or british citizens with their bulldozers etc. Sickening! I don’t give a damn whether I’m accused of being anti-Sematic - that doesn’t work anymore! I’m anti killing and oppressing people!
I love you Liz45.
We could marry and have our own children: Hymie and Osama. You’re anti violence, so allow me to smack Osama upside his head; and Hymie, despite being persecuted at school, you will teach never to defend himself.
We won’t send our kids to school, you can home educate them with Google, it’s all anyone needs these days.
Our boys will have share a bedroom but with a big wall between them to stop them fighting.
Osama will have a dozen arranged marriages and pursue a career as flight attendant. We are proud of his success. Hymie will be a doctor and help deliver many babies in the freezing checkpoints of our suburbs….
David’s piece would be more convincing if Israeli governments had actually DONE anything significantly positive to achieve the peace he seeks. What Israel did to Gaza in December last year was utterly inexcusable, at the very least in terms of proportionality. Further, the de facto settlement policy is an obscenity that has finally run into trouble with the present US administration. Israel has relentlessly squandered the global goodwill it enjoyed in the 25 odd years after 1948. Liz45’s anger is understandable. Of course there are Israeli citizens who oppose the government’s policies and I wish them well. Unfortunately, they may be collateral damage if a boycott were to be imposed, just as innocent civilians were during the Gaza attacks. BTW, David, as you are a former friend of Antony, I would expect you to know that his surname is spelt “Loewenstein”.
Yigal Amir - just google it.
David, no matter how passionately you may try, you are defending the indefensible. Liz45 is right.
When I think of Israel, I no longer think of a refuge for the opressed or a land of great achievements. What comes to mind is racism, repression, murder, two-faced foreign policies, threats of force and a military machine out of control.
Ths week’s Israeli Government announcement of 400-plus additional homes to built on stolen land, in defiance of international condemnation, fairness or any sort of moral right to do so is enough to indicate that the only language with meaning in this debate is that of force.
Roll on the embargoes.
Unfortunately, we of the remainder of the world must now protect those who have become radicalised against Westerners, the very Palestinians and others of the Middle East who currently view us as part of their problem, rather than as part of the solution.
There is so much to be done, and it is all so difficult… yet peace in the Middle East can only be founded on fairness, and that concept went out the window as soon as Israellis got the upper hand militarily.
Quite possibly, the 6-Day War of about 40 years back was the turning point, when the Arabs became indisputably subordinated to the Israelis. And please don’t remind me that some Israellis are Arabs. Tokenism will always be tokenism. Respect is a necessary precursor of peace.
I agree with John Bennetts.