A Coalition of the willing in support of Palestinians

The situation faced by Ukrainians and Palestinians is vastly different, but at the same time similar.  Neither Russia nor Israel will abide by international law unless pressure is brought to bear from outside.  In particular, there must be agreement in relation to sanctions.  Without such pressure, Israel under Netanyahu will continue his campaign to gain control of all the land of ancient Palestine denying forever the common law rights of Palestinians, let alone their dignity, freedom and autonomy.  

Benjamin Netanyahu continues to reveal himself as the self-important, arrogant, impervious to human suffering, figure that he is. It is apparently not enough to deny the starvation he is overtly causing. Not enough to sanction the killing of journalists who report atrocities. Not enough to sanction bombs that fall on children’s playgrounds.  Not enough to treat his own Israeli hostages as collateral damage as he feeds his insatiable appetite for war, despite the advice of his own IDF. Not enough to consider sending Palestinians to war-torn and poverty-stricken South Sudan. Not enough to deny there will ever be a Palestinian State. Not enough to approve settler violence on the West Bank. Not enough to show the tortured face of Marwon Barghouti. He now has the arrogance to tell leaders of democratic countries they have no right to speak against such atrocities and no right to unequivocally voice support for equality, justice and the rule of law.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, you have been personally criticised by this arrogant, violent man. This is a compliment to your strength of character and your commitment to the values of decency and common good held by mainstream Australia and Australians.   

It is also a compliment to the standing Australia holds in the international community, otherwise why would he have bothered.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     You have received much criticism for ‘virtue signalling’. The blasts you received from Netanyahu and Mike Huckabee, the US envoy, indicate you have done far more than that. I realise you are not wanting to go beyond positions adopted by Britian, Canada, France etc.  but if there is any valid criticism, it is that you have not gone far enough. It is time for you to work hard with Australia’s allies including Arab countries, to establish a coalition of the willing, which will place severe sanctions on Israel.

Bridget Mackenzie, Michaelia Cash, et al, be very careful. You have the politician’s desire to score political points. Be conscious of the fact that in so doing you are voicing support for action that seemingly does not even have the support of the majority of Israelis, let alone justice loving members of the Jewish diaspora here in Australia. Please try to be honest.  You cannot uncritically support Netanyahu and the Israeli government while at the same time mouthing support for an outcome in which Palestinians have a future.  In supporting Netanyahu, you are supporting the denial of any right, let alone autonomy for Palestinian people, now and into the future.  You are in fact supporting Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir in their view that Palestinians do not exist.

The claim that Prime Minster Albanese is supporting Hamas and that the choice is between supporting Hamas or supporting Israel, is rank nonsense. Israel has needed Hamas as an excuse for carrying out its long-held desire of possessing this land.   Hamas exists because all Palestinian rights are denied. Israel will always face resistance while it makes Palestinians aliens in their own land.  Insisting on the right of Palestinians to exist, far from supporting Hamas, is a step towards creating peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
​
Benjamin Netanyahu is doing irreparable harm to the reputation and standing of worldwide Jewry. Often, when people attribute to others derogatory motive or consequence, they are describing themselves. When Netanyahu accuses the current Australian government of whipping up antisemitism, he is in fact describing the outcome of his own actions.  It is regrettably the case that the Zionist enterprise in Israel, and the support it has received in Australia has caused a rise in antisemitic behaviour.  However, here in Australia we are also profoundly blessed by many thousands within the Jewish community to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude who have made it abundantly clear this is not being done in their name.
 
 
 

Urgency of Palestinian Recognition

Of course, Netanyahu is angry about talk of Palestinian recognition.  He runs a narrative that Palestine and Palestinians do not exist. This is exactly why recognition is so urgently needed and why the conservative side of Australian politics as expressed in views by Julian Lesser and James Patterson are so wrong.  Recognition of Palestine cannot come at the end of a ‘peace process’, because Netanyahu and the extreme right who keep him in power (and out of gaol) have said not one inch of land between the river to the sea will ever be ceded to Palestinian autonomy. There is no peace process, just a continual erosion of Palestinian rights and land and the gradual extermination of its people.

It is desperately urgent that, with a single voice, the international community declares Palestine and Palestinians to be an entity that cannot and will not be wiped out. Such recognition should have immediate consequences. A state has rights, rights that the international community is obligated to defend.  Unless Israel immediately ceases its assault not only on Gaza, but its attacks and intimidation of Palestinians on the West Bank, Australia with its partners in the international community must act.  
 

• Trade that assists Israel with its hostilities must immediately cease,
• Sanctions should apply not simply against Israel but against any country that supplies arms to Israel.
• The international community must assume responsibility for humanitarian relief in all its forms in Gaza.
• Starvation as a weapon of war must be immediately referred to the international criminal court.
• Denial of starvation in Gaza by Israel must be equated, in its seriousness, with denial of the holocaust.

Recognition in and of itself does not prescribe how a ‘two-state’ solution will unfold.  It may be that geographical areas are designated Israeli, and other geographical areas are designated Palestinian.  Netanyahu is obviously totally opposed to this outcome.   In this circumstance Netanyahu needs to understand that the only way forward then is a form of dual self-determination: equal rights, respect for language, religion, and culture across all the land from the river to the sea.  This would be a very exciting outcome, enabling Palestinians and Israelis to flourish together, their mutual strengths skills and diversity invested in the flourishing and enrichment of one another.

What Netanyahu and his cabal of extreme Zionists need to understand is that no resolution is totally unacceptable and will leave Israel in a weak and almost friendless situation within the international community. No outcome should also be unacceptable to the international community which created Israel in 1947/48 while intending there also be a Palestinian state.  This is unfinished business especially for Australia which was a co- signature to the initial partition.

