David Landau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details

Sydney

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

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

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

Melbourne

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

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

Registration details – see nif.org.au

The Treasury at Petra, one of Jordan's most popular tourist sites, perhaps in part due to these three gentlemen

By David Werdiger
Q. Why do the Irish have the potatoes and the Arabs have the oil?
A. Because the Irish had first choice.

Natural resources are both a blessing and a curse. While they can be a source of wealth and prosperity for a country, they are something that is obtained with relatively little effort. As such, they can invariably lead to laziness and complacency. Just have a look at rates of literacy and innovation in so-called “rich” Arab nations – they are among the worst in the world. While there are many reasons for this, their economic dependence on oil was certainly a contributing factor.

In Australia, we are running a two-speed economy in the current mining boom. Demand from China and India for the stuff we have in the ground is one of the reasons our economy has stayed out of the deep recession affecting other countries. But what of the non-mining industry? Retail is weak, business confidence and investment is down, and people don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel.

I was thinking about all of this as I pondered this week’s Torah portion, Lech Lecha, in which God promises the land of Israel to Abraham. There are two angles to this:

Israel is variously described in the Torah as a land flowing with milk and honey; a land of brooks, waters, and fountains; a land whose stones are iron and from whose mountains you will hew brass; and so on. This doesn’t seem to correlate with the Israel we know today. Agriculture has not come easy, water is scarce, and there is little in the way of natural resources. So what’s the big blessing? I’m not about to launch into an exposition and explanation of how we might understand these attributes and what they mean (because I don’t know). However, I think the lack of natural resources in Israel is itself a form of blessing, because it has led modern Israel to be one of the leading knowledge economies in the world. Israeli companies are world leaders in technology and innovation. Israel’s economic success has been built not on the stuff in the ground, but on its people, and that is a resource that won’t run dry in 2050 like an oil well might.

The other thing that came to me today was about another natural resource found in abundance in the Middle East, but one whose economic potential has not yet been fully realised. What is the world’s biggest industry? Tourism. Imagine the huge untapped market for biblical tourism that could be unlocked if countries like Iraq were more open to the western world. Christians and Jews would flock to visit ancient cities and to follow the historical trail of the Patriarchs.

Historical sites are a far better natural resource than oil. They don’t deplete, and a strong tourism industry leads to cultural exchange and tolerance for others. And a bit of tolerance for others wouldn’t go astray in the Arab world.

Yes, I know it’s a bit of a pipe dream for a group of Jews to celebrate the weekly Torah portion of Lech Lecha by visiting Ur (the birthplace of Abraham), but as they say, “if you will it, it is no dream!”

This article was originally published here at David Knows.

West Dunbartonshire Coat of Arms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boycotting Max Brenner may not only be offensive to the Jewish community, it may also be offensive to the bald community. Image: passionatefoodie.blogspot.com

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) today issued the following statement concerning the debate about the campaign for Boycotts Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel and the targeting of the Max Brenner chain in Australia.  We feel this would be of particular interest to our readers:

Criticism of the BDS Campaign

There has been widespread criticism of the recent BDS protests against Max Brenner outlets in Sydney and Melbourne. The criticism has come not only from Labor and Coalition members of parliament, Federal and State, but also from some of their Greens colleagues. The ECAJ thanks all of them for their efforts in opposing and speaking out against the Australian arm of the global BDS campaign against Israel.

The Max Brenner chain is a legitimate, privately owned business that operates in accordance with Australian law. It provides employment to approximately 750 Australian workers and pays taxes that contribute to the public revenue. Its alleged ‘crime’ is to be connected in some way to a company that supplies chocolate and other food products to the Israeli army.

Recently, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was asked by the Victorian government, with the near unanimous support of the Australian Senate (excluding the Greens), whether the BDS campaign against Max Brenner outlets constitutes a secondary boycott in contravention of section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC concluded that thus far there has been no contravention because the BDS campaign is unlikely to have had the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Max Brenner, as would be required to constitute a breach of section 45D.

Whilst in some respects that conclusion is disappointing, it highlights how ineffectual and unsuccessful the BDS campaign has been in persuading the Australian public not to patronise Max Brenner shops. Indeed, the BDS campaign has, if anything, succeeded in alienating broader public opinion in Australia and engendering sympathy and support for the target businesses.

