1 2 Friday, January 25, 2013NEWSThe Australian Jewish News – jewishnews.net.au

Menzies:

IT is said distraction is the last refuge ofthe desperate. In Mike Kelly’s case thisis more than apt. In an attempt toexplain away Labor’s abstention onthe UN vote for Palestinian stateobserver status and Bob Carr’s aggres-

sive campaign to distance Australia fromIsrael, Kelly has opened a new front in thehistory wars (“Labor’s abstentionexplained” AJN 18/01).His portrayal of Sir Robert Menzies as a

Nazi sympathiser and appeaser “not con-cerned for the fate of the Jews of Germany” isa despicable slur. Kelly’s claims are not onlypatently false but intellectually dishonest.Menzies understood the true nature of

the Nazi threat, referring in his memoirsAfternoon Light, to the “sinister figure ofHitler”. When it came to attributing respon-sibility for the war, Menzies made clear “theguilt was that of Germany alone”.Following a four-day visit to Germany in

July 1938 (not the “several weeks” Kellyclaims) Menzies, in fact, was shocked by theNazis’ destruction of the liberal and demo-cratic features of Germany, and by theapparent willingness of the German peopleto accept this. He wrote about the “some-what queer atmosphere of Germany”, andtold Dr Schacht, the president of theReichsbank, that “the real danger of theregime was that the suppression of criticismwould ultimately destroy Germany”.Far from unrealistically believing peace

could be preserved, on his return heexpressed his deep concern at the parochial-ism of the Australian states in resistingCommonwealth plans to prepare for war.He told the Constitutional Club of Sydneyin October that:“Few people of the Commonwealth fully

realised that the European crisis mightinvolve hostilities in Australian waters – thatwar might be something that would come toAustralia, and not merely something thatwas happening 12,000 miles away” (SMH,25/10/1938).Kelly refers in his article to the distress of

Dame Enid Lyons, wife of prime ministerJoe Lyons, at comments by Menzies in hisspeech to the Constitutional Club about theissue of national leadership. Kelly greatlymisrepresents what Menzies said and thereasons for Enid Lyons’s distress.In his speech, Menzies contrasted the

“good natured, easy-going”, head-in-the-

sand attitudes of Australians with the patri-otic fervour the German dictatorship hadbeen able to whip up, especially in youngpeople. He said that Australia needed leader-ship that could inspire a sense of patriotismamong Australians.It was Menzies’ call for inspiring leader-

ship, at a time when Enid Lyons’s husbandwas in the Lodge, that she could not forgive.Enid Lyons saw Menzies’ speech as a criti-cism of her beloved Joe. Kelly’s claim thatMenzies “contrasted the quality of the lead-ership of Lyons as PM unfavourably withthat of Hitler” is totally false, as is the impli-cation that Enid’s reaction was related to thetreatment of Jews in Germany. Menzies’biographer Allan Martin has examinedclosely Enid’s reaction and concludes thatshe was wrong in taking Menzies’ generalcomment about the importance of leader-ship and a greater sense of unity as a criti-cism of her husband.Again, Kelly’s implication that Menzies

admired Nazism based on his deeply ironiccomments in his letter to his sister Belle in1938, in which Menzies refers to theGermans’ “magnificent” abandonment ofliberty and plunge into irreligion, reveals justhow far Kelly is prepared to go to distort thetruth. The defence of liberty was perhapsMenzies’ supreme political value, and hispoint to his sister was the same as his publicremarks.In quoting Christopher Waters’s study of

appeasement in Australia, Kelly fails to men-tion Waters’s conclusion that: “Many aspectsof the Nazi system were totally alien toMenzies. The attorney-general was mysti-fied by the German people’s acceptance oftheir loss of legal and political rights underNazi rule ... Menzies was no fascist. He was acommitted democrat” (Waters, p.66).

The suggestion that the Lyons govern-ment (and Menzies) were unwilling to doanything about the plight of Jews in Europeis again false. In fact the Australian govern-ment under both Lyons and Menzies greatlyexpanded the immigration intake, over JohnCurtin’s and Labor’s resistance, and manythousands of Jewish refugees had enteredAustralia by the outbreak of war.It would not have been an easy decision

for Menzies to send Australia to war inSeptember 1939.