The need for Australia to be partner to an international statement of recognition is great. Australians must recognise we have a partisan history of support for Israel to the detriment of Palestine and Palestinian rights and in that sense have contributed to the present situation. Under Australian conservative governments we have equivocated in naming Palestinian land ‘occupied’, as it is under international law, or to name the settlements unlawful as again they are under international law. Under Morrison we were quick to agree that Israel could assume the whole of Jerusalem as its capital when East Jerusalem is an integral part of a Palestinian state. The facts of the matter are that the terrible situation which now prevails would not have occurred if the international community had done its duty and placed sanctions on Israel when it first started its annexation of land beyond the 1967 borders.

There is much talk about Hamas and its need of disbandment prior to recognition. Achieving this outcome in relation to the remnants of what has been the military/civil control of Palestine would be the easy part.  The permanent eradication of the idea that lies behind Hamas will be far harder and entirely in the hands of Israel, not its military might, but its mindset.

The idea that created Hamas arises from perception that Israel will never peacefully negotiate a just solution, leaving many to feel violent resistance is the only option. This is not to condone violence, on the contrary, violence always begets more violence.  But it is a tragic truth that what Israel and the US call terrorism is violence from those who believe this to be the only form of resistance that Israel will take note of. Post October 7, every painful day has shown the futility of violent resistance, but it is the outcome of those who have come to believe it is better to die than live a life of want and humiliation.

Palestinians are sick of words.  Australia’s stated bi-partisan support for a two-state solution has frankly been insulting and humiliating for Palestinians because no action has ever accompanied these words – not from either side.  It is insulting to say it is up to the two sides to negotiate peace when the side that holds all the power does not recognise there is another side. The Coalition has been slightly more honest, they have made it clear they will always support whatever Netanyahu wants with no regard whatsoever for Palestinian rights or for justice.    Labour has mouthed the right words, but its pro-Israel faction has always prevented any action other than empty words.

Now is the time.  The international tide has turned. Anthony Albanese you can no longer equivocate; you are either on the side of common humanity and justice, or you are not.
​
What is currently happening in Gaza is a most egregious stain on collective humanity. 
 
 
 
 
 

Let’s talk about the weather

I have recently ‘enjoyed’ a south coast low.  Nothing particularly unusual about that.  However, the accumulative effect of exaggerated weather events, exactly as climate scientists predicted, is not historically usual, but is now normative.

Hotter than ever, wetter than ever, drier than ever, worst ever fires, worst ever floods, I doubt there is a place on the planet that is not experiencing the accumulative effects of weather events of increasing severity.  All of this with a mere 1.5 global temperature rise. It is now inevitable that this mark will soon be exceeded; in some parts of the world, notably Europe, it has already. More than a global 2 degrees is now more probable than not in the foreseeable future.   These events are but the visible manifestation of a much more extensive problem.

Yesterday, 16 July, Ken Henry gave a very important address at the National Press Club.

Few addresses at the Press Club in recent years have been more important.  This one should be read and heeded by all who are interested in the direction humankind is heading. Unless we address the fundamental imbalance in the relationship between ourselves and the natural order, we face economic as well as environmental problems that technology alone will not have the capacity to solve. He makes the point that recent falls in economic productivity (an observation made by both sides of politics) alongside declining environmental sustainability is not coincidence. If the health and capacity of the natural order is in decline it is inevitable that human productivity will also decline.

Every individual has a responsibility to act given the information available to us, but Ken Henry argues the responsibility of the legislature to enact credible policy is the key. For example, no new dwelling should now be built without a capacity to produce and store solar energy.  No housing complex should be built without investment, and proportional ownership, in a solar farm. In the last two decades there have been several reviews resulting in recommendations that have been ignored by those in power.  Because Albanese and his government now have so much political capital, their responsibility to finally formulate policy that will cement necessary reform, is vital.  If not now then perhaps never, a very depressing outcome for every succeeding generation. If Jim Chalmers is serious about policy that will increase productivity, he must support policy that ensures human activity works with the natural environment, not against it.

It is beyond my capacity to understand that those with the responsibility for energy policy still argue that the cost of transition away from fossil fuels is too high, that at best we need to slow the transition down, at worst abandon it altogether.  The reality is that, had we seriously decided to make the transition 25 years ago, when climate science was already blatantly obvious, and transition easier, we would now be past the most painful parts of transition, enjoying increased productivity.  But no, we endured a quarter of a century wasted in the mire of climate wars. Please don’t tell me we are still there.

Why are we so stupid, so slow to change, so wedded to a path that is going to cause very considerable grief? The answer lies in the way the privileged (I and I suspect you are numbered in this company) have chosen to live our lives as if the natural order must submit to human desire; where possessing is winning, consuming a duty, and moderation is either weakness or losing.  Why is the Church so mute, so reluctant to lead? The answer is that Christianity, since the enlightenment, has become so transfixed with the individual and their salvation that a vision for the individual’s place within the whole created order has been lost. Good has become individualised, not common.

Yes, we are a technologically advanced society, but being economically dependent upon a ceaselessly expanding GDP is dumb.  The Venice wedding of Jeff Bezos was an extreme, crude, even obscene example of outcomes emanating from this madness. It is clear the main players wanted to be admired, even envied, but there was nothing here to be admired, least of all envied.

We need less technology and more wisdom. Science and religion, at least the religion that forms the foundation of my life, sing from the same song sheet.  Both are committed to understanding warp and weft – the manner in which all existence is intertwined. Night and day balance one another, as do the seasons of the year. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. “When a butterfly stretches its wings in South America, the weather patterns of Europe change”.   We share some DNA with all living, breathing life. A forest is a living ecosystem where each element contributes to, and gains from, the rest. The same is true of the ocean.  The patterns and cycles of the universe are replicated in miniature on earth.   Nothing exists independently, every action has consequences.

‘Commodity’ is a word we use for a disconnected entity. Before a resource became dislocated into a commodity, it belonged somewhere, it was related to something.