Racist rhetoric employed in the BDS campaign

The ECAJ is, however, concerned about some of the rhetoric that has been deployed by both sides of the public debate concerning BDS. On occasions, some of those supporting BDS have lapsed into both overt and implicit antisemitism, and some of those opposing BDS have inappropriately likened Greens leaders to “Nazis”. Neither infraction excuses the other. We note that no members of parliament, Federal or State, on either side of the debate, have engaged in these extreme forms of rhetoric.

All expressions of antisemitism are repugnant not only to the Jewish community but also to the vast majority of Australians. An ancient and pernicious form of antisemitism is known as the “blood libel”, a vicious and revolting smear to the effect that Jews as a group habitually shed and consume human blood. (In point of fact, this is the exact opposite of Jewish teaching, which holds human life to be sacrosanct, a belief that has been inherited by both Christianity and Islam). In the BDS campaign against Max Brenner, the ancient blood libel is revived in the protesters’ chants:

There’s blood in your hot chocolate.

You support genocide.

Max, Max murderer.

It is of course ludicrous to describe someone who merely sells chocolate products as a “murderer”. Yet in our view, it is no accident that the BDS protesters choose to make their points in these specific ways, which tap into an historical reservoir of anti-Jewish tropes. They could make their points in other ways. True moral leadership requires our political representatives to repudiate this sort of deeply racist rhetoric, regardless of where they stand on the BDS issue.

One aspect of the BDS campaign that is particularly troubling is that the boycotts are aimed at businesses with Jewish owners. Thus, Max Brenner is targeted, but Intel or Microsoft or any other similar company, which operates significantly in Israel and supplies the Israeli Defence Force, is not targeted. It is entirely legitimate to draw attention to this disparity and to question the motives of BDS leaders.
There is further antisemitism in the implied denial of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination. Another frequent anti-Israel chant is:

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

This implies that all of the land situated between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea is “Palestine”. Of course, part of that land consists of Israel. What is thereby advocated is the end of Israel as a sovereign State and its replacement by “Palestine”.

Distinguishing between political comment and inappropriate rhetoric

The ECAJ does not suggest that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.  Israel is a vibrant pluralist democracy and its citizens (Jews, Bedouin, Palestinians, and Druze) are often its most incisive critics.  But it is also false to suggest that no criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.   There is clearly an overlap, as the foregoing examples illustrate.
The existence of an overlap was also acknowledged in the Working Definition of Antisemitism developed by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which monitors racism and xenophobia in the 31 countries and candidate countries of the European Union, in collaboration with key NGOs and representatives of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

The EUMC, now called the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted the definition in 2005 and distributed it to all its national monitors. In September 2006, the definition was adopted by the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.  It is also employed by units of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), representing about states. The definition has been translated into 33 languages including Arabic and Turkish. In February 2009, it was adopted in the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism.  The working definition includes the following:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Inappropriate Holocaust Rhetoric

The way to combat these more contemporary and subtle forms of antisemitism is not, in our view, to fight fire with fire. Whilst hyperbole is to be expected in any free-flowing political discussion in Australia’s robust democracy, special care is needed to avoid comparing any Australian political leaders or members of parliament to “Nazis” or comparing any political party in Australia to the former Nazi regime in Germany. There is, thankfully, nothing in Australia’s history and experience that is even remotely comparable to the unique evil and horror of the Hitler period in Germany and Europe.

Yet the use of inappropriate analogies with Nazism has crept into political discourse in Australia with increasing frequency. This has the effect of trivialising Nazi totalitarianism, particularly in the thinking of younger people who have no personal point of entry into understanding the realities of life under the Nazi jackboot.
For this reason our organisation some years ago adopted an express policy against inappropriate Holocaust rhetoric (see ECAJ Platform). The ECAJ: recognised that the Holocaust, the Nazi program of genocide, was a unique historical event; noted that the Holocaust is generally recognised as the benchmark of the most extreme case of human evil; and deplored the inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazi Genocide in Australian public debate.

