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

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

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

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

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

Your complaint specifically included concerns that The Promise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Complaints Committee’s investigation and findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of anti-Semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inaccurate demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Sally Begbie

SBS Ombudsman

The late Andrés Escobar, reacting after his sadly infamous own goal in 1994

By Anthony Frosh

In attempting to ban DVD sales of The Promise, a polemical mini-series recently screened on SBS, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) have done a proverbial Andrés Escobar.

Attempts, or even perceived attempts, at censorship only ever result in cultivating more interest in the object of the censorship. If you want to get your high school students to read their physics textbooks, you can’t do much better than banning them.

I only saw the first episode of the series. As a piece of drama, I found it too unsophisticated to keep my interest. One of the first things I noticed, besides the lame acting and dialogue, was that Israeli youths were driving far more expensive cars than those driven by even some of their most spoilt Toorak or Vaucluse contemporaries, a sure sign that the film makers had little interest in being true-to-life. Perhaps they were trying to perpetuate a stereotype (that has nothing to with Israel) about Jews that one might sometimes encounter in Western universities concerning Jewish kids being rich and spoilt.

The first episode, although lacking in accuracy and realism, seemed more balanced than I had expected. Later, I heard that the hostile portrayal of Jews, Zionism, and Israel, really takes off as the series progresses. When I heard this, I wondered whether this was an example of the hostile media phenomenon, whereby emotionally invested parties perceive relatively neutral or balanced media content as strongly hostile to their own side.

However, if this were merely a case of the hostile media phenomenon, then the scientific literature predicts that Palestinian advocates would have also had similar reactions; that is, they would have perceived the series as being highly hostile to their side. A little bit of research reveals this is not the case. Australians For Palestine (which would be more accurately named Australians against Israel) called for supportive submissions to SBS and the relevant politicians within the communications portfolio concerning the series. I also witnessed a number of anti-Semites on Facebook championing the series.

All this leads me to believe that ECAJ is accurate in its perception of the series as anti-Semitic. As for their comparisons to Nazi propaganda, well I have not seen the series other than the first episode, but I think everyone should be extra-cautious when it comes to Nazi comparisons, as these risk trivialising the horrors that Nazis represented.

None of this changes the fact that censorship is not only wrong in principle, but is highly counterproductive. ECAJ’s efforts will sadly see a lame piece of propaganda disguised as art get far more attention than it deserves. It will also result in the Australian Jewish community once again being labelled as advocates of censorship and media control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most popular sessions was Evan Kleinman's screening of his film, Punk Jews

By Anthony Frosh
After the most recent Limmud Oz that took place at Monash University Caulfield campus in Melbourne (2010), there was considerable discussion about the absence of young people. Indeed, an article in this publication, The Missing Generation of Limmud Oz, documented that few people in their thirties or younger attended.

However, the most recent Limmud event to occur in Australia, Limmud Oz Fest, held the weekend before last at a campsite near Daylesford, Victoria, demonstrated that there is plenty of demand from the “missing generation.” That is, as long as the event is marketed and organised in a fashion that appeals to this demographic.

A little over a month before Limmud Oz Fest, the organisers of the event held a preliminary event called Taste of Fest. It was held at the popular Pause bar on Carlisle St, and provided an opportunity for people who were considering attending the Fest weekend to meet fellow travellers and find out about some of the sessions that would take place.  The evening featured a number of highly talented Jewish musicians who performed against a backdrop of a projected slideshow providing information on several sessions and presenters who would be appearing at Fest. An entertaining panel session where Alana Bruce, the evening’s MC, interviewed a few presenters about their upcoming sessions.divided up the musical acts.  This preliminary event proved to be a terrific evening, attracting plenty of young people and providing promotional momentum for the Fest .

The Limmud Oz Fest weekend itself proved to be just as well organised, albeit with a higher degree of difficulty. And while young people were abound, there were also many people from older generations as well as several young families.  It was an incredible effort from the organisers who not only assembled a brilliant array of sessions, including outstanding local talent as well as some top-notch overseas presenters (including Jeffrey Yoskowitz ,Evan Kleinman, David Brown, and Shani Tzoref), but also managed to be constantly feeding attendees with Kosher meals. All of this took place at a perfectly serene campsite.

