Sydney Peace Foundation's chairman Stuart Rees: strangely skewed "peace activist"

From: The Australian, May 14, 2013:     
THE Sydney Peace Foundation's ... chairman Stuart Rees, ...has cast a cloud over the organisation's bona fides by dismissing the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism... His condemnation of Julia Gillard and opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne for "cowardice" in signing it almost beggars belief.
The Prime Minister and Mr Pyne are two of more than 125 politicians from 40 countries who have signed the declaration, which is a well-modulated affirmation of "democratic and human values" advocating societies built on respect, combating anti-Semitism and discrimination. As Mr Pyne said last week, it is sad that, 70 years after the Holocaust, it remains necessary to defend the right of Jewish people to live in Israel - the Middle East's only mature democracy - free of anti-Semitic activities such as the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions campaign.
Professor Rees's stance, in line with many on the Left, contains a curious anomaly. In recent years, while the Left has become more critical of Israel, its Palestinian opponents have become more jihadist. Israel's critics also pay little heed to the encroaching influence of Iran, one of the world's most oppressive and menacing regimes. Late last year, after supporting the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood at the UN, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated his nation's attitude to Israel when he said any deal that accepted the Jewish state's existence would leave a "cancerous tumour" forever threatening Middle East security...
Through Sudan and Egypt, Iran has been shipping major new weapons supplies to the Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who have governed there since winning a majority of parliamentary seats in 2006. The rockets and missiles are being stockpiled in anticipation of military conflict with Israel, to be sparked by action over Iran's nuclear ambitions or the civil war in Iran's ally, Syria.
Iran also has cemented its influence in the Middle East by arming its other surrogate, Hezbollah, with Iranian-supplied rockets in Lebanon. The evidence is incontrovertible that the Assad regime in Damascus, in close collusion with Iran, is seeking to transfer stockpiles of Fateh-110 missiles, with the capacity to carry a half-tonne warhead more than 300km, to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Such a prospect represents a serious threat to Israel.
Against such a background, the focus of Professor Rees's "peace" foundation is what he calls "the internationally illegal policies of the government of Israel". ...the professor fails to address the religious fanaticism of Israel's main opponents. For the head of an organisation ostensibly committed to peace, such bias suggests underlying values that are strangely skewed.

Hon Christopher Pyne MP signs London Declaration Combating Anti-Semitism

From the office of Christopher Pyne, Federal Member for Sturt; Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training; Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives; 10 May 2013:

I’ve just signed the 2009 London Declaration Combating Anti-Semitism.

Recently the University of Sydney was plagued by anti-Israel activists promoting the Boycott Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
Activism, boycotts and sometimes sanctions campaigns aren’t always anti-Semitic, but when you target individual businesses because they are Jewish, it is clearly anti-Semitic.
And it is sad that 70 years after the Second World War and the discovery of the Holocaust, we are still having to defend the right of Jewish people to live in their Jewish homeland in Israel free from this kind of anti-Semitic campaign.
I am one of 125 parliamentarians across 40 countries that have now signed the London Declaration on Combating anti-Semitism and I would urge all parliamentarians to do so.
It is vitally important that Jewish Australians know that their parliamentarians won’t acquiesce to a campaign that is designed to break the relationships between Israelis and Palestinians, whether they are academic, business related or community related.
And so I would urge my fellow parliamentarians to join me in signing this declaration to express our solidarity with the Jewish people and to ensure that those people who are promoting the Boycotts and Divestments and Sanctions Campaign know that they won’t win.

 

 

Why Didn’t the 1967 Borders Bring Peace?

