Prioritising Values over Virtues creates a human desert
 
Four women and nine children are currently trying to negotiate a return to Australia after several years spent in the al-Roy camp in Syria.  Help or hindrance afforded them will speak volumes about the character of Australians, as interpreted and asserted by strident political voices. What kind of people are we? What kind of people do we want to be?

Character will also be on display at the Farrer by-election, as people choose to vote out of perceived grievance or out of a desire for a more just, sustainable and more harmonious future. It will be on display in the May budget, when the treasurer chooses between reform that delivers greater equity and justice, or yields to voices which demand their advantage be protected.  It will be on even greater display in the commentary made upon it. It was on display, for good, at the recent ANZAC celebrations with overwhelming condemnation of booing as First Nations speakers delivered Welcome to Country.

Let me come to the hub of the issue.  Political discourse is increasingly focussed on what are called values. Values are the principles or standards that individuals or groups consider important in life, such as family, freedom, keeping people safe, democracy, rules, or success.  Values reflect what is prioritised at any given time, they shape decisions or actions.

Virtues speak to who we are. They are enduring qualities such as kindness, mercy, generosity, hospitality, courage. A civilisation will not endure because of its values but because of virtues. Values tend to become increasingly self-serving, especially in times of uncertainty or tension. An attempt to formulate a moral code, or legal manifesto, on values is misplaced, it must emanate from the treasuring of virtues.

It is the case that Christian virtues are increasingly mocked by the rich and powerful as seen by the treatment of Pope Leo by the White House. Disdain was also clear for all to see at the inauguration of Donald Trump’s second term when the Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, held before the incoming president the virtue of mercy. He was both incredulous and affronted. Let us stay with this virtue, which according to the biblical Micah, along with humility and justice, are the three requirements of a moral life and of a sustainable civilisation.

Without mercy, scapegoating, resentment, a cycle of violence, become inevitable.

The vile ideology of ISIS emerged following the absence of mercy accorded Sunni people and their remaining leadership, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the assumption of power by the Shia. Just War theory covers three components: conditions prevailing before war is declared that might justify intervention; the manner war is prosecuted (protection of civilian population, humane treatment of prisoners etc); and provisions which accord dignity and prevent humiliation when conflict is over. As is often the case, there was abject failure when the war ended. Unless a cycle of violence is ended with mercy, it is perpetuated.

There are a variety of reasons why these Australian women joined the ISIS movement by moving to Syria. We will probably never know the reason that prevailed in each case. That some did so under duress is almost certainly the case.

Their return home, and especially that of the children must be facilitated. For it not to be, is an indictment upon the character of Australia and Australians. We are not people who abandon any of our citizens, no matter how unlovely their actions may have been. They may need to be protected from themselves, or in some circumstance we may need to be protected from them. But they are our citizens, it is not the responsibility of others.  Of course, a huge responsibility of care and nurture will sit on the shoulders of family, neighbours and community at large.  It will not be easy for them to reintegrate. If criminality needs to be addressed, then it should be addressed.  It is most unlikely that an offence equal to that of David Hicks has been committed.  It was right that in his case he was brought back into Australian life, it is even more right for these women and children.

Repatriation of these women and children should receive bipartisan support. We have the capacity to rehabilitate them.  We have the obligation. We have the capacity to keep the community safe. As people, we should not be demeaned by the latest or loudest dog whistle.

Because the Liberal Party has lost so many votes to One Nation it is falling over itself to compete for the populous vote.  The populous vote in democracies worldwide is fed by growing resentment. This is most unsuitable ground upon which to construct policy. The victims of resentment are most frequently not the cause of it.

 We might expect resentment in autocracies, but why in democracies?   In democracies we expect a fair go, a measure of equity, equality.  There is a growing sense that this is not happening, clearly a small section of the community is not simply privileged but extraordinarily wealthy.   Someone is to blame.  Governments, institutions, ethnic, and religious difference, migrants, the choice of people to blame is somewhat arbitrary, as seen a few years ago by the singling out of the South Sudanese community.

In this environment it takes enormous courage to enact reform that protects our better selves. By its very nature reform means altering the balance of advantage that some have held in relation to others.   
Some years ago, I was a participant in a debate at the National Library of Australia led by Philip Adams on the topic: “Does humanity have a future”. 

Half the speakers were from the sciences, half from the arts, one from religion! The outcome was in the negative. It is difficult to summarise the arguments, but a simple summary is that values, which science exists to serve, provide little assurance for sustainable life in a world which prioritises them over virtue, the character of what it means to be truly human.  In contrast with the sciences, the arts, at their best, lay bare the character of humanity, our inner virtue - or not.  It is telling that political prioritising, through the allocation of resources, favours the sciences over the arts.  Even more telling, political discourse condemns artistic expression through music, poetry, writing, or design when it challenges contemporary political value systems.

 All the gold which is on or under the earth is not enough to exchange for virtue.   Plato
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Regime change in the US

What is driving the current Middle East conflict, causing untold pain and destruction to those in the firing line and unprecedented global disruption to the rest of us?  Is it possible that the contestants, Iran on one side and the USA/Israel on the other, sing from the same song sheet? Although polar opposite, their values appear driven by theocratic mindsets which not only permit, but which honour violence as a tool of enforcement. Are they in fact competitors for theocratic dominance?

That Iran is a theocracy is not debatable. From its belief system, its citizens experience suppression of female rights, imposition of Sharia Law, and punishment of those who do not comply.  It considers freedoms enjoyed in western culture to be a debasement of their understanding of what it means to be a child of God.  In Iran there is no separation of religion and politics, indeed politics exists to enforce religious belief.

 The constitution of most so-called Christian countries was formulated with separation of politics and religion. In a Christian framework the role of faith is not to govern, or to seek preference, but to be the teacher’s teaching. In other words, the mission of Christians in any community is to be agents of Christ’s transformative love, grace and mercy – no more, no less.