A commodity can be moved around, traded, bought or sold, seemingly without consequence.  But it is not without consequence. Donald Trump is the commodity king. His ‘deals’ are trades of one commodity for another. Tariffs are ways of exploiting the price of a commodity. But commodities are not just items such as beef, iron or aluminium, they have come to include land like Panama, Canada and Greenland. Water, air, space human health, - everything has become a commodity to be bartered.

Our economic way of life is based upon commoditising everything.  However, nothing exists by human hand that has not been drawn from the natural order.  It is no wonder that in the western world we humans are the most prosperous and at the same time the most disconnected: as a result, the most prone to the effects of dislocation – loneliness depression, disillusionment and mental health crisis.
​
The good news, as Ken Henry points out, is that there is still time for us to do this. The old normal which began with the industrial revolution is over. Those invested in its continuity will do all in their power to pervert and prevent a new order. So far, they have mustered sufficient political influence to achieve their ends. However, the cost of their success is being borne in the present by increasing loss of productivity, extinctions, climate refugees, conflict over resources, insurance denial etc; and in the future by generations who will never enjoy the freedom my generation has taken for granted.
 
 
 
 
.

“No other land”

I write this blog in quite a distressed state.

Yesterday I watched the award-winning documentary film – “No Other Land”.  It was shot through the partnership of a courageous Israeli journalist and a young Palestinian on the West Bank.  It documents the relentless push of Israeli bulldozers and the violence of illegal settlers to force Palestinians off their land. The filming concluded less than two years ago. This is the story most Israelis are not permitted to hear.

There was nothing in the film that I did not know.  The brutality I knew.  The gracious resilience of Palestinians I knew. Children and women standing outside their homes and schools having to watch the bulldozers demolish everything they had known and then pick through to find a pot here, or a toy there, I knew.

The shooting of Palestinians who object to the bulldozers I also knew. The film showed the shooting of a man at short range.  He did not die immediately but became a quadriplegic.  Because his house had been bulldozed his mother had to look after him on the earthen floor of a cave. That this happened I also knew. That the IDF soldiers, members of the most ‘moral army in the world’ did not care, even found it funny, I also knew.

Now multiply this one thousandfold and we begin to comprehend today’s Gaza where citizens are shot seeking food and children with amputated legs scream through the night from gangrene, the result of no available medication.

What I was not ready for was the encounter between these wonderful Palestinian women and Israeli soldiers. “Are you not ashamed”? “How will you explain your actions to your mothers”?   Their response was: “it is the law, why should we be ashamed”?

It is not the law.   It is not Jewish moral law. It is not torah. It is not humanitarian law. It is not international law. No country has the right to enact such a law.  This land upon which crazed settlers are running wild and Netanyahu is committing genocide is occupied land. Under international law the occupier is legally and morally bound to care for its occupied citizens.  Israel, through its IDF, and the illegal settlers it protects, are doing the opposite.

Now, here is the rub.  Why does the international community let them get away with it?

After the film was over, (btw there was a huge spill-over crowd in the little town of Moruya), I was billed to lead the Q and A. The first question: “why is the Zionist lobby so strong”? I answered very poorly.  So, I want to answer it now.

The facts of the matter are that the one who controls the narrative holds the power. All the strong and powerful people in our contemporary world know that and are where they are because they control the narrative.  The most obvious example is the US and the machine known as MAGA.  In relation to Israel and Palestine, Zionists control, have controlled, and seek to continue to hold, the public narrative in western media.  The narrative is that Israel is the victim, and all its actions are in defence of itself. This narrative is ruthlessly run in all News Corp outlets, even the ABC the BBC and other ‘respectable’ outlets are cowered into shutting down any voice that might challenge this narrative.  The latest example has been the treatment of Antoinette Lattouf by the ABC who, the court has revealed, acted for her termination out of pressure from the Zionist lobby. The mindless action of pouring petrol on the door of a synagogue and setting it alight feeds this narrative, as we have heard in recent days from the excessive noise of politicians and even the grotesque intervention of Netanyahu.  No Palestinian will have lauded this action, only the Zionists will have done so behind the sham of their antisemitic protest.

There is no truth in this narrative.  In the first half of the 20th century Jews in Europe were victims of cruelty and genocide in the most horrendous fashion.  Since 1948, Israel, through its Zionist dream and aspiration, has made victims of others.  Some of their own rabbis who opposed the creation of Israel forecast unremitting violence. There is no vacant land on planet earth (terra nullius in Australia was a lie too). Creating an ethnically pure land necessitates violence in its creation, and violence in its maintenance and defence. The rabbis who opposed Israel’s creation also predicted the Jewish diaspora would suffer approbation as a consequence.

The 1947 UN partition envisaged two states, originally roughly a 50/50 split. After the 1948/49 war it became Israel 78%, Palestine 22%.  In the 1990’s Palestinians agreed to settle on the 22% at the Camp David accord.  However, 78% has not been enough for Netanyahu and his zealots – hence annexation by stealth, the settlement programme.  

The international community, including Australia, is culpable.  When the first illegal settlement was built on the West Bank, against international law, Israel should have been punished with sanctions and boycotts.  This did not happen, has not happened, as a consequence Israel has become emboldened.  The suffering inflicted upon Palestinian people is horrendous, the international community could have stopped it, but it has not.

Just before Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, I went to see him to plead that Palestinians be given the same access to his office that is granted to Zionist delegations.  It did not happen.  I also asked that he use the language of genocide and apartheid.  He refused and was adamant I was wrong in wanting to use this language. Recounting this anecdote against Albanese, we need to be reminded that compared with the Coalition, Labour is Palestine’s best friend.

The Zionist narrative prevails - Israel is the victim. NO IT IS NOT.

Australians need to know that every parliamentarian in Australia, State and Federal, is invited to Israel to become imbued with this false narrative.  Most accept.  More Australian politicians have visited Israel than any other country on the planet.
​
Thank you, producers of No other land. Although deeply distressed by it, I needed to see it and to be shamefully reminded that I live in a country where those in power continue to protect a narrative, a false narrative, which excuses and permits the tortuous suffering of a very resilient, resourceful, highly educated, culturally rich, people - the Palestinians. Netanyahu, please ask Ahed Tamimi or her father Basem Tamimi, whom you have imprisoned and tortured, if, even now, they would live in harmony with neighbouring Jews.   They will answer Yes.   It is you and your acolytes who refuse to be neighbours to and with them.
 
