It's hard too see what positive contribution this could add to Limmud Oz

By Anthony Frosh
As happened last year at Limmud Oz in Sydney, advocates of the destruction of the State of Israel have had their application to host a session rejected. And just as happened last year, these same advocates and their supporters have been complaining via social media that they have been censored by the Limmud Oz committee. They claim that their free speech has been violated, and they also claim that it is a violation of Limmud’s principle of pluralism.

However, these claims do not hold up to much scrutiny.

The organisers misrepresent themselves as peace activists. In actuality, they are rabid anti-Israel activists, who call for the destruction of Israel. The organisers should at least have the decency to be honest about who they truly are.

The organisers are in favour of full boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) against Israel (including academic boycott) and therefore it is disingenuous of them to claim the moral high ground with regard to pluralism or free speech.

While Limmud is pluralistic, there of course needs to be limits.  For example, Limmud includes sessions on the Holocaust, but need not include sessions that promote Holocaust denial or take a pro-Nazi line.

Likewise, just because Limmud has some sessions that delve into the Arab-Israeli conflict, it does not mean that Limmud is under the obligation to accept all applications for sessions relating to that conflict. It is also worth mentioning that Limmud Oz will include at least one panel session involving Palestinians and AJDS members focussing on Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue .

This is not about Freedom of Speech, as the complainants try to frame it.  Rather, it’s about the freedom of an organisation to choose to whom it grants a platform. Similarly, at an event at which one of the session organisers spoke recently, where the crowd marched under the Hezbollah flag, one can safely assume that Zionist voices were not welcome. And that is the fair prerogative of the organisers of that event.

Furthermore, these people who support calls for the destruction of Israel are free to organise their own day of learning (or day of hatred at it would likely be). One can only imagine the very limited level of pluralism that would be on display if that were to occur.

In the interests of full disclosure: Galus Australis is involved in promoting Limmud-Oz events. However, the above is solely opinion of the author, and is unrelated to any association between this publication and Limmud Oz.

One of these sessions will be on The Finkler Question and Jewish Identity. The Finkler Question, authored by Howard Jacobson (known in some quarters as “The English Philip Roth” although he apparently prefers to be known as “The Jewish Jane Austen”), was the Man Booker Prize winner for 2010, and was noted for its combination of brilliant comedic wit with pathos.

The novel centres on the friendship between three characters, two of them Jews and the other a philo-Semite. Amongst other things, the novel explores Jewish identity in the Diaspora, particularly in a climate of growing anti-Israel sentiment.

Panellists include Bram Presser, Mandi Katz, and Philip Mendes.

We encourage all our Melbourne-based readers to come along to participate in our panel discussion. For those have not yet had the privilege of reading this extremely humorous and insightful novel, there’s still time to read it, but you better get a move on, as Limmud Oz is just around the corner!

In the meantime, feel free to suggest any talking points in the comments sections.

The most entertaining aspect of the episode was watching Dawkins on several occasions bellow at the audience (whenever they laughed) “Why is that funny?!” As one rather witty aired tweet alluded to, this would be, along with the question of whether there exists a deity, one of the great scientific or philosophical questions that Dawkins would never be able to answer.

At rather one dramatic point, host Tony Jones tried to paint Pell as having said something anti-Semitic, an event that brought much joy to the face of Dawkins, as well as that of Jones.

TONY JONES: George Pell, can I just come back to you on this question of the existence of God. Why would God randomly decide to provide proof of his existence to a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago and not subsequently provide any proof after that?

GEORGE PELL: Well, I don’t think there’s ever been any scientific proof. I don’t believe God does anything randomly, although he might set up he might set up a system which works, apparently through, you know, through chance, through random but if you want something done, you’ve got to ask somebody. It’s no good, say, my asking everyone in the congregation will you would do something. Normally you go to a busy person because you know they’ll do it and so for some extraordinary reason God chose the Jews. They weren’t intellectually the equal of either the Egyptians or the…

TONY JONES: Intellectually?

GEORGE PELL: Intellectually, morally…

TONY JONES: How can you know intellectually?

GEORGE PELL: Because you see the fruits of their civilisation. Egypt was the great power for thousands of years before Christianity. Persia was a great power, Caldia. The poor – the little Jewish people, they were originally shepherds. They were stuck. They’re still stuck between these great powers.