The ECAJ is concerned that some of the media discourse has resorted to rhetoric that has been less disciplined than it should be. In particular we seek to discourage the use of imprecise analogies with the Nazi regime. One must acknowledge that there are significant historical differences between rag-tag groups of BDS protesters outside Max Brenner outlets in Australia and a campaign backed by the Nazi state and enforced by state-sanctioned Nazi thugs who picketed shops owned by Jews in Germany in the 1930’s.  Yet Nazis commenced their campaign as purportedly private action before there was government sanction for it.

In another context which has nothing to do with the BDS issue cartoons were recently published in a syndicated newspaper depicting Greens leader Bob Brown as a book-burning Nazi, complete with swastika arm-band, Gestapo cap and SA (Sturmabteilung) uniform. Prime Minister Julia Gillard was similarly portrayed. Even allowing for the usual latitude accorded to political cartoonists, nothing can justify comment of this nature. Political leaders are fair game for all kinds of criticism, but this exceeds the bounds of fairness and diminishes the uniquely evil character of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust.

Some BDS supporters have also been guilty of making inappropriate comparisons with the Nazi era. It is not uncommon to see placards at their demonstrations which depict the Israeli flag with a swastika at its centre in place of the Star of David or contain other images which, as referred to in the Working Definition of Antisemitism, draw comparisons between Israel and the Nazis. Clearly, BDS leaders and supporters are in no moral position to accuse others of lacking rhetorical virtue.

Rejecting inappropriate comparisons between the BDS campaign and Nazi Germany does not require us to accept the claim that the BDS protesters are merely opposed to Israeli government policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians, but are not in any way animated by anti-Jewish prejudice.  The BDS protests do not have to rise to the level of seriousness of the Nazi era in order, on occasion, to qualify as antisemitic.

Further, the BDS campaign is calculated to orchestrate public hatred, an ugly and unworthy tactic regardless of the alleged target.  The fact is that an unusually high percentage of Australian Jews are survivors of the Holocaust.  Nobody should callously dismiss the reaction of Australian Jews to the sight of Jewish-owned shops once more being picketed by chanting, aggressive demonstrators many of whose faces are contorted in hate, as can be seen on YouTube and other recordings of BDS events.   Even though the parallels to Nazi Germany are an historical over-statement, those who have suggested that that reaction is contrived should be ashamed of themselves.  The reaction is entirely genuine and understandable.

Nevertheless, the ECAJ is asking all of our political representatives who count themselves as supporters of Israel and opponents of BDS, and the media, to refrain from the inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazis, and to provide moral leadership to others to exercise restraint in their rhetoric. This is the right thing to do even if it is a vain hope that supporters of BDS will exercise a reciprocal responsibility to eliminate express or implicit antisemitism from their rhetoric.

There were many thought provoking events on last week in honour of Refugee Week, including the confronting SBS series Go Back To Where You Came From, discussed here and here.

One event I attended was a forum put on by the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria and Multicultural Arts Victoria which was titled Labels & Liabilities: When is a refugee no longer a refugee?  This interesting question was addressed by  three people who came here as refugees themselves; Mr. Kot Monoah, Ms. Nyadol Nyuon and Ms. Mmaskepe Sejoe.  The refugees varied in age and backgrounds but were united on a few common issues.

The word refugee can have a positive meaning, although the only example the speakers referred to was the provision of services by the Australian government or other organisations.  Otherwise, the label was a liability.

A label like refugee, asylum seeker or Jew places people in boxes and in turn affects how both the individuals view themselves, and how the ‘others’ perceive them.   If a refugee kid is misbehaving, it is because he has post-traumatic stress disorder. If another kid is misbehaving, it’s because he’s naughty.

My high school years were full of debates  as to whether I was an Australian Jew or a Jewish Australian, assuming one label was more defining of my identity than another. In reality, both labels only tell part of a story of who I am.

Ms. Nyuon described how being labelled created a stagnant identity for her.  She recalled that when she was in high school she wanted to participate in the normal English class, but the principal thought he was doing her a favour by keeping her in English as a second language class, because she was a refugee.  It was hard for her to shake the label that she thought stifled her personal growth.

It also deflated Ms. Nyuon’s self esteem.  When she was accepted into law school in Australia, she assumed it was because they pitied her refugee plight, and not because she has the same intellectual capacity as her Australian peers doing law.

