An embarrassing stance for the PM
THERE will be two especially red faces in Canberra this week, one of them Prime Minister Julia Gillard's and the other Israeli ambassador Yuval Rotem's, given Ms Gillard was rolled in her bid to have Australia vote against Palestine being accorded observer state status at the UN, forced into an abstention instead. Tel Aviv's prompt and provocative response, announcing it will build another 3000 settler homes in occupied east Jerusalem and the West Bank, will only deepen the Gillard embarrassment, serving as it will to make the point that Israel remains preoccupied with its own concerns while providing another 3000 legitimate reasons for Palestinians to express their anger.
Brian Haill, Frankston
The right conditions
YOUR editorial ("A small step for Palestine, and peace", 29/11) risks the opposite of "cynicism" - romanticism - with its assertion of Palestinian desire for peace. The reality lies in the Palestinian conditions for peace, or even talks, which are impossible for Israel to accommodate. The "intractable hostilities that have waged for decades" have been due to the refusal of Arab nations to accept the Jewish state, or a Palestinian state that could have existed 65 years ago, when the UN announced the partition of Palestine in 1947. You say, "Israel must deal with Palestine as a nation - that is the simple premise of a two-state solution". Surely, the Palestinians must also deal with Israel as a nation. Until they accept the right of Israel to exist there can be no real talking. The peace-pushers need to recognise that.
Liat Nagar, Inverloch
Analogy is offensive
HAROLD Zwier ("Leunig's cartoon deserves a more thoughtful Jewish response", Comment, 30/11) shamefully dismisses the legitimate concerns of many in the Jewish community that Michael Leunig's cartoon published in The Age (Comment, 21/11) was offensive, inflammatory and beyond the pale because it implied Israel was acting like Nazi Germany. According to the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, forms of anti-Semitism include "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" - and that is what Leunig's cartoon did. It is also worth recalling that Melbourne is home to a large population of Holocaust survivors, whose sensibilities should be respected.
Colin Rubenstein, executive director,
Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, South Melbourne
A common humanity
LEUNIG'S sensibility is to be commended for exposing the darker truths shadowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The issues of social justice and the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people need urgent resolution. This is not anti-Semitic. It is about sharing a common humanity and responsibly working towards a just solution where peace is the outcome. Australia is beginning to see the light with its decision not to vote against Palestinians in the United Nations vote.
Carmen Jankovskis, Wheelers Hill
Opening our minds
HAROLD Zwier's comment that "the power of a cartoon is in the many ways in which it can be interpreted" is even more true than he articulates. A cartoonist with depth of thought such as Leunig puts a concept in our heads and can make us relate it to personal experience. That is the power of cartoonists - to help us think just a little bit deeper - and, maybe, think about the world from a different perspective.
Sue Acheson, Rokeby
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What was Australia’s position in the UN vote on Palestinian observer state status?
According to the article, Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to have Australia vote against Palestine being accorded observer state status at the UN but was overruled and Australia ultimately abstained from the vote.
Why did commentators describe the Prime Minister’s stance on the Palestine UN vote as embarrassing?
The article reports that commentators called it embarrassing because Ms Gillard was ‘rolled’ in her attempt to secure a vote against and was forced into an abstention. That perceived political defeat was highlighted further by Israel’s immediate announcement to build 3,000 new settler homes, which writers said compounded the embarrassment.
What announcement did Israel make after the UN vote, and why did letters say it mattered?
The article says Tel Aviv announced plans to build another 3,000 settler homes in occupied east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Letter writers argued that the move was provocative, would deepen diplomatic embarrassment, and would give Palestinians additional reasons to express anger.
What views did letter writers express about the two‑state solution and conditions for peace?
Letters in the article presented contrasting views: some argued Israel must deal with Palestine as a nation (supporting a two‑state premise), while others said Palestinians must also accept Israel’s right to exist before meaningful talks can occur. Writers stressed that conditions on both sides shape the prospects for peace.
What was the controversy around Michael Leunig’s cartoon mentioned in the article?
The article describes criticism that Leunig’s cartoon implied Israel was acting like Nazi Germany; critics called it offensive and inflammatory, citing the European Union monitoring centre’s position that such comparisons can be a form of anti‑Semitism. Other correspondents defended the cartoon as drawing attention to humanitarian and social‑justice issues rather than being anti‑Semitic.
How did representatives of the Jewish community react to the cartoon and coverage?
A quoted Jewish community representative in the article said the cartoon shamefully dismissed legitimate concerns and offended many, particularly noting Melbourne’s large population of Holocaust survivors whose sensibilities should be respected.
How did other letter writers defend the cartoon and call for a humanitarian perspective?
Some writers defended Leunig’s sensibility, saying his work exposes darker truths about the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict and urges a focus on social justice and the humanitarian needs of Palestinians. Those writers argued such critique is not inherently anti‑Semitic and welcomed Australia’s decision not to vote against Palestine at the UN.
What do the letters in the article suggest about Australian public sentiment on the Palestine UN vote?
The letters reflect a mix of opinions in Australia: frustration with political handling of the vote, concern about provocative settlement announcements, debate over the two‑state solution and mutual recognition, and divided views over whether strong criticism of Israeli policy crosses into anti‑Semitism or is a valid humanitarian critique.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
