The Rabbis of the Talmud teach us there are 70 faces to the Torah. Is it possible that one of them is green? Many Jews in Australia believe in the progressive ideas put forward by the Greens, but don’t vote for them as there is a perception that Greens policies are too radical and anti-Israel, or that they are a single issue party. After the 21^st of August, the Greens will most likely hold the balance of power in the Senate, giving them the ability to amend each piece of legislation approved by the House. In the absence of any compelling vision for Australia coming from the two biggest parties, we decided to research several of the Green’s policy positions that may be of interest to members of the Jewish Community, in order to help us decide whether Greens really are ‘good for the Jews.’

Asylum Seekers: One does not need to be Jewish to realise that the policy of the last two governments towards asylum seekers has been more cruel than humane, but it does help. Our experience of being strangers in strange lands, of crossing borders illegally to save our lives, make many in the community resonate with the plight of refugees who seek the safety and security of Australia.

The Labor Party shamefully decided to suspend asylum applications from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka in April, despite evidence that these are still very unsafe countries for Hazara Afghans and Sri Lankan Tamils, who constitute the majority of the people who seek asylum in this great country. Labor’s policy will not reduce the number of boats in the long run. Furthermore, having our detention centres filled to capacity due to the non-processing of these applicants in their hour of need should not be one of the goals of our society.

The Liberal Party’s policy is even worse. They advocate the return of Temporary Protection Visas that leave refugees in limbo for years, as well as sending people to remote islands like Nauru (who are not signatories to the UN Refugee convention) where there is no interaction with the local community. They also want the Navy to turn around boats at sea. I guess they forgot what happened to the Struma, Exodus and SIEV X.

The Greens’ policy on this issue calls for the end of mandatory detention and offshore processing immediately. They also call for increasing the number of places for off-shore refugees and humanitarian entrants and the housing of asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa in publicly owned and managed open reception centres.  In addition to this saving taxpayers an enormous sum of money (it costs $1,830 per detainee per day to keep someone on Christmas Island, compared to $238 per detainee per day in Villawood, Sydney), the Greens advocate these polices because they believe that the presence in Australia of people of many cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society. They also believe that Australian society, culture, and the economy has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from immigration of people from around the world.

Finally, the Greens are the only party whose policy statement in this issue avoids using misleading words to such as ‘border protection,’ ‘illegal immigrant’ ‘queue jumpers’ or Abbott’s ‘peaceful invaders.’ The Greens state unequivocally that “Asylum seekers and refugees are no more of a threat to our borders or to our society than anyone else and must be treated with compassion and dignity.”

Israel:

Despite the fact that the position of the Australian government on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is unlikely to have significant ramifications on the lives of people there, many Jews feel strongly that they want their government to hold views in line with their own on this issue. The myths spread about the Greens that they support the BDS campaign or seek to delegitimise Israel are not true. As progressive Zionists, we have looked closely at the Greens’ policies and have found them to be almost identical to the dovish pro-Israel lobby group J-Street.

For example, both J Street and the Greens recognise Israel’s right to exist and the need for a two state solution. Both J Street and the Greens recognise that attacks on Israeli civilians are wrong and inexcusable, and see settlements as standing in the way of achieving peace. While the Greens’ approach is perhaps equivalent to left wing Israeli political parties, it must be kept in mind that the Greens are not an Israeli political party. Their primary goal is influencing Australian policies.

Furthermore, one of the biggest problems Zionist Jews often have with human rights organisations’ approaches to Israel is not so much the content itself but their apparent fixation on Israel to the detriment of other legitimate causes. Put simply, Jews feel that they are unfairly being singled out. The Greens cannot be accused of doing this. They have a record for speaking out against atrocities committed (human and otherwise) worldwide. In fact, in its page of policy on international relations,  the Greens present a viewpoint on Iraq, East Timor, West Papua, in addition to Israel. Indeed, on Bob Brown’s website, the side bar mentions Tibet but not Israel. This means that by voting for the Greens, your vote would not go to a party which is obsessed with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but rather it would go to raising awareness of and tackling important international human rights issues that are not addressed by the other major parties.

Sustainable Economy:

Judaism has always held strong the idea of striving to build an economy that respects the Earth and operates within physical ecological limits. Indeed, the Torah mandates that the land should lay fallow every seventh year (Exodus 23:10-11) and that fruit trees may not be cut down to be used to lay siege (Deuteronomy 20:19). Judaism also supports the idea that the community should take care of those in need and holds dear the practice of tzedakah. Both the Greens and Judaism find these two principles of supporting fellow man and the Earth to be inseparable.

The Greens believe that the Australian economy must embrace ecological sustainability and incorporate these principles into all levels of planning, infrastructure and government. They also believe that environmental practices are economically sustainable and argue that their policies on carbon taxation will save Australia $2 billion. These values are coupled with the idea that the rights of workers should be upheld. This includes fair and equitable remuneration for labour regardless of gender, ethnicity or marital status. That is, a strong, fair and accessible industrial relations system. Through these policies and measures, the Greens truly support the kind of sustainable economy that Jews can be proud of. In the words of Isaiah, “Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17)

Climate Change:

In 2007, Kevin Rudd commissioned Ross Garnaut to examine the impacts of Climate change on the Australian economy. Garnaut’s climate change review panel recommended that Australia push internationally for carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations of 450 ppm, which would commit Australia to reductions of 25% on 2000 levels by 2020, and 90% by 2050. More recent climate science shows that much deeper cuts are needed to avoid catastrophic climate disruption. Most importantly, the Garnaut Review concluded that acting on the climate crisis early was better for the Australian economy than delaying action.

