By Larry Stillman

I’d like to argue the moral case for supporting a selective boycott of products from the Occupied West Bank. I take the view that it is illegally held territory in which its prior and current non-Jewish inhabitants (Palestinians, whatever their citizenship) live under a form of military rule and control system which completely privileges Jewish settlers and Israeli businesses and abuses human rights.

There are a number of ways to approach the problem of the occupation and the denial of the right of self-determination from a moral point of view.

This first is a universal human rights approach, reflected in UN principles and international law which is opposed to such things as military occupation or land seizures, of the denial of affective legal remedies against oppression, and second, from the position within the Jewish tradition.

Second, the Jewish social justice view can be summarized as the principle of Tikkun Olam derived from the Mishnah, which is the struggle to repair or install righteousness in the world, as well inspirational mottos like “Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof” (Justice, Justice you shall persue”, Devarim 16:20). This also relates to the concept of ethical mitzvot, for both religious and non-religious Jews alike; obligations to make the world a better place, including challenging authority, which traditional Judaism appears reluctant to do. Unfortunately, this tradition barely exists in Australia, with attempts to stomp out dissent on issues relating to Israel going back many decades.

In the US, where I lived for many years, there is a tradition of speaking out and being pro-active for the greater good by rabbis and ordinary people alike, because sometimes, speaking out, even in a symbolic way brings about change. Here are some examples of people (sorry, all middle-aged men) who have supported dissent, including boycotts:

• Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, has written for many years about the need to combine a inclusive spiritual dimension into both everyday life and social justice from an inclusive approach. His first major book, Surplus Powerlessness (1986), had a strong influence on my own thinking about contemporary forms of social justice at that time.
• Rabbi Samuel Korff of the Boston Beit Din developed halachic rulings to support boycotts to support the rights of underpaid farm workers in the 1960s and 1970s.  He was also responsible for the denunciation of Jewish slumlords in Boston.
• Rabbi Joshua Heschel, who is revered by many Christians and Jews in the US his activity in the Civil Rights movement in the US, was close to Martin Luther King, and he supported the boycott movement of segregated facilities in the South, along with many other Jews. He also opposed the war in Vietnam.
• More recently, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Philadelphia-based Shalom Center, has supported the establishment of a Mosque at ‘Ground Zero’ in New York, and he has also taken a strong stand on Israeli politics.  Waskow has been active in the Reconstructionist movement for decades.
• Saul Alinksy, who came from an Orthodox background, developed powerful and highly influential organizing techniques including non-violent grass-roots community action and boycotts.
• Other American Jews have been active in many other causes including the labour movement and anti-racism movement.

Returning to the current excoriation of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society for suggesting the most modest form of boycott—against products from the West Bank. I suggest that people in AJDS who are supporting a limited boycott are coming out of the moral position and tradition I have outlined and are no one’s stooges, nor exploitable by extremists.

AJDS has been dumped in with the ‘deligitimizers’ by the so-called official leadership even though AJDS has indicated its disagreement with many elements of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign and the positions it takes within the Green Line. Thus, those who have seen the countless of posts by me in Facebook of late know that I have been vigilant in attacking anti-Israel extremists, whose views are Judeophobic, and AJDS on its website and elsewhere, has clearly distanced itself from extreme positions.

I do not endorse a BDS position that crudely blocks economic, social and cultural exchange between Israel and the rest of the world.  Tactically, the BDS is engaging in erroneous tactics, creating a gulf with the Jewish community. The position that AJDS supports is a far cry from some of the rhetoric and actions taken (not always with the nicest of motives) by the BDS Movement, including a number other Jewish organizations that support a full boycott.  I hope that supporters of BDS ask us why we have taken our position, and I will argue the case. To claim that the moral position we take threatens Israel, or that it delegitimizes the country or that we are mates with crass anti-Semites is an insult to the intelligence of thinking people who care about the future of Israel.

Furthermore, the tactic of Jewish community ‘leaders’ that claim that proponents of boycotts are no more than ‘delegitimizers’ is in fact a way of turning attention away from the Occupation—that is, what is causing the problem in the first case: the Occupation itself and Israel’s consistent behaviour of playing for time at the expense of others’ liberty.

I care deeply about the future security of Israel, but I know that its future cannot be linked to a continuation of 43 of its 60 years as an occupier and thief of another’s birthright.  Saying that putting a ‘Made in Israel’ label on something from the West Bank is morally wrong and asserting that we should not buy such products is the right thing to do.

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

Image source: YeshivaCollege.com

By Simon Holloway

Most people who use the word “midrash” don’t know what it means. To them, “midrash” simply denotes a convoluted and nonsensical commentary to a text: a tract composed with the intention of obfuscating a point, of inventing a wild fantasy, or of replacing the biblical literature with arcane trivia about first millennium rabbis and their views on the science of the day. To open any casual guide to Judaism, such as grace the shelves of bookstores throughout this country, is to be vindicated in this suspicion. These authors, whose noble aim is to educate people in the broadest strokes possible, could not possibly be more incorrect.

