The Sensible Jew

This is the second installment in this series. Click here to read part 1.

So, what else do the Israel-Right-or-Wrong and anti-Zionists groups in Australia have in common?

Fury at dissent within own ranks:

For our non-Jewish readers, let me tell you about a communal treasure.

He’s a tireless letter-to-the-editor writer, and apparently an avid mass emailer about matters he considers very important – such as any suspicion that someone or some group may not be backing every single Israeli action to the hilt, and the importance of blackballing such a person, or group.

People joke privately about his extremism, and he is not in any official position of leadership, yet he seems to have some influence. Few in the community wants to be labelled, “anti-Israel,” and everyone wants to appear to be as loyal to the homeland as possible, so few people will publicly take this man on.

The nastiest example of this occurred recently with the Naomi Hazan/NIF affair. I urge readers unfamiliar with the case to go to the AJDS site linked, and also the New Israel Fund site in order to familiarise yourselves with a level of intolerance for dissent (even dissent that comes from well within the Zionist camp) within Melbourne’s Jewish communal Centre. The story itself is somewhat murky. It is unclear exactly where the Melbourne Israel-Right-or-Wrong hysteria truly began.

What is certain, however, is that the letter-to-the-editor writer/mass emailer sent out an email that, while privately derided by “leaders”, may have contributed to a climate that ended up libelling people and organisations and shut down debate. Even people purporting to suport liberalism allowed themselves to be intimidated into acquiescing to the most extreme communal political views.

This all took place in shadowy, non-transparent circumstances with misreporting in both the Jewish News and The Age – something that is inevitable when  opacity dominates.

This episode has left many of us are wondering if our organisations will only be inviting right-wing Zionists to speak at functions in the future for fear that an angry mass email might be sent out and another wave of hysteria might threaten the delusion of unity our “leadership” tries to perpetuate.

As noted a couple of posts ago, the flourishing Jewish Australian blogosphere is potentially a powerful antidote to the impression in wider Australia that Australian Jews are monolithic in their opinions – a view often encouraged by our “leadership.” Galus Australis’s two most recent posts are an important example of the nuance and complexity that characterises our community. In dealing with both the Hazan affair, and the community’s response to the passport scandal, Galus clearly demonstrates that this “unity” our leaders so often call for is nothing more than an exhortation that people not express an opinion that differs from the official line.

As for the anti-Zionist camp – because I am not personally involved with them, I can only assess from reading their material that they might not appreciate dissent either. There is a sameness to the language, tone, and cadence of everything that is written or said publicly. There is a single line from which there is absolutely no deviation and certainly never any originality of thought. If ever there were an example of group-think – Australian anti-Zionism is a singular example.

And when we look at how dissent is managed in Palestine itself, well – give me furious emails, murky dealings, and communal hysteria any day!

Disregard for overwhelming evidence:

Do anti-Zionists know that Palestinians live a dual misery: one created by Israel, and the other created by the Palestinians’ own corrupt, violent leadership that has no truck with anything resembling liberal democracy?

Are they are aware of the utterly kleptoratic nature of Palestinian leadership that exists alongside ordinary Palstinians’ poverty?

Do they know that Palestinians target civilians (including children), indoctrinate their own children to be suicide bombers, and use their own civilians as human shields?

Does Israel-Right-or-Wrong know that Palestinians currently suffer under occupation and that some settlers perpetrate shocking crimes against innocents?

Is it aware that not every single Israeli action that is to the serious detriment of Palestinians’ quality of life is entirely necessary to the survival of the Jewish state?

I ask these questions because despite the overwhelming evidence everywhere, neither camp seems ever to admit their “side” has any culpability in the conflict.

Australians might be in grave danger of taking someone from either side seriously should they ever attempt to admit their own folk are imperfect.

Dehumanising the “enemy”:

Both Israel-Right-or-Wrong and the anti-Zionists seem incapable of admitting that their own side may have caused suffering on the other side. A complete lack of empathy with the human aspects of the other side is very apparent. This renders any talk – from either side – about human rights, completely hollow because it is obvious to observers that the “rights” referred to, only apply to the side of the particular advocate.