The Labor government’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) aimed to reduce emissions by  5%, well short of the recommended target. The Greens did not support the ETS because it would have given $24 billion to the biggest polluters with any emissions reductions being done off shore through the sale of dubious offsets. Whilst there are those who argue that something would have been better than nothing, passing the ETS would have meant Australia would not seriously be investing in proven technologies that can reduce climate change now. Rather, it would have meant transferring to foreign countries the economic prosperity, the technological breakthroughs, and the export opportunities derived from tackling climate change.  Furthermore, there would have been no domestic reduction in carbon emissions.

In regards to the Liberal Party’s policy on climate change, one need look no further than Tony Abbott who said in 2009, “The argument is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.” At least Abbott believes the world isn’t flat.

The Greens’ target on climate change is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is feasible and by no later than 2050 with a minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. They plan to do this through making sure future energy needs are met by using sustainable, renewable energy sources. This will result in the creation of thousands of new green jobs in business and manufacturing.

Conclusion:

We now return to answer the question posed earlier, whether the Greens are ‘good for the Jews.’ Through their policies directed to the environment and climate change, we see that the Greens uphold the Biblical notions of valuing the Earth and respecting that which sustains us. Through their policies on asylum seekers and their stance on non-violent resolution of the crisis in the Middle East, they place a high value on humanity and respect for the Biblical refrain of “loving the stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:19). Most importantly, the Greens ask both the voters and the government to care and be involved, fulfilling the ethics of our fathers when they say “It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it.”

Ittay Flescher is a Jewish Educator in Melbourne and Arielle  Perlowis a student at Monash University. Neither of them are affiliated in any way to the Australian Greens Party.

This article is part of a series Galus Australis is running for the election.  We plan to publish articles by supporters of the other major political parties.  Please contact us if you are interested in contributing.

Source: RaceForIran.com

By Leah Bloch

Counter terrorism and Middle East expert Avi Jorisch ran several interesting sessions at Limmud Oz recently. In one, he showed us footage from the Hezbollah operated TV channel Al-Manar. At first glance, Al-Manar looks like any other TV network. It has news programs with international correspondents, talk shows, soap operas, family shows, and even music videos. All this lends to Al-Manar a deceptive appearance of professionalism and authority. However, Jorisch presented evidence that the channel’s programming is strategic and insidious. It glorifies taking up arms against Israel and the United States and propagates Hezbollah’s political and terrorist agenda, particularly the destruction of Israel.

Examples shown by Jorisch included a TV-drama which graphically portrayed Jews slitting the throat of a Christian child to make Passover matzah, and a cartoon celebrating suicide bombers, accompanied by an anthem about the glory and honour of taking up arms against the Zionist entity. A montage of violent anti- Israel/ anti-Western images included a scene of ten year olds in army fatigues doing training exercises – the call to take up arms starts young.

Jorisch and others have campaigned for Al-Manar to be removed from twelve pay-TV networks worldwide; it remains on two international networks, and is on air in Australia at the time of writing.

The footage made me pessimistic about the chances for achieving peace, when from early childhood generations of viewers are raised on such racist and inflammatory propaganda

In another session, Jorisch outlined what he considered to be a critical strategy for undermining Iran’s terrorist activities. A great deal of the money Iran spends on terrorism is moved through the international banking system. International banking relies on a system of “corresponding” banks. To move money from your bank in Australia to a bank account in another country requires your bank to have an agreement with a bank in that country, whereby the foreign bank agrees to act as an agent for your bank in that country.

If your bank did not have a corresponding agent in that country, it would not have the ability to move money to that country.

Jorisch argues that putting pressure on our banks to refuse to have any corresponding relationships with Iranian banks will be the most successful way of isolating Iran internationally and reducing Iran’s means of sponsoring proxy terrorist organizations outside Iran, such as Hizbollah.

Iranian Bank Sepah was designated by the US Treasury in January 2007 for providing financial services to Iran’s missile industry. All transactions involving a designated entity are prohibited in the US, and any assets the designees may have under US jurisdiction are frozen. Bank Sepah was subsequently designated by the United Nations in March 2007.

On 16 June 2010, the US Treasury designated Post Bank of Iran for providing financial services to, and acting on behalf of, Bank Sepah. For more detail, readers can see this statement by the US Department of Treasury, published on the Iran Watch website.

Jorisch believes that disabling Iranian banks’ ability to move money internationally will be the most effective sanction on Iran, as well as directly impacting on Iran’s ability to fund terrorism.

While in Australia for Limmud Oz, he commented on ANZ’s announcement that they would seek to remove their listing as a corresponding bank for Bank Sapah. Although ANZ stated that they ceased their relationship with Bank Sapah in 2007, they still remain in Bank Sapah’s list of corresponding banks.

In an article in The Australian, Jorisch has questioned why the ANZ was conducting business with Bank Sepah in the first place, “given Bank Sepah was involved in illicit activity well before 2007.”

Jorisch encourages people to learn more about this issue, and pressure their own banks to cut relationships with Iranian banks in order to isolate Iran. He also encourages people to put pressure on the two pay-TV networks that still air Al-Manar. Jorisch believes that this kind of grassroots activity is critical to effecting change as born out by his own activism on both issues.

Leah Bloch is a member of the Jewish Community in Melbourne who attended Avi Jorisch’s sessions at Limmud Oz Melbourne in June 2010.

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.

The great thing about Facebook is that you learn that you are only two degrees of separation from people for whom The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not a fabrication, but a textbook.

