I write in relation to your formal complaint to SBS about The Promise, a four part series broadcast by SBS on four consecutive Sunday evenings from 27 November 2011. Your complaint was among a number of complaints investigated, then reviewed and determined by the SBS Complaints Committee, chaired by the Managing Director, Michael Ebeid, which met on 17 January, 2012.

The SBS Complaints Committee is constituted under Code 8.9 of the SBS Code of Practice (see annexure 1) and was convened in light of the number of complaints that the broadcast of the 4 part series The Promise breached the SBS Codes of Practice.

The SBS Complaints Committee investigated, reviewed and determined each of the complaints about each and all of the 4 episodes of the series The Promise, including your complaint by email received on 28 November 2011.

This letter is to advise that your complaint was not upheld and the reasons for SBS’s decision.

Your complaint was investigated against Code 1.3 of the SBS Codes of Practice (see annexure 2 below). Some of the complaints investigated also raised the issue of accuracy and balance, perhaps seeking to invoke Code 2.2 of the SBS Codes of Practice (see annexure 3 below). Code 2.2 has no application to this drama, being limited to programs produced by SBS’s News and Current Affairs division. The Promise was not produced by SBS’s News and Current Affairs division.

Your complaint specifically included concerns that The Promise:

• presented one-sided Palestinian propaganda;
• was anti-Semitic; and
• characterised Jews as liars, untrustworthy and wealthy while Palestinians are portrayed as poor, loving and considerate.

That complaint was investigated and reviewed specifically. In addition, the Complaints Committee investigated and reviewed all complaints in respect of three over-arching Code-related issues raised across all the complaints taken as a whole, which, in summary, were that the program:

• was anti-Semitic;
• promoted, endorsed, or reinforced inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes (relevantly of Jews and/or Israelis); or
• condoned, tolerated or encouraged discrimination or prejudice against Israel and/or Jews as a people or a religious group.

Allegations of historically inaccuracy were investigated and reviewed insofar as they related to the above issues. But, as noted earlier, accuracy per se is not a Code requirement in respect of a drama such as The Promise.

Some complaints alleged that the broadcast of The Promise (either in a particular episode or collectively the series) amounted to racial vilification. These allegations have been investigated and reviewed against the Code provisions precluding condoning, tolerating or encouraging discrimination or prejudice. The advice of SBS Legal department also was taken into account in this respect.

In assessing against The Promise against Code 1.3, the Complaints Committee had regard to Australian Communication Media Authority’s test of the ordinary, reasonable viewer as defined by the ACMA’s Investigation Report No. 2537 of 2 March 2011. It states:

“In assessing the content against the Codes, the delegate considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant broadcast material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer.

Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.[1]

The delegate asks, what would the ordinary, reasonable viewer have understood the program to have conveyed and, in so doing, the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and inferences that may be drawn.

Once this has been ascertained, it is for the delegate to determine whether the material has breached the Codes.”

The Complaints Committee’s investigation and findings

The Complaints Committee noted that The Promise is a high quality drama series that was written and directed by Peter Kosminsky and produced by DayBreak Pictures in association with Stonehenge films, Canal+ and Arte France. It was produced in association with SBS TV although SBS had no editorial control over the production. It was first broadcast on Channel 4 (UK) in February 2011. It was nominated for a BAFTA TV Award for the Best Drama Serial. Apart from the United Kingdom and Australia, the drama has been sold to SVT Sweden, YLE Finland, DR Denmark, RUV Iceland, RTV Slovenia, Globosat Brazil, TVO Canada.

The Promise is a four part work of fiction. Its dramatic narrative makes reference to some political or policy debates between the Jewish/Israeli and Palestinian communities and, at different times, to the political status of the area. But these references are incidental to the purpose of the series, namely, the dramatisation of the personal experiences of two related people, a grand-daughter and her grandfather, visiting the same region six decades apart.

On the Channel 4 website Peter Kominsky describes the series this way:

This is first and foremost a drama. I wanted to take two characters on a journey – starting pro-Jewish but then becoming less certain, in keeping with the thrust of our research. There are no caricatures – all the characters are based on people we met, read about or interviewed. One character is a soldier who was in Belsen, another is an Arab thrown out of his village in 1948. It would do an immense disservice to a complex situation to attempt to over-simplify it. I’m not attempting to be definitive. It’s not a comment piece. It would short-change the viewer to tell them what to think in a simplistic way.

