The Sensible Jew has so far received 1,531 views since it began a week ago. Tuesday was our busiest day, with 469 visitors, and Wednesday saw 357. It would seem that a fair bit of interest has been generated in the issues surrounding our leadership and its performance in the media.
What is surprising, however, is the relatively small number of comments left, compared to the large number of visitors. This is particularly vexing for us, because we established this blog in the hope that it might provide the only public place in which these issues could be discussed.
We mention this in reference to some really interesting posts from Yoram, Malki, Insider, and NCL.
Yoram and Malki have called for a town hall meeting of sensible Jews. Insider and NCL have described the asphyxiating insularity of our leadership and the sclerotic – not to mention, undemocratic - mechanisms by which power is attained and held on to.
It seems that there are many in agreement with these positions; however, we can only guess at the levels of actual support for change, because so few people are actually commenting.
It would seem prudent to gather some momentum, and to get a feel for the common ground shared by all Jewish moderates before storming Beit Weizman.
While the last sentence is somewhat tongue in cheek, it does allude to an idea that emerged at The Sensible Jew: what do people think of an open meeting, to which all Melbourne Jews are welcome, in which we could ask the leaders of the ZFA, ECAJ, AIJAC, and other bodies some questions regarding their recent media performance, and their claims to legitimate representation?
Would such a meeting do any good? Is it at all worthwhile? Are our institutions so rotten that attempting to graft democratic elements onto them would be futile? If so, by what mechanisms could an alternative leadership be established?
NCL pointed out something that is extremely important: leading a community body can be a thankless and tedious task. Often, the right sort of person wouldn’t want to do it. That is why we at The Sensible Jew firmly believe that whatever form a new leadership takes, it must be professionalised. Apart from the fact that media wrangling itself is a full time job, suited only to a professional PR practitioner, surely many of our bodies could be conglomerated (thus reducing a lot of financial and other wastage), and the leader of the new, amalgamated organisation would certainly have plenty to keep him/her busy.
But none of these changes can occur – or be prevented from occurring – without the active participation of our readers. We wondered at the lack of volubility from Jews – a people reputed to enjoy a good debate. Was it apathy? Probably not. So many people reading so many posts does not reflect disinterest.
Is it intimidation? Jews, especially our leaders, can play tough and make all sorts of accusations against other Jews – of disloyalty, of giving succor to the enemy – that can really cut to the quick. Do people feel that speaking out – even anonymously on a blog like this – might not be worth it?
Obviously we think it is worth it. We think we come from an extraordinary community, populated by inspiring people, as well as those we complain about on this blog. We also feel that we are truly blessed to live in a country like Australia that affords us peace and every imaginable freedom. When we see our leaders continually alienate other Australians, and endanger the detente we had enjoyed with the Muslim community – when we are all publicly tarnished by the unelected arbiters of what is acceptable – we feel that we must act. We can no longer justify keeping our opinions in-family because something quite precious is at stake.
Related posts:
SJ.
Today I spoke to a number of people about this blog and the discussions contained therein.
I believe there are several equally important reasons why the number of readers so heavily outweighs the number of comments posted.
Firstly, many people, as we can well understand, have become cynical. The have heard the odd individual cry out for change on occasion in recent years, only for their calls to either fall on either deaf ears or be immediately silenced.
They fear that if they were to speak up, or even appear to publicly condone such change, it would tarnish their reputation as professionals and individuals.
Many people will recall Manny Waks’ attempt last year to assemble a Community Think Tank, the idea behind which was to pool community data and analyse it for practical use. Part of the hope for this concept was that the Melbourne Jewish Community would be run more similarly to the Sydney Jewish Community, where as you say, funds and resources are amalgamated into a single body, whereby wastage can be avoided and a more efficient body can use pooled resources to facilitate the running of the community.
At the same time Johnny Baker, called for the dismantling of the JCCV, and soon after I spoke in support of some of these suggestions. Shortly afterwards Mr Baker “retracted” aspects of his comments and I myself was even privileged to receive threatening phone calls and emails from within the ranks of our most gracious leadership bodies.
Where were all the other letters in support of these moves? Are we to assume that the AJN chose not to publish them? Or does it make better sense to assume very few actually liked these new ideas?
Or does it make yet more sense to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the good people of the Jewish community think good and hard before they put pen to paper and commit their views to print.
One person even said to me today. “Well Manny Waks had a great idea, how come nobody supported that one? “
Another intriguing observation was, “Nobody ever puts their hands up, cos Jew are all gutless wonders, so we got the leaders we deserved”
And a third was “I’d write something, but I’m not all that good at saying my opinion, people would just think I sounded like a dumbass”
And the fourth remark was, “I don’t know why you bother, who cares”.
I must say that all of these are valid reasons why we are not hearing from more people.
Support this comment
0
Oh my God, Malki! This is one of the more depressing things we’ve seen at SJ for a while. You make some really good points, but I’m going to have to disagree with those who think this is hopeless. I know some of these men can be scary, but we really need to keep perspective. There will not be violent retribution, most people would not have their livelihoods threatened. At the moment, we have so little to lose by standing up, but we have an awful lot to lose by keeping quiet. Manny Waks may have had the right idea, but he was still operating within a rotten system.
Tomorrow, we’ll write a proper response to your comment as a Reader Response post, because this is just too important.
Support this comment
0
I was approached today by a journalist from The Sunday Age, Tom Hyland, who is writing an article on “the debate within the Jewish community about how the community is represented in the wider public debate on contentious public issues, particularly the Palestine-Israel conflict.” His editor asked him to write the piece in light of the Lateline episode, but the angle is not restricted to Seven Jewish Children.