With America remaining neutral andGreat Britain preoccupied in Europe,Australia looked with fear to a rising Japanin the East.The invasion of Manchuria had taken

place and Australia’s rearmament was stillunderway.Nevertheless Menzies had the fortitude

and foresight to put Australia into battle todefend freedom and help defeat the tyranni-cal Nazi regime and Japanese militarists.Curtin’s isolationism was, indeed, the

most dramatic example of the “head in the

sand” attitude that Menzies criticised. BillyHughes said of Curtin at the time:“The honourable gentleman says we

must close our ears to the piteous cries of theoppressed, because otherwise we will beendangered ... The day may come when thissmall nation will cry aloud to the world forhelp, but what will the world say if we adoptand pursue the policy of selfish isolationoutlined by the Leader of the Opposition?”Curtin had even opposed the govern-

ment’s rearmament program, because in his

“class war” view of the world, as his biogra-pher David Day has written, Curtin believed“that it was serving the interests of the armsmanufacturers rather than theworkers”. Curtin, to be fair, struggled to leada deeply divided party in which the anti-Semitic “Jack” Lang was still a powerfulforce, and in which “white Australia” evokedpassionate adherence.“In my opinion,” Menzies said in a mes-

sage to Chamberlain in October 1939, “theimmediate object is to win the war and winit in no uncertain way, since a patched-upand premature peace would inevitablyexpose us to a series of events similar tothose of the past few years.”It was Menzies, without Curtin’s support,

who prepared Australia to resist the fascistsand Nazis. “The Labor Party,” Curtin said “is

opposed in principle and in practice toAustralians being recruited as soldiers in thebattlefields of Europe.”In his more than two years as prime min-

ister after Lyons’s death, Menzies put in placethe fundamental decisions that enabledAustralia to fight the war successfully. As F.G.Shedden, the public service head of theDepartment of Defence, and the man largelyresponsible for Australia’s war organisation,was to write to Menzies in December 1942after his resignation:“Tribute has yet to be paid to the great

foundations laid by you at a time when youlacked the advantage of the effect on

Sir Robert Menzies.

AN ENEMY OF TYRANNY AND FRIEND OF FREEDOMFollowing an op-ed in last week’s AJN by Labor MP Mike Kelly,which was critical of Sir Robert Menzies, Josh Frydenberg – whosits in Menzies’ old seat of Kooyong – and former Howardgovernment minister David Kemp respond.

JOSH FRYDENBERG AND DAVID KEMP

Viewpoint

Menzies, without the Labor Party’s support, had the fortitudeand the foresight to put Australian lives on the line defending

freedom and defeating the tyrannical Nazi regime.

1 3Friday, January 25, 2013NEWS

The Australian Jewish News – jewishnews.net.au

national psychology and morale of awar in the Pacific.”Throughout the period of his

prime ministership, Menzies’ commit-ment to victory would remain stead-fast, even during the darkest days ofMay 1940 when France was beingoverrun and senior colleagues likeStanley Melbourne Bruce, Australia’shigh commissioner to Britain, con-templated defeat.Menzies worked to focus the British

on the importance of the war in Asiaand the Pacific. Like Churchill heunderstood the importance of Americato the Allied war effort and made it apriority for Australia to have independ-ent representation in Washington,appointing our first ambassador to theUnited States in 1940.None of these important facts are

cited by Mike Kelly, just as he regret-tably ignores the Labor Party’s virulentisolationism during this period. Not until Germany made its ill-

fated decision to invade the SovietUnion in June 1941, in breach of theRibbentrop-Molotov Pact, did manyin the Labor Party, along with those inthe labour movement’s prominentcommunist wing, concede Australia’sinterest in defeating the Nazi regime.In attacking the legacy of Menzies,

Kelly only makes a passing reference tothe strong support Israel received dur-ing the 1956 Suez crisis from theAustralian government led by Menzies.Menzies was to say in the Australian

