By Keren Tuch

As I sat sipping chai in a tea shop in the Indian town of McCleod Ganj, home to the Tibetan government in exile, I contemplated how it came to be that I could be so ignorant of the details of most conflicts in the world except the one which is closest to home, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We Jews can often be so absorbed by our own struggles and history that we tend to forget others. Do we not have a duty to be engaged with other people’s persecution stories as well?

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of self-imposed Tibetan exile, led by the Dalai Lama. Since March 10, 1959, it has been unsafe for Tibetans to practice their religion and celebrate their culture in their own homeland. Tibetans are routinely imprisoned and tortured. Peaceful protest and demonstrations are prohibited. Persecution, exile, religious restriction – it’s a story we Jews know only too well.

McCleod Ganj, also known as Little Lhasa, is a scenic and quaint town in North India, located at the chilling altitude of 2000 metres. The mesmerizing Himalayas loom majestically in the backdrop. It is a home away from home for approximately seventy thousand Tibetan refugees. The narrow streets are lined with colourful Tibetan prayer flags. The musky smell of Tibetan incense pervades the handicraft shops. Elderly Tibetans dressed in traditional attire fervently clasp their rosary beads and mutter ancient mantras. The trendy younger generation, dressed in jeans and sporting fancy haircuts, meander the streets aimlessly – they have no jobs. Buddhist mantras re-mixed with trance beats are repetitively played from shop windows, while “Save Tibet” beanies and t-shirts fill up the shelves of the souvenir shops. But of the six million Tibetans in the world, only 150 thousand of them may wear these t-shirts – in Tibet, it is illegal to even whisper the words. World media and international organizations report that the Chinese are imprisoning Tibetans merely for peaceful protesting and teaching Tibetan history. In many cases, incarceration also leads to torture. Over the past fifty years of the Tibetan struggle, it is estimated that 1.2 million Tibetans have died at the hands of the Chinese government. To my Jewish consciousness, this staggering figure brings up many images of our own suffering through history. This is another story we know all too well.

It is for this reason that thousands of Tibetans risk their lives every year to flee to Nepal or India. Parents and families gather huge sums and go into debt in order to send their children with mercenary Nepali guides, who promise to lead them through the perilous Himalayas. They do not know if they will ever see them again. The refugees walk at night for a month out of fear of being caught by Chinese patrols. Some develop frostbite but continue anyway, as the only other option is death, which often catches up with a few people along the way. Once across the border in Nepal or India, they are taken to a Refugee Centre to be medically treated and fed. Again, this reminds me of our own stories – of destitute columns fleeing across Europe to escape Nazi persecution.

In the past fifty years, the Tibetans in exile have done an incredible job of establishing a new home. Despite the looming obstacle of assimilation, they have managed to retain their Tibetan culture, language and sense of humour; but who knows what the situation will be in another fifty years. The children refugees are sent to a boarding school called a Tibetan Children’s Village (TCV). No matter how old they are, and despite what grade they are coming from, all the children start from grade one again. They are assigned a ‘home mother’ – a substitute figure who cooks and cares for groups of thirty students. They are nurtured, disciplined and given a top Tibetan education, which is one of the main reasons for emigrating.

Earlier this year, I was fortunate to meet 27 students from three different TCVs. Because of my previous experience as a madricha (Jewish youth leader), I was able to help lead at a Tibetan Youth Movement called Longsho (meaning “Rise Up”). In 2000, a British woman named Kalela Lancaster established the Tibetan Jewish Youth Exchange (TJYE). Kalela saw that the Tibetans faced the same problem that Jews in exile have been facing for 2000 years – loss of cultural identity, and the challenge of how to preserve it in exile.

The aim of TJYE is to enhance the cultural identity of both Jewish and Tibetan youth through informal education, mainly through a summer and winter camp each year.  Tibetan leaders are sent to England to learn how Jews successfully run youth camps; promoting culture and religion while uniting the community. When they return to India, they then bring their knowledge and skills to the Tibetan community. As part of the exchange, Jews who are traveling through Mcleod Ganj and have attended Jewish youth camps can help out and contribute their expertise.