From Commentary , 8 May 2013, by Jonathan Tobin:

The constant refrain of Israel’s critics in the last few decades has been the need for the Jewish state to withdraw from every inch of territory it won in the Six-Day War and to return to what they erroneously refer to as the “1967 borders.” But
...why peace did not reign in the Middle East on June 4, 1967 prior to the beginning of the “occupation.”
...the problem with most of the discussions about the topic is the assumption that merely recreating the situation that existed before that war will bring about peace.
Hard as it may be to ask news consumers to think that far back into history, it is necessary to remind those who harp on “1967” as the only possible solution that when there was not a single Jew living in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, there was no peace. Not only that, prior to that war, when the area now dubbed the “occupied territories” were in the possession of Jordan and Egypt, the focus of the Arab and Muslim world was not on the creation of a Palestinian state but on ending Jewish sovereignty over the territory of pre-1967 Israel.
The 1967 borders actually were not internationally recognized but merely the armistice lines that marked where the armies were standing when a cease-fire ended Israel’s War of Independence. In particular, those lines left the city of Jerusalem, which had a Jewish majority since the mid-19th century, divided. The Old City of Jerusalem, which fell during the fighting during a siege of the city conducted by Jordan’s Arab Legion, was off limits to Jews from 1948 to 1967. The Western Wall never heard Jewish prayer and was used as a garbage dump. The Jordanians paved a road through the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and used some of the tombstones as construction material. A wall ran through the city much like the barrier that divided Berlin.
But those parts of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by the Jordanians (only the United Kingdom and Pakistan recognized their annexation of part of the city as well as the West Bank, which got that illogical name because it differentiated it from the East Bank–which is now Jordan) did not constitute a Palestinian capital. Nor was Egyptian-occupied Gaza considered part of a Palestinian state.
What those who demand a return to the 1967 lines also forget is that Israel’s liberation of the city marked the beginning of the first period in Jerusalem’s modern history that complete religious freedom and open access to all holy sites was protected.
But the situation prior to that war did bear some resemblance to what is happening today. The territories under Jordanian and Egyptian control were used as bases for Palestinians who attempted to infiltrate into pre-1967 Israel and carry out terror attacks. And it was along those borders that Arab armies massed in May 1967 while their leaders repeated threats that they would drive the Jews into the sea.
Israel survived that perilous month of waiting as the world wondered whether a second Holocaust would ensue from those Arab threats by striking first and defeating its enemies. At that moment, the Jewish state ceased to be seen as a latter-day David standing up to the Goliath of an Arab world that outnumbered its forces and became the bogeyman of the international press.
... what those who harp on 1967 ignore is that there has been no sea change in Arab opinion about Israel since then. Even in those countries like Egypt and Jordan that have signed peace treaties with Israel, the prevailing sentiment among the populace remains one of support for their neighbor’s destruction.
Until that happens and Palestinians come to terms with the permanence of the Jewish return to the land, arguing that just forcing Israel to give up the territory it won in a war of self-defense will solve the conflict is not only illogical; it’s a demand for national suicide.
For all of contemporary Jerusalem’s problems, its re-division would immeasurably worsen the quality of life there, as well as compromise open access to holy places (the only exception to that is the Temple Mount where Jews and Christians are still forbidden from praying in order to appease the Muslim religious authorities).
As Ruthie Blum wrote in Israel Hayom, Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem didn’t start a conflict that had already existed for decades, “it was precisely the pan-Arab attempt to eliminate the ‘Zionist entity’ that sparked the three-front war in the first place. And it was Israel that liberated Jerusalem from Jordanian occupation.”
As she notes, the day Jerusalem was reunited, then-Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan issued the following statement:

This morning, the Israel Defense Forces liberated Jerusalem. We have united Jerusalem, the divided capital of Israel. We have returned to the holiest of our holy places, never to part from it again. To our Arab neighbors we extend, also at this hour — and with added emphasis at this hour — our hand in peace. And to our Christian and Muslim fellow citizens, we solemnly promise full religious freedom and rights. We did not come to Jerusalem for the sake of other peoples’ holy places, and not to interfere with the adherents of other faiths, but in order to safeguard its entirety, and to live there together with others, in unity.

Israel has kept its promise, but the Palestinians and most of their supporters have never come to terms with the reality or the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn.
Peace may be possible when the Palestinians change.
But let us hope Jerusalem will never again be torn apart as it was in 1948 when Arab armies invaded and that the security of Israel will never be compromised or rights to the ancient homeland of the Jewish people abrogated merely in order to recreate the dangerous situation of June 4, 1967.

How can we return to the negotiating table when the Palestinian side speaks of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea?