On the very first day of Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership, I happened to catch a rather intriguing thread on my Facebook feed. It included a conversation between two Palestinians, one of whom is a Facebook friend of a Facebook friend.  Part of the conversation was in Romanised Arabic, and the essence of it was that Julia Gillard was not to be trusted, and that her displacement of Rudd as PM was the work of the Jews.

That’s right.  The Elders of Zion were not happy with Kevin Rudd, so they simply had him replaced with Julia Gillard, who would now do their bidding.

I must admit that I found this conspiracy theory more amusing than alarming.  It is well known that in the Arab Middle East, conspiracies about Jews are rampant, and The Protocols are essentially considered a history book by a significant minority.  In some ways it was reassuring to know that Facebook’s algorithm doesn’t always throw material at the user that is consistent with their worldview.

However, there was nothing amusing about the front page of The Age today.  The headline blared out Gillard accused of soft line on Tel Aviv.  You’d think that the editors of The Age would be aware that the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem, and not Tel Aviv – that alone is an appalling error in a front-page headline.

It seems Gillard’s partner, Tim Mathieson, is “employed as a real estate salesman by the founder of the Australia Israel Forum, Melbourne property developer Albert Dadon.”  Just to be clear, he’s not employed by the Australia Israel Forum, he’s employed by the founder of that entity, to sell real estate as part of a completely different entity.

The Age trots out former career diplomat Ross Burns, who has long since been sharing his antipathy for Israel with anyone who will listen (essentially Fairfax and the public broadcasters).  Burns’ central thesis is that Gillard’s partner’s boss will be influencing (or perhaps controlling) Australia’s foreign policy.

So let me get this right: Gillard’s partner is employed to sell real estate. Nothing against being a real estate salesman (my own day job as a consumer researcher is no more important), but it’s a long way from being Prime Minister.  Nevertheless, in order to have her partner ‘get in good with the boss’ down at the real estate agency, Gillard will allow her partner’s boss to determine Australia’s foreign policy?  Hmmm.

As implausible as this sounds, we better check if any other federal parliamentarians have partners employed by, well I don’t know, Century 21 or L.J.Hooker.  Who knows what conspiracies might be uncovered!



The “Gaza flotilla” incident provided viewers with TV broadcasts of mass street protests of incited Turks against the Jewish state, including the torching of Israeli flags. Prime Minister Erdoğan, who occasionally makes anti-semitic statements, seemed to be taking every opportunity to slam the State of Israel.

Turkey, an important strategic partner of Israel in the 1990’s, turned into a bitter adversary. Turkey, an important regional state, distanced itself for almost a century from the Arab world, which the Turks quite rightfully perceived as backward, fanatical, corrupt and undemocratic. Yet, in the last few years, Turkey has been in the throes of an identity crisis, in which Muslim tradition, which is still entrenched within Turkish society, aspires to greater expression than was hitherto permitted by the secular regime in Ankara.

The AKP, the ruling Islamist party since November 2002, become emboldened after its reelection in July 2007 to make significant changes to Turkish foreign policy. Ankara’s relations towards Israel cooled, especially in the wake of the Gaza war in the winter of 2008. Scathing criticism, cancellation of joint military maneuvers and warming toward Hamas have characterized Turkish policy.

Noteworthy, the deterioration of relations between Ankara and Jerusalem is of Turkish initiative, over which Israel has no influence. The extreme stance taken by Turkey towards Israel is part of the major transformation of Turkey’s foreign policy. In fact, Turkey is turning away from the West. Its position diverges from that of the West on Hamas, but also on other important issues. Ankara hosted Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accused of war crimes, despite the protest of the European states. Turkey is the only member of NATO to have hosted Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Turkey has even announced that it will not join sanctions against Iran and in the past month has strived, together with Brazil, to extricate Iran from its uncomfortable diplomatic position due to its ongoing nuclear program. Turkey is also growing closer to Syria, in the Iranian camp. Moreover, Turkey has stepped up its activity in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Turkey has also tightened its relations with Russia, which aims to curb US role in international affairs.

Yet, it is not a foregone conclusion that Turkey will persist in this direction. The army, which constitutionally enforced the secular-democratic nature of the regime, has become weaker in its position in the past few years, and cannot be expected to intervene as in the past. One should hope for change through democratic channels. Among Turkish society many still support the secular parties, which are far from pleased with the rush towards the Muslim world. Even among moderate Muslim quarters there is a sense of unease regarding Turkey siding with radical Islamic elements such as Hamas and Iran. One should also recall that Shiite Iran was an historic rival of the Sunni Turks.

Indeed, support in public opinion for the ruling Islamic party is in decline. This is mostly due to corruption and abuse of civil rights. Were elections held today, the Islamist party would lose many seats, and two secular parties would possibly have made up the government coalition. If current trends in public opinion hold till the next elections, scheduled for July 2011, it is likely that Turkey will emerge with a new prime minister. It is possible that precisely due to his situation in the polls, Erdogan has decided to exacerbate his relations with Israel in order to gain public support.

Israel should refrain from escalating tensions with Turkey, but should not tolerate insults. This will only be perceived as a weakness. Firm responses to the Turkish prime minister are in order. Firm, level-headed responses will be of some assistance to pro-Western Turks.

A major political drama is unfolding before our eyes in this important country. We are only spectators. Only the Turks can determine their future. For the sake of the free world, but primarily for their own sake, let us hope that they choose democracy and progress.

