Selective outrage and double standards
SELECTIVE outrage is nothing new in the Australian Jewish community, but it’s been blatantly obvious like never before in the last month.
First there was the now infamous case of a Bondi Synagogue’s development application being allegedly refused for security reasons.
The decision, a rabbi claimed at the time, “stands to stifle Jewish existence and activity” and was “rewarding terrorism”.
The community, including leaders, shock-jocks, columnists and the general public were outraged that a Jewish institution couldn’t be built allegedly because neighbours and Council were scared of terrorists.
But skip forward to last week, and suddenly the shoe was on the other foot.
When the Australian Jewish Association wanted to hold an event in Mizrachi Synagogue’s hall, some Yavneh parents were furious and complained that their kids could be the target of a terrorist attack.
Mizrachi president Danny Lamm stood firm and wanted the event to go ahead, but had no choice once the Community Security Group (CSG) said the event would increase the risk of a terrorist attack at the school.
The message our community has sent is that we can ignore the threat of terrorism, unless the terrorists might attack our own family and community.
Similarly, the selective outrage since the Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV) statement has been enlightening.
The AJN will proudly encourage people to vote yes in the upcoming national postal survey because it is our view that there should be marriage equality in Australia.
And we encourage open debate, as our readers would have seen in last week’s paper.
But a lot of the flack was directed at the RCV, not simply because of the tone or content of their statement, but because, in the eyes of many who are voting yes, Judaism does not play a role in this decision.
However, there has not been a whisper about the Rabbinic Council of the Union of Progressive Judaism’s statement that, “We encourage our members to vote yes”.
As a community, we need to focus on arguing about the issues at hand, and putting forward our case as to why people should vote yes or no.
But selectively attacking one group for offering an opinion, whether you like it or not, while allowing those on the other side to do the same thing is simply a case of double standards.
comments