Israel does not claim to be a theocracy. Twenty percent of its population are Palestinians. Many, perhaps most, of its citizens are secular, but Zionism, belief that this land has been given to them (from God?), drives their identity and their military and political practice. What has been done, and continues to be done, to Gaza is now being done to the West Bank and Southern Lebanon.  Its brazenness and contempt for international opinion, let alone international law, is breathtaking. Netanyahu has said in as many words “morality is weakness”.

There is no question that Zionism is front and centre as cause in this conflict. Would Iran be so keen to possess a nuclear bomb if Israel did not already possess that capability?

Now the USA.  The US is not a theocracy, but many of the most vociferous of Donald Trump’s supporters are theocratic Christian nationalist believers, people to whom the President is indebted.  Appointments made to the Supreme Court have moved the US in that direction. However, the most significant proponent of theocratic idealism is Pete Hegseth, Minister for War. The change of title from ‘defence’ back to ‘war’, reversing the move made by Harry Truman, underlines the legitimacy of proactive violence in the pursuit of ideals.

In making the change, Donld Trump argued that under the more passive title “we didn’t do much winning. With a department of war, we win”.

Pete Hegseth is affiliated with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), he attends Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship in Tennessee. The Church is committed to ‘Christian reconstructionist thought’, namely the reordering of society under a biblical mandate and a conservative understanding of biblical law. In this understanding, government should exist to serve biblical law.

Hegseth’s tattoos are revealing. Deus Vult, ‘God wills it’ tattooed to his arm and the Jerusalem Cross tattooed to his chest make clear his veneration of the 12th century Crusades and the crusaders.  Indeed, he claims those of us who live as descendants of European Christianity owe a great debt to the crusaders for the freedoms we enjoy. The use of the cross by Hegseth and the Crusaders subverts the symbol’s intent. It is an ancient symbol, representing the suffering of Christ for the world as told by the four Gospels.

There can be little clean skin left for further tattoos, but last year Hegseth added the word Kafir which refers to one who is not a Muslim.

When confronted by the fact US armaments had destroyed a Girls School in Tehran, he invoked Deus Vult, meaning that if this happened it would have been as God intended.

Hegseth’s world view brings him into direct and intended confrontation with the Islamic world: the Islamic world of the Crusades and the Islamic world of today.  He clearly values violence as an appropriate tool in this confrontation, praying recently that each shot, each bomb, each missile would hit its mark with maximum effectiveness.

Recent protest marches brutally put down in Tehran and throughout Iran, indicate that Iranian leadership and direction is not supported by its people.

Polls in the US make it clear that the direction taken by Donald Trump as President and implemented by Pete Hegseth as Secretary for War, is not supported by an overwhelming majority of US citizens.
The exception is Israel. It appears most Israelis support the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF.

The price Israel’s Zionist ambitions have imposed upon the Palestinian people is unbearable.  The cost these ambitions are now imposing on the whole global community, should be enough for all to realise Israel has become a pariah state. “From the River to the Sea, everyone should be free” (that includes Jewish people), should be chanted from the roof tops, not least in Queensland where it is now a criminal offence.

Trump has never been clear about why he entered the war and is now far from clear what he hopes to achieve by the blockade. His claim to have ‘won’ may convince himself, but it convinces no one else.
​
One can only hope that diplomacy will prevail and that an unintended outcome of this war will be regime change in the US, if not in Iran.
 

Easter 2026
 
Iran and the war, (not forgetting Lebanon Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan) are the unwelcome global backdrops to this year’s celebration of Easter. The suffering unleashed and gloated over by the Israeli Prime minister, the US President and his ‘Christian’ Minister for War is immense. What do they know about Iran? The name is derived from ‘Aryan’ meaning noble. Its ancient religion, Zoroastrianism, reframed our understating of linear time. Every age was considered a continuation of battle between good and evil in which humans must choose which side they are on. Ancient Iranians/Aryans/Nobles considered themselves noble warriors on the side of light.  We might strongly disagree, but today, Iran’s expression of Shia Islam, shaped by this philosophy, considers America and Israel the domains of darkness and themselves the warriors of light. These views are clearly reciprocated and reinforced, the longer violence continues.

Locking each other into these views provides no space for transformation and makes more violence inevitable. Violence does not dispel darkness, it deepens it.

As Easter 2026 approaches, most of the globe’s citizens have very good reason for fear that darkness, not light, is the dominant force in current human history. But this is not the message of Easter.  Easter is a celebration of the victory of light and life over darkness and death. How have we arrived at this dark place in human history and wherein does hope lie?

Without Easter there is no Christian faith, so where do we begin?

The Bible begins in Genesis with a picture of nothingness/ darkness into which God speaks. “Let there be light and there was light”. These few words frame our understanding of the energy we call God – the source of light and life. A few verses on we learn that humans are made in this image, all of us (male and female) are Adam, from the earth, with capacity as light bearers.

The New Testament, through the voice of John, begins in similar fashion: “in him was life and the life was the light of the world and the darkness did not/has not/continues not to overcome it”.  This energy, this life, this light becomes incarnate in human form.  In the birth of Jesus, we see what is always true, God, who is light, embraces humanity.  In turn, we are to embrace light (God) and embrace both one another and the natural order which nurtures us all.

John goes on to recognize that people “prefer darkness rather than light”. In other words, we find it more attractive to hold power than to serve, more profitable to exploit than sustain, more self-serving to condemn than to build up. As Ecclesiastes, the most cynical of all biblical books says: it is all vanity and a striving after wind!

The Easter message is that we strive after the wrong things.  We should desire to be rich, not in gold coffers, but in that which enables the human spirit to fly – love of family, enjoyment of beauty, fulfilment in service, restoring what is broken, giving hospitable space for that which is not self. In striving for all the wrong things, why are we so surprised that various forms of mental illness and feelings of isolation (darkness) are the hallmarks of life in a consumer driven world that is full of things, but void of meaningful life.