TONY JONES: But that’s not a reflection of your intellectual capacity, is it, whether or not you’re a shepherd?

GEORGE PELL: Well, no it’s not but it is a recognition it is a reflection of your intellectual development, be it like many, many people are very, very clever and not highly intellectual but my point is…

TONY JONES: I’m sorry, can I just interrupt? Are you including Jesus in that, who was obviously Jewish and was of that community?

GEORGE PELL: Exactly.

TONY JONES: So intellectually not up to it?

GEORGE PELL: Well, that’s a nice try, Tony. The people, in terms of sophistication, the psalms are remarkable. In terms of their buildings and that sort of thing, they don’t compare with the great powers. But Jesus came not as a philosopher to the elite. He came to the poor and the battlers and for some reason he choose a very difficult but actually they are now an intellectually elite because over the centuries they have been pushed out of every other form of work. They’re a – I mean Jesus, I think, is the greatest the son of God but, leaving that aside, the greatest man that ever live so I’ve got a great admiration for the Jews but we don’t need to exaggerate their contribution in their early days.

Leaving aside Tony Jones’ error regarding historical timeframes (2000 years??), it was wrong of him to try to imply Pell had smeared the Jewish people as an intellectually inferior people. It is a reasonable statement that from the point in history when the Hebrew patriarchs are believed to have lived right through to when the Exodus is believed to have happened, the Egyptians were a far more technologically advanced society than that of their Hebrew contemporaries.

As Pell clarified, intellectual capacity is not intellectual development. Our Hebrew ancestors were not less intelligent than their Egyptians contemporaries, but they were at an earlier stage of their development. The Egyptians had already reached their zenith as a civilisation, a civilisation that would soon be at its end, whereas Jewish civilisation was in its relative infancy.

In the above exchange, Pell could perhaps have been accused of having spoken clumsily, but in fairness to him, it probably wasn’t a topic he was expecting to have to speak about.

Other points of interest included Dawkins confusing atheism for agnosticism.

I live my life as though there is no God but any scientist of any sense will not say that they positively can disprove the existence of anything. I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny and so I am agnostic about the Easter Bunny. It’s in the same respect that I am agnostic about God.

In actuality, Dawkins is an avowed atheist who lives his life, like most of us, as an agnostic. After all, on the program, Dawkins, not without a modicum of pride, refers to explaining evolution as his “life’s work”. It seems contradictory to have pride in a “life’s work” if one is really operating with the understanding that all a human being amounts to is a complex set of atoms. (For more on this reasoning, see here).

As for the Cardinal, he likely disappointed many critics and followers alike who have a simplistic understanding of religious belief when he stated he believes that human beings have evolved from primate ancestors. Pell made the mistake of saying humans had evolved from Neanderthals, when orthodox scientific theory in fact places Neanderthals on a side branch from Homo Sapiens, both species having had a common ancestor. Instead of graciously accepting that Pell was not rejecting evolutionary theory as Dawkins would have posited, Dawkins instead rudely tried to embarrass Pell for having the details wrong. This from a man who routinely misunderstands the religious beliefs of those he belittles.

Q&A host Tony Jones

The  following is an abridged version of an interview recently screened on the ABC’s Q&A program.

Tony Jones:         Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to a very special Purim edition of “Q&A”. I’m your host, Tony Jones. We had, tonight, hoped to be able to reinvite our guests from last year’s Purim edition, deposed President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, along with the now former President of Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. As it happens, Muammar Gaddafi was not able to attend, having suffered a fate not dissimilar to that of Haman, while Mr Mubarak is otherwise indisposed.

Instead, we have been fortunate enough to have join us tonight, a man who has recently been appointed the Prime Minister’s special emissary to the business community and her special emissary to the Jewish community.

Ladies and Gentleman, please make welcome, Mr Bruce Wolpe.

Bruce Wolpe: Shalom my fellow Americans… I mean g’day my fellow Australians.

Tony: Mr Wolpe,You’ve recently been appointed both the Prime Minister’s special emissary to the business community AND her special emissary to the Jewish community. How do you find the time to take on two such diverse portfolios, and do you find it difficult to balance priorities between those two roles.

Bruce: Well frankly, Tony, the two roles really aren’t that diverse from each other. If truth be known, I feel a little guilty about it.

