Sam Stoller (2nd from left) & Marty Glickman (3rd from left), removed from the US 1936 relay team by Avery Brundage, in order to not offend Hitler any further following victories by African American athletes such as Jesse Owens

By Ashley Browne
So how many women will be competing for Saudi Arabia at this year’s summer Olympic Games?

The answer is zero, just as it has been at all eight Olympics to which the Saudis have sent a team since first competing in Munich in 1972.

Once again, the Saudis have resisted all calls to emerge from the Stone Age and to allow women to represent their country at the Olympics. This time around will be the only nation to do so.

Brunei and Qatar have opened their selection to women in 2012 and certainly in the case of Qatar, it had little choice but to do so given the aspirations it has to host the 2020 Summer Games.

The Saudis played it beautifully, telling the world it was considering a change in selection policy. Once the utterly predictable decision to stick with the status quo was made, it was too late for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to do anything about it.

Human rights activists have started a campaign to ban Saudi Arabia from the Olympics, but not much will come of it. After all, if women don’t even have the right to drive a car in the kingdom, what chance would they have of swimming, running and jumping for their country.

If the IOC had any smarts, it would put the Saudis on notice now that the situation for Rio de Janeiro in 2016 must change, but we’re not holding our breath about that one.

Nor are we holding out much hope of the IOC yielding to another request, one that we think is equally reasonable.

The London Olympics will mark the 40^th anniversary of the darkest episode in Olympic history – the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 Games in Munich.

The efforts by the IOC to commemorate the lives of the murdered athletes since then have been lukewarm at best. There was a memorial service in the days afterwards, but even then IOC chairman Avery Brundage barely mentioned the victims and used the occasion for a ‘state of the Olympics’ speech and to rail against the encroaching professionalism and to shout down those arguing for Rhodesia, as it was known at the time, to be booted out of the Games.

Brundage’s lack of empathy wasn’t a surprise to many observers. He was the same guy, who when in charge of the US team in 1936 agreed to the removal of sprinters Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller from the team in order to appease the Nazi organisers of the Berlin Olympics.

Google “Avery Brundage and anti-semitic” and you will be left in little doubt of what people thought of Brundage then and now.

There are memorials to the slain Israelis at the Olympic village in Munich and of course, in Israel. The only other Olympic host nation to have erected any sort of monument is Australia, where a plaque sits at the base of one of the light towers at what is now known as ANZ Stadium at Homebush.

This year, change.org has taken up the cudgels, launching an online petition calling for a minute’s silence in memory of murdered athletes during the opening ceremony of the London Olympics. There have been such calls before, but this time the campaign has gone viral.

Writes Ankie Spitzer, the wife of Andrei Spitzer, one of the murdered Israelis: “Silence is a fitting tribute for athletes who lost their lives on the Olympic stage. Silence contains no statements, assumptions or beliefs and requires no understanding of language to interpret.

“I have no political or religious agenda. Just the hope that my husband and the other men who went to the Olympics in peace, friendship and sportsmanship are given what they deserve. One minute of silence will clearly say to the world that what happened in 1972 can never happen again. Please do not let history repeat itself.”

Chances are strong that this plea, like all those before them, will fall upon deaf ears. The Australian Olympic Committee could make a representation on this behalf, such is the strong standing our country has in the Olympic movement. But AOC chairman John Coates has bigger fish to fry such as the seating arrangements at the forthcoming fundraiser that the Prime Minister has chosen not to attend.

Having chosen not to stand up to the Saudi Arabia, winner of one silver and one bronze medal it its Olympic history, the IOC has shown itself to be a bit soft when it comes to the issue of human rights. But a minute’s silence at the London Olympics, for all victims of terror, not just the murdered Israelis, would send a powerful message.

Is the IOC up to it?

Ashley Browne is a senior writer for AFL Media and the co-founder and consulting editor of leading Australian sports blog, BackPageLead. He is a former national editor of the Australian Jewish News. You can follow him on Twitter @afl_hashbrowne

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.