Coming up in the final part:
Disregard for the welfare of the people they purport to represent
Misuse of historical events that diminish the horrors suffered by those actually involved in those events
Two state deniers are actually advocates for ethnic cleansing

by Yaron Gottlieb

Since leaving school, I’ve spent a good chunk of my life learning in Israeli Yeshivot (Jewish religious seminaries). This was interspersed with studying for tertiary degrees in Australia, and I always seemed to survive the culture shock between the places.

But returning to Australia, a newly ordained rabbi, after spending last year in a Jerusalem Yeshiva (seminary), I felt the shock for the first time.

I had moved from an Ivory Tower (or at least a Jerusalem Stone Tower) back into a community where the Jews were vastly different from the ultra-orthodox and religious Zionist people I had interacted with all year. It took a while to remind myself that Australian Jews, for the most part interact freely with the world around them.

I had come from a place where the Yeshiva’s ISP carefully filtered out nasty sites before they got to the end user. Sites like the Australian Open were considered unclean, although the other Grand Slam websites were considered kosher.

At least the filter kept me away from abominations that could pollute my mind, such as The Sensible Jew blog (no really: it was blocked!) Continue reading DeaRAbbey’s First Post: Religion, Reality, and Bizarre Questions →

We have a tendency to cast the spectre of anti-Semitism as a vast, amorphous thing that can never be quantified.

This means not distinguishing between an unpleasant letter to the editor, a school-yard taunt, an ill-conceived play;  and expulsions, pogroms, and gas chambers. These are all conflated.

for some, they might exist on a continuum, but most of the time proponents of the amorphous school of understanding anti-Semitism prefer not to delve into proximate and ultimate causes.

Instead, the preference is to assign an almost divine provenance to the malign intent of others – something which not only cannot be understood within the normal human realms of social inquiry, but indeed must be elevated above it as a particularly heinous crime, the investigation of which is almost sacrilege.

Clearly, I do not support this view.

Indeed, I credit this view with making Jews vulnerable to the vagaries of the social tides – the ebb and flow of welcome and hatred.

It most certainly removes from Jews any sense of agency – any notion that they are masters of their own destiny, that they can play a role in ensuring not only their own welfare, but the welfare of future generations.

Sometimes things do go really really wrong – and quite quickly.

When National Socialists take power and start implementing laws that harm Jews, there’s not much to be done in the way of PR or strategic planning, beyond finding somewhere else to go. Quickly.

When Poles/Ukranians/Croats/Whoever  gleefully join the National Socialists  in trying to purge their countries of Jews, no amount of interfaith dialogue or glad-handing is going to help.

Can you imagine the sort of high-level advocacy we currently conduct with Australian politicians, happening in war time Poland? Of course not. Such advocacy can only work in an environment that is not completely hostile to the Jewish population.

So make no mistake: we are not living in a place whose general population hates us.

As I’ve been saying: for the moment, most Australians do not spend much time thinking about us at all. And that is a good thing.

We change that when our leaders make ill-advised media appearances, and also, when certain rogue Jewish elements decide that the path to self-aggrandisement is paved with painting fellow Jews as desperately misguided at best, and nefarious actors at worst.

Our leaders’ behaviour  is, in theory, the simplest part of the equation to remedy. Trying to control individual voices speaking out against the community is another matter entirely, and will be examined in the next post.

This post will focus on our leaders and spokespeople.

Firstly, they need to distinguish between the different challenges that face Jewish Australia regarding anti-Semitism and our relations with wider society:

1) Violent anti-Semitism (see Menachem Vorchheimer). When someone is physically abused, the community owes the victim its complete support (legal, financial, etc…). Without this, the rest of our rhetoric rings hollow. Part of this support entails letting the police do their job in investigating a violent crime. Should that investigation become problematic for whatever reason, the community is entitled to seek redress.

If the incident is not part of a wider campaign, our leadership must avoid the temptation of lobbying state government, or making vitriolic forays into the media.

We need to take a leaf from Vic Alhadeff’s book. Because he holds his fire most of the time, when he does speak to the media, it carries real weight. The way he speaks is just as important. He avoids hyperbole, hectoring, and adversarial language wherever possible. He has built up credibility with journalists, who in turn present him well in their stories.

While Alhadeff’s most recent media foray regarding anti-Semitism was not in relation to a violent event, it was nevertheless about a grave libel perpetrated against all Jews in an HSC religious studies text. That text had the power to generate serious anti-Jewish feeling, and Alhadeff’s actions – leading to the text’s removal from the syllabus – were crucial.