Tony: Guilty about, for example, spending too much time on one portfolio and not enough on the other?

Bruce: No, guilty as in…sometimes I feel like I’m getting paid two salaries for what is essentially the one job. But hey, you don’t look a gift horse in the throat, or whatever it is that you Aussies say down here.

Tony: A lot of our audience sitting at home will be wondering why Julia Gillard even needs to have a special emissary to the Jewish community. After all, when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, your role did not exist.

Bruce: Well Tony, you need to understand that Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd were and are very different from each other with regard to their feelings toward the Jewish community, as well as what should be Australia’s relationship with the State of Israel.

Tony: Are you saying Kevin Rudd was somewhat hostile to the Jewish community or at least to Israel?

Bruce: Well Tony, let me ask you and our audience something: Can anyone here imagine an Israeli Diplomat being expelled from Australia under Julia Gillard’s watch? The fact that one was expelled under Mr Rudd’s watch suggests that he was not exactly simpatico with the Jewish People.

Tony: Ok, well we’ve just received a Twitter response from a KRUDD, and he says this:

@KRUDD: I resent Mr Wolpe’s insinuation. I didn’t expel the Israeli diplomat because of my hostility to Israel. I expelled the diplomat because we were lagging in the polls, and also to distract everyone from what was our growing budget deficit at the time.

Tony: And a few more tweets coming in on the same matter. This one from a JRUDD.

@JRUDD: I’m effing proud of your last tweet, dad!

@ThereseRein: I concur, and am also proud of you, KRudd

Tony: And now we’ve also received a tweet from the CSG

@CSG: If someone is the owner of a white 1985 Subaru Sportswagon parked right outside the front doors, please move your car within the next 3 minutes or it will be subject to a controlled detonation. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Well, let’s move on, shall we.

Mr Wolpe, could you give our audience an idea of the kinds of tasks a Prime Minister’s Special Emissary to the Jewish community does. For example, what would be one of the most challenging things you’ve done in this role?

Bruce: Certainly Tony. Let me give an example from only last week. It was a Sunday morning, and Julia and Tim were planning on having some close friends and family around for lunch at their home in Altona, and thus they needed fresh bagels and mon kichel, which as you can imagine, are not that easy to acquire in Altona. Well, I got a call about 9am on the Sunday morning, from the Prime Minister, and she said she’s had a rough night reading Kevin Rudd’s twitter feed, and she just couldn’t face up to queuing in either Glick’s of Haymishe.

Tony: Well, what about Lichtenstein’s? I’ve heard reports that the service is friendlier, and the product is less oily than Glicks, and altogether of a higher quality.

Bruce: Could you not interrupt me Tony?!

Tony: Sorry, but..

Bruce: Please, just let me finish.

Tony: Ok, I’m sorry, please continue

Bruce: Anyway, I had to get in my car and drive several blocks, somehow find parking on Carlisle St, take a number at Glicks for bagels, then shoot across to Haymishe for mon kichel…umm that’s Poppy Seed cake, then wait an eternity for an old lady to give my change, while meanwhile I lost my number at Glicks.

Tony: Yes, well I think we all get the idea.  We’ve got another comment off the Twitter from a Professor Ghil’ad Zuckermann of the University of Adelaide, and I’ll simplify the comment for the audience. He says something to the effect that he’s concerned that Ms Gillard cannot hope to have the same level of understanding of foreign policy matters as Mr Rudd, because she doesn’t have the same level of understanding of linguistics compared to Mr Rudd.

Bruce: I think we actually need to be asking what Ghilad’s comment says about Ghilad.

Tony: What that says about Gillard?

Bruce: Yes, what it says about Ghilad!

Tony: Gillard?

Bruce: Yes, Ghilad!

Tony: Sorry, are we talking about Gillard or Ghil’ad?

Bruce: I’ve lost track.

Tony: So have I.

Well finally, we’ve had several people ask what is the Prime Minister going to do about the situation with the Melbourne Beit Din.

Bruce: Well, as you know, Julia has a lot of experience with combating infighting, lack of transparency, abuses of power, egotism, and general intransigence. At the moment, she’s more focussed on dealing with these same problems in the Labor Caucus, but once things have settled down there, I expect that she will announce a special inquest into the Beit Din, possibly to be chaired by Minister Peter Garrett.

