What’s in a Name?

A new book is soon to be published called A Lexicon on Terror. It was conceived by Victoria Police together with Australian Multicultural Foundation with the aim of reducing alienation and violence within the Muslim community. This made me think about our own various Zionist lexicons, which I have compiled below. I'm sure many of you have heard these words before, an am interested to know what association each one brings up for you? How can the choice of one word over another harm or benefit our community?

Names for the Conflict

Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Jewish Arab Conflict

War on Terrorism

Good Vs Evil

Clash of Civilizations

Matzav

Intifada

Jihad (as understood by most Muslims)

Jihad (as understood by most in the West)
Caliphate

Crusade

Barrier

Wall

Fence

Security Fence

Fence against terror

Separation Fence

Anti Terrorist Fence

Apartheid Wall

Demographic wall

Israeli West Bank Barrier

Israeli Administered Territories

West Bank - Judea and Samaria (Yesha)

Gaza Strip – Gush Katif

Golan Heights

Occupied Territories

Disputed Territories

Arab Territories

Green Line

June 1967 Borders

1949 Armistice Line

Places of residence in the Administered Territories

Cities

Settlements

Villages

Communities

Outposts

People who live in the Administered Territories

Settlers

Residents

Occupiers

Hilltop Youth

Colonialists

Jews / Israelis

Palestinians

Arabs (Blue ID, Orange ID)

Jerusalem Arabs

Zionists

Which word/words do you prefer when discussing each topic? Why?

If you are trying to convince someone in conservation what will be more useful to you, having a better argument, or expressing it in the right words?

Manhigut Le'Oz

In response to a question posted by Yoram on the Sensible Jew blog about what would give a person or organisation legitimacy to speak on behalf of the Melbourne Jewish community, I offer these thoughts. The ideal person or organisation would:

· Speak about all issues of community concern in a pluralistic Jewish terms rather than the language of an obfuscating diplomat.

· Would Hug and wrestle with Israel both personally and in public

· Usually begin with the assumption that more can be gained by engaging with those with whom we disagree then boycotting or protesting.

· Encourage community organisations and schools to share resources rather than compete.

· Not use the words like “pro or anti Israel” when talking about the conflict, but rather:

Zionist: Pro-Two State Solution, Anti-Two State solution

· Not use the words Amalek, Holocaust, Nazi or Hitler to describe those who seek to harm our community.

· Should be knowledge of Jewish History as well as Jewish Memory. This means wearing the glasses of Memory at the seder table, to be replaced with the glasses of History and reality when reading The Age. Both texts will make a lot more sense that way, and less offence will be caused to all involved.

