- AJN 1: Peaceful Protests
- AJN 2: Colin Rubinstein vs David Langsam
Colin Rubinstein’s article in today’s AJN is a response to an article written last week by David Langsam in which the latter echoed many of the sentiments expressed here, at The Sensible Jew.
It is also highly problematic and, in some parts, quite disingenuous. Dr. Rubenstein is the executive director of AIJAC (Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council) – a think tank/lobby groub that skews to the right, ideologically and often seeks to speak on behalf of the community.
A group, such as AIJAC, is intimately bound to the media cycle as it wants its pro-Israel messages to be disseminated as widely as possible. Such media wranglers should therefore understand how the media works.
Dr. Rubenstin, after years of faithful service at AIJAC, claims that his organisation was somehow bamboozled into making utterly self-defeating and inflammatory comments to the Australian media that transformed a silly 8 minute play into national news and enabled a partisan beat-up over a ridiculous Kennett painting.
On May 1, Dr Rubenstin claims, The Sunday Herald Sun phoned AIJAC for a comment on a painting – a nine year old painting – of Jeff Kennet as a cow, surrounded by swastikas. Yes. The image is as silly as it sounds.
“It was the first we had heard about it,” Dr. Rubenstein claimed in the article. Really? What exactly is AIJAC’s brief, if not to keep abreast of such matters? But a nine year old painting may have passed them by. Best to avoid commenting on something about which AIJAC has no knowledge.
Tzvi Fleischer, however, made a motherhood statement about the dangers of trivialising the Holocaust, and stated that such works were, “Dangerous to Australian political discourse.” Dangerous? As dangerous as unelected spokespeople opining on paintings they’ve never seen, helping to inflate a non-issue into a giant blimp of a controversy involving, by association, all Australian Jews? More dangerous than putting Jews squarely in the anti-free speech corner yet again, as far as the media and general public are concerned.
Fortunately, the damage on that issue was limited. AIJAC, however, not content to rest on their laurels found another issue to involve itself in without first viewing the source material.
The 8 minute play is one of those delightful opportunities for the media to round up the usual Jewish suspects and have them say things that offend the Australian intelligentsia. As always, AIJAC was game.
Once again, Dr. Rubenstein claims that when the media (this time The Age) called AIJAC, they had never heard of the 8 minute play. According to Dr. Rubenstin, Jeremy Jones fielded the phone call, said he hadn’t read the play and didn’t want to comment, but was then pressed into giving a statement because the journalist claimed he had a deadline.
Firstly, what is Mr Jones doing with such an organisation if he cannot stand his ground and insist that he cannot comment because he has insufficient knowledge?
But Dr. Rubenstein’s claim that Mr Jones knew nothing of the play is itself contradicted by Mr Jones’s own statement, “people who you would take seriously… have labelled it anti-Semitic.” Either AIJAC knew about the play or it didn’t, before The Age journalist called. It seems that Mr Jones did.
How can an advocacy group such as AIJAC, with so much power, be so remiss as to have avoided reading the 8 minute play? Dr. Rubenstein’s obfuscations afterwards only add insult to injury.
Then Dr. Rubenstein has the temerity to complain that Mr Jones did indeed read the play after the initial conversation, but no one in the media seemed to care and that they were just recycling Mr Jones’s initial comments. The mind boggles! That is why expreienced media practitioners NEVER say anything off the cuff, are NEVER pressured into making a statement, and do not whinge when they don’t get the coverage they want. A real professional gets the story he/she needs out there.
Of course, Dr. Rubenstein is writing in the context of being piqued at David Langsam’s accusations the week before that AIJAC had mishandled public relations on a massive scale.
Dr Rubenstein defends his and AIJAC’s position as unelected arbiters of Jewish publicity by calling AIJAC, “indepenedent” – whatever that means – and is downright dishonest when he says, “we never claim to represent the Jewish community.” Then on whose behalf is AIJAC speaking? They may talk around issues of representation; however, they never ever state in the media that they are not representative of the community. Clearly the media thinks they are and viewers would draw similar conclusions.