Tony: Well there you have it, another startling revelation on Q&A. And I’m afraid that’s all we have time for tonight. Please join us again next, when we broadcast live from the carpark of Rishon kosher food store, where we discuss the growing influence of the Kitniyot Liberation Front. The KLF – a genuine liberation movement fighting for our freedom to consume legumes on pesach? – or a dangerous terrorist group threatening the continuity of Jewish life as we know it? For that, join us next week on Q&A.

The late Andrés Escobar, reacting after his sadly infamous own goal in 1994

By Anthony Frosh

In attempting to ban DVD sales of The Promise, a polemical mini-series recently screened on SBS, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) have done a proverbial Andrés Escobar.

Attempts, or even perceived attempts, at censorship only ever result in cultivating more interest in the object of the censorship. If you want to get your high school students to read their physics textbooks, you can’t do much better than banning them.

I only saw the first episode of the series. As a piece of drama, I found it too unsophisticated to keep my interest. One of the first things I noticed, besides the lame acting and dialogue, was that Israeli youths were driving far more expensive cars than those driven by even some of their most spoilt Toorak or Vaucluse contemporaries, a sure sign that the film makers had little interest in being true-to-life. Perhaps they were trying to perpetuate a stereotype (that has nothing to with Israel) about Jews that one might sometimes encounter in Western universities concerning Jewish kids being rich and spoilt.

The first episode, although lacking in accuracy and realism, seemed more balanced than I had expected. Later, I heard that the hostile portrayal of Jews, Zionism, and Israel, really takes off as the series progresses. When I heard this, I wondered whether this was an example of the hostile media phenomenon, whereby emotionally invested parties perceive relatively neutral or balanced media content as strongly hostile to their own side.

However, if this were merely a case of the hostile media phenomenon, then the scientific literature predicts that Palestinian advocates would have also had similar reactions; that is, they would have perceived the series as being highly hostile to their side. A little bit of research reveals this is not the case. Australians For Palestine (which would be more accurately named Australians against Israel) called for supportive submissions to SBS and the relevant politicians within the communications portfolio concerning the series. I also witnessed a number of anti-Semites on Facebook championing the series.

All this leads me to believe that ECAJ is accurate in its perception of the series as anti-Semitic. As for their comparisons to Nazi propaganda, well I have not seen the series other than the first episode, but I think everyone should be extra-cautious when it comes to Nazi comparisons, as these risk trivialising the horrors that Nazis represented.

None of this changes the fact that censorship is not only wrong in principle, but is highly counterproductive. ECAJ’s efforts will sadly see a lame piece of propaganda disguised as art get far more attention than it deserves. It will also result in the Australian Jewish community once again being labelled as advocates of censorship and media control.

One of the most popular sessions was Evan Kleinman's screening of his film, Punk Jews

By Anthony Frosh
After the most recent Limmud Oz that took place at Monash University Caulfield campus in Melbourne (2010), there was considerable discussion about the absence of young people. Indeed, an article in this publication, The Missing Generation of Limmud Oz, documented that few people in their thirties or younger attended.

However, the most recent Limmud event to occur in Australia, Limmud Oz Fest, held the weekend before last at a campsite near Daylesford, Victoria, demonstrated that there is plenty of demand from the “missing generation.” That is, as long as the event is marketed and organised in a fashion that appeals to this demographic.

A little over a month before Limmud Oz Fest, the organisers of the event held a preliminary event called Taste of Fest. It was held at the popular Pause bar on Carlisle St, and provided an opportunity for people who were considering attending the Fest weekend to meet fellow travellers and find out about some of the sessions that would take place.  The evening featured a number of highly talented Jewish musicians who performed against a backdrop of a projected slideshow providing information on several sessions and presenters who would be appearing at Fest. An entertaining panel session where Alana Bruce, the evening’s MC, interviewed a few presenters about their upcoming sessions.divided up the musical acts.  This preliminary event proved to be a terrific evening, attracting plenty of young people and providing promotional momentum for the Fest .

The Limmud Oz Fest weekend itself proved to be just as well organised, albeit with a higher degree of difficulty. And while young people were abound, there were also many people from older generations as well as several young families.  It was an incredible effort from the organisers who not only assembled a brilliant array of sessions, including outstanding local talent as well as some top-notch overseas presenters (including Jeffrey Yoskowitz ,Evan Kleinman, David Brown, and Shani Tzoref), but also managed to be constantly feeding attendees with Kosher meals. All of this took place at a perfectly serene campsite.