The series is detailed and the characters portrayed are complex in the interwoven storylines which show a range of political and personal positions. As Mr Kominsky says, the film did not claim to be historically accurate, nor to be a documentary. However, it is fair to conclude that by the end of the series the sympathy of audience is more likely to be with the Palestinians than with the Israelis.

The SBS Codes of Practice do not limit the subject matter of fictional dramas, nor do they restrict the range of political views presented. Consistent with the general principles of freedom of expression, Code 1 (General Programming) of the SBS Codes of Practice acknowledges that SBS will broadcast a broad range of program material:

SBS’s programming can be controversial and provocative and may at times be distasteful or offensive to some. Not all viewpoints presented will be shared by all audience members.

Allegations of anti-Semitism

The Complaints Committee found that the series was neither anti-Semitic nor racist. While many characters in the series display increasing antipathy towards Israel, Israelis and Jews at different times, this is merely part of the dramatic narrative, creating the conflict that provides the momentum of the storyline. As you know, it is quite common to portray individuals, groups or even nations in a negative light as a part of a dramatic work.

The central character is a young English girl, Erin, who appears in the contemporary storyline, and provides the dramatic relief for the historical storyline, whose central character is her English grandfather, a British soldier Len. These two characters are brought together by being shown to make similar journeys, driven by their respective relationships with people who happen to be Jewish, a lover in Len’s case; and a school friend in Erin’s case.

The changing political perspectives of the central characters across the narrative, is a matter of politics, not race or religion. As the characters develop, the series traverses issues of betrayal, trust, love and loyalty. These highly emotional issues are the standard structures of drama on television, stage and film.

It was the view of the Complaints Committee that the series does not, demonise Jews either individually or as a collective, nor deny their individual and collective right to selfdetermination and therefore does not vilify Jews or Israelis.

Further the Complaints Committee does not accept that the program simply made the Jews look bad and by contrast made the Palestinians look unproblematic. True, some Palestinian characters criticise Jews as being “greedy” or having “stolen” land or homes but the Palestinian “suicide” bombers are obvious negative characters among the Palestinians, where the drama finds it colour in actions rather than words.

In addition Erin is critical of Omar’s suggestion that it is disrespectful to leave the home of the of the “suicide” bomber in Gaza she says “…. I didn’t respect his daughter, she murdered three people. I’ve been blown up by a suicide bomber. OK. I know what I am taking about”. In a similar vein, in the contemporary storyline, the principal Palestinian character Omar, is threatened with a gun by a Hamas supporter at the home of the “suicide bomber”, and tells Erin they have to go because “the son is Hamas and he will not have me here”.

The drama presents a range of views and perspectives, and the characterisation of the main Jewish characters, including Paul and Clara are nuanced. The same is true of the Meyer family, who are shown as complex characters. The point is underlined as the Meyer family, individually and as a whole, continues to show Erin respect and provide her with support and hospitality although she challenges and criticises them at almost every level.

Although The Promise has two interwoven stories set in different times, it is about the drama of various human relationships, which happen to involve characters from different cultural and political groups who are brought into conflict. It is the differences and tension that is critical to the drama, not the identity of the players.

Discrimination or prejudice against Israel and/or Jews as a people or a religious group

The Complaints Committee reached the conclusion that the various political or policy debates between the Jewish/Israeli characters on the one hand, and the Arab/Palestinian characters on the other hand were incidental to the main purpose of the storyline in the drama series as a whole; namely the dramatisation of two personal journeys made some 60 years apart as a young girl becomes obsessed with her grandfather’s diary.

Like all drama, there is tendency towards a binary play of “good guys” and “bad guys”. That characterises all drama, to a greater or lesser extent, and is almost inevitable given the need to hold the viewer’s interest. It is an oversimplification to cast the drama as being bad Jews versus good Palestinians.

After a careful investigation and review of each of the episodes individually and the four part series as a whole, the Complaints Committee is of the view that the film does not breach Code.1.3.

Inaccurate demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes

The Complaints Committee noted that many complaints specifically referred to stereotyping of Jews, including allegations that Jews are stereotyped as liars, untrustworthy, wealthy, conspiratorial, cruel, hateful and violent. The Complaints Committee considered that this was an incorrect reading of complex characters, which ignored their individual and collective positive characteristics.

Some complaints alleged that this perspective was reinforced by a contrast with the depiction of other (non-Jewish) characters in a favourable light. Some complaints focused upon the disparity of wealth. For example, in the contemporary storyline, The Promise depicts the Meyers as being rich family. These are Jewish characters, but their wealth has a dramatic function in the narrative, about the effects of political turmoil reaching every Israeli. The drama is set in one Jewish family’s home, almost in isolation.

