Cont..

I also want to directly apologise to the Palestinian people for my country's abstention at the UN vote. I am sorry that our government did not see its way clear to support your striving through one of the few peaceful means you have available for achieving statehood. Please believe I truly feel as a whole we are better than this and hopefully in the future we can assist in easing the hurdles that are preventing you becoming the independent nation you deserve to be. This does not mean we forsake the right to rebuke your government if it transgresses international law, or your military if it causes civilian deaths, or your people if they are determined to deny the right of others to live peacefully. I realise this may seem hypocritical given our obvious acquiescence to even the more egregious actions of the state of Israel, but I ask the you understand that often leaders in a democracy place their personal stamp on foreign policy. On the question of your people former prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard have done both your nation and ours a disservice.

Perhaps our future will bring a leader whose commitment to international peace and justice will be more even handed and reflect the way most of us would like to think of our country's moral weight. Though there is no doubt in my mind that even though we were not in the half dozen nations that voted against the Palestinian recognition the very fact we were in the small majority that abstained has served to diminish us. My own patriotism is fed from a firm belief that as a whole my fellow citizens, once properly informed, are capable of judging what is right and wrong, of determining the bully from the oppressed, and of condemning obvious injustice. It is plain to see our former and current leadership, with the help of very influential lobby groups, have managed to strip us of that clarity. Return it and we will again stand tall.

Csteel, this government has no moral conscience whatsoever. They have no policy that cannot be disjointed if there is a political imperative to do so. The political imperative in this instance is the Arab vote in key Labor electorates, nothing more nothing less.

Dear sonofgloin,

I'm not saying the Muslim representation wasn't a factor and Gerard Henderson tries to make the same argument.

“Labor frontbenchers and backbenchers alike appeared to brief journalists that a reason for the decision turned on the need to appeal to the Muslim vote in potentially marginal seats, particularly in western and south-west Sydney.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/un-vote-unlikely-to-help-fragile-labor-20121203-2ar53.html#ixzz2EB4MwbF4

But similar accusations were directed at Evatt when he drove the move to have Jerusalem be an 'international city',

“Evatt pushed hard for the resolution. There is considerable controversy over his motivation, but the best evidence suggests it was probably a desire to win Catholic votes in the Australian parliamentary election of December 1949”
http://jcpa.org/article/a-distant-affinity-the-history-of-australian-israeli-relations-2/

And it doesn't take into account the very heavy lobbying of Gillard by Bob Hawke and Gareth Evans. I would trust that both had their eye on priorities other than marginal Sydney seats.

I'm still prepared to give credit where it is due even if an abstention was certainly not a strong moral position to take it is better than what we would have got from Abbott.

But look at the lengths Henderson goes to to justify a 'Yes' vote;

“the position adopted by Gillard, Conroy and Shorten was in no sense extreme. It was consistent with the social democrats in President Barack Obama's administration in the United States, with the political conservatives in Stephen Harper's government in Canada and with the stance of the Czech Republic.”

Since when is 9 out of 188 nations not an extreme position? To put it in a local perspective double that percentage of Australians voted NO! in the 1967 Aboriginal referendum.

Bolt called it “a betrayal of voters and our national interest.”. Why is it against our national interest to take a moral position on the Palestinian people striving for independence and freedom from oppression? (I note the original article showed Israeli missiles raining down on Gaza. The online version now shows Israelis in bomb shelters.)

Henderson and Bolt debase the notion of a fair go in relation to the Palestinians. They are among the worst of us.

Why would Australia take sides in the Palestine – Israel conflict. The western world created the problems when it gave Israel land in about 1948 that other people lived in. The western world should help both nations resolve the differences. It is not helped by both sides using killing as a means of dispute resolution instead of discussion. “An eye for an eye” on both sides means they will keep on fighting until the last eye is removed.

Dear csteele,

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is
vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and
international sanction - out of all proportion to any other
party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so
is dishonest."
(Thomas Friedman, 2002).

Dear Lexi,

It is a hugely interesting personal issue and one that engages me still, but I have come to some conclusions about my contributions on OLO regarding the Israel/Palestinian situation and how they may be judged when calls of anti-semite have arisen in the past, or as they do now.

This is the path my thinking took and you are welcome to challenge any of it.

By far the most prolific article writer on this web site is David Singer with often weekly contributions on Israel that all but the most biased of readers would consider extremely one sided and many would consider racist. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say for an Australian site this focus is out of the ordinary.

As a long time consumer of OLO I try and do some research about any of the topics I choose to respond to and over the years these have been delightfully varied. And thanks to OLO I have become far more informed than I may otherwise have been on these topics and attained far more insight than I might have garnered as a casual reader of the news.

Therefore the combination of Mr Singer's intransigence, the issue being front and centre on a site I enjoy, the knowledge I have accumulated, the fact that over recent years I find myself more and more leaving topics like religion or politics for the new folk, now mean a larger percentage of my posts are about Israel and the Palestine.

This is not attempting to justify myself to you rather to explain how I am comfortable with that focus even though it means Thomas is again directed my way. By the way I accept his sentiment but don't personally accept his argument.

To conclude, if instead of Mr Singer we had a weekly diet of contributions from an apologist for the regime in Iran, explaining why the repressions of their minorities was completely justifiable due to their terrorist acts, then I venture my focus would likely be different.