Monday, March 23, 2015

Back to Marrickville

Not content with mauling Professor Jake Lynch last week, Murdoch's Australian has now turned to mugging... Marrickville's Red Rattler Theatre.

Take it away Christian Kerr:

"A Sydney theatre has refused a booking from a Jewish cultural group in a potential breach of race-discrimination laws. Hilel [sic], a not-for-profit Jewish educational and cultural organisation for students and young adults, approached The Red Rattler Theatre in Marrickville... about hiring the venue for a series of performances dealing with the Holocaust. Their inquiry was dismissed with an unsigned email that read: 'Our policy does not support colonialism/Zionism. Therefore we do not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine'." (No to Zionism: theatre rejects Jewish act, 23/3/15)

Quite right too.

Go to Hillel's website - hillel.org - and the first thing you encounter is an add for Taglit Birthright Israel offering free 10-day trips to Israel. Click on 'About' and you find "Our Vision: We envision a world where every student is inspired to make an enduring commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel."

"NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff told The Australian, 'It's sad to see an artistic group practise outright discrimination and, worse, importing divisiveness based on conflicts taking place far from Australia."

Butter, as they say, wouldn't melt in this bloke's mouth. As Australia's leading Israel lobbyist he just couldn't help himself, whilst NSW Community Relations Commissioner (a bizarre Baruch O'Farrell appointment in 2013), sending (in the words of New Matilda's Chris Graham) "an inflammatory pro-Israel email to Australia's Jewish community just as the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza began to gather pace" last year, followed by (in the words of a subsequent Herald editorial) "a poor example of caveated contrition," followed by a resignation. (See my 28/7/14 Vic Alhadeff: Multicultural in NSW, Monocultural in Israel.)

"The Red Rattler management did not respond to a request for comment from The Australian yesterday."

How wise!

"The Greens-dominated Marrickville Council was at the centre of controversy in 2010 when it attempted to implement a policy supporting the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which explicitly equates the Jewish state with apartheid-era South Africa."

Hello, hello, hello. Is this a case of 'location, location'? Call me suspicious, but was Red Rattler chosen precisely because it's in Marrickville?

Watch this space...

Update (24/3/15): "A theatre in Marrickville has apologised for telling a Jewish group it could not hire the premises because it does 'not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine'... In an email to The Australian Jewish News tonight (Monday) it said the email 'does not reflect the values of the Community Board of of the Red Rattler Theatre.' The email, which is signed by the entire board of directors... went on to say that 'The Red Rattler condemns racism of any kind'." (Red Rattler apologises, jewishnews.net.au, 23/3/15)

Obviously, the board doesn't seem to understand the elementary difference between Judaism (a faith) and Zionism (the political ideology driving Israeli apartheid and genocide). Hillel, as indicated above, is clearly committed to the latter, in which case no apology was necessary.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is that really so "elementary", my dear Watson?

MERC said...

Care to elaborate?

Anonymous said...

Isn't the "religion" of Judaism all about the "Land of Israel" given to the Jews "for all times"?

MERC said...

From the blurb to Shlomo Sand's excellent book 'The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland:

"Sand's account dissects the concept of 'historical right' and tracks the creation of the modern concept of the 'Land of Israel' by nineteenth-century Evangelical Protestants and Jewish Zionists. This invention, he argues...facilitated the colonization of the Middle East and the establishment of the State of Israel..."

A great read.

Anonymous said...

What Shlomo Sands might be very interesting. But let's see what "religious" Jews have to tell:

"The land of Israel is central to Judaism. A substantial portion of Jewish law is tied to the land of Israel, and can only be performed there. Some rabbis have declared that it is a mitzvah (commandment) to take possession of Israel and to live in it (relying on Num. 33:53). The Talmud indicates that the land itself is so holy that merely walking in it can gain you a place in the World to Come. Prayers for a return to Israel and Jerusalem are included in daily prayers as well as many holiday observances and special events.
Living outside of Israel is viewed as an unnatural state for a Jew. The world outside of Israel is often referred to as "galut," which is usually translated as "diaspora" (dispersion), but a more literal translation would be "exile" or "captivity." When we live outside of Israel, we are living in exile from our land.
Jews were exiled from the land of Israel by the Romans in 135 C.E., after they defeated the Jews in a three-year war, and Jews did not have any control over the land again until 1948 C.E.
The Jewish people never gave up hope that we would someday return to our home in Israel...
Early Zionists were so desperate for a refuge at one point that they actually considered a proposal to create a Jewish homeland in Uganda. Alaska and Siberia were also discussed. But the only land that truly inspired Jewish people worldwide was our ancient homeland, at that time a part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire known as Palestine...

MERC said...

Standard Zionist dogma throughout. I rely on one of Israel's foremost historians as my authority. Who is yours? Name, rank and serial number please.

Anonymous said...

Tanakh, Talmud, Rambam, Rashi, The Rebbe (Schneerson)

MERC said...

No chapter or verse?

Look, nationalism and theology are a terrible mix, my friend, whether you're talking about Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other set of religious beliefs.