While the genre of Midrash is homogeneous in respect of the fact that it is, 100% of the time, a commentary upon the biblical literature (unlike the Talmud, for example, which comprises a commentary upon the Mishna), it is also held together by its utilisation of a particular methodology. According to one source, this methodology was first adumbrated by Hillel, who ostensibly determined seven rules of exegesis. According to another source, it was Rabbi Ishmael who created the concept of Midrash, and who defined it with a total of thirteen rules. A third source has Rabbi Eliezer propounding thirty-two rules of midrashic exegesis, and a fourth (attributed to Samuel ben Hofni) places the total number at forty-nine.

For those of us who are not accustomed to actually spelling out the methodological principles that underscore our immediate comprehension of a text, the very existence of such rules is enough to inspire a headache. And for those of us who subscribe to the various hermeneutical principles of the modern era (that a text must be understood in its immediate context, in relation to other similar texts, and in light of the society that produced it), the nature of the midrashic methodology that underscores this particular genre is abstruse to the point of appearing ridiculous.

To read a collection like Midrash Rabba (perhaps, more than any other, the collection to which people unintentionally refer when they say that “the Midrash says…”), none of this is particularly problematic. Like several other examples of midrashim and collections of midrashim, Midrash Rabba is homiletic in its import. The rabbis, concerned with making sense of the anomalies of the text, together with the various silences of the text, used the intellectual tools at their disposal in order to provide the stories with a more profound meaning. The overwhelming majority of them could not be taken literally even if one were so inclined, and it is reasonable to suggest that none of them were meant to be taken literally in the first place. By removing verses from their immediate context, and by understanding them on the basis of verses elsewhere within the Tanakh, the rabbis turned the Hebrew Bible into a single, comprehensive rabbinic text.

But what happens if one is to derive messages from this text? What occurs when, instead of dealing with the narratives of Genesis or the poetry of Psalms, the text is dealing with the pronouncements of Numbers, or the stipulations of Deuteronomy? What happens, in other words, when the text, rather than being homiletic in nature, is halakhic instead? Is halakhic midrash any different to narrative midrash? And does this difference have any impact upon Judaism today?

The means by which academic midrash becomes practical law was a bone of contention between two second century rabbis: Akiva and Ishmael. While Ishmael is traditionally credited with a halakhic midrash to Exodus (“The Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael”), Akiva’s students are credited with the halakhic midrashim to Leviticus (“Sifra”; also called “Torat Kohanim”), Numbers and Deuteronomy (“Sifrei”), as well as the anonymous sections in both the Tosefta (that which was, purportedly, left over after the crystallisation of the Mishna), and even the Mishna itself.

Rabbi Ishmael, whose approach to text is best exemplified by a statement of his that “the Torah speaks in human language”, was a strict applicator of midrashic methodology. Rabbi Akiva, whose approach appears to have had a more mystical bent, was apparently inclined to derive laws from obscure features of the text (such as an additional letter), and with less regard for the conventional midrashic tools. A discussion that the two have in a Talmudic passage (Sanhedrin 51b) is particularly illustrative.

There, the debate concerns the fate of a priest’s daughter who has committed adultery. The discussion concerns a passage in the Torah (Lev 21:9), which stipulates that she should be burned, but which fails to make clear whether it is adultery of which she is guilty, or whether it is premarital sex. Based on a comparison with two other biblical verses (Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:21), and utilising at least two different midrashic principles, Rabbi Ishmael determines that the young girl in our verse is only betrothed to be married, and that if she were actually married already, her punishment would be stoning instead. Rabbi Akiva disagrees.

According to Rabbi Akiva, the daughters of priests merit burning both for premarital intercourse as well as adultery. Despite the fact that the Torah does not make this clear, and despite the fact that Akiva is unable (or unwilling) to answer the objections of Ishmael, or even to provide an alternative rationalisation, this is his final word. His reason is that the word “daughter” in the particular verse under discussion has a vav attached to it, and he explains this extra letter – for reasons that are unclear – as alluding to the fact that she is burned despite her marital status at the time of her crime. Famously, Rabbi Ishmael cries out, “And because this word has a vav attached to it, you would take her out to be burned??”

Sadly, the Talmud furnishes us with very little that can really indicate the relationship of these two scholars. As with Hillel and Shammai, the tradition is predominantly recorded by those who favoured one over the other, and in this instance the majority of the literature venerates Rabbi Akiva. It is worth noting, however, that the texts that do so tend to lionise him in mystical terms. To give but two examples, Moses is granted a vision of Akiva, expounding halakha from the “crowns” appended to the Torah’s letters (Menahot 29b); and Rabbi Akiva, alone of four venerable sages of his day, succeeds in both ascending to the supernal realms and descending from them in peace (Tosefta, Hagigah 2:2). Rabbi Ishmael, on the other hand, is depicted in far more mundane and logical terms than his contemporary.

