A word from Jake Lynch

May 20, 2015 by J-Wire News Service
Read on for article

Associate Professor Jake Lynch has addressed “misgivings among some members of the Jewish community”.

Associate Professor Jake Lynch

Associate Professor Jake Lynch

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, is the  Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney has recently been the subject of media focus following the vocal interruption of a lecture being delivered at the university by British Middle East expert Colonel Richard Kemp. He is also an Executive Member of the Sydney Peace Foundation

 

He writes:

“I am prompted to write because of my growing and heartfelt concern over misunderstandings about aspects of my role and activities as Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney. These misunderstandings have given rise, I know, to serious misgivings among some members of the Jewish community in particular, and I wish to address those misgivings and – so far as possible – set them at rest.

Main points:

  • I have been cleared, twice, of allegations of anti-Semitism – once in Australia’s Federal Court and then again through a University of Sydney investigation of events at a public lecture held at the University in March;
  • I was not part of the protest that interrupted this public lecture. After it happened, I left my seat solely out of concern for the health and safety of protesters who were being forcefully ejected;
  • While I am a critic of present policies of the Government of Israel, that should not be taken as any statement of enmity with Australia’s Jewish community – some of whom, indeed, agree with my views and work alongside me;
  • It is important for such issues to be aired on University campuses, and we are all responsible for ensuring that they may continue to be openly and respectfully discussed, with contributions from people with a range of views. That is a responsibility I take very seriously.

My political stance

I am an advocate and exponent of the academic boycott of Israel. That does not make me anti-Israel, still less anti-Semitic. My concern is motivated by the values of peace with justice, and an analysis that Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory, since 1967, is wrong in principle, and a major obstacle to fulfilling the needs, and realising the rights and freedoms, of all the people of Israel and Palestine. In my former profession of television reporter, I once interviewed the Israeli father of a military ‘refusenik’, Adam Maor, in Haifa. “The occupation is the cancer that is killing both societies”, he told me. “Whatever you do to end the occupation, bless you”.

I believe that the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza is made to seem more legitimate, and international political pressure for its ending is lowered, by the day-to-day continuation of normal institutional links between Israel and other countries such as Australia. Academic exchanges, at an institutional level, come into this category. As Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu wrote last year, in a column in Ha’aretz that was billed as an ‘open letter’ to the people of Israel:

“Those who continue to do business with Israel, who contribute to a sense of ‘normalcy’ in Israeli society, are doing the people of Israel and Palestine a disservice. They are contributing to the perpetuation of a profoundly unjust status quo.

Those who contribute to Israel’s temporary isolation are saying that Israelis and Palestinians are equally entitled to dignity and peace”.

The nonviolent campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, which is based on this logic, is a loose affiliation of those of us who respond to the call for it, which was issued by a group of Palestinian civil society organisations. This followed the advisory ruling by the World Court, in 2004, that Israel’s security barrier, erected on Palestinian land in the West Bank, is illegal. Because governments generally took no action in response to this ruling, an appeal went out to respond at other levels.

The BDS campaign has three aims: an end to the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (where Israel is recognised as still the occupying power by its control of borders, seaboard and airspace); equal rights for all the citizens of historic Palestine, including present-day Israel, and support for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. On the last point: BDS is, by definition, a campaign of international solidarity. We are not the Palestinians, so we cannot say how the Palestinians will or should enact that right, which is vested only in them, as the rights-holders. We are in favour of the right of return, in the context of the great historic and ongoing wrong done to the Palestinian people. But support for BDS stops well short of any ‘fork in the road’ in any future political or legal process, involving the Palestinians through their own legitimate representatives, on how their rights should be realised. In a similar way, support for BDS does not mandate support for either a so-called ‘one-state’ or ‘two-state solution’ to the conflict.

I realise these are sensitive issues, on which there are deeply felt and opposing views in our community – including among the Jewish community. I regularly take opportunities to raise and discuss them with fellow academics and the general public, because I consider it my duty to do so. I work alongside, and with the support of, prominent members of Australia’s Jewish community, such as Associate Professor Peter Slezak of the University of New South Wales; Vivienne Porzsolt of Jews Against the Occupation; Antony Loewenstein of Independent Australian Jewish Voices; Dr Marcelo Svirsky of Wollongong University; former Greens councillor Cathy Peters, and many others.

