Home » Les Rosenblatt, Politics and Media

Everybody loves question time

October 8, 2009 – 11:07 am34 Comments


We're not comparing Paul Ramadge to Glenn Close's ruthless editor in 'The Paper'... but it's a great movie, about a newspaper. See it if you haven't.

We're not comparing Paul Ramadge to Glenn Close's ruthless editor in 'The Paper'... but it's a great movie, and it's about a newspaper.

By Les Rosenblatt

No prize for guessing what the attitude was of the 150 or so attendees at the talk by The Age’s Editor- in- Chief, Paul Ramadge, to the Plenum of the JCCV (Jewish Community Council of Victoria) on Monday night. He was the ‘roo’ in the spotlight, feeling the heat as they flung repeated accusations of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic editorial/journalistic bias as their reasons for cancellations of their Age subscriptions.

The accusations from the floor following Ramadge’s talk were that The Age had issued apologies and retractions reluctantly, belatedly and unprominently whenever it made mistakes in fact or errors of judgement; that Michael Backman’s material should never have been published; that the reporting of the demos over ‘7 Jewish Children’ had been biased as a result of lies fed to Andra Jackson; that Jason Koutsoukis was unprofessional in exhorting Barack Obama to take ‘a big stick’ to the Middle-East conflict; that Barney Zwartz was  a ‘lightweight’; that no one wanted to read Amin Saikal; that Colin Rubenstein wasn’t given as much space as Malcolm Fraser; that the Sensible Jew shouldn’t be given any space regarding its complaints of suppression of debate in the Jewish community; that Hamas members were being referred to as ‘militants’ rather than ‘terrorists’,  etc, etc.

Ramadge managed to maintain his equilibrium despite getting this roasting, speaking sotto voce, ‘taking things on board’, urging complainants to write to him, describing the difficulties of editorial discretion and judgement, supporting the journos at The Age, and firmly repudiating any suggestions of  anti-Semitism amongst members of his organization. He also distinguished between the ideological bias of News Ltd’s The Australian newspaper and Fairfax’s more objective reportage and opinion. At this point John Searle and Danny Lamm opined that ‘the problem’ was to be found in a layer of decision-making somewhere between Ramadge and the journos.  It was amongst this layer that acceptance of offensive stereotyping and inclusion of irrelevant associations in reports were to be found. They instanced a recent article where a Jewish person deserving of sympathy was unfairly and irrelevantly associated with a Jewish female educator who had had child-abuse allegations made against her. I was in agreement with them as to its offensiveness, and Ramadge fortunately was as well, and agreed that he would look into this problem.

One man called for a show of hands as to who in the audience thought The Age was balanced and unbiased in its coverage of matters of concern to the Jewish community. I put up my hand and then reluctantly another two hands went up very slowly. He then asked for a show of hands as to who thought The Age was biased and unbalanced and every hand in the room except for mine and the other two went up. Eventually I got to speak in the question time following Ramadge’s talk and said that the AJDS represented a significant minority viewpoint in the community and had every right to have its opinions heard as being reflective of community diversity, that I was pleased The Age had published my letter (in support of Amin Saikal’s proposal for a nuclear-free Middle-East) last Thursday, that the AJDS recognized The Age made mistakes occasionally but that we were fairly pleased with its coverage of issues of relevance to the Jewish community and that we didn’t have any problems with Jason Koutsoukis or before him, Ed O’Loughlin. There were hoots of derision  at this point from the audience and I asked Ramadge whether he’d ever experienced intimidation or personal vilification from Melbourne Jews over The Age’s coverage of events. I observed that the standards of civil discourse weren’t always high within our community and that the AJN seemed to turn a blind eye to ad hominem excesses.

Ramadge said that he thought my comments indicated that he wasn’t the only brave person present (many had said how brave he was to come and talk with the JCCV) and that he thought I’d raised some good points about minority viewpoints and the importance of their inclusion. He said that he hadn’t suffered any personal threats or vilification and that Danny Lamm and John Searle always conducted themselves very professionally whenever they came to see him (as it appears they do often).

Les Rosenblatt in an Executive member of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.

Galus Australis welcomes submissions from any attendees who would like to put forward an alternative perspective on the event discussed in this article.