The camp turned out to be a replica of the camps I have grown to know so well throughout my years of involvement with Hineni. All I had to do was substitute the Jewish content and context for the Tibetan equivalent. Surprisingly, they even chanted the same songs that were so familiar to me, including the one about a senorita going to a fair in Netanya. The students, fiercely proud of their identity, all shed tears at the end of the ten day camp, realizing what a special experience it was and the importance of retaining their culture.

By the end of the camp, I realized that for we Jews, this is one small way we can help another people in need.  We may not be able to directly convince the Chinese government to give autonomy to the Tibetans, but we can support initiatives such as TJYE, which are beneficial to both parties and put our years of expertise to good use.

For those interested in reading more about TJYE projects, check out www.tjye.org.uk.

Keren Tuch is a Sydney-based physiotherapist, former Hineni madricha and intrepid world traveller.

The following is a guest post by a former member of the CSG who has previously commented on this blog under the nom de plum “Former CSG Insider.”  Their authenticity as former member of the CSG has been verified by the Sensible Jew editors.

Please note that this is a guest post and does not necessarily represent the views of Frochel or the SJ editorial committee.

Last week, a guest post by the now well-known photographer Jono David elicited a comment by a reader of this website concerning the alleged ‘blacklisting’ of a member of the Melbourne Jewish community.   The comment read as follows:

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine – let’s call him Josh – agreed to take a good friend of his from uni – let’s call her Aliya – on a tour of the Jewish sites of Melbourne. Aliya and Josh had been in the same study group for some time and had shared many interesting debates and discussions on religion, culture, society, etc. Aliya happened to be a religious Muslim who wore a hijab. Josh, a non-observant Jew.

So one Saturday morning Josh picked up Aliya from Balaclava station and they drove down Carlisle St, discussing Jewish customs such as kashrut, dress, prayer, Shabbat, etc. Josh drove Aliya past some of the major synagogues in Caulfield to further familiarise her with Jewish traditions. For example, he pointed out the external architectural features that are typical of synagogues, and explained the various shuls’ ideological and religious differences.

As they were passing one particular shul, Josh thought he noticed one of the CSG guards – an acquaintance of one of his siblings, who he knew by name – observing him and Aliya in the car closely, but a second later they were well past the building and he forgot about it.

Josh’s sibling later informed him that he (Josh) had been ‘listed’ on some sort of blacklist of people of ‘note’ to the CSG, simply because he had driven past the shul with an obviously Muslim passenger in the car with him. (His sibling had heard this directly from a member of the CSG.)

Josh thought his sibling was joking – he had gone to a Jewish school, been involved with various youth groups and communal organisations. He was known and respected by many people in the Jewish community. Why would anyone assume he was doing anything suspicious simply because he had a Muslim passenger in the car, particularly when he and the CSG guard on duty knew each other?

Without being aware of all of the details, I was aware of this incident.  The reader who wrote up this anecdote, named the Jewish person with the pseudonym of Josh, implying that this person was male.  This person was in fact female.  I am not sure if the reader was misinformed of the details, or if they deliberately wrote it up as such in order to further protect the identity of the allegedly blacklisted individual.  The reason I draw attention to the gender of the person is that a religious (hijab wearing) Muslim woman riding in the car alone with a young Jewish man is a more unlikely (and thus more suspicious) sight than a religious Muslim woman riding in the car alone with a young Jewish woman.

Nevertheless, the fact that the same hijab-wearing woman (in an area of Melbourne where the hijab is not a common sight) was seen in a car cruising by a number of synagogues should rightfully raise a moderate amount of suspicion amongst the CSG officers on duty, who would have been in communication via radio.

My criticism of the way the CSG handled this incident is not that suspicion was aroused, but rather the way this suspicion was handled.  I must confess that I do not know what this so called ‘black-listing’ involved.  What I do know about the incident is that the young Jewish woman in question was never actually approached by any CSG personnel for a debriefing.

From what I know about the background of the Jewish woman concerned, we can rule out that she would be knowingly in cahoots with some nefarious terrorist organisation.  If there was any reason for the CSG to be concerned, it would be that the woman in question was unwittingly recruited (befriended) to aid such an organisation.  I’m certainly not saying that this was likely the case (most likely both the Jewish and Muslim woman were totally innocent in their intention), only that it would be a legitimate concern for the CSG, which they should have followed up on.

