I am a member of Habonim Dror youth movement, which identifies as culturally Jewish rather than Orthodox, Socialist and Zionist. Being part of this movement has been a massive part of my Jewish education. I went on my gap year to Israel with the movement, where we discussed a socialist future for the State of Israel and more relevantly, the intrinsic links between Socialism and Judaism.
Many regard the two as conflicting philosophies. Personally, I find it difficult to separate them.
On my gap year, we were educated on the values of “Shivyon Erech Ha Adam” – the equality of human worth— and “Tikun Olam” – healing the world: two pillars of the thinking of Jewish Socialists. These ideas reminded me of Jewish values I had been taught in my 18 years at King David in Manchester.
During my Jewish Studies A-Level, I read the books of Amos and Isaiah. These figureheads of Jewish thought, carrying the word of G-d, actively condemned the exploitation of the lower classes and the lack of social responsibility held by the upper classes. They condemned nations fighting against nations. They promoted ideas of equality of all classes and people and amplified the commonly ignored righteousness of the poor. The struggles for social justice I had learned about in a Jewish context stuck with me in Israel when we were talking about Socialism.
Socialism demands that the human race takes responsibility for its future. It demands that the human race unites and works for prosperity as a true unified race, without exploitation or hatred. Judaism, for me, echoes this determination.
My most recent reminder of the links between the two came through involvement with Aish. Admittedly, I do not practice life as an Orthodox Jew nor do I feel I can fully relate to that lifestyle. But the speakers I have heard through Aish have discussed Socialism, just through Judaism. At a seminar at Clifford Chance law firm comparing British and Jewish Law, Rabbi Daniel Rowe spoke about the free market and taxes from a Jewish perspective. He talked from the viewpoint of responsibility rather than rights. According to his interpretation of Jewish values, if we were all brought up to approach the world asking ‘how can I help others?’ and ‘what is my responsibility to society?’ rather than asking ‘what can society do for me?’ or ‘what can I personally get out of society?’ the world would be a much happier place.
His use of the word ‘responsibility’ reminded me of a joke we used to have on Shnat about how our educators would relentlessly refer to our ‘responsibilities’ to each other and society. They were Socialist thinkers; Rabbi Rowe is a Jewish thinker. They discuss the same thing.
The connection between the two philosophies is something that intrigues me. Socialist ideas jump at me every time I read the Torah. I don’t believe it is a coincidence, I think that Socialism and Judaism can be mutually influenced. The link is something that should not be ignored just because of the long-haired, unpleasant stereotypes of socialists.
I don’t subscribe blindly to either philosophies, neither the Jewish religion in its modern structure, nor Socialism in its modern mani-festation. But the values, ethics and morals involved are, in my opinion, their raisons d’être.
In my eyes, the auras of Socialism and Judaism glow together.
by Joe Ailion
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
NUS - the national voice of students?
The role of the National Union of Students is to represent "the national voice of students". An organisation that has recently come in for a lot of criticism, NUS was last night hijacked by an extreme minority and managed to further damage their credibility.
The motion passed by the NUS National Executive can be viewed here: http://ujs.org.uk/news/664/nus-slammed-for-divisive-undemocratic-anti-israel-policy/
At a time when Student Unions across the country, and their affiliated societies, have been working hard to create a positive pro-peace forum on the issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, NUS has put a major dent in its work to foster good campus relations.
Amongst other points, the new policy vows to build links between British universities and the Islamic University of Gaza, set up by the not-so-moderate Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of Hamas, and send an NUS delegation on a future convoy, similar to the ones run by the terror-affiliated yet supposedly 'peace activists' IHH, to the Gaza Strip.
One of NUS' LGBT officers, Vicki Baars, strongly praised last night's event, calling it "a real victory". Hmmm... let's see how the LGBT delegation get on with Hamas.
It was only due to the poor turnout of moderate students at the meeting (only 20/50 elected members were present) that about 10 extreme activists were able to take advantage of this and reject the call for a two-state solution - the the only viable peaceful Middle East solution that is on offer and, furthermore, the desire of the majority of the region. With such a small number of attendees, the legitimacy of the decision is, at the very least, highly questionable.
By passing such a radical motion, comparing Israel to the 'Apartheid regime' of South Africa, the NUS Executive Council have made a mockery of their role as representatives (a term I would use loosely) of seven million students. Without doubt, the University of Birmingham Guild of Students has been a fine example in recent years of concentrating on student issues and distancing themselves from matters such as this one. Maybe this is an example that NUS ought to follow.
by Eytan Halon
The motion passed by the NUS National Executive can be viewed here: http://ujs.org.uk/news/664/nus-slammed-for-divisive-undemocratic-anti-israel-policy/
At a time when Student Unions across the country, and their affiliated societies, have been working hard to create a positive pro-peace forum on the issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, NUS has put a major dent in its work to foster good campus relations.