In order then, to bolster his own legitimacy, Dr. Rubenstein assures readers that he consults with community organisations and tries to represent the “mainstream”. He discounts any possibility that he said anything “outside the majority.” From where does he derive his data on this, “majority” or “mainstream”? What does it matter if he consults with other unelected, unrepresentative leaders?
He sees it as the mission of the Jewish community to, “remind people why it is that the Nazis were uniquely evil.” He is wrong on two counts. In a future post we will write about this misconception and the damage it has done and is continuing to do to our community.
Related posts:
- Sandilands, The Holocaust, and our Leaders’ Response:The Smart, The Stupid, and The Very, Very Ugly
- Dvir Abramovich in The Age: No Laughing!
- Winning Friends and Influencing People 3: Anti-Semitism, The Hiatus, and Secret GLBT Business.
- Michael Fagenblat’s Presentation at the Seven Jewish Children Reading
- SJ Signs off – temporarily
I haven’t read Dr. Rubenstein’s article yet, so I’m not commenting.
Support this comment
0
Blistering, I strongly recommend you read the article. It is an important example of the problems this blog wants to address.
Support this comment
0
Firstly, Sensible Jew, mazal tov on launching your site and winning a strong response.
Secondly, thank you for your essay which broadly reflects my own concerns with Colin Rubenstein’s reply to my response to AIJAC’s public pronouncements. I must mention that the painting is a little older than in your article. My full-page article in The Age on the subject (how did our guardian watch-dogs at AIJAC miss that?) will have its bar-mitzvah in October. I have a copy of the article autographed by both Jeff Kennett and Juan Davila.
I have written a brief letter to the Australian Jewish News which may be published next week.
If any readers support my argument that the partially-elected roof bodies – the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Jewish Community Council of Victorian and the New South Wales Board of Jewish Deputies – should rein in AIJAC then you should write to them and let them know your views.
ECAJ’s Robert Goot president@ecaj.org.au
NSW JBD’s Robin Margo mail@nswjbd.com.au
JCCV’s John Serle community@jccv.org.au
It is not a very radical proposal to suggest Australian Jews write to their official, if not exactly democratic, representative bodies on an issue that concerns them.
Below is the text of the article in the AJN of May 15, 2009
David Langsam
AJN Title: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
Original title: TIME FOR ELECTED BODIES TO CALM AIJAC
By DAVID LANGSAM
(AJN intro)
Are Jewish organizations
Getting hot under the collar
For no reason over art that
References Israel and the
Holocaust?
Yet again, the privately-funded, unelected Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council has managed to beat up a flurry of anger over issues beyond its ken.
These self-appointed arbiters of public taste have collaborated with a Sunday tabloid newspaper (Sunday Herald Sun; May 3, 2009) to pillory the artist Juan Davila on a day when the alleged newspaper was unable to find a real Page 3 story. For goodness sake, the Davila painting and Kennett story was a full page in The Age 13 years ago (Age Metro October 7, 1996) and the Sunday Herald Sun has the front to call this news? Juan Davila does not trivialize the Holocaust.
Having grazed on that morsel AIJAC then moved on to Seven Jewish Children – a much larger piece of meat.
The short play, freely available on the internet, is of a Jewish mother asking what she should teach her children. It is emotive, critical of the policies of the Government of Israel, but is far from anti-Semitic. Indeed it is the opposite. But I’m not surprised by AIJAC’s response. The organization goes out of its way to eschew artistic expression, along with humor and irony. Their responses to my book reviews for the Australian Jewish News have taken sentences out of context, ignored the obvious humor and irony and twisted them into savage attacks.
So with the ball rolling, Jewish Care was dragged into AIJAC’s publicity stunt. Someone must have told senior people at Jewish Care that Miriam Margolyes was appearing in a play that was critical of Israel and therefore she must be a self-hating Jew trivializing the Holocaust and an insult to all Jews – or whatever AIJAC’s handy little catch phrase is this week..