Someone from the CSG should have got in contact with the Jewish woman to ascertain the background facts and assess the risk of the situation.  However, this was not done.  Rather, the woman was apparently derided behind her back, and any investigation that took place, if any, did not involve interviewing the Jewish woman, who would obviously have been the best source of information.

Like the Jono David case, this is another example which highlights the dysfunctional nature of CSG intelligence gathering and decision making.

I am a freelance documentarian of Jewish communities worldwide (www.JewishPhotoLibrary.com). My mission is to contribute to the preservation of Jewish communities by documenting them photographically. I recently spent a month making arrangements for a photo tour of Australia’s Jewish Communities (AJC), the first of several visits to document every synagogue, Jewish cemetery, and aspects of Jewish life Down Under. My 80 or so query emails initially met with plaudits and approvals. Then responses turned to “no thank yous” and permission retractions (though not all). I was confounded. Then a few kind souls brought Community Security Group (CSG), an organization that oversees matters of security within the AJC, to my attention. In short, I was ultimately left with no choice but to cancel my project.

This letter has two aims: 1, to highlight CSG’s inflexible policies and underhanded procedures, and, 2, to encourage discussion by ordinary members of the AJC on matters of security, access, documentation, and community image.

“Whilst the CSG does not consider Mr. David himself to be a security concern,” emailed Gavin Queit of CSG Victoria to all Jewish communities, “the subsequent publishing of such photographs does pose a risk to the Jewish Community. As such, it is our recommendation that Jono David be denied permission to photograph Victorian Jewish institutions.” In a follow up email to me (after I had initiated contact), Mr. Queit stated that emails were “sent to all Jewish community institutions in Australia (by the CSG’s in each state) [sic].” A similar email had also been, unbeknown to me, sent by David Rothman, head of CSG Sydney.

There was no reason to inform anyone, much less everyone, that my work “poses a security risk” (Gavin Queit) because there is indisputably no such evidence. In fact, I challenge anyone to name a single incident — worldwide — where photographs played an integral part in an attack on a synagogue or a Jewish institution.

While I have on rare occasion been denied photo requests, I could never have imagined being blacklisted on an entire continent. CSGs emails at once sabotaged my project and, for all intents and purposes, maligned me, a fellow Jew, as a threat to the AJC. Their words are, in effect, defamatory. I am open to photo conditions. In the extreme, I am happy to document an institution and keep the images safeguarded for at least a generation. But, alas, I was deemed unworthy of even a courtesy email. I fail to understand such treatment.

I am a stranger in every community I document. Naturally, verifying and vetting outsiders is necessary. Jewish community security concerns worldwide are justified and do not need explaining. I do not “map out” synagogues or other Jewish institutions. Nor do I not make images available if an institution has issues with said images. No exceptions. I am aware of a recent rise in anti-Semitic sentiment in Australia. But documenting Jewish life is important even in times of adversity — perhaps more so. By restricting documentation, the AJC is going to wake up in a generation and realize there is no photographic, no film, and no video record available to them. That is a real shame. CSG’s blanket no-photo policy, therefore, is actually a detriment to the AJC. Moreover, a hyper-sensitive security measure is a victory for the terrorists. But by photographing a vibrant community, the Jewish people win.

Perhaps the AJC ought to ask itself just what CSG is aiming to achieve. Do they wish to see the AJC go underground? Do they desire shutting down community websites which, contrary to their own “advice”, display for the world vital community information such as addresses, names, maps, prayer times, events, even photographs similar to those I wish to take? Does CSG desire stopping the presses too? The Australian Jewish News, and publications like it, is a portal into the life and times of the AJC. It is replete with community news and affairs past, present, and future — information that can be employed by the savvy terrorist. What is the point of “securing” a Jewish community, particularly in a free nation, if it cannot thrive openly? With so much Jewish history destroyed over the millennia, why surrender now? Jewish communities of the world have always been resilient in times of adversity and always emerged stronger because of it.