The professionalism of the organisers did not stop at the conclusion of weekend. I had barely been back in Melbourne a day when I opened by inbox to find an invitation to an electronic survey (and a very well designed survey at that – and I should know – it’s how I make my living) in regard to my Limmud Oz Fest experience, and any thoughts I had on how it could have been improved.  It seems the organisers are determined to do even better come the next Fest.

The success of the event has reverberated around the world, with event receiving praise from Limmud international  (who had provided guidance and moral support) and ROI. 

So the question remains: How does Limmud Oz attract young people to the non-Fest variety of event? Or perhaps the question is: If young people attend Fest, is there a need to try to get them to also attend the regular Limmud Oz? I think the answer to the latter question is probably yes.  It’s clearly better for the Limmud brand if they can grow both types of events, and it’s difficult to foresee any growth if it doesn’t involve attracting young people.  With regard to the former question, a good start would be if the established Limmud committee (who I understand provided significant funding for Fest) capitalised on synergies with the highly capable young people who did such a great job of promoting and organising Fest.  In the meantime, hats off to the organisers, Malki Rose, Alana Bruce, Cygal Pellach, Alex Kats, Keren Tuch, Nikki Peipert, Seraphya Berrin, and all the rest of the dedicated volunteers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The most interesting, and apparently controversial, census image that we could find

By Anthony Frosh

‘There’s this unspoken thing among Jews,” comedian John Safran was quoted in a recent interview published in The Age,  ”that no matter whether you’re kosher or not, you always ask for kosher meals on aircraft to help keep the demand up.”

Now, while I’ve never heard of this, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the rumour exists and if there are Australian Jews who do just that.

And while I generally order the Asian Vegetarian meal, I must confess that last Shabbos I was telling my machatonim to make sure they include Hebrew and Yiddish when they answer the census question on language spoken at home.

“But we don’t speak Yiddish at home,” my sister-in-law pointed out.

“What’s that got to do with it?” I retorted. “Do you want to be personally responsible for the cancellation of the SBS Yiddish language hour?”  I proceeded to impress on my sister-in-law and mother-in-law, who do frequently speak Hebrew to each other, that they should answer every question on the census with an eye to how the resultant data might be used.

“But we can’t lie!” they exclaimed.

“I’m not suggesting you lie. We do use Yiddish words and the bureau of statistics don’t provide a minimum quantity, so technically, you wouldn’t be lying.”

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) believe that the Jewish community misses out on vital services and funds as the Jewish population in Victoria is not adequately represented in the census due to the voluntary nature of questions relating to religion and ethnicity, and low participation rates in the census.

John Searle, president of the JCCV stated,

“If you are Jewish, then be counted as a member of the Jewish Community by answering Question 19 on religious affiliation as – ‘Jewish’ or ‘Judaism’. Accurate representation ensures that effective planning and funding is allocated to the Jewish community by Federal, State and Local Governments. It also enables community services and organisations to adequately resource schools, healthcare, aged care, childcare and other essential services”.

And while on the topic of the underreporting of Jews, it is known that a number of Jews, particularly Holocaust survivors, and even some of the next generation, do not declare their Jewishness on the census, given the history of how census data was used by the Nazis to round up Jews.

I’d be interested to hear how you and your family approach the census.

Census night is this Tuesday August 9th .

J Street has become one of the most influential organisations in American Jewry in recent years – I’m no expert on its efficacy in lobbying Congress, but there can be no doubt that it is creating substantial discussion in the Jewish community, in a way that few other organisations do.

The new kid on the block, J Street is aiming to provide an alternative voice in the American Jewish landscape to push a ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace’ agenda, in contrast, for example, to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) singular, pro-Israel focus. It advocates for a two-state solution and for American assistance in helping both Israel and the Palestinian Authority achieve that aim.