The chief executive officer of Jewish Care, Bruce Salvin, told this writer this morning that the organization, which in my memory has never taken a political position and is responsible for care for all Jews in need, was snookered into the cancellation of the charity show by Miriam Margolyes. He said talks were underway to reschedule her appearance.
Contrary to AIJAC’s view, not all criticism of Israel is equal to anti-Semitism, an issue AIJAC deliberately ignores for its own purposes.
Indeed, it is the abuse of the difference that leads AIJAC to be the one that trivializes the Holocaust.
“We haven’t seen it but we know it should be banned” – that’s the sort of stuff Menzies and Goebbels said about Jewish art in the 1930s and ‘40s.
It is AIJAC that is trivializing the Holocaust by using every single opportunity to abuse the deaths of all of our families for their own cheap and tawdry political point scoring and media profile.
It is time the elected Jewish community organizations reminded AIJAC of its place in our community and society. The (sort-of) democratically elected roof/umbrella bodies are the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and the NSW Board of Deputies. AIJAC is a rich, powerful lobby group but not a representative organization.
AIJAC’s deliberate and continual confusion of criticism of policies of the Government of Israel and anti-Semitism is tiresome and the use all of our family’s deaths for its own cheap and tawdry political purposes is objectionable.
Of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis, a fair guess would put half a million to one million as active anti-fascists, leftists, socialist, communists and anarchists. About the same may have been right-wingers and most were probably apolitical until it was far too late.
For AIJAC to claim to “know” how to represent our dead families is revolting. It is a convenient and easy political tool used to justify anything. The Holocaust. But it cheapens the deaths of all of our families.
David Langsam is the editor of
Biotech Daily and reviewer
For the AJN
Support this comment
0
Hi David, and thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, we feel that asking any of the governing bodies to intervene with AIJAC is futile because such bodies are usually led by people who agree entirely with AIJAC’s agenda. For what it’s worth our leaders are not in any way “elected” in any genuine sense of the word. It’s about as democratic the convocations selecting the Pope.
Support this comment
0
Indeed you are correct, but I was trying to be polite, reasonable and conciliatory. (I know it’s a surprising development, but I’m growing older and have children to feed.)
That said, the umbrella or roof bodies are responsible for a diverse range of client organizations and if enough people lobby them and they understand that there is real dissent in the community they might at least have a quiet word. And I am aware that some of the people in some of those groups are silent dissenters.
I think the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies former leader Stephen Rothman quite appropriately slapped AIJAC on the wrists for its bringing the community into disrepute with its bizarre attack on Hanan Ashrawi over the Sydney Peace Prize. Rothman did not go so far as to say Ashrawi actually deserved the award for her efforts to bring peace, but that by making it a public issue outside the community, AIJAC was making the Jewish community look stupid.
Funny thing is that I recall the authority groups criticizing dissenting Jews by saying they should keep it within the community. Indeed, I first sent my criticisms of AIJAC’s latest aktions to Media Watch as an expose of what we call a “beat up” and copied it to someone I would call a sensible Jew, who is employed at one of the community organizations. Her comment was that I shouldn’t take it beyond the Jewish community.
PS I hate anonymous blogs. We need to stand up and be counted. I understand that some bloggers may feel uncertain about privacy issues and that’s fine, but I think the moderators should be transparent. You have my email address, please make direct contact.
Sorry for writing on Shabbat.
David
Support this comment
0
“How can an advocacy group such as AIJAC, with so much power, be so remiss as to have avoided reading the 8 minute play?”
-A good question and perhaps it is more troubling when you consider that this issue has been heavily discussed by UK Jewry (cf. “Engage” for example) for months before Jones was queried about it. Perhaps they don’t keep abreast of diaspora events/issues and this has caught them wrong-footed?
Support this comment
0
I find your Bog site amusing its like a Party meeting of like minded comrades. What is particularly humorous is you criticize the likes of Colin Rubenstein, Danny Lamm or any Jewish community representative that advocate for Israel and of course what does that mean you would like your left wing views to represent the Jewish community.