Judah Maccabee

By Michael Fagenblat
The significance of Hanukah has vividly transformed in modern times. The Talmudic rabbis were conspicuously reticent about the historical and political connotations of the festival. The Book of Maccabees, which records the historical rebellion lead by Judas Maccabeus, was not included in the Jewish Bible, even though pre-rabbinic Jews regarded it as part of sacred Scripture. As a consequence we don’t read the scriptural record on Hanukah as we read, for example, the Book of Lamentations on Tisha b’Av or the Book of Esther on Purim. Hanukah, moreover, is not mentioned once in the foundational rabbinic document, the Mishnah, and its appearance in later Talmudic discussions celebrates the sacred miracle of the oil more than the historical resumption of Jewish political sovereignty. It seems clear that the Talmudic rabbis were markedly reluctant to embrace the historical and political significance of the festival and preferred to concentrate on the purely sacred miracle of the lights instead.

The contrast could hardly be starker with the significance of Hanukah in modern Israel. Here we find the opposing interpretation approaching the status of a consensus. Major currents in religious and secular Zionism view Hanukah as the symbol par excellence for celebrating the resumption of Jewish political sovereignty and “the Jewish return into history”. A stark example is provided by the fate of Psalm 106 in modern times. The second verse, Who shall praise the power of Hashem!, is transformed into a celebration of the political accomplishments of the Jewish people – Who shall praise the power of Israel! mi yim’alel gevurot yisrael.

We can observe two principal shifts of focus from the rabbinic to the modern Israeli understanding of Hanukah. The first concerns the location of the miracle, the second its source. For the rabbis, the miracle of Hanukah is to be found in a sacred realm withdrawn from political and historical life, in the oil of the temple lamp and the Talmudic academies that keep its flames flickering. By contrast, for many modern Jews the true miracle lies precisely in those historical and political events that the rabbis marginalized, in political sovereignty. It is not secularization but modernization that brought about this transformation. Religious Zionists, for example, also look to the historical and political aspects of the festival to perceive the true miracle of Hanukah, and the lights of the Temple and the Talmud now flicker in the light of History.

Similarly, for the rabbis the source of the miracle is none other than the Holy Blessed One, whereas modern Jews tend to emphasize that the source of the miracle lies in Jewish agency, or is at least mixed up in our agency. Even a Hasidic Rebbe like Levi-Yitzhak of Berdichev, writing in Poland in the late 18^th century, seems to express the modern penchant for agency over passivity. Why, he asks, do we add the prayer “for the miracles—al hanisim,” on Hanukah but not on Passover, when the latter commemorates far greater miracles such as the plagues and the splitting of the sea? His answer: because on Hanukah we brought about the miracles and they are therefore all the more blessed.

What is gained and what is lost in reevaluating the significance of Hanukah in this way? It is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting miracles, since both ancient and modern Jews, religious and even secular, see the miraculous in Hanukah, just in different aspects. The transformations of the miracle of Hanukah are transformations of what claims us, of how we are claimed. The flickering of events in which we see light.

But does the claim of the miracle always come from the past? If its values and symbols are opened by our responses and changing interpretations, does not the miracle still fix us to the past, to events that have long passed and perhaps ought no longer be so meaningful? The miracle must also illuminate the future, otherwise it degenerates into dead metaphors that cannot sustain genuine reanimation. And here lies the danger of the miracle. For we have all survived the miracles of the past, but the future’s miracles are far from assured.

Living with miracles is risky business. A candle can start a raging fire. As much as we are asked to see the miracle, we must therefore also find the right place for it in our lives. This is why the Psalmist whom we encountered above, who proclaims the great power of Hashem which modern experience finds in historical and political Israel, immediately reserves this vision of the miracle for “those who keep justice”. Maimonides offers another, by no means incompatible, way. At the end of his Laws of Hanukah, which urge us to proclaim the miracle in full glory, Maimonides reflects on the place of the miracle in ordinary life. If one has enough money only for oil for the Hanukah lamp or the household lamp, which one to choose? Buy oil for the house, he says, because the intimate peace of a household, of one person living with another, is greater than proclaiming all the miracles, “for the whole Torah was given to make peace in the world”.