Print Friendly


  • ra says:

    There’s a rumour circulating that Fairfax is currently considering replacing Jason Koutsoukis with Paul McGeough as Middle East correspondent. From what I’ve read it appears that the Sydney Morning Herald supports the change, and The Age is opposed to it.

    I suspect that those who already see bias in The Age’s coverage of Jewish, Israeli and Middle East themes will be even more concerned about the publication’s objectivity should Koutsoukis be replaced – especially considering McGeough has apparently moved to the West Bank with his new wife.

    Here is the extract from Crikey’s “Tips and Rumours” section, from the 18-Sep-2009 edition:

    “Fairfax’s veteran war reporter Paul McGeough may be entering a whole new type of conflict after leaving his wife, Walkley Award-winning business journalist Pamela Williams, for a Palestinian woman many years his junior. McGeough, 55, went to Washington earlier this year to promote his book about Hamas and became captivated by the long, dark tresses of the youthful Nadia, whose family live in Ramallah on the West Bank.

    McGeough has been lobbying to replace Jason Koutsoukis as the Fairfax Middle-East correspondent for some time and the word is that although the SMH (his Fairfax tribal home) is willing, The Age has still not agreed. The issue for Age editor Paul Ramadge, apart from McGeough’s legendary expense claims, is how to deal with questions of objectivity and balance when one’s correspondent is in bed with one side of the conflict (so to speak).”

    I haven’t heard any more since then, so who knows what’s actually going on.

  • TheSadducee says:


    In my opinion, anyone who would suspect that a journalist’s objectivity is in question because they have a Palestinian wife and a residence in the West Bank, without actually examining their journalism for bias, is already expressing their own prejudice and isn’t worth engaging with.

    Those sort of insinuations are poisonous and unfair and should be condemned unreservedly. Check out his work and criticise, not judge his personal life.

  • frosh says:

    Hi ra,

    I haven’t read anything this intriguing since Peter Jennings, the iconic news anchor from the American ABC network, was dating Hanan Ashrawi.

  • Larry Stillman says:


    Play the issue not the person. Leave that sort of stuff to Crikey, I’d suggest. We’ve seen enough of personal smear campaigns on this and other blogs to want to stay away from this sort of stuff.

  • ra says:

    To TheSadduccee,

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    However, my comment had nothing to do with McGeough’s work. Rather, I was talking about those outraged members of our Jewish community who already “see” bias, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism at play in the Fairfax press. Such people will probably regard these rumours as “proof” of the validity of their opinions.

    The problem for us is that, although it is difficult to engage with such people, they constitute the loud voice that persistently harangues Fairfax. The real challenge for the reasonable and rational members of the local community lies not with Fairfax, but rather with our excitable mishpocha.

  • ra says:

    Larry, see my 2nd comment.

    The problem the Jewish community is facing here is not an external one (ie with Fairfax) but rather an internal one (ie with each other).

  • alex fein says:

    Firstly, kudos to the folk at Galus for publishing this piece.

    The response to Mr Rosenblatt on Monday night was deeply worrying.

    Les, I may not agree with everything you said at Ramadge’s presentation (for example, I think Saikal is a blight on Australian academia. I was forced to read his apologias on the Iranian regime for a thesis, and encountered the full force of his personality at a conference), but the response you received from the audience was truly disturbing.

    You were indeed brave, and this community needs far more people like you. I say this not in reference to any particular ideology or other philosophical orientation you promote, but specifically with regard to the need for more courageous people who will stand up and voice an opinion. Shkoyach.

  • David Zyngier says:

    While not able to attend the session on Monday I have experienced first hand the mob rule of the Plenaries of the JCCV and SZC on many occasions in the past. I publicly identify with the left Zionist political viewpoint and as a result of the continued marginalisation and intolerance of the SZC Plenum towards our affiliated group Meretz Australia we took the extreme course of publicly resigning form the SZC to highlight its intolerance of diverse points of view.

    As an occasional delegate to the JCCV on behalf of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society I have also been verbally abused and howled down when asking questions – any questions – that question democratic decision making and process.

    The intolerance displayed and personal ad hominem abuse shown towards both a guest of the JCCV and its own constituents is the real disgrace (a reference to recent Jewish News cover story). Democracy is not Mob Rule – Tyranny of the Majority is not democracy but a prelude to fascism. The quality of a democracy can be best assessed by how it treats its minorities – whether they be GLBT, the poor, Russian migrants, Gen Xs or Ys, or the politically or religiously non-conformist.