The Complaints Committee rejects the allegation that the use of one family involves any stereotyping, positive or negative. It is simply a family around whom a drama is hung. There is no suggestion that the Meyer family is a typical Israeli family, they are clearly affluent. However they can be contrasted against the settler family who appear to be only moderately comfortable. The Complaints Committee found that as only two Jewish families are shown, the ordinary reasonable viewer would not conclude that these families typify Jewish or Israeli society.

Conclusion

This is a complex drama, that is obviously presented as a work of fiction. Each of the main characters has many facets. Obviously, some viewers will focus upon particular facets of each character. But in any drama as densely layered as The Promise, characters are depicted at different time in different ways; the loving father may also be a stern taskmaster, the reckless teenager may be a loving daughter too. The portrayals vary with the narrative and the development of the drama. This is typical of all drama.

The Complaints Committee is satisfied that the ordinary reasonable viewer fully appreciated that The Promise was a fictional drama and nothing more than that. The Complaints Committee found that that the characterisations in The Promise did not cross the threshold into racism, and in particular that it did not promote, endorse, or reinforce inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes.

In the light of some early representations after the first episode of the series was broadcast, SBS prefaced the broadcast of each subsequent episode with a reminder that the film was a drama to negate any suggestion it was a historical or documentary film. SBS considers that the disclaimers highlighted what is obvious from the content of the film, that it is a work of a fiction.

If you consider that this response is inadequate you are entitled to take your concerns to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for external review. SBS appreciates you raising your concerns with us, and would like to assure you that SBS presents a wide range of factual and fictional program material on the Middle East.

Yours sincerely

Sally Begbie

SBS Ombudsman

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.

The so-called “separation between church and state” is enshrined in section 116 of our constitution, which states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. While this seems to be loosely based on the first amendment to the US constitution, the highest courts in the US have tested the separation to a far greater extent than have we.

In any case, this section makes it very clear that we are a democracy, and not a theocracy. Marriage is an institution enshrined in (secular) legislation. Anything the Church or the Rabbinate say about an issue like gay marriage carries no weight. So why do religious groups comment, and what do they seek to achieve by getting involved in such a debate?

Let’s take a step back and consider the extent of the separation between religion and state in Australia. As indicated earlier, it’s far less so than in the US. We continue to debate the issue of religious instruction in public schools, and there is plenty of government support for religious schools and institutions. The Secular Party of Australia would like a far greater separation than we already have, including teaching of “secular values” in schools, the removal of any religious references. They feel that while separation is enshrined in the constitution, Australia is practically more of a pluralistic theocracy, where the state supports many religions.

To understand this, we have to look beyond religion (in the way that it relates to the state) and instead to the values that underpin our western democratic society. These are commonly referred to as Judeo-Christian values, because their source is biblical, and because while the founders of modern western societies like Australia and the US were themselves Christian, they sought to create states that embodied their values, and balanced them with the principles such as equality for all, and freedom of religion for their citizens.

The slogan of the Secular Party is “Freedom of religion and freedom from religion”. What they seek to do is break with the religious values that underpin our society so that it no longer “weighs down” secularism with its absolutism and old-fashioned dependence on that archaic Bible. It seems to me that in fact they are actually mandating the pseudo-religion of “secularism” to replace the support for any other religions that we have now.

Much of the objection to gay marriage takes the form of a slippery slope argument. That is, we are against X not on the grounds that X itself is bad, but rather because if we allow X, then it will lead to Y and Z, which are things we definitely don’t want. Interestingly, this is similar to the principle in Pirkei Avot 1:1 of making a ‘fence’ around the Torah (beware of anything that could lead to dancing).

While the defence against this argument is usually that the chain of logical implication is not established, with the likelihood of gay marriage being legalized here, the polyamory community has jumped on the bandwagon, and sees this as an important step in allowing their relationships to be legally recognized. This style of argument is also used by the right against euthanasia and genetic engineering. However, those on the left rely on similar arguments against such technologies as genetically modified crops.

Uriya Shavit writes a great piece in Azure about the Muslim Brotherhood’s idea of democracy. Strange as it may seem, their ideal society borrows much from democratic values, yet maintains Islamic law above all. It’s not quite the theocracy that operates in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The common factor in all these examples is the growing chasm between the historical values of a society, often absolute and based on religion, and their contemporary ones, which are relative and fluid.

What sort of society do we have? What sort of society do we want in the future? What are the values of a truly Godless, secular society? Is it one where PETA and Peter Singer elevate the rights of animals at the expense of humans and we euthanize those people who are too great a burden for us to maintain? These shifts happen over decades, not months, which is why the slippery slope argument often raises its head in debates like this.

