Letters, September 17, 2010

In defence of the AJDS

THE Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS) has been severely criticised in recent weeks by both the JCCV and in The AJN, and we offer this response.

The strength of a community is reflected in the range of voices that it encompasses, and we argue that this applies to opinion about contentious politics or actions  in Israel as much as anything else.

The Australian Jewish Democratic Society considers the occupation of the West Bank to be a significant obstacle to the achievement of a lasting peace, and the settlements to be one of its worst manifestations.

The effects of the Occupation are numerous: Israel’s youth must risk their lives in policing a hostile aggrieved Palestinian population, and risk becoming brutalised by the experience; Jewish settlers and their Palestinian neighbours have an understandably impossible relationship which often results in openly violent and destructive behaviour; it breaches international law, the very system that actually made possible the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948; development of Palestinian civil society and its economy, which are the prerequisites of prospects for peace, is stifled.

Many Israelis share this view. AJDS members decided that it does not wish to give financial support to those who produce goods and services in the settlements, and wishes to discourage others from doing so. We are taking this stand because we hope that it will encourage people to think about the question of the Occupation, and, at a more fundamental level, because we don’t wish to be supportive of people who breach International Law, with or without the approval of the Israeli Government. ¬†While our opinion might be that of a minority, that is no reason to dismiss its significance.

The accusation is also made that we offer comfort to enemies of Israel but in fact, and the position we have taken has not attracted support from hard-liners. In fact, our position  coincides with that taken by performers in Israel concerning the Ariel Arts centre, and that action that has garnered support from well-known Jewish performers internationally, including Theodore Bikel.

We are concerned for Israel’s future as a safe and secure democracy, not one that is burdened as an occupier and oppressor.

Changing the chosen

JOHNNY Baker endorses changing the traditional blessing on the Torah (AJN 03/09). He recently heard Amichai Lau-Lavie substitute the word “mikol” with “im kol” which changes the blessing’s meaning from God having chosen us from all other nations to receive the Torah to His having chosen us with or alongside all other nations.

While Baker waxed lyrical at the profundity of such a “small twist of a single letter”, I consider Lau-Lavie’s innovation to be objectionable for the following three reasons (in reverse order of importance).

First, it is meaningless. If all nations have been chosen, then none has been chosen. The concept of choice, by definition, means selecting one from many. Changing the blessing is therefore absurd.

Secondly, it is arrogant to make an alien blessing (reflecting a non-orthodox, revisionist theology) in an Orthodox shul. All Jews are welcome to pray in Orthodox shuls and retain their nusach (religious style or standard) in private prayer. But when publicly honoured by being called to the Torah, the nusach of the shul must be honoured.

Thirdly, by ascribing chosenness to all peoples, Lau-Lavie implies that the traditional concept of Jewish chosenness should be discarded as chauvinistic and insensitive. This misconceives our unique, divine role in this world as Ohr Lagoyim (a light unto the nations) which has nothing whatever to do with superiority, dominance or advantage. Our eternal mission, so profoundly described by Isaiah in 42:6, 49:6 and 60:3, is to share God-based ethics with our fellow man, by way of example, not by coercion.

Perhaps God chose the Holy Land for us to undertake this task because it was the ancient land bridge between the three continents where all travellers had to pass and would be exposed to our example. Civilised societies are those which are indeed founded on timeless values our Torah revealed. It is precisely our chosenness, our eternal role as Ohr Lagoyim, which has given humanity to mankind.

Excluded in shul

IN my short time in Melbourne I have been lucky enough to attend many different synagogues for the High Holy Days and have enjoyed the variety of styles and atmospheres. I am fortunate enough to be able to follow the service and to know my way around the prayer book, and I am distressed to see so many women who come to shul without the necessary knowledge to participate in the service. Often without even a book to follow, it is understandable that they seem alienated from the prayers, and end up chatting or concentrating on feeding and entertaining their children.

It is sad to see women without the opportunity to grow and develop their connection to Jewish life, and to see children learning that shul is a place to talk, while prayer is boring and unintelligible. It is also disturbing for those of us who do want to pray.

Can shuls not organise educational programmes in advance of the festivals to help congregants understand the structure of the service, turning bored spectators into active participants? Could there not be Machzorim available to borrow, or for sale at low cost?

If a shul programme is not a solution, I would be happy to meet with anyone interested to learn together so that we can take meaning and substance from the High Holy days. I can be contacted via  <I>The AJN<P>.