In the field of halakhic studies, a major question concerns the relationship between the Mishna and the halakhic midrash. Alone of all of the halakhic texts, the Mishna presents the law without any justification for the law. Rather than referencing its opinions in other texts (as the Talmud does), or even with an appeal to logic, the Mishna presents the law, which is the law because the Mishna presents it. This is in sharp contradistinction to the halakhic midrash, which presents law as the results of a methodological analysis of the literature of the Torah.

This gives us two possible options. Either we can suggest that the Mishna holds primacy, and that the halakhic midrash developed as a means of demonstrating to those Jews who rejected the Mishna that its laws were all contained within the Torah itself, or we can argue that the midrash held primacy and that the Mishna is simply a codification of the results of such hermeneutical exegesis. In the event of the former option, halakhic midrash remains speculative and the difference of opinion between Akiva and Ishmael is thoroughly academic. Irrespective of the means by which one reaches his conclusion, the conclusion is already established by the Mishna and is not the subject of debate.

In the event, however, of the latter possibility, the difference of opinion between Akiva and Ishmael is most profound. If the Mishna constitutes the crystallisation of halakhic midrash, then the methodology employed by the midrash has a tremendous bearing upon the practical realia of law. Approximately three centuries after the completion of the Babylonian Talmud, Rav Sherira – the head of a prestigious academy in Babylon – wrote a letter, in which he clearly explained the origins of the Mishna, the Tosefta, the two Talmuds and the halakha. In this letter, he makes it very clear that the anonymous sections of the Mishna were composed by Rabbi Meir, whose teacher – Rabbi Akiva – was the source of his every opinion.

Had the methodology of Rabbi Ishmael so captivated the hearts and minds of his disciples that he instead had been venerated over the charismatic Rabbi Akiva, and had the Mishna been composed in accordance with his views, what might the halakha look like today? In a world in which competing rabbis debate each other in relation to halakhic criteria that derive in essence from Akiva, perhaps the simplest solution for those who wish to read the passages more literally is to simply say, “I have it on tradition from the school of Ishmael.”

This article was first published on BenAbuya.com

Since writing an article supporting the new Zionist Left, I’ve been asked what I believe about Israel and other matters. I’m not sure if the question that has come from numerous people is an accusation or an expression of interest, but I suspect it has something to do with a culture of delegitimisation that has spread from attacks against Israel to attacks against liberal Zionists. The problem is that I can’t easily answer the question about what I believe because my beliefs aren’t dogmas that can be reduced to a catechism. I have likes and dislikes that aid me in navigating my actions but like most people, my principles, attachments and ideas are part of my interior, familiar signposts that signal how to cross from one thought to another. But the question has set me thinking, and apart from my obvious attachments to family, fun and friendship, I’ve come up with the following short list of seminal ideas that make me recognisable to myself.

I start with humanism; to me, the word flows from the religious idea that we are all, each of us in our diversity, created in the divine image. All the rest is commentary, which includes a belief in democracy as the best political system to safeguard human dignity, and thinking twice and then several more times before we press the trigger and breach the human rights of an individual, a collective, or a people. The Talmudic verse that best captures this ideal is the one that regards the redemption or destruction of a single human life as a world created or destroyed. Each of us, in our singularity, is infinite, yet we so easily fall into the temptations of dehumanisation for the sake of self-affirmation.  Of late I have been trying to extend these feelings towards all creatures by limiting what I eat. This has been influenced by the ethical eating demanded of me through kashrut, the sudden death of my dog, and an encounter in Rwanda with a gorilla.

Holocaust memory; it’s a strange notion to include but it’s not out of choice. Born to Holocaust survivor parents, our generations have been witnesses to the antithesis of creation – a world of cremation where the human ideal, as embodied in the Jew, was ground to dust and ash. The moral legacies of the Holocaust command me (in the biblical sense) to uphold the very principles that were transgressed in Auschwitz. This means not being silent, standing up, speaking out.  It also means defending Jewish life when it is threatened. My questions about the Holocaust – about perpetrators, bystanders and victims; about ideologies of race and supremacy, totalitarianism and demagoguery, power and powerlessness, refugees and indifference, tolerance and exclusion, guilt and forgiveness, virtue and evil – extend to everything that has happened and not happened in the world after Auschwitz. Never Again can and has been manipulated as a slogan to justify Jewish racism and violence; for me, it evokes the activation of the principles of humanism which summons us to speak out on transgressions of human dignity and threats to life wherever and whenever.

Jewish life: I’m for chucking the fiddler off the roof and replacing sentimentality and ancestral worship with meaningful, deep Judaism. I respect pluralism and the thin or non-existent connections of Jews to their Judaism because in this age our identities are a matter of choice. The reward for being Jewish is being Jewish; there is no punishment for refusing to stand at Sinai. I revere and fear religion. Every religion is born in violence – a covenant of blood – while simultaneously empowering us to transcend and mend this world that is metaphorically and truly broken. When we surrender ourselves to a religion, we do not relinquish our free will and the difficulty of choosing between right and wrong. I believe in an interpretation of religion that affirms rather than diminishes or extinguishes the human dignity of men and women, and of peoples of other faiths or of no faith.