From "Baruch's Breeze" blog, 5 May 2013:
Lital Shemesh is a 29-year-old successful, female, Israeli journalist who recently participated in a seminar with other young Israelis and Arabs in hopes of igniting optimism for peace. She returned from the seminar disappointed and disillusioned.

Lital Shemesh as Editor of Israeli's largest youth magazine

She is a rising star in the Israeli media who openly expresses her political aspirations to reach the Knesset. She worked as Editor-in-Chief for the Yedioth Youth Magazines, reported for the Israel Broadcasting Authority and the Hot CableTV News channel, and is CEO and Founder of a web-based girls magazine “Pinkish – Everything that Girls Love.”

In her first video blog in English two years ago, she says, “I really want… a peaceful quiet country to live in, and I really want peace to come.” 

 

"I really want peace to come" - 1:09 minute mark.

But her conclusions from the peace seminar reflect a strong trend in Israeli society:

Israelis are realizing that the negotiations with the Arabs are destined to fail from the outset, so why waste the time?

As is apparent from the February election results, further talks with the Arabs simply no longer interest many people. It is an issue that has been sidelined and tabled to “maybe the next generation.”

Her summary (below) of her experience at the peace seminar will help readers better understand Israeli society of 2013. A must read. Her report appeared this past Thursday (May 2, 2013) on the Walla news site:

 

Peace? From the Palestinian Standpoint, There is a Past, No Future
by Lital Shemesh

I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project’s objective was to identify tomorrow’s leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time.

The project involved meetings every few weeks and a concluding seminar in Turkey.

On the third day of the seminar after we had become acquainted, had removed barriers, and split helpings of rachat Lukum [a halva-like almond Arab delicacy] as though there was never a partition wall between us, we began to touch upon many subjects which were painful for both sides. The Palestinians spoke of roadblocks and the IDF soldiers in the territories, while the Israeli side spoke of constant fear, murderous terrorist attacks, and rockets from Gaza.
The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians’ vision of the end of the strife– “Let’s talk business.” The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?

We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.

They spoke of one state – their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy – the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. “There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us” – this was their main message. “First, let them pay for what they perpetrated.”

In the course of a dialogue which escalated to shouts, the Palestinians asked us not to refer to suicide bombers as “terrorists” because they don’t consider them so. “So how do you call someone who dons a vest and blows himself up in a Tel Aviv shopping mall with the stated purpose of killing innocent civilians,” I asked one of the participants.

“I have a 4-year-old at home,” answered Samach from Abu Dis (near Jerusalem). “If G-d forbid something should happen to him, I will go and burn an entire Israeli city, if I can.” All the other Palestinian participants nodded their heads in agreement to his harsh words.

“Three weeks ago, we gave birth to a son,” answered Amichai, a religious, Jewish student from Jerusalem. “If G-d forbid something should happen to him, I would find no comfort whatsoever in deaths of more people.”

Israelis from the full gamut of political parties participated in the seminar: Likud, Labor, Kadima, Meretz, and Hadash (combined Jewish/Arab socialist party). All of them reached the understanding that the beautiful scenarios of Israeli-Palestinian peace that they had formulated for themselves simply don’t correspond with reality. It’s just that most Israelis don’t have the opportunity to sit and really converse with Palestinians, to hear what they really think.

Our feed of information comes from Abu Mazen’s declarations to the international press, which he consistently contradicts when he is interviewed by Al Jazeera, where he paints a completely different picture.

I arrived at the seminar with high hopes, and I return home with difficult feelings and despair. Something about the narrative of the two sides is different from the core. How can we return to the negotiating table when the Israeli side speaks of two states and the Palestinian side speaks of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea? How can peace ever take root in a platform which grants legitimacy to terrorism?

UK National Union of Students vote against BDS

From the Union of Jewish Students (UJS)* (UK), 9 May 2013:      

Today, a motion calling for the National Union of Students (NUS) to join the international Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Campaign was voted down by the National Executive Council (NEC).