 
 
 

Australian Honours: Review

Twice a year Government House issues a list of those awarded an honour within the Australian Honour system.  The vast majority of those awarded are clearly worthy of recognition, but each time the list appears there is a level of contention.

Almost 30 years ago Prime Minister Paul Keating appointed me, along with others including the late Ian Keirnan AO, to a panel tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the honours system. The report never saw the light of day.   Soon after we completed the report, Paul Keating lost the 1996 election.  Vested interests, including those of a political nature, clearly did not want the report publicly addressed.

The review resulted from consultations across the continent and from every walk of life.
Some findings reflected sectional interest while others were common to every region and to most people. As I remember, the broadly based findings included:

• Being honoured rests entirely with the nomination process.  Many worthy people are never nominated: this particularly applies to more isolated areas. It is assumed those with knowledge and contacts are more likely to be nominated some may even seek nomination.
• Certain postcodes predominate.  Some in the ACT have the highest per capita representation.
• Too many appear to be recognised because of the position they have held. It was felt an award should only be made for significant service beyond that which could reasonably be expected from the position held.  Reaching a certain rank, or years of service, should not on its own be sufficient criteria for an award.
• Many did not support this recognition for achievement in sport unless, in addition, other criteria of service were considered.
• Power and authority is more likely to be recognised than attributes of extraordinary generosity, mercy, justice etc. Those who challenge inappropriate and sometimes criminal power or authority in their profession, or more widely in the community, are unlikely to be recognised despite courageously serving the common good. Some experience the opposite – retribution - despite serving the greater common good. It is also unlikely a human rights advocate will receive an award. 
• A person of extraordinary compassion, e.g. a lifetime of fostering children, is worthy of the highest award.
• There are too many categories.

There are currently four levels of recognition.   AC recognises a contribution considered to be of national or international significance.  AO recognises a lesser contribution but still of merit beyond their profession or region. AM recognises a contribution of significance emanating from the person’s sphere of interest or community.  OAM is recognition of contribution to a sector of the local community.

There are also two divisions, civil and military.

Some of the recommendations that I remember:

• The military division should be terminated, with recognition being awarded on merit equally for all sections of society, including the military, within a common division.  It was believed the armed services, along with the public service, the police force, ambulance service, fire service etc should be strongly encouraged to review and if necessary, extend and enhance appropriate ways in which they honour their personnel, not least, long service.  Using the Australian Honours system in a separate division creates a different purpose and distorts the intention of equity and equality.
• Criteria for the awards should be more reflective of moral qualities judged to be the values of Australian citizenship.
• Four categories should be reduced to three, probably by removal of the OAM which will lift the honour bestowed on countless volunteers, the backbone of every community, to a seemingly higher level.
• Government House must invest more in making the nomination process and criteria better known.

On countless occasions I have been asked to add my name to a nomination.  In most cases I have been honoured to do so, but not always.  On rare occasions I have made a nomination.

I do understand the contention created each time a list is published.  It is perhaps unavoidable given the diversity of views held in the community.  But in considering some of the findings and recommendations of the small group I was privileged to serve, some of these concerns may have been obviated.

There have been a few occasions when, having seen the list, I have thought to myself I would not want to have been listed in that company.
​
The honours system is important. It is generally treated, as it should, with great respect. It is however not respectful to seek public opinion on this or any other matter and then ignore it.  Nor is it respectful not to seek public opinion in the first place.
 
 
 

Christianity: the Antithesis of Zionism

This week I attended a symposium –‘ Who owns the Holy Land’ - sponsored by PIEN (Palestine Israel Ecumenical Network).  It was extremely well attended and was an excellent night.  If the symposium is still on its way to your city – please attend. However, in answer to questions one of the speakers shocked me by saying, “Zionism is rooted in Christianity”.   I completely understand why this was said, given the influence of the American Christian Right, together with its offshoots in most Western countries including Australia. However, to consequently assume Israel must be defended from a Christian perspective has become one reason why criticism of Israel is weaponised as antisemitism. and censorship of Palestinian voices has become so prevalent in Australian public discourse.    I wish to explain.

Zionism has both secular nationalist roots, as well as religious messianic roots. But neither have any basis in Christianity.

Let’s deal with the secular (even atheistic), nationalistic roots first.  After the catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the second temple in AD 70 Judaism survived for millennia as a diaspora.   We are familiar with the terrible persecutions suffered by Jews over centuries, especially in Europe, culminating in the holocaust.

Towards the end of the18th century and into the 19th century tension arose between those members of the Jewish community who believed their future lay with appropriate integration into Bavarian, French, or whatever culture prevailed in the lands in which they were domiciled and those who strongly opposed such a move.  Integration does not mean loss of identity or religion, but it does mean accepting the governing rules and requirements of the State in which you live.  Jews, along with most cultures across the globe. are thoroughly integrated into most Western countries, including Australia, without loss of identity, culture or religion. Not accepting the norms and rules of the country where you live inevitably means living in ghettos.

Strong voices resisted integration. The Zionist movement was born. A homeland was sought to be ruled, owned and governed for Jews to the exclusion of others.  Nationalistic Zionism, by definition, cannot be anything other than racist, clearly attested through statements of its early and present leadership including Ben Gurion, Golda Meier and Benjamin Netanyahu.  Failure to understand that harmonious living together in the Holy Land by Christians, Jews and Muslims, in the time of the Ottomans could not prevail with the introduction of Zionism was and remains a massive failure of the West. (The 1917 Balfour Declaration was written assuming such harmonious cooperation and the honouring of the rights of all residents). Since 1967 Israel has controlled the lives of every man woman and child, whether they live in the lands designated Israel, or East Jerusalem, West Bank or Gaza. Half the people with unencumbered Israeli citizenship live with the rights and privileges of nationhood.  The other half, depending where they live, either have greatly restricted rights, or they live with constant expectation of their lands being confiscated or, as in Gaza, they have lived with a seemingly endless blockade and of course now with starvation. One state solution, two state solution: peace and prosperity for all is not possible with an Israel that maintains a nationalistic Zionist mindset.

