David Landau

By Mandi Katz
Earlier this month I attended a panel as part of a Jewish book festival In Melbourne. It was a lively and diverse discussion on all things bookish and Jewish.  That is, until one of the panellists, a publisher said that he was planning to publish the English edition of a book of testimonies of Israeli soldiers in the Occupied Territories. The temperature rapidly rose as several people become very vocal, criticising the publisher on grounds that the book will provide fuel for anti-Semitism and anti -Israel sentiment.

No-one claimed that the testimony was unreliable or untrue; the concerns were that the book would feed anti-Israel views.

Civil as this episode was (it was in a book-shop after all), it confirms my view that for many in our community, when it comes to Israel, PR comes first. The desire for frank discussion among rational people who share a deep concern for Israel takes second place to the need to explain how vulnerable, and how just, Israel is. People who don’t see it that way are regarded as dissenters; at best as irresponsible, at worst as self haters and traitors.

David Landau, the Israel correspondent for The Economist and former Editor in-Chief of Ha’aretz newspaper, who will be visiting Australia this month as a guest of the New Israel Fund (Australia), has often been described as a dissenter.

Landau is unusual; he is an Orthodox Jew who made aliyah in 1970 and remains a proud and loud member of the peace camp. His credentials are unquestionable: he’s collaborated with Shimon Peres on his memoirs and on a recently released biography of David Ben-Gurion and has authored a forthcoming biography on Ariel Sharon. And after years at the Jerusalem Post and then at the helm of Haaretz, he speaks with insight and authority.

But it doesn’t take great Google skills to discover that Landau can be controversial. He is laser sharp in his commentary, some of which is very critical of Netanyahu’s government. He has also been known to use language which is either colourful or off colour – depending on your sensibilities.

Some in our community have already questioned why we chose to invite someone like David Landau. The answer is simple: if we set out to raise awareness and understanding about Israel and the dilemmas it faces, it makes no sense to censor valid perspectives, which reflect the views of many Israelis and are aired freely in Israel.

Looking no further than the mindless and hateful language outside Max Brenner shops across Australia, or the distorted views of Lee Rhiannon and cohorts, it is clear that there is a need for pithy messaging that conveys the deep truth that Israel has the right to defend its people and borders.

But proper discussion about Israel has to involve more than messaging. Truth and nuanced understanding don’t feed hate and violence. Propaganda, whichever side it comes from, is always more dangerous than balanced and considered discussion. People with dogmatic views will find fuel for their agendas regardless of this sort of discussion.

When we substitute careful analysis with spin, what gets glossed over are some hard truths: that the ongoing occupation, regardless of historical and security context, involves serious human and civil rights breaches; that the issues are existential for Palestinians too and that the number of Palestinian deaths in this conflict significantly exceeds the number of Israeli deaths; and that while Palestinians have agency in this conflict, and responsibility for the current impasse, Israel uses its superior power in ways that entrench the status quo.

It is very gratifying to focus on Israel’s many achievements, which are all the more impressive in its region, but what gets neglected when we do that above all else, is that Israeli society faces profound challenges. If we are to relate to Israel honestly, issues such as the extreme economic disparity in Israel, the threats to religious and political freedom and discrimination faced by minorities, need to be discussed with openness and maturity.

Anat Hoffman, the director of the Israel Reform Action Centre who was in Melbourne earlier this year, underscored this point. In her opening remarks she said she would tell us some uncomfortable things about Israel, things we might prefer not to hear – but that we wouldn’t love Israel any less at the end of her address.

She was right. Like many people, I have over the years come to understand Israel differently, in a less starry-eyed way. It has not diminished how much I care about Israel, and it has helped me understand how much Israel needs diverse support, including support for organisations such as those funded by the New Israel Fund, which tackle some of these complexities.

There are lots of reasons to avoid thinking too much about Israel, in current parlance to “disengage”. Terror against Israelis is vile, and it is distressing to see the hatred directed at Israel.  There is no simple solution or happy ending to this conflict and for many people, thinking about the options that Israel faces is too hard. It’s easier to not to think about it, or to take comfort in a party line.

But putting PR before our individual and communal understanding of Israel’s predicaments is not the answer. We can’t turn our backs on Israel by disengaging, and we undersell our commitment to Israel when we apply a less thoughtful and honest approach to understanding Israel’s dilemmas, than we do to understanding other political, religious or ethical issues.

Critics can label David Landau and the many and diverse people interested in hearing him speak in Sydney and Melbourne this month as dissenters. Or they can come with an open mind and hear what he has to say.

