Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Might I just say at the outset that I extend best wishes to Senator Santoro and his family in his new career. Today I want to speak in this matter of public interest debate on the increasing incidence of anti-Semitism that is occurring both in Australia and around the world.

It is a fact that anti-Semitism is increasing. It is substantially increasing in terms of not only commentary but also physical attacks aimed at individuals. In recent years we have witnessed in this country a substantial increase in anti-Jewish attacks, including assaults, vandalism and harassment. Late last year the Executive Council of Australian Jewry noted that, in the 12 months to September 2006, the incidence of such attacks and intimidation had increased by almost 50 per cent over the annual average since figures first began to be collated in 1989. The B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission has reported similarly on this phenomenon of increasing anti-Semitism. I should at this point put on the record my congratulations to and support of both of those organisations. In addition to the work they do in monitoring anti-Semitism, they have also been strong advocates for promoting racial and religious harmony in this country.

Some of the very serious incidents that have occurred in recent times include vandalism and arson of synagogues, vandalism of a rabbi’s home, physical attacks upon Jewish students and worshippers leaving synagogues and festivals, hate mail, abusive and threatening telephone messages, and graffiti on Jewish community facilities. Indeed, for a number of years now, the Jewish community has had to spend many hundreds of thousands of dollars simply providing security for students at Jewish schools and people attending other community facilities.

No doubt the increase is linked to the ongoing problems in the Middle East and the increasing tendency to blame Israel for these problems, irrespective of the facts. Demonising the state of Israel has become fashionable. Of course, there has never been any shortage of people ready to peddle vicious anti-Semitic hatred and perpetuate myths and slanders, such as the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the blood libel allegations.

However, what is very disturbing is the growing trend today towards anti-Semitism and demonising Israel and Jews under the guise of academic research and/or political analysis and debate. The most notable instances in the last year or so have been the outrageous comments by people such as Sheik Hilali in Sydney and also, on the international stage, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In October 2005 President Ahmadinejad publicly called for the state of Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’. He made his speech in Tehran at a conference which was entitled, ‘The World Without Zionism’. President Ahmadinejad also condemned any proposals by Arab or Islamic nations or leaders at that time to eventually recognise Israel by stating:

Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic Nation’s fury—

while—

any leader—

that is, any Islamic leader—

who recognises the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and the defeat of the Islamic world.

President Ahmadinejad, of course, then went on to organise the infamous conference of Holocaust deniers held in Tehran in December 2006. He spuriously claimed that this conference was being held to examine scientifically the evidence on whether or not the Holocaust actually occurred. He claimed that this was an example of free speech in his country, yet the conference was attended by well-known Holocaust deniers and sceptics. In his address to that conference, President Ahmadinejad again called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He stated:

Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.

Obviously, President Ahmadinejad does not know his history, whether it relates to the Holocaust or to the Soviet Union. As we all know, the Soviet Union was not wiped out; rather, it collapsed from within due to its lack of freedom, democracy and human rights. Anything in excess of such a blatant rejection of the principles of the United Nations Charter by President Ahmadinejad could not be envisaged.

What is particularly disgraceful is that only three months earlier, in September last year, President Ahmadinejad attended and addressed the United Nations General Assembly. Here is a leader of a country which is a member of the United Nations publicly calling for another United Nations member state, a state that was created by the United Nations, to be wiped off the map, yet turning up in New York to address that assembly. It is sheer hypocrisy. This, of course, is the same leader and the same regime that continues to fund and arm Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations.

Of course at the end of the day the UN General Assembly reflects its own membership. Notwithstanding the fact that Israel was the first country specifically created by a decision of the UN General Assembly in 1948, the UN does not have a particularly good record when it comes to even-handedness on Israel and Middle Eastern issues. The UN conference on racism in Durban some years ago is a classic example. It ultimately turned into a blatant and disgraceful racist attack on Israel by countries whose own records on human rights, equality for women and religious tolerance are nothing short of appalling.

It is easy for people to dismiss President Ahmadinejad as some extremist, but we do so at our peril. People who believe in democracy and equality, whether on the Right or the Left, need to publicly stand up and condemn him. In the last year or so in Australia there has been an argument advanced by critics of Israel’s policies that they are being muzzled by the so-called Jewish lobby. The argument mirrors similar claims in the United States, which were advanced in March last year by two academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. In summary, Messrs Mearsheimer and Walt argued that US foreign policy was controlled by a powerful Israel lobby. Their analysis was criticised by several commentators and an ongoing public debate ensued.