The professionalism of the organisers did not stop at the conclusion of weekend. I had barely been back in Melbourne a day when I opened by inbox to find an invitation to an electronic survey (and a very well designed survey at that – and I should know – it’s how I make my living) in regard to my Limmud Oz Fest experience, and any thoughts I had on how it could have been improved.  It seems the organisers are determined to do even better come the next Fest.

The success of the event has reverberated around the world, with event receiving praise from Limmud international  (who had provided guidance and moral support) and ROI. 

So the question remains: How does Limmud Oz attract young people to the non-Fest variety of event? Or perhaps the question is: If young people attend Fest, is there a need to try to get them to also attend the regular Limmud Oz? I think the answer to the latter question is probably yes.  It’s clearly better for the Limmud brand if they can grow both types of events, and it’s difficult to foresee any growth if it doesn’t involve attracting young people.  With regard to the former question, a good start would be if the established Limmud committee (who I understand provided significant funding for Fest) capitalised on synergies with the highly capable young people who did such a great job of promoting and organising Fest.  In the meantime, hats off to the organisers, Malki Rose, Alana Bruce, Cygal Pellach, Alex Kats, Keren Tuch, Nikki Peipert, Seraphya Berrin, and all the rest of the dedicated volunteers.

Lou Gehrig, who had a disease so apparently rare that they had to name it after him

By Anthony Frosh
I recently attended a panel session that was part of the Melbourne Jewish Book Festival. The session was on the topic of “What is a Jewish book?” After listening to the panel and participating in the audience discussion, I decided that a Jewish book is any book disproportionately read by Jews, irrespective of the author or content.

For example in the early 20th century, psychology and psychiatry were considered Jewish sciences. Not only were most of the major texts written by Jews, they were largely studied and read by Jews. This is particularly true for the Psychodynamic theorists and arguably even more so for the Gestalt theorists. A physics professor I know tells me the same thing also applied to his discipline.

The corollary is also valid. There’s a world’s bestseller written by Jews and whose content is all about Jews, and yet I wouldn’t call it a Jewish book. Can you guess the book I’m referring too? That’s right, The New Testament.

So on that note, I decided to review some upcoming or recently released books that certainly ought to be classified as Jewish books.

A Patient’s Guide to the Best Doctors in Melbourne (Sydney, Perth, and Gold Coast editions also available). This book is an indispensable resource that lists and ranks all the best doctors in your capital city. The book is arranged by medical speciality, and it not only ranks the doctors, but has estimated waiting times to see those doctors, both with and without a connection. For every single practitioner, it also provides a list of individuals who, if you happen to have their contact details, could hook you up in order to bypass the standard waiting lists.

Self Diagnosis of Rare Diseases and Illnesses. Sometimes, even when you have good connections, you don’t have time to wait to see a doctor. That’s where this book comes in. It doesn’t matter if you have the Epstein Barr Virus or Lou Gehrig’s disease, this self-help guide will put your mind a rest. As recommended by Leonard “Lenny” Goldberg of The Reluctant Infidel fame.

How to Write a Complaint Letter to Your Child’s Day School. For anyone with a child enrolled at any of the major Jewish Day Schools, this could be a handy edition to the book shelf. It contains over 100 model examples of complaint letters. There’s quite literally a sample complaint letter for every occasion. Not enough tefilah? Too much tefilah? Not enough sport? Too much sport? Your kindergarten child missed out on an extra piece of apple at morning tea? You’re disappointed your six year old child cannot yet fluently read and comprehend a complex text in Aramaic? You name it, whatever your dilemma, this book’s got you covered.

Medicine, Law, or Something Else not as Good? How to Guide Your Child to Choosing the Right Career Path. No matter what your child’s academic strengths and weaknesses are, this book will prove invaluable in helping you decide for your child the most suitable career for the rest of their life. This book includes a comprehensive personality survey and aptitude test to be completed by the parent and the child respectively, as well as an easy to follow guide for interpreting the results. Most importantly, the book has a very open-minded approach and does not position either medicine or law as superior to one another.

And while you’re thinking about what books to buy, here’s a word on behalf of our sponsor.