Labels can also prevent integration into the wider community.   Ms. Sejoe spoke of a yearning to belong to a community.  It pains her when someone asks her where she is from, owing to her dark skin colour.  She replies “Carlton”, where she has lived for more than 20 years and feels connected to the community there.  Unable to shake their curiosity, the typical follow up response is where are you really from?  Community is where you are, even if it is a community of parents of school children in year two.

So when does a refugee stop becoming a refugee?  It seems that it depends on to whom you ask the question to.  If you ask a refugee, perhaps being called a refugee is initially useful to help access services in order to familiarize oneself with the community.  However, there appears to be a turning point when it is useful to get rid of labels and stigmas in order to integrate and be accepted in the wiser community.

The Australian Jewish community is made up of a lot of ‘refugees’, and their descendants. It is incumbent upon us to accept the new refugees, acknowledge the positive contribution they make, and help them shed their label.

Keren Tuch is the Education Director of Jewish Aid Australia, which mobilises the Australian Jewish community in the pursuit of humanitarian relief and social justice for disadvantaged people in Australia and overseas, including Sudanese refugees in Melbourne and Sydney.

Arguably, the only type of burger completely cruelty free is the 'meatless' burger

By Andrew Harris

It was only a few days ago, but it feels like it was in another life, on another planet, that I was watching Go Back to Where You Came From on SBS, marvelling that such a morality tale about the rights of asylum seekers and the gift of multiculturalism could only have been made in such a forward thinking, rational country as Australia. And then I unwrapped this morning’s Sunday Age.

The front-page headline of ‘Outrage grows on ritual killing’; the editorial pull quote of ‘religious freedom has its limits’– taking aim at kosher and halal slaughter is nothing new in contemporary newsmedia, but replete with a cartoon that could well have been reproduced from a lovingly thumbed back issue of Der Stürmer, today’s Sunday Age has raised the bar to terrifying new heights.

In the poorly researched Peter Munro feature, or in the sanctimonious editorial, you would have noticed a familiar line of inquisition – the apparently casual mention of ‘genital mutilation’ (read: circumcision, as practiced by Jews and Muslims since the beginning of Judaism and Islam); and of schechita as ‘profit-driven’; we can assemble the familiar picture of a bloodthirsty, money-hungry Jew who consistently fails to abide by the laws and morality of the land. The undertones read not dissimilarly for Muslims.

The real issue remains that if the The Sunday Age must throw journalistic integrity to the wind in place of attempting to a buoy rapidly sinking paper at a rapidly destabilising publisher, at least it should be done with the pretence of factual argument, and some sense of context.

Not long ago, across the Tasman, the New Zealand government put a halt on schechita. The New Zealand Jewish community’s meat supply ran empty, and it was only after it was revealed that the New Zealand Agriculture Minister had a conflict of interest that the ban was overturned.

In addition, it was found that the basis of the ban, a government-funded Massey University study, was fundamentally flawed. This was demonstrated by none other than animal ethics expert and animal rights champion Colorado State University’s Dr Temple Grandin, who is an advocate of kosher slaughter when it is  performed to the standards she has specified. Her paper, titled ‘Discussion of research that shows that Kosher or Halal Slaughter without stunning causes pain’, can be found here.

Closer to home, Australian food law expert Joe Lederman says that the assumption that penetrative captive bolt stunning reduces the pain of the animal is a myth. “Often the bolt misses the mark,” he says. “That would be the case even more so with a sheep. The bolt misses the skull, might go in the eye, and can be done again and again.”

Lederman says that there’s always been kosher slaughter in Australia, and legally enshrined recognition of kosher slaughter as a special slaughter method in Victoria and New South Wales. “It has always been accepted,” he says. There was examination and improvement in the methodology in the 1950s under the supervision of Jewish lay leadership and rabbinical leadership. “There has been continuous improvement and refinement. And there have been specific improvements to ensure that the animal is held completely immobile.”

Meanwhile, The Age has entirely missed the economic implication of its argument. Sure, Jews and Muslims may have to do without a local meat supply, but what about the jobs that would be lost in the process of this denial of religious freedom?

Daniel Lewis, general manager of Continental Kosher Butchers, a paying member of the Australian Meat Industry Council, whose chairman Terry Nolan made the inflammatory ‘profit-driven’ quote in the front-page article, utilises no fewer than three abattoirs in Victoria, and also directly employs more than 50 staff.