Tom rang me, having seen my piece on The Sensible Jew, and having been particularly fascinated and pleased to discover the conversation that is going on here. He wanted to ask me some questions, but I suggested posting them on the blog so that those with views might have a chance to speak for themselves. I realise this opens a whole set of issues and many may think it a perfectly unsensible thing to do. I’ll let those Sensible Jews decide on how to handle that.
Here are some of the questions that interest Tom (all are his questions in his words).
1. Is there a monolithic ”Jewish community view”?
2. Is the community itself unified and coherent?
3. Can the the usually-quoted leaders of institutional groups be said to be representing the wider community?
4. What’s the significance of the discussion taking place on The Sensible Jew?
5. Is there a significant section of the community that feels it is not represented by the official statements of ”community leaders”?
6. Is the apparent political success of the ”Jewish lobby” in any way self-defeating, as some correspondents on the Sensible Jew suggest, in that the oft-quoted community representatives reinforce stereotypes?
7. Is there an irony in Sensible Jew correspondents lamenting that the pro-Palestine view is winning the Australian PR battle?
8. Can you elaborate on the idea that there’s a link between the growing community debate here and political change in Australia, the US and Israel? (Based on a comment I made to Tom.)
Tom adds: I’d appreciate your comments on any or all of those questions – and any other comment you’d want to make, if you think my questions are too prescriptive or they miss the point.
Tom’s email is: THYLAND@theage.com.au (he gave me permission to post it). But if you’re willing to share your responses they might interest other.
Let me only add one comment, inspired by Pascal who, I believe, wrote to his friend, “My apologies this letter is so long, I didn’t have the time to write a shorter one.”
Support this comment
0
SJ, this thing has exploded over the last few days — I have no idea where to begin responding, so I suppose I’ll start here, as I haven’t yet had a chance to read the AJN.
Firstly, the general apathy observed in the face of an open invitation to the community should be understood as a generally well-placed doubt. We’re all very good at getting hot under the collar at each other, debating the issues, getting out the butcher’s paper and brainstorming solutions to the world’s ills.
Hell, anyone who’s attended a youth movement will know that feeling, thick Texta in sweating hand, empowered with the vision and verve to do just about anything, and the first step is always to discuss things in earnest.
When I mentioned storming Beth Weizmann, I suppose I was fantasizing about an easy way out of this. If we could institute instant regime change, and somehow know instantly with whom to exchange the present regime, we’d all be much happier, and certain Melbourne dailies wouldn’t get it all wrong, all the time.
To have a massive town hall meeting where everyone attempts to drop their egos and agendas and lay it all out on the table, and we all endure a lot of grandstanding, shitfighting and bickering, would be like a giant catharsis, which would probably culminate in a group hug. I’m all for group hugs, but I’m also all for realism.
Think about it — invite the whole community, or their ‘representatives’ to a meeting, and you’d simply have a microcosm of the community at large. It sounds too obvious to state, but I’m trying to underline that if us SJs organise a forum, and we consider ourselves moderates, we’ll be drowned out just the same as moderates are always drowned out. I mean, we could just slip out, lock the door, and watch through the keyhole while everyone kills each other, leaving us to take over (and storm Beth Weizmann).
I reckon change has to come from within. We have to foment a public relations revolution from inside the machine. We have to work together, somehow, to place the opinion pieces, supply the TV news experts, alert the media to the news we want them to disseminate, and then carefully manage the whole enterprise.
That would require a meeting. And if that wasn’t reason enough to have a meeting (sparking revolution), then the prospect of seeing the original SJ up there with an anonymity-guaranteeing paper bag over their head is sufficiently enticing for me.
Now on to the prospect of the Age reporting on the state of community cohesion and opinion via what’s expressed on the SJ. Although I don’t think anyone should get too excited about what’s going to be published as a result, I do think it’s very interesting that they’ve paid enough attention to the SJ to see that it’s vastly divergent from the perceived norm of local Jewish opinion.
That, I believe was our first test, as relatively vocal moderates working toward a public relations shift, and I think we passed with flying colours.
Despite my earlier remarks, which could have been perceived as pessimistic, I am encouraged by the fact that the Age (which has an unhealthy, strangely placed, oddly expressed interest in Australian Jewry) is drawing attention to this new voice in the community. I am not, though, holding my breath for some sort of cheek-turning piece we can all feel good about — and neither should you.
This is an opportunity to take a collective deep breath, calm the nerves. The Sensible Jew is this brand new body we’d all like to create — it’s already here — and now that it’s effectively a public entity, we need to get that PR happening.
No doubt, Shabbos tables all over the known Jewniverse will light up with tales of the omnipresent Sensible Jew, and if you’re present at one of these discussions, debates, tirades or declamations, stand tall — you’re not alone. There’s power in numbers, even if we haven’t yet made it to the town hall.
Shabbat Shalom to all, and thank G-d for the Sensible Jew!
(I’m going to be overseas in the next couple of weeks, so don’t assume I’ve bowed out if I don’t get to post.)
Support this comment
0
Paroggan, my God! What a post! We always respond to you by saying we need to devote an entire Reader Response to what you’ve written! This comment is no different.
We’ve decided to make it a “thing” at The Sensible Jew to take Shabbat off from posting – though people are still, of course, welcome to comment. So it might be a few days before your comment receives a proper response.
Thank you so much for your support and your wonderful comments. Have a safe and great trip!
Support this comment
0
SJ, I’m just glad to have such a forum — thanks very much.
Support this comment
0
[...] what do people think of this idea from Paroggan? “I reckon change has to come from within. We have to foment a public relations revolution [...]
Support this comment
0