Michael Fagenblat, Monash University (Australia), is a Templeton Fellow in Philosophical Theology at the Shalem Center for 2011-12.

West Dunbartonshire Coat of Arms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny.

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

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 frum hippy scene at the tent city, Rothschild Blvd, Tel Aviv

This is the conclusion to Yoram Symons‘ series, The Tent City of Rothschild Boulevard and the Coming Pogrom.  Part I can be found here.

The Other Side of Zionism

While the state-building and normalizing ethos of Zionism has fizzled into ideological atrophy for contemporary Israeli society, across the border, into the Palestinian territories in particular and the Arabic world in general, Zionism is perceived as the single most potent and powerful force in all of  international affairs. Across the borders the glorious victories of 1948 and 1967 are painted in the morbid and terrifying colors of the Nakba – the great tragedy, which causes the Palestinian people to languish in suffering and misery and the Arabic world to wallow without honor or pride.

While the calls for a solution to the Palestinian problem are almost entirely absent from the Rothschild Tent City and the protests it is mobilizing, the rest of the world has bought well and truly into the idea of Zionism that proceeds from the logic of Nakba. While the suburbanites of Ra’anana and Petach Tikva and Kfar Saba experience the suffocating banality of work, mortgage and the six o’clock news, the rest of the world sees them as imperialist conquistadors on a mission of savage occupation. Anti-Semitism, which had descended for a time into the nether regions of political incorrectness, has re-emerged in its new anti-Zionist guise as a legitimate disposition and a potent political force.

Christianity, Islam and the Jewish Problem

For almost two thousand years the peoples of Europe had been educated to hate the Jew, fear the Jew and above all, blame the Jew for the problems in their lives. By the laws of historical cause and effect, this hatred made sense.

The Jews were inextricably and undeniably linked to the Christian religion. The Christian bible was the Jewish bible and the Christian deity was a Jewish man. While the Church had managed to eradicate all of the Pagan cults of antiquity and established a single confession for all the nations of Europe, it could not deny nor eliminate the Jew. The Jew, despite his obvious heresy, was too close to Christ to suffer the same fate as the Pagans. And thus within the monolithic Christian culture the Jew was a conundrum that evaded solution.

After two thousand years of this incongruous and unsettling relationship, the people of Europe finally reacted in the inevitable fashion. The Jews were a problem and they were a problem that demanded a solution. And the solution prosecuted by the peoples of Europe was the mechanized and industrialized manifestation of every passion play, inquisition and pogrom that had gone before it.

In sixty-three years of statehood, the Zionist entity has wedged itself into the same niche within the Arab consciousness. The Nakba is for the Middle-East what the murder of Christ was for Europe; a sin of cosmic proportions that demands a historical solution. Two thousand years of passion plays, inquisitions and pogroms has been telescoped into sixty-three years of Friday morning sermons, Arab-Israeli wars and Gaza incursions.

The Convergence of History

For sixty-three years the hunger to avenge the Nakba has been held in check. Held in check by the symbiotic relationship between Israel’s military superiority and the self-interest of the US dominated International Order. Concurrently, for sixty-three years the subconscious thirst of the Jewish people for cosmic significance has been quenched by the Zionist enterprise and the Jewish need for national manifestation has been fulfilled in the State of Israel.

The world, however, is standing on the precipice. As the British dominated international order crumbled under the weight of the 1929 Crash, so too the current international system dominated by American military strength and global capitalism is beginning to unravel. Nations are defaulting, stockmarkets are crashing, London burns, Greece riots, the Arab countries descend into civil war and the Palestinians are on the verge of declaring statehood.

Zionism, in the incarnation of nation-building, has also reached its denouement. The Herzelian “state like all the others”, a slave to the prerogatives of the free-market economy, is no longer fulfilling the needs of national expression. That these two historical trajectories should converge at the same point in time is no mere coincidence.

If we are to believe that oft repeated maxim, that history is doomed to repeat itself, then the ultimate logical solution to the crime of Nakba, if allowed to manifest, will resemble in intent the final retribution for murdering Christ. If history is destined to repeat itself then the subconscious yearnings of the Israeli people for cosmic significance has not yet reached its full expression.

