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.
AJN 1: Peaceful Protests
In this week’s Australian Jewish News, the protests at the 8 minute play were, of course covered. This gave the head of AUJS (Australian Union of Jewish Students), Stefan Oberman an opportunity to explain why exactly he thought yelling, placards, and raised fists were the answer.
While the article mentioned signs with admirable sentiments, such as, “Peace, salaam, shalom,” being waved, it neglected to mention other Jewish placards referencing dead Jewish children.
Oberman stated that AUJS was not there to change the minds of the anti-Zionists, but was instead determined to provide an “alternative view.” An alternative view to what, exactly? The view expressed by anti-Zionists that Jews try to stifle free speech when Israel is being criticised? We’re not sure Oberman’s gaggle of placard wavers had the intended effect.
Oberman claims that the central AUJS message of, “say no to racism” was “well received” by those queuing to see the play. Perhaps. But that message was most certainly not conveyed at all in the subsequent footage shown on ABC and SBS that provided viewers with an opportunity to see a lot of Jews looking very angry outside a play.
Oberman then makes an astonishing statement: “I was somewhat disheartened to hear some of the arguments and comments being made by members of the pro-Palestinian side. I heard everything from Holocaust denial to people unabashedly advocating the death of all Jews.”
Why did Oberman’s statement so shock us? Because we really wonder at Oberman’s naivete – perhaps ignorance. The Socialist Alliance was also there protesting. That’s what they do. They’re anti-intellectual rabble-rousers with a real anti-Semitic streak. How on earth could a university student – let alone a student leader – not be aware of such people?
And as they say, you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. So if you choose to use the same tactics, methods and propaganda style of an organisation like the Socialist Alliance, in their very presence, you are going to ignite conflict with people who will never, ever see reason. By mixing it up with such people, you debase any claims to the moral or intellectual high ground.