I venture that the argument of religious groups against gay marriage are a reflection of their discomfort with the moral relativism in society today. The family unit is one of the building blocks of society, and an essential element in intergenerational cultural transmission. Seeing it being tampered with is a signal that the divergence between traditional religious values and contemporary values has clicked another notch. They see the values of our society as a house, with Judeo-Christian values as the foundation. Chip away too much at the foundation, and the whole house comes crumbling down.

“THE Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia opposes any legislation to legitimise same-sex marriage. This is not intended to show any discrimination against the gay community, but simply to uphold the sanctity and purpose of marriage, which is the union of man and woman not only to express their love for one another but also to bring future generations into the world.

The institution of marriage and family life, as defined and practised for thousands of years as between a man and a woman, a father and a mother, respectively, is far too important and essential to the bedrock of society and civilisation as we know it to be undermined by those who presume to redefine its essence. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs.

That prospect is unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate. We call upon Australians to stand opposed to any attempt, whether judicial, legislative or religious in nature, to bestow the sanctity of marriage upon same-sex couples.”

The letter is sure to raise ire in the Jewish community and justifiably so. First, although the name suggests that it represents all rabbis, Rabbi Freilich’s organisation of rabbis is only representative of the Orthodox variety. By choosing the name that they have and making public statements, the organisation (henceforth I will call them by their acronym, ORA) give the impression that they represent rabbis from all Jewish streams. This is a general problem with ORA and in this case they misrepresent the views of rabbis from other Jewish streams. For example, Australian Progressive Judaism has an official stance in support of same-sex marriage.

However, an even more important principle is at play here. It is broadly true that same-sex marriage does not exist within Orthodox Judaism. (There are exceptions to this but they are not the norm – for example, recently Steven Greenberg, who is an openly gay rabbi who was ordained at Yeshiva University, the major Modern Orthodox rabbinical school in New York City, conducted a same-sex marriage.) Nonetheless, even if Orthodox Judaism does not support same-sex Jewish marriage, this is no reason to oppose same-sex civil marriage.

Whilst in their letter ORA express concern that they will risk legal sanction for failing to conduct same-sex marriages, this is clearly a red herring. Orthodox rabbis do not face legal sanction for refusing to conduct interfaith marriages, and thus would not face legal sanction for refusing to conduct same sex marriages.

Judaism is not usually an evangelical religion. It is generally agreed (even or perhaps especially amongst the Orthodox) that the vast majority of Jewish laws do not pertain to non-Jews. For example, ORA would not lobby against Australian public buses running on Saturdays or restaurants serving non-kosher food. Therefore, opposing civil same-sex marriage, particularly in a country where most people are not Jewish, is not founded in Jewish law. Perhaps Australasia’s Orthodox rabbis are taking their cues, not from Jewish tradition, but rather from the American Evangelical Christians who have been doing their best to impose their beliefs and values on others for a number of years.

Unfortunately, this letter is not an isolated case. The position against same-sex marriage that Rabbi Freilich refers to in his letter was publicised earlier this year. ORA have also made a statement opposing surrogacy in Queensland. One of the reasons that they provide is that allowing surrogacy for prospective parents who are not in a heterosexual marriage normalises homosexuality. To an Australian Human Rights Commission consultation about sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity discrimination, ORA similarly expressed views against same-sex marriage. They also expressed concern about introducing federal legislation protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity. In short, ORA have engaged in a prolonged campaign against the rights of same-sex attracted Australians.

ORA is made up mainly of congregational rabbis, and many of their congregants are ‘traditional’ Jews, who are probably unaware that their religious representatives are making political statements of any sort and typically would not support their homophobic agenda. It is time for those Jews who attend shuls whose rabbis are members of ORA and who oppose discrimination on the basis of sexuality to speak out against ORA’s homophobic campaign, and perhaps to withdraw their synagogue memberships. ORA should stop trying to interfere with the civil rights of others, and limit their political involvement to advocating for the rights of Orthodox Jews.

David Schulberg was effectively expelled from Facebook

By David Schulberg

Facebook is a social-networking behemoth that has more than 800 million active users worldwide. I am a relatively recent convert, having been curious for a long time as to what the hype was all about. I have seen people swapping trivial snippets of information about what they might be doing at moments in their lives, stuff to any outsider that seems rather banal.

