Jews and Palestinians deserve dignity equally

David Leser is right: what Israel is doing in Gaza is indefensible (“Israel’s actions in Gaza indefensible”, May 17). The mass killing of civilians, starvation and destruction of homes and hospitals cannot be justified. Language matters. Anti-semitism — unlike most racism — is often bound up with tone, implication and intent. Its shape-shifting nature explains why no single definition suffices. As Leser writes, “Judgment and sensitivity are needed.” Holocaust comparisons, in careless, malign or cynical hands, become Twitter gotchas, not moral insights. Far left and far right alike accuse Jews of “controlling the media or government” – and some far-left Jews give this language cover. That’s not solidarity with Palestine; it’s betrayal. But collective punishment, whether of Palestinians or Jews, helps no one. As Leser’s article makes clear, Palestinian civilians are now enduring the worst form of it imaginable. Hamas and the Israeli government each treat human life with contempt. Each radicalises the other. And social media – our great engine of outrage – keeps us loyal to our “team” at all costs. Are we not capable of more than his? Jews and Palestinians are related peoples, both indigenous to the land. Both deserve dignity. What Netanyahu and his cohorts are doing is a betrayal of that shared history – and of people like me, whose family was destroyed in the Holocaust. It is Kahanism. It is odious. Simon Tedeschi, Newtown

It’s always tempting to take the authoritarian path and declare that something should be compulsory reading for this or that bunch of people. That’s particularly the case with David Leser’s article. He presents an enlightened comparison between the two most highly publicised definitions of anti-semitism, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. Acknowledging that the latter is not perfect, he exposes the perverse implications of the former that allow criticism of Israel to be immediately condemned as anti-semitic. Since one can’t dictate the reading diet of politicians, editors or the officials of unrepresentative Jewish organisations, those who share Leser’s dismay at Israel’s inhumanity can only voice a plea for his analysis to be read widely and taken with the utmost seriousness. As he concludes, “defending Palestinian life and dignity” is not anti-semitic, but “an expression of our human and Jewish ethics”. Tom Knowles, Parkville (Vic)

Thank you, David Leser. While I have been deeply anguished watching the slaughter in Gaza, I rarely spoke aloud, fearing expressing anti-semitic thoughts. I silenced myself. Your analysis of Israel’s decimation of the people of Gaza is similar in style, if not in scale, to the Holocaust. Your analysis of different definitions of anti-semitism is liberating. This opinion does not ignore the horrific actions of Hamas. Victor Branson, Waterloo

David Leser should not despair, what is being inflicted by Israel on the people of Gaza is not something Jews in general have to own responsibility for. It is something being carried out by a country against a captive group within its borders, by a leader whose bloodlust appears to only be capable of being satiated by murder on a grand scale. John Guy, St Ives

Who could argue with David Leser’s analysis? Who would want to? He speaks as a humanitarian with rationality and bravery in the interest of telling the truth about Gaza. The pain he undoubtedly feels in bringing Israel to account should be assuaged by the fact future historians will certainly agree we’ve witnessed a Palestinian Holocaust, consciously perpetrated by the people who, ironically, used their own Holocaust to justify their genocidal actions. Those who disagree with Leser need to put forward a rational argument as to where and why he’s wrong. Simply dismissing him as “anti-semitic” is to run away from reality. Tim Lenehan, Ballalaba

Criticism of Israel’s actions, when they are cruel and inhuman and violate the human rights of Palestinians, is not anti-semitic. Standing up for the weak and powerless when the aggressor is the state of Israel is not anti-semitism. Criticising the actions of Israel is not, by definition, anti-semitic. Our children and grandchildren will ask us how this genocide was allowed to happen. I don’t think they’ll find our fear of being called anti-semitic a convincing excuse for silence. Prue Nelson, Cremorne Point

In criticising the IHRA definition of antisemitism for supposedly being overprotective of Israel, David Leser neglects to mention it specifically states that criticising Israel as you would criticise any other country is not anti-semitic. In saying it’s anti-semitic to describe Israel’s existence as a racist endeavour, the definition doesn’t refer to Israel’s behaviour, as Leser implies, but to suggesting Jewish self-determination in the Jewish homeland is somehow racist. Those who favour the Jerusalem Declaration do so because it lets them feel it’s somehow not anti-semitic to deny Jewish self-determination in their homeland while demanding that same right for others. Leser’s accusations of apartheid, genocide and deliberate starvation are simply wrong. All Israeli citizens have equal rights, and the restrictions in the West Bank are purely for security, necessitated by terrorism. In Gaza, Israel evacuates civilians for their safety, rather than targeting them as a genocidal army would do, and it only attacks civilian buildings and facilities because Hamas illegally militarises them, making them legitimate and important targets. Israel blocked aid, after enough entered Gaza to last for months, because Hamas steals and uses it to consolidate its power, but deliveries will soon resume. Jamie Hyams, Director of Public Affairs, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, Melbourne (Vic)

Energy divides Coalition

Apparently, Australians don’t know their own minds (“Trump set to bedevil Coalition”, May 17). According to Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie, “Obviously, our country is best served by a strong Nationals-and Liberals Coalition government”; she went on to suggest this Coalition may not hold. At the heart of the Coalition’s troubles – Peter Hartcher characterises it as a “civil war” – is energy policy. With many Coalition members still denying the need to commit to renewables, and the consequent policy insecurity that that signals to investors, Canavan, Joyce and others see their chance to dump the by-now totally inadequate net zero target. Ted O’Brien tries to square the circle by still advocating nuclear to achieve it. All this should be, in light of the election result, a moot point as Labor ploughs on with our energy transformation. Yet it seems the Nationals will continue their lobbying and stirring, particularly in regions where renewables are seeking social licence. But what most, including the National Farmers Federation, understand is that we are in a race against climate change. The Coalition can no longer hold us back. Fiona Colin, Malvern East (Vic)