Mandi Katz is a member of the board of New Israel Fund Australia

David Landau will be speaking in Sydney and Melbourne over the next two weeks

Details

Sydney

Wednesday 16 November at 7.00pm – 20s and 30s NIForum

Thursday 17 November 17th at 7.15pm – Inner West community event

Sunday 20 November at 7.15 pm – Emanuel Synagogue/Eastern Suburbs community event

Melbourne

Wednesday 23 November at 7.45 pm – Caulfield Park Pavilion  (Registration on line or at door)

Thursday 24 November at 7.30pm – 20s and 30s NIForum

Registration details – see nif.org.au

Photo: Vincenzo Aiosa

By Mandi Katz

When it comes to Israel, young Australian Jews often feel themselves caught between extreme positions.

Only days ago, Bialik College graduate and former Australasian Union of Jewish Students president Liam Getreu wrote on this site that our community is dominated by an “Israel right-or-wrong line and a much smaller, but very loud chorus of Jews who sing the Israel always-wrong song, with very little in between”.

There is, of course, a huge spectrum of views on Israel within the Jewish community, and in Australian public life but Getreu’s analysis was not challenged, probably because he is right that this is as much about who is loudest as it is about where the majority sit. So a relevant question is why it is that so many of us sit quietly and watch, while public discourse on Israel is dominated by people holding views closer to extreme ends of the spectrum.

There are many reasons why, and each could be a discussion in itself. There is certainly a high degree of defensiveness about Israel. With no shortage of people out there willing to put the boot in, many don’t see the need to add Jewish voices to that chorus. There is also unwillingness to engage in public “sideline commentating and cheerleading”, as an Israeli friend of mine this week described the happenings at JStreet, in the absence of a commitment to live in Israel.

But a big part may simply be a lack of understanding of the issues and facts, and an attendant willingness to concede the discussion to those who know best or are quick to tell us that they do. In this instance, I’m referring to the professional ‘hasbaraniks‘, such as the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Committee (AIJAC), and people in leadership positions on Zionist bodies, groups by their nature that are primarily concerned with advocating for Israel.

So another obvious question is why there are so few young graduates of Jewish day schools and youth movements like Liam, who feel equipped, passionate and willing to contribute to a more generative discussion.

Of course Jewish identity and education don’t start and end with the Jewish day schools.  But they are significant community assets, and represent a huge investment from our community collectively and for individual families. Jewish schools need to feature front and centre in any discussion about the way that young Jews identify with Israel.

The role of Jewish schools in all of this has been turning in my head for a few weeks, since I attended an energetic and inspiring presentation by Joseph Gerassi, the principal of Melbourne’s Bialik College, where he shared the school’s vision and mission with parents.

The vision is the result of work recently undertaken by the school’s leadership team in Israel and comprises the school’s overall mission. It includes a comprehensive Jewish vision for the school, which does not see itself as either religious or as secular but defines itself as a cross-communal Jewish Zionist school, embracing an inclusive approach to Judaism and encouraging students to engage with traditional Jewish texts in a meaningful way.

Some of the most interesting comments he made were about Israel and Zionism. Mr Gerassi expanded on what Zionism means at Bialik College, the importance of Hebrew, and a range of Israel studies options, which use critical enquiry and material from diverse sources and perspectives. He emphasised support for the “well-being” of Israel but also said that while Zionism is a non-negotiable at Bialik, this did not mean having to support every policy of every government of Israel.

Now that’s not a particularly radical thing to say – not many educated individuals will admit to blind support for anything, but it is a fairly bold position for the principal of a Melbourne Jewish day school to take in a formal forum.

His view, if I understood it correctly, is that the school will see itself as successful when students understand the importance of Israel as a home for Jews and its importance for Jewish life everywhere. The school will also measure success by whether students care enough to ask hard questions – to engage in informed, critical and sometimes difficult discussion about Israel’s policies and actions.

This discussion is not really about Bialik College – not least because it remains to be seen exactly what the school has in mind, and how it will be executed. But the issues raised go to the heart of who speaks loudest and why. Perhaps what’s needed is to provide students with a less rose-coloured understanding of issues so that that they can hold firm their connection with Israel, and participate more confidently in discussions on Israel across the spectrum. The desire to instil positive identification with Israel and why it matters is obviously critical but perhaps we – parents and teachers – need to add to that the goal of promoting an understanding of Israel and the issues it is confronting, that go beyond Zionism 101.