On the night of his betrayal Jesus said to his disciples: put away your swords. Good Friday and the cross open the heart and mind to the core of Jesus teaching: what you hold on to you lose, what you give away you keep.

On the cross, through his suffering and death he who is Light banishes the darkness. This is such a counter intuitive truth in a world which has come to believe it is only the strong and powerful who win.  No, the strong and powerful do not win, they accumulate sand that slips between the fingers necessitating the constant need for more of it. In the process, what endures has been passed by, leaving the holder of the sand stranded.

The Christian faith was born on Easter morning. First Mary, then disciples and other followers were overwhelmed by the sense of presence of that Light which should have been extinguished but was not.  Paul was later to say “I am convinced that no power, no experience, no event, can separate us from that light which has shone in the person of Jesus”.

This acclamation is made, not denying, but accepting the fact that we prefer darkness rather than light. In other words, the light announced at the dawn of creation will not be denied. Like the hound of heaven, light and goodness will continue to chase us down the meandering paths of life, not even death itself will get in the way, it is not an ending but a transformation.

This is the great hope and joy of Easter. It’s belief has been the bedrock of my 60 years of ministry; that no matter the circumstances of life, the embodied light manifest in Jesus can and will transform the reluctance and waywardness of this mortal human being.
​
The Easter message to Trump, Netanyahu, Hegseth, and Iranian leadership is: put your sword back in its sheath. Embrace kindness and mercy and Easter will embrace you.
 
 

Narrative and those who control it
 
If the worst calculations are correct, that it will take many years for Australia and the world to recover from the economic fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran,  then the US will have done more harm to the so called free world than  China or any other ‘unfriendly’ nation is ever likely to have done in the foreseeable future.

How did this happen? Why did this happen?

The stories that people and nations tell themselves have enormous consequences. 

Vladimir Putin tells himself that the natural jurisdiction of the Russian communist party is the area that approximates to the old Soviet Union.  Anything less than that is, in his story, a diminution of the rights and identity of the Russian people.

The Israeli Knesset, which is not the same as the worldwide Jewish diaspora, tells itself that Greater Israel is the whole land from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean with ‘buffer zones’ that occupy parts of southern Lebanon and Syria, possibly including the biblical ‘Transjordan’ which is part of Jordanian territory.

The story the Knesset tells itself is reinforced by far-right US Christians who hold enormous influence in the US administration, including the Secretary for War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is ironic that those telling this narrative see Israel as a pawn in a greater narrative of ‘Christian’ Armageddon.  Joe Kent the US counter terrorism official has just resigned because he claims this story, this set of beliefs, has led the US into war with Iran.

The stories that Donald Trump tells himself, about himself, and the stories that he tells himself about the US place in the world when combined with the stories of who are the good people and who are the bad people, who are legitimate and who are not in the Middle East, makes for an incendiary situation.

The story that Trump tells himself about himself, is that he is the most intelligent, the most successful, the most righteous, the most everything. It is this belief that enables him to belittle or punish any who do not bend to his will; they are at fault for not recognising his greatness and superiority.

The story Trump tells himself about the necessary supremacy of the US enables him to assert the dominance of the US, especially amongst those who historically have thought of themselves as allies. Imposing tariffs on countries under the false claim they have been trading unfairly is but a small example.

If the story you tell about yourself is untrue, and you act as if it is true, then the consequences which flow will range from mildly inconvenient to monumental. The war in Iran has all the hallmarks of monumental harm, brought about by ill-conceived actions with no thought given to the possible outcomes.  This is not the first time. US wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, were similarly disastrous with insufficient thought given to consequences flowing from the action. Insufficient thought is tied to insufficient knowledge and understanding before intervention is undertaken.  International law is created to protect countries from ill-conceived ventures into conflict. Acting as if the US and Israel live outside the requirements of international law is consequential.

The refusal of Britain, Germany, France and Australia to be drawn into this war is the right ground upon which to stand. But it begs the question: why do we still claim the US is our most important security partner?  In my lifetime thousands of Australian lives have been lost or maimed through participation in US wars. Does hosting American bases on Australian soil make us more, or less secure? Why are we continuing to pursue the AUKUS agreement which seems to pour billions into US coffers and offers the meagre hope that in 20 or 30 years we might have a couple of submarines?

It is sadly the case that Australian culture wars are now being vigorously waged by splinter groups on the right.  These are struggles for ownership of the dominant and formative national story.  On the right of politics, loving Australia means barbecues, ANZAC traditions, the arrival of captain Cook, putting Australia above international obligations, exploiting rather than conserving, exalting European identity above multi-national identity or first nation identity.  

Consciously or unconsciously, individually or nationally, we act because of the narrative we believe to be true.  Media business models are founded not on good journalism, but in promoting a self-interested narrative, with no obvious relationship to evidence.
​
Gaining or holding power is dependent upon controlling the narrative. Those who wish for harmony and concord within the nation and beyond, must pay attention to the narrative being told.
 
 
 

Values, Ethics, Fear
Australian women and children in the Al Roj Camp

We live in a world of deep skepticism.  Skepticism and fear are driven by perceived security threats, economic duress and general uncertainty. It is fueled by mainstream media, social media and ‘influencers’ ready to offer simplistic solutions. It is fed by politicians who politicise fear for partisan political advantage. In this context, what value system can we rely on to draw us to safer ground?

Those on the right, insist our way of life is founded on Judaeo/Christian values and ethics, with acceptable moral behaviour being weighed in relation to these values.

I have no difficulty with this position, in fact endorse it. The ethic is relational; properly understood and acted upon, it sets individuals in a broad communal context, local, national, and global. It is bewildering that the consequence of this value system is deemed ‘left wing’, or ‘woke’ by the very people who claim it to be their foundation.  So, Angus Taylor, David Littleproud or even Anthony Albanese, when you talk about Australian values, or Labour values, or Coalition values, what are you talking about and what are the implications of those values when legislated as policy?  What ethical setting is guiding your rejection of 11 Australian women and their 24 children from retuning to Australia?