Recently, I came across a Facebook event called ‘You can’t sweeten Israeli apartheid. Protest against Max Brenner’, which was a planning base for Students for Palestine to organise their BDS (Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions) campaigns against the Max Brenner chocolate shops in Australia.  The BDS protagonists have drawn a connection between Max Brenner, which is a completely independent business franchise, and their parent, the Strauss group, of companies that are deemed guilty of supporting Israeli soldiers. Of course, nobody bothers to mention the public support that the Strauss group provides for The Jasmine Organization for the Promotion of Arab Women in Employment which has been endorsed by Cherie Blair.[i]

After each rally a new Facebook group event is convened; while writing this article it was called ‘Protest against Max Brenner: Say no to Israeli Apartheid’. On the group’s site I responded to comments and discussions in order to make the BDS supporters answerable for their comments and actions.  I strongly disagree with the BDS movement and have been motivated to ensure that people are properly informed about the fallacies behind the BDS initiative.

The BDS group, moderated by its own members, was open to all comers to make comments. They would wilfully purge any information that opposed their anti-Zionist party line.  If they really wanted to keep communications to the party faithful then Facebook provides them the facility to do so. However they wanted to attract new supporters and so kept their site unrestricted.

In responding to the material that was constantly posted on Facebook I had to redouble my efforts to address unsubstantiated statements from the BDS activists. Occasionally there are others who arrive on the scene and get frustrated with what they perceive as propaganda.  Very few of these like-minded individuals stayed, concluding very quickly that their responses and counter arguments were falling on deaf ears.

Often there were assertions made about links between Zionism and Nazism, hero worshipping of Palestinian terrorists who had been imprisoned in Israel, anti-Zionism degenerating into full blown anti-Semitism and a good assortment of straight out abuse and personal slander. My own children were falsely accused of having been Israeli soldiers and I was attacked for supposedly having worked for companies that advanced American imperialism.

Facebook has guidelines that prohibit a lot of the material that appeared on this group’s site. Whenever anything particularly offensive is posted, there is a mechanism to report it to Facebook administrators. A lot of what is in clear breach of the guidelines is allowed to stay. Only when there was an absolutely blatant infringement is action taken by the administrators to remove offending material.

One day I was fighting tooth and nail to have an anti-Semitic cartoon removed that drew parallels between those who oppose the pro-Palestinian position and Holocaust deniers. There were counter attacks made by one particular group member Bill to eliminate me by flooding the Facebook administrators with a heap of reports on wall postings that I had submitted.

Figure 1 - Banned for saying nothing

These are the contents of the wall-postings that I made that were subsequently removed by Facebook:  I encouraged Bill to “Go and read ‘The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs’ by David Pryce-Jones before jumping to conclusions,” (Refer fig 1).  To a discussion about the use of art from children in Gaza, which had been started by the same person, Bill, I wrote “He had paraded art supposedly created by children”. I then reiterated that “I didn’t bring up the subject, it was there lurking like a wolf in sheep’s clothing”.  I suggested that Bill was prattling on about some topic by remarking, “When Abbas has declared that no Israeli Jew would live in a new Palestinian state and that was something to be concerned about.”

Somehow the Facebook administrators drew the conclusion that I was misbehaving. By no means could they have come to such a decision on the basis of the content of my posts. They must have received a torrent of abusive complaints and ended up being influenced to hang, draw and quarter me for saying  nothing offensive compared to the extreme material posted by the other side.

The first two warnings I received on Facebook were to exclude me for 3 days and 7 days but had no effect. They arrived in a flurry in response to reports from the BDS group intent on getting rid of me.  When the 30 day ban advice arrived I found myself unable to post on my own wall or anybody else’s wall for that matter. Very draconian measures indeed!

In the end I was expelled while on the other hand the people who lurk around the dark alleys of the ‘Protest against Max Brenner: Say no to Israeli Apartheid’ group could continue spreading their misinformation, lies and deceit with impunity. I faced real abuse from these people and have kept the transcripts of the ugly conversations that have taken place to prove it.  Facebook contributed to the sequence of events in an insidious and scandalous fashion.

Reading the Facebook Help revealed that I had absolutely no recourse in the situation that I now found myself in. Free speech, democratic principles, honesty and integrity were thrown by the wayside; there had been a brief battle between opposing forces on the internet; I was the loser, judged guilty with no right of appeal.

In their corporate cyber towers sit a bunch of powerholic gods overseeing this massive community of Facebook users, content to frolic about in this free e-playground that Mark Zuckerberg has provided for them. That is all well and good as long as people follow the rules and behave themselves, but when they try to use Facebook for something controversial the guidelines prove totally inadequate and are open to arbitrary interpretation.  This is reminiscent of how infamous autocratic government judiciaries meet in camera and pass verdicts on dissidents without giving them right of appeal.

