• 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.

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.)

“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)…

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?

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.

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!!

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?

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…