2) “Artistic” anti-Semitism is going to be around for a while and we need to know how to manage it. For some reason, a certain type of artist identifies closely with the stream of the Left that has painted Jews as “part of the problem” – whether that problem is Israel, capitalism, or a high profile in the US.

The wonderful thing about these groups is that they do not mount mainstream productions: their audiences are tiny, and they are almost always playing to their friends and family. The only other attendees will already be of like mind. In short, no undecided person is going to be convinced of Jewish perfidy by such performances.

Unless…
Our spokespeople find out about it and make a giant fuss, attracting media (that would never otherwise have been at the show) and mainstream attention, all the while appearing to be enemies of free speech.

BUT…
We can actually benefit from such performances.

As I’ve written previously, it is important to know what the artistic/academic circles are thinking, should such ideas cross over into the mainstream. What unpleasant productions allow, is for us to view the least flattering portraits of ourselves, to examine those elements that might be selected for a mainstream airing, and to prepare for such an eventuality.

3) The Left is not monolithic. It comprises both reasonable people, interested in things like perspective and proportion. There is also the extreme fringe that is highly problematic.

Their ability to garner attention for anti-Zionist campaigns is based on the cyclical nature of the news. When their turn comes around to paint Jews/Zionists/Israelis as genocidal maniacs, there is ONLY one response that will not damage us.

If we debate them on their own turf – answering the straw-man questions they love to construct – we will ALWAYS seem defensive and on the back foot. We also give their arguments credence.

We must not do this.

Ever!

Instead, our best bet is to ignore the charges they lay. The details of such charges are guaranteed not to stick in the heads of ordinary Australians who don’t care all that much about the Middle East.

Similarly any details we would use trying to counter them in the school-debating style would not be retained either. No one cares, beyond the protagonists.

What matters – and what IS retained, is tone.

As I wrote earlier, Liam Getreu’s piece is an almost ideal example of how to set the tone of the “Reasonable Jew.”

The “Reasonable Jew” is the person an ordinary Australian would rather live next door to/ have a beer with/have as a mate, than some frothing leftist.

The “Reasonable Jew” understands that admitting his own side isn’t perfect is both telling the truth about the situation, while massively boosting his/her credibility.

The “Reasonable Jew” understands that NOT demonising the Palestinians is actually precisely the thing that will make his/her other statements regarding Israel/Palestine believable.

But most importantly, the “Reasonable Jew” understands that NOTHING he writes in an Australian paper or says on air is ever going to affect the conflict itself.

The “Reasonable Jew” knows that his/her power ONLY lies in shaping society’s views of Australian Jews, and that this is a great responsibility.

4) We must think laterally when seeking allies.

It’s easy to become distracted, and perhaps seduced by the illusion that in the debates over Israel/Palestine, we are somehow fighting for Israel.

We are not.

Israeli soldiers and reservists fight for Israel.

That we do not risk our lives in our beloved country’s defence can perhaps, occasionally, drive us to a certain zealotry in our debating styles.

We might even be deluded into thinking that the “hard men” who berate readers and audiences in wider Australia are brave champions of Israel.

They are not.

They are risking nothing except our community’s social capital within wider society.

5) The new media have taken many of leaders by surprise and they struggle to navigate the exponential nature of the new modes of information.

But these new fora actually provide us with clues as to those most likely to act in a way that might damage our community.

What we see, time and again, are angry comments that are almost cut and pasted in their sameness, that spout the usual far-leftist tropes. We see very few Arab or Muslim names, however.

Indeed, at the interfaith conference I attended a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to talk to a young woman from the Islamic roof body. She detailed a number of grievances with the Herald Sun and it’s demonisation of Muslims. I laughed and told her how many Jews feel just that way about The Age.

The true threats to the Islamic community come not from Zionists, but from the far-right.

Similarly, the people who dehumanise Jews most in the media are not Arabs/Muslims, but people of the far left.

Why wouldn’t Jewish organisations approach their Islamic counterparts to form a united front condemning any such dehumanisation of either party? Indeed the Jews might be vocal on behalf of the Muslims, and vice versa.

This would have a number of positive effects:

Firstly, whenever someone else, with supposed diametrically opposed interests, argues on your behalf, their words carry far more weight than if you defended only your own interests.