Amongst other points, the new policy vows to build links between British universities and the Islamic University of Gaza, set up by the not-so-moderate Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of Hamas, and send an NUS delegation on a future convoy, similar to the ones run by the terror-affiliated yet supposedly 'peace activists' IHH, to the Gaza Strip.
One of NUS' LGBT officers, Vicki Baars, strongly praised last night's event, calling it "a real victory". Hmmm... let's see how the LGBT delegation get on with Hamas.
It was only due to the poor turnout of moderate students at the meeting (only 20/50 elected members were present) that about 10 extreme activists were able to take advantage of this and reject the call for a two-state solution - the the only viable peaceful Middle East solution that is on offer and, furthermore, the desire of the majority of the region. With such a small number of attendees, the legitimacy of the decision is, at the very least, highly questionable.
By passing such a radical motion, comparing Israel to the 'Apartheid regime' of South Africa, the NUS Executive Council have made a mockery of their role as representatives (a term I would use loosely) of seven million students. Without doubt, the University of Birmingham Guild of Students has been a fine example in recent years of concentrating on student issues and distancing themselves from matters such as this one. Maybe this is an example that NUS ought to follow.
by Eytan Halon
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Dialogue Not Debate
Twelve hours on from the guild council meeting, much to my dismay I found myself back in the guild council chambers, however, instead of the usual dose of dreary debate that is commonplace within student politics, I was there for a much more enlightening and engaging event. On Wednesday 16th of March the first event of its kind took place in UoB, an event called ‘Myth? {Busters}! was hosted by the Interfaith Association together with a number of specific faith societies. The aim of the event was to tackle commonly held conceptions, or misconceptions, about faith and students of faith. A range of “myths” were presented to the ex-pert panelists, each of whom represented a different faith, and they then spoke about their religions perspective on this myth. The issues discussed included religious fundamentalism, the superficiality of interfaith and the connection between religion and morality. After the panel discussion, there was an opportunity for the audience and the panelists to continue the discussion in an informal setting where students of different faiths had the opportunity to meet and talk. For some students this was their first opportunity to talk to people of particular faiths.
The idea is that this will be a launch event for future interfaith initiatives on campus. The long term aim of the Interfaith Association is to set up something more regular where students from different faiths meet to discuss different issues. Hopefully, in the near future, dialogue between faith groups will become common practice on our campus and religion will become an opportunity for rather than an obstacle to discussion.
I am not naïve, I don’t believe that attending an interfaith event is some sort of a miracle cure for campus, suddenly settling complex disputes and diffusing tension. But I do believe that before debates about controversial topics such as the Middle East can be conceived or conducted constructively we have to create conditions conducive to debate, not confrontation. This can only be done by discussing our differences and discovering common ground. Any one who has ever witnessed an angry and aggressive debate will know that no party ever brings around the other to their way of thinking. Only in an atmosphere of mutual respect and recognition, based on our common humanity, can we hope to achieve anything.
One of the main aims of the Jewish Society on campus is to persuade people of the importance of a peace process leading to a two-state solution. Certainly the events that we organise on campus are often interesting and informative however, it ismost often a case of preaching to the choir. This can descend into a self-serving, self-perpetuating exercise in sophistry. If we really want to achieve our aims we need to extend our efforts to more effectively educate and engage with those people beyond our core community. In order to do this we need to accept that, no matter how deeply held, historical narratives are not always entirely accurate, and the mythology they can create can deepen existing divisions. In order to achieve our aims we must try and overcome our own orthodoxies and accept that there is legitimacy in the opinions of others.
by Tizzy Keller
The idea is that this will be a launch event for future interfaith initiatives on campus. The long term aim of the Interfaith Association is to set up something more regular where students from different faiths meet to discuss different issues. Hopefully, in the near future, dialogue between faith groups will become common practice on our campus and religion will become an opportunity for rather than an obstacle to discussion.
I am not naïve, I don’t believe that attending an interfaith event is some sort of a miracle cure for campus, suddenly settling complex disputes and diffusing tension. But I do believe that before debates about controversial topics such as the Middle East can be conceived or conducted constructively we have to create conditions conducive to debate, not confrontation. This can only be done by discussing our differences and discovering common ground. Any one who has ever witnessed an angry and aggressive debate will know that no party ever brings around the other to their way of thinking. Only in an atmosphere of mutual respect and recognition, based on our common humanity, can we hope to achieve anything.