If you will allow me, may I articulate Judaeo/Christian values as I understand them, while humbly recognizing they are often badly exhibited by Jewish and Christian institutions and individuals whose responsibility it is to live and proclaim them.

• Human Dignity: Every person is seen as valuable, made in the image of God, and deserving of respect. 

It is a matter of fact that these 34 human beings are Australian citizens and as such are Australia’s responsibility, for their redeeming and restitution, as was the case with David Hicks and Julian Assange.  It is also a matter of fact that the international norm and expectation is that nations will take back their citizens from overseas no matter their behaviour, at the request of nations in which they reside. It has been the expectation of the Kurds and the US and now the Syrian government that these people return to Australia.  Australia acts on the same premise, even with a friendly country such as New Zealand, when one of their citizens has been guilty of a criminal act on Australian soil. To be a nobody is to have no dignity.  National identity is sought and claimed by every human being. Our justice system, properly applied, must both protect dignity and apply justice. Each of the 11 women must be treated fairly and considering the known circumstances surrounding their misadventure. Australian security should make this determination, not politicians and certainly not the shrill voice of biased media operators.

• Love of Neighbour: Ethical behaviour is guided by the principle of loving others as oneself, including acts of kindness, charity, and forgiveness.

It is the case that all of us make poor decisions, and that we are more likely to make these poor decisions when we are young.  It is also the case that when we are young, good or poor decisions depend on the company we keep, and the experiences we have lived through.  We are all dependent on forgiveness and a new start. I understand most of th women were young teenagers when they departed Australia.

Redemption and restitution of the other is a responsibility of all who have power or influence over, or for, others: - governments, employers, parents, security forces.   The urgency of acting for the children is pressing.  It is not possible to care for the children without their mothers.

• Justice and Fairness: Upholding justice, protecting the vulnerable, and striving for fairness are fundamental duties.

It is partly true that we reap what we sow. However, it is also true that we are all victims of movements, changes, forces which impinge upon us and over which we have little or no say or control. The more vulnerable our situation, the more likely we will be manipulated. Striving for justice and fairness is at the heart of the Judaeo/Christian ethic. On this account there can be no question the children should be given the opportunity to build lives of dignity, fulfilment and service. The longer they are left where they are the more inevitable it becomes that they will be radicalised, pursuing a path of disorder and the need for personal vengeance.  It may well be the case that the administration of justice requires some of the women to face criminal charges. So be it.  Let the law take its course.

• Honesty and Integrity:

There is little current honesty or integrity from politicians and some sections of the media in relation to these 34 Australians. Statements from politicians are made based on achieving immediate political gain or investment in future political advantage. Statements from some sections of the media are made based on an exclusive ideology, pandering to racist opinions, and have nothing to do with ethics or morality.

Matters of security should be weighed by Australian security agencies. Matters of law should be determined by human rights lawyers. It is not the role of politicians. 
Politicians on both sides are now making shrill hyperbolic statements that diverge from their earlier more measured statements.

ISIS is a cruel, evil ideology. We should be honest enough to recognise it emerged from the catastrophic bedlam that followed our ill-advised participation in the Iraq war.

                                                                                *********************
The Judaeo/Christian ethic is not primarily individualistic, but relational.  Freedom is not the absence of limits, but the embrace of limits which leads to harmony and fairness. How we fit in the place where we live, with the people who are our neighbour – matters.  As Desmond Tutu said, “We are the sum total of all the lives which intersect with our own”.

Central to this ethic is a deep sense of universal sacredness, an understanding that we all need to walk lightly. Believing everything exists to serve humanity is dangerous hubris.

Populous politics (reactive propositions based in emotion rather than rationality) leads inevitably to divisiveness.  Policy formulated in this manner is dangerous and reaps a harvest of short-termism with errors that are very hard and expensive to correct.
​
Policy should be articulated and defended from a value system. The fate of 34 Australians currently rests on the very shaky ground of emotion stirred to fever pitch by the Bondi massacre.
 

Pillars of Civilian Life

Hate Speech and Anti-Semitism definitions
 
The NSW parliamentary coalition, yes, this one seems intact, is wishing to introduce to the NSW parliament another definition of antisemitism in addition to the IHRA definition and make it a requirement that universities in this State sign up to it, enshrining it in law.

Apart from obvious political grandstanding, an own goal that brought the federal coalition undone following the Bondi massacre, there are a huge number of difficulties, double standards and hypocrisies associated with this proposition. What competency does a political movement have to legislate what is essential an ethical/religious proposition/standard?

If such legislation were to be ever taken seriously it would need to clearly reflect the pillars upon which Australian civil society is based.  But what are those pillars?   That is the difficulty. We can’t rely upon ‘mateship’ to be the sole definer of Australian life! As Noel Pearson has wonderfully articulated, the pillars that existed following British settlement, including the White Australia Policy and Imperial Benevolence no longer apply.  What has taken their place?

Again, as Pearson has frequently articulated, it is necessary to acknowledge Australians embrace three stories: First Nation’s History and Culture, British Institutions of law and governance and Multiculturalism.  Within and across these three stories, none of us has a single identity other than the important one, we are all Australian citizens. Some of us share the same religion but different ethnicity, and vice versa. We have geographical identities, sporting allegiances, different levels of education and wealth, etc. To promote or defend one identity more than another is to be divisive, and by implication devalue others.

On the other hand, to disown or devalue one or other of the three foundational stories that belong to all of us by virtue of our citizenship, is to undermine the character of modern Australia. It is at this level that we Australians are most racist and where we need to invest most energy. Every time an ethnic minority is pilloried, an attempt is being made to reverse the irreversible, Australia’s multi-culturalism.
 On Australia day a bomb was thrown into a large crowd in Perth with the intention of harming First Nations people.  Compared with the continuing outcry following Bondi, the silence in relation to this outrageous act has been deafening.  It is the sad truth that the people most targeted through hate speech in Australia are First Nations people.  In some regions and in some cultural and political groups, such speech is uttered as a badge of honour.