The Kemp lecture and aftermath

You will probably have heard of me most recently in connection with a public lecture at the University in March of this year, by Richard Kemp, a retired Colonel from the British Army. Kemp is known for his justification of Israeli military tactics in Gaza of recent years. As you know, there are sharply differing views on this subject, including within Israel, where the military veterans’ group, Breaking the Silence, has issued several reports based on disturbing testimony from soldiers involved in the operations, about the orders they were given and the effect on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

I was in my seat, and listening to the lecture, when a group of protesters entered, one of whom carried a megaphone. This took me completely by surprise. Contrary to what you may have heard, I was not a participant in this protest, let alone its leader.

Around two minutes had passed when University security guards began to use force to eject the protesters. I left my seat to remonstrate with them, solely because – the protesters themselves having posed no threat to anyone – the security guards’ actions created a significant risk of serious harm where none had previously existed. That was a judgment I made at the time, which has since been supported by a medical expert who viewed video recordings of the event. One protester was grabbed in a headlock, which – with rotation – can lead to spinal injuries. Carrying struggling protesters bodily off the floor, which also happened, risks fracture, including cranial and spinal fracture.

Following this sequence of events, I and my wife were subjected to a series of physical attacks by a member of the audience, whom I ultimately felt it justified to threaten to sue for assault. At one point, I produced a banknote from my shirt pocket, to lend emphasis to my point. I was horrified when it was put to me that, in doing so, I had inadvertently featured in an image that others then used to invoke a vile stereotype, connected with the persecution of Jews in Europe. I can appreciate the hurtfulness, to members of the Jewish community, of having that stereotype re-activated in our modern society.

However, I emphasise the word, “inadvertently”. An investigation into this incident by the University of Sydney cleared me of anti-Semitism, and indeed I have been at pains all along to repudiate any such imputation. For instance, I told the ABC’s PM programme, on Radio National, on April 2nd:

“The suggestion that I behaved in a way that was in any way anti-Semitic is entirely mischievous”.

(Full transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4210162.htm)

I also established, last year in Australia’s Federal Court, that my policy of supporting the academic boycott does not infringe Australia’s laws on racial discrimination, after I was the subject of an application led by Shurat Ha’Din, an Israeli legal centre. That was very important to me because it reaffirmed the distinctions I always strive to uphold. My stance is not anti-Israel, let alone anti-Jewish – it is, rather, aimed solely at contributing to political pressure from the international community for the ending of policies that I consider inimical to the rights and freedoms of both Palestinians and, ultimately, Israelis.

Many in the Jewish community – and the community at large – disagree with my views and my analysis of the issues of conflict affecting Israelis and Palestinians. But the important point here is that I am sincere in wishing for positive, sustainable peace for both peoples, and that all my contributions to public debate over those issues are motivated solely by that wish.

I am willing to attend any forum to explain and elaborate further on any of these thoughts, should you wish to hear further from me on this, or any subject connected with my established research interests in peace and peace journalism.”

Comments

31 Responses to “A word from Jake Lynch”
  1. Liat Nagar says:

    Dear Otto,
    Thanks for your comments. You’re right, and certainly I don’t expect to receive anything at all in the way of satisfactory response from Sam T. His (or her) posting to me revealed a bit more in the way of nastiness, which was reined in and veiled somewhat in earlier posts due to use of more formal language. Interesting, the sign off word ‘Salam’.

    • Otto Waldmann says:

      Dear Liat

      Far from being shy, incapable to engage in a “discussion”, I must admit that I have certain reservations about the constant value of the public debate on specific topics at certain times and, most definitely, length and intensity.
      That pedantic, excessively subjective “boring” comes into play – or need not to – after one calculates the efficiency, the need to peddle endlessly specific points or entire arguments some loosely call narratives. This seems even more pressing when encountering opposition from quarters or just simply individuals who can only reduce the value of the engagement to levels of lack of dignity, implicitly by extending value, validity , indeed dignity to opposite stances which, to be fair, are just expressions of turpitude all generated by deficient minds. To be even more specifics, in all , but ALL my encounters of any forms of objection to Jewish and/or Israeli matters I detected at once the stench of backward, primitive thinking and that was coming even from highly regarded intellectuals, scientists, artists etc.
      There is an element of atavic urge at anyone to express rejection of other humans based on…..baseless “determinants”, an “exclusive/exclusivist herd mentality”, a social disconnect which contradicts the very notion of the necessary sociability of the human type.
      Numerous studies have managed to convince that “sociability”, the capacity of humans to have and express empathy and cohesion not only has determined the transition from the mere animal stage, but has lead even to… morphologic changes to our species, particularly more evident in women.
      With the vast quantity of hatred toward other groups perceived and cultivated as distinct – and antisemitism in perhaps the strongest field here – one can one conclude that such attitudes of rejection of the “other” are of the “primeval” kind simply deemed inhuman.
      Realistically, the manifestations of antisocial acts, these primitive visceral phenomena, must be addressed whenever evident, yet, in the necessary process, the notion of oxygen supply comes to mind or just prompts one to feel tired, actually unwilling to have any “association” with such characters for fear of soiling one’s existence which is, otherwise, desired ideally as pure and devoid of those stinking rats, for I am …tired of being so bloody sophisticated , nice, gallant and even continuing with the subject……………… they do make you spew.

      To be continued, though….

      P.S.
      Paul ( Winter Pali ) is doing it again, being just great !!! One day, when I grow up , I want to be a mathematician.

  2. Paul Winter says:

    Jake Lynch heads a gang at Sydney University’s Peace and Conflict Studies centre that uses a known Jew-hater -Johan Galtung – as a guest lecturer. His predecessor Stuart Rees set up that anti-Israel indoctrination centre proclaiming that there must be peace with justice, not having the wit to realise that peace must precede justice, after all even Hitler thought that his actions were justified. The Sydney Peace Prize with which Lynch proudly claims an association awarded that prize to Hanan Ashrawi who heads a gang that asserts that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children in making matzas.

    It beggars imagination that Lynch is unaware that the BDS movement was initiated by Omar Bargouti the Qatari born, Egypt raised, USA educated engineer who is now enrolled in a PhD course at Tel Aviv Uni and who has openly stated that his aim is to destroy Israel.

    Then there is the basis of BDS, an action taken against apartheid South Africa. It is not only a lie to assert that Israel practices apartheid, but it is grossly hypocritical to ignore apartheid practised against Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon and Syria. Or for that matter, the oppression of Christians in Egypt and areas where PA and Fatah murderous kleptocrats are in charge.

    Lynch would have us believe his revisionist history and join in his ignorance of law. When Trans-Jordan was created the border of the Jewish state was the Jordan River, the international boundary. Proposals to alter that border have been rejected by Arabs and despite mohammedan aggression those borders remain. They remain on the same basis that Ukraine borders are unchanged despite Russian aggression.

    Lynch’s alternate history establishes Palestine on nothing but rhetoric. There never was a Palestine and there is no such thing as a Palestinian people which were created by the NKVD in 1964 to counter and contest Jewish self-determination by adopting Jewish rights and history. Only a fool and a bigot would embrace such a malevolent perversion of documented history.

    Lynch claims that there are Jews who agree with him. Those Jews have abandoned their principles by allying themselves with their islamofascist enemies, who hate liberty, oppose universalism, hate women and homosexuals and regard themselves as superior on the basis of their religion.

    Lynch’s behaviour at Kemp’s talk was despicable. He interfered with the lawful exercise of the duties of security staff. His attempt to justify his actions on the basis of concern for students is laughable. His inference that students with a megaphone who oppose a person whom they associate with support for Israel – although he only tells the truth – have the absolute right of the “heckler’s veto”, is below contempt.

  3. Sam Goldman says:

    Jake Lynch by his stand against Israel solely has no credibility. In isolation that stand points only to him being Anti-Israel as well as Anti-semitic. If he took the same attitude publicly to Russia for its annexation of Crimea, to China for its annexation of Tibet, to Indonesia for its takeover of West Papua New Guinea, England for its occupation of both the Falkland Islands and Gibralta; could go on and on into history which would include Australia for its takeover of the land he lives in. Then and only then could he say he was even handed and not anti-Israel nor Anti-Semitic.
    He is not credible when he claims he left his seat for concern of safety of the protestors. What about concern for the welfare of the lecture attendees who were exposed to these protestors using aggressive stormtrooper tactics of screaming, confrontation, surrounding the lecture theatre, the only thing they forgot were the barking dogs. Some of the attendees have faced this type of nightmare before and could easily have been severely traumatised in a way to risk their health. No concern for these people by Lynch.
    Jake Lynch may have been cleared by the Courts and by the University but he will not be cleared of his outrageous attitude of Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitism by the Jewish Community, save maybe for his “Jewish Friends” that he is so proud to have.