In Australia, in the following month, on 18 April, Antony Loewenstein, a well-known critic of Israel’s policies, wrote an article in the Australian defending Messrs Mearsheimer and Walt from the criticisms of their analysis. At the heart of Mr Loewenstein’s argument, which is also developed in his later book entitled My Israel Question, is the proposition that any attempt to criticise Israel and its policy is being prevented by an Israel lobby, both in the United States and here in Australia. Let me quote a couple of extracts from his article titled ‘Don’t let any lobby shut down debate’. The subtitle of the article is ‘Two distinguished US international relations specialists are being demonised for criticising Washington’s close relationship with Israel, laments Antony Loewenstein’. He may not have been responsible for that subtitle but clearly it reflects the article. He says:

The extraordinary reaction to the Mearsheimer-Walt article suggests that the Israel-US relationship is out of bounds.

He goes on:

Public debate on the subject is routinely curtailed by intimidation and slander initiated by the Zionist lobby. In a healthy democracy, Israel’s policies should not be immune to criticism. However, this seems to be the status quo: Israel remains a blind spot on the US administration.

He goes on to speak about Australia:

An Israel lobby also exists in Australia, though it is far less influential than its US counterpart. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council claims to represent the interests of the Jewish community in Australia and maintains strong ties with the Labor and Liberal parties.

He continues:

It would appear that even the mild proposition that the Palestinian people should have the right of self-determination is taboo.

And then:

For those who seek a just and peaceful solution to problems in the Middle East, it is disheartening to witness the attack on a reasoned paper analysing the US-Israel relationship ... It would be an indication of an ailing democracy if interest groups prevailed in the public sphere.

Mr Loewenstein’s allegations are absolutely ridiculous. They are also hypocritical. Firstly, the very fact that Mr Loewenstein’s article appeared in the Australian newspaper, and that his book, published subsequently, has gained such prominence in the public debate and in the media, including the Jewish media in this country, demonstrates the fallacy of his argument. Following publication of his book by Melbourne University Publishing, Mr Loewenstein received nationwide coverage in both the printed and electronic media. The coverage of this debate went on for weeks, so it is ludicrous to argue that he has somehow been prevented from debating these issues and from having his views heard.

The debate about Israel’s policies, the US’s policies and the Middle Eastern conflicts is very much alive in this country, just as it is in the United States and throughout the Western world. It is very much alive, particularly in the state of Israel itself, which is a strong democracy, albeit one that has been under constant threat for all of its existence. The evidence of that debate stands in stark contrast to most Islamic and Arab nations. I note that my colleague Senator Stephens earlier this year raised in the Senate the plight of Mr Salah Choudhury. Mr Choudhury is a journalist in Bangladesh who had the temerity to write an article criticising Islamic extremism and supporting interfaith dialogue, particularly between Christians, Muslims and Jews. He is now on trial for sedition in Bangladesh.

The second point I want to make is that whilst I have read many articles in the Australian media by commentators such as Mr Loewenstein, Professor Amin Saikal and others criticising Israel, I am still waiting to read an article by them criticising Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic attacks and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. I very much doubt that those articles, if they have been written, have been censored or prevented from being published.

Thirdly, when it comes to pressure being applied to prevent public debate, the worst instance that I can recall was the call a couple of years ago by academics in the United Kingdom, supported by academics in this country and in other Western countries, for a boycott of Israel, Israeli academics and institutions. Indeed, in the United Kingdom, Jewish academics were sacked for the very fact that they were Jewish. When academics in a democratic country call for a boycott of academics in another democratic country simply because they are Jewish then we have a serious problem. I do not recall Mr Loewenstein ever condemning that action.

A tactic that is also used in criticising Israel is to use the language that is particularly pertinent to the Jewish experience. Israel has been accused of ethnic cleansing, of genocide, of war crimes, of apartheid and even of perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian people. That is absolute nonsense and it is anti-Semitic. When your country has been threatened with annihilation, when your people have experienced the Holocaust—the murder of six million Jews—is it any wonder that persons from that community will stand up and defend their country’s right to exist and their people’s right to peace and democracy in the face of anti-Semitism? (Time expired)