YoungSteve a good start.. recognizing the problem. Your reference to the Protocals of Zion is not something I've actually seen/read in their charter, but rest assured I accept that you saw it...it's there.

1 Point. Even if it was not there as something to hang a 'reaction' on, it would not change the foundation of 'Islamic Waqf' which is primarily theological, nor reactionary.

Bennie.. a bad start.. denying the problem.

DENIAL 101. "they don't count, just this that.. blah blah.."
REALITY 101. "They are the elected government"

Bennie, in all seriousness mate.. Hamas has gone to a lot of trouble to
a) Expand
b) Gain influence and cred with the Palestinians.

i.e. they are working systematically toward the basic goal of destroying Israel and while their ability to do it might not be very close, they are still heading in that direction.

You may as well say "The Orthodox Jews and the Settlers" don't really matter because 'they are but few'....but they aint.

On February 8, Hamas head Khaled Mashal speaking in Cairo had clarified that "Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong", stating that while Hamas is willing for a ceasefire with Israel, its long term goal remains: elimination of Israel by Islam via a jihad.

Ok... they won't change, so the only direction critics of Israel must now take is.."They don't matter..they are insignificant" (Bennie)

REALITY 102 HAMAS won 76 out of 132 seats. "insignificant" ?

I cannot see why my focus on this group is described as an 'obsession'.

There is a solution for Israel of course.. a rather brutal one. Round up all Hamas leaders, ask them "Do you adhere to your charter" ? if yes, line them up and execute them summarily, no further questions.
If they are committed to their charter, they are committed to your (Israeli) death. Personally, I'd rather see them find Salvation that would also end the problem with a much nicer outcome.

If I was a Palestinian Christian stuck in Israel or the West Bank I reckon I would support HAMAS, there is no other political force that is supporting my right to exist.

As it is, I am a a nominal christian living near the author and I support the author's right to express and opinion that is not totally in support of the Israeli government and the actions of its defence forces.

I have known Larry Stillman for nearly 20 years. It will not surprise him, however, that whilst I find his article interesting I disagree fundamentally with parts of his argument.

I don’t believe the IAJV petition is as important as Larry suggests. It is the 4th such petition in 25 years in the Jewish community, and all it demonstrates is that a minority of Jews don’t agree with the Israeli Government. Surprise, surprise. I doubt it will go much further simply because many of the signatories are driven mostly by a left political identity, rather than a specifically Jewish identity. Hence they will only get involved spasmodically if at all in Jewish affairs.

As for the contents, much of it is little more than a motherhood statement. The key issue is around the motivations and agendas of the main organizers. In principle, a petition like this could serve a positive purpose: to remind many on the anti-Zionist Left that Jews hold a diversity of views, to educate the Left about Jewish concerns and emotions regarding Israel, and to promote some sort of constructive dialogue between Jews and the Left, and perhaps even between Jews and Arabs/Palestinians. However, this would only happen if the organizers were acting broadly in solidarity with Jewish concerns.

It seems to me more likely, however, that the organizers see the petition as a means of extending an existing one-sided anti-Israel agenda. This means that the petition will probably end up being used to reinforce existing prejudices about Jews and Israel in sections of the Left, and that some left-wing Jews will find themselves being paraded – naively or otherwise – as “good” Jews used to knock down the overwhelming majority of “bad” Jews. This sort of happening of course has a long history dating back to the defence by some Jewish communists of Stalinist anti-Semitism in the early 1950s, and the various Jewish “anti-Zionist fronts” in the 1970s and 80s. I suspect this is what we are about to see here.

Philip Mendes

Sorry to get back to the original article but first look at Lowenstein's own website to see his beliefs, then consider why the publicity given to a small group is unpopular with many Jews in Australia. (Actually the majority have never heard of him or his group, or for that matter Larry Stillman).

Actually the firestorm is more like a cigarette lighter, 430 signatures from over 100,000 people is hardly a spark. The only reason why Jewish organisations even bothered to reply is because their group's publicity implied that the other 100,000 plus were not interested in a peaceful settlement . Such a misrepresentation could not go unchallenged in the public domain.

And what is the Jewish community that Larry and Lowenstein's voices think denies the right of expression? I and my relos and the Jewish friends I grew up with are all from families who arrived in the 1880s or earlier. Others have quite different backgrounds and different views on religion but if we have heard of Larry Stillman at all we wonder who in the hell he and his minuscule band of supporters are.

Their antics are a bit embarrassing to us all, what is the Jewish left - a hangover from Trotskyism? Is our dear writer living in the same century as myself?

forgot this bit.

Firstly a couple of corrections. The former editor of the now defunct Jewish Herald was Mark Braham, not Paul Bram. And to the best of my knowledge Braham is still alive in Sydney. And lest he be seen as some sort of “anti-Zionist martyr”, it should be pointed out that for the last 20 years he has appeared to be an unapologetic admirer of the Israeli hard right.

And secondly, AJDS was admitted to the JCCV not recently, but back in 1994. This is important because the Jewish community changed significantly following the 1993 Oslo Accord. Prior to 1993, the Zionist Federation of Australia was aggressively supportive of Likud’s Greater Israel viewpoint, and regularly denounced AJDS as “anti-Zionist” and “anti-Israel” merely for arguing that Israel should talk directly to the PLO to negotiate a land for peace settlement. After Oslo, this argument became ridiculous. So the community began to accept a much wider diversity of views.

Today, the roof bodies of the Jewish community all state their support for a two-state solution which is a remarkable turnaround from 15 years ago. Larry may feel this position is insincere. My response would be to engage with their perspective, and to test it out.

Larry uses terms such as “tribal mentality”, “vilifying” etc. to describe the attitude of some Jewish leaders to the IAJV petition. But as I have said before in OLO, this is no different to other ethnic communities. You don’t see 400 Greeks publishing a petition in The Age supporting the Macedonians in their dispute with the Greek Government. You don’t see hundreds of Serbians marching in defence of Croatian national rights. And you never see Australian Palestinians condemning suicide bombings.

Thanks very much to Radical Phil for capturing my Paul Bram for Mark Braham error: And thanks for the date correction on the entry of AJDS into the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. In both cases, I was working from memory.

I also think Radical Phil makes an interesting point about the lack of 'counter' voices in Palestinian or Serbian communities. It may be in part due to the nature of diaspora politics in Australia--the pressure to conform toe the party line (familiar?). On the other hand, there are a number of Palestinians (e.g. Maher Mugrabi) who have been quite outspoken in condemning extremism.

Phil Mendes is off the mark when he says that it is 'more likely, however, that the organizers see the petition as a means of extending an existing one-sided anti-Israel agenda.' and that left-Jews will be paraded Stalin-style. There are elements of unproven conspiracy theorising here. There is a further problem in Phil's use of ther generic and emotive term 'anti-Israel agenda'. If I support the position taken by Matzpen, or Yesh Gevul or any of the anti-occupation and civil rights organisations that exist in Israel, it appears that these are 'anti-Israel' in the essentialist of world view that Phil believes the left has moved into to, hammer and tong. Of course Phil knows that the members of these Israeli organisations believe that Israel is facing an enormous democratic challenge but they are not anti-Israel as much as anti-racism, anti-occupation etc.

And so what if IAJV is the 3rd or 4th petition over the years--I think we all admit that things have not got better despite all tinkering around the edges, and the constant tit-for-tat acts of violence that have got nowhere. Hence the attempts to open up debate.

As for Logic who says he hasn't heard of me or any of the other signatories-- well, he hasn't been reading the Jewish News then, to which I have been contributing on and off since early 1989! And we can't all be famous!

Lary Stillman