One of the main aims of the Jewish Society on campus is to persuade people of the importance of a peace process leading to a two-state solution. Certainly the events that we organise on campus are often interesting and informative however, it ismost often a case of preaching to the choir. This can descend into a self-serving, self-perpetuating exercise in sophistry. If we really want to achieve our aims we need to extend our efforts to more effectively educate and engage with those people beyond our core community. In order to do this we need to accept that, no matter how deeply held, historical narratives are not always entirely accurate, and the mythology they can create can deepen existing divisions. In order to achieve our aims we must try and overcome our own orthodoxies and accept that there is legitimacy in the opinions of others.
by Tizzy Keller
Monday, 16 May 2011
'The Promise' - An Analysis
Kosminsky wrote and directed The Promise with the intention of addressing an ongoing conflict through a four part drama serial which primarily focused on the ‘drama’ of the various relationships that featured. The primary relationship involves Erin, an English teen, who becomes acquainted with her deceased grandfather through a diary he kept whilst in Palestine as a member of the British forces, before the State of Israel was declared.
Though Erin’s encounters are entertaining, reactions and reviews of ‘The Promise’ have centered around the representation of the Arab/ Israeli conflict.
Mark Robins, First Year, History
As a great enjoyer of TV and everything Israel related, the prospect of watching a drama, related to the Israel Palestine conflict was one that I certainly wasn’t to pass up on. I don’t ever recall a drama on British TV exploring this aspect of the Middle East, so I thought it would be a wonderful platform to show the British public the many complexities of the situation, whilst encouraging a platform for open debate and dialogue. I expected neutrality on the part of Kosminsky, who had actually stayed in Israel for a year during filming and had a cast consisting of many Israeli actors, but were my expectations met?
Not exactly. What I got was a series in which all Israeli’s were presented as wealthy, anti-Zionist or extreme right; at times cold, distant and even inhuman in the case of the settlers. In episode one, the impression of Israel pre-sented as Erin toured passed the mansions and palaces of Caesarea was for anyone who’s visited Israel a startling revelation. Trust me, if that was the true Israel, I would have made Aliyah so fast! In episode two, we see the gated and pillared house of grandpa with his garden of palm trees and accessory swimming pool. No tennis courts? Of course, grandpa was no soft gentle Jewish zaydah offering food every 2 minutes. We were given nothing short of a bond villain to give the Israeli perspective or ‘the voice of Israel’. Amongst his rants, which involved the Alan Sugar ‘you’re fired’ finger on numerous occasions, we were lucky enough to hear him deliver such Gandhi-like lines as “Who do you think trained us to kill” and my personal favourite, “they stood in our way. And we wiped them out.” Why not just cast Gadaffi? Episode 3. The setting is Hebron. We have a crowd of reasoned, modern, secular people and a crazy Jew with a microphone screaming something along the lines of “let them fire at the Arabs.” After being stoned by Jewish kids, Erin takes us on a tour of a communal Jewish house in Hebron, and not a single smiling, happy Jewish face. Host Salit in particular, was a bundle of laughs. However, worse was yet to come. The last episode made for particu-larly uncomfortable viewing showing the IDF use of human shields, Jews as child killers, a near Rachel Corrie type bull-dozer incident. At times it was extremely painful to watch. And during all this Hamas, that wonderful beacon of peace, was represented by an innocent looking teen with a gun.
As for balance, we have the occasional Nazi-British analogy, the one suicide bombing. Was I the only one who thought it inappropriate that a pizza delivery guy was the first on the scene?
But there was no mention of the Arab invasions of Israel upon her independence, no mention of the Hebron massacre, or the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. And in the modern context, what about Hamas use of human shields, incessant rocket fire and stated aims? What about Israel’s existential threat?
For me this just shows how easily it is for a group of people to be misrepresented. Whether Jewish, Muslim Catholic or other. The way to combat such misrepresentation is through listening to the narratives of others, to be open and sensitive to others points of views and correcting inaccuracies through education and discussion wherever possible.
The Promise had to potential to create an atmosphere in which open discussion about the conflict could have been achieved. Instead it’s made supporters of both sides retreat into their own pre-existing political ‘camps’ of opinion, as I have done, rather than encouraging debate and dialogue, which is a real shame and a wasted opportunity. Despite its many flaws, or maybe as a result of them, The Promise still poses a chance for people to have honest, open discussion about representation, historical accuracies and the conflict itself. We need to create these opportunities, or be resigned to a future where Israel is further scrutinized and condemned and the Jewish community forever on the defensive.