With the next Max Brenner protest rally fast approaching I wanted to revisit the Facebook BDS site.  I was greeted by this screen  on my computer (refer fig 2)

Figure 2 - Blocked completely from viewing the BDS site

Logged on to Facebook as another user on another computer I could see the event. I was flabbergasted realising they had blocked me not only from commenting on Facebook, but they had also managed to block me from viewing their BDS site. More than that, the message delivered to me by Facebook was totally spurious, Facebook was giving the false impression that the Committee of Hate had shut down shop.

It would be improper for Facebook to have unleashed this gigantic social networking system without having an appropriately managed and fair operational framework in place.  In the uprisings that sprung up during the Arab Spring, Facebook played an instrumental role in assisting the protesters to draw attention to their plight. One would think that Facebook would have a responsibility to our society to assist in establishing communication channels that help people to enhance their lives. It is not enough for Facebook to just provide the mechanisms for information to travel across its networks; Facebook must be morally mindful to how their network affects the human condition.

Facebook professes to ban hate speech—but allows the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages, stating it recognizes ‘people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.   Facebook has developed a set of principles that it does not properly abide by. Many people who inhabit the pages of Facebook and the BDS group in particular have false identities, which is in flagrant violation of Facebook policy. When I have reported a person with obviously false names like Evan McAweSome or Mel Content, the powerholics in the corporate cyber tower have done nothing. I was banned for posting innocuous comments, while affiliates of the BDS group who made very extreme false remarks got off scot-free.  Facebook is very inconsistent in implementing its own guidelines.

Facebook has obviously had a major influence in the social networking world, but if it cannot stick to the principles of social justice that it professes then it may find that it has failed the test of the community standards that it is obligated by its policy guidelines to uphold.  We trust organisations like Facebook to provide us with reliable, safe access to our personal information. They must be held accountable for when their social network goes haywire, causes harm and spreads lies and deception. It is incumbent upon Facebook to make the way they manage their users more open and transparent.

[1] Cherie Blair and Ofra Strauss provide inspiration to Jewish and Arab businesswomen at Jasmine’s annual conference.

[2]Facebook’s Holocaust Problem.

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

West Dunbartonshire Coat of Arms

Previously, we’ve seen Buycott Israel as  a response to the BDS against Israel. However, some Jewish organisations have responded with counter boycotts. Simon Morawetz reports on a recent example in Australia.

In 2009, West Dunbartonshire Council (WDC) approved a boycott of all Israeli made and produced goods. The attention that this relatively small Glaswegian council’s decision got was remarkable, sparking outrage from Jewish communities across the globe.

In response, many Jewish communities initiated a counter-boycott of all goods made in West Dunbartonshire. As any reputable Scottish region would insist, this includes several whisky distilleries. One of the products of these distilleries is a staple in kosher households around Caulfield: Glenlivet.

Yeshiva Shul is one entity that decided not to purchase Glenlivet this year and instead explore other options. It went with Glen Moray this year. Eli Belfer, the man responsible for alcohol purchases (among other things) at the Shul, was in contact with WDC, who were unwilling to resurrect any discussion on the basis for the policy. However, they were willing to clarify any misconceptions regarding its application. WDC are aware of the counter-boycott, but Yeshiva will formally write to them in the coming weeks to confirm the action and put pressure on them to remove the policy.  The Council did say that they may reconsider it in future, though they gave no reason to believe that it would be reversed.

For the record, Glenlivet did not respond to my email offering them a comment on the matter.

It is important to note that not all distilleries in West Dunbartonshire agree with their council’s policy. Auchentoshan is one example of a distillery that has continued to support Israel and Judaism, and produces a range of kosher whiskies. Nevertheless, the council’s policy remains in place and shows no immediate signs of moving. Hence the retaliatory counter-boycott.

Which begs two questions. The first is: what impact, if any, will the retaliation have? Although Yeshiva’s standard order is indeed a significant one, in the grand scheme of things, it is little more than a drop in the ocean. Whether its impact will be felt strongly enough to prompt a swift reconsideration of the council’s policy is doubtful at best, a pipedream at worst.

Generally, boycotts are more symbolic than financial in their impact. Just as Yeshiva’s order will hardly be felt by Glenlivet, who manufacture millions of bottles of whisky every year, West Dunbartonshire’s boycott of Israeli made or produced goods will hardly make an impact on Israel’s Balance of Payments.