If, as Jung believed, subconscious desires manifest themselves in reality, then perhaps the yearnings for cosmic significance that lie at the core of the Israeli protests have not reached their true expression in the Tent City of Rothschild Boulevard. But rather, they are the harbinger of a far more radical and terrifying change.

Final Words

Akiva stood on the desolate mound that had once been home to God’s glorious temple. His colleagues wailed and moaned, they tore their clothing in grief and sat with ashes on their heads. Jerusalem was in ruins, the nation destroyed and the people sold into slavery. Yet Akiva smiled and laughed, danced and skipped.

Bewildered, his tear-stricken colleagues inquired: “Akiva, have you gone mad? A fox walks where the Holy of Holies once stood, yet you giggle like a child.”

“Friends,” began the Sage, “truly this is a terrible sight to behold. Yet all of it, the pain and the suffering, the anguish and despair, were all foretold by the Prophets of yore.”

“So,” they demanded indignantly, “what of it? Is it our lot to rejoice that the prophecies of destruction have come to pass in fulfillment of His Word?”

“My friends,” continued Akiva, “We have witnessed the fulfillment of the prophecies of destruction. Yet this can only mean one thing. We are on the cusp of witnessing the prophecies of redemption. Just as this miserable desolation has come to pass precisely as it was foretold, so too, the prophecies of joy and salvation will soon inevitably come to be.”

The sages stood in confusion. Could this be correct? Could the end of everything they had held sacred and dear be the precursor to something even greater? It seemed impossible. And then they realized. The force that guided all of history had guided them to this very spot, just as had been foretold. And this same force, that had guided all of their actions, would soon lead them to uplands of tomorrow. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the people would soon manifest in an even greater way. Soon they would fulfill their true destiny.

“Akiva” declared the group as one, “you have comforted us. Akiva you have comforted us.”
Yoram Symons is the Executive Director of Ark. His blog can be found here.

Siren Gjerme Eriksen

This Capital Jewish Forum interview with the Norwegian Ambassador to Australia, conducted by Manny Waks, covers the topics of Norway’s 22 July tragedy, Israel, and tolerance and racism, amongst other things.

Capital Jewish Forum (CJF): Firstly, my sincere condolences to you and the people of Norway for this incredible tragedy.

How has this terrible tragedy impacted on the nation?

Ambassador Siren Eriksen (SE): Thank you. The attacks on 22 July have brought the Norwegian people even closer together and the whole of Norway has been moved by the heartfelt condolences received from around the world, including from Australia and Israel.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has stated that Norway will be recognisable after the terrorist attacks, that our answer is more democracy, more tolerance and more togetherness.

Norway will continue its international commitment to the values we believe in – democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and human rights – and continue to stand up for them.

CJF: How would you characterise the relationship between Norway and Australia?

Australia and Norway enjoy warm bilateral relations and work together on a number of international issues in the United Nations and other fora. Norway was very happy to receive a visit from Foreign Minister Rudd in May this year.

As regards people-to-people relations, a bilateral working holiday-maker arrangement came into effect in August 2001, and is a popular means for young Australians and Norwegians to experience each other’s country. Student exchange also boosts the ties – there are currently around 2000 Norwegian students in Australia.

Israel

CJF: I have had it said to me by supporters of Israel that they perceive Norway to be “anti-Israel”. There have been a number of prominent examples raised by these supporters. For example, it has been reported that the Deputy Environment Minister stated, before she entered the Government, that she dreamt about the U.N. launching rockets against Israel. The Foreign Minister recently condemned Israel for its reaction to the penetration of its northern border by Syrian citizens by describing it as the “most serious incident on the Golan since 1973”. Jostein Gaarder, a leading Norwegian writer, created an uproar when he published his 2006 article entitled God’s Chosen People, for which he later apologised. There was also the case of the Norwegian diplomat in Saudi Arabia who compared Israeli actions to those of the Nazis during the Gaza War. How do you respond to these issues and the perception that Norway may be anti-Israel? I note that internationally acclaimed human rights lawyer and pro-Israel advocate, Alan Dershowitz, has recently stated that ‘Norway is the most antisemitic and anti-Israel country in Europe today’?