Ben Curtis, Second Year, International Relations
Like many of my contemporaries, I was excited about the new Channel 4 drama The Promise, which gave me something to look forward to on a Sunday night. However, as the series progressed my feelings turned to anger as the show’s subtle propaganda began to unfold.
Reflecting on the series as a whole, I would argue that there was clear bias. Throughout the series, Jews are portrayed as the “bad guys” whereas Arabs are made to look like the “good guys”. This is shown by the extensive focus on the Irgun, a Jewish underground military group, during the depiction of British Mandate Palestine. The overemphasis on this group was surprising because their views were in no way representative of the Jewish population as a whole. It is only the Jewish acts of terror that are highlighted with no mention of the numerous Arab revolts that cost hundreds of British and Jewish lives.
Additionally, the Jewish lover of the main British soldier betrays him terribly, helping to portray the Jews of Mandate Palestine as brutal and treacherous. This is a great contrast to the depiction of a warm and kind Arab family befriended by the British solider. In the modern day element of the drama the main character Erin, like her grandfather, becomes increasingly sensitive to the Palestinian cause and grows to resent Israel. As both sub plots ultimately draw similar conclusions of Israeli wrongdoing and Arab innocence it is not hard to decipher the message promoted through the drama.
Some of the negative portrayals of contemporary Israeli society in The Promise are accurate, whereas others are completely unfounded. Having visited the West Bank, I can attest to the fact that the occu-pation is ugly and makes life hard for Palestinians. It is true that there are some areas like Hebron where extremist settlers taunt and intimidate their Palestinian neighbours and this is deplorable.
The portrayal of the Israeli army using human shields, however, could not be further from the truth and is frankly insulting. Such actions are completely against the moral standards of an army that is bound by a “purity of arms” as well as international humanitarian norms. If such a crime was committed by a soldier he would be duly arrested and prosecuted by the Israeli justice system.
The premise of the series is revealed in the last episode when the key British soldier questions the legitimacy of the new Jewish state due to the ‘violence’ and ‘cruelty to its neighbours’ that precedes its establish-ment. These closing remarks unjustly insinuate that perhaps the State of Israel should not exist at all. It is implied that it was solely the Jews who were responsible for the violence before the British withdrawal from Palestine. This completely overlooks the fact that a civil war had in fact broken out between the Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine due to Arab anger at the announcement of the United Nations partition plan in November 1947. The plan proposed the creation of a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine with Jerusalem remaining under international sovereignty. Had the Arabs accepted the proposal, a conflict lasting over sixty years seeing thousands of lives lost on both sides, could have been avoided.
I would argue that The Promise is a reflection of the director Peter Kosminsky’s own opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whilst I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, this must be distinguished from reality. The Promise, although very well acted, emotive and compelling, is a one-sided perspective on the origins of this complex conflict. It is, essentially, a theatrical projection of the Palestinian narrative and must be recognised as such.
By Mark Robins and Ben Curtis
Though Erin’s encounters are entertaining, reactions and reviews of ‘The Promise’ have centered around the representation of the Arab/ Israeli conflict.
Mark Robins, First Year, History
As a great enjoyer of TV and everything Israel related, the prospect of watching a drama, related to the Israel Palestine conflict was one that I certainly wasn’t to pass up on. I don’t ever recall a drama on British TV exploring this aspect of the Middle East, so I thought it would be a wonderful platform to show the British public the many complexities of the situation, whilst encouraging a platform for open debate and dialogue. I expected neutrality on the part of Kosminsky, who had actually stayed in Israel for a year during filming and had a cast consisting of many Israeli actors, but were my expectations met?
Not exactly. What I got was a series in which all Israeli’s were presented as wealthy, anti-Zionist or extreme right; at times cold, distant and even inhuman in the case of the settlers. In episode one, the impression of Israel pre-sented as Erin toured passed the mansions and palaces of Caesarea was for anyone who’s visited Israel a startling revelation. Trust me, if that was the true Israel, I would have made Aliyah so fast! In episode two, we see the gated and pillared house of grandpa with his garden of palm trees and accessory swimming pool. No tennis courts? Of course, grandpa was no soft gentle Jewish zaydah offering food every 2 minutes. We were given nothing short of a bond villain to give the Israeli perspective or ‘the voice of Israel’. Amongst his rants, which involved the Alan Sugar ‘you’re fired’ finger on numerous occasions, we were lucky enough to hear him deliver such Gandhi-like lines as “Who do you think trained us to kill” and my personal favourite, “they stood in our way. And we wiped them out.” Why not just cast Gadaffi? Episode 3. The setting is Hebron. We have a crowd of reasoned, modern, secular people and a crazy Jew with a microphone screaming something along the lines of “let them fire at the Arabs.” After being stoned by Jewish kids, Erin takes us on a tour of a communal Jewish house in Hebron, and not a single smiling, happy Jewish face. Host Salit in particular, was a bundle of laughs. However, worse was yet to come. The last episode made for particu-larly uncomfortable viewing showing the IDF use of human shields, Jews as child killers, a near Rachel Corrie type bull-dozer incident. At times it was extremely painful to watch. And during all this Hamas, that wonderful beacon of peace, was represented by an innocent looking teen with a gun.