  4. Liat Nagar says:

    Your concern for the welfare of the protesters was paramount, it seems, Jake Lynch. It’s your view the security guards were endangering their physical well-being … possibility of spinal injuries, etc. Are they not trained to avoid that kind of consequence? One would think so. A question, how is it that this screaming rabble even got past security into the lecture room? If security were doing their job, they’d have been waiting outside to do their screaming at the completion of the lecture. Interestingly, they were not to be seen BEFORE the lecture commenced. Mmmmm … that might have given warning, then the onslaught inside could not have taken place in quite the disruptive way it did. WHAT WERE THE SECURITY GUARDS DOING, that’s what I want to know? The question has been asked before, yet nobody responds to it.

    And you just happened to be sitting in the audience, no prior knowledge at all of this inappropriate disruption? Just happened to be there and came to the defence of these protesters unknown to you as things got a bit ugly. You were just there as an interested party – rather, methinks, as a silent, passive aggressor. Ah, but not so passive with the currency note flashing! Do you mean to tell me that you are so ignorant of Jewish history and anti-Semitism that it would not occur to you how offensive using your money in that way was? That you only used the money as a warning, a symbol of possible legal prosecution? Is that really what you would have us believe?

    Do you really expect people in the Jewish community to believe these explanations, this whole story, given your ongoing activism against the State of Israel and all who support her and the circumstances of that day? Examine the video again yourself and see the expression on your face when the camera catches it – it says it all.

    You say you have a responsibility to open and respectful discussion of all points of view – nowhere has that ever been evident. You have been single-minded and blinkered in your stand for the Palestinians and against Israel – full stop. You have had a long time to think about what took place, and you have gone one step too far, so now you are appealing in all ‘sincerity’ to the Jewish community to understand how it was for you. It seems we ‘misunderstand’. We misunderstand nothing. You are hiding behind the backs of a few Jewish people (well known for their misguided stance, which, fair enough, they’re entitled to have – these same individuals who are used time and again by people such as you who want to prove that ‘even the Jews are against Israel’), who share your beliefs. And you’re hiding behind the Department of which you are Director with a complete misnomer for its nomenclature – Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. Under your direction, the word ‘Peace’ should be removed, then it might be nearer the reality. I would be interested to know which other areas of the world are studied in relation to peace and conflict – we only ever hear about the Palestinians and Israel. The University of Sydney should come clean and create a new Department for Fostering a Palestinian State without Negotiation with Israel and place you at the head. That would at least be truthful. You even drag our good friend Desmond Tutu into it – yep, Archbishop Emeritus, so he must be right. Everyone and his dog uses Tutu for this cause, too, however it’s becoming a bit boring.

    If the University of Sydney does not take appropriate action against you and your protesting ignoramuses, they will lose all credibility as a high place of learning.
    The fact that you have thus far been cleared twice of allegations of anti-Semitism means merely that due to points of law in relation to it, you are not guilty. You are not guilty within that framework. The law does its best and must rule according to all its clauses and technical points, however unfortunately it is not always just.

    • SamT says:

      Fantastic Mr.Nagar! A blsst on the Shofar! You have made your contribution! But unfortunately you are unable to add to the brain-dead conversations of your colleagues, who crave only for the dismissal of a University employee who favours BDS.
      Salam.

      • Otto Waldmann says:

        As expected , discussion reduced to the grobian/vulgarity of those intruders wasting their bad breath. All consistent with the standards observed by a Jake Lynch and his rallying ranting rodents.

        Henry, mate, this is a good one for printing !!!!

      • Liat Nagar says:

        Sam T,
        It’s Ms. Nagar, not Mr. Liat is a female Hebrew name, so you’re over-excited response is to a woman. As a response it’s just a tad subjective and lacking in any argument or analytical comment whatsoever, nachon? Oops, another Hebrew word! If you prefer French, n’est-ce pas? Or in good old English, is it not so?