Parliament that “the people of Israelhave a perfect right to know that theirnational integrity will be respected.”Together with external affairs ministerRichard Casey, Menzies laid the blamefor the crisis firmly at the feet of Egyptand its leader Gamal Abdel Nasser,providing Israel with a supportiveinternational voice at a difficult time.In fact, throughout his life Casey was

not only a strong defender of Israel buta great admirer of the Jewish people,praising their courage and saying theirvalues were an “example to the world”.Another issue raised by Mike Kelly

is the Australian government’s deci-sion to exclude leading communistEgon Kisch during the mid-1930s.This matter is dealt with at length byAllan Martin.The decision to exclude Kisch was

taken by interior minister ThomasPaterson before Menzies became attor-ney-general and followed Britain’sdecision to exclude Kisch “because ofhis subversive views”. Kisch was promi-nent in the anti-war movement andhis exclusion had nothing to do withhis Jewishness, a point Kelly carelesslyoverlooks. A New Zealander, GeraldGriffin, who had spent a considerabletime in Russia, was excluded at thesame time for similar reasons.In Mike Kelly’s effort to paint the

Labor Party as the true friend of Israel,he places great store on H.V. Evatt’srole at the United Nations at the timeof Israel’s independence. Again, somebalance is required.Evatt did play an important role as

chairman of the ad hoc committeethat paved the way to partition, but thehagiography should not yet be written.Harry Levin, Israel’s first consul-

general to Australia, wrote inSeptember 1949, “Some keenobserversseem to feel that there is nothing at allthat Evatt holds dear; even his friend-ship for Israel, they say, will last nolonger than it suits his personal ambi-tion. Evatt himself is making it clearthat he expects financial support forparty funds from local Jewish leadersand he expects them to transmit thefunds through him personally ...”

In his attempt to rewrite history inorder to portray the Liberal Party asunfriendly towards Israel, Kelly pointsto Malcolm Fraser’s “strong anti-Israelsentiment”. It is important here topoint out Fraser’s strong support forIsrael during his eight years as primeminister.Isi Leibler has said of Fraser: “I

retain fond memories of my genuinelywarm association with Malcolm Fraserwhen he was prime minister and Iheaded the Australian Jewish commu-nity. Our relationship was based onshared values and my appreciation forhis inestimable assistance on behalf ofSoviet Jewry, ensuring that, while I wasin Moscow, the Australian embassyprovided support for my efforts onbehalf of Jewish dissidents. I also recol-lect that in those days he wasenthralled with Israel and he wouldspend hours discussing and enthusias-tically lauding the achievements of theJewish State.” Unfortunately these sentiments are

not acknowledged by Kelly.Finally, it must be said that

throughout his life, Sir Robert Menziesexhibited a marked degree of respectand admiration for the Jewish people.He placed a great premium on reli-

gious faith and sought to promote tol-erance and diversity in Australia.Indeed, one of his outstanding legacieswas his commitment to state fundingof non-government schools, leading tothe funding of Jewish day schools.

At the many Jewish events he wouldspeak at during his political career,from birthday celebrations forSydney’s Great Synagogue to openingthe Jewish War Memorial Synagoguein Canberra, he would speak openly ofhis friendships and associations withJewish community leaders like RabbiBrodie and Baron Snyder, saying in thecompany of the Jewish community “Ifeel completely at home.”Robert Menzies was the man who

revived liberal thought and lifted thestandards of Australian politics, andwas the strongest opponent of socialistclass-war rhetoric and the supportersof fascist ideas. Australians todayshould acknowledge an immense debtof gratitude to Menzies for his unfailingsupport for individual liberty at itsmoment of greatest challenge, for hisopposition to those who wereimpressed by the overseas dictatorshipsof the ’30s, and to the national division,class war, isolationism and socialistutopianism being fostered from withinthe Labor Party at the time.For Mike Kelly to seek to dishon-

estly misrepresent the Menzies legacysimply in order to promote Labor’scredentials towards Israel at a timethey are being called into question isvery unfortunate indeed.

Josh Frydenberg is the Federal Member forKooyong, the seat Robert Menzies held from1934-66. David Kemp is a former minister in

the Howard government and editor of thenew edition of Robert Menzies’ The

Forgotten People and Other Studies inDemocracy.