The author is professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. He will deliver four lectures on Middle East subjects at the Limmud Oz Conference at Monash University.

Another conscience call. Berkeley poster art, Vietnam war era.*

By Mark Baker

Anthony Frosh’s article on J Street and JCall gives everything away when he asks whether the supporters of these organisations are ‘even’ pro-Israel or whether these ‘leftists’ could better be described as ‘pro-appeasement’. It is precisely this kind of delegitimisation of progressive or liberal Zionism that the J phenomenon has come to address. For there is no escaping that the source of the opposition to the new Zionist movement conceals layers of politics – politics that on the surface are about the Israel-Diaspora relationship but push deeper into attitudes about the occupation, the Arab-Israel conflict, human rights, and the fragile prospects for an internationally-brokered peace agreement.

So let me address what I regard as some of the givens of the J movement, which includes ‘J Street’ in America, ‘JCall’ in Europe, ‘For the sake of Zion’ in America, and by implication the New Israel Fund. While each of these have distinct mandates and arise out of specific contexts, they are all organisations whose main protagonists are passionate Zionists who are deeply engaged with Israel. They are not vanished Jews who wear their Jewish identity as a convenience to bash Israel, but they are lifelong Zionists and Jewish activists. All – and I include myself in this camp – share a deep concern for the campaign to delegitimise Israel through means including boycott, divestment and sanctions; all are fearful of a nuclear Iran and the threats emanating from Ahmadinejad; all abhor terrorism and recognise the failures of the Palestinian leadership, and all are vexed by the spread of a new kind of antisemitism which sometimes, but not always, is expressed through a consuming hatred of Israel.

At the same time, as Zionists and as Jews, the supporters of these movements fear that Israel and Zionist ideology are slipping into unprecedented forms of illiberalism and political folly. They – we – fear that the occupation that has lasted almost half a century has produced a political culture which is undermining Israel’s vibrant democracy both inside and beyond the green line, or more pertinently, on that undefined line yet to be established that determines where the borders of Israel and a future Palestine will lie.

Domestically, the threat to liberal values has been unleashed by a strange coalition of forces that include ultra-Orthodox Jews, Zionist messianists and secular ultra-nationalists. Recent manifestations of this include the insidious attack on the NIF and the human rights community in and outside of Israel, the toleration of a Foreign Minister who conducts diplomacy like a bull in a china shop, violent rampages against Palestinians by extremist settlers, and rulings to evict Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem based on principles that undermine the whole Zionist enterprise.

Zionism, as Peter Beinart argued in his myth-breaking piece in the New York Review of Books, is increasingly forcing Jews to check out their liberal values at the Zionist door. This is not a matter of shame in the sense of self-hatred, nor is it about exilic embarrassment amongst ‘our leftist colleagues’, though there’s something to be said about the dim status of our mandate to be ‘a light unto the nations’. What motivates us is a deep sense of inner moral shame about the corrosive effects of the ongoing occupation, which threaten to turn rule over the territories into an apartheid regime, an unhelpful word, but I’m only quoting the warnings of two former Prime Ministers – Olmert and Barak.

As for the third in the triumvirate, Ariel Sharon, his political volte-face in Gaza was justified with the observation that ‘what you see from there, you don’t see from here.’ This phrase is often hurled against Jews in the faraway Diaspora, even though most Israelis don’t get to see what is happening on a daily basis on the far side of the wall. We are told that we can’t understand the situation from our communities, but this is an odd argument that is selectively applied to criticism of the Right and not to moral and material supporters of the settlements. More than odd, it is morally insidious, because it undoes the very basis of a global form of citizenship – our humanity – that entitles us to form opinions and campaign for and against all sorts of issues– be it Darfur, Soviet Jewry, or the Arizona Laws.

So what it comes down to is this idea that Diaspora Jews are meant to surrender their conscience to the special relationship with Israel and act as agents of the Foreign Ministry (Lieberman) in order to defend Israel against the misguided gentiles and Jewish self-haters.  But as Bernard-Henri Levy, the French philosopher and a lifelong defender of Israel who signed the JCall petition argues: “If you believe in Zionism, Israel is a question that concerns every Jew in the world. It is impossible to tell Jews their word is crucial only when they agree with the government. In that case only supporters of the Likud around the world would have the right to speak.”

The J movement is necessary for Israel and Diaspora Jews because it gives voice to three principles:

First, it reaffirms the diversity of Zionist ideology that has always contained a multiplicity of contesting worldviews, from socialist secularism to religious messianism. Of late, it is the latter variety that has dominated the conversation, in part because of the strong Jewish identity of Orthodox Jews, and the fact that the occupation is not a problem to a majority of them. As the Orthodox Union has written in its opposition to Beinart’s piece: “From a Religious Zionist perspective, premising support for Israel on whether the Jewish State is living up to being a ‘liberal democracy’ is a recipe for trouble.”

In the face of this, I would argue that we are abandoning our Zionism if we do not create a voice that ensures that Israel lives up to its founding ideals of liberal democracy, notwithstanding the challenges of adhering to these values in situations of conflict.

Secondly, it is about not abandoning those Jews for whom liberalism, human rights, and compassionate politics is integral to their identities. Zionism has increasingly become identified with the political Right. Thus, while the rest of the world was inspired by the prospect of the first African-American to be elected to the White House, many young Jews expressed a preference for McCain in the name of their Zionism (‘mugged by reality’ they will argue). In post-election America, Obama is being portrayed by many Jews as an enemy of Israel and the Jewish people, with racist references to his middle name and a paranoid perception of his retreat at Cairo from the ‘clash of civilisations’ paradigm. Not only does the J movement challenge this perception, but it provides a bridge for Jews who want to extend their progressive and Jewish values into their Zionist loyalties. To burn this alternative bridge to Israel will render Zionism irrelevant for many young Jews whose bonds were not forged in an earlier era of imagined innocence.