Nationalistic Zionism is of course buttressed by historical religious belief that the land was promised to Israel by God.  Bizarre that historical religion should buttress modern day national secularism! Bizarre too that politicians, often with no known spiritual background, appear to give weight to this argument. Wide sections of the Christian community gloss over sufferings inflicted, legality ignored, human rights abused, holding a priori that Palestinians must be the bad guys and Israelis the good guys because of priority given to this claim.

. There are so many problems with this claim.

• According to biblical story, the promise of the land was made to Abraham along with the expectation that through his descendants all nations on earth would be blessed.  Since 1948 the creation of Israel has not been a blessing, especially not to its neighbours; in contrast members of the Jewish diaspora have been and continue to be a blessing beyond measure.
• The last time an entity called Israel held even fleeting sovereignty over a portion of this land was 721 BC 
• Most Jewish settlers in the 20th and 21st centuries have no historic connection to the land whatsoever, they are Europeans, Russians and Americans who have brought with them agendas from afar and a total lack of tolerance for anyone who is not Jewish. Jews with historic connection with the land lived in harmony with their neighbours.
• It is utterly inconceivable that God would countenance large scale suffering if not annihilation of another people to achieve the ‘promise’.

Now, let me come to the hopes and aspirations of religious Zionism. 

Christian Zionism’s origins in the US post-date the Nationalistic fervour of the late 18th and 19th century Zionism in Europe, and conveniently piggy-back on them. Christian Zionism has no connection with Orthodox Judaism’s hopes for the coming of a messiah.
 
We know little about the first Jewish diaspora which occurred following the annihilation of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC.  This diaspora is often referred to as ‘the lost 10 tribes’.  The remaining tribe, Judah, with its capital Jerusalem survived until 586 BC.  The exile to Babylon was both utterly devastating and totally transformative. What had been in effect the religion of a relatively inconsequential tribal kingdom who believed their God dwelt in Jerusalem’s temple, had to admit they were wrong, or that if God was God, then God could also be worshipped in Babylon – monotheism was born.  They dared to believe that they had a role in hosting the presence of God for all humankind and dreamed of a return to Jerusalem and the establishment of a ‘Holy Hill’ – Zion - to which all the nations of the world could be drawn. (Please forgive me for reflecting the UN hopes for Jerusalem are not new)!

Unfortunately, when the return occurred under the Persian, Cyrus, the particularity of being Jewish prevailed and any vision for hosting divine presence in harmony and peace for the world vanished.

Now, fast forward to Christ and the birth of Christianity.  Antagonism existed between those who claimed to be survivors of the long-lost Northern Kingdom of Israel, known as Samaritans, and the Jewish community focussed on the 2nd temple in Jerusalem.  Christ was asked in which place should God be worshipped. He answered – neither.

It is Christian belief that “in Christ God had been pleased to dwell”. If ‘Zion’ is the dwelling place of God, then Christ is that Zion.  Place has become person.  The presence of the living one, the risen one, the light of the world, the prince of peace is present for all humankind; at our best we Christians facilitate that presence, at our worst we get in the way.

There has never been a century in the last 2000 years when end times have not been immediately predicted. One of the ways in which some Christians seriously get in the way is by relinking, with zero justification, the living person who personifies ‘Zion’, with place.  These people, drawing on their interpretation of apocalyptic writings, foresee an end to this world as we understand it through the ‘coming of Christ’ in a final history of the Middle East. They have come to believe his coming will occur when Israel is all in all from the river to the sea. It is bizarre that these Christians, strong supporters of Zionist Israel, really have no interest in the long-term future of Israel, but in what they perceive to be the long awaited ‘end times’. 
​
No, Zionism is totally and completely antithetical to Christian belief and it should be the obligation of all Christians everywhere to speak loudly and clearly in its condemnation, of course for Palestinians, but also for Israelis for what future is there for people who have become a pariah to everyone else.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Politics courting Religion: Religion courting Politics
Open letter to Coalition leadership

There has been a growing trend for Conservative politics in the US and in Australia to double down on support from conservative expressions of Christian religious faith. These religious views are not consistent with the values of most Australians, they are divisive. They do not represent the views of those with faith, like me, who find them at odds with the life and teaching of Jesus.

Before moving into the substance of this article I want to make a brief comment about the word ‘conservative’.  I do not believe those in politics or religion who so self-describe are genuine conservatives.    A conservative conserves.  To those on the Australian political conservative right I simply ask – what about the planet? I consider myself a Christian conservative because I try to live my life out of that which is central to the life and teaching of Jesus, especially as described in the Beatitudes. Self-describing religious conservatives consider adherence to their particular interpretation of biblical text to be the mark of conservatism; this is a very different matter. 

I have been moved to write this article following unpleasant experiences I and countless others recently endured at polling booths on the NSW South Coast. I have since discovered these unpleasant experiences extended well beyond our region. 

Large numbers of what I have been told were members of the Plymouth Brethren sect were bussed in to work Liberal party stands at early polling booths and on the day itself.  They were intimidating, aggressive, arrogant and otherwise sought to dominate the space.  I was present on three occasions in support of an independent candidate.   I came home quite traumatised.

Why were they there?  At whose initiative?  Who paid the considerable cost of transport, housing and feeding them?  

This cult teaches its members that those who are not of them are ‘Egyptians’ or foreigners from whom they can exact as much as possible for their own benefit.  The cult adjures its members not to vote, for doing so contaminates them with the rest of the world.  So, what did supporting the Liberal party potentially offer them? Why were they at polling booths? (BTW, the stand this sect takes on women seems to some extent to have been mirrored in the representative style of the coalition in recent years).