Judaism is one thing, the Zionisation of Judaism is quite another, compromising and corrupting the former and placing Jews on the slippery slope to Jewish nationalism and - shock, horror - Israeli apartheid.

I refer you again to Shlomo Sand to whom we should all be grateful for debunking Zionist corruptions and misuse of Jewish texts and history.

For example, Sand on the Talmud - pp 106-107; and on Rambam - pp 112-113.

You might also benefit from Moshe Menuhin's classic work, 'The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time'.

Happy reading!

Anonymous said...

My friend, we talk about the same thing. There is nothing new in the theory of the conversion of the Khazars or whoever to Judaism.
The only false note in Sand's performance is the attempt to say that Zionism is something external to Judaism. It turns to ridicule (to say the least) if one would suggest that it can be blamed on...Christians! And that somehow Jews have been forced to settle in Palestine against their will by the "colonialists". Therefore that the "purification" of the land in preparation for the re-building of the Temple is ultimately Christian, Anglo-American imperialism or God knows who. The dog farted.

It is true also that Jewish claims on Palestine are bogus. There are historians who claim that they never set foot there until they have been installed as a garrison of the Persians. That was the time when the scribes started to "Zionise" the Hebrew Scriptures and to ethnically cleanse the land of Judah's enemies on all sides — Samaritans, Ammonites, Arabs and Philistines — to rebuild the Temple. They became quickly a nuisance for all neighbours until they had the nerve to take on the Romans. There have been repeated attempts to rebuild the Temple ever since. But I can't give a course in that history.

MERC said...

Ever thought of reading the book before putting pen to paper on it?

Anonymous said...

My friend,

Yes I thought of reading the book. But I read first the many reviews. I understood that there was nothing that was not already known and said to disassociate the Jews and Judaism, (which is Zionism at its core, you like it or not), from the numerous crimes committed against natives, to waste more time.

Even Gilad Atzmon, who knows what he is talking about, was disappointed:

"Sand’s writing is scholarly, deep, reflective and imaginative; however, his scholarship is pretty much limited to French liberal thinking and early post-modernist theory. The outcome is disappointing at times.'How I Ceased To Be A Jew' is a ‘politically correct’ text, saturated with endless caveats inserted to disassociate the author from any possible affiliation with anyone who may be viewed as an opponent of Jewish power, critical of Jewish identity politics or a challenger of the mainstream historicity of the Holocaust.
“I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,” (p. 21) writes the author who claims to be humanist, universalist and far removed from Jewish exclusivism.* It all sounds very Jewish to me. When it comes to the Holocaust, Sand uses the same tactic and somehow manages to lose all wit and scholarly fashion. The Nazis are “beasts”, their rise to power metaphorically described as a “beast awakening from its lair.” I would expect a leading historian and ex-Jew to have moved on beyond these kinds of banal clichés (these clichés, of which his books are replete, are precisely the Zionist ones)"....
"Sand realises that the Zionist journey has come to an end and that ‘Israeli secularism’ is doomed. From an ethical and universal perspective Israel is at a dead end. Yet, he still fails to grasp that Israel is only part of the problem. More and more thinkers are now regarding Israel as a mere symptom of Jewish identity politics. More and more, commentators are becoming aware of a tribal ideological and spiritual continuum between Israel, Zionism, the so-called Jewish anti Zionists and the Left in general. It is no longer a secret that, like Zionists, Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ invest most of their political energy chasing the so-called ‘anti Semites’ – those who analyze Israeli and Zionist politics within the context of Jewish culture and philosophy."

That is the message of his books. The dog farted.
Have you ever read Atzmon? Recommended.

MERC said...

So you believe Zionism and Israel to be merely extensions of 'Jewish power'?

Anonymous said...

Don't you?

MERC said...

No.

Anonymous said...

No wonder, Gilad Atzmon said that:
"Jewish power is the ability to restrict or silence criticism of Jewish power.".

Shlomo Sand is a case in point.
You are a case in point.

MERC said...

Tell me, is Arab nationalism in its various forms (Ba'athism, Nasserism) merely an extension of Islam and 'Islamic power'?

Anonymous said...

Relevance?

MERC said...

Too hard for you?

Anonymous said...

Just irrelevant.

MERC said...

Well, here are some more irrelevant questions for you:

Does political Zionism have its roots in Judaism? Is it just a cover for Judaism? Or is it really just another form of secular nationalism which uses and abuses Judaism for its own political ends?


Anonymous said...

My friend,

I already made clear my stand. But in case you did not read what I said, the answers are:
@Q1: Yes
@Q2: Yes
@Q3: No

MERC said...

So even anti-Zionist Jews are really just Zionists in disguise?

Anonymous said...

I am strongly inclined to think so.

MERC said...

I see. What about Muslims then? Are non-sectarian Muslims really just takfiris in disguise?

Anonymous said...

Potentially yes.

MERC said...

Right. And Buddhists? Is the Dalai Lama, beneath all the carry-on, potentially say a machete-wielding Burmese Buddhist monk hot on the heels of a fleeing Muslim Rohingya villager?

Anonymous said...


