Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Rachel Freeman (Write On, GLW #612) perceives the Israeli-Palestinian confrontations from a Zionist perspective whereas Kim Bullimore and Doug Lorimer see it from a Marxist standpoint.
Freeman stresses the different groups that Israeli political leaders belonged to. This does not negate their indifference to the suffering of the refugees in the displaced persons' camps that was the cause of the intifada.
To get the record straight, Arab rioting against the Balfour Declaration started as early as 1920. Dr Chaim Weizman, the president of the Zionist Organisation, stated at the Versailles peace conference in 1919 that he wanted Palestine to be as Jewish as England is English. The population of Palestine was then 500,000 Arabs and 50,000 Jews.
The rise of fascism — which is the ideology of monopoly capitalism — led to the Holocaust. This made it necessary for Jewish refugees to seek political asylum wherever it was available. The USA and the USSR could have done a lot more to rescue Jewish refugees from fascism.
Freeman stated, "some may say the Irgun were terrorists". It is obvious that they were. Are you aware of the massacre of 254 Arab men and women and children in the village of Deir Yassin in April 1948? This led to the exodus of 850,000 Palestinians from Palestine. Those who remained in Israel have the status of second-class citizens.
Contrary to the opinion of Freeman, Bullimore deserves commendation for her courage and commitment to high ideals. She is a strong opponent of all manifestations of racism.
The Palestinians were not in any way responsible for the Holocaust but are suffering from its aftermath. They should be repatriated to Israel and compensated for the property and possessions that they abandoned after the massacre of Deir Yassin. The new state of Palestine should also be made available for the refugees who wish to live there.
Until this happens the cause of conflict will remain.
Bernie Rosen
Strathfield, NSW
Provocation defence
Erin Cameron has omitted a main point in her article "Australia's 'honour' killings" (GLW #612) — even though few women (that she has researched and decided to include) have been treated favourably under the "provocation" defence, there is a special defence just for women who suffer domestic abuse and kill their abusive partners — the "battered housewife" defence.
Even if it isn't still being used, the mere fact it was a real defence means that the law takes seriously the condition of women being provoked by their partners. The method they use to defend themselves is crucial, because in most cases the "battered housewife" would stand up in court far better than "provocation". Although they mean very similar things it's the connotations of the words that is important. Disgustingly base, I know.
You could try reading the International Social Science Survey/ Australia 1996-97 to get a broader idea that the problem isn't one-sided and men are getting assaulted by their female partners, but in most cases are too proud (or scared) to report it. But then again, maybe you have to write a completely one-sided article to get the feminists really riled up.
Elisha Harris
via email
Are Iranians being vilified?
Recently I was given a tutorial assignment of comparing one group of migrants in Australia to Puerto Ricans in East Harlem. I chose Iranian people, since I have a number of Iranian friends and acquaintances.
I began my research by speaking to an Iranian boy of 17, someone born here, and who had been one of my music students 10 years previously. He began to tell me how he had been made to get off a bus in transit, detained for three hours and questioned. He told me that he had been arrested several times and then let go, admittedly because he had been in a few fights in Northbridge. He said if he got into a fight with another Iranian, then he would be let go, but if he got into a fight with a "white" then they would keep him overnight. The fact that he saw Anglo-Australians as white, and himself non-white, struck me. This lad was brought up in Claremont in a gracious Bahai family!
I was so disturbed by what he had told me that I researched further and found that there had been a number of ASIO raids on Iranian households, with people held at gunpoint.
One of my friends is now afraid to receive political material from me because he says that anyone from the Middle East is now being watched closely (he has a double PhD) and doesn't want to jeopardise me in any way! Isn't it time that we, as a democratic community, do something about this kind of dangerous cultural attitude, an attitude that is making Iranian people live in fear?
Marcia Hewitt
Perth, WA [Abridged]
US social security
First we had Bush's lies about the reason for the war in Iraq, and most Democrats ran for cover. Now more than 1400 body bags later, we have Bush telling more lies — this time about social security going broke.
Bush lies about social security because he wants his stockbroker friends to make a clean sweep before he leaves office; and, the Democrats lack the moral and political courage to put forth the real solution to a viable social security system.
There is nothing wrong with social security that putting all Americans to work at real living wages can't solve.
Something to think about: If the minimum wage was tied to inflation based upon the calculations of the United States Department of Labor for what is required for a real living wage, social security taxes could be reduced by at least 8% and payouts could be increased by almost 20%!
Contrary to Republican lies, social security was intended to provide the sole source of income for working-class Americans in their retirement years.
The math is simple, figure it out for yourself... more social security taxes collected from more people working at higher wages is what ensures the viability of a sound social security system. (More people working and higher wages = more social security taxes collected.)
If all working people were covered by collectively bargained agreements, we could increase social security taxes by who knows how much and increase payouts and never have to worry about social security ever going broke.
Alan Maki
Warroad, Minnesota [Abridged]
From Green Left Weekly, February 9, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.