- Now I accuse you of humbug: how is it that in preparing your weak letter in today’s The Australian, the thought never occurred to Wertheim that he indeed is seeking a legal recourse against anti – semites in criticising the Attorney General’s incipient proposal?
- Oh – ne’er occurs to W that he in a different incantation lacerates Shurat HaDin for daring to seek the same legal recourse? Against a far greater evil [BDS] than anything in the annals of W’s mind.
- His words so condemn the very idea that the BDS – probably the most outrageous anti – Israel / Jewish sentiment promulgated without sanction at universities, should not be taken to the courts. But a twirp shouting ‘’Bloody Jew’’ or derivations – has to have the 18C used in all it’s force.
- Maybe you simply do not get it – that the vast majority of our people are over – generous to you: they loathe what you did! But have said virtually nothing to you out of misplaced respect. Do you want to run a fair survey? Make sure I can draft the question! No Push – Polling please.
Thursday, 19 December 2013
ECAJ: Now I accuse you of humbug as well
Hello denizens of ECAJ!
I find the letter you penned in The Australian today to be farcical: you guys are completely out of your depth.
You may be able to see the logical absurdity of what Peter Wertheim wrote for JWire in November– see article below. As per the product of links if you wish to be informed.
Your reference to 9/12 in today’s letter is pathetically dated: it took you ages to come up with stuss!
This article and your lamentable attitude to Shurat HaDin has been dissected in my blog in great didactic detail. Your lamentable attitude is a disgrace: and you know it.
I wish I had the time to write a proper essay. Maybe I would find many more complaints: there are effectively hundreds of pages here: I am merely a private individual who has tried to cope with this vast array of material.
But you all know you did wrong earlier.
Now you are also guilty of humbug! It makes worse the former.
THIS WILL BE POSTED ON MY BLOG WITH ALL LINKS WITHIN MINUTES: YOU CAN RESPOND THERE IF YOU DARE.
Check up the NOVEMBER links as well!
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has issued a statement detailing their reasons as to why they are not aligned with Israeli Human Rights group Shurat HaDin’s move to litigate against a NSW professor who advocates BDS against Israeli academics.
In a prepared statement, executive director of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim states: “The campaign to boycott academic and other contacts with Israel is repugnant to all who sincerely seek a just and lasting resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Peter Wertheim, the Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). “The path to a just peace is through mutual engagement, not vilification. Contacts between Israeli and Palestinian academics should be encouraged and facilitated by their Australian and other colleagues, not stigmatised.”
The ECAJ has long been a vocal critic of the anti-Israel boycott campaign. “The boycott campaign is a calculated attempt to demonise, isolate and ultimately dismantle Israel through the distortion of international law and human rights. The hate-filled protests outside Max Brenner chocolate shops and the ill-considered scheme of Marrickville Council to boycott Israeli products at a cost of millions of dollars to its rate-payers, which was subsequently abandoned, have rightly been condemned and derided by most Australians. All major parties including the Greens, except for a handful of their MP’s, disavow the anti-Israel boycott campaign” Wertheim said.
“The ECAJ believes that the most appropriate and effective way to combat the boycott campaign is to expose its deceptive and sometimes racist rhetoric, methods and aims public scrutiny. In our view, attempts to suppress the campaign through litigation are inappropriate and likely to be counter-productive. It is for this reason that the ECAJ has had no involvement in the action brought by Shurat HaDin and will continue to fight the boycott campaign through public discourse. If any individuals believe they have been adversely affected by racially discriminatory policies and practices of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies they are entitled to have their day in court, but we are opposed to litigation if it is pursued merely as a political tactic.”
Asked whether he believes that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, Wertheim answered “No. Israel is a vibrant pluralist democracy and its citizens – Jews, Bedouin, Druze and other Israeli Arabs – are often its most incisive critics. But it is also false to suggest that no criticisms of Israel are antisemitic. There is clearly an overlap, as has been acknowledged by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the members of pa
rliament from many countries, including Australia, who have signed the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism and the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism.”
Posted by Geoff Seidner at 5:36 pm