Hmmm! Let's see what the Kalachakra Tantra has to say about the Buddhist apocalyptic battle of end times:

"The armies of Rudra Chakrin will destroy the “not-Dharma” and the doctrines of the “unreligious barbarian hordes”. Hereby, according to the original text of the Kalachakra Tantra, it is above all the Koran which is intended. Mohammed himself is referred to by name several times in the Time Tantra, as is his one god, Allah. We learn of the barbarians that they are called Mleccha, which means the “inhabitants of Mecca”. These days Rudra Chakrin is already celebrated as the “killer of the Mlecchas”. This fixation of the highest tantra on Islam is only all too readily understandable, then the followers of Mohammed had in the course of history not just wrought terrible havoc among the Buddhist monasteries and communities of India — the Islamic doctrine must also have appeared more attractive and feeling to many of the ordinary populace than the complexities of a Buddhism represented by an elitist community of monks. There were many “traitors” in central Asia who gladly and readily reached for the Koran. Such conversions among the populace must have eaten more deeply into the hearts of the Buddhist monks than the direct consequences of war. Then the Kalachakra Tantra, composed in the time where the hordes of Muslims raged in the Punjab and along the Silk Road, is marked by an irreconcilable hate for the “subhumans” from Mecca.
This dualist division of the world between Buddhism on the one side and Islam on the other is a dogma which the Tibetan lamas seek to transfer to the future of the whole of human history. “According to certain conjectures”, writes a western commentator upon the Shambhala myth, “two superpowers will then have control over the world and take to the field against one another. The Tibetans foresee a Third World War here.” (The Shadow of the Dalai Lama – Part I – 10. The aggressive myth of Shambhala
© Victor & Victoria Trimondi)

MERC said...

WOW! I had ABSOLUTELY no IDEA!

Be that as it may, I would still like to hear from my interlocutor re the last question.

Mannie De Saxe said...

The above discussion leaves me a little breathless, to say the least.
I keep on wondering why those who are such passionate zionists who live in the comfort of Australia, the USA, the UK and other western countries don't all move to Israel.
After all, after Charlie in France, Netanyahu made an unscheduled visit to France, arranged for the murdered Jews to be taken to Israel for burial, and then told the French that all Jews in France needed to come to Israel to live in security. Was Israel then flooded with French jews?
Mannie De Saxe

Anonymous said...

@re the last question.

Actually, the Dalai Lama would not be overtly beneath the Burmese monks because Burmese monks are Theravada Buddhists, whereas Dalai Lama is Mahayana. I'll let a Buddhist explain:

"Buddhist history shows that Theravada was at loggerheads with Mahayana (Dalai Lama is a Mahayanist), a revolutionized Buddhist movement centuries after the Buddha’s demise. While Mahayana seems to have been very accommodating in its collection, composition, compilation and interpretation of Buddhist doctrines, Theravada remained to be the hardcore and orthodox form of Buddhism till today. Hence, if the Dalai Lama, a Mahayanist goes on a preaching tour to the Theravada Buddhist world that would certainly be seen as Mahayana evangelism which would ultimately do more harm than good to the historic fragile relationship that exists between Mahayana and Theravada. And certainly the Dalai Lama wouldn’t like himself to be seen as a Mahayana evangelist by his fellow Buddhists. The Theravada’s opposition to Mahayana evangelism is historical. In around the fifth century after Christ, Mahayana tried its first wave of evangelism in Sri Lanka but it was strongly opposed and was suppressed by its rival, the Mahavihara School which saw itself to be the sole guardian and defender of Theravada Buddhism. The Lankavatarasutra, one of the very important Mahayanist sutras is said to be written in Sri Lanka but it did not find its relevance there. Keeping in mind the historical opposition of the Theravada Buddhists to Mahayanist teachings, it is not beyond one’s understanding ‘why’ the Dalai Lama’s preaching tours and initiations would not be welcomed in present day Theravada Buddhist countries notably in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma, the hubs of Theravada orthodoxy. If you were to attribute the Dalai Lama’s popularity to his teachings, then surely he cannot be popular among the Theravada Buddhists because his kind of teaching of Buddhist doctrines, initiations and rituals are not accommodated in the shoe of the Theravada orthodoxy."

But if the "peace loving and non-violent" Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka took on Muslims, it suggests that the Muslims were not just the innocent "minority" aggressed by the "majority" (always wrong in politically correct fantasy land). It would be rather the attempts to "islamize" Buddhism.
The Buddhists reasoning would be: "Muslims believe that Jesus will come back and kill Christians. If Buddha is a Muslim, then he’ll also be expected to come back and kill Buddhists because Islam is to religion as arson is to construction. Its only big idea is smashing other people’s things."
The murderous rampages of ISIL, Boko-Haram, Lashkar e Taiba are not a likely to endear Muslims to Buddhists (or to anyone else, for that matter).

More @http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/islam-now-trying-to-hijack-buddhism/

MERC said...

Are you the sentient being to whom I addressed the original question?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I was the only one all the way. And no, I am not a Buddhist.

MERC said...

So, to conclude, you're "strongly inclined" to think all Jews are flaming Zionists; all Muslims are "potentially" flaming takfiris; but Buddhists come in two varieties, so they're OK.

Not at all sure where this gets us, but there you are. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Same to you.