The second question is: does that render the action negligible?

Of course, it doesn’t. It was not the financial ramification for Israel that people got worked up about when the WDC made its decision. Rather, it was its anti-Semitic nature, and the threat of a domino effect spreading the boycott of Israeli goods across Scotland, the UK, Europe, or perhaps the world.

Similarly, although WDC may not feel the counter-boycott in its hip pocket, the mere fact of the action may be enough for it to hasten its reconsideration of the policy. Hopefully, when that day comes, they have the sense to abandon it.

Gilad Shalit seemingly being coerced into the now infamous Egyptian TV interview

By Geoff Bloch
Now that the euphoria and relief at the redemption of Gilad Shalit has begun to subside, it is time to appraise the deal with our heads rather than with our hearts.

Some wonderful and positive things have emerged from the prisoner swap. A precious soldier’s life has been spared. The anxiety and suffering of his family, friends and indeed the wider Jewish community have at last been relieved. Israel’s affirmation of the sanctity of human life stands as a shining beacon in a dark ocean of tyranny and brutality. Israel has reaffirmed its pledge to every Israeli family that every effort will be made to rescue or redeem captured soldiers. And at long last, Israelis have been united in joy and celebration.

But just as surely, most Jews understand the obvious dangers inherent in a deal which required the release of over one thousand convicted Palestinian terrorists and criminals, including despicable serial murderers, for one Israeli soldier. First and foremost, the deal has not yet been fully paid for by Israel, because more innocent Jewish lives will be lost when the recidivists or those inspired, trained or encouraged by them, return to murder and maim or kidnap other Israeli soldiers. By capitulating to terrorists, the future cost of meeting their unreasonable demands has been driven to new heights. In Israel’s zeal to save the life of Gilad Shalit, she has tragically condemned others to die. And to all this must be added the unimaginable grief and misery inflicted on terror victims’ families as they see the murderers of their loved ones cheered home and honoured as heroes.

But weighing the positives against the ghastly negatives is not my focus despite the annoying tendency of politicians and media analysts, riding a wave of popular approbation, to characterise the deal as “the right thing to do” when only time can answer that question.

Nor is my focus the halacha of pidyon shvuyim (redeeming captives) which, if strictly applied, would almost certainly have ruled this particular transaction impermissible. That is because the halacha does not require everything possible to be done to redeem a captive but requires the needs of the wider community to be carefully considered and brought into account.

What has been gnawing away at me is an instinctive doubt that a deal on such unfavourable terms would even have been entertained in years gone by, notwithstanding previous prisoner exchanges which have taken place.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, over 400 Israeli soldiers have been declared missing in action and although almost all must have died in battle, several have been listed as “captured but presumed to be alive”. Indeed, we prayed for years in our synagogues for their release, referring to them by name. Why is it that none of their families set up a protest tent outside the Israeli Prime Minister’s residence and orchestrated a public campaign for their release? Why is it that virtually every Israeli family identified with Noam and Aviva Shalit, yet most would never act as they have? Are Gilad Shalit’s parents to be admired for their tenacity or was their constant pressure on the Israeli government, virtually blaming the Israeli government for their son’s incarceration, objectively unacceptable even if, subjectively, they themselves are beyond criticism? Is it ethical that a government should have made so crucial and dangerous a decision – a decision far more compassionate than it was just – placing the plight of parents so hopelessly conflicted above the security of all other citizens?

Israelis have long understood that their sons and daughters may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for Israel’s survival. The primacy of the State above the individual is a principle perhaps best expressed by President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” It is, or at least should be, the cornerstone of the social contract between the citizen and the State.

After his son’s release, Noam’s Shalit proclaimed triumphantly “We won our son back!” His statement is undoubtedly true. The Shalit family indeed succeeded in importuning the government to comply with their private demands despite the unarguable danger to Israeli society. And the pressure will not stop there. By capitulating to terrorists’ demands, not only has the cost of redemption skyrocketed to new heights, it sets a precedent for the simple reason that once the government has answered the Shalits’ distress, how could anything less be done for the next family which, God forbid, finds itself in a similar position? The Shalit case therefore represents a dangerous shift in the social contract and a reversal of the primacy of the State over the individual. This cannot be a good thing.

Although there are, no doubt, many factors which have caused Israel to act as it has, there may be a worrying correlation between this paradigm shift in Israel’s relationship with its citizens and the progressive preoccupation of younger generations in contemporary society with a sense of self and personal entitlement, to the detriment of the greater whole. It is timely that Israel should consider how this worrying trend might be addressed.