In my religious practice I seek sanctity, the holiness of the everyday things that we create through religious rituals of time and space, human deeds, and our mythical and real journeys. Sanctity is the opposite of sanctimony – it requires humility rather than moral certainty or claims to absolute truth. I love Jewish ritual, the Jewish Sabbath, the Jewish way. I appreciate the sanctity that all religious systems create – the kindling of light and scent, of food devoured in ritualistic ways, of sharing our offerings with family and friends, and building community through prayer and song.  The parts of scripture that most inspire me are the prophetic ideals of justice, peace and chesed (givingness), even as I know that reality will always leave these out of our grasp. I try to adhere to the extra word that distinguishes between love of peace and justice, and the relentless pursuit of it; as in, ‘Justice, justice shalt thou pursue’, and ‘Love peace and pursue it’. I also like the word, ‘Thou’ – its grandness, and Martin Buber’s philosophy of I and Thou, which speaks of the connectedness of all things animate and inanimate – us to our environment.

And Zionism; the legitimacy, morality, justness, enduring nature of Jewish national self-determination as expressed in Israel; not just as an idea, but as a place of vitality and creativity, division and dissent, ancient and renewed, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, majority and minority. I have always been a Zionist, and cannot escape its narrative and personal connections to the re-creation of Jewish life out of the ashes of the Holocaust. I have spent more than three separate years living in Israel, contemplated Aliyah, given birth there with my wife to our firstborn and encouraged each of our children to experience multiple programs in Israel so that they can become enchanted enough with the Zionist dream to develop a mature relationship with the responsibilities of power and sovereignty. I fear for Israel’s future, the consequences of a nuclear Iran run by an apocalyptic madman, the effects of the growing radicalisation of Israel’s enemies. I despise the orchestrated campaign that has turned the Jewish state into a pariah, thereby recasting elements of the nineteenth century Jewish Question into a contemporary Israel Question.

Yet it also follows from my principles that I don’t like the kind of Zionism that is narcissistic, that refuses to see the multiple narratives and complexity of the conflict, that does not accept responsibility for the consequences of Jewish statehood on its victims, that makes excuses for the occupation and minimises its devastating effects, that worships land over people, that generates a cult of the state and of the military, that treats humans as demographic ammunition, that believes peace is impossible simply because we say it is, that thinks that a Palestinian state is a generous concession rather than a moral obligation, that positions Jews as eternal victims of antisemitism while fuelling Islamophobia, that expects a partnership with the Diaspora but infantilises its supporters, that thinks a patriot can’t see through a lie, that measures loyalty by conformity and confuses love with complicity, that does not fight against the conditions that breed war and violence and then tells us we had no choice, that resorts to military daring in place of political daring, that has replaced the credo of Never Again with the pessimism of Never.

I believe, finally, that we must align our beliefs with our deeds as best we can; that is why I have dedicated my life to Jewish education; why I love the challenge of challenging a student, or travelling with them to landscapes of conflict and memory; why I have founded an Orthodox, feminist synagogue, a journal of critical Jewish thought, and a Jewish organisation dedicated to universalist social action; it is why I have consistently refuted in my writings those who demonise Zionism and treat Israel as a pariah amongst the nations, and why I will continue to speak out against the brutality of the forty year occupation and the moral imperative of ending it now; and why I believe that in the name of living up to our inner truths we must be prepared to surrender, if necessary, our scalp for the sake of preserving our mind and what it drives us to think, say, and do.

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

Judging by the number of comments on the stories about soft matzah, particularly those questioning the flour used for matzos that had been manufactured locally in the past under Kosher Australia, you’d think Kosher Australia (KA) would have been flooded with inquiries from consumers (briefly, one of the many objections to the locally produced soft matzah was that all flour in Australia is washed, and that renders it chametz. If that’s the case, how was matzah made here?) After all, people who were so concerned about the (Pesach) kashrut of the matzah they had been eating for years would surely be interested in getting the facts from the ultimate source – the certifying agency itself.

I thought I would add my voice to all of those consumers, and sent an e-mail to the General Manager of KA (I happen to know him personally and have his direct e-mail address, although this information is clearly listed on their site). He responded and explained that the flour used came either from local batches especially supervised for Pesach, or from Israel under the supervision of the OU. In the last few years, the flour was sourced exclusively from Israel, after which production was entirely shifted to Israel. The reasons for the changes in all cases were price and quality.

The information was provided to me with a caveat – it is “commercial in confidence” – and at the request of KA, I have removed some of the commercially sensitive details before publishing.

There are two lessons to be learnt here:

Firstly, it is a challenge for any kashrut agency to balance the confidential nature of information it needs to have in order to do its job with the need to be transparent to consumers. However, I asked a straight question and received a straight answer, and am reasonably satisfied with the result of my “investigation”. I expect no less from any kashrut agency.

