LEELA ROSS and others take umbrage at an earlier letter calling on the Canberra Jewish community to justify the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza. 

Regarding Conor Bradley’s letter (CN April 24): As a member of the Canberra Jewish community, I find the demand that we collectively justify the actions of a foreign government, Israel, deeply problematic. 

Our community, like any other, holds a diverse range of views on the situation in Israel/Palestine. Treating us as a monolithic entity solely defined by our connection to the people of Israel, and holding us responsible for the Israeli government’s actions, is fundamentally unfair and ignores our individual agency and beliefs.

Furthermore, demanding that community members prove their moral standing by passing a political “litmus test” based on their peoplehood is abhorrent. 

Singling out Jewish people and requiring specific political condemnations or actions as a measure of “goodness” is discriminatory. It echoes historical pressures placed on Jewish groups to constantly prove their loyalty or denounce actions they have no control over. Such demands based on collective identity, rather than individual conscience and action, have no place in respectful discourse.

Implicit in the letter’s framing is the offensive notion that the Holocaust serves primarily as a “moral lesson” specifically for Jewish people. 

The Holocaust was a genocide perpetrated primarily against the Jewish people by the Nazis and their collaborators; its lessons about the dangers of dehumanisation, state-sponsored hatred and mass violence are universal, not a special indictment reserved for its victims or their descendants.

To weaponise the memory of the Holocaust in this way, turning it into a tool to morally police Jews today, is a gross distortion of history and its meaning.

Leela Ross, Canberra 

All people in Middle East have suffered enough

Conor Bradley’s letter (CN April 24) attempting to parallel the Nazi attack on the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 with Israel’s campaign in Gaza is condescending, offensive and disgraceful. 

It’s also antisemitic, according to the most authoritative definition of antisemitism, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition, which gives as an example of antisemitism “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.

It beggars belief that the manifest differences should need to be explained. Here are some of the more obvious. The Nazis attacked as part of their genocidal plan to exterminate the world’s Jews. Israel attacks to root out a terror group that started this war, conducts asymmetric warfare and reiterates its intention to keep attacking again until Israel is destroyed. 

The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews. Israel evacuates civilians for their own safety before attacking the terrorists who hide in terror tunnels and underneath hospitals. The Gaza war would end immediately if Hamas laid down its weapons and negotiated for a permanent peace. 

What does Bradley think would have happened to the Jewish ghetto fighters and other inhabitants if they would have laid down their weapons? Bradley’s attitude only supports the extremists in the Arab camp.

The president of the Palestinian Authority has called Hamas “sons of dogs” and has demanded that Hamas release the remaining hostages, disarm and hand over control of Gaza to end the war with Israel.

Let’s hope for peace. All the people of the Middle East have suffered enough. Just think how the whole region would have benefitted if the Arabs had accepted a Jewish state in 1947. 

The Jewish people had lived in North Africa and the Middle East (MENA region) for more than 2500 years. There were more Jewish refugees displaced from the MENA region than Arabs after 1948. Most of the Jewish refugees were settled in Israel. The Arabs that stayed in Israel after 1948 now have full citizenship and equal opportunity with Jewish people.

Robert Cussel, Canberra

Conor thinks he knows what Jewish people feel

I write this in response to Conor Bradley’s letter (CN April 24) in which he purports to know what Jewish people think and feel regarding the war in Gaza/Israel. 

I suspect that Conor has not actually spoken with any of Canberra’s Jewish community regarding their thoughts and feelings regarding the horrific situation playing out. However he clearly purports to know what those people are talking and doing in private.

Janet Berger, Weston Creek 

The velocity of money moves closer to zero

Philosophy and economics interact. What has this got to do with Zeno? 

Zeno was an ancient Greek philosopher who told the story of a frog jumping towards a pond, but with each hop the frog jumps half the distance of the previous hop. How many jumps would the frog make to reach the water? The answer is that the frog will never reach the water’s edge.

So? In the economics world there is something called the Velocity of Money. It is calculated by dividing the country’s gross domestic product by the total stock of money.

For the past few decades the Velocity of Money has been falling. It is now very small, and recently the Velocity has been approaching zero. Yet it does not quite get there. 

Now there is a theory called Modern Monetary Theory that says the government can print money and spend without limit. The government is now creating more and more money and so it can spend it. What happens to the money? It accumulates, but the government then issues more and more debt to soak it up. But Velocity edges closer and closer to zero.

Will nothing happen? Will the frog actually reach zero? What happens to the accumulating debt? Nobody knows. It has been suggested by some economists that when the velocity of money actually reaches zero, the value of money will disappear like a puff of smoke. Banks disappear. Buying and selling will disappear. But maybe Velocity will never reach zero. The government can keep spending without limit. At present, nobody knows.

Tim Walshaw, Watson

Perils of parking at the polling centre

Who was the mental giant who decided to close, and keep closed, the parking area adjacent to the polling centre at the Belconnen Town Centre?

The closure caused considerable difficulty for the elderly, those with physical disabilities and unnecessary parking problems for pre-poll voters.

Perhaps It is time to reconsider the suitability of this venue as a major pre-polling centre.

Owen Reid, Dunlop

Time for Cheyne to respond to coronial reforms

As a founding member of the ACT’s Alliance for Coronial Reform (ACR), I write to highlight some of the problems with our present approach to coronial hearings.

We currently have a “dedicated” coroner, Ken Archer; however, the position is not a statutory appointment of the Coroners Court. This means that the Chief Magistrate/Coroner, Lorainne Walker, can reassign coroner Archer to the Magistrates bench at any time. 

Mr Archer performs the role of magistrate on some Saturdays and public holidays.

Frankly, given the coronial hearing delays, it is inappropriate that his workload is being split in this fashion. Moreover, Mr Archer has had to recuse himself from conducting at least one coronial hearing due to a conflict of interest arising from being both a magistrate and coroner.

Indeed, the delays are now so long that an additional coroner is necessary.

It is time for Attorney-General Cheyne to publicly respond to the recommendations outlined in the ACT Coronial Restorative Reform Process (which can be found on the Human Rights Commission website under “Victim Support”), which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly in 2024.

We all need to know if, when and how the government intends to respond to those recommendations. There have been too many months of silence.

Timely, thorough, useful coronial hearings assist grieving and healing.

This is something that at some point in our lives many readers can appreciate, need and deserve.

Janine Haskins, Cook