David Singer –

Quote title: “great expectations founded on fiction”

Okay, I see what you did there. Clever. But no. In fact, ‘Great Expectations’ was a work of fiction, founded on the issues of Dickens’ time. Not the other way round. See the difference? It’s subtle, I grant you, but important nonetheless.

Now, I am not a fan of Dickens. He is far too morose, his characters too dark and his writing just a tad repetitious, for my taste – much like your own, really, which is probably why you misappropriated one of his titles for your masterful argument. Well that, and the fact that your article is about writers. Had I not read the body of your essay, I might never have understood your brilliant wordplay.

Nevertheless, despite my unwillingness to waste time reading Dickens when I could be re-reading that other great writer, Dick Francis, or a Simpsons comic, I have to admire the man’s efforts in bringing to light social inequality and injustice through great works of fiction. One can only assume Grossman, Sansal and those other ‘well-meaning authors’ intend to do the same. We can also assume their work won’t be as long-winded as Dickens, or as tedious as yours.

And while we’re on the topic of great titles, David, there are any number of ideas to be found amongst great literature. Here are a few you might want to consider for your next article. Feel free to use them. I'm generous that way.

“War and Pieces – The aftermath of Israeli Occupation”
“Pilgrim’s Regress – Considerations for the Right of Return”
“Dangerous Liaisons – Israel and America”
“Pride and Prejudice – A Zionist Approach”
“Brave New Israel – Another Zionist Approach”
“Golan Heights – Catherine and Heathcliff lost in the Desert” (actually, this is just silly)
“Bibi’s Adventures in Wonderland – “’The White Rabbit made me do it!’”
“The Great Gaff – Carving up Palestine, post WWII”
“Waiting for the Barbarians – A Palestinian Perspective”
“Atonement – Not in our Lifetime”
“Persuasion – Israel’s influence in American Politics”
“A Tale of Two Cities – Two halves do make a Hole. An in-depth study of modern day Jerusalem”

Dear David F.,

<<Democracy requires separation of religion and state.>>

Wrong: I do support the separation of religion and state, but democracy has nothing to do with it - democracy is the rule of 51%, which can tyrannize the 49% and it can be perfectly democratic for 51% who belong to one religion to ban the religion of the other 49%... which is why I don't agree with democracy!

It may not be that extreme, but in a subtle way, Australia IS a Christian country and as a Jew you already ARE a second-class citizen: if for example you are caught opening your shop on Christmas Day, which to you means nothing, then you will be fined, while on the other hand you may be required to attend court on the Day of Atonement. Or centerlink may require a Muslim to work or seek work on Friday, same for Jews on late Friday afternoons in the winter when the Sabbath starts early. That could never happen in Israel!

So the devil is in the details: the Jews require a state where the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays are sacrosanct, where no one can compel them to work or attend court or anything of similar nature on the Sabbath, and so do the Muslims require a state where Fridays and Ramadan are sacrosanct. Throwing them both into the same cauldron is cruel to both, though perfectly democratic.

There are other reasons, such as Kosher standards in public, why Jews need a state of their own, but certainly the Sabbath is the foremost concern.

True separation of religion and state is very hard to achieve and something we are yet to dream about even in Australia (it requires deep reforms that remove the rights of government to intervene in our lives - once governments stop intervening in our lives, they will necessarily also stop intervening against our religion), way before it can be imposed on other countries. Meanwhile, both the Jews and Palestinians need small and separate plots under the heavens where they can live their life freely as first-class citizens.

The PA promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will be completely erased and replaced by a State of Palestine. A Fatah member of Palestinian parliament, Najat Abu Bakr, told Palestinian Authority TV that the Authority supports and adopts the “stages plan.” To the world, the Authority claims that the Palestinians seek the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when in fact the goal is all of Israel: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t want the 1948 borders, but in our current political program we say we want a state on the 1967 borders.” The Palestinian Authority, in agreement with Mr Singer, do not want a 'two state' solution but a 'one state' solution. This position makes the seeking of a just, amicable solution somewhat problematic I think.

There is no such thing as a religious country, there are some countries who are predominately run by people who all believe the same religion.

As for Singers fractured fairy tales, why does OI bother to continue to publish this tripe?

The country was and is Palestine, how else could an illegal partition of Palestine be voted on.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Australia is a country with a Christian majority. It is not a Christian country. A Christian country is one which gives Christianity special status.

The men who wrote the Australian Constitution took pains to see that no religion has a special status. The Constitution refers to religion in only one article. It follows:

Section 116:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Australia is a country under law, and the above specifies the role of religion. It is simply none of the government's business. At present in some areas the Australian government has violated its constitution. However, I hope that the government will eventually observe its constitution