It has raised the ire of hawkish members of the American Jewish community establishment and they, as well as others on the right, in the US Congress and in the blogosphere, have taken aim at the organisation. But I guess that’s exactly what it tried to do – stir the pot a little and offer up an another option.

This week I’ll be attending J Street’s second Washington DC conference, titled “Giving Voice to our Values”. Attempting to bring together and further strengthen the progressive Zionist community in America, J Street has arranged an impressive array of speakers and panellists, including American author Peter Beinart, former Israeli politician and president of the New Israel Fund Naomi Chazan, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and former Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

But why am I going? Because in Australia I believe we lack a strong, progressive Zionist voice, too. In our community there are very many who tout the Israel right-or-wrong line and a much smaller, but very loud chorus of Jews who sing the Israel always-wrong song, with very little in between. There is not much conversation on liberal-democratic Zionism, a belief in Israel as the democratic home of the Jewish people, and a state that should embody the moral code of the Jewish people, of equality, inclusion and social justice for all.

When I told people I was going to the conference I was usually met with a mix of dismay and disgust. Of the many disparaging comments I got fired back at me “why are you going to see those self-hating Jews?” is probably my favourite. Usually it was also followed up with comments on how J Street is just a front, taking money from Soros and trying to con young Jews to back it so they can use their collective clout in Congress to shift US foreign policy against Israel. That the same naïve rhetoric is unthinkingly repeated over and over has now begun to make me chuckle.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a ‘member’ of J Street, I don’t back everything they’ve ever done and I’m certainly not advocating a copy-cat organisation in Australia. But what I do believe is that the argument put forward by Peter Beinart in his essay in the New York Review of Books last year, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment”, was spot on.

In referring to a study carried out by American pollster Frank Luntz, Beinart wrote: “When [Luntz] probed the students’ views of Israel, he hit up against some firm beliefs. First, ‘they reserve the right to question the Israeli position.’ These young Jews, Luntz explained, ‘resist anything they see as “group think.”’ They want an ‘open and frank’ discussion of Israel and its flaws. Second, ‘young Jews desperately want peace.’ … Third, ‘some empathize with the plight of the Palestinians.’ When Luntz displayed adverts depicting Palestinians as violent and hateful, several focus group participants criticized them as stereotypical and unfair, citing their own Muslim friends.”

That could not be more similar in Australia. While it is true that Israel is far more central to young Jews’ identities here than they are in America, the fact that those Australian Jews who tend to be less engaged in establishment community activities share those same three characteristics is a profound notion.

It’s my belief that not only is the gap between the conservative establishment community and the rejectionist anti-Zionist outsiders present, it’s fillable by something that engages, educates, inspires and activates both those disenfranchised students and the rest of the community that feels alienated. And it needs filling today.

For the most part, I think that’s what J Street has very successfully done. It has taken a group of individuals in the US who couldn’t find their place in the established Jewish community and given them a home to express their views in a safe and welcoming environment. That within hours of announcing their subsequently outlawed Birthright trip, J Street had signed up more than 100 young Jews is testament to that.

We have much to learn from them in Australia. While we don’t need a lobby group, we can take many of the lessons from J Street and its partners in America and put it into action here.

I think in the future we’re going to see a renaissance of liberal Zionist activism in Australia. Hopefully it can show the rest of the Jewish community that there is a place for a pro-Israel message that, when warranted, includes the right to be critical of certain Israeli policies. And hopefully it can also show the wider Australian community that we haven’t totally lost our minds when it comes to Israel, and we are still able to apply to it our wider values set, rather than turning a blind eye in favour of supporting the continued occupation.

In last week’s London Jewish Chronicle, UJIA chairman Mick Davis wrote that “the need to engage and retain the commitment of all Jews, particularly young Jews, takes precedence over misplaced fears that debate weakens us and provides ammunition to our enemies.”

The positions taken by progressive Zionist organisations may not be everyone’s cup of tea, and that’s to be expected. One of which, for example, might be a position that advocates for East Jerusalem to be the capital of the future Palestinian state.

