A letter to Zoe Daniels

 Email this story

Print

7 Comments

A failure to respond to his direct letter to the Independent candidate for Goldstein former ABC journalist Zoe Daniels has prompted Rabbi James Kennard to write n open letter to her on Facebook.

Rabbi James Kennard

In the meantime, the Blake Street Synagogue has withdrawn an invitation to her to attend its Yom Ha’azmaut celebration. Incumbent member Tim Wilson has also been uninvited.

Zoe Daniels has not removed her signature from the ”do better on Palestine” letter which was serious;y anti-Israel.

Rabbi Kennard’s letter:

To Zoe Daniel, Independent Candidate for Goldstein:
Dear Ms Daniel,
I have read your policy entitled “Jewish community” and am still unclear on where you stand regarding the “do better on Palestine” letter.
You say that you did not write the letter, and that if you had you would have framed it very differently. But you do not say if you now agree or disagree with the letter.
You said that you signed it because of a concern for the safety of journalists. Yet that issue relates to only one paragraph of the letter. Did you or did you not agree with the other ten paragraphs, which, amongst other falsehoods and distortions, accuse Israel of maintaining an apartheid regime; lay all the responsibility for the conflict on Israel and none on the Palestinians or the Arabs; and demand that journalists treat for Israeli victims of terror as “instigators”?
Your signature still appears under the letter in the “do better on Palestine” website. Therefore your signing is not an act in the past, which can be dismissed as “what’s done is done” but is an ever-present endorsement of what is stated there.
Your campaign rightly places great emphasis on integrity and transparency. Yet sadly, at present, your response to this issue seems like that of a typical politician – dissembling and deliberately ambiguous.
I respect your integrity and hence look forward to direct answers to three very straightforward questions;
1. Do you agree with the contents of the letter?
2. If not, why did you sign it? Should a person of integrity sign letters with which they do not agree?
3. If you have changed your mind since signing (and the ability to learn, reflect and re-consider is a mark of wisdom), why is your signature continuing to endorse the letter and all its contents? Is it an example of integrity to say different things to different audiences?

Zoe Daniels

Since these are very important issues for a number of voters in Goldstein, I hope you will answer directly, unambiguously, and speedily.
I have written to you, and to your campaign, privately, and received no response. I am therefore hoping that this public request for answers will be more fruitful.
With best wishes
Rabbi James Kennard

In the meantime, Andrew Davis, president of the Blaske Street Synagogue, told J-Wire: “Like many communal organisations here and around the world Blake Street Hebrew Congregation have organised an event to celebrate Israel’s Independence Day – A special kiddush and speaker. Unfortunately, the event that has been organised has developed an unintended political aspect. BSHC’s committee felt it important that celebrating Israel was the sole focus and not the Australian election. Understanding BSHC’s predicament the politicians who were to attend were understanding and have accepted our cancellation of their attendance.”

The letter in question

In the past fortnight, the world has been appalled at Israeli settler organisations threatening Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem with forced expulsions and assaulting worshippers in the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the third holiest site in Islam. As Israeli vigilante mobs attack Palestinians, the Netanyahu government has unleashed a new, brutal war against the besieged population of Gaza.

We note that, seventy-three years after the Nakba, the 1948 forced expulsion by Israel of 750,000 Palestinians, both Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem have declared that Israel maintains an apartheid regime against Palestinians. HRW is calling for targeted sanctions against complicit, Israeli individuals.

We also note the important statement by the International Federation of Journalists about Israel deliberately targeting the media, including by destroying the Al-Jawhara tower in Gaza (known by the IDF to be housing 13 media institutions and NGOs).

We recognise a growing dissatisfaction, both in this country and elsewhere, with the media’s treatment of Palestine.

As journalists, reporters and other media workers, we know that the media can do better. Many of us are seeking change but lack sufficient power in our organisations to push back against the status quo.

We believe that the coverage of Palestine must be improved, that it should no longer prioritise the same discredited spokespeople and tired narratives, and that new voices are urgently needed.

To that end, we call on editors and publishers to:

• Consciously and deliberately make space for Palestinian perspectives, prioritising the voices of those most affected by the violence;
• Avoid the ‘both siderism’ that equates the victims of a military occupation with its instigators;
• Reject frameworks that rely on passive formulations and weasel words (clashes, etc) to obscure the reality of a violence disproportionately endured by Palestinians;
• Respect the rights of journalists and media workers to publicly and openly express personal solidarity with the Palestinian cause without penalty in their professional lives.