If this were the only ‘religious’ group (they are more accurately a business conglomerate) seeking support from and giving support to the conservative side of politics it would not matter much in the great sweep of things, but sadly it is not.

The Zionist lobby of Australia which receives unquestioning support from the Coalition, would be far less effective if it were not for the complete support it receives from the conservative Christian lobby. Zionism and Judaism are not the same. Swastikas, foul name calling of Jews, denying the holocaust, defiling synagogues etc, is appallingly antisemitic.  Being condemnatory of the Israeli government, its apartheid, genocide, denial of international law, starving whole populations, destruction of homes, targeting Palestinian women’s fertility is not.  Quite the reverse. Not to call out the atrocities being committed by Israel is not simply to walk by on the other side, it is to support injustice, and spit on the foundations upon which humanitarian law is built. 

Now, don’t tell me I am one sided.  Of course, what happened on October 7 was an atrocity. It cannot be defended. Its context does not defend the action.  But not to address the context, as the Zionist lobby demands, is to be party to the problem. The context is decades of displacement, isolation and imprisonment. The community has endured a blockade without relent now, or into the future. Most Gazans are refugees or descendants of refugees who have been forcibly displaced from their homes in what is now called Israel.  The unequivocal statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that not one inch of land will ever be ceded to Palestinian control is also the context. As is Zionist belief that the lands from the river to the sea are theirs to the exclusion of others; as is belief Palestinians are less human and therefore can be destroyed.

The Coalition’s support of the Zionist ambition, without critique, is by default one of the worst forms of injustice ever perpetrated upon a distinct nation of people. Coalition obsession with antisemitism that includes criticism of Israel is telling, as is lack of equal support for those suffering Islamophobia.
Another form of Christian conservatism which the Coalition courts, and which is courted in return is the Australian Christian Lobby, and one of its offshoots, Family First.  It is this form of conservatism that perpetuates the culture wars, so beloved of John Howard and subsequent expressions of Coalition leadership.   

For reasons I absolutely fail to comprehend, the Coalition seems to think that Sky after dark, sky anything, or Andrew Bolt, express the views of ‘quiet Australians’.   This appears to be the bubble Coalition leadership has lived in for the last three years.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This ranting is likely to be heard by 10 percent of the population - on a good day.   I respectfully suggest to incoming leadership that using the word ‘woke’ to pejoratively describe compassion, respect, inclusiveness, truth telling and care for others will do your side of politics no good. One obvious example: it is not ‘woke’ to tell of the frontier wars and the massacre of First Nations people, this is our recent past. Not telling this story blinds us to the ongoing implications of the past and prevents us from acknowledging the same thing happening in the present to the Palestinian people.
​
Finally, you must know you will never govern from anywhere other than the political centre.  Gina Reinhart and Peta Credlin are leading you right up one of Joh Bjelke-Peterson’s dry gullies.  Conservative Christians who regale you with a ‘prosperity gospel’ doctrine are leading you astray. Economic wealth is not in and of itself a sign of God’s blessing, and by implication nor is poverty a sign of unworthiness. At the heart of Jesus’ teaching is belief that I cannot thrive unless you do.

There is no longer a socialist state anywhere in the world, least of all in an Albanese led government. Capitalism reigns in Russia and China as much as it does in the US.  The only questions worthy of asking is how and to whose benefit is the wealth generated and with whom is that wealth shared.
​
I wish you well.  It is good for a democracy to have collaborative strength both in government and opposition.  This will not happen for the Coalition if, recognised or not, its identity is shaped by transactional religious belief.
 

Easter Hope

At least once in a lifetime, every human being is likely to experience pain of such calamitous proportion that it feels as if the world is coming to an end, but in truth it isn’t.  The world community could be excused for thinking that together we are now in one of those moments. Between us, we are kicking so many own goals of destruction and alienation that the accumulative effect is devastating.  I won’t even attempt to list them, (nor name those most responsible for kicking them!) they are all painfully familiar. But no, the world is not coming to an end. For every actuality, its opposite is hovering in plain sight.  How so? Well, it is laid out in the Easter narrative, Maundy Thursday through to Easter Day.

The main character in the story is one Jesus the Nazarene.  Some of you believe in him, that is you believe in him as the human face of God, as I do, while most who do not would still know something about him and have an opinion about that!

However, believing or not, it is not enough just to contemplate these three days of his passion, or even just the 30 years of his life. If you wish to come to grips with the reality that is Jesus, and what relevance, let alone presence, he has in this or any age, you must start further back.

Let me ask this.  Do you think there is a pattern to life, an order to things, or is everything simply haphazard, a crazy jumble? As you look at the natural order do you detect a pattern? If you do, do you think humanity is part of this pattern or in some way stands above it.  Does history reveal any truths about life as humans experience it?

Well, the Christian faith declares there is a pattern, if you like, a weaving which has been there from the beginning. While life in all its forms has, does, and will continue to evolve, the fundamental pattern remains the same. The name given to this pattern, or ordering, in the Christian tradition is ’wisdom’ or ‘word’. To use poetic language, it is this wisdom or word that sings everything into being and sustains their rhythm. The pattern is embedded in all relationships that are life giving, and its absence is the cause of relationships that are destructive.

Now, St John commences his remarkable gospel by claiming that this wisdom, this word, this pattern, took human form in history, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  When we look to Jesus we are looking far beyond a moment in history, we are looking at the pattern necessary for sustainable life within the very order of existence. To be mundane we are given a mirror into the patterns of life that can be ignored but never abrogated.

