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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel:

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

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

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

Sustainable Economy:

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

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

Climate Change:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

Source: RaceForIran.com

By Leah Bloch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source: abc.net.au

By Mandi Katz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source: www.coolstuffinc.com

By John Zeleznikow

For those holocaust survivors who were interred in concentration camps in occupied Nazi Europe between 1939 and 1945, life in post-war Melbourne was blissfully pleasant.  They had successfully escaped to what they perceived as the end of their world. For countless years, they tried to forget their experiences.  Many rarely discussed their tragedies with their family.

But for a small number of survivors, life after the Holocaust was anti-climatic. Those partisans, who had heroically fought the Nazis, now had to integrate into post-war society. Their reasons for resistance were no longer relevant.  And whilst some Jews were involved in armed conflict, fighting for a Jewish homeland in British Mandate Palestine, this was not the case in Australia.

I would like to introduce you to the experiences of Avram Zeleznikow, a survivor of the Vilno (Vilnius) Ghetto who was a member of the Jewish partisan group of Abba Kovner. Before the war, in Vilno, he had been a Bund activist and Yiddish teacher.

In the ghetto he was faced with many ethical dilemmas, including whether to cooperate or resist with the authorities; how to treat the Kapos (Jewish Police); and whether to give up their commander, Yitzhak Wittenberg.

When he escaped to the forest of Rudniki, there were daily dilemmas on whether to treat local residents like innocent bystanders or Nazi collaborators. These issues resonate today, when we deliberate how to classify individuals as resistance fighters or terrorists, and what is appropriate action.

In post-holocaust Melbourne, Abram Zeleznikow was initially a labourer who eventually ran a renowned restaurant, Café Scheherazade, and became a communal activist.

Professor John Zeleznikow is in the School of Management and Information Systems at Victoria University where he specialises in decision support for enhancing negotiation.  His negotiation support software won its heat of the ABC New Inventors program. His latest book, Information Technology for Enhanced Dispute Resolution was published by Cambridge University Press on June 1 2010.

Professor Zeleznikow will be speaking on “Life at the end of the world was an anti-climax – memories of sixty years of life of a Jewish partisan in Melbourne” at Limmud Oz on Monday June 14 at 5pm.

When one thinks of a "flotilla" in Australia, this is more what comes to mind

By Keren Tuch

Oh the irony, that so many Israelis dream of nothing else but to live in utopic Australia, whilst others, myself included, consider living in a war torn country where peace is a seemingly deluded dream.  Australia is a beautiful, peaceful country of which I am certainly privileged to be a citizen and will be proudly supporting the Socceroos in a couple of week’s time.

Yet I find this place so idyllic it can often be…well, boring.  To put it simply, one can live the dream here – beach, education, job, beach, money, security, beach.  But what often prompts me to look abroad is when my mind turns numb from reading front page newspaper articles about the misconduct of football players.  Or when the conversation at the work lunch table turns to discussing an article from a woman’s magazine on 39 ways to lose calories from an Easter egg.  Or when talk show hosts have nothing better to do but lambast the provision of new cycle ways in Sydney. Or when engaging in a discussion on refugees and asylum seekers, everyone has an opinion, yet most educated people have not had any contact with a single person from the “hordes” that are flooding our shores.   Sometimes life seems to be a succession of chai lattes – fun and enjoyable yet devoid of any substance.

But this week it would appear that Australians care about more than just Celine Dion falling pregnant at age 42. It appeared that we do care about the humanitarian plight of individuals in the Middle East.

As the drama of the flotilla unfolded, I was hooked to the cyber world, reading article after article, commentaries, opinion pieces and live video footage until it made me sick.  Sick from the hysteria and the hostile reactions it invoked worldwide.  Sick from the strategic blunder the Israeli military made.  Sick from ignorant citizens unwilling to hear how Israel could possibly have a legitimate excuse to use their firearms in self-defence.  In the cyber world, there was no escaping this mess.

At lunch at my work place, I was expecting a remark of some sort about the flotilla that has dominated the news this week.  Perhaps even a discussion where I was patiently waiting for an opportunity to hear what my colleagues had to say.  I had the link to the video footage on hand ready to disseminate if there was a hint of curiosity.   But that conversation never came to fruition.  Neither did it initiate with my non-Jewish housemate who knows my long-standing connection to Israel.  In fact, when an educated colleague saw me reading an article about the flotilla, I thought it was a good time for an open dialogue.  I received a blank stare followed by a shameful shake of the head when I asked ‘you know about the whole debacle that has erupted in the Middle East….’  Apparently not.  I had made the assumption that because it consumed much of my thoughts, everyone else cared.

It occurred to me that perhaps a lot of people at my work hadn’t heard about it.  It is quite plausible that they react no differently to the flotilla than they do to the weekly deaths of Pakistanis and Iraqis by suicide bombers, or the death of protestors in Thailand.  For every person who vehemently commented online, I wonder how many people just couldn’t give a damn, or don’t even know?