  • ra says:

    Allow me a correction of an error I made. Above I wrote: “…especially considering McGeough has apparently moved to the West Bank with his new wife.” I don’t know if that’s correct. If the Galus editors wish to remove that part of the sentence, please do so.

  • TheSadducee says:


    Just to clarify – I wasn’t suggesting that you were doing that nor did I intend to do that. I just responded with my personal view after you brought it up. Sorry that wasn’t clearer in the first place! :)

    And I read what your writing about the critics jumping on this. What they don’t realise is that by displaying their own prejudice that they make their criticism of bias hard to to take seriously and/or marginalise themselves.

  • ra says:

    Sadducee – cheers for that! Now we’re on the same page (no pun intended).

  • philip mendes says:

    Alex: I think your presentation here of what allegedly happens to so-called minority or dissenting groups in the Jewish community is less than the full story. It is not as simple as saying that aggressive Jewish majorities beat up on small courteous minorities, and refuse to give them a voice. Two of the most public representatives of AJDS consistently use personal abuse and attacks against those who they disagree with. To be sure, there are other representatives of AJDS who are more polite and sober in their public and private statements, but to date they have never sanctioned the behaviour of the two offenders. When AJDS then complain that they are being abused by others, it really does seem to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Philip Mendes

  • TheSadducee says:


    So your view instead is it is as simple as saying that aggressive Jewish majorities beat up on small rude minorities, and refuse to give them a voice?

    And the small rude minorities shouldn’t complain about it, especially if they are abused because they are rude themeselves?

    I note that you don’t actually address the point that a crowd of people, in a community gathering in front of a major newspaper editor, verbally attacked someone who got up and disagreed with them and that is, undeniably, a negative thing in terms of freedom of speech and honest and open debate. Regardless of whether his view was right or wrong the crowd had no right to try to silence him – this should have been done by the convenors, not the mob.

  • Henry Herzog says:

    Les Rosenblatt, of course you put your hand up and that’s because The Age publishes your belligerent, anti-Israel trash while ignoring anything remotely supportive of Israel. Read my letter in this week’s AJN. I couldn’t be bothered wasting my time reiterating what I said, but I will repeat this; your’s and The Age’s constant biased reporting and anti-Israel rantings will translate into anti-Semitism and your obvious one sided approach to the middle east conflict does nothing to resolve it. To resolve conflicts, the secret is to see both sides and you, Les, don’t.

  • ariel says:

    I was not present seeing as I don’t live in Victoria, but if Ramadge observed that The Age is more balance than The Australian, he must take us for idiots.

    The Australian’s Middle East correspondant, John Lyons, is far more balanced than Paul McGeough and Ed O’Loughlin at Fairfax. From the little I’ve read of Jason Koutsoukis, he is not as bad as his predecessor.

    This extends to other areas, for example, with Paul Kelly often reporting on political affairs without ever making known his political preference: he criticises both sides and gives credit to each when due. Unlike Fairfax press, which once was Labor-leaning, but has recently become more like a publication of the Greens or even Al Jazeera at times.

    I acknowledge that there is an editorial bias at The Australian which is more pro-Israel and pro-US. But if Fairfax can be so blatantly left, then The Aussie has every right to go the other way in its editorial. You can’t have it both ways.
    During 11.5 years of conservative government, there were plenty of left wing publications and opinion pieces being published. Yet the day after Labor’s victory in the 2007 election, Guy Rundle and other leftist commentators called for a “purging” of conservative journalists, such as Janet Albrechtsen, because they were now “irrelevant” and “had lost”. Another case of leftist hypocrasy.

    Les, your claim at the meeting that AJDS represents a “significant minority” is exaggerated. A minority, yes. Significant, only in its minuteness.
    Nonetheless, Fairfax has every right to publish your opinions, but they should make it known that you represent a minority and should publish the opinons of Colin Rubinstein and Danny Lamm on the opposite page.

    Finally, Paul McGeough marrying a Palestinian woman is more likely a result of his bias, not the cause of it, althought there is probably a bit of push and pull in both directions, as is natural in such a situation.

  • frosh says:

    From the little I read The Age, I wonder if the problem is not so much that it is has one-sided coverage of Israel/Mid-East, but rather it appears to have one-sided coverage across a whole range of topics.