Thirdly, the J movement has a crucial role to play in Zionist advocacy. Pro-Israel Jewish lobbies are as old as Israel itself, or rather as old as nineteenth century Zionism, or as old as the biblical tale of the spies. Over recent decades the establishment lobbies have veered to the right, adopting a neo-conservative line in relation to the Arab-Israel conflict. I think Frosh is correct in recognising that the alternative lobbies and signatories to petitions are calling upon their governments to pressure Israel in ways that go against the elected representatives of Israel. So let me distinguish between two aspects of the issue – advocacy and lobbying.

The best form of advocacy, in my view, is engagement through authenticity, intellectual honesty, critical reflection, and rational persuasion. Propaganda of any variety provokes counter-propaganda. A lie invites more lies. Heavy-handedness strengthens the hand of recalcitrance. None of this is conducive to peace and moderation. The conflict is not black and white, neither side is a pure victim, nor for that matter is either side free of the label of perpetrator. I can only advocate for Zion through my understanding of Zionism, which means highlighting how the delegitimisation of Israel is based on false assumptions about ethnic nationalisms and misunderstandings about the complexity of Middle Eastern politics, which resists simple categorisations of right and wrong. The J movement has created a space for this that is all too lacking in Australia.

As for lobbying governments through petitions, I concede that this is more problematic. It is not so much about undermining the democratic process from afar, as Frosh argues, because politics and our conscience knows no boundaries. But as one who cares deeply about the Zionist idea, my conscience is also pricked by my failure to throw my daily lot into the Israeli arena where I would shoulder the direct consequences of my politics. Notwithstanding these reservations, to remain silent concedes the public ground to a form of lobbying which makes our government believe they are betraying Jews and Israel by acting in accordance with their own interests and conscience to halt settlements and advance current opportunities to secure a two state solution. I want our political leaders to know that they will not be losing my vote (the so-called Jewish vote) if they pressure both parties to resume peace negotiations, or if they raise the issue of Jerusalem as a shared capital of two states. At the very least, it might protect ministers like Julie Bishop from the folly of her admission about Australia falsifying passports as an apparent means of placating Jewish voters.

The time is ripe for the J movement to strike roots in Australia. As the country that by virtue of its alphabetical ranking was the first to vote in 1947 for the creation of Israel through a partition of Palestine into two states, Australia has a special responsibility to see this conflict resolved in harmony with its initial intentions.  As a proud Australian, Jew, and Zionist, the framework of a J Street here would allow me and countless other Jews to give voice to all of these aspects of our identity. I deliberately choose the expression ‘to give voice’ because the alternative is silence in the face of other voices, a posture which will haunt us when we face a lost generation of Jews, and our own barren conscience.

Mark Baker is Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University and Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide studies.

Image source: Berkeley Daily Planet

Source: frontpagemag.com

By Anthony Frosh

Recently, we have seen the launch of two important leftist Jewish political initiatives.  In the USA there is J Street, and now in Europe there is J Call.  Already I have heard calls for the launching of an Australian version.  These organizations have very slick marketing, using the latest in online campaign techniques; and J Street seems to also have the ear of the Whitehouse.  They brand themselves as “pro Israel, pro peace.”  But to what extent are they really “pro Israel?”  And are they even “pro peace” or are they more “pro appeasement”?

At their core, these organizations are about Jewish citizens of Diaspora states lobbying their governments to pressure Israel into making decisions that Israeli democracy has not yet been willing to make.  I believe many of the Jews who join these organizations are acting more out of concern for their own leftist credentials amongst their non-Jewish leftist peers, than they are out of concern for the welfare of the State of Israel.

While I look forward to receiving counter-arguments in the comments section, I urge all readers to first read the following F.A.Q. I have created.

Isn’t everyone entitled to voice their opinioneven if they don’t live in Israel?

Yes, they are.  Kibbitzing from the sidelines is fine.  However, this is quite different to lobbying other governments to pressure Israel into making decisions that are not supported by the majority of Israeli people.

What is a Jew who disagrees with Israeli policy to do?

The most obvious answer is to make Aliyah and directly participate in Israeli democracy.  Once you or your children are serving in the army, I’m sure Israelis will be more open to listening your ideas on how to achieve peace and security. “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier” wrote Samuel Johnson with much truth.  However, in Israel, this  quote is understandably even more apt to the third person than the first, especially when those third persons are wanting to make major decisons concerning national security.

If moving to Israel isn’t for you, you could nevertheless still directly support other organizations that do participate in Israeli democracy, such as Israeli political parties and Israeli NGOs

How is donating to Israeli Political parties or Israeli NGOs different to supporting J Street and J Call?

When you donate money to Israeli organizations, you are enabling them to better participate in their own democracy.  This is very different to lobbying other governments to undermine the will of the Israeli electorate.  Thus leftist Jews who do not wish to undermine Israeli democracy should consider donating money to political parties such as Meretz, or NGOs such as B’Tselem, rather than supporting J Street or J Call.

Aren’t J Street just doing what AIPAC (or in Australia, AIJAC) does, but with opposing politics?