The voting record showed: 5 in favour, 15 against, 3 abstentions
The failure of this motion to pass reinforces the lack of support for the BDS within the student movement.
Additionally, a petition circulated by UJS, gaining over 200 delegate signatories throughout the conference showed that an overwhelming number of students agree that boycotting Israel is not a constructive path to peace. Today's vote is a positive step towards supporting a secure Israel and independent Palestine.
UJS Campaigns director Judith Flacks said that, 'Failing to pass this motion is a positive sign for Jewish students who put their faith in NUS to reject calls like this that only serve to delegitimise Israel and provide no prospect for peace.'
*UJS (Union of Jewish Students) is a voluntary membership organisation which represents 8500 Jewish students studying in the UK and Ireland.

Church of Scotland report denies Jesus was the promised Messiah

From Cranmer Blog, 6 May 2013, by "Archbishop Cranmer"*:
      

Christians should not believe those parts of Scripture where God promised that a virgin would conceive: Isaiah 7:14 didn't really refer to a promised messiah: it was just about a general plan of salvation. And he wasn't born in the long-promised Bethlehem either - that's just a metaphor for anywhere, like Slough. And he didn't have to be a 'he' either - that's just a metaphor for all humankind. And his name didn't have to be Jesus (Mt 2:21) - meaning 'The Lord saves', because it could have been Brian or Steve: there's no real promise that the Lord will save us from our sins (Zech 3:9). He is not 'God with us' (Mt 1:23), and he didn't need to suffer (Is 53:7) because there's no real reward for obeying the word of God (Lk 11:27). Jesus isn't the visible image of the invisible God through whom all things were created (Col 1:15f) - that's just silly. He didn't reconcile us to himself through the cross (v20), and he's not the glory of the nations (Ps 96:3; 39:21). And when God promises that nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ (Rom 8:35), he didn't really mean 'nothing' - he meant God's love is completely dependent on the which side of the bed he gets out of in a morning. 

Oh, hang on. His Grace has got it wrong.

Sorry.

It's only the Jews who shouldn't take God's promises literally. 

That's alright, then.

And neither should Christians when they relate to Jews and Israel. Ah, now it's becoming clearer.

If God makes a promise to Jews, it's a metaphor. If He makes a promise to Christians, it's literal except where it refers to the Jews and Israel.

Yes, that's right.

According to a report by the Church of Scotland, 'Israel' and the 'Promised Land' is all just one big mushy metaphor for... well, something like the fuzziness of promises that aren't promises.

God's promises are just pictures, without precise meaning, and certainly could never apply to matters of geography. The 'Promised Land' in Scripture is not a literal land - it's more 'a metaphor of how things ought to be among the people of God. This "promised land" can be found, or built, anywhere'.

Except, of course, in Israel.

This astonishing Church of Scotland report is entitled The Inheritance of Abraham? The 'Promised Land', and the scare quotes say it all. It is supposed to be a 'discussion document' for debate, but its tone is consistent with the anti-Israel pro-Palestine narrative we have come to expect from some quarters.

This once fervently Zionist Church of Scotland - which enthusiastically supported the right of Jews to return to their ancient homeland - now says Israel does not belong to the Jewish people. If it is adopted later this month by the 700 Church members who constitute the General Assembly, it may become the official position of the Church. Unsurprisingly, Jewish leaders are somewhat irked by this.

Quoted in the Jewish Chronicle, Ephraim Borowski, Scottish Council of Jewish Communities director, said: "The document is an outrage to everything that interfaith dialogue stands for. It is biased, weak on sources, and contradictory, and closes the door on meaningful dialogue. On behalf of the Jewish community of Scotland, we call upon the Church to withdraw it from the forthcoming general assembly. If the Church cannot build bridges, can it at least refrain from burning them?"
In the same newspaper, the Board of Deputies vice-president Jonathan Arkush said: “I am at a loss for words that the Church of Scotland should have delivered such a slap in the face to the Jewish community. The document is deeply troubling on many levels. It appears to have been produced with no consultation with the Scottish or national Jewish community. It is littered with misrepresentations of Jewish history, values and beliefs as well as basic factual errors.