Whilst I would rather take the chance and walk down the main street of Lakemba or Coburg with a Yarmulke than agree with anything Langsam says however I do agree that it is cowardly to hide behind an anonymous blog site pontificate and have a go at all your adversaries [ ie Zionists], at least Colin, Danny and others like them have the balls to stand up behind what they say and take any critisim from their adversaries [ ie left wing Jews] .
It is quite obvious that the Academic or student from Monash’s Australian Center for Jewish Civilization behind this blog site is in tune with the Jewish Studies Dept Doctrine that’s for sure.
I wonder if this blogger believes in balance and not just promoting your own world views and doctrine will you be publishing the text from the wonderful new play ‘Seven Muslim Children”that is doing the rounds of the internet or perhaps is it only ”kosher to insult and vilify Jews ‘ because its safe ,there will not be any violent reaction .
http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/04/seven-muslim-children.html
Should we hold our breathe Mr sensibleJew?
Support this comment
0
Faygale
Perhaps you can outline or explain to other readers why you think that SJ is in opposition to Zionists?
I for one would be curious to see what you are referring to?
Support this comment
0
Dear Ladies (old school manners),
Whilst I can fathom the value of a debate between David Langsam and Colin Rubenstein over the strategies and choices made by an Australian-based communal advocacy organisation, I just don’t get your apparent conclusions as to the “problems this blog wants to address” of May 22, 2009.
Isn’t AIJAC just putting its point of view across and responding to the strong level of criticism voiced by David Langsam. Or have I missed something about the “sensible jew”?
May I suggest that it is more the case of the “biased jew” or the “we have made up our mind jew”.
Bloggers can offer two distinctive environments: one of zealous conformity to a message (only those of the cause or fellow travellers may apply) or a genuine open forum that encourages dialogue and shared engagement (all welcome within the limits of a site’s internal controls against illegal or demeaning conduct)
I would welcome your response.
Still perusing your site …. just don’t tell the wife!
Support this comment
0
Faygale,
I find your comments particularly ironic: “I do agree that it is cowardly to hide behind an anonymous blog site pontificate and have a go at all your adversaries [ ie Zionists], at least Colin, Danny and others like them have the balls to stand up behind what they say and take any critisim from their adversaries [ ie left wing Jews].”
What’s your name, Mr/Mrs Faygale (based on some of your other remarks I presume you’re a Mr!)??
Some of the points you raise are “interesting”. I’d appreciate it if you could define a Zionist – because I always brand myself as a proud Zionist! I also place my self more on the “Right” than the “Left”.
Based on your comments I’d comfortably classify you as an intolerant zealot (I was going to write “proud intolerant zealot” but realised that as you didn’t put your name to it you may not be all that proud of your position – you may be in my position where I have a valid viewpoint but for privacy reasons don’t want people to identify me!).
You simply despise anybody who has a different worldview to yours! Get over yourself!!
Support this comment
0
I think the point is that AIJAC functionaries are paid to make their outrageous attacks on painters, writers and performers. To call them ‘brave’ is interesting, as the word is often interchangeable with ’stupid’.
We have seen repeated debacles by the partially-elected and unelected so-called leadership of the Jewish community, and growing division since 1968. I pick 1968 because most of us were delighted by the immediate outcome of the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel won a contiguous, better defined landscape. It took a little time to realise that Israel had gone from ’safe homeland for the Jews from another European Holocaust’ to ‘occupying power in defiance of the UN authority that helped create her’.
It is no small wonder that Sensible Jew has arrived as AIJAC has gone out on its wildest limb and sucked Jewish Care along for the ride to boycott a Jewish actor. It is BECAUSE Israel is nothing like the Zionist dream many of us once had that the country is the target of criticism.
Faygele and his supporters (a Zohan reference? pass the houmous!) want Israel to be a great nation, as do most Jews, but we don’t need it to be described – as some do – as “better than Syria” or “more democratic than Saudi Arabia” or “more tolerant than Iran”. Of course Israel is one of only two or three partial democracies in the Middle East. But I grew up believing Israel would be compared to places like the UK, France, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, not just “better than the neighbors”.