Those who disagree with these stances should feel free to voice that disagreement, but what they must be careful to do is not to lump everyone into the same basket. Being critical of Israeli policy does not an anti-Zionist make. There are many shades of grey between defending Israel at all costs, all the time, and not believing in the state for the Jewish people. Take note of that or risk snubbing committed Jews and Zionists, casting them to the outer.

Those who hold progressive views on Israel may have hitherto felt alone, but no more will that be the case. That is our challenge, and the future success of our community depends on the maximum number of people being welcomed into the tent, regardless of what, in the scheme of things, are minor political differences.

** **

I’ll (hopefully!) be blogging each night from J Street’s “Giving Voice to our Values” conference in Washington DC next week. You can see my posts at www.liamgetreu.com, or you can follow me on Twitter @lmget.

Liam Getreu is a graduate of Bialik College and Habonim Dror and is a former chairperson of the Australian Zionist Youth Council and the Australasian Union of Jewish Students. He is currently pursuing his Honours in Middle East Studies at Deakin University. These are his personal views.

For related articles, see here

William Cooper

By Anne Sarzin and Lisa Miranda Sarzin

It is not an uncommon part of the human experience for casual conversations and chance encounters to launch us in a new direction or to begin an extraordinary journey. This is particularly pertinent in the realm of Jewish and Indigenous relationships, in which many exciting initiatives have their genesis in simple but meaningful conversations.

Genuine dialogue between people can produce transformative outcomes and although the journey may be completely unexpected—that is almost the point. We cannot anticipate what can flow from just sitting down together and talking, sharing ideas and knowledge. Simple conversations can break down barriers, as we discover points of commonality and difference, and jettison our reliance on stereotypes. Through exchange comes understanding and, in some cases, this translates into inspiring action and deep connection.

We, Dr Anne Sarzin and Lisa Miranda Sarzin, a mother and daughter team based in Sydney, have written a book called Hand in Hand: Jewish and Indigenous people working together, in which we tell stories that we believe are journeys worth sharing. We record some of the collaborative initiatives between Jewish and Indigenous Australians, stories that emerged from in-depth interviews with 80 people.

As the book was commissioned by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, its focus is on New South Wales in particular; however, there are many stories that may have begun in that State but have had an expansive reach into other parts of the country. Some exceptional stories of national significance are also featured. For example, after the horrors of Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany, the remarkable 1938 Melbourne protest against the persecution of the Jews in Germany—spearheaded by the late William Cooper, founder of the Australian Aborigines’ League—is an event that has significant reverberations, undiminished by time. William Cooper’s refusal to be silent in the face of injustice is a pertinent message that speaks even more loudly today.

The book includes excerpts from an unpublished memoir written by the late Emil Witton, who with his wife, Hannah, fled Hitler’s Germany in 1939 for Australia and settled in Sydney, where they were active in the battle for Indigenous rights.  We relate the story of the participation of the current Chief Justice of New South Wales, James Spigelman, in the 1965 Freedom Ride. He was a key organiser of the University of Sydney’s student bus tour, which sought to investigate and expose racism and discrimination against Indigenous people in NSW country towns. Also featured in the book is the work of the late Ron Castan, who led the successful Mabo case in the High Court, which overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius and gave legal recognition to native title.

The title of the book, Hand in Hand, addresses a question posed in 1997 by Professor Mick Dodson, then the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. He said:

“We have extended our hand to other Australians. Those Australians who take our hand are those who dare to dream of an Australia that could be. In true reconciliation, through the remembering, the grieving and the healing, we become as one in the dreaming of this Land. This is about us and our Country, not about petty deliberations of politics. We must join hands and forge our future. Will you take our hand? Will you dare to share our dream?”

Dr Anne Sarzin is a journalist and editor, with a PhD in English Literature. Her daughter, Lisa Miranda, is a lawyer, who is also a doctoral student at the University of Technology, Sydney.

Hand in Hand: Jewish and Indigenous people working together, by Anne Sarzin and Lisa Miranda Sarzin, is published by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. Copies can be ordered from here.

Anne and Lisa will be speaking on the book at the Sydney Jewish Writers’ Festival on Sunday 29 August