Seeing Israel through the Internet

Over the past weeks I have read numerous blogs, opinion articles and Israeli news sites representing viewpoints of both the left and right. I have written several comments on people’s Facebook walls expressing my opinions whilst simultaneously watching countless hours of Youtube videos and live Arutz 2 news reports about the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel. Throughout this process, I have noticed the same familiar expressions appearing in almost every discussion. “Israel has a right to defend herself,” “Israel has caused a humanitarian crisis in Gaza” “Israel’s use of force is disproportional,” “The Arab world will be glad when Israel defeats Hamas,” “It’s time to end this cycle of violence” and “Ceasefire now.” I have also read enough comparisons with the Holocaust to make me believe that Avraham Burg's assertions have more legitimacy than his detractors claim. Inevitably, every one of these talkback pages ends with the opinionated author being accused of such deep anti or pro-Israel bias, with comments that usually attack the person more than deal with the complexity of their argument. The people who write these comments usually fall in to two groups. There are the leftists who believe that, based on the lessons of both the 1982 and 2006 Lebanon wars against Hezbollah, it is not possible to “teach Hamas a lesson” through force and that this conflict will only end around a negotiating table. They argue that terrorism does not emanate from a person or organisation that can be eliminated with a bomb. They believe that terrorism is an idea that can only be defeated by a more compelling idea, which in this case should be the value of dialogue and compromise. The rightists argue that the path of the left has been tried and failed because there is no one to talk with in Gaza that can stop the rockets on Southern Israel. Therefore, in order for Israel to defend its citizens from daily rocket fire, the only solution to this conflict is a military one. In between all these arguments, which are often expressed with colourful and emotive candour, I have come to notice one thing: Very rarely do our co-religionists switch from the right or the left during these debates. If anything, these debates serve only to harden their positions. In two rallies held in Melbourne last week, a pro-Israel rally was attended by 600 Jews, whilst a pro-Palestinian rally was attended by 3000, with a few Jews there as well. Did either of these rallies convince anyone to change their positions? If all these “hasbara” efforts do little to change other people’s views, why do we bother? In my observation the real reason we argue with one another so passionately is because we are desperately trying to convince ourselves that the very strong views we hold are legitimate. Some say, “It’s right to bomb a school in Gaza to kill a gang of terrorists who use children as human shields.” “It’s right to negotiate with terrorists who don’t even recognise our existence because of the wrongs we have done to them in the past.” “If Arab mothers loved their children more than they hate us, there would be peace.” “It is Israel, the illegal occupier, who is the real threat to peace in the region.” These categorical statements make me shudder. Their shallowness and crassness only ever lead to screaming matches. By engaging in this kind of “information war,” be it from the left or the right, we are doing mental gymnastics to justify a logic that for many others is simply unjustifiable. Perhaps it is our way of saying “even though Israel’s choices seem unfathomable to you, I am trying to have them make sense for me.” However, the result of blaring our positions at each other through megaphones has resulted in us gradually becoming deaf to the subtlety and nuance required for reasoned debate and reflective understanding on the issues. When we see every argument as a point scoring opportunity, then perhaps we are not really engaging with Israel or the main issues at all. Perhaps the purpose of these “hasbara” efforts is, depending on your point of view, to make us feel less guilty about Palestinian civilian causalities of this conflict, or to make us have less awareness of the incompatibility of Hamas with responsible leadership. Either way, I think it’s time to move beyond the confident proclamations of “the truth.” We should begin searching for the shades of grey and the humanity that this terrible war is sapping away from both sides every minute it continues.

Avraham Avinu and Obama Malkeinu

One of the most moving things about Barack Obama’s historic win in the US elections was his incredibly powerful victory speechdelivered to thousands in Grant Park, Chicago. It happened on the week of Parashat Lech Lecha, where the great forefather of monotheism, Avraham Avinu, set out on another very different journey of his own, which was, like Obama’s, full of promise. I wondered what a discussion between Avraham and Sarah would sound like, if he decided to take a leaf out of the President Elect’s speech writing school. Here is Bibliodrama I came up with:

Avram: Sarah, I believe our lives can be better. I believe that change is possible.

Sarai: How?

Avram: I think about all that I have seen in the last 99 years of my life– the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that Hebrew creed: Yes we can.

At a time when people were swept up in the idolatry of Ur Casdim, where Faith in one God was scorned, I left the affluenza of Haran, and travelled to the new land. When there was despair and famine in Canaan, you God saved us from the wrath of pharaoh and set us free to be man and wife yet again. Yes we can.

Then we returned to the land, and had to divide it up with my nephew lot, who got himself into many a troubling situation both in Sodom and with the four kings. It took great diplomacy, and God by my side to keep the peace. Yes We Can.

And Hagar became my wife, and brought unhappiness between myself and you, and I had to choose whether to throw them out where they would surely perish. You told me to abandon my first born son, and my handmaiden wife. I listened to you Sarah, and your words were proved right. Yes we can.

Then God made with me a covenant, saying that our offspring will be strangers in a strange land, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed 400 years, but He, God, will execute judgement, and in the end they shall go free with great wealth. Yes we can.

I look up to the stars and God said to me “count the stars, if you can count them, so shall be your seed” . My child-less wife found this funny, but I told her “Yes We Can”

I finally got my coveted heir, my beloved Yitzchak, and as my wife lay in labour for hours at age ninety, she screamed “ Yes Yes Yes Yes We Can”

We have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So this morning, let us ask ourselves – if our children Issac and Ishmael should live to see the next century; if they can put their hatreds which they’ve inherited from us aside and be so lucky to live as long as we have, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to rise up, walk about the land through its length and its breadth, for god has given it to us. To reclaim the Hebrew Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of one, we will be many, like the stars of the sky and the dust of the earth. That while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless Am Yisrael. And let us say Amen.