If we are to legislate hate speech definitions, which become actional in the criminal code, we should begin with that which is most prevalent and directed toward First Nations people.

The way the right of politics manipulated a No vote in the Voice referendum was quite disgraceful.  This proposition would not have given one group of people an advantage others did not have, as argued by the right. For this to be the case we would have to look upon first nations people simply as one ethnic group amongst multiple others now living in a global diaspora. No, the Voice referendum was designed to honour the first of the three stories that make up modern Australia for all of us.

So, if government, federal or state, is of a mind to enact legislation designed to protect a section of the community, the place of First Nations people is the place to start. It is sad to acknowledge this will not happen for multiple reasons, not least that the populous voice, courted by the political right, is the cause of the problem.

Seeking legislation to protect one group, ethnic or religious, over and above legislation that exists to protect us all is inevitably to buy into disputes that exist outside the boundaries of this country. Politicians may argue otherwise, but such focus highlights disputes and antagonisms that have their origin elsewhere.

There is no disputing reality that the rise of Australian antisemitism relates to the way Israel has and is prosecuting its campaign against Palestinians, denying rights, taking possessions, and abrogating freedoms which the international community through the UN condemns, but that countries such as Australia condone through their inaction.  Do not expect those who stand for justice to remain silent. To walk by is also to condone.

Isaac Herzog may like to claim criticism of Israel arises out of ignorance of facts on the ground, and is fuelled by the likes of Hamas etc, but he is wrong and wilfully so.  Israel does all it can to shield its own people from its State sponsored shameful acts. Multiple ex IDF soldiers commit suicide because they cannot live with the atrocities they were compelled to commit.  My knowledge is informed not from some Hamas propaganda, but from what I have seen and experienced on the ground.

I do not blame Australian Jews, by association, for what Israel is doing. But my contempt and anger with the Israeli government does not abate and I will continue to condemn any suggestion that Israel and Australia are siblings who share the same values.  We most clearly do not.

Why do I have such anger?

Israel expects the world to endorse the moral code that is embedded in and justifies a Zionist ideology.  This bears absolutely no relationship to the moral code embedded in the Hebrew scriptures from which Judaism has sprung.

Recent Antisemitism definitions require, by implications, respect be given to Zionist aspirations, not Jewish moral code.

It should surprise no one that many Australian Jews and Jewish groups deplore the actions of the state of Israel.

I have long held to three pillars that I believe must undergird civil society.  Funnily enough these pillars are found within Hebrew scriptures, in the book of the prophet Micah.

They are to:  Do Justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.

These pillars are treated with utter disdain by the Israeli government.  The list of injustices perpetrated against Palestinians is well documented by human rights organisations, including Israel’s own.  It is the overwhelming nature of these injustices that has caused the International Criminal Court to accuse Israel of severe breaches of international law.

Mercy appears to be a concept anathema to Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, and many other world leaders.  Mercy was the theme chosen by Bishop Marriane Budde at President Trump’s inauguration and for which she was roundly castigated by him, his followers and a large segment of the Christian community.  It is this total absence of mercy that has led the international court to have said Israel has been guilty of actions so inhumane they can probably be described as war crimes.

Humility is that quality which creates space for others.  Israel will not countenance Palestinians having their own State, nor will Israel countenance Palestinians having the same rights as other citizens anywhere between the river and the sea.  By denying both, there is no space for them to exist.
​
In these circumstances do not expect the Palestinian diaspora in Australia to remain silent, and do not expect those of us who consider these three pillars to be fundamental, not to speak from them.
 

Post Bondi:

All facts are not equally acceptable, all grief is not equally hurtful, all hate is not equally damaging

What has made homo sapiens so successful has been our capacity to migrate and adapt.  Had we not migrated, we would have been a species that sought to thrive or perish on the African continent alone. Our early migration was probably driven by the need to discover new food and other more complex resources. The outcome was the colonisation of new territory, often at the expense of other ancient species.  Over the last 2000 years migration has been similarly driven, but the resulting colonisation has resulted in the strong taking what has belonged to other people less able to defend themselves, often with violence and in some case even removing their right to exist.

Conquest by the strong has not simply been about taking physical resources, it has been about the right to create and tell a new, acceptable, contemporary narrative upon which expectations of conformity are then built.

This Australia day we hung the Australian flag over our deck, but I must confess to considerable ambivalence, given flying the flag seems to have been hijacked by those claiming a narrative of superior patriotism. A few days ago, I was in the main street of our town when a Ute went through, flying six very large Australian flags. Behaving like an entitled thug; at considerable speed the driver wove between traffic and seemed to find the traffic lights an imposition which needed no observance from him.

The one who controls the narrative, holds the power.

What the Bondi massacre and subsequent debate about hate speech has reminded us, is that, depending upon the dominant narrative, all grief is not considered equally painful, all truth is not equally acceptable, all experiences of hate do not cause equal hurt.

When the National Museum of Australia was opened on 11 March 2001, I was present and invited to offer a prayer of blessing. The then director, Dr Dawn Casey, was to quickly discover that a narrative displaying First Nations dispossession, amongst numerous other exhibits, was totally unacceptable to the then government and its Prime Minister who labelled it a ‘black armband’ view of history.  This narrative and its consequences remain unacceptable to a significant and very vocal stream within Australian society, and to the contemporary populist right wing of politics.

Recognising that pain is experienced intergenerationally is generally an unacceptable narrative, except in very rare circumstance, of which the holocaust is one.  It is not that the holocaust should not be forever remembered, it should, but so should the massacre of first nations people in Australia and the Nakba of Palestinian people in their homeland of Palestine. Each is as horrendous for its people as the other. Each has produced huge and perhaps indelible, scars.

