Comments for J-Wire

Comment on No money for academic anti-Semitism by Ben Eleijah

Ben Eleijah — Sat, 25 May 2013 12:17:35 +0000

great idea! Unfortunately, the “anti-Semitic” smear has long become debased currency. Any opposition to Israel’s colonization is by definition anti-Semitic, though jewish individuals and groups all over the world support the campaign against the dispossession of Palestinians.
They should The Age report about the EU findings on the West Bank.

Comment on No money for academic anti-Semitism by Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Sat, 25 May 2013 07:24:30 +0000

Rex, you “sound” very ethical – key word -. The sad reality is that universities have been for quite some time – particularly since the first half of the 19th Century, see the “Hip Hip” movements – hot beds of anti Semitism. Germany, France, Austro-Hungary, Eastern Europe ( with the extraordinary merrit of the Bulgarian academics !!) have “educated” generations of anti Semites, some into quite violent manifestations. Stuart Rees is no surprise and he has been tollerated as an over anti Semite by his former employer for decades. The ridiculous pretence of academic “privileges” has only currency for those enjoying the exploits of denying Jews the same rights as the “host” nation. To these people Israel was just a “wellcome addition” to their passion for attacking ANYTHING Jewish.

Comment on Open email to the Claims Conference by Paul Winter

Paul Winter — Sat, 25 May 2013 07:14:25 +0000

I applaud Dr Resnick’s comments.

The crooks who callously inflicted hardship on needy survivors, adding insult to injury sustained in the Shoah, deserve every punishment that can be imposed. Those who were derelict in their duties of oversight, deserve to be named, shamed and shunned. The fraud – even if not criminaltiy – that went on for years was undetected because of conceit and arrogance.

The theft shines a bad light on all Jews. The responsibility for that is squarely on the shoulders of the Claims Conference leadership, particularly so, because they strongly resisted openness when it was asked for years ago.

Comment on Moselmane tells Israeli ambassador to “butt out” by Paul Winter

Paul Winter — Sat, 25 May 2013 05:54:22 +0000

Moselmane’s presentation of a Koran should have been refused. While Australia is secular and multi-cultural, it is based on humanitarian Jewish values which have been accepted by Christians who estblished our nation. Several parts of the Koran oppose those values.

Mosulmaniac’s rant about Arab lands and a brutal Israeli occupation is a tissue of lies. He was completely out of line in telling the Israeli ambassador to “butt out”. He is either ignorant about what an ambassador’s role is or he wants us to believe that we are already under sharia dictatorship where dissent in forbidden

All decent Australians should say “sheket” to Shaoquett. Moselmane should not be in the ALP or even in any democratic country, much less in any parliament whose processes he is incapable of understanding.

Comment on Slezak WILL present at Limmud Oz by Paul Winter

Paul Winter — Sat, 25 May 2013 05:35:15 +0000

The Limmud’s board ahould keep in mind that its role is to enlighten and intellectually stimulate Jews. A presenter like Slezak will stimulate the majority of Jews only viscerally. Nothing he says has any relevance to Jews. Talking about long dead Jews who took opposite stances to the mainstream is merely a figleaf for his own stance. Anything he says will be tainted by his political views. HIs political views place him outside the house of Israel and into Dar el Islam’s far left supporters.

Limmud’s directors confuse open mindedness with open headedness. Academic freedom does not extend to providing a stage for you enemies. To highlight my point, not only would a member of the Zionist Federation not be invited to address an audience in Sheikh Faiz Mohammed’ centre, but a Zionist would not be given a hearing at a BDS rally or at a protest against the Mohammed video.