Secondly, Jews and Muslims working together is always a good look – for both parties. It humanises us, shows that we are being peaceful.. It is a powerful demonstration that we are not interested in importing ethnic strife, but in fostering dialogue.

Thirdly, this really would be a man bites dog story! The sheer novelty of Jews and Muslims doing each other’s PR would guarantee prominent placement in the media, ensuring our messages were heard, and not buried.

This could only work for a subset of issues, of course. Jews will never advocate for the return of Palestinian refugees to within the Green Line, and Muslims are unlikely to try to defend the settlers.

What I’m proposing is a set of circumstances, in which each group defends the other against unfair characterisation and/or racism, whenever that does not directly involve Israel/Palestine.

These are only a handful of possible courses of action, that can be taken immediately to ameliorate our current situation.

Far more challenging – and potentially rewarding will be some of the long term strategies that I will write about in the next post.

As many of you know, I have a pretty high threshold for what might constitute anti-Semitism in the arts and media.

Please keep this in mind when I write that yesterday, while watching a play, I witnessed a truly vile depiction of Jews that initially made me want to launch myself from the back row of the audience and onto the stage so that I could begin a thorough throttling of everyone involved in the production.

To summarise, it was a very long, very minor production that supposedly dealt with the vagaries of faith.

There was a Jew! And a Muslim! Together! On stage! They almost hugged at the end!

While the Muslim was played by a cherubic, innocently handsome subcontinental, the play’s creators managed to find an unfortunate young Jew who quite resembled some of Nazism’s less flattering portraits of our people.

They plastered masking tape across this man , and wrote on it in giant letters: “The Liar.”

Seriously.

The Jew’s  job was to smarm and lie in obvious ways, to say unpleasant things about Muslims, and to be generally repugnant as well as unreasonable. Fortunately, the cherubic Muslim was there to play sweet, kind, honest straight-man, to guide our errant Jew gently towards The Truth. Continue reading How to Stop Losing Friends and Alienating People – Part One →

After reading the articles, read the comments below.

Robert Goot’s latest crusade

Albert Dadon’s piece in The Age

Dvir in his most recent spray

See also page 3 of this week’s Australian Jewish News

***

Now ask yourself whether the horrendous comments in response to these pieces are perhaps worse than the original infraction being complained about….

Along with the usual missives from Dvir, Goot and the ADC, and – unfortunately – the otherwise wonderful Albert Dadon, our leaders are behaving in such a way that makes it look like they *want* the anti-Semites to visit Caulfield….

Ever since getting all excited about the Friends of Palestine own goal, and the beautiful piece by Liam Getreu, I’ve been punished for the hubris by yet another public Jew popping up to make our community appear like a bunch of fascists and fundamentalists. Continue reading Our Leaders/Institutions Decide Jews are not Disliked Enough – Action Taken →

Yesterday, Liam Getreu, incoming AUJS chairman, wrote an opinion piece for the Australian that should serve as a model for how this community conducts its PR.

We need to remember that no matter how interesting and important we Jews find ourselves and Israel, the rest of the population generally has other things on its mind.

Except for the occasional, massive blunder that focuses the nation’s attention, individual articles or interviews on their own will not do much to shape perceptions of Jews and Israel long term in the wider community.

It is actually the aggregate of what we do and say over longer periods that serve to create an “atmosphere,” that amorphous sense of what Australian Jewry is about, what our beliefs are, and what sort of Australians we seek to be.

The simple truth – that I’ve been promoting since this blog’s inception – is that we Jews do not live in a bubble, that outside perceptions of us do matter.

We must also shift from our “rights” based obsessions – that we have a right to do and say what we please in any attempt to defend Israel or our own community – to an outward focus that seeks to understand the wider audience for our message.

No one can be forced to love us or to love Israel. It helps our cause – and is right in and of itself – to view ourselves as part of the greater Australian whole: to move from obsessing over what we are owed, to what we can contribute.

Liam’s piece does all of that and more. But his is only one contribution and cannot alone repair the damage that has been done to our community’s reputation in recent years. My hope is that his article will lead the way in a new approach to Jewish PR and engagement, and that slowly, this approach will transform the current “atmosphere” surrounding Australian Jewry and the Israel/Palestine conflict in the broader Australian sub-conscious. Continue reading Analysing What Went Right: Liam Getreu in The Australian →