Since Bondi there has been an almost exclusive emphasis on dangers inherent in hatred emanating from Islamic extremism.  Such an emphasis is important, given the role that ISIS apparently had in the Bondi massacre, and the role it has played in many parts of the world, including Syria.

However, exclusive emphasis creates distortion.  The most immediate is the effect this emphasis has had on mainstream Islam in Australia.  The hatred now being experienced, by Australian Muslims, especially women who wear the hijab, is barely acknowledged in politics or the press. Apparently, the hatred they experience does not warrant the same attention.

But equally seriously, a distorted emphasis on extreme Islam hides hatreds emanating from the other two Abrahamic religions.  A significant and quite vocal portion of the worldwide Christian community insists the whole of Palestine was given to ‘Israel’ more than 3000 years ago and therefore Palestinians are living on land which is not theirs.  To go into the reasons why this is theologically, historically and culturally nonsense would take up a lot of space, but suffice to say, such language is hateful to Palestinians for it is a denial of their right to exist, their right to enjoy the freedoms and connections to land and home as experienced by most others on the planet.

This single emphasis is also to deny the hatred of Palestinians inherent in Zionism, so clearly manifest in the daily outrageous behaviour of illegal settlers on the West Bank and the catastrophic hatred exhibited to the whole Gazan population following the October 7 massacre.  Through his words and actions, the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, who supposedly has been invited to Australia next month has exhibited this hatred, most glaringly by personally signing missiles sent to kill Gazans.  Given the seriousness of hate speech, why does his invitation still stand?

Will the stating of demonstrable facts be considered hate speech.   I will continue to use the word apartheid to describe Israel, for that is what it is, an aggressively and violently apartheid state.  Will this be considered hate speech? I will continue to use the word genocide to describe what is and has been systematically done to Palestinians, for this is what it is.  Is this hate speech?

What we are clearly not allowed to say is that growth in antisemitism, wrongly and shamefully directed against Australian Jews, is connected to unaddressed grief experienced because of the treatment of Palestinians by Israel. Not facing this fact does nothing to address the problem.

It is worth noting that any critical statements of Israel I might make are measured, compared with the statements made daily by the Hebrew paper Haaretz. It is beyond my capacity to understand why strong critique of the Israeli government made by Haaretz is largely unacceptable and ignored by the Australian media and political elite, while the Netanyahu narrative, implemented with brutality by the likes of Ben Gvir and Smotrich is acceptable.

The prevailing narrative is instrumental in defining hate speech.

Vladimir Putin is not going to stop his war in the Ukraine until his narrative of ownership is accepted.
Netanyahu will not stop his annexation of the whole of Palestine while the narrative “God gave it to us” prevails.

Hatred towards the LGBTQI prevailed while a narrative of perversion or abnormality, shamefully and frequently emanating from Christian mouths, prevailed.

Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister is one of the few to seriously challenge the Trump narrative.

Populism is developing a narrative which is tribal at its heart.  Tribalism is the enemy of consensus, inclusion, tolerance and harmony.   Will his narrative gain a majority foothold in Australia? We can only pray not.
​
The Christianity I serve is a narrative that excludes tribalism, embraces justice, and understands truth through the discovery of wisdom that became incarnate in Jesus.
 
 
 
 
 
  

The loss of a rules-based order and the Royal Commission

It is becoming clearer Trump considers the world to be divided into three hemispheres, dominated by the influence of America, Russia and China. Within the orbit of these hemispheres the rights or freedoms of independent nations, let alone individual peoples, are of no consequence. In this context, the rule of law, or international convention is irrelevant and the subject of ridicule.  Stephen Miller, US deputy chief of staff: “… we live, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”.  Also, within these hemispheres, countries joined at the hip – Belarus with Russia, North Korea with China, Israel with the US – similarly do not consider themselves bound by the same international conventions.

Australia traditionally believes in a rules-based world order.  If the world we believe in no longer exists, in what do we place our trust?  What language do we use? Who defines hate speech? What does terrorism or antisemitism mean?

This is a concerning context, the medium-term outcomes of which are not predictable. Australians like to think we exist outside these so-called hemispheres, whilst acknowledging we are linked economically to two - America and China, and strategically to one - America.  Given America’s interests are not the same as Australia’s and that America under its current leadership is not bound by alliance loyalty, Australia is placed in a precarious position.  We must avoid language that pre-supposes America’s colonising interests are our interests and avoid America’s use of derogatory language to describe those who are in the way of its agenda. 

I want to avoid discussing the obvious comfort Trump’s actions and statements in Venezuela and Greenland have undoubtedly given Putin’s ambitions for Ukraine, and China’s ambition for Taiwan. Instead, concentrating on Netanyahu’s ambition in Palestine and its consequences for Australian dialogue and language post the Bondi massacre, indeed for the way a Royal Commission into hate and its attack of social cohesion, inclusive of antisemitism, is conducted in Australia.  We have recognised the legitimacy of Palestinian Statehood. Israel is now calling tenders for a massive construction in the Palestinian territories with the aim of destroying any hope for such a state. What is Australia doing in response? Recognition without action is meaningless.

In a world without a rules-based order two obvious dangers manifest themselves. On the one hand individuals or groups may decide to take matters into their own hands, with terrible results for themselves and for others. This was the route taken in Iraq by fallen Sunni leadership in the formation of ISIS.    The Jerusalem based Hebrew paper Haaretz suggests Ben Gvir and Smotrich, Knesset ministers of Security and Finance, are currently trying to provoke a Palestinian uprising so that they can respond with utter brutality and decimate what remains of Palestinian independent identity.

On the other hand, there is a danger that those who peacefully oppose the might of the strong will be labelled terrorists or, in Australia, antisemitic. With a different vocabulary but the same intent, Ukrainians who oppose Putin are called Nazis. I have made it clear to the Prime Minister that I will protest the impending visit to Australia of Isaac Herzog, the Israeli President. He has used his position to support the cruellest aspects of the Gaza campaign, even personally signing armaments to be used there.  I fully realise some will describe this action ‘antisemitic’.  It is not. 