None of this is easy. But maybe these are some of the discussions we need to have.

Frank discussions about the complexity and the moral implications of 43 years of occupation; the apparent indifference of some to the suffering of the occupied is an obvious and admittedly difficult starting point.

Are we prepared  – emotionally and with adequate information – to talk honestly about what life is like for Palestinians living under military occupation, and what it means for Israeli society that young soldiers are charged with enforcing this rule?

What do we say about the cost of the legislative agenda being pursued in the name of “Jewish demographics” – a lever used to make excuses for illiberal policies that conflict with other Jewish values?

How do we talk to school-aged students honestly about the scepticism in Israel about the prospect for peace as a result of years of terror, but also with compassion for people completely fatigued by “the situation”?

What should Orthodox schools say about the increasing number of people in Israel who value land above peace as a principle and who earnestly believe that the Torah is the “title deed” to all of Israel? Would Leibler-Yavneh College, which describes itself as a Modern Orthodox Zionist school, require its teachers to be more sympathetic to that view than the Progressive movement’s King David School would?

And how is that view and more broadly, the role and face of religious nationalism in Israel, discussed at Mt Scopus College, which has a largely non-practising student community but describes itself as operating within a Modern Orthodox and Zionist framework.

How should we prepare our daughters for how they may feel when they visit the Kotel, controlled, as it is, by Ultra Orthodox elements that marginalise the role and access of women in ‘their’ holy places.

And do we feel able to speak openly about the competing claims on Jerusalem – not only in a religious sense but also about the efforts to acquire properties and ‘Judaise’ neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem? Would students at Jewish schools recognise the name of Sheikh Jarrah, the neighbourhood that has become a symbol of this conflict, but which has also been a catalyst for opposition and protest?

An alternative view is that what I am suggesting is too complex and pessimistic an agenda for school students. That young people need to first absorb a positive story, or as one Jewish educator told me, need a little “indoctrination” before they confront such intense complexity. But I believe that is less than honest and also carries too many risks.

Young people can cope with some ambiguity; an approach that insists otherwise will not prepare them for the alternative perspectives that they will inevitably encounter. That’s when they are likely to disengage or retreat into defensiveness.

Clearly a big part of this is for students to spend time in Israel and even better, for families to do that. Mount Scopus has run a family trip to Israel for several years, while for the first time last year, almost the whole Year 10 Bialik group travelled to Israel for a highly subsidised six-week program.

But for many families, spending time in Israel is still made difficult or impossible by the financial burden of Jewish school fees. For many other families, such opportunities are as out of reach as Jewish schooling itself. But that is a topic for a separate discussion

In getting back to the conversations we need to be having with our children and teenagers about Israel at school and at home, I hope that others will have interesting things to say. Some of the Zionist youth movements grapple honestly with these challenges and there are many teachers in the Jewish schools who do this very well. It would be great to hear what they have to say.

Meanwhile, I commend Joseph Gerassi for putting this challenge on the mainstream agenda. He deserves support and encouragement.

Mandi Katz lives in Melbourne where she works in the financial services sector. She and her husband, Ashley Browne, have three teenage children who attend Melbourne Jewish day schools.

Image source: abc.net.au

By Mandi Katz

The Prime Minister has called for an open debate on policy for addressing the asylum seeker issue. I hope that Jewish experience as refugees and forced migrants finds a strong voice in this debate, wherever it takes place. Empathy shouldn’t be the only basis for policy but it’s a pretty good starting point.

You would think that Jewish empathy for forced migrants can be assumed. Expulsion, forced migration, homelessness, persecution and discrimination are so much part of our story. It’s difficult to imagine any serious opposition among Jewish Australians to policies based on compassion for asylum seekers who, like so many Jews last century did, seek refuge here from persecution and poverty by any means they can, often without proper papers in circumstances that would today be called “queue jumping”.

There aren’t many issues on which Jews speak in one voice – the old joke about two Jews and three opinions still rings true. It’s also safe to assume that Jews span the spectrum on all political issues. But I would hope that Australian Jews can be united in our willingness to think the best of people who seek refuge from undemocratic and intolerant governments and who seek to build better lives for themselves and their families.

Add to this our collective memory of detention camps and it becomes important to call out the inhumanity of detaining asylum seekers and removing them from real living, sometimes for years, while their circumstances are examined to determine if they are truly in need of refuge.