Comment on Slezak WILL present at Limmud Oz by Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Fri, 24 May 2013 22:12:26 +0000

Some of the stuff above regarding the contents and dynamics of Limud is at least confusing, if not badly expressed. For starters, it is highly irrelevant the possible ( actually unknown ) number of people who would attend any session as a bassis for the session’s compatibility with the profile of the entire Limud spirit. Regarding Peter Slezak, his well known activities in the political field – NOT the academic -, his well publicised pro Palestinian passions are not just a phenomen of acceptable “varied” viewpoints, but a specific ANTI Israel activism which , quite often, has been intended by Peter Slezak as being representative of a Jewish identity. This is not something implicit or a redundant qualification, but a well designed strategy by Peter Slezak who constantly was presented visually as “Jewish” each time he made – quite willingly – statements in the circumstances of public demonstration organised by open enemies of Israel. One would correctly assume that the specific apellation would be requested by the “interviewed”, or , at least not objected. I won’t expand on the obvious extenstions.
Secondly, the theme of this year’s lectures is, at least in the brief offered, identical to Slezak’s accepted and delivered lecture in 2009, which I attended. At the time, Peter Slezak was presenting within a propperacademic context the notion of the acceptability and, indeed, necessity, of dissent. He was extending the idea, starting with some of Plato’s dialogues, to Spinoza’s confrontation with and expulsion from the Amsterdam Jewish community for his ideas, considered as far as being “atheistic” at the time etc. Within the same context Slezak traversed even to Wittgenstein and his “unorthodox” stances in the philosophical ( actually logical) field, also at odds with the Judaic traditions/dogma. To that I personally intervened and mentioned that, in fact, Wittgenstein was born a Catholic from both parents also born Catholics and died a Catholic and, as such, totally irrelevant to anything Jewish. ( true , shortly before his death Wittgenstein said that he regreted that he never admitted that he had Jewish ancestry ).
Slezak’s thessis could be defined as a very transparent attempt at legitimising dessent within a community which is seen as a tightly “closed” club, where tollerance of divergent views is considered unacceptably hostile. Thus, the very rejection Peter Slezak has suffered at the hands of his own community – see even the rejection of his proposed lectures at the last Limud, 2011 – as well as the blocked access to certain Jewsih media outlets ( that he told me personally ), finds in his lectures a legitimate platform of expression. This also serves as a general proposition that objections to matters Jewish/Israeli, as specifically known at the same Peter Slezak, cannot be justified, if his arguments would be accepted. In any case, the arguments demand a platform, and Peter Slezak considers a “inner” coommunal platform as the best venue.
My problem is not whather Peter Slezak should express his views, well articulated and in a most decent fashin/style. My discomfort is with the “universal” accptance of dissent as a necsaary exercise, one which is organic to the well-being of any communal body. Briefl and finally, perhaps our Jewish community can function much better WITHOUT extreme liberties, even if part of the universal liberty of self expression.

Comment on Slezak WILL present at Limmud Oz by Ben

Ben — Fri, 24 May 2013 22:02:07 +0000

Please re-read this sentence – you have completely got the first sentence factually wrong – he WILL be presenting.

“In spite of media reports that Jewish philosopher Peter Slezak’s participation at this year’s Limmud-Oz in Sydney due to alleged breaches in his agreement, the organisers have issued s statement clearly denying that Slezak will present at the event.”

Comment on World Vision: Shurat HaDin responds by Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:04:27 +0000

Hey Matt, why are you picking on Jesus, it was YOU who wrote all that stuff about the bloke, ( together with your mates Johny, Luke etc. ) as much as I really would have preffered yourse to have left him alone !!!

Comment on Most child sex offenders have multiple victims by Shelly

Shelly — Fri, 24 May 2013 14:21:17 +0000

Please cite or give a link to the study or studies. Much of this information is inconsistent with other studies.
Thank you.

Comment on Moselmane tells Israeli ambassador to “butt out” by Judy

Judy — Fri, 24 May 2013 13:17:04 +0000

This is most un-Australian in attitude.
We do not need this klind of attitude in Australia.
It is telling that his attacks of the people who disagree with his view – Cassandra Wilkinson of The Australian, Dr John Kaye, MLC are attacks about their viewpoints, religion or politics – which is the exact way in which “wrong, naive, ill-informed, indoctrinated and blinded”, “cancerous, malicious” people”…seek to deny, misinform and scaremonger” people try to “shout down” ,disparage and discredit the people who either disagree with them or ARE telling the truth.