“It is an ignorant and tendentious document masquerading as a theological statement. The Church has done a deep disservice to itself by producing a document without any regard to the trust, respect and dialogue on which interfaith relations should be based.”
Please read the report for yourselves [hyperlink: The Inheritance of Abraham? The 'Promised Land'], but its reasoning essentially turns on: 'Would the Jewish people today have a fairer claim to the land if they dealt justly with the Palestinians?' It adds that from some Christian perspectives 'the desire of many in the state of Israel to acquire the land of Palestine for the Jewish people is wrong'.

And the report urges the Church to consider backing 'economic and political measures involving boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions against the state of Israel focused on illegal settlements'.

The chief executive of the Council of Christians and Jews the Reverend David Gifford said the report was ill-considered, regressive and insensitive to Jewish anxieties and the range of Israeli public opinion: “The at times unfortunate words and phrases reflect sadly on the authors and smacks of Christian superiority over Judaism,” he said. “While few would disagree that serious issues need to be addressed by the state of Israel, instead of offering fresh opportunities and an openness to engage with the Jewish community in a joint response to the worrying trends in the Israel/Palestine conflict, this report runs the risk of further alienating our own Jewish community and increasing its fear and anxiety.” He's not wrong. The assertion that God's promises to Christians are somehow of a different theological order to those He made to Jews is verging on the anti-Semitic.

 

If the Church of Scotland wants some facts, here are a few:

Israel is central to Jewish religious and national identity. It is the one piece of land historically promised to the Jewish people as recorded in Genesis. It is the only land where the Jewish nation has ever experienced self rule. In contrast, there has never been an autonomous Palestinian state in the area. It was ruled by a succession of empires until the Ottoman Empire fell in 1917 and the League of Nations granted the British a Mandate in 1920.

Archaeology confirms the Bible record of a land promised to the Jews, who spoke and wrote Hebrew, and worshiped Israel’s God in what is now Israel at least 1,000 years before Jesus was born. Jews are the only people who have ever had an autonomous state on this tiny piece of land. They governed themselves as a national entity,producing kings, visionary prophets and writers from whose pens flowed some of the most treasured writings in the history of the world. Archaeological support for these claims includes:

✡ an ancient Hebrew alphabet, from 10th century BC discovered at Tel Zayit in 2005;
✡ Israel is named in ancient Hebrew on the 9th Century BC ‘Moabite Stone’;
✡ An inscription at Tel Dan dating from the time of King Ahab names the ‘House of David’ and ‘Israel’.

Jews have inhabited the Holy Land continuously for 3000 years. Despite attempts by successive occupying powers to expel them, communities of Jews have lived in the Holy Land continuously since the time of Abraham until the present in, for example, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Jews returned to the Holy Land throughout the Diaspora period, notably from Spain and other Mediterranean countries in the late 13th and 14th Century.

In Jerusalem Jews have been the largest ethnic group since the 1840s. During the Mandate many Jewish communities in Arab towns such as Nazareth and Gaza were forced out by Arab neighbours and their members joined kibbutzim or moved to predominantly Jewish towns. Since the Babylonian exile, the Jewish diaspora has spread as far as South America, China and Australia. But Jewish ethnic identity, recognised by the countries in which they lived as minority communities, was based on Jewish affinity with the land of Israel and the Jews living there.

At the 1920 San Remo conference, the League of Nations granted Britain a Mandate over Palestine. It committed Britain to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine west of the Jordan River. Recognition of ancient Jewish links with the land was foundational to the Mandate. A Palestinian state was to be established east of the Jordan River (present day Jordan). Jews could not settle or buy land there.

The assertion that the Jewish homeland was stolen from Palestinians is false. In the early 19th century more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. In 1880 Jews made up about 6 per cent of Palestine’s population. The land was then a run-down colonial outpost of the Ottoman Empire. Jews purchased much land from Arab owners legally during the late 19th and early 20th century and by dint of huge effort, turned it from rocky hillsides and malarial swamps into productive and profitable land.

