Hello again, dear readers.
The last few months have provided me with an extraordinary opportunity to create a forum for Australian Jews to discuss important issues.
There was, however, one issue that initially forced me to conceal my identity, and eventually cease posting altogether. While I cannot go into too much detail on this matter, I can say that I had complicated family reasons for maintaining anonymity.
There was a concern that a number of my relatives, who do not live in Australia, might have been endangered by the publication of my opinions. After taking some time out to analyse the situation, it seems that certain dangers have passed.
Now I hope to expand the scope of this blog.
There are so many issues beyond Melbourne Jewry which require “sensible” examination – analyses which have no interest in prefabricated ideologies.
The Middle East, religion, freedom of speech, young people and drugs, the role of new technologies, the place of public relations and propaganda - these are just some of the myriad topics that will be explored. Breaking news will also have its place, and there will still be the odd post about the more interesting matters affecting Melbourne Jewry, not only because of my own relationship to it, but because there are broader themes that can be extrapolated from what our leaders get up to and how we choose to present ourselves to the wider world.
For the first post of the blog’s return, let’s begin with terrorism.
*****
For most people, defining terrorism is not a top priority. We feel quite confident that we know it when we see it. But problems arise because this is not sufficient in the academic world and the academic world is often asked by policy makers to consult on how best to tackle the problem. Having spent some time wading through the murk of academic grapplings with terrorism, I have to say: we should all be a little concerned.
The recent success in preventing a terrorist attack on a Sydney army base had much to do with the incompetence of the would-be attackers, and, from what I can gather, nothing to do with any contribution from academics.
Academia is absolutely in the thrall of fashion and trends. Many of us remember the horror of the post-modernism takeover of everything from linguistics to – well just about any discipline that didn’t involve Bunsen burners.
In the arena of terrorism studies, animal rights groups are now the new black. Believe it or not, there’s a strand in one of our top universities – that very much has the ear of policy makers – advocating a focus on animal liberation types as the next big threat.
Seriously.
Political Islam is so 2008!
That alone is enough to cause sleeplessness. But even those academics who are not completely over Islamist terrorism are involved in any number of asinine struggles. They can’t even agree on a definition of terrorism.
There is a huge variety of lazy thinking – lexically souped up versions of, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” or “if only they weren’t so poor/oppressed/colonised, then they wouldn’t have to kill us.”
When people who are paid to think for a living come out with this calibre of analysis, it’s tempting to respond with cynicism. In the past, many commenters here have expressed this cynicism thus: What can we expect from academics? They’re all lefties and divorced from reality. What does it really matter anyway?
Firstly, while academia is certainly dominated by leftist individuals, it is simply untrue that every scholar marches in lockstep with such thinking. There are most certainly those few who are able to illuminate their disciplines precisely because they eschew ideology, and pursue instead true scholarship.
Fania Oz-Salzberger is one such example. Robert Horvath is another. Listening to the ACJC oration given by Israeli academic and expert on Iran, David Menashri, last Wednesday night, I was reminded that the value of true scholarship lies in demolishing ignorance’s certainties, and replacing them with the complex understanding that, as Voltaire said, certainty is indeed absurd.
These three scholars are by no means alone in their refusal to submit to the comfort of ideological certainties. This must be remembered. The problem is that their ilk seem quite outnumbered in the area of terrorism studies, especially in Australia.
But what do academics matter to the real world? The most obvious answer is that government does rely on them for direction and policy formulation. This in turn directly affects our security and the nature of the society in which we live. On a more esoteric level, scholarship must be valued in its own right. We cannot know what we don’t know until we begin exploration.
So, I’ve provided a very basic introduction to a problem: terrorism is poorly served by academia in this country, and the consequences of that reach far beyond the ivory tower. In my next post, I’ll provide a “sensible” framework for defining terrorism, understanding it, and what can best be done about it.
No related posts.
Welcome back Alex,
In regards to the question you raise about the role of academics in defining our terrorism policy, I thought you may find this recent article in The Age to be of interest:
–
A GUIDEBOOK for politicians, police and public servants on how to talk about Muslims and terrorism without implicating the religion of Islam should be released by the end of the year.
The book, A Lexicon on Terror, was conceived by Victoria Police and the Australian Multicultural Foundation, but was so popular it became a national project, an international conference on Islamophobia at Monash University heard yesterday.
Stephen Fontana, the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism co-ordination, told the conference the aim was to reduce alienation and radicalism among young Muslims.
“A comment we think is harmless, some communities read as an attack,” he said.
Multicultural Foundation head Hass Dellal told The Age many Muslims interpreted “war on terror” as a war on Islam. Other terms to be avoided included “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamo-fascists”, “Middle Eastern appearance”, and “moderate Muslim”, which suggested to Muslims they were inadequate in their faith.
“Talk about ‘violent extremists’, because that’s what they are, or name the group,” he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/do-not-confuse-islam-with-terrorism-says-book-20090719-dpik.html
–
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about whether this attempt to reframe language is a help or a hindrance in discussing these issues.