    The Australian (my preferred newspaper) by contrast presents the readers with a clearly more diverse range of views and columnist, not to mention a higher standard of writing in general.

  • Jon says:


    What is considered ‘balanced’ is most often in the eye of the beholder. Newspapers when they are reporting the news are there to tell the truth (as best as they can ascertain), not to give equal space to competing different views, when the facts only support one side. They should sift through the propaganda on both sides.

    I don’t follow the Age or SMH middle-east coverage closely, but whilst Ed O’Loughlin did show a bias against Israel in his reporting, Katsoukis seems to be a bit fairer. Lyons for the The Australian has also been pretty fair.

    As for op-eds, I’m a bit tiered of reading the likes of Colin Rubinstein, which are predicatable and offer nothing new. Op-eds should be enlightening and challenging, not pro-forma pieces straight from AIJAC. The same goes for the likes of Saikal, who frankly has a very limited grasp of the Israel/Pal. conflict (does he even lecture on it?) and whose opinions are equally predictable.

  • ariel says:

    Jon, you seem to share my views on those writers…
    As I said, Paul Kelly is my favourite journo. You can’t tell his political leanings at all even as he analyses every nuance in Canberra with great detail. He is the consumate journalist.

    The issue is that news items should present the facts: what happened and when, without a running commentary of the writer’s opinion interwoven.

    Expressing an opinion is what the Opinion section is for and we should see two opposing opinions on the same day (as some may not pick up the paper the next day and miss the opposing view). The Aussie is much better at this than Fairfax.

  • David Zyngier says:

    A few questions of my own:

    1) Could Dr Mendes please enlighten the readers as what he meant by:
    “Two of the most public representatives of AJDS consistently use personal abuse and attacks against those who they disagree with.”

    2) Can Dr Mendes please provide evidence of such assertions?

    3) Could Henry Herzog please explain what he means when he writes that The Age publishes Mr Rosenblatts public comments that are:
    “belligerent, anti-Israel trash while ignoring anything remotely supportive of Israel”

    4) Does Mr Herzog wish to make the claim that The Age does not regularly publish pro-Israel letters and opinion pieces (I seem to recall seeing letters published by an H Herzog of St Kilda, a M. Bird and M. Foigel of Toorak and even op eds from a C. Rubinstein, D. Abramovitch to just name a few without doing any research!)

  • David Zyngier says:

    For those in the Jewish Community who believe that the Australian is very even handed in its reporting or even pro-Israel I wonder what they might think of the article by Jewish writers Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss:

    When criticised, attack the critics

    I quote a few paragraphs only:
    IN his speech to the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vigorously took up the country’s latest strategy for responding to allegations of human rights abuses: kill the messenger.

    “The idea that this is aimed at delegitimating the state of Israel – that is the last thing I would want to do.” Goldstone, a Jew and a Zionist, says Israel’s leaders are behaving contemptuously, “ignoring the specific allegations and simply launching a broadside”.

    “Those broadsides began not long after the ascension of the right-wing Netanyahu government in March, when his ministers began painting human rights and peace groups as a fifth column for terrorists.”

  • ariel says:

    David Z, you just proved our point!

    The Aussie publishes a broad range of views it disagrees with. Balance.

    Fairfax press, I’m guessing, would never publish an article praising Netanyahu’s speech because it would give them an ulcer just thinking about it!

    The entire article is flawed anyway. Israel can’t fight the lies and accusations hurled at it, because lies are very difficult to argue against rationally. Therefore, they have no recourse but to delgitimise the liers.

  • Henry Herzog says:

    Hi David, to say that Iran is on equal footing with Israel and that Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect it self against Israel is complete nonsense. It makes it sound as Israel is the bad guy that wants to bomb Iran for no apparent reason and poor old Iran is the victim. Rosenblat has said that and in my mind that is belligerence towards Israel.

    The Age will publish stories that ridicule Israel. E.g. the thing about shtramuls and how the Rabbibute is careful not to allow marriages where one partner isn’t Jewish (both partners in a Catholic marriage need to be Catholic, the only difference is that it takes 5 seconds to convert to that faith) at the same time having Malcolm Fraser make out that the Jewish lobby controls Canberra. Continous ridicule, demonization, critism of Israel and maybe just sometimes saying something bad about Hamas.