Secondly and more importantly, I was the only person who inquired about the flour used. This truly staggered me. While I’ve never actually eaten the stuff on Pesach (I only eat hand baked shmurah matzah), I would have thought that people who cared about kashrut would have taken the five minutes to send an e-mail and find out for themselves. There were several hundred comments on the handful of articles about the whole topic on this site, many of which raised the counter example of the flour used. Are readers more interested in gossip about the politics of kashrut authorities than the kashrut itself?

David Werdiger notes that KA have not edited this information.

A Maoist demonstration in Nepal

By Keren Tuch

Whilst I detest listening to our leaders belittling one another in an act of political sabotage, the optimist in me is grateful that I live in a democracy with freedom of speech.  Whilst I may not be happy with the choice of leaders I have to choose from to rule our country, the optimist in me is thankful that I know chaos and anarchy will not rule the streets.

After spending time in Nepal volunteering and learning with Tevel B’Tzedek, I began to appreciate what it is like to live in a place of political instability.  Streets and livelihoods are paralysed by unpredictable daily strikes (check this link out to find out how many strikes there were this week http://www.nepalbandh.com/).  Foreign aid is poured into the country yet the citizens don’t appear to see a rupee.  The roads remain harrowing and potholed for those villages lucky enough to use one and maternal health remains imperiously dangerous for rural dwellers.

For hundreds of years, Nepal was governed by a constitutional monarchy until May 2008 when it became a democratic republic with the Maoist party elected as rulers. Nepal’s democracy is in its infancy with an abundance of problems. For example two prime ministers resigning in two years (although one might argue that it’s better than a prime minister being overthrown!).  Nepal’s role of prime minister has been vacant since June 30 2010 and Nepal is currently arguing over a suitable candidate.

With the establishment of the republic, it was agreed that the Nepali congress would rewrite the constitution within two year.  Two years has now passed, and there is no new constitution due to internal squabbling and selfishness of parties. The political situation in Nepal is descending into political absurdness and is crippling its people from moving forward.

After returning from a six month trip in Nepal, I can’t quieten the small internal voice which espouses that our lifestyle is indulgent and materialistic.   No longer do l I look in the pantry and think there is nothing to eat.  No longer will I look in my wardrobe and think I have nothing to wear.

I also try and put politics in perspective. Health and education are very real and important matters.  But I also know that whoever gets into power, all students in Australia will have access to a school which has books and trained teachers which students can attend instead of reaping crops in their family plot.   I also know that an Australian woman will have access to antenatal care and make the appropriate choice to deliver her baby by natural method or caesarean section.  Of course we should always strive to be better and continuously improve the well being of its citizens (and asylum seekers), but sometimes it is refreshing and important to look at a global picture.  Or maybe that’s just the optimist in me.

Jewish Aid and AUJS are now offering an opportunity for people to experience life in Nepal, give of themselves and gain perspective in return.  I was fortunate enough to lead the program last year and will be doing so again this year because I saw the power this program has to strengthen one’s humanistic values and Jewish identity for life. The program is five weeks long and involves living with a Nepalese family in a remote village and helping out in the community.

Volunteer Nepal will run from 20 Dec 2010 – 23 Jan 2011.  Applications close end of August. Please contact Gary (gary AT jewishaid.org.au) or Leora (ip AT aujs.com.au) for more details.

When I saw the full page advert in the Australian Jewish News (August 13 2010) that shouts “Why are Tony Abbott and the Liberals backing the Greens Party?” I thought, Wow, Todd Sampson from the The Gruen Nation would have a field day.  Never has an advert had a more confused and illogical message.

Presumably this scare-mongering advert was paid for by the Australian Labor Party (ALP), although all it says is that it was authorised by B.Cohen (who we must assume is former Hawke government minister, Barry Cohen).

The first things I notice is that they’ve got Tony Abbott’s photo shaded in green.  What are they trying to tell us? Don’t vote for Abbot, he’s too green? This is the man with no apparent environmental policy whatsoever.

Then the advert slams the Liberal Party for not putting the Greens last, but instead preferencing the Greens ahead of the Labor party. This despite the fact that it is the ALP (and not the Liberals) that has a preference deal with the Greens (and the advert even admits this!)  The advert then tries to justify the ALP’s deal with the Greens by saying it is ok to do a deal with senate preferences, but not in the lower house.

The reality is that whereas people can easily ignore the how-to-vote card and select their own preferences in the lower house, it is in the senate where most people vote above the line and thus defer their preferences entirely to the selections of their first chosen party.  Thus, if one were to accept the advert’s scare-mongering that the Greens are terribly anti-Israel, a preference deal in the senate is in fact far worse than giving deferential treatment on a lower house how-to-vote card.

Making the advert even more bizarre and absurdly hypocritical is that on many ALP candidates’ how-to-vote card, they’ve put the Greens second.  This includes the how-to-vote card of Michael Danby, arguably the ALP’s most staunch supporter of Israel.  I guess that’s all ok though, since Danby, while unlikely to lose his seat at all, is far less likely to lose his seat to the Greens than to the Liberals.