Support this comment
0
Alex, nice to hear of your return fully presented.
The issue of “A Lexicon on Terror” was raised at the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) a week ago at the August plenum meeting. The idea of being sensitive in our language was greeted with some derision by both the JCCV executive and some delegates. After all, if an act of terrorism is perpetrated by a Muslim who claims to be acting in the name of Islam, why should we avoid being explicit in referring to it?
And indeed I see no reason why people shouldn’t refer to the act factually. From both the news reports and John Searle’s summary at the JCCV it seemed to me that the point of this guide is not to inhibit plain speaking as much as to avoid the type of smearing and innuendo that seems to inevitably accompany anything unsavoury that originates from either a Middle Eastern or Muslim source.
The issue about which we ought to be sensitive is stereotyping. To give an example closer to home: one of the stereotypes applied to Jews is being dishonest in business. Most of us have seen news reports over the years that somehow manage to mention a Jewish connection when someone prominent in the business community who is Jewish is accused of acting dishonestly. We don’t like it because we feel that the action of one individual reflects on the whole Jewish community. We also don’t like it because it shouldn’t reflect on the whole community and shouldn’t even be mentioned in the news reports because it is not relevant to the accusation. Imagine if the news reports went further and lectured to the “honest” Jews to control the activities of their bad apples.
All of this relates back to the idea of academic analysis which mostly means that someone has thought about an issue in greater depth than most of us get an opportunity to. No doubt there are some who are driven by their own idealogical bias, but if my choice is between the black and white populism of stereotypes and the shades of grey of academics and their infuriating moderation…..where would a sensible Jew go?
Support this comment
0
You’re baaack! I’m so pleased. Looking forward to many thought-provoking constructive discussions here.
Support this comment
0
You are pathetic.
Perhaps you and Antony Loewenstein can swap notes on who has received the more credible “death threats” from pissed off Jews…
Don’t forget to watch over your shoulder and check under your car daily. At any minute, a 95 year old Holocaust survivor could try and whack you. I mean, we Jews are notorious for killing anyone brave enough to speak out.
Oh no! I made a threat! Quick, grab your copy of Ha’aretz and hide under your doona!
Newsflash: Jews don’t issue Fatwas. Your paranoia is embarrassing and an affront to Muslims who actually do face violence and death for speaking out about their religion’s backwardness.
Support this comment
0
Daniel
You don’t need to lecture Alex on Muslim culture, she only needs to ask her boyfriend. What a crock!
Support this comment
0
Welcome back SJ!
Glad to have your voice of reason again.
Big Mac (fitting, because your posts are full of fat and nothing of real value), what is wrong with having a muslim boyfriend? We wouldn’t want to be insinuating anything racist, now would we?
:):)
Support this comment
0
Beware of extremist Jews making ”dangerous ‘ threats with their computer key boards …
Support this comment
0
Like mother, like daughter…
Support this comment
0
Some of us don’t know the “mishpachtologia” referred to here and don’t think it is salient to the discussion at hand. Please try to keep it civil and relevant.
Support this comment
0
As you may be aware, when you post from within an office/organisation, the external IP address is identical. You call for pluralism and transperancy yet you seek to silence others.
Support this comment
0
transparency
Support this comment
0
What are you on about??? Yesterday was my first post on this site.
Support this comment
0
Speaking of Homophobia – the fact that 2 Jewish Gays were murdered (by most likely another Jew) in Tel Aviv as reported in the AJN’s front page speaks volumes about not only homophobia, but the problems faced by Israel and Jews everywhere today – increasing intolerance and fundamentalism – Jews are becoming once again less tolerant of difference of beliefs, attitudes and political views both in Israel and here in Oz.
But the fact that the AJN puts this on its Front Cover speaks well for healthy debate. I wonder how this issue will be handled in the Synagogues, schools and youth movements
David
Support this comment
0
I must have been hibernating , because i missed your return. welcome back and great to see your name where it belongs
Support this comment
0
Hi Alex,
I’ve only just discovered you and your blog – from today’s Sunday Age. I applaud what you’re trying to do. The Jewish community I grew up in, in Melbourne, was more enlightened on various topics than the community of today which I see as right-wing religious, often hypocritical, narrow-minded, self-absorbed, and intolerant. These are generalisations. Of course there are ‘good’ Jews, thinking Jews, Jews prepared to stand up for their more enlightened opinions. But I fear these are the minority. Born and growing up in a Jewish liberal-minded household, my ‘Australian’ identity has always been far stronger in me than my Jewish identity. As such, I have always found it difficult to find a place for myself within the parochial limits of the Australian Jewish community. Your blog is welcomed as it will give more progressively minded Jews a platform.