    And when was the last time you saw any letters from myself, Burd or Freedman defending Israel? A few days after Frasers abhorent piece they allowed a tame, but good, letter from Johnny Baker criticizing Fraser for attacking the so-called Jewish lobby.

    David, get your head out of the sand, Australian society is fertile ground for anti-Semitic, and this constant bias towards Israel by The Age will translate to anti-Semitism. I am not being paranoid; I have history on my side.

  • TheSadducee says:


    Your comment about 5 seconds Catholic conversions is offensive and ignorant of reality. It just highlights your own bigotry and prejudices that you have. Shameful.

  • Henry Herzog says:

    Dear Mrs.Miss.Ms.Mr. TheSadducee, Sorry to have offended you. I didn’t realize you were so sentitive, shame you don’t show the same sensititive towards us Jewish folk with the things you say. But that aside, the 5 seconds I learnt was from an old uni friend of mine when doing my time at UNSW who was not Catholic but his bride was and he was required to convert. It was he who told me it took 5 seconds. Also, how long did it take the missionaries in foreign lands to convert the locals to Catholisism, I bet not much longer . If you can tell me of what process the natives of the pacific islands went through and how long it took to convert I would be most grateful.

  • Henry Herzog says:

    PS TheSadducee, don’t start me with Christian sensitivity towards Jews.

  • TheSadducee says:

    So you admit that your knowledge about 5 seconds Catholic conversions is limited to one anecdote from a friend? Seems like your setting a new standard for informed comment making about all Catholics!

    As to conversion in the Pacific – I would note that it was a gradual process and included several Catholics being killed by the local inhabitants eg. the Marist missions etc. If you cared to look into the matter you could inform yourself better before making your 1 anecdote generalisations about approx. 1 billion people in the world…

  • Beatle Juice says:

    I hope we don’t get distracted by that silly “5 second” quip – as I look forward to reading a response to the many other excellent points made in Herzog’s response.

    I maintain that something is antisemitic when Jews (or Israel) are held to a standard that no other is held to. It seems to me that Israel still recieves a disproportionate amount of attention – but this is a feeling that I cannot verify with statistics. I also believe that the newspapers reflect the biases that are out there – and I am convinced that we live in a time when antisemitism, enflamed by the Israel-Palestine conflict, is at an all time high.

    My fear is that legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is essential, but that it is so easily hijacked by the anti-Zionist and anti-semitic rants of various so called “left-wing” groups and individuals that seeing legitimate criticism from anti-semitic diatribes has become hard. How do we differentiate between the two? What responsiblity do those who criticise Israeli policy have for disinguishing themselves from those who strive to delegitimise Israel?

  • David Zyngier says:

    I don’t know which Australian Jewish Democratic Society Herzog is referring to but it mustn’t be the one that I have been a member for over 20 years!

    All the AJDS policies and public statements are available on its website – can Henry please indicate exactly which of its statements are belligerent, anti-Israel trash?

    For his information as he seems to not understand the meaning of the word belligerent:

    # A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent country is an aggressor.

    # A state or other armed participant in warfare; Engaged in warfare, warring; Eager to go to war, warlike; Of or pertaining to war; Aggressively hostile, eager to fight; Acting violently towards others.

    Accusing of some-one of being anti-Israel because they may disagree with your point of view over Palestine/Israel is the stock standard response of those lacking any credibility. Next comes the accusation that they are also anti-semetic!

    This was the current Israeli government’s response to the very serous findings of war crimes in the Goldstone Report. Such findings to do not go away just because the spurious counter accusation that the commission is anti-Israel! Goldstone is a committed Jew and Zionist – how can he be accused of being anti-Israel?

    My daughter has just gone to Israel to work for the NGO established by former Australian Gideon Bromberger – Friends of the Earth Middle East – a unique organization that brings together Jordanian, Palestinian, and Israeli environmentalists. Is she (like me) also anti-Israel because she signed a public statement that:

    condemns violence by all parties, whether state sanctioned or not. We believe that Israel’s right to exist must be recognized and that Palestinians’ right to a homeland must also be acknowledged

    Can Mr Herzog and others in the Jewish Coommunity get a little bit more careful about their accusations against others of being anti-Israel just because they have a different point of view!!