We are told limitations on hate speech are to be legislated. The Australian Opposition led by Sussan Ley have said they wish to restrict such legislation to antisemitism and Islamic extremism. No mention of Islamophobia. Apparently hate speech is to be restricted to words or actions which oppose the will of the strong.

Israel has adopted, refined, perhaps ‘invented’, the Trumpian view that any activity that serves the self-interest of the strong needs no moral defence and should not be subject to external critique, least of all critique from the UN.

 In common parlance the term ‘terrorist’ is used to describe acts of violence from an external source with the intention of causing fear ad division.   Israel, the Zionist lobby, and their supporters use the term to refer to those in the Palestinian territories who oppose their agenda to colonise that which does not belong to them. I personally know a family that has been frequently in gaol, not for any violence but for resisting the seizure of their property.  They are called ‘terrorists’.  Children who throw stones are not ‘terrorists’. Their incarceration without trial is likely to push their brains toward a violent response.  Those outside Palestine who critique or oppose what under international law has been described as unlawful, are accused of antisemitic bias.

Daily, individual unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank are shot dead on the pretext they are terrorists. Just to be a Palestinian is apparently to be a terrorist. Herzog has referred to a ‘nation of terrorists’.  This characterisation is hate speech and dangerous. The language is deployed as an attempt to deflect the opposite truth; thousands of illegal Westbank settlers are the terrorists. They burn crops, confiscate land, demolish buildings and kill civilians.  Large sections of the IDF who use their deployment to protect and advance the terrorising activity of settlers are, by definition, also terrorists.
If Australians make the Herzog mistake, linking Australian Jews with the ills of Israel that would indeed be antisemitism.  Clearly some do, they need to be dissuaded of this view.  However, in my 10years of advocacy on behalf of Palestinians I have never found that to be the case.  Those who indulge in overt antisemitic behaviour hurt the cause of Palestinians as well as causing fear to Jews. Unfortunately, every society has a small number of people on its fringe who use any cause as an expression of their own unattended issues.

The right wing of Australian politics together with their media, too easily adopt Israel’s language. This places Australian Palestinians in the intimidating position of being subject to demeaning and hateful speech, especially since the Bondi massacre.

Last week I was present at a local social gathering in which conversation turned to Bondi where a view was proffered, without response, that Palestinians had taken Israeli land, inferring Palestinians were the problem behind antisemitism.

The cruelty of Bondi was not motivated by an Arab, let alone a Palestinian cause.  It was motivated by the ISIS agenda, a much broader agenda which has caused more death and destruction amongst Muslims than any other people. It was motivated by a cause external to Australia.

There is no question that racism is alive and well in Australia.  Directed towards Jews it deserves strong condemnation. Hate speech directed against Australia’s First Nations people has long been ignored, even tolerated.

As the Royal Commission has been announced, we can only hope the terms under which it has been called look at hate speech in its broadest context, and that what is named antisemitism, but is not, is named for what it is, an attempt to silence critique of international criminality.
​
We can only hope too that those who have sought to use the Bondi massacre for partisan political reasons will desist, and that national cohesion is advanced.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Peace poverty and blackberries

Christmas 2025
 
In an exchange between Jesus and the crowd he asked: “what did you go out into the desert to look at?”
2025 can hardly be measured as a great year for humanity, or indeed for the planet. Will next year be any better?   Probably not. Why not? Because overall we are accustomed to look for and treasure the wrong things, that is, they are the wrong things if we are genuinely interested in harmony and human wellbeing.

Christmas is celebrated by a significant percentage of the global human population.  Customs such as the tree and lights, puddings and turkeys have evolved overtime, in the UK, they were given a significant push along by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Albert’s German roots brought the significance of the tree to the English version of Christmas celebration. While these customs can usefully adorn the true Christmas story of the eternal Word made flesh, they are celebrated apart from that narrative by most people.  In other words, the celebration of Christmas is an entirely secular event for most.  To be even more blunt, it has become a successful enterprise for a capitalised and commerce orientated world.  Perhaps because of this, Christmas is one of the most stressful times of the year for many people, perhaps for most people, according to the medical profession.

So, what have we missed, and is what we have missed important?  The single word most associated with Christmas is PEACE. But what does that mean. Does knowing Donald Trump has just been awarded FIFA’s inaugural peace prize throw any light? Sadly, not at all.

Peace is a by-product of something else. What Christians came slowly to understand was that on that first Christmas morning the true nature of God and the true nature of humanity were both being revealed, and peace was the outcome of the relationship between the two.

How so?  Well, because peace is first and foremost an internal reality.  Only when it is known, cherished and defended internally can it become externally manifest. In 2025 Trump, Putin, Netanyahu have been blustering and bullying, fuelled by ego and a self-perceived destiny for greatness, when in reality they have been at war with grievances within, from which they seem unable to be freed; internal and quite personal wars which they have inflicted on the world.  By contrast, Mandela, Alexei Navalny and Marwan Barghouti (the Palestinian Mandela), found their true selves through incarceration and achieved potential for great leadership through inner integrity.

Navalny was murdered in gaol, his gift of freedom, liberty and generosity to the Russian people was not to be. Will Barghouti be given the chance to lead his people to harmony and peaceful coexistence? It is one of humanity’s great paradoxes that the prisoner can frequently be freer than the gaoler.  

Peace is never simply the cessation of open hostility.  Peace requires the reasons for that hostility to be addressed. That is why Trump’s claims to have secured peace in more than a half dozen places throughout the world is so sadly ridiculous.

In personal or family affairs the same is true.  Peace or harmony can only happen when the reasons for grievance or simple misunderstanding, have been dealt with.