When a former Norwegian Prime Minister, Kare Willoch, condemned US President Barrack Obama for appointing a Jew as his Chief of Staff or when a Labor Party lawmaker, Anders Mathisen, recently denied the Holocaust, do these views and attitudes not reflect the views of some of their current or former constituents, or provide legitimacy to the antisemitic views of some of these individuals?

SE: All through the State of Israel’s history there has been a strong engagement in Norway for Israel and for the situation in the Middle East. Norway enjoys close bilateral relations with Israel based on long-standing historical ties. The Norwegian Government has repeatedly confirmed that Norway is a friend of Israel.

There should be no doubt about the Norwegian Government’s clear and firm opposition to all forms of antisemitism in all its manifestations wherever they occur.

CJF: As Israel has been a victim of terrorism since its founding, do you believe the recent terrorist attacks in Norway will at all influence the Norwegian people’s empathy for what Israel has endured for decades? Could this lead to greater support for Israel within Norway?

SE: The Norwegian Government condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, irrespective of their motivations or manifestations.

There is great interest in the Middle East in Norway, particularly in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I believe that this interest is likely to be continued.

CJF: There is often conflation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism? How does the Norwegian Government distinguish between the two? Is there a clear policy on this? The European Union, for example, has a very clear and comprehensive definition of antisemitism.

SE: The Norwegian Foreign Minister has clearly stated that we must all be wary of attitudes and actions that can breed renewed antisemitism or other ideologies and mindsets that exclude or segregate groups of people, spread hatred and intolerance, and pursue policies of discrimination of minorities.

Norway wants a society with equality for all and the absence of discrimination. The Government’s action plan to promote equality and prevent ethnic discrimination 2009–2012 is designed to combat both direct and indirect discrimination. The Norwegian Anti-discrimination Act and the Civil Penal Code offer legal protection against discrimination.

CJF: What is the Norwegian Government’s policy in relation to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which targets Israel?  Why do you think this movement, which has large support amongst some segments of Western European populations, focuses on only one country? Are there not other countries that deserve greater scrutiny?

SE: The Norwegian Government has clearly stated that it has never discussed nor considered a consumer boycott of Israel, and such a boycott is not the position of the Norwegian Government.

Tolerance and racism

CJF: In June 2011 a disturbing survey was released by the Oslo Municipality in the Norwegian capital. It found that 33% of Jewish students there are physically threatened or abused by other high school teens at least two to three times a month. The group which suffered the next highest amount of bullying was Buddhists at 10%. “Others” were at 7% and Muslims at 5.3%. Furthermore, the survey found that fifty-one percent of high school students consider “Jew” a negative expression and 60% had heard other students use the term. Is there an explanation for these concerning statistics? In particular, why is the Jewish demographic so disproportionately represented? Is this consistent with the European trend? If so, why is there such a trend and when or how will it end?

SE: Bullying in schools is unacceptable and any form of bullying is a serious problem that the Norwegian Government is actively pursuing.

We all have a responsibility to combat all forms of antisemitism and possibly the best way to combat antisemitism, as all discrimination, is to get it out in the open, describe it and condemn it.

The national Centre for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities, with support from the Norwegian Government, is currently conducting a national wide survey to identify inter alia antisemitic attitudes in Norway.

As chair of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education in 2009, Norway put emphasis on how the reservoir of academic and practical skills could be better utilised to help governments to confront increasing antisemitism, racism and exclusion of groups in their societies. Norway strongly believes that the fight against antisemitism calls for political leadership.

CJF: Keeping kosher in Norway is a major challenge as slaughtering animals according to Jewish Law has been banned since around 1930. Former Chief Rabbi of Norway, Michael Melchior, has argued that antisemitism is one motive for the ban. Do you believe antisemitism played any role in the initial ban? Are there any changes expected in the Government policy?