Saudis send signal

Nothing sends a more powerful signal about the future of energy than Saudi Arabia planning to become a renewable energy superpower (“Trump and Saudi’s crown prince truly deserve each other”, May 17). It has gained more than any other nation from the oil boom of the past 50 years, but also has the most to lose.As a nation whose destiny is also tied to fossil fuels, Australia would do well to heed this lesson. Sooner or later, demand for our coal and gas will decline, then enter a tailspin. We will need new exports to fill the gap. The sooner we start planning for this the better. Ken Enderby, Concord

Confusion over super is taxing

I’m a bit concerned that your correspondent (Letters, May 17) thinks he should be taxed on his superannuation. Did he not pay tax during his working life? Does his super fund not pay tax? Does he not pay tax on the income from his investments? I appreciate his sentiments, but he hasn’t given it much thought. In any event, Jim Chalmers does indeed want to introduce tax on superannuation balances over $3 million. Jenny Greenwood, Hunters Hill

The tax system is very broken when one can legally pay no tax, or when there is a tax on a tax. A progressive (income tax) and flat tax (GST) with a combination of legal but dubious deductions is a recipe for tax chaos that makes for an unfair system that seems to benefit the wealthy. Peter Mohacsi, Bowral

I agree with your correspondent who suggests retirees on generous super payouts need to be taxed. Self-managed super funds have become like a magic pudding. The more one cuts into them, the greater they grow. If the fund is large enough, payments are quickly replaced by capital gains of one kind or another after the annual drawdown. And no taxes are levied. For many retirees, the income from investments in retirement can become much greater than the taxable wages earned during their working lives. This is a strange inversion. I note that the major policy of one of the few Liberal candidates still hanging out for a seat is that no taxation be levelled at superannuation income. No wonder he’s struggling. Fear and greed remain the twin emotions of capitalism. We can do better. Bruce Wilson, Merewether Heights

Oh, what an opportunity we missed when the proposed reforms of the opposition were buried at the 2019 election. Negative gearing applicable only to new dwellings, change in capital gains, a small tax of 15 per cent on retirement fund incomes above $100,000 – what a difference these would have made to the housing situation and budget repair. My highly credentialled daughter works six days a week to earn little more than my fund earnings of $128,000, yet she pays $37,000 in tax per year and I pay none. How inequitable is that? Looks like another Boomer-ing advantage over everyone n else. Duncan Cameron, Lane Cove

Why not simply give or donate more? Edward Loong, Milsons Point

Patriotism still not accepted

“Progressive patriotism” (Letters, May 17) must be intended as a foil to the MAGA-style regressive patriotism we see in the US, but the expression reeks of overkill: we don’t face the same situation as Canada, where patriotism has a much sharper edge as a result of Trump not only wanting to make America great, but territorially greater by annexing a sovereign nation. Here, those leaning to the right will see “progressive” as a Trojan horse potentially unleashing a Pandora’s box of policies to upend the status quo, while for others on the left the idea of lining up under a jingoistic “patriotism” banner is a move well outside their comfort zone. This surely is a political slogan with a limited shelf-life. Doug Walker, Baulkham Hills

Patriotism is a poor choice for Labor’s slogan. For many people, it conjures up memories of the last century, when most of the wars could be traced back to scoundrels and despots hiding behind the banner of patriotism to expand their empires. When linked with “progressive”, which implies looking to the future, the slogan has the ring of an oxymoron, and Labor would be unwise to fall in behind the moron who proposed it. I agree with letter writers that “patriotism” is also a quality that can be trumpeted by all political wannabes across the spectrum, and so it becomes meaningless. John Vigours, Neutral Bay

Good news for the environment

Given the dire state of our natural environment, it is encouraging that new Environment Minister Murray Watt is prioritising reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (“Watt revamps environment laws Albanese once blocked”, May 17). His first test is whether to allow a 50-year extension of Woodside’s North West Shelf fossil gas terminal. Approval will compromise Labor’s climate credentials, threaten marine species at Scott Reef, degrade ancient Murujuga rock art and impose global costs. Climate harm caused by BHP, Rio Tinto, Santos, Whitehaven and Woodside between 1991-2020 exceeds $900 billion. With a strong mandate from the electorate to act on climate change, this is an opportunity for Minister Watt and Labor to demonstrate leadership. The world cannot afford 50 more years of Woodside’s pollution. Karen Lamb, Geelong (Vic)

Bad luck to be old

My congratulations to Nola Tucker (Letters, May 17) on her well-written “apology” to NSW hospital commissioner Beasley and the Minns government over her “nonagenarian husband” occasionally being forced to occupy a public hospital bed. We of the pre-Boomer generation are slow to anger, but once our ire is well aglow, it would be as well to recall that we still vote and have loving families who also vote, and that “young puppy” politicians and bureaucrats with gratuitous insults will feel our sting. Ian Usman Lewis, Armidale

Gambling with society

Tim Costello is spot-on (“Ministry pairing ’conflict of interest‴⁣⁣ , May 17). Gambling, especially sports gambling, is a dead-set national health issue. The only role sporting codes, media companies and wagering firms should play in its discussion is about how many zillions of dollars they will contribute to address the massive damage they have done. Who’s running our nation – our federal government or the various sporting codes, media companies and wagering firms? Col Shephard, Yamba

Sad loss

Condolences to Sussan Ley on the death of her mother (‴⁣⁣Gift of fate’: Sussan Ley mourns death of mother Angela”, smh.com.au, May 17). Irrespective of your age or status, the loss of a parent is one of the saddest and most harrowing of all of life’s experiences. Stephanie Edwards, Leichhardt

• To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
• The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.