Philip Mendes, as part of this progressive Jewish intelligentsia, has put forward a view that is sober yet fails to interrogate the power structures and cultural hierarchies that the state of Israel has been built upon. 'The Dirty Linen' becomes a sensitive issue to elites within communities precisely as it undermines their flawed ideologies based upon the demonisation of the 'other'. In Israel's case there are internal and external others, namely Mizrahim, Ethiopian and non-Ashkenazic Jews and the Arab states that are personified in the Palestinian 'terrorist'. This orientalist thinking becomes perpetuated, reproduced, reapproporiated and justified in the diaspora. Its collision with inherent racisms in the host societies, in which Jews have become integral members of social, political, economic and cultural aspects of them, suppresses any or limited avenues of dissidence that subvert the domination and pervasiveness of these ideologies. The position of the 'Jew' in the diaspora has become so powerful that he/she can afford to appear progressive, and even question Zionism from an engaged perspective, but without relinquishing their position as possessors of stolen land. Perhaps, land as a symbol and tangible effect of privilege needs to be put forward in the Australian context precisely because living on stolen land has not caused a level of discomfort and societal incivility as much as the indigenous owners of this land have suffered. This does not deny the pernicious effects of the Holocaust on the Jewish nation. Nevertheless, 'communities of suffering', should put forward how their suffering has elevated them to a status of untouchables that represses their oppressive prejudices and allows for cross racial hostility to continue gently in the symbolic, and on occasions deplorable physical violence, that marks all dealings with the ‘other’.

Farid Farid
PhD Student
Centre for Cultural Research,
University of Western Sydney

I think there's probably a basis for all sides to claim the land as their own. Obviously, no side is going to relinquish a claim on the area, and why should they? Obviously, both sides should have their own right to a homeland. As the article rightly pointed out, every other ethnic group can support the "homeland", so why pick on the Jews? In general, they actually fit in and contribute a lot more to Australian society than a lot of groups and they rarely, if ever, cause any trouble.

I'm not always enamoured with Israel, and they do dodgy things too. However, at the end of the day, only a fool could be an observer and fail to realise that whilst Israel more or less wants to be left alone, for the rest of the region, the only option is the total destruction of Israel and Jews. It's absurd and it's precisely why, despite what extreme measures Israel may take in dealing with Palestinians and the other nations in the region, everyone realises that when faced with the option of Israel existing or being destroyed, one's hand is forced.

Personally though, I've never understood why all these monotheistic religions and their associated ethnic groups have fought over such a barren hole as the Promised Land. If we were talking about Britain's rolling green hills, or endless vineyards in France, or even nice tropical beaches with banana and mango trees, I could understand, but who but a religious nutter would want the Middle East? Therein lies a large part of the problem I think.

Farid Farid's post may have had more impact if it wasn't full of post-modernist jargon. And as for the "demonisation of the 'other'", isn't this something that is done about Jews all throughout the Arab and Islamic World? Nonie Darwish's article that was published in The Telegraph (London) on February 12, 2006 is a good place to start. She was born in Egypt and raised in Cairo and Gaza. As she notes in her article:
"In school in Gaza, I learned hate, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never an option, as it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. At school we sang songs with verses calling Jews "dogs" (in Arab culture, dogs are considered unclean). .....
Sadly, the way I was raised was not unique. Hundreds of millions of other Muslims also have been raised with the same hatred of the West and Israel as a way to distract from the failings of their leaders. Things have not changed since I was a little girl in the 1950s."

Sadly, there are plenty of other sources that I could quote in which the Jew is demonised as the 'other' within the Arab and Islamic World.

SavagePencil perfectly portrays the convenient withdrawal to engage with me to a charge of anti-semitism. This mantle as I previously explained shields any criticism of communities and individuals that have suffered past injustices and that are too willing invoke these narratives as a justification to always be regarded as victims that can never turn oppressors. In this fallacy resides a fear to become vulnerable. It alludes to the fragility of the person's identity to be questioned. It is always more economically emotional to think with one's prejudices without exposing one's deep seated resentments and hatred. I'm not denying my own prejudices here and I'm not embracing myself in self-congratulatory rhetoric (or postmodernist jargon as SavagePencil thinks). I'm merely expressing my views in this supposedly democratic forum and would also draw SavagePencil's attention to Mitzi Goldman's documentary 'Hatred' and Barbara Bloch's thesis "Unsettling Zionism". These are examples of engaged Jewish academics in Australia who are trying to unsettle this fantasy of anyone who critiques notions of Zionism, Jewishness and Israel are castigated automatically as anti-Semites. SavagePencil's defensive posture must be seen though as a sign 'encouraged discomfort' and would be better aided if he/she did not concentrate on articles (i.e The Guardian one) that solidified his convictions that Arabs are preoccupied with hating Jews in school anthems.

Farid Farid
PhD Student
Centre for Cultural Research,
University of Western Sydney

Savage...well said.

I'd love to see someone do a survey, of Jewish Schools in Israel and those of the type you mentioned in Gaza. I somehow doubt that the Palestinians are demonized at the same level as the Jews are.

I think the Jews are more interested in getting on with the job of living and survival, than simply maintaining a level of red hot hatred.

I wish someone would leak "secret plans" to the militants of Gaza, suggesting that if attacks continue past a certain date, the policy of complete ethnic cleansing will begin. Of course, there are no such plans to my knowledge, but Im sure many have thought of it.
I certainly have.

But... life goes on, we will see where things lead.

If Israel turned its heart toward God, the land would be healed. yes, there might be a very sharp and heated war, but I'm sure it would have the result conducive to peace.

The only way Israel has any claim on the land is the theological way or the 'might' way. But the theological view includes all land to the Euphrates...now that would be a bone of contention eh :)

The 'might'way seems to be the path chosen by the government, and if that is the case, then why worry about where the border is 'supposed' to be,.. MAKE IT where u want it and do so in the best strategic manner. If they are surviving 'now' by 'might' then does it really matter where the border is ?

cheers

Dr Phil's recognition of the "lack of organic connection" between Australian Jews and Israel undercuts his claim that we're dealing here with just another ethnic group's ties to the 'old country'. Even the term 'ethnic group' is not borne out by reality, Jews being adherents of a faith, and coming from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The existence and work of Zionist groups, education, fundraising and advocacy that he refers to might well be a reflection of just how inorganic and artificial the link between Australian Jews and Israel is. Particularly insulting I would have thought to Australian Jews is his suggestion that "the establishment of Israel is regarded by Jews as...atonement by the international community for failing to prevent the Holocaust." Think of its implications: do Australian "Jews" (Dr Phil makes no attempt to be more specific) really consider that "the international community" was collectively responsible for the Holocaust and so had a responsibility (putting to one side the question of whether it had a right to do so) to hand over a corner of the Arab world - Palestine - to the Zionist movement, sacrificing its indigenous people in the process, to atone for its alleged collective guilt? The very notion is preposterous and offensive to any acceptable moral code. And, I would have thought, to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. Dr Phil also needs to be reminded, with reference to his last paragraph, that the Israeli occupation and colonization of the Palestinian Territories preceded the growth of Hamas and the phenomenon of the suicide bomber and can be seen as their cause.