Senior Educators Program - Final Update

,וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ. וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם,

בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ

Deuteronomy 6:6

I have been working in the field of informal and formal Jewish education for over ten years. Of all the subjects I teach, I have the greatest passion and interest for the teaching of Tanach. It is a book that never ceases to enthrall me in its characterization of the human condition, its sparse narrative, the special obligation it outlines for the Jewish people and the real and imagined history it tells of my nation. In addition to a book of religious instruction, I also read the Tanach as the central text of Jewish collective memory. After touch, taste, hearing, sight and smell, Tanach opens me to my sixth sense, memory. Jonathan Safran Foer elaborates on this idea in his book Everything is Illuminated:

The Jew is pricked by a pin and remembers other pins. It is only by tracing the pinprick back to other pinpricks – when his mother tried to fix his sleeve while his arm was still in it, when his grandfather's fingers fell asleep while stroking his great-grandfather's damp forehead, when Abraham tested the knife point to be sure Isaac would feel no pain – that the Jew is able to know why it hurts.When a Jew encounters a pin, he asks: What does it remember like?"

Over the past year I have had a first class tutorial in Jewish memory through living and studying in Jerusalem as a fellow on the Melton Centre's Senior Educators Program. Each day I woke up, ate, read, traveled, socialized, studied, questioned, rested, prayed, wrestled and hugged. The fact that I was doing all of this in the State of Israel provided a constant commentary to each of my activities. I encountered people from across the globe who love this land because of, and in spite of, what it is. I encountered a contemporary spoken language revived from the bible, sounds and songs of deep longing, food flavored with a rainbow of spices and a culture of deep searching for meaning, ritual, money and peace. Being in this most dynamic of societies, everything I learnt this year entered my mind through one of its many filters. After absorbing hundreds of lectures, websites, books, religious and secular shiurim, films,
concerts and tiyulim, I strove to find a medium for professional expression from these encounters.

From Tree of Knowledge to Tree of life, the project I worked on for the past year, is one product of this encounter. For the rest of what I have learnt this year, I invite you to join me at a Shabbat table, class, living room, or lecture theatre in the future.

Thank you very much to The King David School, Melton Mini-School, VUPJ, UPJ and the Jewish Agency for Israel who made this experience possible.

The Meaning of Israel: יום העצמאות ה60‎ ערב

“What is the meaning of the state of Israel? No single answer can exhaust its meaning. One fact is clear. In no other community do we witness such an intense, ongoing search, such an effort to understand itself in terms of a higher vision as in Israel.
–A. J Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity

From the time I was born here, and through my education in Australian Zionist schools and youth movements, I remember repeatedly hearing two contradictory answers to the question of what the purpose of the Israel should be, The first is that we should aspire to be a nation like all other nations. We will know that this purpose has been fulfilled "when Jewish thieves and Jewish prostitutes conduct their business in Hebrew." The second is that we have been selected by God to be different from other nations, and with this chosen status came a special responsibility. “To be a light unto the nations.” Both statements were always attributed to David Ben Gurion.

On the eve of our sixtieth birthday, we are both. Like most other western nations we value money and materialism too much, our inept political leadership generates more apathy than hope, and we struggle to treat our minorities with the same dignity afforded to our majorities. More specifically the way we have dealt with the question of Palestinian nationalism has tarnished our image in the world more than any other event.

Avashai Margalit suggest’s there perhaps is a third, more realistic option between these two ideals. Margalit’s ideal is a society whose institutions do not humiliate the people under their authority, and whose citizens do not humiliate one another. He calls this a “decent society.”

This coming week is not one for these questions. It is a time for honoring and celebrating the great people and achievements of the only Jewish State. But once the smoke from the fireworks has cleared way, and the flags have come down, it would be nice to know where we are headed.

עד 120 יום הולדת שמח יִשְרָאֵל!