SE: Norway was one of the first countries in the world to adopt a law for the protection of animals in 1935 and is one of several countries that ban ritual slaughter.

The current conditions for the slaughter of animals are laid down in the Animal Welfare Act that came into force in 2010. The Act was adopted nearly unanimously by the members of the Parliament in 2009. This demonstrates the strong political support for continual improvement of animal welfare.

CJF: There have been public statements, most notably by the German Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, to the effect that multiculturalism has been a failure in European countries. Do you agree? Would this also reflect the reality in Norway?

SE: There is a need in all countries to bridge the gap of misunderstanding and prevent the “clash of ignorance” that may lead to increasing stereotyping of religious groups and others. What we have seen in Norway – not least after the attacks on 22 July – is all parts of the society coming together to preserve and strengthen common values.

CJF: To what extent are Norwegian school children taught about the Holocaust and Norway’s involvement during? Is anything taught about the collaboration with the Nazis? Is there attention paid to the efforts of the Norwegian Resistance?

SE: In the last 30-40 years, Holocaust awareness in Norway has increased both in the educational sector and in society in general. Several thousand Norwegian school children have participated in study trips to former concentration camps.

The Centre for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities was established in 2001.  In cooperation with the Directorate for Education and Training, the Holocaust Centre has built up comprehensive web-based information and given Norwegian schools a new learning centre for issues concerning the Holocaust, other genocides, racism, antisemitism and conditions of minorities.

This also includes information about the participation of the Norwegian Police and others in the arrest and deportation of Jews from Norway, as well as knowledge about the Norwegian resistance movement during the Second World War.

The educational efforts take into account that we all – wherever we live – have an obligation to learn from the past and fight antisemitism, racism and all ideologies that exclude groups of people and spread hatred.

General

CJF: A perennially controversial issue is with regards to Norway’s policy on whaling. What precisely is the current policy?

SE: Norway is playing an active role in efforts to devise an international environmental policy for the future. A central element of this policy must be co-operation concerning the protection and rational management of renewable natural resources and their environment. The Norwegian minke whale catching is based on the principles of sustainable harvesting of marine resources. The management of these resources is based on scientific advice and subject to a strong control system to ensure compliance with regulatory decisions.

CJF: Has this policy caused any strains in the Australian-Norwegian relations?

SE: Australia and Norway are well aware of each other’s views on this issue.

As regards Australian-Norwegian relations, I would like to draw the attention to  Foreign Minister Rudd’s words during his visit to Oslo in May this year where he said that often it is not visible to communities in Australia and Norway how much the two countries collaborate deeply and closely on the global challenges of the day.

CJF: Norway (and the other Scandinavian countries) is often described as a “social democracy”. How is this defined and what makes it different to the Australian system?

SE: The Nordic countries have managed to combine a just distribution and an efficient economy. Norway and the other Nordic countries are marked by a relatively high taxation level, strong labour unions, extensive welfare systems and large public sectors – as well as economic efficiency and high levels of employment, in particular female employment.

This apparent paradox triggers interest all over the world and is in some cases seen as an inspiration.

The Nordic countries have demonstrated a greater willingness to adjustment and reform than many other European countries. This has facilitated adjustments. Also, the Nordic societies represent a much higher degree of equality than most other countries.

CJF: Seeing that Norway is a major oil producer, what are its broad links with Iran and more specifically in relation to the oil industry?

SE: Norway has voiced a number of concerns about the situation in Iran, including the human rights situation and the uncertainties around Iran’s nuclear programme. The Norwegian Government has deeply deplored the statements from the Iranian President about the existence of the State of Israel.

Norway’s policy in Iran is fully in line with that of the international community as expressed by the United Nations Security Council. The Norwegian Government has also imposed more stringent sanctions and measures against Iran and brought Norwegian legislation in line with that of the European Union.

The Capital Jewish Forum (CJF), based in Canberra, has recently launched a new initiative, where distinguished guests are interviewed on a range of issues which are relevant and of interest to Jewish academic, policy, business and other professionals. Previous CJF interviews are available here.