I am not giving up on Jewish Australia. I hope the AJC is not giving up on itself. Isaiah 41:6 says, “Each helped their neighbor and everyone said to his brother, be strong and courageous.”

Jono David
www.JewishPhotoLibrary.com
jono@gol.com
Osaka, Japan

(Note: as this is a guest post, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial staff.)

I am going to begin this post from the following assumption: The JCCV is not democratic nor is it representational.

Pages have already been filled on this blog debating this issue and it is an issue that can be argued back and forth ad infinitum. Whether it is or is not democratic or representational may ultimately come down to various definitions of what precisely constitutes democracy or representation. In my mind resorting to such arguments by definition is simply a way of avoiding genuine and substantive issues.

What is of far more interest to me are the following questions:

1. What exactly should the mandate of communal governance be?
2. Is the JCCV in its current form the best organisation to fulfil such a mandate?
3. Is the JCCV’s constituency satisfied with both what the JCCV does and how it goes about achieving it?

The first question has thus far not been extensively discussed on this blog but  I will put forward the following:

1. Strategic vision for the future of the community and activities to pursue these strategic aims.
2. Coordination of all communal fundraising activities and then disbursement of those funds.
3. Responsibility for the physical security of the community.
4. Advocacy to government on the community’s behalf.
5. Public relations between the community and the broader Australian community.
6. Facilitation of greater interaction and involvement between different parts of the community.
7. Hosting a number of major events every calendar year.
8. Provision of key information to the community.
9. A forum for the settlement of disputes between communal organisations and individuals.

The second question I would answer in the resounding negative. While the JCCV certainly performs some of the functions on my list, and indeed many others as well, its general lack of democracy, its inability to be genuinely representative and the lack of transparency surrounding so many facets of its general operation leave it as a body whose primary interest is the preservation of the status quo, not as a body that can drive positive growth and change.

As for the third question, the only way to arrive at an unequivocal answer would be to conduct a survey of every single Jewish person in Melbourne and ask them directly. As the mountains of anecdotal evidence referred to on this blog maintain, there is an unusually high degree of dissatisfaction with the JCCV and Communal leadership in general.

Thus, I propose the following:

1. Abolish the JCCV in its current form entirely.
2. Establish a new organisation that is not made up of affiliate organisations but one where members of the community can vote directly on matters.
3. Establish a registry of every Jewish person in Melbourne above the age of 18 who wishes to participate. The registry would be stored securely online and operate very much like an online social community. The “Jewishness” of members would have to be verified by some process.
4. This online registry would then become the constituency.
5. The constituency would then vote once every term (lets say every two years) for the executive of the new body.
6. The executive would be constituted of positions that address the aims described above. Hence there would be:

• President /CEO – Strategic direction, ultimate arbiter
• Treasurer/ CFO – Financial matters
• Security Chief
• Advocacy Director
• PR and Communications Director
• Events Coordinator
• Director of Communal Affairs

7.    The Executive would use the online social community to communicate all substantive matters to the community. The community would be able to use the online social community to discuss relevant issues and create pressure groups around certain issues. As the affairs of the online community are easily trackable, verifiable and consistent metrics around communal attitudes can be gauged at all times.

8.    In addition to the online community, the Executive would meet in a public forum once a month where they would hear grievances, suggestions and debate from the community on any number of issues. The agenda of these meetings would be set by the online community by relevance and popularity of issues.

The establishment of such an online space for the community would have a number of significant benefits.

First, it would facilitate genuine democracy within the leadership structure. The actual will of individuals could be implemented as opposed to channelling their will through a number of dubiously representative organisations.

Second, it would bypass the need for surveys or other opinion gauging activities as the online community would be a living and dynamic gauge of communal attitudes at all times.

Third, by formalising avenues of information flow, both from and to the leadership, genuine transparency of the leadership’s actions can be maintained at all times, and the constituency will always have available channels for grievances and the like.

An approach like this, which utilises the internet’s unprecedented ability to enfranchise individuals is certainly the way forward for all governmental structures. Their ultimate implementation is more a question of “when” than one of “if”. There is no reason why the Jewish Community of Melbourne should not be a trailblazer in this regard.