  • David Zyngier says:

    On the 8 October I asked Dr Mendes 2 questions:

    1) Could Dr Mendes please enlighten the readers as what he meant by:
    “Two of the most public representatives of AJDS consistently use personal abuse and attacks against those who they disagree with.”

    2) Can Dr Mendes please provide evidence of such assertions?

    Three days later he still has not provided any evidence to support his slur against these 2 unnamed members of the AJDS. Mendes has done this in the past on this and other websites – he makes accusations that are not (and cannot) be substantiated. He is exposed as very loose with the truth.

  • TheSadducee says:


    I’m not sure what responsibility a critic of Israeli policies has to ensure that their opinion is distinguishable from those with deligitimising goals?

    Even if your opinion is quite reasonable and sound, as you note, those who have other ill-intentions can easily latch onto them and utilise them, even against your wishes/intentions.

    I guess perhaps that critics should focus on both sides and analyse impartially (as far as possible) so that their criticisms can be read within a context of fairness – what do others think?

  • ariel says:

    Saducee, you ask:

    “I’m not sure what responsibility a critic of Israeli policies has to ensure that their opinion is distinguishable from those with deligitimising goals?”

    As David Z points out in has latest post, it is the responsibility of the accuser to provide evidence against the accused. Innocent until proven guilty is our system. It appears that some of us want to become French and adopt the reverse system of guilty until proven innocent.

    If someone criticises or accuses Israel of some wrongdoing, they must back it up with strong evidence. Heresay and the “testimonies” of Hamas members does not constitute proof. That would be akin to a senior public servant being asked to objectively report on the effectiveness of a policy which he/she created in the first place (see Ken Henry re stimulus cheques)…

  • Henry Herzog says:

    David, thanks for your grammer lesson. I was using the word belligerent in the colloquial sense because some in your group of Jewish Democrates and in particular Mr. Rosenblatt, single out Israel, and the Australian Jewish community. They never criticize any other countries only Israel. For reason unbeknown to me Israel is always their target. 180 get killed by suicide bombers in Iraq, hundreds of thousands are murdered in Darfur yet the Australian Jewish Democrates (The Age 31/9) ask a loaded and cynical question about how many Australian Jews want a nuclear-free middle east. That, in my limited capacity for analytical thinking, is belligerent not only towards Israel but to the majority of Australian Jews.

    And TheSadducee, 5 seconds is me being ironic, haven’t you heard of that before. I mean, can’t I have a small harmless stab at the Catholics. Are they so sensitive because of all the thousands of years of persecution by those terrible Jews. (That’s also me being ironic, The Sadducee, so please don’t bother.)

  • David Zyngier says:

    Henry, surely you understand the reason why AJDS limits its public statements to certain issues – in particular Israel – this is a result of its membership who have agreed upon its aims which are publicly available on its website and in its Newsletters. I quote:

    • Social justice and human rights.
    • Opposition to the vilification and mandatory detention of asylum seekers.
    • The struggle against racism, antisemitism in particular.
    • Non-violent paths to conflict resolution.
    • In line with this, the search for a negotiated solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
    • Equal rights, including land rights and justice, for Indigenous Australians.

    The Australian Jewish Democratic Society aims to provide an open forum for discussion and debate, via the World Wide Web, on issues affecting contemporary Jewish life. This is why comment is limited – like all issue based organisations, AJDS tries as much as is possible to reflect this emphasis in its public comments.

    AJDS supports social justice and human rights in all countries, non-violent conflict resolution and a negotiated solution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

    It particularly it aims to offer a considered and alternative viewpoint to members of the Jewish community and others in Australia, a viewpoint that stays away from the stereotypes and fear-mongering that are all too common in public debate on both Left and Right.

  • Henry Herzog says:

    Hi David, I have no problems, what-so-ever, with the AJDC issues as you listed. However, I do have a problem with some of your members’, in particular Les Rosenblatt, actions which are taken under the AJDC banner. You say one of AJDC’s issues is “the struggle against racism, antisemitism in particular”. Rosenblatt has stuff published which suggests Iran is developing nuclear weapons because it fears an attack from Israel. Why would Israel attack Iran? He asks loaded questions making out Australian Jews want the prolification of nuclear arms in the middle east. Haven’t you read his letters in The Age, the paper which, in this week’s AJN, he promotes? It that what you call a stuggle against anti-Semitism? Don’t you think that his trash promotes anti-Semitism?

2 Pingbacks »

Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.