Support this comment
0
Hi Alex
I have been delighted to read your blogs. This is a long shot but would you be prepared to be interviewed by me on our community radio (Radio Mansfield 99.7 FM)and talk about your reasons for starting up your blog. I have interviewed Randa Abel-Fettah whom I suspect would share many of your ideas, albeit from a Muslim perspective. In the event that you were able to spare ten to fifteen minutes of your time I would seek in an interview, to explore with you why you have felt a need to initiate your blog, ” Sensible Jew ” Why has the moderate Jewish voice been so hard to find? What pathways can be found to heal the wounds caused by right wing extremist views being so loud and dominant?
If you are able to spare the time for an interview it would need to be on Tuesday, (hopefully 25/8/09 or failing that 1/09/09 some time between 11.15 am and 12.30pm.
Support this comment
0
Hi Alex,
Could you put a transcript of this interview on your blog? I’d like to hear it.
Support this comment
0
Hi Alex,
Yes, I meant the Mansfield Radio interview. Or any others you do.
Support this comment
0
Thanks Alex
Support this comment
0
Ittay, great to hear from you!
You bring up a really interesting point. As many readers hear know, I think language and PR are crucial aspects for dealing with any communal issue. I do worry, however, that on the Islamist terrorism issue, the tendency to slide into political correctness can obscure the very real need for establishing concrete preventive policy. It’s very easy to become so engrossed in the search for inoffensive language that the true goals – harmonoius, non-violent society – can be left by the way-side.
Support this comment
0
Hi Aussie! It’s good to be back! And I look forward to reading your comments.
Hi Harold, and thanks for your kind words. Of course, recourse to vile stereotypes serves no one (except for those with a vested interest in making trouble), but surely the answer doesn’t lie in linguistic contortions that obfuscate rather than illuminate?
Support this comment
0
Daniel, I am not deleting your comment because it is indicative of the phenomenon I wrote about in my previous post.
I strongly recommend you re-read this post. You have clearly misunderstood it.
Support this comment
0
Daniel Levy, it’s great to see you again too!
SEA/Big Macher, please choose one screen name. Multiple names cause confusion for readers who are unable to see you are posting from the one IP address: 118.139.57.60
Support this comment
0
Hi SEA.
Whom am I trying to silence?
I published your IP because you regularly write threatening, racist, and defamatory comments. If you are sending them from an office computer, that’s a choice you’ve made. Perhaps others in your office may not like that you write racist and defamatory material at work. Writing in this way has been your choice, however, and is unrelated to transparency or the silencing of dissent.
Good luck.
Support this comment
0
SEA, seriously?
Yesterday, there were two comments from the same IP address, both nasty. One was under the moniker, Big Macher, one was under SEA.
Are you saying that two separate people posted two nasty comments from the same address/office/cell?
If so, you might like to check out who Big Macher is, because he shares your IP and regularly enjoys claiming I date Arabs, as though this were an abomination. This particular troll has long had a fixation on the subject. His statements have also included gross homophobia and outright libel. Racism isn’t his only game.
But if you go back and read what you wrote yesterday, the simplest explanation is you alone are the forum troll. For what it’s worth, I enjoy keeping records of trolls’ IP addresses. And though the identities may vary, the actual individual IP addresses are very few.
I am not deleting any of your remarks in this thread because I think you serve as an excellent example of the dark underbelly of our community: the sort of person who cannot stand differing opinions or orientations.
Hope you’re not posting out of Beth Weizman.
Support this comment
0
Hi David, Z. The attack on those kids was horrible!
It’s interesting: Israel’s religious right came out immediately after the shooting to condemn the attack. But they had previously made a habit of preaching a very homophobic agenda from which some unbalanced person may have taken his cue.
It reminds me of the horror many on the right expressed after Rabin was killed. Many on the right, back then, also engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, some of which inspired Yigal Amir. I’m not a proponent of curbs on free speech, I just dream of the day that pontificators who use incendiary language imagine that some in their audience might take their words literally.
As for the AJN, they did a very good job. I think our community is actually full of sensible people – people whose hearts are broken by the killing of young people because of their sexuality – and the AJN reflects that.
Support this comment
0
Hi Eli!
Great to see you back here. Looking forward to reading your thoughts on various issues.
Support this comment
0
Gloria, hello and welcome.
It’s an interesting point you bring up: that there has been a shift in the community to less tolerance of diversity of opinion. I wonder if others feel the same way.
I’m so glad you feel this blog provides a platform for open discussion, and I hope you’ll return to share your views on the various issues we discuss here in the future.
Support this comment
0
Hi Tony and welcome.
Thank you for your lovely offer. I will send you an email and we can discuss this further.
Support this comment
0
Hi Gloria.
Which interview would you like the transcript for?
Unfortunately I don’t think I can get tapes or a transcript from the Mansfield Radio interview. But I’ll link to the Shtik interview as soon as it’s up.
Support this comment
0
Hi Gloria.
It was a great interview, and I really hope they can send me the tapes.
Whatever happens, I’ll write about it soon, because the interviewer asked some really interesting questions.
And whenever I can, I will link to, or post any interview I do.
Support this comment
0