Israeli president Shimon Peres accompanied by Israeli Chief Rabbis and Sheikh Mohamad Quiwan as he inspects the mosque which was torched in the Bedouin village of Tuba Zangaria, located in the Upper Galilee. Image: Menahem Kahana

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) has strongly condemned the attack on a mosque in Israel and the subsequent attacks against both Jewish and Muslim targets.

JCCV President, John Searle, stated that “The attack on the mosque in the village of Tuba Zangaria was carried out by a small group of thugs who, by their shameful actions, have placed themselves outside of mainstream Israeli and Jewish communities.”

“It is appropriate that so many rabbis and other Jewish leaders around the world have expressed their outrage at the attacks, and have stated without reservation that such behaviour has no basis in Judaism.”

“I am pleased that Israeli police have already apprehended a suspect in last week’sattack, and hope that this will be of some comfort to our Muslim friends. As the only democracy in the Middle East, I am sure Israel will remain vigilant in rooting out those who engage in this vile behaviour.”

Searle added that he was similarly saddened following the attacks that took place upon Jacob’s Tomb and the cemeteries in Jaffa. He stated that “Jacob’s Tomb is known as one of the most sacred of Jewish sites and there is simply no place for this sort of senseless and racist attack. I express hope that the Palestinian Authorities will vigilantly investigate these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice.”

Sourced from a JCCV press release.

A previous cover of the New Statesman, also featuring Pilger, and described by many as anti-Semitic

Australian journalist, John Pilger, 2009 winner of the Sydney Peace Prize, has launched a bizarre attack on Australian Jewish businessman and philanthropist, Frank Lowy. New York writer, Adam Holland, does his best to make sense of it all.

John Pilger is not one to miss an opportunity to point an accusing finger at Israel, regardless of the wrong he’s addressing. Pilger has a column in the New Statesman (Sept 22) which focuses on a newly opened shopping mall in London’s East End to decry consumerism, ill-treatment of workers, and bad shopping mall design. He’s also upset that he couldn’t find a bookstore that he was looking for.  Pilger chose to headline this column:

“War and shopping – the extremism that never speaks its name: The Westfield Stratford centre, backed by a former Israeli commando and touted as the future face of London by the likes of Boris Johnson, makes a mockery of the East End’s history of productive work.”

Apropos of nothing else in the column (other than that headline), he includes the following paragraph, focusing for some reason on one of several co-founders, whom Pilger oddly calls “the” co-founder.

The co-founder of Westfield is Frank Lowy, an Australian-Israeli billionaire who is to shopping what Rupert Murdoch is to media. Westfield owns or has an interest in more than 120 malls worldwide. Lowy, a former Israeli commando, gives millions to Israel, and in 2003 set up the “independent” Lowy Institute for International Affairs which promotes Israel and US foreign policy.

Pilger may feel strongly about protecting the rights of workers and raising the standards for the design of shopping malls, or he may merely be using those good causes as an excuse to bash Israel on the most tenuous of bases. You be the judge.

(Read here: New Statesman – War and shopping – the extremism that never speaks its name)

From Wikipedia (grain of salt alert) I reprint the following thumbnail sketch of Frank Lowy’s early life:

Lowy was born in Czechoslovakia, and lived in Budapest, Hungary during World War II. He made his way to France in 1946, where he left on the ship Yagur, but was caught en route to British Mandate of Palestine by the British and deported to the detention camp in Cyprus. After a few months, Lowy was allowed into Palestine and was brought to the Atlit detainee camp. Lowy then moved to Sde Yaakov a small yeshiva school [sic] near Qiryat Tivon [and] eventually joined the Haganah and then the Golani Brigade, fighting during the Arab–Israeli War in the Galilee and in Gaza.

Those who oppose Israel’s existence, as does Pilger, view the role played by the Golani Brigade in repelling the Arab invasion of the newly formed state to be an evil one. That a brave young man who barely escaped the death camps of Europe and survived British “Displaced Persons” detention camps in Cyprus and Palestine would choose to defend his new homeland from aggression should, in Pilger’s view, forever ban him from the development of shopping malls in London. Pilger, forever the would-be freedom fighter, would have it that a small part of London’s East End is now Zionist occupied territory and the workers there are Britain’s Palestinians. If Pilger was standing on a soapbox at the Westfield shopping mall spouting this rubbish he would be regarded by most passersby to be a madman. Because he instead publishes it in the New Statesman, he’s considered a pundit.

Funny.

This article was originally published on Adam Holland’s blog and he has kindly given us permission to republish for our readers