To my astonishment, this sobering thought calmed my fraught nerves from the heavy news of the week.  Although I was prepared to discuss the flotilla at work, it’s times like this that I’m truly appreciative of the light-hearted lunch conversations and the self-indulgent attitude of the average Australian to distract me from the brutal reality that exists beyond our borders.

It's ok as a board game but not a way to determine kashrut.

By Rachel Sacks-Davis

In a move that can only be interpreted as anti-competitive, Kosher Australia and associates have applied to the government for exclusive rights to decide who can label a product, ‘kosher’. As reported in the AJN this week, the application was made in the context of an Australian Government Food Labelling Review. If the proposal is accepted, restaurants, food products and caterers whose hechsher is not approved by the new federal kashrut body, will not be able to call their product kosher under Australian law.

It is not clear how this would affect imported kosher products, although presumably the hypothetical kashrut body could take fees for allowing a foreign kashrut authority to claim kosher status on our shores. It is clear, however, that the move would make it very difficult for any competitor within Australia.

At a time in which Kosher v’Yosher, the main Orthodox competitor to Kosher Australia in Victoria, is growing, and a new competitor to the New South Wales kashrut authority has also emerged, it seems as though the major kashrut associations are trying to co-opt the Australian government in order to stifle competition.

Certainly, there does not seem to be any consumer driven motivation for limiting the use of the word ‘kosher’ under Australian law. Unlike in the US, there is no trend toward using the ‘kosher’ label without a hechsher. This means that food that is labelled kosher in Australia is under some sort of kosher supervision. It also means that the consumer can see who the supervisor is by examining the hechsher.

The proposal is also not driven by halachic concerns. There is no precedent in Jewish law that favours secular legal entities taking responsibility for kosher labelling. To the contrary, allowing secular courts this type of jurisdiction is non-traditional and can only limit Jewish religious freedom in this country.  Perhaps next a congregation will require the approval of a federal government body to call themselves a synagogue (I hope I’m not giving anyone ideas here!)

Notably, the government’s Food Labelling Review is being undertaking in order to improve transparency around food safety and nutrition. Given that kashrut is related to neither food safety nor nutrition, it seems unlikely that the proposal will be successful. Nonetheless, given that it is also unlikely the review committee has expertise in either Jewish law or Jewish communal politics, this proposal should be of concern to Australian kosher consumers.

Rabbi Yaron Gottlieb has published a letter that he wrote to his local MP protesting the proposal, and I would encourage others to make their views known. Unfortunately, Kosher Australia and associates have only publicised their plan after the final date for submitting a formal submission to the review. I am not sure whether or not this was intentional, but it does make it difficult for other Jewish groups to make their views known.

Finally, it is disappointing that the largely secular AJN (20/5) supports the proposal. Do the AJN really have any insight into the interests of the kosher consumer? Perhaps this is simply a case of one establishment organisation supporting another, but one does wonder whether AJN staff actually wrote their own editorial or whether it was simply a cut and paste job from a kashrut authority’s press release.

Peter Wertheim’s reply to this article is here, and for those who are interested, there is a petition against the proposal here.

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

By David Werdiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source: israel.foreignpolicyblogs.com

The following article by Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel was written as a reponse to Gerald Steinberg’s op-ed on the New Israel Fund in the AJN. The AJN declined to publish it; it was first published by the AJDS, and we re-publish with their permission.We leave you to judge why the AJN published Steinberg’s original essay but not Indyk’s reply.

The Truth About the New Israel Fund
When I served as U.S. Ambassador in Israel in the 1990s, and as an American Jew committed to Israel’s survival and well-being, I became deeply concerned about the failure to adequately address the problems of inequality in Israel. I could see that Israeli governments were so preoccupied with war and peace decisions that they had little time to attend to the needs of Israel’s Arab and Bedouin minorities. Although growing into a robust Jewish state, Israel was falling short of Ben-Gurion’s standard that Israel should also be a state for all its citizens with equal rights for all, as called for in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. I feared the effect on the basic health of Israel’s democracy.

That’s why, when I left my post there and re-entered private life, I joined the board of the New Israel Fund (NIF). I had witnessed first-hand how NIF worked effectively to strengthen Israel’s civil society by training and funding those who lacked the ability to advocate on their own behalf. From the first laws to defend children’s rights to equity in land sales, from Israel’s first rape crisis centers to its first comprehensive law protecting the disabled, from the passage of Clean Air laws to Freedom of Information laws, NIF plays a unique role as the driving force behind positive social change in Israel and the defense of the human rights for all its citizens. And it does so not just for Israeli Arabs but for every disadvantaged sector of Israeli society, from orthodox women trapped by the Agunah, to Ethiopian immigrants struggling against discrimination, to Bedouin villages seeking government funding for basic infrastructure.

When Israel’s supporters rightly declare that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, NIF’s achievements are proudly cited as proof of that claim.