Finally,  not only is the message of the advert confused, illogical, and hypocritical,  but it is poorly targeted.  The ultimate aim of the advert is to convince Liberal Party-voting Jews who live in seats that the ALP could lose to the Greens (Melbourne, Sydney, and Grayndler) to put the Greens last. The problem is that there aren’t that many Jews who live in these seats.  And of the Jews who do live in these areas, not many would read the Australian Jewish News, nor be Liberal voters.

So insulting did I find this advert to my intelligence, that I dropped Labor down a few more notches on my below-the-line senate ballot.  But let’s hear what you think about this advert.

Anthony Frosh is not affiliated with any political party.  This election, he put the Carers Alliance first on his senate ballot.

By Gregory Storer and John August

Australia is the place to be.  We are a country of diversity, people from all over the world with a range of personal belief systems, moral codes and all are welcome.

We are a dynamic and thriving democracy.  It’s not perfect and it’s important that we all work together to ensure that all Australians are treated in an equal and fair way.  It’s important and incumbent upon us to check that nobody gets left behind.

When we look at the breakdown of population across Australia we find that just 0.4% reports themselves as Jewish, increasing by 5.2% from 1996 to 2001.  Looking at the Christian tradition the Pentecostal church has increased it’s membership by 11.4% in the same period, to be just 1% of the population.

We have a wide range of beliefs and trying to make sure that no one denomination has an undue influence in government is paramount to our on-going freedom in Australia.

Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd talking to an exclusively Christian audience as part of the Australian Christian Lobby’s Make It Count campaign, should be a concern for all of those not of a christian faith.  It shows a willingness of our leaders to pander to the whim of the religious right at the expense of others.  The notion that they would even consider talking to group of people, who in themselves only represent a small section of our Australian community shows how much the Christian movement in Australia can act as a political force.  And yet even they can’t agree with each other!

Prime Minister Gillard is a declared Atheist, but she is pragmatic enough to see that she needs to keep it relatively quiet; she doesn’t want to upset the Church folk.  When she spoke with Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby she clearly showed how important she sees the Christian lobby.

The Government funds a chaplaincy program worth over $222 million.  Gillard has announced further funding to allow extra chaplains to be employed.  This is a program that has been hijacked by Christian churches in a very inappropriate manner, so much so that the Australian Psychological Society has directly criticised it saying that untrained chaplains are dealing with complex issues that they have no training for.  If your child needs help at (a state) school, ask yourself, would you prefer a qualified counsellor or an Evangelical pastor to help?

When we look at education, we know that the Government does fund private and religious schools, but that funding is skewed towards church-based schools, so much so that the wealthiest schools get the most funding.  It would be much fairer to have a system of tax rebates, where if you choose to use a private school, you’ll get a rebate based on how much it costs to educate a child.  This ensures equity across the education system where all children are funded to the same amount, regardless of the type of school they attend.

In the Jewish News (Friday August 6th; p9) Michael Danby has a full page advertisement telling us how much the Labor Government has spent on helping protect Jewish schools.  This is money well spent in our current system. However, if we could truly separate religion and state, if we could really allow people to live as they like without fear, then the need for CCTV, fencing and guards would disappear.  That would be better for all Australians.  Much needed funding could then be diverted to helping protect everyone, instead of trying to put up barriers to keep us apart.

The only way to make sure we govern for all Australians is to ensure that our laws are based on equality for all, without the influence of religions of any sort.

The Secular Party firmly commits itself to freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  We understand that religion is here to stay, and believe that the separation of religion and state is fundamental to maintaining true democracy.  In achieving this, it will ensure the ongoing and improved welfare of all members of Jewish communities Australia-wide.

Gregory Storer and John August are the Secular Party candidates for Melbourne Ports and Wentworth respectively.

This article is part of a series Galus Australis is running for the 2010 Australian federal election whereby we publish articles by supporters of  various political parties.  Please contact us if you are interested in contributing.

In July, Coteret, an Israeli news site, reported that Australian young people were taken on a tour of central Hebron by Birthright/Talglit, a program that has brought hundreds of thousands of young Jews to Israel.  The video featured interviews with some of the participants and an Orthodox, American organiser.   The tour was run by Chabad, who have a long history in Hebron, in conjunction with Israel Express and the Zionist Federation of Australia.

The video, which is still available on Coteret even though it was removed from it’s original source at WeJew.com, probably when it twigged that the visit was controversial, is particularly scary because of the naïveté of the young people – who think they are in Israel. The interviewer and organiser share a pumped up view of eternal rights in Hebron, despite the reality of extraordinary injustice to others to achieve this. I’d love my son to go on ‘Birthright’, but not on such propaganda tours that dehumanize Palestinians.

That ‘downtown’ Hebron, around the Tomb and Mosque of the Patriarchs or the old Casbah is a flashpoint, is an understatement.  Of course, Hebron has a sorry history in modern times, going back to the massacres of 1929, but this is no excuse for current behaviour by ‘settlers’. The Goldstein massacre in 1994 only intensified the tensions between the communities. The Israeli army has to maintain a very large presence to secure the safe passage and complete dominance of a few hundred settlers who make life hell for the Palestinian residents and have no compunction in taking over homes.  Economically, the locals have suffered enormously. Acts of vandalism and violence by settlers including their children are well-documented. Checkpoint abuses are frequent and monitored by organizations such as Mahsom Watch.

