Dear Voterland,

Australia took a position on a homeland because of the horrors of what had been done to the Jewish people through the Holocaust. That some of the impetus was driven by guilt is undeniable, but there was undoubtedly a sense of it being the right and just thing to do and as I have stated earlier I am proud of my country's contribution to assisting them to realise the state of Israel.

The problems now is that 'sense of the right and just' has been subsumed by the expediency of our relationship with the US and a powerful pro-Israel lobby within Australia. Of course residual guilt plays its part, as it should in my opinion, but our current responses to Israel's actions fall far short of what is appropriate for a nation such as ours.

Dear csteele,

Firstly let me say that my previous quote
was not directed at you, it was intended for those (like Mr Singer)
who accuse anyone who dares to criticise the actions of Israel
of anti-Semitism.

As Edward Said stated in 2002, "The real question of Israel's existence: whether it can exist as a state
like all others, or must always be above
the constraints and duties of all other states in
the world today. The record is not reassuring."

It does not help that we are generally ill served by our media's
reporting of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The predominance of
the Israeli (as the aggrieved party) and US perspectives means that
the Palestinian narrative and motivation remain murky. This of course
suits certain agendas and does not contribute to a balanced view
of the competing histories.

I also was very disappointed by our government's position on
this matter but not surprised.

In abstaining, Australia took sides. There is no right side to take, but at least Palestinians should be allowed a more level playing-field by approaching parity with Israel's UN status, which is what we should have voted for.

The UN created Israel and can equally uncreate it and replace it with a democratic secular state (including Gaza and the West Bank) for all inhabitants.

What should be its name?

OK, pigs might fly but what other alternative exists to the escalation/de-escalation cycle, which will eventuallly turn into catastrophe as larger and larger portions of both sides become radicalized?

Dear Lexi,

I wasn't sure how to take your previous post so I took it as it came, though I am grateful for the response you have given.

To explain a little more about accepting Friedman's sentiment but not his argument it is interesting to note Chomsky's position on the BDS movement against Israel. He makes the point that without the imprimatur of the US Israel would not feel it has the leeway to act as it does. Therefore to be attacking only Israel and not the US is anti-Semitic. He does have a point. But Friedman's position seems to be that unless one has a record of condemning other middle eastern states, some of which have pretty vile records, then one is being anti-Semitic.

I would make the case than as Israel is predominately made up of colonising European Jews not only do we identify with them culturally but we expect them to exhibit values that are closer to ours rather than many other nations in the Middle East.

It is that empathy that allowed us to contemplate, then accept to the colonisation and dispossession of a people.

That empathy has now seemingly turned into an illness, an almost perverse infatuation from our leaders and our media. I think we have a fair way to go to get well again.

Dear csteele,

Successive US administrations have offered little more than
lip-service to the principle of an even-handed approach to the
Israel-Palestine conflict. And I don't see this changing
any time soon.

Edward Said, 2003 summed things up thus:

"Wherever you look in the Congress there are tell-tale
signs either of the Zionist lobby, the right-wing Christians,
or the military-industrial complex, three inordinately
influential minority groups who share hostility to the
Arab world, unbridled support for extremist Zionism, and an
insensate conivction that they are on the side of the angels."

The US a peace-broker? It would be foolish for people to think
that somehow the US is neutral.