“You’re talking close to 120 people in Victoria,” Lewis says of the potential job losses if kosher slaughter were to be outlawed. And it’s not just the direct employees; it’s also the flow-on employment in delicatessens and supermarket meat departments, and the staff of the kashrut authority that oversees the process. If halal slaughter were to be banned, many more jobs would be lost; there are three times as many Muslims as Jews in Australia.

Lewis tells me that Western Australian abattoirs have already stopped facilitating schechita. There it was a ‘profit-driven’ issue – the kosher market is too small to argue with the publicity-sensitive meat industry.

In Victoria, he says, schechita constitutes a major proportion of a number of abattoirs’ income. The numbers of Jews are greater, and so are the numbers of Muslims. If we were going to unite to fight anything, this is it – otherwise, first they’ll take our meat, and then they’ll make us keep our foreskins. In the end, it’s all a matter of blood and knives, and that’s nothing new. Neither is the price of complacency.

Andrew Harris is a writer, editor and photographer based in Melbourne.

Muslim, Jewish & Sikh women talk about fashion, faith and how it feels to look different.

Here’s a press release about an event that readers  (especially those in Melbourne) might find interesting:

Finding the perfect scarf to match an outfit is one challenge. Racist abuse is another.  Then there’s the question of safety if you happen to be a kick-boxer.

Women who wear head-coverings for religious reasons are among the most visibly different people in Australian society.

But Muslims who wear hijab, religious Jewish women who cover their hair with wigs and Sikhs who don a modesty scarf are finding unexpected allies in one another.

Minority women will about fashion, faith and how it feels to look different  at a special event entitled Under Our Hats in Melbourne later this month.

Syafiqah Khan , a young Muslim woman, has begun wearing a hijab regularly only recently – but she still takes it off for safety when competing as a kick-boxer.

Sheiny New, an Orthodox Jewish woman, never goes out without her “sheitl” , a wig she wears every day. Only her husband and children see her hair.

Jamel Khaur Singh, a Sikh woman, wears a head scarf but unlike a Sikh man – who is expected to wear his turban at all times – she can choose  when to be visible and when to slip into the crowd.

The event is being run by the Jewish anti-racism group ADC and the National Council of Jewish woman to emphasise the commonalities between women of different religions.

7.30 pm, Wednesday 29 June

Blue Room @ Multicultural Hub

Corner Victoria & Elizabeth Sts
Opposite Victoria Market

$10 adults/$5 students including a light supper.

For further information, please call ADC on 95725770 or reception@antidef.org.au

Jewish refugee from Iraq, circa 1955. Photo: Babylonian Heritage Center (Jerusalem)

By Philip Mendes

One of my current research projects is an analysis of the disproportionate historical Jewish engagement with the political Left. As many readers will know, there were two key factors that drove Jewish involvement with the Left.

One was class oppression, the poverty and economic marginalisation which afflicted so many Jews in the late nineteenth and early-mid twentieth century. The other factor was ethnic oppression, the extreme and violent anti-Semitism to which so many Jews were subjected from Tsarist Russia to the 1918-19 Ukrainian pogroms to the Holocaust.

One factor, which however, has arguably been under-stated is the extent to which Jews were universally a stateless people, a nation of wanderers seeking refuge and asylum. In that period from approximately 1890-1945, tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of foreign Jews landed suddenly in large cities such as New York, London, Paris, Berlin, and Toronto, and were subject to the same fearful and xenophobic responses that greet many asylum seekers today. Those on the Left who were internationalists assisted and welcomed Jews as refugees. Equally, there were many workers and labour groups who took a narrower or more parochial view, and opposed the entry of “alien” Jews.

In contrast, the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 gave Jews the sense of territorial and national connectedness and security which they had previously lacked. This is why for the overwhelming majority of Jews today the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state is non-negotiable, irrespective of their divided views on the future of the Palestinian territories.

The triumph of the Zionist statehood solution over other potential national solutions to the Jewish problem – such as the Bundist preference for national autonomy wherever Jews live, and also the proposed Soviet Jewish homeland of Birobihan – has obviously had a number of significant ramifications for Jewish politics.