The tour was conducted in clear breach of  ‘Birthright’ policy.  Their website has the following stipulation: ” Our tours do not travel to or through areas of the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem, other than the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (changes are possible when permitted by the security authorities).”   It’s pretty scary that these tours are being hijacked for pumping kids full of the most extreme form of  ‘birthright’ Zionism. Alignment with current Israeli politics of repression or an absolutist view of religious history are not a very good example of respect for the rights of other people.

It also appears that Birthright kids have done other exciting things like visit an outpost overlooking Gaza and use it as a ‘photo opportunity’.  How nice. Nothing like an Arab refugee encampment in the background. Of course, technically, such visits are within Israel, but it gives the impression that Birthright is about short-term brainwashing of young people with the hope that they become strong converts and unquestioning supporters of Israel.

Palestinians are real people whose rights are trampled on, and an example that has hit the headlines has been the   destruction of a  ‘unrecognized’  shantytown of  very poor Bedouin in the northern Negev.  High school volunteers took part in this destruction.   A hard line is being undertaken towards such settlements to make way for JNF forests and later on, Israeli housing  ( some call this ‘greenwashing’ of Palestinian presence). One Israeli critics calls such actions ethnic cleansing and forced urbanization .  I find that kind of language painful to use, but it appears accurate.

It needs to be remembered that the Australian JNF has a special association with the Negev as well, and supports community development for the Bedouin, though the effects of such community development are disputed.  Whatever the case, we are vicariously linked with what goes on.  Of course, I am not associating Taglit-Birthright or the Australian JNF with such extremism, but they are all part of a disturbing pattern that can be no longer ignored as Israel embarks on an all-out campaign to ‘explain’ itself.  Such things can’t be easily explained away.  We should stand up for the underdog in Israel.

My opinion of the presence of young Australians in Hebron and others having photo ops over a community in a state of siege, or the presence of Israeli kids in the destruction of a village may make you very angry because I take the view such acts they are antithetical to human rights by Israel and in the Occupied Territories.

Of course, vehement anti-Zionists argue that these activities and attitudes are inherent in  Zionism.  I actually think that Zionism is far more heterogeneous but it is undeniable that something is fundamentally wrong in the examples I have cited.

Where do we go from here?  If the solution is ultimately to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinian people, then what should Birthright be doing to promote peace making and the fulfilment of a peaceful and democratic dream for all communities?  There are many other organizations in Israel (and even on the West Bank) which could both provide impressionable young people with exposure to identity the meaning of  human rights and democracy for both communities.

The dual identity of being both Australian and Jewish can present a conflict of loyalties when it comes to elections. Do I vote as an Aussie first, or as a Jew? Is there a conflict? Can I be selfish and vote for the party offering me personally the best deal? These are questions of philosophy, of identity and of personal values. But let’s face it; politics today in Australia is about people, not parties. On most issues there is little ostensible difference in the positions held by most Australians, and hence politicians as they desperately scramble towards the centre. Both the major parties and the Greens scramble to find competent and capable people willing to subject themselves to the merciless spotlight of political life, people whom the parties’ members feel can make a real difference.

In this, all sensible political parties are the same.  Whilst Labor has more convoluted and controversial selection processes, with affirmative action, factions and a central committee parachuting in some candidates, at heart federal elections, driven by passionate volunteers in each electorate, are a series of local contests played out to the tune of national media campaigns.

This is because governing a country is about more than campaign promises and pledged spending. All the spending promises by both sides combined amount to only a few percent of the total budget for the Federal Government. Elections are really about deciding who you want to have running the country when the unexpected happens. Just as no-one in politics predicted the global financial crisis, the Asian currency crisis, the Bali bombings or September 11, no political plan, like in war, survives first contact with the changing reality of the world we live in and the needs of our country.

This leads us to then to the core contrast between the two parties. The last term has seen a government that has simply, by any measure, done a bad job. Rudd and Gillard have borrowed an unprecedented amount of money to fund a series of programs. This is not of itself a problem. However, the poor cost-benefit return and the bungles seen in home insulation, green loans, the national broadband network, childcare, laptops for students, Fuel Watch (remember that one), Grocery Watch, school halls, healthcare, tax reform, foreign policy and every other major area of policy operation demonstrates that the people put forward by the ALP to run the country simply haven’t been competent to manage general affairs, much less ‘revolutionise’ the country. If Gillard and Rudd were CEOs, the shareholders would have long since shown them the door. As Australians in general, there is no value for us in rewarding incompetence, rather than installing managers of real capability. By contrast, the Coalition showed real ability to manage the country and grow the economy.