FOR many decades the officialpolicy of all Australian govern-ments has been a commitmentto a two-state solution to the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based onIsrael’s right to exist in peace and secu-rity and on the legitimate aspirations ofthe Palestinian people for their ownstate.

Such has been Australia’s supportfor Israel that three of our prime minis-ters have been honoured with awardsand decorations from the State ofIsrael.

In 2007, for example, the JewishNational Fund established the “JohnHoward Negev Forest” in Israel, the thirdtime such a tribute had been made –the previous recipients being Sir RobertMenzies and Bob Hawke.

Given our nation’s history of biparti-sanship over support for Israel, onewonders what possessed one of JuliaGillard’s frontbench colleagues, MikeKelly MP, to launch a deeply partisanattack on the Coalition in a highlyselective, misleading and in partsdownright dishonest article (AJN18/01).

The most obvious conclusion is thatMr Kelly is attempting to cover up theembarrassing disarray that is currentlyoccurring within the Gillard governmentover its recent stance on Israel.

It was disappointing to find that MrKelly spent the vast bulk of his articleon events from more than 70 years ago,with a crude insinuation that any per-son who failed to identify the threatposed by Adolf Hitler before World WarII broke out was anti-Semitic and a de-facto apologist for the Holocaust.

Many world leaders at that time were determined to avoid a repeatof the horrors of World War I, yet MrKelly makes the insulting accusationsnevertheless.

With every Australian political leaderfrom that time now deceased, Mr Kellysees fit to demonise people who are notaround to defend themselves or to pro-vide any of the context of those times.

He attacks Sir Robert Menzies butstudiously ignores the fact that, accord-ing to the Department of Foreign Affairs,it was under the Menzies governmentthat the first official visit of an Israelicabinet minister, (Moshe Sharett) toAustralia and the first visit by anAustralian cabinet minister (PaulHasluck) to Israel took place.

Mr Kelly claims Menzies was tooinfluenced by Britain in his attitudetowards Israel, but fails to mention that itwas the Menzies government that gavevery public support to the Arab-Israelplan proposed by the USA in 1955.

While poor research skills could beMr Kelly’s excuse, there is no doubtabout his motivation in casting slursagainst any current or former CoalitionMPs who may have expressed supportfor Palestinians or been critical fromtime to time of the actions of the Israeligovernment.

Mr Kelly fails, however, to mentionthat there are Labor MPs who havemade far more critical statementsagainst Israel, including current CabinetMinister Tanya Plibersek who hasdescribed Israel as a “rogue state”.

Indeed, Foreign Minister Bob Carrhas been noticeably critical of Israel, instark contrast with the approach ofAustralia’s longest-serving foreign minis-ter, former Liberal MP Alexander Downer.

It is true that there are a range ofviews within the Labor Party, the LiberalParty and the National Party about the

best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinianconflict, as one would expect.

Rather than his biased and factuallyinaccurate portrayal of events of manydecades past, Mr Kelly should havebeen honest about the current crisiswithin the Labor Party and the broaderLabor movement over support for Israel.

Mr Kelly also failed to mention thegrowing support within the Labor unionmovement for the anti-Semitic cam-paign known as Boycott, Divestmentand Sanctions (BDS). Yet more than 20unions are reported to have joined theBDS campaign and senior union offi-cials have been involved in demonstra-tions against Israeli interests.

Every Labor MP relies on union sup-port for their seat in Parliament andthere is growing pressure on manyLabor MPs to openly support the BDScampaign.

The most obviousconclusion is that Mr Kellyis attempting to cover up

the embarrassing disarraythat is currently occurring

within the Gillardgovernment over its

recent stance on Israel.

The government of which Mr Kelly isa member is in a formal alliance withThe Greens, described by Greens leaderChristine Milne as a “power-sharing”arrangement and The Greens are activesupporters of the BDS campaign.

Of even more concern is the fact theMr Kelly has ignored the unresolved cri-sis within the government, triggered bythe decision of Foreign Minister BobCarr to publically undermine the PrimeMinister on the issue of Australia’s voteat the United Nations on the status ofthe Palestinian territories. TheCoalition’s stated position was to voteagainst the proposed UN resolution.