Let’s get straight into it with Maundy Thursday.  Jesus washes the disciples’ feet: not a single act of service, but a glimpse of how relationships work, how leadership or hierarchy should be expressed.  Everyone and everything exist in relationship and service of everyone and everything else. In an eco-system all elements are interdependent. The more significant the role, the greater becomes the obligation of service, not control. So it is in families, communities and nations.  Independence is a mirage and an ambition not to be coveted. Every time service is offered what has been broken is being restored.  One act of service has a ripple effect.  We all have the capacity to mend the broken.  Herein is hope. Mending happens not through control or coercion, but in and through loving service.

That evening a loaf of bread was broken and shared. In our world there is, metaphorically, only one table.  I sit around it with you, together we sit around it with the peoples of the world. As bread is broken, we are bound to one another.  I have had the privilege of sharing bread with the Karen people of Myanmar, the Afar people of Ethiopia and with Palestinians.  In a very special way I am bound to, and with them until my dying day.  We all have the gift of hospitality. Life expands through the space we provide for that which is not ourselves. In the sharing of bread there is hope.

Good Friday and dying.  Dying reorients everything.  Our lives are the gift of many past dyings, not simply dust from a long dead star. The crucifixion is not a penal transaction as many Christians maintain, (a useful glimpse into why so many US Christians support Trump) but God’s participation in the world’s brokenness, a healing from within.  Herein hope lies.  Grace heals brokenness.  Grace out paces ungrace. We experience far more growth in the moments of failure and loss than we do in the moments of triumph. Tragically, our human default position is to cocoon ourselves in an armour of self-protection, putting us in conflict with, rather than open to, the grace always on offer. We would rather embrace brokenness than die to something better.

It is in and through grace, that peace prevails.  Peace is much more than an absence or suspension of conflict. Peace is internal not external.  When peace is known inside, peace is practiced outside.

  Herein lies hope

And now the glorious Easter Day.

Refusing to be entombed is about much more than the resurrection of Jesus, it is about the resurrection of the world embraced by him. The wisdom or pattern which has been there from the beginning bursts afresh. Eternity is embodied in the material world. “Earth is crammed with heaven and every bush afire with God, but only he who sees takes off his shoes”. Elizabeth Barrett Browning Nothing that matters is ever lost. Equally, the causes of death and destruction have no abiding power, they can be left behind.  Here in our hope lies. The awful home goals humanity has been kicking do not, should not, have enduring power: they can be left behind, shed. Each new day has within it the capacity to be a genuinely new day.

Each new week begins on Sunday the day of resurrection. It is never too late to reset the time clock of life to this pattern.
 
 
 

Liberation Day

In an insightful SMH opinion piece (4/4/25) Waleed Ali, asserts that commentary on the Trump Tariffs, has yielded insufficient attention to the name Trump chose for the day – “Liberation”.  Drawing on the “globalisation trilemma” identified by Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, he argues the day is about much more than economics, it is about Trump’s vision for US sovereignty. He goes on to say the world has failed to properly combine sovereignty, democracy and globalisation. In various ways two have been combined but never three.

Clearly Trump is abandoning globalisation, notwithstanding Americans under Reagan were largely responsible for its ubiquitousness.  It looks as if he may also wish to abandon democracy or at least shape it in his own image.

Whilst grateful to Waleed for his insights, I wish to argue that for the sake of the civilised world every effort must be made to combine all three, indeed, to say that if this goal is abandoned the future for life on the planet is bleak.

Globalisation

There is far more to globalisation than economics, although free trade is a very important part of it. Following two disastrous world wars it was considered necessary to enact a new world order. First the League of Nations and then the United Nations was born. Associated with this body are its organisations focussing on law, health, environment, humanitarian relief etc.  To secure its founding, veto in the body that has teeth, the Security Council, was granted to China, Russia, France, the US and the UK. As a result, appropriate and necessary international intervention does not occur. Israel with the backing of the US, refuses to accept any external jurisdiction, worse, does everything in its power to belittle and demean such authority.  Countries such as Australia simply turn a blind eye.

The problems global humanity face need global cooperation and submission to global order.  The covid pandemic from which the world is still struggling to economically emerge is a good example.  In the face of a global pandemic there must be cooperation, the sharing of expertise, including the sharing of vaccines. The climate crisis the world now faces is beyond the wit of any nation to face on its own. There must be global commitment to prevent irreversible tipping points, supposing there is still time. We know what the problem is.  We know what needs to be done. We lack willingness. A false sense of national sovereignty always gets in the way.

Humanity has always been on the move. However, there has never been a time when human movement has happened on such a monumental scale, driven by poverty, violence, natural disaster, or desire for a better way of life.  There must be global agreement and cooperation in the provision of aid and shelter, but also in addressing the issues causing the movement.  Putting the scythe through USaid is a very clear statement of hand washing on behalf of the US.
Trump is clearly of the view that acquiescing to any international agreement is an afront to US sovereignty. Paul Keating has claimed that Trump’s tariff declarations have ended NATO. The claim makes no sense based on the tariffs alone but makes perfect sense in that Trump’s version of sovereignty leaves no room for obligation to others. He is bizarrely of the view that the US is the global centre around which everyone and everything revolves.

Sovereignty

Of course, sovereignty, dignity and identity of every nation state must be defended. It should be the obligation of nations to come to the aid of those denied this right, in the present circumstance Ukraine and Palestine.

 Australia has every right, indeed obligation, to protect biodiversity, act against the introduction of harmful diseases and exotic species, make its own media regulations, and protect its commitment to accessible pharmaceuticals. More broadly we have the right to set migration targets.

However, it is equally true we are one of nearly 200 sovereign states who share this planet. We do not have the right to engage in activity that adversely affects other nations, equally we share responsibility to mitigate the threats and challenges we all share. Sovereignty can never be absolute, to behave as if it is, as Trump appears to be doing, is to fall into pariah statehood.  Is this what ‘being great again’ looks like?
​
Democracy

It is essential that government is chosen by the people.

But here is the rub. Democracy elected Trump.  Democracy voted in favour of Brexit.  The latter is almost universally acknowledged as a disaster for the British, and Trump looks certain to be a disaster for the very people who elected him.