And this is the heart of the problem.
Do galut Jews have the right to comment on Israeli politics? Sure we do. We criticize North Korean nuclear tests, French nuclear tests, Japanese whalers, American junk food chains, Canadian harp seal killers and Fijian dictators. Why should Israel be taboo? The problem really is that Israel isn’t the kindest gentlest place on the planet. And it certainly isn’t a safe haven for Jews from the next Holocaust – Melbourne and Sydney are much safer. And Faygele you can wear your kippah in Coburg any time you like.
So we have this terrible dissonance that for many Jews (myself clearly included) Israel is special. I want a good Israel, a noble Israel, where it is not just about its biotechnology prowess or military weaponry, but that Israel lives up to the ancient (well, the just over 100 year old Herzl invention) ideal of a country leading the world, a light unto nations and at peace with its neighbors. And I want an Israel forever, not just the plaything of here today gone tomorrow rabble-rowsing politicians.
It is not the fault of Australian Jewry that since Yigal Amir murdered Yitzhak Rabin, we have inherited a sackful of stale politicians that make Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating look majestic by comparison. (I think John Howard has shown all the statemanship and grand vision that Israel’s post-Rabin leaders have.) Rabin was far from perfect, but he was an awful lot better than the current pack of jokers – but that’s partial democracy for you.
Israel has delivered us two disastrous Lebanon adventures and a War on Gaza that killed more civilians than alleged terrorists in an occupied territory that by international law is Israel’s responsibility to maintain the peace. This is a very hard circle to square – or magen David to crucify, if you like.
The problem is that faced by all public relations agencies: you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. Israel may have been established with the best of intentions, but it has strayed a long way from its initial path. It is impossible to defend that which is clearly wrong. Every biotech advance, every individual Israeli humanitarian, every Israeli doctor and nurse who volunteers to help Palestinians or jump on a ‘plane to save Turkish earthquake victims is overshadowed by a government full of corruption, with an eye on the main chance and the next election, taking gigantic gambles with international relations and mostly punishing innocent individual Palestinians for the actions of a few, in turn damaging the psyche and well-being of its own citizens and making the job of its galut defenders simply impossible.
Then there are myriad other issues for the Australian Jewish leadership to consider, discussed in other blogs on this site. Why is the United Jewish Education Board so cash-strapped that it can’t provide Hebrew teachers when so much money is wasted on several overlapping organizations needing to go out of their way to defend Israel?
The Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation Commission has not yet delineated anti-Semitism from criticism of Israel, but of all the official organizations it seems to be the only one concerned with the issue.
It would be a good idea for the ‘leadership’ to reassess its priorities. Do we need a campaign against Hanan Ashrawi’s acceptance of a peace prize or Miriam Margolyes performing in a play or the expensive advertising and payments to the Jewish News for AIJAC’s column when perhaps those funds could go to something useful, like education or supporting Jewish Care rather than damaging it?
What is the point of the Jewish Security Group – to whom I pay two sets of levies, when they have no ability to secure anything and they think ‘Arab’ when the real threat – as demonstrated over and over again – is ‘Redneck’?
But all these issues require more time and discussion to clearly elaborate. What is clear is that in the absence of a War on Gaza and two Lebanon debacles, and the resolution of a two-state peace deal, Israel would be a less corrosive issue to Israelis and galut Jews alike.
David Langsam
PS: For the record, apart from my years in Habonim and at Mt Scopus, I reported – on the ground, first-hand accounts – on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 1985 to 1997. I have stayed for extended periods in Palestinian villages and refugee camps as well as with family members and friends across Israel. And I am not very impressed by armchair pontificators who rely on a narrow channel of information to form a view one way or the other and then blast the media with it. I don’t recall seeing any of the official functionaries in Tel Aviv in January 1991 when Saddam was Scudding it. I don’t recall seeing any of them at Jabaliyah refugee camp being stoned by Palestinian children just ahead of being tear gassed by Israeli soldiers.
