Comments on: Slezak WILL present at Limmud Oz

By: Otto Waldmann

Otto Waldmann — Mon, 27 May 2013 10:13:31 +0000

In reply to Janet.

Janet
in your very words “Jewish ideas” you have created a cathegory which defines certain distinct notions. As it happens, our friend Peter Slezak, quite intentionally, has long departed from those ideas and ideals and, as my good friend Paul Winter explained so bloody well, Peter Slezak is the repository and the propagateur of ANTI Jewish ideas, as Paul said, Spinoza’s biography notwithstanding.
Let us just say that Peter is tollerated this time at Limud because, simply, he is a very nice and decent presence in manners, albeit this image being used also against our best interests !
And we do NOT need to offer platforms of ideas we reject just so that who knows wants to have a public go at the respective shlemil. Just remember, Peter knows too well that 99.9% of HIS community has been disagreeing with him and his unchanged mantra for some DECADES now and he also knows too well why and how, and , look, NOTHING has changed at the bloke. So, why perpetuate an irritant, only because some OTHERS want us to be………..iritated !
I would accept Slezak’s presence only because we have been largely innoculated by the stuff he is peddling, but let’s not get carried away and let’s read again and again what Paul Winter is telling us.
Slezak is not contributing to anything positive to the Jewish community and, in teh final wash, we could live WITH the blame of NOT being so bloody ALL encompassing, just like EVERYBODY ELSE. By doing all this” all inclusive” stuff we are not better than the others, just a bit better looking as proud freiers.

By: Janet

Janet — Sun, 26 May 2013 01:56:05 +0000

I was a committed and active opponent of the short-lived Marrickville BDS policy. I heard and disagreed with Peter Slezak’s address to Marrickville Council on the issue, and found parts of it offensive.

Without reservation, I also strongly support the inclusion of Slezak in the Limmud-Oz program, and incidentally believe the subject matter of his talk should not be censored in any way–certainly not with a proviso not to discuss Israel. I am glad to see that he will speak after all.

If we cannot hear from a few representatives of the many vehement Jewish critics of Israel at Limmud-Oz, where we can at the same time hear and participate in serious debate within the community, what is Limmud for?

Short of allowing incitement to violence–against or by Jews–I hope that Limmud-Oz will return to being a forum for the broadest possible spectrum of Jewish ideas, issues and culture. If the Limmud board had decided to exclude Dr Slezak–an academic and author, however controversial–they would have given in to the view that the Sydney Jewish community simply does not tolerate dissent.

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.

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.

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.”