The Prime Minister reportedly alsosupported a “no” vote, but she wasopposed by a majority of her Cabinetcolleagues. She then sought to imposeher Prime Ministerial authority andmake a “no” vote the official position ofthe government.

Foreign Minister Carr responded bylobbying Labor backbenchers andMinisters to organise the numbersagainst the Prime Minister, who wasforced to make a humiliating back-down, and the government’s officialposition was to abstain from casting avote at the UN. Bob Carr then con-ducted numerous media interviewsboasting that he commanded the sup-port of more than 90 per cent of LaborParty MPs.

If Kevin Rudd as foreign minister hadundermined the Prime Minister in sucha way, it would have triggered an imme-diate leadership showdown. However, itis a sign of Julia Gillard’s non-existentauthority within her party that she hasnot sacked or demoted Bob Carr for hisblatantly disloyal conduct. Leaks to the

media from within the Cabinet claimedthat most Labor Ministers were moti-vated by a desire to not alienate the so-called “Muslim vote” in Sydney’swestern suburbs.

Bob Carr’s public undermining ofthe Prime Minister over the Palestinianvote has also cast a cloud overAustralia’s term on the United NationsSecurity Council. When future votes aretaken with regard to Israel or thePalestinian people, Australia’s repre-sentative on the council will be placedin the difficult position of not being ableto have confidence in any directionsfrom the office of the Prime Minister.

There can be no way of knowingwhen the Foreign Minister will againtake it upon himself to undermine aposition taken by the Prime Ministerover Israel or any other matter. Othernations will be unable to rely on JuliaGillard’s stated position on any foreignpolicy matter, lest Bob Carr againorganise the Caucus numbers againsther.

This is a diabolical problem forAustralia and is without resolution whileBob Carr remains Foreign Minister andJulia Gillard remains Prime Minister.

Finally, Mr Kelly tries to use selectivepoint-scoring to make the false argu-ment that Labor is a stronger supporterof Israel than the Coalition.

Support for Israel is a not some sortof contest or a game.

More importantly, decisions aboutUN votes in relation to Israel or thePalestinian territories should not bedecided by a desire to chase votes inmarginal seats in Australia.

Australia should have an absolutelyunshakeable commitment to the secu-rity of Israel, and the Australian govern-ment should always take a principledstance on Israeli-Palestinian issues,regardless of which party is in govern-ment in Canberra.

It would be far preferable for thatstance to be bipartisan.

The Coalition supported a “no” voteat the UN last year because we do notbelieve that upgrading Palestinian sta-tus will improve the prospects of resolu-tion of the conflict.

The Coalition has consistently urgedthe Palestinian leadership to giveunequivocal support for Israel’s right toexist, so that the Israeli and Palestinianpeoples can live securely within inter-nationally recognised borders.

We have called on militant organisa-tions such as Hamas to abandon theirstated desire to destroy the Israeli stateand to halt rocket attacks in their effortsto kill and terrorise Israeli civilians.

It is our view that there must also bean immediate return to the peace nego-tiations that have been boycotted byPalestinian officials for several years.The Israeli government must alsoresolve international concerns aboutthe activities of settlers in the OccupiedWest Bank.

This is a complex conflict with noeasy answers, and a solution haseluded the best efforts of world leadersfor several decades. Mr Kelly’s effort totrivialise the issues with a cheap parti-san shot at the Coalition is not worthyof any serving member of the AustralianParliament.

All Australian politicians should beunited in a call for a commitment topeace in the Middle East, for it is in theinterest of the Israelis and thePalestinians, like people the world over,to live and raise their families in peaceand security.

Kelly’s viewpoint‘downright dishonest’

JULIE BISHOP

Viewpoint

Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for foreign affairs Julie Bishopfires back at Mike Kelly following his “deeply partisan attack on the Coalition”.

For Mike Kelly to seek todishonestly misrepresentthe Menzies legacy simply

in order to promoteLabor’s credentials

towards Israel ... is veryunfortunate indeed.