Wong’s caution on Israel trade ban is not cowardice

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

Bob Carr calls Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong’s decision not to join Britain’s West Bank import ban cowardly (“Government slammed for dodging Israeli settlement trade ban”, September 10). I argue the opposite. It is easy to make a symbolic gesture; it is harder to consider whether it actually helps the people it is intended to protect. A blanket ban sounds decisive but it risks hurting Palestinians as well as Israelis. When SodaStream moved its factory from the West Bank to Israel in 2016 following an international boycott campaign, hundreds of Palestinian workers lost their jobs. That experience should make anyone question whether a wider boycott is the right approach. Wong’s proposal to target settler violence and illegal settlement activity is more measured and addresses the problem more directly. As the Herald’s foreign affairs correspondent Matthew Knott makes clear, distinguishing settlement products from Palestinian products can also be difficult. Supporting Palestinian statehood does not require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wong’s caution is not weakness or cowardice, it is recognition that good intentions can have unintended consequences. John Kempler, Rose Bay

It is a travesty that Australia has refused to join like-minded democracies such as Britain, Canada and France in imposing trade restrictions on goods from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Bob Carr is right to call out the Albanese government as “looking cowardly and intimidated”. Paul Keating’s warning that AUKUS risks compromising Australia’s sovereignty appears prescient. While other liberal democracies pursue an independent foreign policy, Australia seems more motivated not to upset the USA than to address Israel’s alleged war crimes. The calculus seems devoid of morality, and damages our reputation as a principled and humanitarian nation. Salvatore Sorbello, Campsie

Is the point of foreign policy to advance the national interest of a country, or is it to be used as a tool to win more domestic votes for the party in power? Recently, some Western countries appear to be a little confused about this point, Britain’s attempt at banning trade with West Bank settlements being an example. To look at foreign policy objectively, for example, one of the few real national interests Australia has in the Middle East is the security of the Suez Canal. Fortunately, this was secured in 1979 when a peace treaty was signed between Egypt and Israel, thereby securing the safety of the canal and unmolested passage of goods through this vital waterway. Maybe governments should try to remember that foreign policy is there for protecting and advancing the national interests, not for domestic politics. Robert Jacobucci, Canly Vale

I am disappointed to hear that our PM has refused to join the boycott of imports from Israeli settlements. This is a tacit acceptance that kowtowing to Donald Trump is more important than acting on principle. Surely as a middle power, like Canada, we can now act independently, especially where moral principles are concerned. Anthony Albanese is a decent man and could be a strong PM if only he were braver. Timidity won’t win him the next election. Andrew Caro, Greenwich

Senator Wong’s parliamentary speech on the West Bank situation was weak. The senator has just become another sleepy, boring, government talking head whose upper limit is being “concerned”. So-called targeted measures are not good enough. Real action on the conduct of the Israeli government is required. Julius Timmerman, Lawson

On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, Jews around the world will be wishing each other a sweet new year and peace in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Bob Carr is busy berating our prime minister for not banning the importation of Medjool dates from Israel. TikTok influencers will be grateful for the PM’s position as they continue to gain followers for their delicious, healthy “Snickers bar” dupes using Medjool dates. Bob, you should make them. I can vouch for how delicious they are. Irene Nemes, Rose Bay

Fair go! Why should Australia deny Israel trade benefits when we wouldn’t dream of ending sales of military components used in its campaigns across Palestine and beyond? Alex Mattea, Kingston

Parental guidance

Here is a suggestion to maybe help in the continuing reportage about bad behaviour in classrooms and declining performance in various subjects (“Why Australian classrooms are among the world’s most disruptive”, September 10). Let’s encourage a program where one or two parents can sit at the back of a classroom as observers during a lesson. Timing can be random and unannounced. That way, mum and dad see what their little darlings get up to and what their frustrated, exhausted teachers have to put up with. Just a thought. Gary MacDonald, Point Clare

The letter by Ken Pares about school magazines brought back memories of me discussing with several grandchildren the difference between “let’s eat, Grandma” and “let’s eat Grandma”. Time certainly flies like an arrow when those memories are ignited by a letter in the SMH (Letters, September 10). Cecily Chittick, Wyong

Beyond the super

One Nation’s plan to access super has focused on whether super should be protected. The question being ignored is whether more money in the hands of first home buyers will help more of them buy a home (“Superannuation shouldn’t be untouchable, says expert”, September 10). In the past we have tried to ease financial stress for first home buyers through grants, stamp duty exemptions, lower deposits and special interest rates. Every time this has happened, house prices rose to absorb the extra money. Pauline Hanson, could you point out where providing more money to first home buyers has succeeded? Neville Turbit, Russell Lea

I heard in the media that anyone taking on the One Nation 3 per cent super withdrawal offer would be $25,000 worse off at retirement. This shows a lack of understanding of household finances. If the withdrawals were directed at repaying a home mortgage, as is the intention, then the person in the commentator’s example would have about $25,000 more equity in their home at retirement. The maths is simple. Interest rates on mortgages approximate the growth rates of super funds. The interest savings are subject to compound growth just like super balances. So the net effect on wealth at retirement is close to zero. Jon Pratten, Whale Beach

Pauline Hanson’s criticism of Liberal MP Andrew Hastie is most Trumpian, reminiscent of his attacks on the late Republican presidential candidate John McCain (“Jacqui Lambie backs Hastie in One Nation stoush”, September 10). So far she has had a dream run, with only faint-hearted scrutiny by journalists, but hopefully her vacuous comments and empty rhetoric will, with increasing attention from the media, work in favour of the major parties leading up to the next federal election. Sue Martin, Clareville