That is why I am so troubled by the attacks in Australia against NIF and the decision by the UPJ and the Zionist Council of Victoria to disinvite NIF’s president, Naomi Chazan from speaking to them. The apparent consequence is that the only voice in this “rip your arm off” discourse about NIF that Australian Jews now hear is that of NIF’s right-wing critics. How ironic that the organization that champions freedom of speech in Israel is denied the ability to defend itself through free speech in the Australian Jewish community!

Instead, Australian Jews are treated to the paranoid analysis of Gerald Steinberg and other self-appointed guardians of Israel’s virtue. I knew and respected Gerald when he was an academic for his work on arms control issues. Pity that he didn’t stick to that profession – he would have made a much greater contribution to understanding the real threat to Israel from Iran, rather than diverting attention of Australian Jews to the imaginary threat from civil and human rights organizations in Israel.

As a board member, I know that NIF maintains a thorough process for grant-making including clear criteria, ongoing evaluation and review. NIF demands accountability from its grantees and upholds complete transparency in its sources and uses of funds. That’s why NIF welcomes the proposed Knesset investigation into foreign sources of funding for Israeli NGOs, as long as all groups are investigated, across the spectrum, including for example, Mr. Steinberg’s NGO Monitor, and Im Tirzu, the shadowy right-wing front organization that has launched a vicious campaign against NIF and Naomi Chazan.

NIF does not support or fund divestment, boycott or sanction activities against the State of Israel. NIF opposes extremism, intolerance and ultra-nationalism in all its manifestations, both within Israel and among the nations and organizations that relate to Israel. NIF proudly supports Israel’s internationally- respected human rights groups which uphold the very best of Jewish and democratic traditions.

That does not mean NIF agrees with everything these groups do or say. Inevitably, some of them, especially in the Arab sector, will take positions that, as an individual, I strongly oppose, since they cannot be expected to buy into every aspect of the Zionist narrative. But I will at the same time strongly defend their right to speak out as long as it is in responsible ways.

NIF-funded human rights groups carefully monitored Operation Cast Lead. The IDF itself used their reports in evaluating its own conduct and has sought active collaboration from NIF grantees such as B’tselem in helping to formulate the response that was recently submitted to the UN Secretary General. The assertion that “without NIF there would be no Goldstone Report,” is based on bogus statistics. In fact, Goldstone based only 14% of his report – not 92% as claimed – on reports of Israeli human rights organization. Another 19% was based on other Israeli sources including statements made by Israel’s own military and political leaders.

These human rights groups were the first to call for an independent Israeli investigation, something which many now advocate in Israel, including the outgoing Attorney General Meni Mazuz, and Deputy Prime Minister and former Justice Minister, Dan Meridor. Such investigations have taken place after every major Israeli military operation. Far from weakening Israel by supplying ammunition to its critics, these investigations demonstrate the health of Israel’s democratic institutions, particularly in their ability to undertake and learn from self- criticism.

The New Israel Fund has vital work to do, promoting a more just, socially cohesive, and democratic Jewish state. I hope that Australian Jews, who have a proud tradition of open- mindedness and generous support of human and civil rights will see, as I do, that this work strengthens Israel much more than it strengthens Israel’s critics.

For those that have been trekking in the Himalayas, here’s a quick and sloppy account of the events so far:

1. Chazan was set to come to Australia as a guest of the Union for Progressive Judaism (UPJ), and also to launch the UIA Progressive Trust Appeal.
2. Meanwhile, back in Medinat Yisrael, Im Tirtzu, an Israeli student group, spearheaded a campaign against Chazan and the New Israel Fund (NIF), of which Chazan is the chairperson.
3. As result of this campaign, Chazan’s trip to Australia was cancelled.

The Australian controversy essentially boils down to the following:  The UPJ has claimed that Chazan herself cancelled the trip in order to attend to the Israeli controversy surrounding the NIF; alternatively, the UPJ has also claimed that it was mutual decision, based on not letting the criticism of Chazan in Israel detract from the planned fundraising effort.

However, Chazan has given a very different impression of how things went down, suggesting that the decision to cancel her visit was made entirely by the UPJ.

The Zionist Council of Victoria had also planned to co-sponsor a public lecture involving Chazan, but then withdrew that sponsorship.  They have been more forthright in explaining their reasoning, stating that they withdrew their co-sponsorship of Chazan’s lecture because they consider the activities of the NIF inimical to their interests.

There sure is a lot of ‘he said, she said’ about this whole affair, which is why we are delighted to be able to offer our Melbourne readers a chance to find out for themselves what the NIF is all about, and also hear from the NIF about the recent controversy.  Even though Chazan’s visit has been cancelled, Daniel Sokatch, the CEO of the NIF is currently in Australia for family reasons.  While in Melbourne, Sokatch will give a talk at the Herzl club, and we have been informed that there will be ample time for supporters and detractors alike to ask tough questions.

The event is being hosted by Shira Melbourne, who are at pains to point out that they do not endorse any political platform and are hosting the event in the interests of promoting critical discussion.

When: Wednesday 24 February, 8 pm
Where: Shira Melbourne (at the Theodore Herzl Club), 222 Balaclava Rd, Caulfield
Entry: $5

The flyer can be viewed here.