A scene from the film

By Rachel Sacks-Davis & Anthony Frosh

The Jewish tradition was born in journey. From Abraham and Jacob to Moses and the Israelites, our mythic ancestors were wanderers whose encounters with God almost always occurred en route. Since the destruction of the Temple, however, although the Jewish people have moved across the globe, journey has not been part of religious practice.

Not so for Muslims, for whom the pilgrimage to Mecca remains one of the core religious obligations. Recently, a special screening was held of Journey to Mecca: In the Footsteps of Ibn Battuta at the IMAX in Carlton. Several members from the Jewish community, particularly from the JCCV, were in attendance at the invitation of the President of the Islamic Council Victoria (ICV), Hyder Gulam.

As the subtitle suggests, the film focuses on the Hajj undertaken by Ibn Battuta, the famous 14^th century Moroccan Berber traveller.  At a little over 20 years old, he leaves behind his comfortable life as a law student in Tangier, setting out on a Hajj that sees him travelling close to 5000km to Mecca by foot and on camel-back in a journey lasting 18 months.

Whilst Ibn Battuta’s 14^th century Hajj was much closer in time to us than our biblical forefathers, his experience of travel was surely much closer to theirs. The isolation, danger and vulnerability that marked his journey surely also marked theirs. And the spiritual gifts that so explicitly mark the journeys of our forefathers are also implicit in Ibn Battuta’s Journey to Mecca.

As is typical of IMAX films, the cinematography is breathtaking and the IMAX theatre set-up makes you feel as though you are present on the journey with Ibn Battuta. This is a unique opportunity for non-Muslims who are not usually permitted to enter Islam’s most holy city, and may also find it rather challenging to trek through the deserts of North Africa and Arabia.

Finally, Jewish film buffs will find a familiar voice. The film is narrated by Ben Kingsley, famous for his Oscar winning portrayal of Gandhi, but also having played several key Jewish characters including but not limited too Itzhak Stern (Schindler’s List), Moses, Otto Frank (Diary of Ann Frank) and even a senior Mossad commander (The Assignment).

Journey to Mecca: In the Footsteps of Ibn Battuta is currently playing at the IMAX theatre in Melbourne.

Scene from an Occupy Wall Street march

By Anthony Frosh
At a kiddush on first day Sukkot, I found myself in conversation with a fellow shul-goer about the Occupy Wall Street movement. His daughter, who lives in New York, had attended Yom Kippur services at Occupy Wall Street. As a joke, I mentioned that we should start an Occupy Martin Place movement. He continued the joke, saying Sydney was too much of a schlep, and couldn’t we just occupy Collins St in Melbourne.

Needless to say, I had to laugh when a few days later I was listening to ABC radio news and discovered that an Occupy Sydney protest had now commenced in Martin Place.  The news broadcast mentioned that the protest was part of a now worldwide movement that started with Occupy Wall Street. I thought to myself, “Didn’t this movement actually start with the ‘occupation’ of Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv?” I also thought to myself that suddenly the verb ‘to occupy’ has positive connotations again, but that is beside the point.

How typical of both our local and global broadcasters, many of whom frequently blame Israel where blame is often not due, and also do not give Israel credit where credit is due.

And while the media has failed to make the connection between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tent City of Rothschild Boulevard, so have the protestors in New York and elsewhere been reluctant to mention the obvious connection. Rather, many of the leftist protestors prefer to invoke comparisons with Tahrir Square and the Arab Spring.  But how valid are these comparisons?

On one hand, I would argue that the primary antecedents of the Arab Spring were economic. If you have a large mass of young people receiving graduate qualifications but only able to obtain menial employment, you’re going to have enormous levels of societal dissatisfaction. However, despite the economic roots, the lack of democracy in the Arab world meant that their protests manifested as a demands for regime change, rather than direct demands for economic reform.

On the other hand, the Israeli protests have primarily been about economic issues, starting with housing affordability and with a major focus on the widening gap between rich and poor. I do not disregard that there are also some more holistic aspects at play, as argued by Yoram Symons, but these are inextricably linked with perceived social inequality.