Real leadership

Though there are exceptions, unfortunately the common proverb “a politician divides people, a statesman unites them” captures an important truth about leadership, as observed by correspondent Edward Loong (Letters, September 10). Politics will always involve differences of opinion, values and interests. But there is a profound difference between a leader who exploits those differences for political advantage and one who seeks to bridge them. The measure of leadership should not simply be the ability to rally people to one side but the ability to find common ground, respect differences and unite people around what they share. Stephen Wilson, Kangaroo Valley

Invest in staff

Reading Riley Walters’ article makes me wonder if maybe the banks should be investing in good staff, rather than divesting of them to improve profits (“Big banks allegedly defrauded of $500m by Penthouse Syndicate”, September 10). Even half of $500 million would employ a lot of people for a long time. Relying on redundancies and AI is not the panacea to all things profitable. Good processes and risk management should be fundamental to every bank. Elizabeth Darton, Lane Cove West

Existential threat

Warnings that the race for strategic dominance in artificial intelligence could wipe out humanity by the end of this decade should not go unheeded (“‘Could kill us all’: Anthropic insiders say AI has more than 10 per cent chance of ending humanity – soon”, September 10). This would imply that the dangers of an AI race surpass the dangers of a nuclear arms race. The problem is that these two dangers are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the integration of AI into the nuclear command and control systems of the world’s major great powers is the surest pathway to human extinction. This is because the most consequential decision we can make is the decision to launch a nuclear weapon. Current estimates put the average time between pushing the red button and launching a nuclear warhead at six minutes. AI would compress launch times to within milliseconds. While this gives the impression of having a strategic advantage over one’s enemies, it must surely qualify as the most damning indictment of human intelligence ever made. Rev Vincent Zankin, Rivett (ACT)

If one assumes AI is a robot-like creation, then surely we might adopt the three safety laws of robotics set out in Isaac Asimov’s book I, Robot: “No harm to humans; obedience to human orders unless that conflicts with the first law; and self-protection unless conflicting with the first two laws”. Later on he also added a so-called “Zeroth Law”: no harm to humanity or allowing humanity to come to harm. As impressive and convenient as it is, in the end, what useful purpose is served by a technical function that can directly or indirectly lead to the extinction of humanity … even more quickly than humanity’s own lack of concern for its survival at the environmental level? Frederick Jansohn, Rose Bay

Put your phone away

Attempts to legislate the online world seem much like trying to catch smoke. Surely the real issue is one of personal responsibility. Walk past any bus stop today and every waiting passenger is head down, using their phone. No one seems happy just to watch the world go by, think pleasant thoughts, or engage their neighbour in conversation. We are surrendering our capacity for contemplation and human engagement to addictive algorithms (“War on algorithms reignites free speech feud”, September 10). The cure is simple: keep the phone in your pocket until you really need it. David Salter, Hunter’s Hill

Heartbreak high-rise

Paul Pearce is correct in stating the draft Woollahra plan would seem to be giving developers what they want, with little or no consideration to achieve socially beneficial outcomes (Letters, September 10). Building high-rise towers around Goodwin Retirement Village is both heartless and a disgrace. These seniors have contributed immensely to society throughout their lives, and the towers will strip away their peace, light and dignity. Finally, we must all ask ourselves: why are these towers being treated as inevitable? Why are we allowing developers to ruin our suburbs and destroy this precious part of the world? Narelle Ryan, Woollahra

It seems that the one thing getting lost in all the discussions about Woollahra is that new apartments provided by the rezoning will provide homes for people. I live in an apartment and, like my fellow apartment dwellers, we’re actual people and these are homes. But you wouldn’t know that from some of the comments that are made, including by politicians. We need more homes and we need them badly. For far too long we’ve heard “why can’t they live somewhere else”, all while housing prices in Sydney climb to unsustainable levels. Providing more capacity is not the only thing we need to do but this rezoning is one thing we must do. Matt Arkell, Surry Hills

The Herald’s editorial essentially pouring cold water on high-density hubs around stations at Edgecliff and Woollahra is disappointing (“Eastern suburbs high-rise proposals ignite housing density fight”, September 10). Many parts of the eastern suburbs are beautiful but the precincts to be developed are a tiny proportion of this part of Sydney. They offer exceptional accessibility while minimising the need for car use. They are close to the harbour, beaches, Centennial Park, the CBD and multiple retail centres. More power to the state government. Chris Downs, Stanwell Park

Renewable loophole

Back up a minute. As Nick Toscano reports, energy ministers planned a national standard requiring hyperscale data centres to run on 100 per cent renewable electricity. Yet Prime Minister Albanese has already made exceptions, allowing Queensland and the Northern Territory to include fossil gas and coal (“Power giant wants AI data centres at coal sites”, September 10). Now, AI data centres might be established in former coal-power sites with gas-fired backup generation. Fossil gas is expensive, dirty and polluting. The plan was 100 per cent renewables, not renewables with a fossil-fuel loophole. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic)

Energy savings

We are all exposed to the inflated cost of imported diesel but remote communities are particularly vulnerable (“As Trump’s Iran war drags on, we’re facing the next oil crunch”, September 10). Renewable-based microgrids offer communities not just energy reliability and associated benefits, they can bring down costs for those living remote. So why isn’t this high priority? Are our governments just paralysed by the anti-net zero lobby? Jim Allen, Panorama (SA)

Grant an investigation

The ABC has raised the hackles of our PM over a grant of $6 million to his local Marrickville Golf Club as part of an invitation-only community infrastructure grants program that delivered 73.2 per cent of grants to Labor electorates or marginal seats (“Albanese makes ‘no apologies’ for $6m grant, slams ABC reporting”, September 10). When are our watchdogs ever going to investigate these programs that use taxpayer funds for what could be seen as political purposes? One has to ask why it took the media and not the ICAC to identify it? Brian Barrett, Padstow

To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email [email protected]. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.