By World War One, the Jewish population of Palestine was around 85,000 out of 700,000 (roughly 12 per cent). It rapidly became the most dynamic economic centre in the Middle East attracting people from all over the region eager for a share in the growing prosperity of Palestine. In contrast, no independent Palestinian entity or identity has existed until the 20th Century.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations voted to create an Arab and a Jewish State alongside each other in what is now Israel and the West Bank. It was accepted that Israel would have a sizeable Arab minority. The Jewish State was allotted 56 per cent of Mandate Palestine, since the UN correctly predicted heavy Jewish immigration from Europe after the creation of the Jewish State. Perhaps they also guessed that large numbers of Jewish refugees from Arab nations would also need a home.

The Jewish Agency, led by David Ben Gurion, accepted the plan. Arab leaders rejected it, and Arab attacks on Jewish communities began at once. Britain announced that her troops would be withdrawn from Palestine on 15 May 1948. Aware that Arab countries had vowed to destroy any Jewish state, David Ben Gurion declared the independence of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, with borders as stipulated in the UN Partition Plan.

Significantly, the Declaration of Independence stated: 'We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions..' Within days of the British withdrawal, 35,000 Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and Egyptian troops (led by British officers) invaded Israel. Despite overwhelming odds, and the loss of 1 per cent of the population of Israel, Israeli forces decisively defeated the Arab armies. Israel took territory beyond the UN allocated borders because their territory could not be defended against further Arab attacks. 

Some 6-800,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced as a result of the Arab war on Israel in 1948. Some were compelled to leave their homes by IDF forces. But many left voluntarily before the 1948 war because local and national leaders advised or compelled them to do so. Palestinians who heeded this advice could not return to their homes after the Arabs lost the war. Unsurprisingly, given repeated Arab threats to annihilate Israel, Israeli leaders feared an Arab ‘fifth column’. However, most Arabs who had remained in Israel became Israeli citizens. Jews were also expelled from their homes by Arab forces, for example from Gush Etzion and K’far Darom in Gaza, all built on land purchased legally. And of course Jews were expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem. In addition, 800,000 Jews were forced to abandon homes and businesses in Arab countries. They arrived in Israel with nothing.

These are the forgotten refugees of 1948. Both sides committed atrocities. Women and children were murdered by Jewish fighters of the Stern gang and Irgun in the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin. Arab fighters took revenge by murdering Jewish women and children in K’far Etzion and members of a convoy taking medical supplies to Jerusalem’s Hadassah hospital.

Modern Israel combines the best ideals of the west – democracy, openness to debate and criticism as well as new ideas in technology and the arts. Such ideals are much needed in the region. Given the ferocity of comment in the Israeli press and the intensity of debate and moral self-criticism which so characterises discussion in Israel – so rare in public life today – the attacks on Israel are profoundly depressing and disturbing.

God promised Abraham that his descendants would have a land, and would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Israel is a fulfilment of that promise. We thank the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for the restoration of the Jewish people to their land, because it was a promise that He would so. And if that was not a promise, then Jesus is not the long-promised Messiah, and our promised salvation is nullified in a myriad of meaningless metaphors.

 

*Archbishop [Thomas] Cranmer lived in about 500 years ago, but the blogger who uses that pseudonym is very much alive. His blog is ranked the 22nd 'most influential political blog' and the 24th most 'influential blog' in the UK by Wikio.

University of Sydney Vice Chancellor denounces Israel boycott

From a Facebook statement denouncing Jake Lynch's and the Student Representative Council’s anti-Israel boycott resolution,  by University of Sydney Vice Chancellor Prof. Michael Spence (The Vice Chancellor’s statement has over 65,000 ‘likes’ and the students’ posted comments overwhelmingly support him):

We've received lots of comments and questions about the Student Representative Council's motion to support the boycott of Israeli University Technion.

The University of Sydney does not support the SRC motion nor the proposal originally put by Associate Professor Jake Lynch.

The Vice Chancellor has said: “I do not consider it appropriate for the University to boycott academic institutions in a country with which Australia has diplomatic relations. Should the Australian Government suspend diplomatic relations with Israel or request the University to suspend its institutional relationships with Israeli universities then the question should be revisited.”
The Vice-Chancellor’s position has not changed and has been endorsed by the University’s Senate.

The University of Sydney does not consider the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions policy appropriate and it is not University of Sydney policy.

Professor Jake Lynch is entitled to his personal opinion but on this issue does not speak for the School, Faculty or University...