        I recall your earlier posting in which you decry the contributions for not having included a point by point discussion of Lynch’s statement, proving inaccuracies. My posting most certainly addressed some of the points in Lynch’s statement, but yours to me ignored my comments and pronounced me as brain-dead as my fellow colleagues. So who’s the brain-dead one here? I am glad you are so familiar with my said colleagues that you know what they crave.

        Shalom.

        • Otto Waldmann says:

          Dear Liat

          yet another sample of those of lesser aptitudes driven by anteluvial ( that is a historical/geological term deeming way back…backwardness )motivations to stick it up the bloody Jews.By sheer number they are impressive, by what they achieve they make us proud of our station.
          Trust me, you cannot squeeze anything satisfactory from this whatever gender Sam T.

  5. Otto Waldmann says:

    If not for the concern shown by alert Jews , Jake Lynch would be without any “publicity”.
    His joint is of no interest outside the relatively insignificant coterie of campus vagrants. That infamous “Sydney Peace Prize” is practically a private joke, you ask ANY Sydney sider if he/she has heard of it……forget it.
    As about Lynch NOT being an antisemite, all you have to do ask any Jew bothered with his existence and you’d learn who/what he really is.
    We cannot ignore him as much as we must treat any communal affliction no matter how insignificant. In reality , the impact Lynch wants to have on the entire Israel/Zionist issue is all but NIL !!!
    To mine, he needs Zionism to vent his visceral hatreds and I, for one, need him to practice my own rhetorical punches, otherwise, let’s face it, Lynch is at best pedestrian in his argumentative “substance”, repetitive, boring and, more importantly IRRELEVANT.

    • SamT says:

      Mr. Waldmann, do you really think that as evidence “all you have to do ask any Jew bothered with his existence and you’d learn who/what he really is.” is adequate proof of anti-semitism? Federal courts do not agree with you..

      And if Mr. Lynch’s impact is “NIL” why does he so excite you?
      regards

      • Geoff Seidner says:

        Dear Sam t
        The diminutive is a typo perhaps unintended.

        Otto Waldman is manifestly allowed rhetoric – which does not purport to be a document examined in court.

        AND IF IT IS, THEN IT IS EXAMINED IN RHETORICAL CONTEXT!!

        Furthermore, the phrase ”excite you” and is a smart – alec / contrarian verbiage that devils’ advocates’ use when they run out of reasonableness!

        Which from experience is often!
        There – a potential critique from you re that ‘reasonableness’ word in last sentence?

        Please do not waste time and space.
        Why not have a go at me for my earlier comment having a ‘go’ at you?
        Regards
        GS

      • Otto Waldmann says:

        Sam T

        There is nothing to be excited about your mate, Jake L. I qualified my comments by stating clearly “insignificant”, hardly something to be excited about, but ,as I also stated, we do consider all kinds of antisemtic incidents/individuals. That’s what a consciencious Jew does, like it or not…

  6. Philip Mendes says:

    Forgot to say that given Lynch’s bizarre misrepresentation of the meaning of the term “community”, he desperately needs to enrol in a Community Practice 101 subject at Sydney Uni or anywhere for that matter.

  7. Philip Mendes says:

    So Jake Lynch seems to be saying here that xenophobia and bigotry is okay as long as it is “sincere”. I also wonder if he realizes the full reactionary implications of his reference in para 11 to cooperation with so-called “prominent members of Australia’s Jewish community”. I am sure with some work I could track down 5 Indigenous Australians who oppose land rights, 5 black South Africans who supported apartheid, and 5 East Timorese who supported Indonesian rule. Would Jake Lynch collaborate with all these tiny minorities against the will and rights of the great majority of their people?

  8. SamT says:

    It is very sad when none of your correspondents go, point-by-point, through Mr. Lynch’s statement and prove inaccuracies. Also, none have indicated in their statements that they have viewed the videos that are in the public domain (four?), of the Michael Kemp lecture. And finally, none have a clue what BDS is all about. Conflating BSD, anti-Israel, antisemitism, anti-jewish is all kind-of bizarre ignorance.