In a speech to Lowy Institute yesterday that at least addresses the facts head on, Julia Gillard agreed with Julian Burnside’s contention in The Age on Tuesday that at the current rate of people seeking asylum in Australia by boat, it would take twenty years for that population to fill the MCG. She has also acknowledged that Australia takes in only .06% of the world’s asylum speakers.

In a piece in Wednesday’s Sydney Morning Herald,  Associate Professor Jane McAdam of the University of NSW calculated the figure as a proportion of the world’s refugee population which parlays into a far smaller percentage – 0.0013%. McAdam also supplied the raw number of total refugees we are committed to absorbing each year – 13,750 – paltry by any measure.

Gillard acknowledged in her speech that the percentage of asylum seekers is 1.6% of our total migrant (not refugee) population and said that the factors in the region that push people to seek asylum are far more relevant in causing an increase in numbers than the way in which this country deals with asylum seekers.

So to me it seems pretty clear. Taking into account the scale of the problem (insignificant) and the inhumanity of current and proposed policy, we should be urging this and any government to formulate clear policy, which acknowledges that people who seek entry in this way are more likely than not seeking asylum legitimately from persecution and poverty. Or at least recognises that people who are desperate enough to risk their lives on leaky boats with no guaranteed outcome, should be given the benefit of the doubt and not detained in conditions similar to prisons. Many commentators have pointed out (we seem to need reminding) that the act of seeking asylum is not criminal, which in turn is a compelling basis to say that ongoing detention of asylum seekers is just wrong.

This leads me to the Prime Minister’s proposed solution for a new “regional” processing centre in East Timor (leaving aside the implications of her reported failure to consult the East Timorese government before making the announcement). I don’t like it. I believe asylum seekers should be ‘processed’ on-shore and given qualified resident status, which leaves it open to the government to deport individuals after due enquiry if it is clear that there is no legitimate ground for residency. The law should treat asylum  seekers in the same way as it treats other people trying to bypass official channels (and as an immigrant I can barely bring myself to use the term ‘queue jumper’ about  people who had less opportunity than me to stand in the right queues), including those who overstay their visas. That the issues are more complex and take longer to clarify for asylum seekers who come here on boats than for people overstaying visas, is irrelevant and adds nothing to the case for detention centres.

And yet the issue continues to divide the broader community. I agree with Gillard that all voices should be heard with respect on this. But when I hear Jews speak about the unfairness of bypassing due process, I struggle to understand their concerns and to forgive their short memories. Due process is irrelevant for people who are making decisions in frightening and chaotic circumstances, and in countries where Australia doesn’t have official representation. There is also tacit concession in certain (and hopefully few) Jewish circles that comments which would generally be unacceptably racist, are OK if made about Muslim migrants.

It would also be pretty unfortunate if Australian Jews added to the voices casting aspersions about people who seek to escape “only” from poverty – considering Jews generally sit at the high end of the socio-economic range within a country which is emerging from the global financial crisis in rude health and in which people have an extraordinary high standard of living in global terms. I’m also deeply sceptical about concern for the environment in this context.  Given the scale of this issue, this is hardly the burning platform from which to take a stand on environmental issues. In the Jewish world we could start instead with a campaign to use less disposable paper products during Pesach.

I would take Gillard’s proposal for a “regional solution” as more than political expediency if she also committed to doubling or tripling the number of refugees to this country each year, with commensurate funding for refugee absorption.

A few months ago I spent some time talking to a young Sudanese migrant in a session facilitated by the  Sudanese Lost Boys Association of Australia Inc.  This young man came to Australia as a refugee through official channels after applying for refugee status in a UN camp in Ethiopia. He described the process and it wasn’t pretty. In addition to the inevitable paperwork and waiting, there were extensive medical tests with waiting periods to be sure he didn’t have any undesirable medical or psychological ailments. The upshot (which I didn’t realise) is that our refugee policy on top of being mean on the numbers side, favours the most resilient of a vulnerable population. Which may be a good thing because when refugees do get here they face a whole new swathe of difficulties including language barriers, social isolation and dislocation, and racism.

The asylum seeker issue in Australia is inextricably linked to the broader issue of refugee intake and absorption. And at least until we do better on that front, I’m using my Jewish voice to ask the government  and opposition to formulate and support  asylum seeker policy by starting with rachmonis (compassion) and taking it from there.

Mandi Katz has worked as a lawyer, and now works in management in the financial services sector. She immigrated to Melbourne in 1985 from South Africa and is enjoying writing again, after a long hiatus involving children, professional life and domesticity.