Support this comment
0
Dear David (we seem to be getting all non-anonymous),
1. Well written and argued (from a small r redneck this is praise)
2. What one person brands outrageous, others perceive as robust
3. Growing division since 1968? I just haven’t seen the evidence, where are the rallies?
4. Do you really have evidence that AIJAC coerced JC into certain action?
5. Faygele might have less problems in Camden than Coburg, ask yourself why?
6. If Israel is so clearly wrong – why bother with what some in the Aussie J community says, just boycott its exports if you must, starting with biotech.
7. Israel, a functional liberal democracy, is likely to lose legitimacy in the eyes of many if the diaspora gives in to arguments of appeasement over common sense.
I don’t see Belarus giving back parts of Poland, Russia giving back East Prussia or Poland handing back chunks of pre 1939 Germany
1968 was a victory of survival. Territory bought with the blood of Jewish, Druze, Bedouin and Christian IDF members should not be the unacceptable bargaining chip in a game to placate great powers.
Support this comment
0
Dear TGH
I’m not anonymous, but YOU are.
1. Thanks.
2. Perhaps.
3. I don’t now how old you are but there was nothing but celebration in June ‘67. The rot, including vitriolic attacks on dissent began sometime later. My psych lecturer Franta Knopfelmacher once said brilliantly: “At least Spinoza was excommunicated by rabbis. I have been excommunicated by travel agents.” meaning Jetset meaning the Leibler brothers.
4. I never said AIJAC coerced Jewish Care into its appallingly political decision. But someone did and Jewish Care’s CEO Bruce Salvin said the orgnaization was snookered into it (see above).
5. Camden UK? Que?
6. I have publicly opposed the so-called academic boycott of Israel. It’s too easy. Boycott the US if you really mean it. one of the points I made above is that we do have “skin in the game”. Limited boycott’s achieve nothing, but global sanctions can work. Meanwhile we in our own small way can if we like attempt to create change.
7. It’s not about appeasement. Go read my 2002 piece on Sharon in The Age. (http://www.dingonet.com/israel20.htm). It’s about a treaty, a peace agreement monitored and supervised by acceptable third parties. I’m not an ideologue. I’ve flown over the Sinai in a US led Multinational Force and Observers ANZAC chopper. The cold peace with Egypt survives – just. The present wall is in the wrong place but I have no objection to one on the Green Line which gives both Israelis and Palestinians contiguous proper countries.
The last couple of paragraphs are empty rhetoric. Like one person I know offering his Viena home stolen by the Nazis as a swap for Israel. Territory bought with young people’s blood is sold by cheap dirty and old politicians every day. Think of Churchill and Gallipoli.
Finally, Faygale and The Goy Husband, I think this discourse is probably the intention of the Sensible Jew and it is beneficial that we consider each other’s multiple views on a difficult subject.
Support this comment
0
Aaaarghh!!
Spelling mistakes in my previous. Grovelling apologies.
How can contributors modify their contributions? Is there any non-public way of contacting Sensible Jew? Is it moderated at all, or do posts just go straight up?
David
Support this comment
0
You are too kind.
David
Support this comment
0
Hi David.
Unfortunately, there’s no public access to editing comments. Our policy is to let comments go up without any interference. We would only delete a comment if it were spam, flaming, trolling or in some way illegal. As for spelling mistakes, I think people understand that online writing is different from print – especially in comments sections. People write quickly and passionately in these sorts of fora and are not as exacting as they might be in another medium. Don’t sweat it too much and keep sharing your interesting perspectives with us.
Support this comment
0
David Langsam
I would like to take up your point no 7:
-Acceptable third party? Would you care to make some suggestions or elaborate on this?
-As to the wall on the green line. How would this work if your suggesting a contiguous proper Palestine? (WB and Gaza)
Support this comment
0
Third Party (Insurance)
UN is first preference, but for a number of reasons unlikely.