No, they’re not.  Regardless of whether or not you appreciate AIPAC or AIJAC’s politics – and I have my reservations – their process clearly does not undermine Israeli democracy.  Yes, they are Diasporite Jews lobbying their own governments concerning Israel, but they lobby those governments to put less foreign pressure on the Israeli government, not more.  For example, although these groups might support the settler movement and Israeli militarism, they do not lobby their governments to pressure Israel to build more settlements, or to carry out grander military operations in the Levant. Rather they support Israeli government policy regardless of which party heads the Israeli government of the day.

Furthermore, one does not need to agree with all of AIPAC’s politics to recognise that they are an important counterweight to the many nefarious forces that lobby the American government to be more hostile to Israel.

Don’t we need a counterweight to AIPAC/AIJAC?

There already exist several.  For example, in the USA, the State Department is very hostile to Israel, and they constantly attempt to pressure the Whitehouse to take a more anti-Israel line.  One of the major reasons for this is that the State Department is lobbied heavily by the numerous Arab governments.  The same model plays out in almost all other western democracies.  In addition (and in overlap) to the Arab governments, there is considerable lobbying from some of the major oil companies that are operating in the Arab world.

Furthermore, and this is especially the case in Europe, there are huge numbers of citizens who just have pure hatred for Israel and the Jews.  Many of these citizens have roots in Islamic countries, but many of them are just old fashioned Anglo-Euro anti-Semites.  With all of these forces, do we really need more organizations lobbying western governments to be tougher on Israel?

What is so wrong with undermining Israeli democracy, so long as it is done through another democracy?

If you attempt to deny the Israeli people the fundamental right to determine policy for themselves, then you have no right to call yourself “pro Israel.”  Furthermore, the idea that foreign governments can be better trusted than the Israeli government to assure the welfare of the Jewish people goes against the grain of history.  This is true for Australians, Americans, and especially Europeans.  As the Jerusalem Post editorialised:

“One cannot escape the sad irony inherent in the initiative: Here they are, the remnant of European Jewry, expressing their lacking faith in the political reason of their own brethren – the Jewish leaders of Israel – while choosing to placing their own destinies in the hands of Germany, France, Austria and other countries that failed miserably to protect their Jewish citizens during the Holocaust.”

Why would a Jew Open the Investigation of Pope Pius XII?

By Gary Krupp

The answer to this question lies in a series of events that moved our foundation to decide to confront this controversial subject and break the 47 – year old academic “log jam”. Being knighted to a Pontifical knighthood by first Pope John Paul II and then raised in rank by Pope Benedict XVI enables me to have certain levels of trust and access that very few have. My wife and I decided that we should use these unusual honors to enhance relations between Jews and Catholics and so we formed Pave the Way Foundation (PTWF). We have now expanded our work to all religions by identifying non theological obstacles between the faiths and initiating historic gestures. These projects create a fertile environment in which to move the religious leaders to act to end the malevolent use of religion for private agendas. Pius XII started 4 years ago with a request for help.

Meredith, and I were having lunch with the Apostolic Nuncio to Israel, Archbishop Antonio Franco in 2006. The Nuncio asked if we could intercede to address a very disturbing problem. He said the Holocaust Memorial of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem had placed a very hurtful and historically incorrect placard of remarks next to its portrait of Pope Pius XII.

Honestly, I grew up hating Pius XII, believing him to be an anti-Semite and a Nazi collaborator. So my wife and I shrugged off this request and felt we did not want to get involved. But then providence intervened.

Upon our return to New York we received a phone call from our friend, Rabbi Joseph Potasnik. Joe asked if we would help a Jewish author and former Washington Post correspondent, Dan Kurzman, gain access in the Vatican for his research on a book he was writing on Pope Pius XII. I told him that the mission of PTWF is to remove obstacles between the faiths and that I did not want to involve us in any activity that would negatively impact Catholic-Jewish relations. He asked us to meet with Mr. Kurzman anyway and we agreed to at least hear what he had to say.

On April 7, 2006 we met with Dan. He told us that he was writing a book about the secret plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII, to kill the Curia and to seize the Vatican. I asked him how could it be possible that a collaborator and ally of Hitler, Pius XII, would be the target of such a plan. He explained that the exact opposite was true.

Dan said his information was based on his research and a long interview with SS General Karl Wolff who had served as Chief of Personal Staff to the Reichsführer-SS (Heinrich Himmler) and SS Liaison Officer to Hitler. He had interviewed General Karl Wolff just after his release from prison in 1974.

This information about Pius XII was stunning. We are talking about the person who has been called “Hitler’s Pope”. This is the person about whom so many damning books have been written regarding his silence and cold-hearted lack of concern with Jewish suffering during World War II. This was what we were taught. We hated to even hear his name.

Then I called an historian friend at Yad Vashem and was told “Well, we heard something about this Plot to kill Pius but it only shows that Pacelli (Pius) was simply too frightened to act.” Somehow, through twisted logic, this assumption further supported their firm belief that the Pope supported Hitler. Something was dreadfully wrong here.

I then received a telephone call from the Vatican’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Archbishop Celestino Migliore. He told me that he thought I should meet with Sister Margherita Marchione in New Jersey.

Meredith and I drove to Sister Margehrita’s community in Morristown, NJ. We met with this engaging then 82-year-old nun who has written over 10 books in defense of Pope Pius XII. Through this meeting, my eyes were opened to a reality that was literally shocking. My emotions went from shock to anger. We discovered that we have been deceived by those whom we trusted for historical accuracy – that is, the scholars and historians.

As we delved further into the history of this papacy and the secret works of Pacelli, examining real documents and recording eyewitness testimony, we came to the conclusion that this subject had been totally mishandled. How did this happen and who was to blame?

