There's always been people who have argued strongly
against official multiculturalism. That it represented
"a threat to the very basis of Australian culture,
identity and shared values."

As Banjo Paterson so rationally explained - multiculturalism
has been and is a cultural characteristic of a shared
Australian identity, alongside Australia's First Nations
traditions and its British institutions.

Our national identity continues to evolve and grow from
pre-settlement to today, and into the future. Migration is
fundamental to the Australian Story.

As for Fatima Payman and other Australian politician's
views on the plight of the Palestinians?

The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion
and the conclusion is loud and clear:

Israel's occupation and annexation of the Palestinian
territories are unlawful and its discriminatory laws and
policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on
racial segregation and apartheid.

No matter how long a word like multiculturalism is used, it still doesn't conceal its meaning-Anti White !

I have sympathies with both camps on this issue. I think that Australia has benefited, and continues to benefit, greatly from its ethnic, cultural and religious diversity and, as other posters have pointed out, modern Australia’s origins as a colony mean almost all of us are migrants or descendants of migrants.

But … I also think migrants have a duty to respect and uphold the customs and core values of the countries they move to.

There was an interesting opinion piece in yesterday’s Australian by Alexander Downer which covered similar ground to Graham’s piece here on OLO. It quotes conservative British philosopher Roger Scruton as saying “we can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside and against it”.

This doesn’t mean he advocates total integration. Scruton’s original article also says “We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life, or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared moral and legal inheritance, a shared language, and a shared public sphere.”

It’s worth reading:

https://spectator.org/multiculturalism-r-i-p/

Ps – I have forgotten how to insert web addresses as hyperlinks on OLO – can someone remind me?

Dear Graham,

«There is archeaological evidence of Hebrew occupation of Israel and Judea going back to 1200 BC. The Canaanite cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer show signs of conquest by Jews in 1200 and the Merneptah Steele references Israel in 1208 BC.»

There is plenty evidence for the existence of a tribe around that time called "Ivrim" (English "Hebrews"), meaning those who crossed [the river] - but there is no consensus over who they were.
It is believed they owned land either in northern Israel or near Damascus, Syria.

Other than the Bible, there is no indication connecting the Hebrews with Judea or Jews.

It is also evident that there were wars at the time among the Canaanites where cities changed hands. The Judeans may or may not have been among the winners, but even then, since Judaism did not yet exist, ethnic Judeans could not have yet been Jewish at the time by any modern criterion.

The Merneptah Steele shows trade relations between Egypt and Israel. The existence of the kingdom of Israel is not disputed, only the Biblical claim of its close relations with Judea to its south, where lived the people who eventually, much later, produced Judaism.

«In Jesus' time there were Jews living in Galilee and Judea, and the Samaritans, who were essentially Jews, but with a modified religious system, all lived in parts of what we now call modern Israel.»

None of them could be recognised as Jews as we know them today, but anyway, they all were Judeans.

The Samaritans originated from Judeans that were never exiled, who continued to live in Judea and meanwhile married local, non-Judean, women. When Ezra returned from exile, with powers vested by the Persian king to rebuild Judea (which by then included parts of former Israel), he ordered these people to immediately divorce their foreign wives and forsake their children born of them, or else... so as they were naturally unwilling to do so, they fled to Samaria and there established their new community and temple. That's why Samaritans were so despised at the times of Jesus.

Dear Rhian,

«Ps – I have forgotten how to insert web addresses as hyperlinks on OLO – can someone remind me?»

Just remove the 's' from the "https" in the link, thus
https://spectator.org/multiculturalism-r-i-p/
becomes
http://spectator.org/multiculturalism-r-i-p/

«But … I also think migrants have a duty to respect and uphold the customs and core values of the countries they move to.»

Why? Is that because the natives are stronger and have a police that can squash them?
What if their values are morally and ethically superior than that of the natives?
What in the world possibly grants any particular ethnic/cultural group exclusive rights over God's lands and continents? Is it their military might?

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« There was an interesting opinion piece in yesterday’s Australian by Alexander Downer … It quotes conservative British philosopher Roger Scruton as saying “we can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside and against it”.

This doesn’t mean he advocates total integration. Scruton’s original article also says “We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life, or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared moral and legal inheritance, a shared language, and a shared public spher »
.

In my view, Rhian, Scruton describes just the beginning of the process.

Alexander Downer quotes Scruton as saying, “We can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture …”. That’s the first step. The second step is the interaction of and reciprocal immersion into each other’s culture. The third step is genetic interaction.

Like everything human, nations are in constant evolution. None are entirely isolated from the others. They all interact and crossbreed to varying degrees. There is no such thing as pure “race” or pure culture among humans.

We even share genes with the rest of nature, not just with other human beings of different nationalities. We share 98.8% of our genome with chimpanzees, 75% with chickens, and even 60% with banana trees – not to mention, of course, the rest of our kindred in the animal kingdom as well as all the other life species.

According to a recent study, the first people to call themselves British were predominantly descended from northern Europeans.

Over 400 years of mass migration from the northern Netherlands and Germany, as well as southern Scandinavia, provide the genetic basis of many English residents today.

The arrival of Europeans between 400 and 800CE, including the Angles from which the word England is derived, accounted for 76% of the genetics of the British population at that time.

Subsequent arrivals diluted this proportion in Britons in eastern England to about 50%. Celtic remains high in southwest England, Wales and Scotland.

.