As for balance, we have the occasional Nazi-British analogy, the one suicide bombing. Was I the only one who thought it inappropriate that a pizza delivery guy was the first on the scene?
But there was no mention of the Arab invasions of Israel upon her independence, no mention of the Hebron massacre, or the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. And in the modern context, what about Hamas use of human shields, incessant rocket fire and stated aims? What about Israel’s existential threat?
For me this just shows how easily it is for a group of people to be misrepresented. Whether Jewish, Muslim Catholic or other. The way to combat such misrepresentation is through listening to the narratives of others, to be open and sensitive to others points of views and correcting inaccuracies through education and discussion wherever possible.
The Promise had to potential to create an atmosphere in which open discussion about the conflict could have been achieved. Instead it’s made supporters of both sides retreat into their own pre-existing political ‘camps’ of opinion, as I have done, rather than encouraging debate and dialogue, which is a real shame and a wasted opportunity. Despite its many flaws, or maybe as a result of them, The Promise still poses a chance for people to have honest, open discussion about representation, historical accuracies and the conflict itself. We need to create these opportunities, or be resigned to a future where Israel is further scrutinized and condemned and the Jewish community forever on the defensive.
Ben Curtis, Second Year, International Relations
Like many of my contemporaries, I was excited about the new Channel 4 drama The Promise, which gave me something to look forward to on a Sunday night. However, as the series progressed my feelings turned to anger as the show’s subtle propaganda began to unfold.
Reflecting on the series as a whole, I would argue that there was clear bias. Throughout the series, Jews are portrayed as the “bad guys” whereas Arabs are made to look like the “good guys”. This is shown by the extensive focus on the Irgun, a Jewish underground military group, during the depiction of British Mandate Palestine. The overemphasis on this group was surprising because their views were in no way representative of the Jewish population as a whole. It is only the Jewish acts of terror that are highlighted with no mention of the numerous Arab revolts that cost hundreds of British and Jewish lives.
Additionally, the Jewish lover of the main British soldier betrays him terribly, helping to portray the Jews of Mandate Palestine as brutal and treacherous. This is a great contrast to the depiction of a warm and kind Arab family befriended by the British solider. In the modern day element of the drama the main character Erin, like her grandfather, becomes increasingly sensitive to the Palestinian cause and grows to resent Israel. As both sub plots ultimately draw similar conclusions of Israeli wrongdoing and Arab innocence it is not hard to decipher the message promoted through the drama.
Some of the negative portrayals of contemporary Israeli society in The Promise are accurate, whereas others are completely unfounded. Having visited the West Bank, I can attest to the fact that the occu-pation is ugly and makes life hard for Palestinians. It is true that there are some areas like Hebron where extremist settlers taunt and intimidate their Palestinian neighbours and this is deplorable.
The portrayal of the Israeli army using human shields, however, could not be further from the truth and is frankly insulting. Such actions are completely against the moral standards of an army that is bound by a “purity of arms” as well as international humanitarian norms. If such a crime was committed by a soldier he would be duly arrested and prosecuted by the Israeli justice system.
The premise of the series is revealed in the last episode when the key British soldier questions the legitimacy of the new Jewish state due to the ‘violence’ and ‘cruelty to its neighbours’ that precedes its establish-ment. These closing remarks unjustly insinuate that perhaps the State of Israel should not exist at all. It is implied that it was solely the Jews who were responsible for the violence before the British withdrawal from Palestine. This completely overlooks the fact that a civil war had in fact broken out between the Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine due to Arab anger at the announcement of the United Nations partition plan in November 1947. The plan proposed the creation of a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine with Jerusalem remaining under international sovereignty. Had the Arabs accepted the proposal, a conflict lasting over sixty years seeing thousands of lives lost on both sides, could have been avoided.
I would argue that The Promise is a reflection of the director Peter Kosminsky’s own opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whilst I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, this must be distinguished from reality. The Promise, although very well acted, emotive and compelling, is a one-sided perspective on the origins of this complex conflict. It is, essentially, a theatrical projection of the Palestinian narrative and must be recognised as such.
By Mark Robins and Ben Curtis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)