It started with the fictitious play by Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy. Following that, a flurry of books were written supporting negative theories of this papacy and era. We later discovered absolute proof that this play and its impact was a well-crafted plan called “Seat Twelve” hatched and implemented by the KGB against the Catholic Church. When defenders came to reestablish the good name of Pacelli, literally no one read these books, and so this “black legend” has lasted since 1963 and to us it appeared that this was an “academic logjam” that would never be resolved.

The negativity was further fueled by one nagging question: Why won’t the Vatican open the archives of the war years and the papacy of Pope Pius XII? The reason is that the Archives just completed the cataloguing of Pope Pius XI in 2007 and the 16 million documents of Pius XII are not catalogued yet. Pope Benedict XVI has ordered the number of archivists cataloguing these documents to be increased from three to twenty to hasten the opening. The Vatican Archives will be opened the moment the cataloguing has been completed.

In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI ordered the early opening of the archives of Pope Pius XI. Why? Because the Vatican had finally completed the cataloging and now scholars and historians could come and study at least 65% of Pacelli’s life as Nuncio to Germany and as Secretary of State under Pius XI, his predecessor. To my shock, I learned that the critics and institutions had not bothered to come to these open archives.

As we moved our investigation further, Monsignor Robert Sarno, of the Congregation of the Causes of the Saints, suggested that I meet with Father Peter Gumpel, Relator (High Judge) to the Cause of Pius XII and Father Paolo Molinari, Postulator to the Cause. I had the most revealing first meeting with Fr. Peter. He recommended that I contact William Doino, Dimitri Cavalli, and Professor Ronald Rychlak for more help. After contacting these scholarly experts and learning of their extraordinary personal research, I personally became committed to righting this terrible wrong.

After almost two years of private research, I made a case to the Board of Directors at PTWF and was given the “ok” to take on this project.

Not all board members were happy with this decision, but they agreed with the project, since we are simply retrieving documents and testimonies that could only help the legitimate historians. We did this with the full knowledge that we were opening a beehive of resentment, anger and painfully proving that the long held beliefs of most Catholics and Jews were simply wrong. Yet we knew that, in the furtherance of the mission of PTWF, we had no choice. PTWF’s goal and mission is to move to eliminate obstacles between the faiths, and this obstacle impacts over one billion people.

After personally conducting video interviews (which can all be viewed with original documents on our website), we were convinced that we were 100% correct in our assessment of Pacelli’s secret actions to save more Jews than all of the world’s political and religious leaders of the period combined.  There are perhaps 3 million Jews who are alive today because of his secret but direct intervention.

Personally, as a Jew, I was determined to make this history right, especially considering how Eugenio Pacelli had been treated after his death by the very people he acted in so many ways to save. This we consider a Jewish responsibility, not an attempt to defend the Roman Catholic Church.

In Judaism, one of the most important obligations is that of charity. According to Maimonides, one of the highest levels of charity is “anonymous”, where the recipient never became aware of who helped him. In the case of Pacelli, his anonymous charity is the very tool his critics have used to strip him of any credit for the acts he ordered by so many nuncios and priests, who were actually following papal instructions through a verbal chain of command. Those critics allowed and encouraged every negative accusation against Pacelli to endure. This is a “Shonda,” a Jewish shame, which I am determined to correct.

Gary Krupp is a Papal Knight – the seventh Jew in history to receive this title.  Last month, Gary Krupp had an audience with Pope Benedict XVI in relation to the wartime record of Pius XII.

So often confused with the Burqa, one assumes the Niqab would also be included in any Burqa ban

By David Werdiger

Following his Hamas-hummus prank in the movie Bruno, one could imagine a Sacha Baron-Cohen character quickly dismissing the idea of banning the burqa: How could we do that!? Throw away so much tradition? Pastry filled with delicious mashed potatoes … even cheese or mushrooms. The burqa has been one of the great contributions to middle eastern cuisine … it’s hard to believe that any country would want to ban it!

Following bans in France and Belgium, the burqa debate has now made its way to Australia, with a Liberal Party senator calling for its ban in the wake of a bandit using it as a disguise. This in turn led to the whole issue being politicized with comments from both Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd. The opinion pages are rather polarized on the issue, with the burqa ban either pandering to xenophobia, or a boost for equality. There doesn’t appear to be much middle ground on this, and both those for and against the burqa ban have somehow been able to argue that their position is one that promotes human rights.

The question is: what does this mean to the Jewish community, and can/should there be a united position on the issue?

While the ban in France originated as a consequence of Muslim immigration, it does have roots in the strong separation between Church and State in that country, and has been applied equally to garments associated with other religions, including large crosses, yarmulkes, and turbans. If we as Jews support a ban on the burqa, are we opening the door for similar rules against traditional Jewish clothes?

Friends of mine have been asked to remove their yarmulke for passport photos, or to remove their hair-covering at airport security. In the cases mentioned to me, the people in question have asserted their right to dress in accordance with the requirements of their religion, and ultimately, this was respected by the officials and if necessary, a compromise was reached. As Jews, we do need to stand up for our right to dress as our customs require if this is being challenged.

In Australia, we already have laws that restrict people from walking into a bank while wearing a helmet or balaclava that obscures their face. These same laws would seemingly also apply to someone wearing a burqa; so from a safety perspective, there seems little need to extend what we already have.