In contemporary public discourse the true nature of God is most frequently either not known or distorted. Sadly, this is the case in religious as much as secular discourse.  ‘God’ is a metaphor for what lies beyond description. Many self-proclaimed atheists appear to base their disbelief on a caricature that people like me find incredulous and have never believed.   Christian belief is that the wisdom behind all that exists became incarnate in Jesus and dwelt amongst us.  As the scriptures say, Jesus is the human face of God. God is the breathing that makes all life possible and the grace, which is on constant offer even, no, particularly in suffering, as so many have experienced.  Such is the human need to discover our true selves that often tragedy is a more important chapter in life’s journey than triumph.

In like manner true humanity is not exhibited in power and might, but seen in sacrifice, service, humility, empathy and courage. For this reason, human society needs the vulnerable and the poor because these very virtues are more likely to be found in their space.  No wonder Jesus was attracted to people such as these.

We constantly hear that cost of living is the number one issue on the mind of Australians and mitigating this ‘crisis’ is the number one expectation we have of those who govern us. There are many amongst us who are very poor, but for most of us poverty is a relative issue.  We gamble and lose more per head than any other nation on earth.  The houses we expect to live in are larger than counterparts in any European country.  We have a tax system which encourages wealth through ownership of property rather than investment in production. We have returned to driving large vehicles etc etc. It appears the more money we have, the less we believe we have.

What do we look for to measure the value of each day? I asked my mother that question in the days before she died.  She said, “be content”, she might have also said “be of service”.

My peace I give to you, not as the world gives do I give to you, let not your hearts be worried, neither let them be afraid, said Jesus.  John 14:27
​
Christmas shows that “earth is crammed with heaven and every bush afire with God – but only he who sees takes off his shoes, the rest sit around and eat blackberries Elizabeth Barrett Browning
 
 

Advent
Ploughshares and Pruning Hooks

There can be little doubt early Christians lived in expectation of the immediate return of Christ to bring an end to the horrors they experienced through persecution in the first and second centuries.  There is also little doubt this expectation is reflected in New Testament writings including the Gospel for this Advent Sunday: Matthew 26: 34 – 36.  Two millennia later, how do we honestly read these texts and make them part of our lives?

Did they misunderstand?  Or perhaps more to the point, were they wrong to frame Jesus’ teaching in light of their contemporary experience?

If we err, it is usually because circumstance and influences have led us to focus on one aspect of a much larger truth or reality.  Let me illustrate from the last verse of Matthew’s gospel: “Remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age”. Why are we expecting the return of one who has not left? The consequence of Jesus’ death and resurrection is his constant presence, the promise that his presence ensures that nothing, not even death itself can separate those who trust in his grace from the renewing love of God.  But do we live as if we believe it?  In like manner, John’s Gospel begins with the proclamation that in Christ a light has come into the world that darkness can never extinguish.

So, in what sense is the one who is eternally present to ‘come again’?

They were not wrong, and we are not wrong, to long for the ultimate dispelling of all darkness. But we are wrong to forget that in the present, not only is God present but, extraordinarily, “We are the body of Christ”, we are agents of God’s renewing grace in the world. What effort has the Christian community made over 2000 years to turn swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, as tantalisingly suggested by Isaiah? 

There have been few more contemporary saintly bishops in the Anglican communion than Bishop Dinis Sengulane of Mozambique, who at his retirement in 2014 was the longest serving bishop in the Anglican Communion. He contributed to the ending of the country’s civil war by proposing not just disarmament but the exchange of weapons for domestic implements, especially for farming.  Hundreds of thousands of weapons were exchanged. For this ‘ploughshares initiative’, he was awarded a peace prize. From there he proceeded to develop a programme to eliminate malaria as the country’s most serious health scourge.

On a much more ambitious scale, sponsored by G20 nations, a similar ploughshares programme could be effective in Sudan, Gaza, Syria etc. Ending conflict is only one small part of the struggle, enabling freedom through economic, health, and educational programmes is quite another.
 
As we look at, and are refreshed, by the natural order, we cannot miss truth that renewal is constantly on display.  Where we live on the NSW south coast, there had been very little rain for three months. The last couple of weeks have brought showers, the immediate transformation is stunning.  Renewal can happen in seconds, and it can take millennia, but the biblical promise is that nothing that exists, no person, no generation, exists outside the possibility of renewal, of redemption. The ‘I am’ Moses experienced in the burning bush and that we have encountered in the birth of Jesus, is the eternal presence of the one who renews.

It makes absolutely no sense to expect the ‘return of Christ’, if his presence is not encountered now.  In him the past and the future intersect with the present.  This leads us to the other readings for today.
Isaiah 2:1–4, known as the ploughshares passage, questions how people celebrate God's presence.

In days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established
As the highest of the mountains and shall be raised above the hills
All nations shall stream to it.

Modern day Israel and its supporters amongst Christian Zionists celebrate Jerusalem as the exclusive capital of Jewish people.   This is not how Isaiah saw it.  His vision is of a sacred place, hosted by Israel, celebrating the renewing and healing presence of God for all the peoples of the world.

Jerusalem’s Eastern Gate, also known as the Golden Gate, overlooking the Kidron Valley, was closed in the 16th century and remains closed. For Christians, it is the gate Jesus used to enter Jerusalem. It remains closed, symbolically awaiting the return/arrival of the messiah. There is a growing tendency for Jews and Christians alike to live inside the false security of a closed gate.  Does a Christian congregation exist for the spiritual growth in piety of its members, or does it exist as a powerhouse of transformation in the world?

Herein lies a dilemma. If our focus is upon the one we await, rather than upon the one who is present, faith is esoteric with little relevance to contemporary living. If our focus is on the one who is present, the one who proclaimed the reign of God’s love, then our living will reflect such presence.
​
In 2025 the three kings would not be able to travel safely through what are now Middle Eastern countries, guided by a star or not!  The Shepherds would not be grazing their sheep on the fields outside Bethlehem; they are flood lit with search lights and barriers prevent free movement. The world of today longs to celebrate the one who has been born amongst us; the one who brings peace to and through those who walk as he walked – the people of the Way.