One important outcome was that Jews who experienced persecution had an available refuge. The hundreds of thousands of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries in the early-mid 1950s quickly found sanctuary in the Jewish state. Fortunately today most Jews outside Israel live in tolerant liberal democracies and do not need a refuge. Jews are no longer asylum seekers.

Secondly, Jewish support for left-wing universalistic solutions declined as most Jews forged a new common identity based on support for the existence of Israel. This also meant that Jewish political choices and alliances in the Diaspora became increasingly linked to the needs and interests of the Israeli state as much as any local issues or concerns. In short, most Jews today will only vote for political parties which are perceived as sympathetic (or at least not hostile) to Israel.

This leads me to a brief reflection on the recent debate about the proposed Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) policy of Marrickville Council. It was particularly evident in the debate that BDS proponents seriously regard the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state as something optional or open to re-negotiation. This reflects their view that there is no possibility of reconciling Israeli and Palestinian national rights so consequently Israel rights will have to be sacrificed.

The most overt example of this anti-Zionist fundamentalist fantasy emanated from Omar Barghouti, who is one of the founders of the global BDS movement. Writing in New Matilda on 2 May 2011, Barghouti conveniently denied that the BDS movement had a uniform position on a one or two-state solution. He claimed that the BDS movement neither formally supports the existence of Israel, or formally supports its destruction by military or demographic means.

But Barghouti then admitted that his own position favours the abolition of Israel and its replacement by an Arab State of Greater Palestine. For Barghouti, the national rights of the Palestinians take absolute precedence over the rights of what he calls euphemistically the “other inhabitants of the land”. Barghouti does not recognize the Jewish right to national self-determination in Israel.

It is perhaps understandable that Barghouti as a Palestinian nationalist cares more about the rights of the Palestinian people than the Israeli people. But the same excuse does not hold for the other local BDS proponents – Greens Lee Rhiannon and Fiona Byrne, the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the NSW Teachers Federation etc. – who have chosen to privilege Palestinian Arab rights at the expense of Israeli Jewish rights.

There are, of course, some Israelis and some Jews who similarly do not recognize any Palestinian right to national self-determination. Some reject any criticism of Israel or any territorial or political concessions because they fear that this will lead to a tragic undermining of Jewish statehood. I understand but do not share their position because I believe that there is a vast difference between reasonable critical analysis and demonization. And fortunately the majority of Jewish leaders appear committed to a two-state solution which assumes that Israeli and Palestinian national rights can be reconciled by mutual compromise.

This moderate Jewish perspective was prominent in the Marrickville debate where the left-leaning (and anti-BDS) Inner West Jewish Community and Friends Peace Alliance – a group that I addressed back in November 2008 – brilliantly refuted the notion that a position in support of Palestinian national rights has to include a fanatical hostility to Israel. On the contrary, the Inner West group showed that peace building requires a respect for both Israeli and Palestinian national narratives incorporated within a two-state framework.

The Inner West Alliance’s win-win approach sends a clear message to other responsible Jews on the Left including those in the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, the Bund, the Greens etc. You have a responsibility to educate the broader community and particularly the Left about what statehood means for Jews as a historically oppressed people, and the importance of finding a solution that reconciles Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian/Arab national rights. Do not join the tiny group of self-denying Jews in reinforcing the anti-Zionist fundamentalist fantasy that Israel will cease to exist.

In the coming months, a branch of the New Israel Fund (NIF) will be launched in Australia. Despite its name, the NIF, which is based in the US, is more than 30 years old. Its name is a play on the similarly named, JNF, which was established in 1901 in order to support the establishment of Israel. Unlike the older fund, the raison d’etre of the NIF is based on the fact that Israel already existed when the fund was founded. Indeed, it was founded in 1979, soon after Israel signed the Camp David peace accord with Egypt, a time when existential concerns were at an all-time low in Israel. It is no mistake that a fund such as the NIF, which aims to strengthen the social fabric of the state, was founded at that time.

The NIF is an umbrella fund that provides grants to seed social initiatives in Israel. Over the three decades in which it has been running, it has supported numerous initiatives for immigrant groups (Jewish and non-Jewish), Arab Israelis, women, GLBT people and other minorities as well as initiatives that promote religious tolerance, civil rights, social welfare, and the environment. In other words, the NIF supports a broad range of social initiatives that are largely uncontroversial.

