We have just sent an email requesting comments from the leaders of some of our key institutions. These include, AIJAC, the ZFA, ECAJ, AUJS, Maccabi, and the JCCV. Below is a copy of the email that we sent.
“The Sensible Jew is a web log devoted to discussion of matters pertaining to the leadership and representation of the Australian Jewish community. Our site has so far attracted 3,691 visitors (after being active for only two weeks) and there has been vigorous debate taking place in our comments section. Opinions range from defence of the current leadership, to calls for a complete overhaul of communal institutions. We welcome all points of view and encourage wide ranging discussion. We are therefore requesting that you, as a leader of a key institution, write us a short piece outlining your visions for the community’s future, tackling anti-Semitism, your ideas on legitimate representation, and the possibilities for increased inclusion in community policy formation. Should you choose to send us such a piece via email, we undertake to reproduce it in full, and will devote a post to it. You are also welcome to write in our comments section; however, providing us with a piece that would become an individual post would guarantee greater visibility.
Please visit us at http://sensiblejew.wordpress.com/
Thank you,
The bloggers at The Sensible Jew”
Related posts:
- An urgent request to Our Leadership for the Jewish reponse to anti-Indian violence
- Reader Response 5: Israel, Kangaroo Courts, Unity, Speaking Out, and Subheadings
- Dvir Abramovich in The Age: No Laughing!
- Reader Response 7: Responding to our Non/Anti-Zionist Readers
- Dani Klein of StandWithUs and The SJ in Dialogue
Hey SJ,
This is a bold but I think necessary move. As much as I love the idea of having a forum to talk and discuss and shmooz, there must obviously come a point in time where the ideas in this blog either have to move forward or simply be consigned to the trash heap of failed talk-fests.
I think it would be more than apt for the community’s leaders to enter into the debate and defend themselves. I have no doubt that from their perspective, they have the community’s best interests at heart and although many of us here may disagree with what they do, they are doing what they think is right.
My instinct is that many of them will say that they would love more participation from young, energetic people and are tearing their hair out trying to encourage that to happen to seemingly no avail. As much as I think they can learn from this forum, so can we learn from them. We all want to help this community become more than it currently is.
Perhaps a good start would be to hear from the current leaders as to what they are doing, where they think the gaps are and what we could do to improve this.
Support this comment
0
Don’t forget to reach out to IAJV – they claim to speak on behalf of a portion of the Jewish community as well and I would be keenly interested to see their responses to the areas you have addressed in your email.
Support this comment
0
Dear Ms SJ,
There is some tension between the terms leader and delegate. If someone is opposed to the perspective, strategy or apporach of a particular organisation (or even leadership team) they can always do what people in liberal democracies for over 100 years have done: start up their own entity to do the work they think is poorly done, take the positions they think are not advocated, or seek outcomes they think are ignored.
Leaders in organisations across the community are not accountable to a town hall meeting of assembled do gooders, critics or armchair theorists. Get involved, get active and get to work. Calls to publicly shame or expose the alleged inadequacies of the community’s leaders is just a sham political posturing.
Whilst Australians of jewish faith/heritage are engaged in some introspective debate over the “right” direction (although I suspect that the so called leftist direction may be more to the liking of the more vocal critics) the community suffers from indecision, disunity and self doubt. If we are to belive the old union/party creed of “disunity is death” then we may serious ponder the value of this sought after public debate.
If you don’ like the leaders – elect new ones. If you don’t like the organisations – start your own. If you don’t believe institutions are sufficiently democratic in their governance – create your own replacement entities.
The proof is often in the long term effectiveness of activism and agitation. If there is sufficient groundswell for reform or change, then take charge ladies. Bringing the current crop of hard working leaders before some “kangaroo court” is barely good theatre let alone good public policy.
Support this comment
0
Correct TGH, “disunity is death”. But it is for that reason that we must remember why we are debating.
It is pointless to debate for its own sake. And certainly there is evidence on this blog that some are here to voice loud opinions, rant and rave and promptly ignore calls to Unified Intelligent Action.
If we are going to be honest with ourselves we will perhaps consider acknowledging the following statements.
1. The Leaders of the community (I will not use the word delegates as it is inaccurate), have all done what they and some others would consider to be their very best to serve the community.
2. In doing so, good work has been done on many levels.
3. There remains flaws and gaps in their system of governance (like in many systems of government).
4. Flaws can only be remedied when their is co-operation between people.
5. There may be more than one way to effect change. But people need to consider doing more than argue or shout to create real change. A blog, a protest and a well written letter to an organisation does little to propel a community forward in real terms. Negative effects of our behaviour must also be considered at every level. Including how it affects our ability to work together as well as the way our disunity and dissidence will embolden our enemies.
6. The Leading organisations have expressed a desire to have young people on board.
7. When those young people attempt to get on board and stimulate change they are summarily dismissed, knocked down, blocked, mocked, or most commonly asked to stay silent and not change “the way we’ve been doing things for a long time”. If they are lucky, they are patted condescendingly on the head and told “thank you so much for your feedback and thoughts”, and then promptly ignored until they “go away”.
8. The current leaders may not want to work with those outside their organisations to effect change.
9. The community may very well require entirely new leadership which does wish to work with people to create change.
10. If the current leaders could see fit to permit transparency, co-operation and greater unity, Then there would be no need to dismantle the ‘ancien regime’.
These statements are what I call “The Big 10 of starting again”.
Support this comment
0
Thanks Malki,
1 & 2: Well said. The leaders (in particular the women) have shown a great commitment to communal sustainability
3 & 4: Systemic flaws maybe not, more perceptions of poor transparency and limited opportunities for feedback loops
5 & 6: There are enemies who are only too happy to focus on mixed messages and ambiguous policy positions. The young may not fully understand the pain of the past and burden of persecution
7 & 8: Evidence first, assertion next. I see quite a few young faces doing good work (in particular in the area of mental health, education, zionist activism and foreign policy research)
9 & 10: A gradual and respectful transitional reform to leadership is more likely to be successful than a October Revolution style big bang – the old throwing the baby out with the bath water worry
I like how SJ have responded to some of the posts that have challenged key issues. More online voices would make for more effective discourse.
Support this comment
0
As always, very well put, Yoram. As important as it is to speak frankly about matters of concern, it is equally important to encourage dialogue – especially with those at the coal-face of running our institutions. Wishing you and yours all the very best.
Support this comment
0