Australians should unite to support Israeli and Palestinian civilians

Lack of sympathy from fellow Australians

As an Australian Jew I am deeply disturbed and disillusioned at the lack of sympathy from so many of my fellow Australians and many parts of our media (“These horrors mark the end of any delusions for Jewish people”. October 24). Why can’t these people not put aside the complicated politics of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and accept that this was a barbaric terror attack specifically targeting mainly Israeli women, children and babies, and unconditionally condemn the actions of Hamas as inhumane?

I simply can’t fathom all those calling for a ceasefire and insinuating Israel should just take this terrible massacre on the cheek and move on, without demanding Hamas must first release the over 200 hostages unharmed and without conditions.

Michael Burd, Toorak, Vic

Gaza siege aids Hamas’ aims

I am confident that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza will ultimately be far more effective at recruiting for Hamas – and antisemites everywhere – than it will be at eliminating them.

This surely is the outcome that the leadership of Hamas was aiming for when it instigated its campaign of indiscriminate atrocities.

M. Gibbs, Mosman Park, WA

Two sides to moral equivalences

A false equivalence is a fallacy in which in which two subjects are equated based on flawed or false reasoning. This is categorised as inconsistency. Simon Birmingham (October 23) is correct in saying, “It is important that we do not allow moral equivalences to be drawn.”

The magnitude of Israel’s moral depravity and land grab against the Palestinian people, both now and over time going back to the 1940s, is far in excess of the total of Palestinian barbaric reactions to that depravity.

Patrick Carmine, Geelong West, Vic

Israel isn’t known for its ‘weakness’

You do not have to look very far to find the flaw in Alexander Downer’s argument (October 23) that military action and posturing, rather than appeasement, is the path to a secure peace. As recently as 2018-19 during the Gaza border protests, 223 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces.

Doubtless there is a skerrick of truth in the comment that “weakness is provocative”, but who in their right mind would accuse Israel of weakness?

Patrick Hockey, Clunes, Vic

‘National disgrace’ can take more than one form

I find it somewhat inconsistent that Josh Frydenberg, who “grew up in a tolerant and multicultural Australia”, has labelled anti-Jewish chants outside the Sydney Opera House “a national disgrace” but seemed quite comfortable with his former Liberal colleagues politicising the recent referendum and denying a Voice to our Indigenous population.

Would he care to comment on whether this, too, constituted a national disgrace?

Simon Price, Bronte, NSW

Missing context on Hamas and Gaza

Your article “Gaza has world on edge, so what and where is it?” (October 19) is missing important context. The blockade was only imposed after Hamas overthrew Fatah in Gaza in a bloody coup and started firing rockets at Israel.

Conditions in Gaza are so poor largely because Hamas spends international aid on its terrorist infrastructure and weapons, instead of on basic necessities.

Athol Morris, Forde, ACT

Why Charles Court wouldn’t have backed the Voice

Ronda Jamieson’s biography of Sir Charles Court, premier of Western Australia from 1974 to 1982, cites his views on WA and secession (and a treaty) from a 1990 interview: “I believe in one Australia, one people, one law and one country, because there are some serious disadvantages in having separate people with separate sovereign status in a country like Australia.

“This is one of the reasons why I’m so uptight about an Aboriginal treaty, because you finish up with a nation within a nation and there’d be nothing worse. That’s why I’m opposed to multiculturalism as it’s being practised and advocated today in Australia. I’m a great believer in people having an Australian identity while retaining the love of the country of their origin.”

Ross Goldstein, West Perth

What explains the shift in public opinion

Our Indigenous leaders have issued their response to the referendum result and they have concluded that the blame lies with Peter Dutton, lies and misinformation, and an ignorant or racist electorate.

When the referendum was first proposed, polls showed a clear majority in favour of the recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution and giving them a Voice in the development of policy and laws that affected them. I suggest the Indigenous leaders look closer to home to explain the inversion of the thinking of the electorate from 60-40 in favour to 60-40 against in a period of 12 months or so.

People don’t become ignorant or racist overnight. Misinformation is always afoot in an election, but any impact is at the margins and almost certainly did not influence the outcome of the referendum.

Garry Ringwood, Kew, Vic

Referendum plan wasn’t ‘overreach’

The AFR View on the referendum rightly concludes that it was a “contest with no winners” (October 21). We are a nation left to lament what could have been. I disagree, however, that the referendum plan “overreached”.

It was to have been a simple four-sentence change to the Constitution and an advisory Voice to parliament. The proposed model had been years in consultative development with bipartisan support. The Voice should never have been politicised so heavily by either major party.

In fairness, Anthony Albanese’s Labor kept his promise to Indigenous Australians and his stance was a morally justifiable one. Peter Dutton’s Coalition, in contrast, used tactics of misinformation, and spread fear and uncertainty. Every Australian must now commit to learning, embracing and supporting Indigenous Australians through every means possible.

Amy Hiller, Kew, Vic

Why some of us supported the Voice

John Roskam (October 20) describing the Voice as “identity politics and critical race theory” is nothing more than hyperbole to suit a particular ideological theme. Those of us who supported the Voice did so for simple reasons, anchored to the Australian characteristic of a fair go.

Indigenous Australians live shorter, less healthy lives, often jobless, in poverty and poor housing. They are underrepresented in our education system and overrepresented in our prisons. Whatever solutions and money we’ve thrown at these problems have not worked. We were asked by Indigenous Australians to give them the responsibility to tackle these issues, and a Voice through which to do so. Quite a large proportion of the non-Indigenous population thought that was worth a try.

Graeme Russell, Clifton Hill, Vic