Not that long ago, I spoke at an event in Melbourne, and mentioned that our local Jewish community would be wrong to ignore the economic challenges our community faces. I stated that in recent years, housing close to the Jewish hub of Melbourne (and it’s equally applicable to Sydney) has become far less affordable for young people, and that there was nothing anybody could do about this economic reality. However, I argued that we could offset the costs of housing somewhat by reducing the costs of education. We could do this by creating an alternative to the private Jewish day school system.

I have since heard it said that such economic concerns are not relevant to the health of our community. However, it doesn’t take much imagination to realise that if the Jewish community were to be significantly more dispersed, then this would have a major impact on the quality of our community and present further infrastructure challenges. This is true for everyone active in the community, but particularly so for those who whose Shabbat and yomtov transportation is limited to a comfortable pair of walking shoes. The ability to afford housing in a particular area allows them not only to attend their preferred shul, but also to actually enjoy Shabbat and other holidays with their family and friends. This is, of course, but one obvious example.

Despite the slightly provocative title of this article, I’m not actually suggesting that anyone set up a tent city in Caulfield Park or Double Bay Park, although it would make the location for Limmud Oz Fest more convenient, if less exotic. Rather, the take home message here is that while most people, in assessing and planning for the future of the community, tend to focus on the nature and quality of religious, cultural, linguistic, political, or social justice activities, it important not to overlook basic economic factors. It is economic factors that have brought about the Arab Spring, the Tent City of Rothschild Blvd, the “occupation” of Wall St, and it will be economic factors that play an important part in shaping the future of our local Jewish communities and their creative potential.

A sign marking an old Italian neighbourhood in Toronto

By Anthony Frosh

Box Hill in Victoria has lots of Chinese, Lakemba in NSW has lots of Lebanese, Peppermint Grove in WA has lots of WASPs, and of course, there are a number of areas in Australia that have lots of Jews.

People choose to live near other people from their own ethic group or subculture for a variety of reasons. People’s friends tend to be disproportionately from their own subculture and people in general like to live near their friends. They also want to be near their community infrastructure.  In the case of Shabbat observant Jews, they often have a strong preference to live not only within the eruv, but within easy walking distance of their shul as well as close family/friends whom they regularly eat with over Shabbat.

So, shouldn’t real estate companies and the like be catering to these demographic realities? For example, I am often perplexed by advertisements for residential property auctions that are scheduled on Shabbat in areas not only with a large Jewish  population, but also with a considerable frum population. Often this happens when the seller and the real estate agent are unaware of the Shabbat dynamic.  However, it still sometimes happens with real estate agencies that ought to know better.

Gary Peer is a real estate agency that seems to function almost entirely in the suburbs of Melbourne that are heavily populated by Jews.  And quite incredibly, in the Caulfield area, they seem (from casual observations) to have close to a 65% market share.  While it can be assumed that Gary Peer are aware of the Shabbat dynamic, since they have so many ‘Jewish area’ properties for auction on any given weekend, they probably can’t schedule them all on a Sunday. I like to imagine that they have rather entertaining weekly  meetings where they determine the likelihood of frum Jews being potential buyers for new listings they’ve won, and then make their Saturday vs. Sunday decision on that basis. I’m not sure if this is the reality though.

Sydney based Oschrie Massatschi, founder of the Jewish Living website, bases his enterprise on the idea that Jews have particular real estate needs that are not easily met by general real estate websites. According to Massatschi, “When moving to an unfamiliar country it is difficult for people from the Jewish community (as a minority) to find the right suburb to live amongst like minded people and have the possibility to maintain their Jewish lifestyle and traditions. Jewish Living is the only website in the world to display all relevant Jewish infrastructure and eruvim on maps with contact details of these points of interest. Jewish Living even combines these points of interest with all available properties marked on the maps.”

But Jewish Living doesn’t just cater to home buyers. Jewish Living also functions to help people find flatmates.  Massatschi states that “The desire/need to live with someone Jewish prevents many young Jews to move out of their parents’ home as it is vital for them to live with flatmates that adhere to the same traditions/religion and value the same beliefs, e.g. Shomer Shabbat, keeping kosher, etc”. For example, the Jewish Living website will help someone find share accommodation that has a kosher kitchen.

Massatschi says he has received a lot positive feedback from people who used the website from everything to sell their property to find the perfect flatmate. The site started with a focus on the Sydney market, and has now expanded to Melbourne.  Massatschi says he has even received requests from people hoping the site will expand to other countries such as South Africa.