    • Rami Reed says:

      BUT is an organization which hasmm continuously admitted it wants the destruction of Israel. One of its leaders, Bag out has publicly state that Israel should be euthanized. Stephen Rose and his wife have studiously worked to see Israel destroyed. Yes I have seen the videos of the Kemp lecture and seen Lynched diatribe against Jews. So don’t you call me ignorant !

      • Malvina Malinek says:

        The only ignorant or intentionally naïve is SamT.

      • Rami Reed says:

        Sorry for the typos in my previous post. So here goes again:

        BDS is an organization which has continuously admitted it wants the destruction of Israel. One of its leaders, Baghouti has publicly stated that Israel should be euthanized. Stephen Rose and his wife have studiously worked to see Israel destroyed. Yes I have seen the videos of the Kemp lecture and seen Lynched diatribe against Jews. So don’t you call me ignorant !

    • Otto Waldmann says:

      Yes, open minded, clearly identified “Mr.T”, you are 100% right mainly because ONLY you know all that stuff and maybe more, like the mystery of the runnic alphabet and the meaning of the messages carved on gates outside some Hungarian villages, or why little kittens go mad playing with cotton reels and , dare I say, why certain curious chicken cross roads with heavy traffic and some get flattened in the process.
      May I guess that your mysterious name is part of that famous joke – or the joke itself -.Here it is:
      In Brooklyn there was a Chinese laundry called “Finkelstein’s Chinese Laundry”. A mystified Jew enters and sees only Chinese and asks the owner his name and he answers ” Sam Finkelstein”. Are you Jewish, the man asks. “No, I am 100% Chinese”. “Then why Finkelstein !!”. ” I tell you why. When I entered Amerike (!!) at Ellis Island, right in front of me was a Jew-man bei (!!!) the name of Finkelstein. When my turn came right after Finkelstein the immigration officer asked my name and I told him – Sam Ting !!”

      Sam T, from now on I shall not venture ANY opinion, G-d forbid “theories” about anything p- maybe how to cook Romanian dishes – certain – , before checking with you. To me mein opinion or yours is Sam Ting….
      And now, since we are such close pals, here’s me friendly advice : Sam T, get a life !!!

    • ben Eleijah says:

      That will only serve to expose the truth Mr SamT, not serve political interests.

  9. Leon Poddebsky says:

    Lynch is not the sole offender at that “Centre.”
    Scrutiny of other members of its “academic” staff clearly shows that.
    It is an institution that is dedicated to its “mission” to destroy Jewish national self-determination.

  10. Kevin Charles Herbert says:

    Joseph Slonim:

    you say “There are many critics of Israel and/or supporters of the BDS with whom I disagree but nevertheless respect….”

    Would please enlighten me as to who these BDS critics are, whom you respect?

  11. Lynette Chazan says:

    I am bewildered at the absurdity of having someone head a Department of “Peace and Conflict Studies” who supports not dialogue, respect for political complexity and thoughtful concern for human lives, but punitive pressure against only one party to a dispute, applied with utmost and passionate certainty, and whose urgently recommended solution for peace will most probably lead to the engulfment of both Israelis and Palestinians in regional bedlam. Does this make you an anti-semite? I don’t know, and don’t care much, but it does make Sydney University look like the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

  12. Leon Poddebsky says:

    Maybe other people could consider doing what I have done to indicate to the University
    my opinion of its harbouring such a nest of anti-Zionist antisemites: I sent back the degree which the University awarded to me with a covering letter.

    They have the power, but people of conscience need to take at least a symbolic stance.

  13. Geoff Seidner says:

    Humbug!

  14. Alan Gold says:

    The only reason Jake Lynch has written this long, patronising and tedious apologia is because his job at the university is at stake following the disruption of the Kemp lecture. No doubt, being such an opponent of Israel, he will put his dismissal, should this happen, down to pressure from the Jewish community.
    His participation in the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (itself an oxymoron) is a continuing joke. Have a glance at the winners of the annual awards….how many of them are concerned with those conflicts throughout the world which aren’t to do with Israel and the Palestinians?
    He says that some in the Jewish community agree with his views; others disagree. This isn’t the point. The BDS, by it’s very nature, is an assault against Israel and its right to exist. And being the world’s only Jewish nation, the BDS and its proponents masquerade as human rights activists, but as a cover for antisemitism.
    What has Lynch said in public about the Sunni-Shi’ite massacres? About China’s human rights record? About the evil perpetrated against the B’hai in Iran? About the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? About the condition of Christians in many Arab nations? About the way homosexuals are dealt with in Arabia?
    Only Israel, it seems is a suitable target for Lynch’s righteous zeal. Perhaps the other targets aren’t soft enough for him. Perhaps he’s concerned that if he raises his voice against those barbarians, it could be more dangerous than the elderly Jewish lady he confronted in the Kemp lecture.