Muddying this debate is the fact that a federal election is looming, and Kevin Rudd is very much on the back foot after a series of policy back flips and an apparent reposition of the Labor Party away from the values many people voted him in on. His comments have already stood as a subtle warning to the opposition of the danger of making this an election issue. From what I hear of the talkback radio discussion on this topic, such a debate doesn’t seem to bring out the best in Australians.

“In recent years, Israeli groups have put forward several constitutions for the state of Israel. However, these proposals…have been preoccupied with the question of, ‘Who is a Jew?’ and have neglected the primary constitutional question of, ‘Who is a citizen?’” Quotation from the preface to the ‘Democratic Constitution’ proposed by Adalah, 2007.

The position taken by Adalah, the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, intrigues me because it argues for the transformation of Israel within 1967 borders.  Adalah is an organization that has been funded by the New Israel Fund and the fact that it has produced such a document has been used to bash the NIF but here I want to address the Adalah proposal, rather than re-hashing issues with the NIF. The proposal comes from sober-minded, well-educated, middle class Palestinian Israelis, different to the stereotypes that many have about Palestinians.

To reject Adalah’s proposal and to say that it is a cover for a  ‘Greater Arab State of Palestine’, endangering Jews, or naïve ultra leftist solutions for ‘secular democratic Palestine), is a simplistic rhetorical scare. It ignores the very sober nature of the proposal, which is about the nature of citizenship in a country for all its citizens founded on “distributive justice” rather than specific ethnic rights.

The proposal is thus far from a call for a dhimmi (traditional, second-class) status for Jews in an Arab country but it also confronts the notion of the special (legal) Jewish character of Israel, preferring a constitution in which all communities are equal in a legal sense. It can be seen as an important positional document for a practical way forward.  I interpret the document as supporting a ‘two state’ solution, though others, in the current environment, may see it as a ‘one state’ answer. I am more focussed in this article on ‘Israel’ than whether there are one or two states.

It is interesting that a number of Israelis on the  left including Meron Benvenisti in a recent Haaretz essay, and now Yehuda Shenhav in a new book (not yet in English),  have been suggesting similar proposals for a new, democratic state to break the current  impasse,  though these seen as highly controversial, being tagged as anti-Zionist, a form of suicide and so on, but it is clear that the issue is going to re-enter the discussion-sphere in Israel, as it has abroad.  I also understand that even some in the settler movement are considering the possibility of citizenship in a Palestine as a quid pro quo for continuing settlements.

Adalah sees no justice to the fact that the actual rights of Arab/Palestinian Israelis are for all practical purposes, like those in the pre-civil rights USA for African Americans, theoretically equal but practically, separate and unequal. Despite the many exceptions, e.g. members of the Knesset, Israeli Palestinians do not get their civil or taxpayer’s worth of benefits (see this) and legal discrimination is endemic.

Notwithstanding arguments over legal philosophy, the proposal also needs to be taken seriously for other, practical reasons:

• Arabs within the 1967 boundaries constitute at least 20% of the population with a rapid rate of natural increase.
• If the proposal would be widely supported by the different Arab communities in Israel (and surveys show they do mostly identify with the country), then it represents a ‘coming to terms’ with the existence of a State called Israel with a Jewish majority, and a desire for the end of belligerence.
• If the proposal was accepted by Israeli Arabs, then there would be strong pressure for Arab countries to accept it, and this of course, would pull the rug from under rejectionists—those who oppose Israel in any shape or form, including some elements of the western left.

In addition, the massive subsidies provided to Israel will eventually end, or be seriously reduced and the country will have to stand on its own two feet.  While this may cause heartache to Diaspora Zionist organizations who would lose much face, the ontological needs of American and Australian Zionists, should not alone determine the status of Israel.

While according to the proposal, the ‘Jewish community’ would lose its politically privileged position, cultural rights for self-determination of Jews (a key principle of Zionism), would not be abrogated.   As an example, the Adalah document speaks of the preservation of Jewish and Arab school systems, religious and cultural institutions and so on.

A new bi- or multi-cultural Israel would be able to engage economically with its neighbours, but at the same time, it would mean the end of the ‘special relationship’ with the USA, something which only began after 1973 when the country became increasingly important to US global strategy (and which may be changing, see my blog piece).

The potential is for a return the kind of Zionism espoused in the 1920s by Judah Magnes, who supported “a binational state in which the two peoples will enjoy equal rights as befits the two elements shaping the country’s destiny, irrespective of which of the two is numerically superior at any given time”.

Of course, this picture of the future has some enormous challenges. The democratic constitution is the death knell for the Law of Return of 1950, and by implication, the end of the legal, rather than cultural connection, between Jews in Israel and Jews in the diaspora. Instead, like other countries, immigration quotas would be set. Jews could not expect dual citizenship automatically.

There also is the danger of a multi-party ‘confessional’ or ‘consociationalist’ society, strongly linked to guaranteed representation for ethno-religious blocs, which is inherently unstable (Lebanon, Belgium, Quebec). Thus, Adalah proposes a veto vote for Arab parties on issues affecting Arab rights.

Other than an outright rejection of anything which limits Zionist (and for the other side, Palestinian nationalist) ideals, fear of violence and terror is probably the strongest reason why many people will oppose the New Constitution. Because of militant Islam and nationalism in many parts in the world, the task of building trust will be enormous.

Given that the past 60 years have presented such traumatic experiences for both communities, is it time to consider a Democratic Constitution seriously? Perhaps for the sake of the security of Jews in Israel, the health of its relationship with Jews  abroad, and a new form of Zionism.

Larry Stillman is a member of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society Executive, but is expressing his own and not anyone else’s opinion.