STC cast’s keffiyehs: Are all Palestinians Hamas?

This fuss obfuscates one critical question: why can’t we suffer equally with Israelis and Palestinians? Mourn with all mothers who lose children? Support both Muslims and Jews? Why must it always be one or the other? Have we learnt nothing since October 7?

Judy Bamberger, O’Connor, ACT

On Mid-East, balance goes missing

On most matters, I find The Australian Financial Review to present the most balanced coverage of Australia’s major newspapers, which explains my years-long subscription. However, your coverage of events in Palestine and Israel is appalling. Every opportunity is taken to defend Israel’s bombing of Gaza and remind the world that antisemitism is on the rise.

Glaring is your omission of the rise in Islamophobia, the fact that civilians living under occupation have the right to resist under international law, or the fact that Israel’s occupation is the root cause of this conflict.

I am not on the side of Palestine per se. I am on the side of international law and, by extension, international justice. The conflict between Israel and Palestine can be solved politically by applying the relevant international laws and subjecting both Hamas and Israel to an International Criminal Court investigation. Of course, Israel will never allow this.

You almost comically asserted this week that a key problem with Hamas is its religious orientation (which I don’t support), yet make no mention of the obvious counterpoint, that Israel’s Knesset today counts more right-wing religious legislators than at any point in history, who are openly committed to denying Palestinian self-determination and whose ideologies have produced a plethora of religious supremacist laws.

I urge you in the strongest way possible to improve your reporting and present more balanced coverage. I used to read the Financial Review multiple times a day. Nowadays I can barely bring myself to open the app.

Emily Dixon, Mosman, NSW

Origin shareholder left in the dark

A $20 billion decision regarding the future of Origin Energy is scheduled for December 4. Ordinary shareholders are entitled to ask why they are not receiving information that will enable them to make an informed decision and submit their votes to be counted at this meeting.

To date, I have not received any information regarding the scheme meeting scheduled for Monday. When I contacted the shareholder information line, the operator could not provide any information, other than to confirm I had increased my holding by 5000 shares on November 23.

I still don’t know what resolution will be voted on at next week’s scheme meeting. If it is the November 23 resolution, will any changes in shareholdings be incorporated? The bidding consortium has foreshadowed an alternative proposal. Will an independent analysis be provided to shareholders ahead of the meeting so that they can make an informed decision?

Roger Fyfe, Ivanhoe, Vic

What Bob Brown’s critics choose to ignore

According to the latest tax transparency report from the ATO, Santos, Woodside, Exxon and Shell paid pitiful or zero income tax in the past financial year, so if your correspondent (Letters) is relying on them “for all our taxpayer-funded niceties”, then it might be time to give Santa a shout, as he has more chance of delivering. The IMF recently revealed that global fossil fuel subsidies surged to a record $US7 trillion last year, so if Bob Brown’s critics want to be taken seriously about exactly who is “out of touch” with what Australian taxpayers want their hard-earned tax dollars spent on, perhaps foreign-owned tax dodging climate criminals and their media stooges might be a better starting point than a man who has rarely had his integrity questioned while devoting much of his life to protecting our natural environment.

Just last week we got an insight into Gina Rinehart’s modus operandi (“New evidence backs children’s claim to more of Rinehart riches: lawyer”, November 25-26), so it appears that Kate Chapman (Letters) “has done little research” in siding with Rinehart over Brown – unless, of course, she categorises allegedly defrauding your own children as unworthy of “unpopularity”?

Chris Roylance, Paddington, Qld

The Coalition’s nuclear red herring

I cannot believe the Coalition’s repeated insistence on new nuclear baseload generation when the current electricity spot market behaviour simply prohibits such scale of investment; negative pricing periods on the National Electricity Market are so common and last for so long that baseload generators, which can take hours to ramp their output up or down, are left exposed to price volatility.

My take is that it’s a red herring; upon assuming government, they’ll shift blame to Labor and renewables for “ruining the market” when it was the Coalition that held power in 2013-22, a critical period for energy policy planning, when it green-lit too many gas generation projects. Have we learnt nothing about leaving our energy generation exposed to the price fluctuations of international commodities markets?

Nick Vella, Hawthorn, Vic

Australia should follow China’s green lead

It seems that China has under-promised and is overdelivering on its renewable energy rollout (“China’s green surge threatens coal exports”). Pity the same can’t be said for Australia. As China forges ahead with green investments we, in the land of sun and wind, are lagging.

It is therefore pleasing that the government plans to underwrite 32 gigawatts of clean electricity. This should spur companies like AGL to increase renewable output (“AGL puts energy demand ahead of Paris Agreement”). Our plan to continue exporting coal is in jeopardy. We will be left with stranded assets if we don’t follow China’s green lead.

Amy Hiller, Kew, Vic

Cash vans once counted on bankers of calibre

It would have been 1969 when I undertook a relief as a teller at the Bank of New South Wales in Newcastle, at a time when the bank operated its own cash vans (“Banks call for crisis talks as cash transport giant teeters”).

Transporting cash to or from city and suburban branches, these nondescript grey vehicles would pull up outside the branch and, as the armed crew unloaded or loaded the cash, a couple of the young-gun tellers would provide protective support with our Smith & Wesson .38 revolvers.

Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook, NSW

Buffett will miss Munger’s reality check

Warren Buffett will certainly miss Charlie Munger’s pithy responses to some of his investment ideas (“Value guru who influenced generations”), listening silently on his end of the phone to Buffett, followed by: “No, Warren.” If Buffett pressed on, “Still no, Warren.” Impossible shoes to fill!

Ross Illingworth, Melbourne, Vic

Non-citizens singled out for indefinite detention

I fail to understand the Albanese government’s desire to continue detaining non-citizens who have been released from indefinite detention as ordered by the High Court (“Labor moves to put detainees back in custody”). Some of these people have committed serious crimes, but they have served their time (or more). Why should they be treated any differently to other people who have paid the penalty?

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin, ACT