Quarter plus friends such as Australia NZ Canada Sweden. Like the MFO.
Israel balks at any interference in what it sees as its “domestic arrangements” but if the option on the table is a lasting peace and US funding, then a visionary leader we are yet to see emerge could carry the day. If I remember correctly, last time he was PM, Netanyahu gave back far more land than Rabin was able to before Yigal Amir murdered him.
The Wall
Ideally, my prefered option is Moshe Amirav’s three state confederation of Israel Palestine and Jordan like the BeNeLux model. All three nations have open borders and you vote for the government of whichever nation you belong. At this juncture in the political calender this is what we might class as “highly unlikely”.
Both sides are deeply unhappy with each other – despite consistent polling showing that the numbers on both sides supporting an immediate two-state peace have only dropped from 60-70% down to 50-60%. Which given what we have seen over the past wasted decade is amazing anyway.
No, I also think the one-state happy democracy is a long way away and the only solution is two states separated with a big reliable border wall – and hopefully for only a brief period of a couple of years. Israel is good at borders. I was on the corner with Syria and Lebanon and the lookout post had very high tech binoculars, a dust road that showed any movement, back up wireless and a razor wire barrier. There’s no reason there can’t be a border along the Green Line (some diversions allowing for the odd geographic feature, balanced on both sides) and another around Gaza with a 30km secure, elevated highway connecting them.
But the hope would be that this would be a temporary secure state of affairs until both sides were able to see the benefits of open borders. Following Oslo, Israelis could drive to Amman in under an hour instead of not at all (or even for a foreign journalist a half day of bureaucracy to travel 60km). There really was hope then. There is no reason it can’t be renewed.
Hatikvah
David
Support this comment
0
Hello David.
No need to apologise. The internet is not Shoa-mr Shah-bs (quoting John Goodman in “Big Lebowski”) and neither are we. We just believe that we and our readers can benefit from a Shabbes-dik break from our posts. But as you can see, we’re still happy to answer questions and comments on the day of rest.
As for our roof bodies having “a quiet word” with anyone, we’re uninerested in this possibility for reasons stated previously. Such quiet words – the opposite of a transparent political process – are unlikely to take place because AIJAC is not particularly distinguishable ideiologically from many of our “leaders.” Such leadership, constituted in a manner completely at odds with democratic principles, cannot and should not be relied upon to do the right thing. That is an abdication of all our responsibilities as members of the Jewish community. This is not a matter of politesse. It is a matter of speaking frankly about a very serious problem that is a threat to the well-being of our community.
Regarding your feelings about our anonymity – we regret that you “hate” anonymous blogs, but we will not be emailing you with our identities. Our identities notwithstanding, we are certainly standing up and being counted. That we have over 2000 readers is an indication that our current policy of anonymity is not a barrier to discussion -and can even enhance it if people wish to comment here without divulging who they are. There’s plenty of time for us all to “stand up and be counted.” Meanwhile, let us all disscuss, debate, argue – do what Jews do best – and see what happens.
Support this comment
0
Hi, Sadducee and welcome! That’s a really interesting point. One would imagine that neglecting to keep abreast of these sorts of issues would be a pretty major dereliction of duty for a public affairs outfit. It’s bad enough that they position themselves as communal spokespeople without any mandate whatsoever – but that they’re doing this job badly is all the more appalling.
Support this comment
0
Hi Faygale. Firstly, we are women, so you can call us, “Ms. Sensible Jew,” if you like.
Secondly, and much more importantly, no one from Monash or any other institution has ANYTHING to do with this site. It is completely independent of the Jewish Studies Department. I repeat, NO ONE from Monash is involved with this site. Michael Fagenblat was kind enough to let us post his address to the 8 minute play folk. But he did that without the knowledge of who we are. Conspiracy theories do far more harm than good – they never contribute to the enhancement of a discussion.
For what it’s worth, we are neither left- nor right-wing. We prefer to analyse each issue on its own merits
Support this comment
0