People will always vote for what looks like security - i.e. sovereignty in its various forms.  That is why politicians love conflict, real or manufactured, to channel their perceived superior leadership. Nationalistic movements are always driven by false views of sovereignty.

People will also always vote in protection of their hip pocket.

The difficulty is that information provided upon which an appropriate vote can be cast is weighted to suit the binary leaning of one side or the other.  Truth is never binary.  Truth is always a combination, or balance, of factors some of which may seem incompatible. In modern democracies the need of each party to be in power takes precedence over the creation of good policy. Either side of our political duopoly present ‘this’ but never ‘that’. To have us vote for them, parties tell us what they want us to hear, not what we need to hear.

We do not need more parties. The proliferation occurring in Australia is a mistake.   But we do need more independents. In the last parliament some of the very best ideas have come from independents. Hopefully any future government will neither govern in its own right, nor establish a cosy partnership with another needy party, but will be forced to govern in negotiation with a growing number of independents.

Globalisation, Sovereignty and Democracy

It is unthinkable the world becomes a planet of sovereign states who have no obligation to work together for common good.

It is also unthinkable that peoples be denied sovereignty, as is currently the case for Ukrainians and Palestinians.
​
And it is unthinkable that democracy should continue to weaken or even fail, a is the contemporary trend, leaving the world to be governed by self-appointed dictators and or plutocrats.

 Will those capable of leading the world into a future which combines global cooperation, national sovereignty, and democracy, please stand up.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Empathy, Culpability, and Madness

Is Trump mad? If declining to share the joys and troubles of the whole human race, to decline a seat at humanity’s common table is a form of madness – then yes - Donald J Trump is mad.

What is madness? To order the confinement of a person for their safety and wellbeing, as well as the safety of others, the medical profession is expected to competently diagnose a mental condition.  But is this all there is to it?  I have just re-watched a presentation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in which Hamlet is declared to be mad by others in the drama.  But was he?  Was his apparent ‘madness’ an expression of an all-consuming emotion of vengeance in reaction to the murder of his father by his uncle (his father’s brother), who then added insult to injury by taking his brother’s wife (Hamlet’s mother) as his wife.

Is Trump mad?  Is Netanyahu mad?  Is Putin mad? All men seem hellbent on vengeance and on determining the usefulness to them of others on the criteria of their cooperation with this emotion. Trump has said “I am your vengeance” and most clearly acts this out in both demolishing every domestic Biden legacy, regardless of its rightness, as well as wishing to destroy Zelenski (and Ukraine) for the lack of help he received from them in his desire to destroy Biden through the activities of his son Hunter.  What Trump cannot forgive, let alone accept, is any sense he lost the 2020 election, convincing himself that some were part of a conspiracy against him.

Netanyahu is clearly guilty of the security lapses that led to the October 7 atrocities.  He will not accept responsibility, and he will not allow an independent enquiry.   Instead, he unleashes unprecedented wrath on all Palestinian people and sacks any Israeli official who will not support his most extreme atrocities.

For Putin, the fall of the Soviet Union is clearly personal. He cannot accept or forgive peoples aligning with the West, whom he sees as part of greater Russia especially the Ukraine. Vladimir Putin destroys any dissenting voice.

This is by way of background to an extraordinary statement by the ‘deputy president’ of the US, Elon Musk who has said: “the fundamental weakness of Western Civilisation is empathy”.  This is clearly a view shared by the president himself who is drawn to people like Kim Jong Un who even lacks empathy for the poverty of his own people.

The statement that empathy is a fundamental weakness has been supported by leadership in the American Christian right.   How can this possibly be so?  Apparently, its origin lies within the form of Christianity that Trump has adopted, namely that power and wealth are a sign of God’s beneficence and conversely, misfortune is a sign of God’s displeasure and therefore undeserving of empathy.

Given common acceptance that a Judaeo-Christian ethic and western civilisation are intertwined, the Trump/Musk position is a shocking betrayal both of Christianity and Western Civilisation.

Empathy (mercy) is at the heart of Biblical faith.  Bishop Mariann Budde may well have been speaking to the famous Micah passage when she pleaded that Trump be merciful at his inauguration.  “What does the Lord your God require of you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God”. (Micah 6:8).

The most well-known and quoted parable of Jesus is the parable of the Good Samaritan. It is the story of three men who find a man lying in the road. A teacher and a priest pass by on the other side.  The injured man was a Jew, the third passer-by was a Samaritan who had no responsibility to stop and help, but he did.  Jesus asked which of the three acted as Neighbour. They replied, the one who showed mercy, Jesus said: “go and do likewise”.

The Christian message is that every person is potentially neighbour to every other person. At its best, Western Civilisation is based in this ethic. 

This is not first and foremost about morality.  It is first and foremost about what it means to be human.  To be human means to live in a caring relationship with all others.  Madness could be defined as actions, or an intention of the mind, that withdraws the person from the human race.

It is on this basis that I would declare Trump, Musk and Putin to be mad.  They are acting in a way that defies humanity. To Trump everything is reduced to its transactional purpose or value.  Because everything is transactional, nothing has abiding value, its value only exists in this transaction – in the making of this deal.

Even democracy has no ultimate value.   If it serves a particular transactional purpose – good, if not it can, without compunction, be set aside.  What is goodness? The biblical view is that ‘good’ is an absolute value for what is common.  Goodness exists in and through the relationships we share with all other people and all parts of the created order.
​
It is serious enough that Trump wishes to withdraw from all alliances and protocols that govern international behaviour and responsibility. But it is profoundly disturbing that he is collaborating to change what it means to be responsibly human, what it means to be accountable.   Christian leadership must stand up by word and action and declare “you are not part of our fold, and we do not wish to be part of yours”. World leadership and especially Western leadership must be less acquiescent and more courageous in saying we are not part of your deal.
 
Loss of empathy is not simply morally vacuous; it is a choice not to share the journey of life with the rest of humanity. The world cannot afford, or accommodate, leadership of this kind.