Nonetheless, in the last decade, as existential concerns in Israel have resurfaced, there has been some criticism of the NIF in Israel, the US, and more recently, Australia. The vast majority of criticisms of the NIF that were circulated in Australia recently through the AJN and email campaigns were based on misunderstandings of what the NIF does and stands for. The NIF is a Zionist organization, which aims to fulfil the tenet of the Israeli Declaration of Independence that refers to equality of social and political rights for all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.

It is not clear whether those in Australia that want to malign the NIF will reiterate their criticisms as NIF is launched down-under. Yesterday, a press release from NIF Australia announced that Robin Margo, a former Rhodes Scholar and the immediate past president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, has been named as their inaugural chair.  In other words, Margo’s “Jewish establishment” credentials are beyond reproach. It will be interesting to see how the right-wing members of the Jewish community organizations and media respond to the NIF under Margo’s leadership.

For related articles on Galus Australis see:

• The NIF Controversy, a Chance for Closure
• The Article that the Jewish News Refuses to Print

Its 3:00am and I am woken by the sound of my roommate from Minnesota snoring like a disgruntled boar. He has said to me in the past that I should wake him up if he snores, but I never have the heart to do it; so instead I simply hurl whatever small belongings I have at him to try and shift him into a position where his sinuses are less clogged (later he will ask me why his bed was covered in my books, shoes and toiletries when he woke up). It’s alright for him, he goes back to sleep, wakes up for morning prayers at 6:15am, has breakfast and heads to work after that. For me however, I have to be up by 5:30am ready to work in the organic fields at 6:00am, so I really wish he would stop snoring and let me get some rest.

I turn my pillow over, pull the sheets over my head and try to salvage a few more moments of sleep. While doing this I find my mind wandering back to my arrival in Israel, walking out of the Ben-Gurion Airport gate to the baggage claim past a wall-mounted row of old Zionist posters; the sort that encouraged idealistic young Jews from around the world to move to Israel by depicting two fit and attractive teenagers smiling as they work the land. Before I came to this kibbutz, this was the sort of propaganda that had spurred me on, filled my heart with Zionism, and several other clichés. But now, as I sit here in bed with bronchitis writing, I wonder where that passion went, and why is it that I find myself becoming lazy and unmotivated.

On a weekly basis I have ulpan classes on every first day (8am – 3pm) and every other day,  I work in the fields, kitchen, spice-factory, bio-bee farm and dining hall (6am – 4pm).  The ulpan classes are generally not too bad and often involve translating Israeli music to practice our Hebrew;  the only problem being that the program is run on an English/Hebrew basis, so the Italian kid who doesn’t speak English at all, has trouble learning any Hebrew.

The work is a different story, spending several hours at a time moving boxes of dried parsley flakes into a shipping container, or pouring bee food into hundreds of tiny cups, or pulling onions out of the ground, or weeds out of the vineyard, things tend to become sort of stultifying and boring. The other day in the vineyard we were attempting to cut down weeds with a dull, rusted hacksaw, and I turned to the Oleh next me and asked her whether this was making her feel more Zionist. She answered sarcastically in the affirmative, brushed a spider of her shoulder, and continued the fruitless weeding.

Other than the mundane routine here, the lifestyle is actually pretty good. The food in the dining hall satisfies. The people here are nice. The location makes sure that even the hottest day is accompanied by a cool breeze.  And after the day’s work is done, we sit in the hammocks and talk about our families back home, or politics, or what we are planning to do on the next free weekend.

In fact, the only thing that I don’t like here is how apathetic I am sometimes. Perhaps this complacency is the reason I’ve come down with bronchitis, or maybe the opposite is true – It may be fate that I got sick now in order to give myself time for self-reflection.

In either case, I plan to come out of my hiatus with clear eyes and a full heart. According to some, the month of Nisan included the creation of the universe, and as such I feel as if it is the perfect time for rebirth and re-evaluation of attitudes and work ethics.

I will push myself mentally to push myself physically.

Kovi Rose is a Mount Scopus graduate who made aliyah in March 2011. This is the second entry of his aliyah journal that he is writing for Galus Australis.