As Jews, however, we also have other interests. As we are diverse people, whose opinions are more innumerable than the stars, I won’t attempt to argue, as some have, that the values of any one party are a complete embrace of all that our community holds dear. However, amongst Australian Jews, there is at least a general consensus on support for Israel, the importance of quality education in accordance with our Jewish and/or religious values, childcare and, increasingly, how we look after our elderly, ‘Kibud Horim.’ On all of these issues, any sensible comparison shows Labor falling well behind. The expulsion of an Israeli diplomat served to legitimise the demonization of Israel for taking necessary actions in self-defence. Coming from the Australian government, this has been taken as a dramatic victory for the other side and has been embraced by such ‘leading lights’ as Antony Loewenstein. Coupled with the marring of the proud record of voting with Israel in the UN, Labor has shown a willingness to let Israel fall by the wayside in pursuit of other interests, allegedly a seat for Rudd on the Security Council.

On education and childcare, Labor has shown that it is not just a question of poor service delivery, but values. Gillard showed herself to be an incompetent education minister, who has only grudgingly agreed not to slash funding for private schools, at least for another two years. Even then, in real terms under Labor, private school students will face annual decreases in funding. On the question of childcare, Labor’s broken promise to build childcare centres has created critical shortages in places like Caulfield, Bondi, St Kilda and Rose Bay, particularly in infant care. The Liberal policy of both indexing childcare benefits and paying rebates weekly to families will make a real difference, especially to young families. On aged care and the elderly, the ‘Labor Rat’ has already shown us Gillard’s priorities.

We, as Australians and as Jews, can and should evaluate how good governments are based on their performance, not their promises. Government, at heart, must have policy that meets our needs and the capacity to deliver it effectively. The last three years, compared to the decade before that, highlight why, in terms of both capable people and compatible values, Jews and Australians should vote for the Liberal Party.

The opinions in this article are those only of the writer. The writer is not an official spokesman for the Liberal Party.

This article is part of a series Galus Australis is running for the 2010 Australian federal election whereby we publish articles by supporters of  various political parties.  Please contact us if you are interested in contributing.

The Jews Brothers Band will be performing at Shir Madness

By Janis Seftel

“It was great. Really good vibe. But it didn’t really feel like anyone my age was there. I told my friends about it, but I guess people had things on.”

If you’re young, artsy and a member of the tribe, you might say something along these lines after going to a worthwhile but basically under-attended event. With so many students doing tertiary study related to their talents and passions, why, upon graduation, do they find little scope for the championing of their work in the community? London, New York, Toronto and San Francisco – these are the hubs we always hear about, where promotion is central to the scene. But in Sydney, your friends are your publicists, and only a few lucky ones leap straight from an article or a recording on their own blog, to international renown. Musicians, artists, writers and filmmakers must work incredibly hard to achieve recognition, often without the launching pad of internal support. We’ve all heard of the Ben Lees and Steve Toltzes in our midst, but it’s not many who become a household name.

If you’re interested in the arts programming of the Australian Jewish community – where it’s actually headed and how you might be able to contribute – you are likely to be genuinely excited by the enthusiasm our community is sharing for its upcoming ventures. The surge of support for Shir Madness, the first Sydney Jewish Music Festival on the 15^th of August, is testament to a growing focus on maximising local talent. However, on reviewing the line-up, many cluey, connected young adults were mystified that they didn’t know more of the acts and the talent behind them. So I wonder, why don’t we know about so many aspiring artists in our community? Just how important is a young, vibrant Jewish arts scene to you?

If you’re already a Shir Madness groupie, check out the third Sydney Jewish Writers’ Festival just ten days later, running from 25-29^th August, 2010. As any seasoned festival-goer knows, one of the best parts is the momentum you feel in the lead-up to festival events. So, the time is now to engage in what this year’s Writers’ Festival has to offer. We’re talking songwriters, click here; screenwriters, read here; and a guy who everyone thought was too young to be a magazine editor, here. The 2010 Festival has broadened its focus to include screenwriters, magazine editors, digital publishers and bloggers, but will also be widening its guest list with the Young Emerging Writers project. This new initiative has three bases covered; first, highlighting a ‘top 10’ of sessions for the 18-35’s, a blessing for over-committed uni students and busy young professionals who can now take the guess work out of a packed program.

The musical magic continues after Shir Madness; keep your hand in the scene at the Writers’ Festival After Dark on Thursday 26 August where Old Man River and Adrian Deutsch will play some tunes and talk about their work. This is an amazing chance to get to know the exceptional talent existing on our shores and how they got to where they are.

And for all of the emerging writers amongst us, in the media, publishing, the film industry and the freelance scene, Young Emerging Writers Night on Saturday 28 August presents Steve Toltz, Ben Naparstek and Cathy Randall in a different kind of setting to the rest of the festival. Young adults will have the opportunity to talk one-on-one with successful and inspiring guests, hear their impressions of the arts industry and what it was like to start at the beginning.

Young Emerging Writers is a first-time project – make sure you can say you were there.

The SJWF runs 25-29 August 2010 at Shalom College, UNSW. Book your $50 full festival pass at www.sjwf.org.au

Janis Seftel is a Program Assistant for the Sydney Jewish Writers’ Festival.