  15. Jonathan Slonim says:

    There are many critics of Israel and/or supporters of the BDS with whom I disagree but nevertheless respect, but Jake Lynch is not one of them. He stands condemned by his previous writings, at least one of which contained a contemptible anti-semitic canard. Further, his behaviour at the recent lecture by Richard Kemp and his initial justification for both his own behaviour and that of the protestors is well documented. His subsequent attempts to put forward an alternative reality when faced with condemnation and possible action from the University of Sydney are cowardly. At least his colleague has the courage to continue to express his belief that the protestors had the moral right to disrupt the lecture and supporters of Israel have no right to be heard whereas Jake Lynch cravenly retreats behind platitudes and cliches that mask his previously expressed attitudes.
    Finally, the “prominent members of Australia’s Jewish community” to whom Jake Lynch refers maybe prominent, and they may be Jewish by birth (isn’t it curious that their only discernible connection with their heritage is their condemnation of Israel) but they are not members of any Jewish community of which I am aware.

  16. Malvina Malinek says:

    The problem that you Jake Lynch face is in promoting conflict and, only in your mind, supposedly peace,- a one sided one at that.
    At the moment we see only anti-Semitic and Islamic conflicts and no one is there to make peace with.
    Congratulations for adding to the conflict.
    Your supposed good intentions in promoting an anti-Israel stance with your BDS support, while doing nothing to promote a peaceful and respectful relationship between the Arab leadership in the West Bank, let alone with the murderous Hamas leadership in Gaza,- belies you stated good intentions towards Israel.
    Sure,- there is a democratic debate within Israel. You allow the Palestinians the right to determine for themselves how they want to govern themselves ” We are not the Palestinians, so we cannot say how the Palestinians will or should enact that right, which is vested only in them, as the rights-holders”, but you think you have a right to interfere in how the Jews of Israel choose to govern themselves?
    If you feel the 20% of the Palestinian Arabs who continue to reside in Israel in peace and prosperity should have your or any ‘internationalist’ support, perhaps I would be more inclined to believe your genuine non-racist feelings for the Jewish people of Israel.
    I give the right to your Jewish fellow-travellers to follow the Israeli far-Left’s agendas,- but in Israel. I do not give any more right to you or them outside Israel, to follow the murderous agenda of Israel’s Islamist enemies surrounding them. You are all beyond the pale!
    You think you have a right to be more protective of the Palestinians’ rights than their fellow Islamic and Arab brethren and nations who have never done anything other than use them as scapegoats for undermining the one and only Jewish State. Luckily our Government and the Australian people can see where Islamism is leading their own peoples over there,- something that only the Jewish and Arab Israelis have known and fought against for years.
    Dear Jake Lynch,- you don’t have to fear that the Jews will behead you.- so just carry on your campaign against us. We will overcome you and them as we have done for the last 2000 years! Finally we have a State and a people who are showing the world how Jews are no longer everyone else’s scapegoats to be pushed and shoved around. When the modern, clever Palestinians among them will wake up to get the right leadership, then everyone will happily sit down and talk about a sensible, model of cooperative co-existence. All your one-sided pushing will get you nothing more than our opprobrium.

    • Erica Edelman says:

      You nailed it, Malvina Malinek. Even the wolf in sheep’s clothing was caught out in the end. Not only is his diatribe insincere – Not Anti Jewish? Not Anti-Israel? How can this be? Sadly for Lynch he will end up being totally ashamed of his stance. Luckily for us, the real powers that be, namely, Heads of State and Government make Lynch look totally UN-Australian. Whatever is the University of Sydney doing and thinking employing a man who is so totally FOR conflict? Will he still be blaming Israel and her policies when in no time at all Arab will be at (serious) war with Arab? Maybe he should be focused on that. Then Lynch can REALLY say he tried to save the world!

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments