The Feiglin Controversy and the JCCV.

The question of the response by the JCCV  to the recent visit of former Knesset member Moishe Feiglin to Australia has been raised a number of times in the Australian Jewish News, but some of the key issues involved remain to be discussed.

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) specifically (and uniquely) went on record as opposing Feiglin’s visit to Australia because he

“has expressed extremist views in the past regarding women, sexual orientation, and political issues which are inconsistent with the policies of the JCCV.”

“In particular,”

claimed its President Jennifer Huppert,

“the JCCV is opposed to any homophobia, biphobia [sic], or transphobia [sic] by whomever or whoever expresses it.”

(Presumably this includes the authors of the Book of Leviticus, although Ms. Huppert wasn’t specific.)

Leaving aside the fact that the JCCV has never objected to left wing Israelis visiting Australia, whose stance on “political issues” is certainly at variance with that of the great majority of Australian Jews, there are glaring and disturbing examples of rampant double standards in its view.  On many occasions, the JCCV’s website has boasted of its warm relations with the local Muslim community.

For instance, its website was beaming about the fact that on 1 June 2015 “nearly 100 people attended the Jewish Christian Muslim Association’s community forum in East Melbourne.”

On 7 April 2015 Ms. Huppert (“JCCV Condemns Racism and Religious Intolerance”), identified as “JCCV President,” stated that “the JCCV condemns any racial or religious vilification,” specifically attacking “the campaign against Halal certification, which is nothing more than an attack on religious freedom.”

On 23 March 2015, “the JCCV and the Islamic Council of Victoria celebrated Harmony Day by co-hosting a Jewish- Muslim Friendship Dinner. It was a wonderful celebration of multiculturalism and social inclusion.”

The egregious double standards demonstrated by the JCCV in its treatment of Mr. Feiglin on one hand, and Muslim adherents on the other strike me as blatant as they are deplorable.

Gays?  Same-sex relationships are punishable by death in Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, northern (i.e., Muslim controlled) Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, and are merely illegal, punishable by imprisonment, in Algeria, Kuwait, the Maldives, Qatar, Malaysia, and Somalia.  Most Salafist ( an extreme school of Islam) “jurists” believe that homosexuals should be executed by throwing them off the tops of buildings.  Polls have been taken in many Islamic countries which show that younger age groups almost unanimously reject gay behaviour, with only two per cent (in Pakistan) and seven per cent (in Malaysia and Turkey) regarding it as legitimate.

2011 Adult Literacy Rates and Illiterate Population by Country and by Gender report by UNESCO Institute for Statistics. credit:musfem.wordpress.com

Women?  Of 24 countries with less than 60 per cent female primary school enrolment, 17 are Islamic.  Among countries with the highest “gender gap” in school enrolments (i.e., with more boys than girls), 17 of the 18 worst performers were Islamic states.  Female literacy is less than 50 per cent in twelve Islamic countries.  Every form of primitive and barbaric horror, from female infanticide to female genital mutilation, is higher in Islamic states than almost anywhere else, often de facto with official approval.  This is to say nothing about, self-evidently, the threat of Islamic terrorism and antisemitism. Radical Islam is, needless to say, the most important disseminator of antisemitism in the world today.

Yet the JCCV rolls out the red carpet for the Muslim community, while condemning poor Mr. Feiglin.  Local Muslims are not given an inquisition about their beliefs on gays, women, democracy and pluralism, or anything else, before wining and dining them (perhaps not the former), while Mr. Feiglin is treated as an outcast.

Anyone familiar with the JCCV (I sat on its Executive for ten years or so in the 1980s and 1990s) has surely noticed that it is increasingly pursuing a left-wing activist agenda, seemingly at the expense of its central role to defend the interests of the Jewish community.

Given the fact that Moishe Feiglin was here to drum up support for a political party he has founded in Israel (which, incidentally, I do not support), the JCCV’s stance was at best an inappropriate and partisan intrusion into Israeli domestic politics.  At worst it was an abuse of its core purpose, marked above all by rampant hypocrisy.

=====================

Bill Rubinstein taught at Deakin University and at the University of Wales.

Check Also

Cairns Jewish Community visits the ADF – Australian Defence Force.

The children of the Cairns Jewish Community baked and delivered honey cakes as a present for the …

184 comments

  1. Leon Poddebsky

    It certainly is hypocrisy, as Professor Rubinstein points out, but I believe that there is an additional element involved, namely anxiety about what “the nations will say”- [ ma yomru hagoyim]
    Mr Feiglin has been branded by governments such as Britain’s ( which banned him from its soil). Some Jewish organisations here felt the need demonstratively to repudiate him , being terrified that all Jews would be branded unless they did so. In doing so, these organisations :
    1. broadcast their belief that society generalises indiscriminately about Jews, and
    2. manifested one of the psychological/emotional effects on many Jews of having lived for two millennia as a minority group in the Dispersion of the golah.

  2. On October 9 the JCCV issued this statement in response to pressure from me regarding Feiglin’s visit:

    “The JCCV is opposed to any homophobia, biphobia or transphobia by whomever or whoever expresses it. It has no place in our community. Everyone of any sexual orientation or gender identity should be respected and be given equal opportunity to participate in and contribute to the community.”

    (https://www.facebook.com/JCCVGLBTI/posts/690733061027365)

    On October 10 the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies tweeted the following statement:

    “NSW Jewish Board of Deputies rejects & dissociates itself from some of visiting Israeli Moshe Feiglin’s views on women, gays, Arabs @NSWJBD”

    (https://twitter.com/VicAlhadeff/status/652773193292378112)

    On October 12 the JCCV issued this statement:

    JCCV Statement on Moshe Feiglin Visit
    Jennifer Huppert, President of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) stated,
    “Moshe Feiglin has expressed extremist views in the past regarding women, sexual orientation and political issues which are inconsistent with the values and policies of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV). These sorts of views are not representative of the Victorian Jewish community. They are damaging to social inclusion and social cohesion in our community, and we strongly condemn these divisive and corrosive statements.
    In particular, The JCCV is opposed to any homophobia, biphobia or transphobia by whomever or whoever expresses it. It has no place in our community. Everyone of any sexual orientation or gender identity should be respected and be given equal opportunity to participate in and contribute to the community.”

    (https://www.facebook.com/JCCVGLBTI/posts/692043440896327)

    The JCCV’s second statement was a response to the NSW JBD’s statement, issued after I raised it to their attention. I strongly suspect the JCCV’s second statement would not have been issued had the NSWJBD not issued their statement.

  3. There is another, though slightly tangential issue in this story. Moshe Feiglin’s visit was privately organised and essentially he was to speak in some shuls and one open meeting. I don’t like the idea of the JCCV or any community body wading in to privately organised visits. Especially when this becomes newsworthy and can be picked up in mainstream media who are more than happy to highlight divisions in the Jewish community – the last thing we need in these troubling times!

    • So was Geert Wilders privately organised. Though this visit was publicised.

      Check it out, but I believe there was talk, as with Wilders, not to allow him a visa.

    • I was out when I posted my last comment which I hate to do on the phone.

      I am pretty sure that I read about Feiglin’s visit on the MSM before the Community was aware of it. There was mention of the Government not allowing his visa, but the Minister of Immigration said it would be depriving him of his freedom of speech

      • Quite frankly in my eyes most, or all of those 11 Jewish fringe groups, are the only extremists.

        For instance The leader of one of them has written that he believes the Israeli flag and the national anthem Hatikvah insults the Arab and Muslim population in Israel so should be removed.
        Pretty extreme to me .

        The gay and lesbian group wants to force their ideology down the throats of all Jews.

        Of course NIF are regarded as an extremist anti Zionist organisation that funds Israel’s enemies.

        All the others represent a small fringe group of progressive Jews that I would not have anything to do with we have nothing in common.

        JCCV support the anti Zionist Palestinian lobby group.

        AJDS arguing we must have a diversity of views in our community of course as long as they fit into the JCCV progressive / boards leftist worldly views.

        I did some research but could not find any such negative slanderous statements from any of those 11 looneys the JCCV or any of the other main stream Jewish organisations that jumped onto the Bash the Jewish politician bandwagon

        I met Moshe and regardless if I agree with each and every one of his political views he is a passionate Zionist and regards Jewish Human rights his number one priority all his critics wish they had his courage .

        • “The gay and lesbian group wants to force their ideology down the throats of all Jews.”

          That’s the standard line of the zealot opposed to equal rights for all citizens. Yawn.

          • Yeh Mr Barnett go to Gaza or any of the other 57 Islamic countries the the Jewish Left usually obsess over .

            The Self-Destructive Insanity of Pro-Palestinian Gay Activists
            ”On November 22, the New York Times ran an op-ed by the radical leftist lesbian Jewish playwright Sarah Schulman which did a great public service – it provided a perfect illustration of the utter lunacy of the anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian queer left.”

  4. I wouldn’t expect any better from the NIF which has demonstrated its anti-Israel stance time and again, but it was completely unnecessary and unbecoming of the mainstream organisations to ostracise and denigrate a former senior MK in the manner that they did.
    (this is my personal view)

  5. Bill Rubinstein

    There are several different issues in this debate. First, whether the JCCV should have attacked Feiglin. In my view, it shouldn’t have, since the JCCV is a neutral body and the attack in partisan and gratuitous. Secondly, the attack is part of an undeniable left-wing agenda, pushed through by avowedly left-wing groups. A neutral JCCV should have told these groups that if they don’t like Feiglin that’s their own business, but don’t get the JCCV involved. The present President of the JCCV, Ms. Huppert, seems to be one of the worst offenders and doesn’t appear to understand the neutral and consensual role of the JCCV. Thirdly, the JCCV attacked Feiglin because of his alleged anti-gay and anti-women stance (which may well be inaccurate), but constantly cozies up to Muslims, whose international record on these issues makes Feiglin look like a member of the Worker’s Revolutionary Party. This is part and parcel of the contemporary left, including a part of the Jewish left, whose hypocrisy is unbelievable. I wonder what Mr. Barnett thinks of Muslims and gays?

    • What do I think of Muslims and gays? There are good people and bad people everywhere. Even some Jews are bad eggs Bill. We saw that in the attack in the Jerusalem Pride Parade and the assassination of Rabin.

  6. It might help if protagonists in this conversation were to consider the following article that appeared in Haaretz in 2013:
    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/far-right-likud-mk-declares-he-is-no-longer-a-homophobe.premium-1.502238
    I personally do not agree with many political views as espoused by Feiglin in the following article:
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/fresh-condemnation-for-proud-homophobe-speaking-in-synagogues-20151012-gk73zl.html
    However the Herald article and headline are typical of the complaints that are frequently made against that organisation by the same Jewish organisations that spoke out against Feiglin’s visit.
    Why did the Herald article refer to a 2009 article by Feiglin but not make any mention of the 2013 article in Haaretz.?
    Had anyone opposing or supporting Feiglin’s visit read the 2013 article before coming out against or in favour of the visit?

    • Good point David.
      Do you remember, apart from the abominable NIF, which Organisations objected please?

      • The objecting organisations were:
        Aleph Melbourne
        Ameinu Australia
        Australian Reform Zionist Association
        Habonim Dror Australia
        Hashomer Hatzair Australia
        Hineni Australia
        Keshet Australia
        Netzer Australia
        New Israel Fund Australia
        Progressive Judaism Victoria
        Shira Hadasha Synagogue

        The ECAJ, JCVV, NSW Board of Deputies, AIJAC, and AUJS supported this group of organisations condemnation of Feiglin.

        Did any of their leaders read the 2013 Haaretz article before speaking out against Feiglin’s visit?

        Would be nice if any of those named could confirm they did and explain why they still condemned Feiglin.

        Changing one’s opinion does happen frequently. Surely that is what lobbies are always about.

    • David, NIF contacted Aleph on Oct 7 asking us to co-sign their statement. I agreed to this based on the 2009 material they supplied us. NIF released their statement [1] on Oct 9. After listening to coverage of this in the media I did some further research and found Feiglin’s 2013 comments in the Jerusalem Post. I issued a media release [2] based on these on Oct 9.

      The Age issued their first article on Feiglin [3] on Oct 9 at 7:15pm. I captured a screen shot of this. The online article shows a publication date of Oct 10 now. The Age issued two further articles [4][5] on Feiglin on Oct 12.

      [1] http://www.nif.org.au/statement_on_moshe_feiglins_visit_to_australia
      [2] http://aleph.org.au/2015/10/09/mr-aleph-melbourne-expresses-alarm-at-melbourne-visit-by-moshe-feiglin
      [3] http://www.theage.com.au/national/chabad-hosts-rightwing-israeli-extremist-moshe-feiglin-20151009-gk57pb.html
      [4] http://www.theage.com.au/national/fresh-condemnation-for-proud-homophobe-speaking-in-synagogues-20151012-gk73zl.html
      [5] http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/extremist-israeli-politician-rejected-by-sydney-jewish-community-20151012-gk779f.html

      My particular concern about Feiglin is that he is intolerant of equal legal rights for LGBTIQ people, particularly in terms of relationship recognition. I called on the JCCV to speak out against his visit as the JCCV are promoting a message of inclusion and acceptance in regards to LGBTIQ people, and Feiglin does not align with these values. (The JCCV could go further in terms of the local community but this would disenfranchise some of their membership!) The JCCV were reluctant to say anything about Feiglin however once the NSW JBD said something about him I feel they were obliged to do similarly.

      Why the NSW JBD felt the need to say anything about Feiglin is a mystery. Maybe it’s about appeasing the broader multicultural community in Sydney.

      So to answer your question, I had seen Feiglin’s 2013 comments before the SMH (and The Age) article on him. I cannot comment as to whether NIF had.

      • Bill Rubinstein

        The Knesset has never legalised gay marriage and never will. By the logic above, one should boycott virtually any Knsset member who comes here.

        • There is no secular marriage in Israel full stop. That is shameful.

          • No it’s not. It’s a Jewish country. I bet there is no secular marriage in Saudi Arabia

          • Shirlee, I’m not sure why what happens in Saudi Arabia is relevant to what does or doesn’t happen in Israel. Irrespective, my primary concern is not about what happens in the Middle East but what happens here in Australia (the “down under” place).

  7. what I fail to understand about this whole issue is what was the purpose of the Jewish community looney left , centre or right in vilifying a fellow Jew in the public arena

    Perhaos Bill may be able to explain
    I just fail to make any sense of it all?

    • Bill Rubinstein

      I think it relates to the current nature of the JCCV. I hope to write about this soon.

  8. Leon Poddebsky

    With Israel and the Jewish People in the dispersion facing crises of historic turning-point magnitude and significance, these 11 organisations and their pathetic defenders have nothing better to do than zealously to seize upon a relatively minuscule issue.
    The fact that the Fairfax Press has also seized upon it ( possibly at the prompting of these organisations) speaks volumes about them all.

    Get real.

    Peace and justice.

    • Leon, I stand for equal rights for all citizens and reducing the rate of youth suicide. Does that make me pathetic?

      • Leon Poddebsky

        Exemplary fabrication of a straw man.

        • Then I’ll leave it to you to tell me exactly what in your mind make me so pathetic.

          • Leon Poddebsky

            The priorities of the 11 organisations are skewed to the point of absurdity and betrayal of responsibility.
            What in your view should be the Jewish People’s priorities NOW?
            Not every issue can receive focus immediately- resources are scarce- the enemy has oil wealth, money, a degree of Western stupidity as resources.
            What do we have?
            How much time do we have?
            Are individuals’ priorities more important than those of the COLLECTIVE?

          • I believe the priority of every society should be to look after the welfare of it’s own people first. How can you possibly build a healthy community when members of the community are unable to reach their full potential due to discrimination from within the community and from the government of the country?

          • BOO Hoo always the Victim just like the Palestinians , Victimhood .. Boring !
            Move on , the real victims are the Jews { including Gays] living in Israel in fear and with incitement of hatred and violence from 5 th Column Arabs in the streets and in their Parliament!, Jews In France , UK . Holland Most of Western Europe and Scandinavia under siege from you know who and Jews here that have to live with Armed Guards at our Day Schools and Bomb -Proof Fences erected around ourCommunity Centres and Schools…

    • Leon lets make it perfectly clear it was the NIF and their other 11 comrades and that sent the ex AJN Left wing Jewish journalist at the most anti Zionist media outlet in Australia Fairfax SMH their statement and further material to vilify a fellow Jew. Journalist Timna met Moshe at a Melbourne Function and after she published the Trash job on him had the chutzbah to ask him for an Interview.
      Moshe told Alan and I on our program his response was why did you publish all that stuff with out first contacting me to which she replied I couldn’t get hold of you. It was so urgent that she get that hatchet job out on her fellow Jew with out verifying the facts of context that it could not wait until he returned her call.. and there are Jews on this website that are comfortable with all this>
      Pathetic >>

      • Leon Poddebsky

        Michael, without knowing for sure, I nevertheless had a strong suspicion that NIF et al did the dirty work.
        “Lamalshineem lo tihyeh tikva,” if you know what I mean.

        Thanks for the information.
        I think the entire community needs to be made aware of their base role.

  9. Michael:

    Your reply appears to indicate that:
    1. NIF did not know about Feiglin’s 2013 interview when it issued the joint statement condemning Feiglin’s visit.
    2. You subsequently became aware of it and Aleph still issued its own press release which crucially omitted this critical statement by Feiglin:
    “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,” Feiglin said.”
    Why was this highly relevant first sentence omitted from the paragraph Aleph quoted in its press release?
    3. Is the JCVV an organisation that wags its head when the NSWJDB pulls its tail?
    4.Not one of the three Age articles referred to the 2013 interview.
    5. The second Age article contained this paragraph:
    ” Mr Feiglin wrote an article titled “I am a proud Homophobe” in 2009, and in August argued that the “culture” of homosexuality threatened the status of the family, calling a gay parade in Jerusalem “a clear example of coercion”. He has also called Palestinians a “gang of bandits”.

    The Age just happened to omit (much as Aleph did) the following paragraph appearing in the same August publication:
    “Feiglin reiterated his stand on homosexual rights, saying that he has discussed his ideas at length with members of the homosexual community many times. “In short,” said Feiglin, “the human rights of homosexuals (and all other people) must be strictly safeguarded. I will always go to bat for their rights, regardless of my personal beliefs.”

    In my opinion Feiglin made it clear in 2013 and August 2015 that he supported the human rights of homosexuals although he could not condone their practices.

    What more could your organisation and the other protesting organisations expect from Feiglin?

    One can only explain the controversy his visit caused on the fact that Feiglin’s opinions were misrepresented because none of those organisations protesting took the trouble to check what Feiglin had actually said since 2009.

    Of course if anyone relied on the intial signed statement, the statements made by their leaders, Aleph’s media release or the three Age articles they would have been no wiser in being informed that Feiglin’s views had greatly changed since 2009.

    Shame on you all.

    • Are you offering to write my media releases for me David?

      • A facetious response and indicative of your desire to avoid answering why you failed in your press release to refer to this sentence in the 2013 interview with Feiglin in the Jerusalem Post:
        “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,” Feiglin said.”

        • I am not concerned about what Feiglin likes about gay people. I am concerned about what he doesn’t like. That is all I really care to discuss David.

          • Michael B you should stop looking at Israel and the world through the prism of gays , lesbians and transsexuals you are obsessed not everybody is that interested .
            There are very important issues facing Jews it’s called survival .

          • I am not looking at Israel. I am looking at Melbourne. You are the one that is obsessed with Israel Michael.

          • Michael
            So tell us what concerns you that Feiglin does not like about gays? Quoting his actual words with appropriate links would help.

          • David, the quote in the Aleph media release about “natural family” is the stance I take exception to. If you can’t find that or work out what I mean then ask someone else.

          • Michael

            Is this what you take exception to:
            “Families, he stated, are the foundation stone of society and the nation, and he said he would not do anything to harm what he called the “classic” family structure of one man, one woman and their children.”

            Just a “yes” or “no” will suffice.

          • Yes. What he is alluding to is the unfounded notion that same-sex parents are not as good as heterosexual parents. That is utter nonsense and increasingly the research is showing that the outcomes for children of same-sex parents is at least as good as the outcomes for children of heterosexual parents. On some measures, the outcomes for children of some same-sex parents are actually better than those of heterosexual parents. The drivel that he espouses is embarrassing, if nothing else, if you care about the words he says, because he has no evidence to back his assertions up.

          • Michael

            You are putting words in Feiglin’s mouth that he never said. He never sought to compare same-sex parents with heterosexual parents. He said the classic family was the foundation stone of society and the nation and he would not do anything to harm it.

            Can you really dispute this statement?

            Even if you do – as is your perfect right – do you really believe that what he actually said entitles you to then brand him as “intolerant” and classify him with Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites to be hounded out of town?

            By all means go and confront him and debate your opposing view with him. Branding him and trying to stop him expressing his opinion in Australia says a great deal about your tolerance of people with whose views you disagree.

          • David, Feiglin’s rhetoric is the same as that used by religious bigots everywhere. I am not putting words in his mouth. He has said enough for anyone to know that he does not value gay couples getting married or being parents.

          • Michael

            Feiglin did say the following in the 2013 Jerusalem Post article – which you referred to in your press release – but omitted to include:
            ” “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,” Feiglin said.”

            Are you suggesting this indicates Feiglin does not want to help you exercise your human right to at least enter into a legally recognised union (if not marriage as that term has been defined for generations ) or be parents?

            If so – what do you take his statement to mean?

            I don’t find your use of the term “religious bigots everywhere” conducive to any meaningful discussion either. Marriage has been around for a long time and is a fundamental concept in every religion. A little more tolerance and respect for others would not be out of place.

          • Damn, my typos. I detest sites that don’t allow comments to be edited/corrected after posted.

            Third time lucky I hope!

            “David, your tone with me makes me think that you believe some people should have more rights than other people. If that is the case, I wish to have nothing further to do with you.”

          • Michael

            Your response is typical of those who make wild allegations that they are unable to substantiate when challenged by others.

            Your decision of course avoids your having to answer a series of questions I have posed to you during our correspondence.

            Readers can make their own assessments.

          • David, really, if you object to equal rights for all citizens then I DGAF.

          • Michael

            I thought our correspondence was about Feiglin’s views – not mine. You have really lost the plot.

            BTW – do you intend the answering the questions I posed to you in our correspondence?

          • You’re calling me out on not being tolerant when I call Feiglin a religious bigot and you wonder why why I challenge your views. You have not remained impartial in this conversation. You can’t have it both ways David. If you support equality for everyone, declare it. If you don’t, say as much, but don’t call me intolerant and expect to get away with it.

          • Michael

            You never called Feiglin a religious bigot – nor did I say you did.
            This is waht you said:
            ” Feiglin’s rhetoric is the same as that used by religious bigots everywhere.”
            This was my response:
            “I don’t find your use of the term “religious bigots everywhere” conducive to any meaningful discussion either. Marriage has been around for a long time and is a fundamental concept in every religion. A little more tolerance and respect for others would not be out of place.”

            Michael – As you hopefully will understand – I did not call you out as being intolerant for saying Feiglin was a religious bigot – because you never said that.. I called you out as being intolerant for using the term “religious bigots everywhere” to describe people of all religions who do not agree with your expressed viewpoint. That is intolerance with a capital I.

            So stop trying to to get out from under by raising irrelevant red herrings in a desperate attempt to avoid answering the questions I posed to you during our extended discussion – or be true to your threat that you wish to have nothing further to do with me.

            The longer you prolong our discussion – the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

          • David, I really don’t want to engage further. I don’t have the time or energy. If you want to chat, my number is on the Aleph web site.

          • Michael

            I guess in the end it was just too difficult for you to answer the questions I posed. .

            So be it.

          • It’s draining dealing with people who are so blinkered in their views that they are unprepared to see the bigger picture. I really have no spare energy wasting my time with people who do not consider all humans equal.

          • (or “classic” family…)

          • I’ve deleted your mistakes. Most sites don’t allow for comments to be self-edited BTW

          • Thank you Shirlee. Actually, Facebook allowed editing of comments and keeps an audit history of changes. There are WordPress plugins that allow comments to be edited for up to 5 minutes after posting. Disqus is a comment forum used on some sites that allows editing after posting. There are also others. It might be worth taking a look at the available WordPress plugins to see if there is something that suits you, as it would remove administrative burden if commenters could edit their comments themselves.

          • Don’t normally edit posts. I am not usually at home and can’t be bothered to do it on my phone. Options for editing have issues with the highly customized theme I have. Don’t want FB.
            Many people don’t have accounts and don’t want to sign up. I have elderly people as well as some who aren’t au fait with computers etc . Thanks for the suggestion

  10. Larry Langman

    This is a sad, sad thread to read. We have people calling members of the Zionist Youth Movement “Extremists”. Another chooses to call them “Fringe Groups”. Yet these are the very groups that have members who have gone on Aliyah, become contributing citizens of Israel, fought for its causes and sadly have died for those beliefs. To “write off” Habonim, Netzer, Hineni and HaShomer is to “write off” Australia’s Zionist Youth Movement and in many instances to “write off” any opportunity for identification with the State of Israel

    That the roof organisations of Australian Jewry should choose to say to an Australian audience that they disassociate themselves from some of the views of a former Israeli politician, is perfectly within their right. Should those roof organisations not be in touch with the sentiment of their community, then I am sure membership of those organisations will change to better reflect the view of Australian Jewry.

    The kernel of Prof. Rubinstein’s commentary/critique I think, is contained in the following: “The egregious double standards demonstrated by the JCCV in its treatment of Mr. Feiglin on one hand, and Muslim adherents on the other strike me as blatant as they are deplorable.”

    To my view, and I have no formal knowledge of the JCCV, and readily acknowledge Prof Rubinstein’s 10 years of knowledge at the deepest level, the behaviour of this organisations appears not inconsistent.

    They appear to deplore some values held in some section of the Israeli community while at the same time are actively involved in building good relations with other communities in the Australian context. There is no inconsistency here. The two actions are not at odds.

    While I have no knowledge of the JCCV’s attitude to the laws and customs of the the many countries cited by Prof. Rubinstein, I am sure that if the community gave the JCCV license to make comment on those countries, they would equally decry the very laws and custom’s that they would object to if instigated in Israel.

    Should the Muslim community as a whole in Australia, start to advocating for the adoption of such laws and customs in Australia then I would be confident that the JCCV would reject such a call as would I believe, most other Australians.

    ‘Egregious double standards”……..in this instance I think not.

    • Larry the JCCV are not doing the Jewish community any favors selectively and politically acting as our thought police .The Jewish community are quite capable of listening to the likes of Moshe Feiglin and making up their own mind .
      It is concerning when a leader of an organization with strong political views one or another in this instance obviously left wing use this bias to try to silence visiting Israeli politicians .
      It is dissapointing that the JCCV and the other sheep like mainstream Jewish organizations decided to follow the 11 fringe groups after all if these extreme left wing groups didn’t come out with their statement bulging a fellow Jew and feeding the anti Zionist SMH the JCCV and others would not have bothered .
      I personally feel the biggest sin comitted by the JCCV and their colleagues was giving more amino toon to the most anti Israel media organization in Australia .Thus was also strategically a bad move for Israel advocacy and only furthers anti semitism it was plain Dumb .Our adversaries must be thanking the mainstream Jewish community for their help

      • Reading this post is reminiscent of any of Bill Muehlenberg’s ramblings.

        • Yes the Truth is sometimes uncomfortable but I am pleased you read my post thank you

          • Michael,
            I am with you 100%.

            I don’t like Feiglin, but I think it wrong, very wrong for any of our organisations to distance themselves from him. That was my initial reaction when I received the email from the JBD. “What business is this of theirs”?

            What business was it of theirs that Zehut International, based in Melbourne, was bringing out a guest speaker?

            If they had issues their best bet, and that of the other organisations, would have been better not to release statements drawing attention to what was actually a private visit. In all likelihood if Michael Barnett hadn’t brought this to the attention is the abominable JCCV, it wouldn’t have had oxygen.

            I also wonder why they want to deny freedom of speech with the crusade against Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

    • Larry Langman you say

      “Should the Muslim community as a whole in Australia, start to advocating for the adoption of such laws and customs in Australia then I would be confident that the JCCV would reject such a call as would I believe, most other Australians.”

      Clearly you don’t know the “Loony Left” in Melbourne Larry.

      The Temple Beth Emanuel synagogue, had an Iman calling people to prayer in that synagogue.

      Not only was it a call to prayer, it was also a prayer to consecrate the synagogue as a Muslim place of worship. Shame I didn’t keep the comments on his FB page. Muslims were delighted that the synagogue was now a Muslim prayer house.
      http://jewsdownunder.com/2014/06/21/melbourne-jewish-temples-interfaith-deception/

  11. Michael Barnett.

    It’s Feiglin’s choice if he does not value gay couples getting married or being parents. I am sure millions agree with him, but it’s not up to you, me or anyone else to deny him his freedom of speech. In case you haven’t realised it, this has drawn more attention to him than he would have normally received.

  12. Michael

    The JCCV involvement had little to do with you?

    That is not what you have previously claimed:
    ” I called on the JCCV to speak out against his visit as the JCCV are promoting a message of inclusion and acceptance in regards to LGBTIQ people, and Feiglin does not align with these values. (The JCCV could go further in terms of the local community but this would disenfranchise some of their membership!) The JCCV were reluctant to say anything about Feiglin however once the NSW JBD said something about him I feel they were obliged to do similarly.”

    Some more questions for you to answer:

    1. Care to now fill us in with the full details of your discussions with JCCV and on what dates and with whom they were held?

    2. Did you give JCCV a copy of Aleph’s media release?

    3. Did you specifically advise the JCCV of the following statement Feiglin made – that was recorded in the 2013 Jerusalem Post article you said you found after the first article appeared in the Age:
    “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,” Feiglin said.”

    • David, I don’t understand your grilling. I use Facebook and Twitter very effectively. It doesn’t take much effort to get news out about a story to a target audience. I don’t know what you’re implying about me but I don’t believe the JCCV would find themselves in an information vacuum if I stopped my activism. Feel free to throw more questions at me.

      • Michael

        Not much point in asking you more questions when you continually refuse to answer earlier questions I asked of you.

        Your activism is admirable. The suspicion is that you appear to have gone off half cocked making allegations about Feiglin to the JCCV that are not sustainable.

        That is what my last three questions were directed to – giving you every opportunity to make full disclosure of your meetings or discussions with JCCV to allay such suspicion.

        Your refusal to answer those last three questions only leads me to conclude that you indeed failed to let JCCV know that Feiglin had said the following in 2013:
        “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,”

        It is very easy for you to disprove this claim by simply confirming you did indeed mention Feiglin’s significant change of opinion in 2013 from the earlier views he had expressed in 2009.

        That you refuse to do so indicates that you did not so inform the JCCV.

        I hope that you will now finally stick to your following words:
        “I really don’t want to engage further. I don’t have the time or energy.”

        • My point here is – ‘Why did he need to contact them at all’.?

          • Shirlee

            Everyone is entitled to lobby anyone.

            The problem here is that Michael may not have told the JCCV that Feiglin’s views in 2009 had been superceded in 2013 – pretty important information since Feiglin was being pilloried on the basis of what he had said in 2009..

            The fact that Michael chooses to remain silent inevitably leads to the conclusion that he did not give this important information to the JCCV.

          • David I am aware of that, but the moment I see Michael Barnett’s name in print as a comment, it raises my hackles, because he seems to raise concerns everywhere over nothing.

            This was nothing to do with him and he shouldn’t have pushed his opinion on others, as he is wont to do.

          • I never knew I was that influential Shirlee. Exactly what have I said that raises your hackles?

        • i don’t know why it’s anyone else’s business what I choose to tell or not tell the JCCV. As I reiterated earlier, it’s likely they know about Feiglin’s visit, the Fairfax article and what was on the Internet about Feiglin aside from any communications I did or didn’t have with them.

          Trust me, I am not the official source of information for the JCCV on gay matters, despite what you may think.

          I also don’t care to be required to answer questions from people I don’t know and don’t trust.

          • Michael

            You state:
            ” i don’t know why it’s anyone else’s business what I choose to tell or not tell the JCCV.

            As I reiterated earlier, it’s likely they know about Feiglin’s visit, the Fairfax article and what was on the Internet about Feiglin aside from any communications I did or didn’t have with them.”

            Michael – I believe it is in everyone’s interest to know whether you told the JCCV that Feiglin had changed his views in 2013 from the views he expressed in 2009. – something you certainly knew but the JCCV might not have been aware of.

            We know you had conversations with JCCV – as you admitted yourself.

            Interesting that you are squealing like a stuck pig in refusing to confirm what you actually told the JCCV.

            You don’t have to answer any questions – but readers will be entitled to draw their own conclusions in the absence of your refusing to do so.

            When do you intend to carry out your following promise?
            “I really don’t want to engage further. I don’t have the time or energy.”

            No – you don’t have to answer this question – just do what you say – or people will think your word is not to be trusted.

          • I don’t recall saying I had conversations with the JCCV on this topic. I think you’re making that up.

          • Michael

            On 23 October you wrote:

            “On October 9 the JCCV issued this statement in response to pressure from me regarding Feiglin’s visit:”

            Then in the same post you wrote:

            “The JCCV’s second statement was a response to the NSW JBD’s statement, issued after I raised it to their attention.”

            On 25 October you wrote:

            ” I called on the JCCV to speak out against his visit as the JCCV are promoting a message of inclusion and acceptance in regards to LGBTIQ people, and Feiglin does not align with these values.”

            You are doing your credibility no good in continuing this discussion.

            It is clear you spoke to the JCCV. You do not want to tell us what you said. Take your own advice and end this conversation before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

          • David, the word conversation means “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.” I did not have a conversation with the JCCV. I initiated dialogue with them and I did not receive a response. That does not amount to a conversation.

          • Michael

            Do you really appreciate how incredibly stupid you are increasingly presenting yourself to the readers?

            Either tell them what you said to JCCV and to whom you said it and on what occasions and dates – or butt out and take your own advice – which you just keep on ignoring over and over again:
            “I really don’t want to engage further. I don’t have the time or energy.”

            Your credibility is shot to pieces when you make such a statement and then blithely fail to follow it.

            If you don’t want to tell readers what you told JCCV – then don’t tell them and let them draw their own conclusions. That is your choice.

            I have asked you if you told the JCCV that Feiglin had in 2013 changed the views he expressed in 2009. Answering that simple question has seen you wriggling and squirming to avoid giving a simple “yes” or “no” answer.

            I – and the other readers – are then entitled to believe that you did not indeed reveal this highly significant information to JCCV.

          • David, I what I do is my business, not yours.

          • Michael

            When you make claims you have to be ready to substantiate them when challenged.

            You have failed to do so.

            Game set and match.

            Why do you still refuse to accept your own advice:
            “I really don’t want to engage further. I don’t have the time or energy.”

            Are these meaningless words? Get a handle on yourself and disengage before you completely bury yourself in the hole you have dug for yourself.

          • David, pick up the phone and ask David Marlow what I said to him if you care so much.

          • You guys are a joke if only you and your
            Progressive and gay Jewish comrades
            Would be calling up JCCV to support your fellow Jews in Israel not to bag them .

          • Why do you care what I do?

          • You you are right I don’t care and I shouldn’t be wasting my time energy and head space .

          • Who is David Marlow?

          • You really don’t care that much, do you.

          • Michael

            I repeat: Who is David Marlow?

            Is he the person you spoke to at the JCCV?

            If he is – then I would appreciate hearing from you first hand the details of your communications with him.

            Why are you continuing to be so coy about what you said? I can only assume that you did not mention to him that Feiglin in 2013 had expressed views different to those he espoused in 2009.

          • David Marlowe is the Executive Director of the JCCV.
            He’s a rabid leftist as the whole of the JCCV is .

          • Thanks Shirlee. I look forward to Michael telling us the details of his communications with Mr Marlowe – especially if he told Mr Marlowe that the views expressed by Feiglin in 2009 had been revised in 2013 – when Feiglin was reported in the Jerusalem Post as saying: “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,”

          • Don’t you know how to use Google?

          • Michael

            Google cannot tell me what you told David Marlow. Only you can.

            The longer you avoid telling me the less credibility you retain – which is now rock bottom anyway.

          • What I communicated with David Marlowe is private. If he wishes to disclose that he will let you know.

          • ………………and you Michael Barnett’s wonder why when your name appears as a comment, it raises my hackles.

            At least this is not about your pet cause, about which you have a giant chip on your shoulder.

          • Shirlee, why do you attack me and not the points I raise? I am not attacking you.

          • Michael Barnett I am not attacking you, you are attacking everyone and everything wherever you post.
            It’s all about you and ‘your’ rights.

            Everything is about you, and the chip on your shoulder about being Gay. You expect everyone to change just about everything to suit your agenda and you interfere in really what is nothing to do with you, like phoning the JCCV about Feiglin, to stir up trouble.

            We aren’t discussing Gay marriage, same-sex parents or equal rights yet you have to bring it into the equation.

            If you don’t have equal property rights in a relationship that’s all you need.

          • Transpose gay with Jewish and what do *you* get Shirlee?

          • Nah, nah, nah, you got it wrong,
            Every little thing that comes out of my mouth does not relate to me and I don’t have a giant size chip on my shoulder either.

            You have all the rights everyone else has. Don’t give me this marriage rubbish or same sex parents rubbish either.

            The first I see not point to and the second is wrong, very wrong and not fair on a child to be raised with same sex parents. It’s not natural and children have enough obstacles in this world to contend with than to have two mothers or two fathers.

            If you are Gay you are Gay and I have never had an issue with that, but all this other rubbish now is beyond ridiculous

          • My husband’s two adult children live with us. Why should we not be allowed to have our marriage recognised in Australia????

  13. The Progressives that Includes TBI are the best Palestinian Advocates the Muslim / Arab community have at their disposal, if only the ICV had pro – Zionist affiliates and advocates, but they are a lot smarter .

  14. Michael Barnett shows how far from reality you are. Get a life.
    30/10/2015 at 9:29 PM
    “My husband’s two adult children live with us.”
    Sorry this Gay business has got way out of control and beyond ridiculous. This is my last comment on this.

    Whatever way you want to look at it you are a man, and as such a man cannot have a husband.
    You are most certainly not a woman to be called a wife.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife

    “A wife is a female partner in a continuing marital relationship”

    • Shirlee, a husband is a married man. I am a husband and I have a husband. We are two men legally married to each other. I have a certificate issued by the New Zealand government to prove our legal marriage. You can chose to ignore this reality if you wish.

      • Yes married to a woman or are you trying to change the entire English language.
        I think you need to face reality, because it’s people like you who are unfortunately making people anti-Gay

        • Shirlee, I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but effectively every English speaking country on this planet except Australia has legalised marriage between two people of the same sex. In those countries the term of the contract is called a marriage and the parties are called spouses, frequently referred to as husbands or wives. There are existing dictionary definitions to cater for these relationships. Languages evolve. Dictionary definitions evolve. Trust me Shirlee, my use of the English language does not make people bigots.

          • Indeed, Michael, get real…all this kvetching about your “status” of persecuted, miserable etc. Lookatya, good looking rooster, smilin’ ear to ear, happily MARRIED..Spare a thought for the other team. I should be miserable as full blown (!!!) hetero. Yourse guys reckon you’ve got problems, try mine; like many blokes me kind, I’ve been married not just once, I’ve been through a FEW divorces, the women I consorted with nearly destroyed me, ruined lots of things I put together, those hetero relationship cost me a bloody fortune and I was “lucky”not to have spent a cent on bloody lawyers, I went by my wits and, still ended up in front compared to those poor buggers who made blokes like David Singer bloody rich ( no offence David !!). So, why should I worry about your “condition”, your relationship “problems”, anxieties, tribulations. Stop wingin’, playing the victim and enjoy the wonderful, no doubt, relationship you have and quit blaming us with your petulant LITTLE tantrums. Otherwise, you’re a top bloke !!! OK, I understand, you love being atop your struggle barricades , but I reckon you only do that as a show-off, kinda “look how gorgeous I am !!” Alright, you are gorgeous !! Happy now !!!

          • Otto, how lucky you’ve been able to get married multiple times. In Australia my marriage is not even recognised by this government, and I’m not even allowed to get married to my partner under Australian law, if I wasn’t married overseas to him already.

            You’ll find I’m not “kvetching” about anything, just asking not to be discriminated against by the government. That doesn’t seem to bother the lovely people who frequent this forum, ie people not being treated equally by the Australian government. I guess that’s where our priorities part ways. I care about equal rights for all citizens. It seems you and others here are happy for some citizens to have more rights than other citizens.

  15. I am rewarded here with the most prolific exchanges of KNOWN stances from the most reliable stable of opinion manufacturers ( the old adage – sadly gone – of the Surry Hills stiebel ” I am a manufacturer “, imagine it mit a reliable Yiddish akzent ).
    Yet why do I , of all people, need to come with the suggestion that, if the Melbourne Yiddische groisse machers are so clever, so well endowed in addressing issues, ANY issue, why are they affraid of facing, debating, why not killing rehtorically such a well known JEWISH political identity, noch Israeli. In Israel proper this voodoo villain is ALLOWED to go around, espouse all kinda views, at times even elected in the Knesset, in and out of political parties, published all over the media, in one (!!!) word NOBODY in OUR Jewish State would stop Feiglin from doing his stuff. This bloke is as Jewish as the two present Michaels, David EVEN LARRY and I shall throw in for good measure my poor self, yes fallas, I AM ONE OVYA. Yet would I be affraid to confront this poor schlemil and tell him what I think of him, his policies maybe his hair-cut, NO, I have the confifence, the chuitzpah to enter with him into a most fierce fist fight of eitzes and I trust MESELF to be better, to prove him wrong – that is IF I would disagree with him. BUT, dear Michael Burnett, wher is your flexibilities, YOUR own tolerance of a bloke who has been showing us, including YOU a drastic shift in his attitude to gay rights. Feiglin has progressed – for a better word – quite dramatically in his views on thee subject so, as far as your stances, are we talkin’ tachles or just exploiting ANY event to forward personal grudges UNRELATED strictly to the current subject matter !!!
    To wit, Feiglin rpresents for all those even slightly informed, the quintessential Jewish mindset as we find it now in an ever evolving Jewish state. He is highly controversial even within his own expansive mind. One of the reasons – it may be assumed – he has not advanced very high on the political ladder in Israel is precisely his volatility on matters which require MUCH greater intellectual cohesion. His CV is peppered with conflicting stances EVEN IF one may find “consistencies”. Although regarded as of impressive intellect, the notion still espoused by him of the arab dispersion from Israel is so impractical, so absurd , that his entire political-ideological edifice is annulled . The “mere” idea of disbanding Gaza, of sending all arabs – 20%-1.4 mill. – out of Eretz Israel is simple insanity. His views on marriage NO LONGER exclude gay rights, his views on religious tenets being valid in a Jewish State have qualified merit simply because no responsible Jew could wish for FUNDAMENTAL Jewish values to be deemed , what, ILLEGAL in ISRAEL, not to mention our distant Diaspora !!!
    Feiglin’s impending visit is the litmus test of a mature, intelligent Australian Jewish establishemnt and if the Victorian Yids think otherwise, we should think of them accordingly.
    More importantly, apart from these valuable displays of Aussie fortitude ( I so wish last nite we could have been as tough vs the Allblacks !!!), we should all be supportive of the visit of one of our own who, for all his averot, he is OUR OWN and NO bloody Jewish, Melbourne, Sydney, wherever, Board of Deps. would refuse him membership if he were as an earnest Australian as yourse Michaels, David, no to mention Shirlee, meself and, ok, I’ll throw in Larry !!! So, you tell me what’s so grave about him being here ( I mean there, I am still in Europe ) for a few BLOODY DAYS !!

  16. Michael, so you are not kvetching only complaining about persecution. Fair go, just read again the messages right here in YOUR/mine community…once again, who is persecuting you, who is interfering in the perfectly normal and happy relationship you have with your partner..and speaking of partnerships of the conjugal kind, don’t we have heaps of partnerships of the heterosexual type functioning perfectly normal WITHOUT the nuptial not in the formal way!
    I would remind also about MY own kvetchin re the delights of formal divorce etc.
    I am delighted that you have the kind of personal; life you have been lucky to enjoy and you should make the best of it…On personal level I also happen to live informally with the woman I adore after…… having divorced her ( or her me ) some TWENTY years ago. Do we care about formalities any more !!! No bloody way even if legally we can visit the chupa once again ( although right here we did not go as far as the “get, only civil separation, yet no longer separated ). On this score I am sure I am in everybody sentiment in saying that you should count your blessings that you live with the person you love without allowing certain more no longer IMPOSITIONS affecting your life’s priorities. Officially NOBODY is ALLOWED to persecute you for your emotional choices and that is all that matters. In addition here, in your own community everybody looks upon you as the good Jew you are and ask for nothing else, nothing more. In this respect we are all equal and who can ask for anything more – line followed by a few tango steps to finish with a gentle bow……I am writin’ all these on the 2nd movement of Brahms’ violin concerto, so there….

  17. Michael

    Your conversations might well have remained private – until you chose to blurt out and publicly confirm you had communications with JCCV and have now identified David Marlow as the person to whom you spoke.

    Quit beating around the Bush and tell us what you told Marlow – particularly whether you told him Feiglin’s views had changed between 2009 and 2013.

  18. Michael

    Your failure to tell David Marlow that Feiglin had changed his views between 2009 and 2013 was inexcusable and could well have impacted on how the JCCV (and indeed the NSWJBD) subsequently acted.

    Thank you for finally coming clean. It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had done so earlier.

    • David, you really are a piece of work. I have no obligation to advise anyone about anything, ever. I did not know about the 2013 comments when I first reached out to the JCCV and I don’t recall if I was aware of them at any of the further attempts I made to get a response from the JCCV.

      Broadly speaking I don’t engage in dialogue with the JCCV. As an activist I tag them in posts on Facebook and Twitter. If they notice my tags then my job is done. If they reply, even better. I am not a person who engages in polite conversation when I want an outcome. I’ll do whatever it takes to make my point of view known, at any cost.

      I have not spoken to David Marlow once in any capacity in relation to Moshe Feiglin. I don’t have the desire to do so nor do I need to. David Marlow is very aware of the current state of the Jewish community in most respects and it doesn’t take much effort on his part to find out what he doesn’t know. He’s an intelligent person. He doesn’t need me to advise him.

      If you really cared about the Jewish community in Melbourne you’d know who David Marlow was or how to establish who he was. If you cared about the welfare of Jews in Melbourne you wouldn’t write me off as having no credibility.

      I really don’t know why I should care about what you think though.

      • Michael Barnett, I’d say it’s you who are a piece of work. That I’ve known for years and I am far from alone.

        You say

        “I don’t engage in dialogue with the JCCV. As an activist I tag them in posts on Facebook and Twitter. If they notice my tags then my job is done.”

        On October 9 you posted

        “the JCCV issued this statement in response to pressure from me

        Really, they issued a statement from a Tweet or FB comment from you?

        Come on.

        You really don’t expect anyone to believe that crap do you?

        Are you so egotistical to think that the JCCV is monitoring your tweets and FB page?.

        “Oh quick let’s look to see what Michael Barnett is saying so we can do as he says!!!”

        Really!!

        • Shirlee, I don’t care what you say about me, but when you attack me and not my arguments, it says more about your integrity than mine.

          • Michael, you ought to be straight about your assumed role in JCCV’s decision to object to Feiglin’s visit. As what you stated remains here in print, you boasted at first about your achievement. Fact remains that, along with another TWELVE organisations displaying similar essential anti Israel positions, you applied the most irrational broadside against a legitimate Jewish Israeli political personality, all out of a reprehensible sentiment of intolerance, precisely the kind of attitude you so strongly object at society against your way of life. It is obvious that you enjoy being in the public arena, but enjoying duplicitous, contradictory stances cannot possibly help your causes.Casual nonsense could be entertaining, but don’t overdo it !!!

          • Please explain exactly what you claim I did that was irrational.

          • Michael, the “irrational” I inserted in my previous comment is clearly qualified by what was lined up as the contradiction between your valiant, strongly publicised efforts for the promotion of fairness in the public attitude toward a CERTAIN group to which you proudly belong and the restrictions/impediments/banning and will add persecution of an individual who, himself, belongs to a certain set of beliefs be it EVEN contrary or “worse”, abhorrent to you. I mentioned before and, please, retain it this time, there is a golden rule by which we must live and post comments as well. Using cute sophism as rhetorical escapes, whether legally pretentious or just simply in a friendly dialectics, may not excuse your merry petulant waltzing through serious issues. Otherwise, as I said, you DO offer rich palaver entertainment….

        • Shirlee, as to the JCCV, they may be monitoring my social media. I don’t know. But when I tag them on Facebook or Twitter, they probably get a notification. I know for a fact that the ECAJ follows Aleph Melbourne on Twitter.

      • Michael

        You now state:
        “I did not know about the 2013 comments when I first reached out to the JCCV and I don’t recall if I was aware of them at any of the further attempts I made to get a response from the JCCV.”

        This is totally contradicted by your following statement:
        “David, NIF contacted Aleph on Oct 7 asking us to co-sign their statement. I agreed to this based on the 2009 material they supplied us. NIF released their statement [1] on Oct 9. After listening to coverage of this in the media I did some further research and found Feiglin’s 2013 comments in the Jerusalem Post. I issued a media release [2] based on these on Oct 9.”

        You knew on October 9 that Feiglin had changed his 2009 views. JCCV was approached by you after October 9. A media release was issued by JCCV on 12 October.
        http://www.jccv.org.au/news/1241/59/JCCV-Statement-on-Moshe-Feiglin-Visit.html
        No mention was made in that release about Feiglin’s change of views between 2009 and 2013 – nor did you apparently seek to correct it knowing what you had read in the Jerusalem Post.

        You now also state:
        “I have not spoken to David Marlow once in any capacity in relation to Moshe Feiglin”

        Yet you said the following:
        “David, pick up the phone and ask David Marlow what I said to him if you care so much.”

        Michael – I am afraid your word cannot be trusted.

        Try to regain some small element of respectability by heeding your own words:
        ““I really don’t want to engage further. I don’t have the time or energy.”

        • You twist what I said David. “Don’t recall” means at the time of writing I didn’t recall. What more do you want of me?

          David Marlow will tell you I have not spoken to him once on the issue.

          The JCCV never approached me. After I brought the NSW JBD statement to their attention on Facebook or Twitter they issued their statement.

          I have not spoken to them once.

          Your credibility is more at question than mine. 🙂

          • Michael

            If you never spoke to Marlow – then why did you ask me to contact him? You said you contacted someone at JCCV and identified that person as Marlow. If it now turns out to not be Marlow – then who did you contact at JCCV?

            How did you bring NSWJBD statement to the attention of JCCV? An email perhaps if you have not spoken to them once?

            Michael – do you understand how your constantly changing narrative reflect on your credibility?

            I can’t advise you to quit whilst you’re still in front – because you are so far behind the eight ball already. Best you butt out and bring this exchange to an end before you get totally swallowed up by the deep hole you have dug for yourself.

          • David, you clearly have no understanding of how social media works. It is possible to bring content to someone’s attention without having any conversation with them.

          • Michael

            You now state:
            ‘It is possible to bring content to someone’s attention without having any conversation with them.”

            Maybe – but then you still need to fully disclose how you brought such content to the attention of JCCV and what that content was – if no conversations were involved – because that is what you have previously claimed in the following statements made by you:

            1. “On October 9 the JCCV issued this statement in response to pressure from me regarding Feiglin’s visit:”

            What was that pressure and on whom was it applied – if not in a conversation? How was that pressure conveyed by you to the JCCV – if not in a conversation?

            2. “The JCCV’s second statement was a response to the NSW JBD’s statement, issued after I raised it to their attention.”

            How and to whom did you raise it to JCCV’s attention – if not in a conversation?

            3. ” I called on the JCCV to speak out against his visit as the JCCV are promoting a message of inclusion and acceptance in regards to LGBTIQ people, and Feiglin does not align with these values.”

            How and to whom did you call on the JCCV to speak out against Feiglin’s visit – if not in a conversation?

            4.”David, pick up the phone and ask David Marlow what I said to him if you care so much.”
            “David Marlow will tell you I have not spoken to him once on the issue.”
            If you have not spoken to David Marlow why bring his name into the discussion?
            Did you have some other from of communication with Mr Marlow that was not a conversation – an email perhaps?

            Being frank and not trying to gild the lily would be most helpful in examining the role you played in failing to reveal to the JCCV that Feiglin’s views had changed between 2009 and 2013.

          • What are you fishing for David?

          • Michael

            You clearly represented you spoke to David Marlow
            “”David, pick up the phone and ask David Marlow what I said to him if you care so much.”
            “What I communicated with David Marlowe is private. If he wishes to disclose that he will let you know.”

            Now you have the audacity to claim:
            “I asked you to contact him [Marlow] to establish that I never spoke to him, contrary to your assertions.”

            I never asserted anything. It was you who made the above assertions.

          • Utterly nonsense. I did not have a conversation with him.

          • Michael

            What am I fishing for?

            Answers by you to the following four questions relating to statements made by you:

            1. “On October 9 the JCCV issued this statement in response to pressure from me regarding Feiglin’s visit:”

            What was that pressure and on whom was it applied – if not in a conversation? How was that pressure conveyed by you to the JCCV – if not in a conversation?

            2. “The JCCV’s second statement was a response to the NSW JBD’s statement, issued after I raised it to their attention.”

            How and to whom did you raise it to JCCV’s attention – if not in a conversation?

            3. ” I called on the JCCV to speak out against his visit as the JCCV are promoting a message of inclusion and acceptance in regards to LGBTIQ people, and Feiglin does not align with these values.”

            How and to whom did you call on the JCCV to speak out against Feiglin’s visit – if not in a conversation?

            4.”David, pick up the phone and ask David Marlow what I said to him if you care so much.”
            “David Marlow will tell you I have not spoken to him once on the issue.”
            If you have not spoken to David Marlow why bring his name into the discussion?
            Did you have some other from of communication with Mr Marlow that was not a conversation – an email perhaps?

            Michael – these questions will not go away until you respond to them fairly and honestly.

          • I asked the JCCV to make a statement about Feiglin from the outset. When the NSW JBD did, I reiterated my request, to shame them for not doing so. That is the pressure I applied. It worked. I probably did it via Twitter.

            You insisted I had a conversation with the JCCV. By calling David Marlow you will ascertain I did not.

          • Michael

            May I summarise:

            1. You found out on 9 October that Feiglins views had changed from 2009 to 2013.

            2. The NSWJBD issued its release on 10 October.

            3. You state: ” When the NSW JBD did, I reiterated my request, to shame them for not doing so. That is the pressure I applied. It worked. I probably did it via Twitter.”

            4. You did not by any manner or means inform the JCCV that Feiglins’s views had changed – notwithstanding you knew this on the 9th October.

            5. The JCCV media release was dated 12 October and made no mention of Feiglin’s changed viewpoint.

            Is this a fair and correct summation of your role in this saga?

            Being the expert in social media that you claim to be can you post any Twitters to support your answer.

          • This tweet on October 9 brings the Aleph media release to the attention of the JCCV:

            https://twitter.com/alephmelbourne/status/652276502386491392

            This tweet on October 9 challenges the JCCV to respond:

            https://twitter.com/alephmelbourne/status/652277302848417792

            This tweet on October 11 brings the NSW JBD statement to the attention of the JCCV:

            https://twitter.com/alephmelbourne/status/653084527351361536

            The JCCV would have known Feiglin’s 2013 stance if they had read the Aleph media release I brought to their attention on October 9.

            I assume David Marlow follows the JCCV’s Twitter stream. It’s in his best interest to do so given his role with the organisation.

          • Michael:
            Nice to see the tweets being supplied at last.

            In relation to the first tweet you state:
            “This tweet on October 9 brings the Aleph media release to the attention of the JCCV:
            Jewish leadership must speak out loudly against Moshe Feiglin’s visit to Melbourne. http://t.co/NXayzT5CbG @jccvic @ecajewry@TimnaJacks
            — Aleph Melbourne (@alephmelbourne) October 9, 2015”

            I believe this statement to be false because it appears this tweet was sent on 8 October at 5.16 pm not on 9 October as you claim.
            https://twitter.com/alephmelbourne/status/652276502386491392

            It was also sent to the ECAJ and Timna Jacks – the education reporter at the age who is apparently interested in tips. Any reason you failed to mention them as well?

            Attached to it was the Aleph media release dated 9 October – but it appears clear you had predated the release and included the link in the tweet sent the day before.

            It would therefore appear that you knew of Feiglins changed views before the 9th October as you previously misrepresented:
            “NIF released their statement [1] on Oct 9. After listening to coverage of this in the media I did some further research and found Feiglin’s 2013 comments in the Jerusalem Post. I issued a media release [2] based on these on Oct 9.”

            Can you explain the discrepancies?

            We can further follow the trail once you clear up these apparent contradictions relating to the first tweet.

          • David, the time you quote is GMT. When you log in to Twitter and apply the AEST timezone it will be the time I claim.

            You can try to discredit me but you’ll need to try harder if you want to succeed

          • Correction: AEDT timezone.

          • I’ve posted a reply to your message David but unfortunately I’ve broken the 2 links per article rule inadvertently and it’s gone into the spam folder. It will need to wait for Shirlee to allow the message through.

          • I asked you to contact him to establish that I never spoke to him, contrary to your assertions.

          • Michael

            Not sure what you mean by the differing time zones.

            The time the tweet was sent by you is shown on the tweet – just like this tweet I sent about an hour ago where the time is correctly recorded:

            @Jerusalem_Post @DavidCarltonM21 that is always the problem when dealing with the PLO. Can never be trusted
            9:13pm – 5 Nov 15

            Your claim might make sense if you were not in Australia . I assume however you were in Victoria.

          • David, logged in as my account, with my timezone set to “(GMT+11:00) Melbourne”, the timestamp on that tweet shows for me “11:16 AM – 9 Oct 2015”. You need to verify the timezone setting for your Twitter profile. I don’t know why you disbelieve me.

          • Michael

            The time you sent your twitter is clearly marked 5.16 pm – 8 October 2015 as this photo shot clearly indicates.

            User Actions
            Follow

            Aleph Melbourne
            ‏@alephmelbourne
            Jewish leadership must speak out loudly against Moshe Feiglin’s visit to Melbourne. http://aleph.org.au/2015/10/09/mr-aleph-melbourne-expresses-alarm-at-melbourne-visit-by-moshe-feiglin … @jccvic @ecajewry @TimnaJacks

            RETWEETS
            4
            LIKES
            4
            Oscar SchwartzalicethruthemirrorTimna JacksMichael BarnettOsman FaruqiPeter Davidson
            5:16 PM – 8 Oct 2015

          • Did you verify the timezone in your profile settings?

          • Michael

            I accept your explanation and regret the misunderstanding.

            In relation to the tweets generally:

            You previously stated:
            “I posted 6 tweets around 4:15pm October 8, tagging a variety of mainstream and niche media outlets all calling on a comment from the JCCV in response to the Feiglin story. The JCCV then issued the statement against homophobia at 9am the next morning.”

            Is there any reason you failed to mention that you sent another six at around 11.30 pm on 8 October?

            Can you direct me to the statement by the JCCV at 9 am the next morning?

            I am still mystified as to why you did not specifically include some parts of the following extract from the 2013 Jerusalem Post Report in Aleph’s media release:
            “During the two-hour discussion in Beit Noar, an LGBT center that was attacked in 2009, the members of the community raised a broad range of issues with Feiglin, including surrogacy, marriage, adoption, discrimination, violence and at-risk LGBT youth.

            Feiglin promised to support legislation that would protect what he described as the “human rights” issues the LGBT community faced, such as discrimination, and the plight of youth thrown out of their homes over their sexuality.

            With issues of “values,” however, the gaps appeared unbridgeable.

            “When we’re talking about the human issues, the human rights, that’s where I see myself helping you,” Feiglin said.”

            Why did you only state the following in the Aleph media release:
            “Despite claiming to support “human rights” for LGBTIQ people, Moshe Feiglin opposes full societal inclusion and equality of LGBTIQ people, as reported in the Jerusalem Post in 2013:

            Feiglin said. “When you’re trying to change the value system, that pushes me into the closet!” Families, he stated, are the foundation stone of society and the nation, and he said he would not do anything to harm what he called the “classic” family structure of one man, one woman and their children”.

            Michael – I know your previous response was:
            ” I am not concerned about what Feiglin likes about gay people. I am concerned about what he doesn’t like.”

            Given you had sent so many tweets on 8 October that did not mention the 2013 interview in the Jerusalem Post – wouldn’t it have been far fairer to correct the tenor of those tweets by updating Feiglin’s changed views and notifying all the people you had tweeted before you came into possession of the Jerusalem Post article?

          • David, your interrogation of me is preposterous. Your arrogance is extreme. I am not interested.

          • His arrogance is extreme.

            Have you ever looked in the mirror?

            I saw your arrogant superior tweet about me and you have the nerve to call David arrogant.

            David has shown you up, you can’t answer so you aren’t interested. How childish and pathetic can you get?

          • Michael

            I thought you would have been more than ready to answer my questions in relation to your tweets and their contents given this statement by you:
            “Call it coincidence if you want Shirlee but I’ll say that my tweets pressured the JCCV to respond.”

          • David, your line of interrogation is offensive. What are you trying to ascertain?

          • Michael

            I am trying to get you to answer some questions – which you are apparently reluctant to answer.

            Remain silent if you like. That is your prerogative. Readers can draw their own conclusions in the absence of any responses by you.

            The more you use terms like “arrogance”, “preposterous” and “offensive” in an effort to avoid answering my questions – the more you appear to have something to hide.

          • See, you could get the answers you wanted if you told me why it mattered. But as your interrogation of me appears to be without purpose, I have no incentive to respond.

          • Michael

            You can’t complain that you were not afforded every opportunity to answer the questions directed to you to explain your conduct.

            So be it.

          • I don’t have to answer any questions. If you told me why you needed to know the answers to your questions, maybe we could progress.

          • Michael

            So we will just have to end our conversation on the basis that you refused to answer some questions I directed to you because you first wanted to know the reasons for my asking those questions.

            It don’t work that way with me mate.

            That is a sure sign that you are not prepared to be fully open and transparent in justifying your role and conduct in this sorry saga – as for example in failing to disclose at any time that you sent seven tweets around 11.30 pm on 8 October to ABC Radio FM, The Age, Caulfield Leader, Derryn Hinch, Same Same and Multiculture Victoria with this message:
            “No outrage frm @ADCAustralia @jccvic @ECAJewry for proud homophobe Moshe Feiglin visit to Melb. If it was a Holocaust denier… @HumanHeadline”

            Shame on you.

            I am not interested in your answers anymore because I will not attach any credibility to anything you say from hereon.

            My response to any further post from you will be: “You have had your chance to explain your conduct. I don’t believe a word you are now saying”

          • David, I fail to see why I should care about answering your questions. I have nothing to gain from cooperating with you as you have shown me no reason to do so. What is in it for me?

            You are clearly someone who is not especially resourceful. The answers to your questions are on the Internet, in the public domain. If you can’t find them yourself, why should I waste my time to do it on your behalf?

          • From the sidelines, Michael, in it for you is credibility, as athletic looks and verbosity ain’t quite enough. Also, the information on the internet ,as a vicarious attempt at escaping fair “trade” of retorts, is even worse, as one must established not what is out there but what YOU subscribe to.
            It looks like you have given up the pursuit of endless evasive little quibble ; pity, you are so good at it.
            All said in jest….

          • Michael

            You have had your chance to explain your conduct. I don’t believe a word you are now saying.

          • So be it. Life will go on David.

          • I am in full agreement with you David. Seen this constantly over the years.

          • David, you want answers from me but what are you prepared to give in return? Are you offering any goodwill? I have no understanding from you that you will not use my answers against me in some way. I do not wish to be taken advantage of.

            Unless you are going to start advocating for the removal of prejudice and discrimination against same-sex attracted and gender diverse people in the Jewish community then I feel we have little to offer each other.

          • Sorry to butt in once again, Michael, but what you are telling us now is that you are , in fact, ready to quit fighting for what you appear to believe in. Anyone NOT agreeing with you offers you a golden opportunity to put forward your case, to fight for it, to demonstrate how right you are.

  19. Michael Barnett the mind boggles.

    Do you seriously think for one moment that the JCCV is hanging on your every word waiting for your tweets to come in so they can do your bidding?

    This was your first comment

    “On October 9 the JCCV issued this statement in response to pressure from me regarding Feiglin’s visit”

    Pressure via a Tweet.

    Come on we weren’t born yesterday.

    You cannot pressure a person via a stupid Tweet, no matter how you look at it..

    I can just imagine the JCCV, the hardened Left trembling in their boots because Michael Barnett is pressuring them via tweets.

    The mind boggles.

    • Shirlee, look at it this way. I asked the JCCV to make a comment on Feiglin’s visit and they issued a generic statement on homophobia but didn’t include any reference to Feiglin. I pushed them further to make a statement referencing Feiglin and they didn’t make any more comments about him. Then the weekend of the visits came and went. The NSW JBD then issued their statement mentioning Feiglin in the lead up to his visit in Sydney. I then asked the JCCV again to make a statement mentioning Feiglin and voila, a statement appeared, *after* his visit to Melbourne. There is no logical explanation for them to have issued a retrospective statement except for the fact that it looked bad that they hadn’t issued a statement accordingly given the NSW JBD had issued one. You can draw your conclusions that my pressuring the JCCV didn’t elicit their tardy statement. I’ll claim that my pressuring them was a contributing factor to them issuing the statement.

      • Pressuring them with Tweets???

        Come on. I wasn’t born yesterday and have been involved in lobbying and the like, my entire life having grown up in a political home. I can tell you that you cannot pressure with stupid tweeting whatever you want to say.

    • I posted 6 tweets around 4:15pm October 8, tagging a variety of mainstream and niche media outlets all calling on a comment from the JCCV in response to the Feiglin story. The JCCV then issued the statement against homophobia at 9am the next morning. Call it coincidence if you want Shirlee but I’ll say that my tweets pressured the JCCV to respond.

      • That’s what is what yu call bullying/

        • Actually Shirlee, attacking me and not my arguments is what I’d call bullying. It’s not possible to communicate a message on Twitter to all those media outlets in one tweet, hence the need for 6.

      • Pressured? Is that what you call it?

        • My experience shows that when I initiate this sort of activism I am more likely to get the outcomes I want. In this case I succeeded on both occasions to one degree or another.

          • What a self-opinionated, arrogant, narcissistic excuse for a human being you are.

            You disgust me that you would use bullying and embarrassment as a weapon to get what YOU WANT, never mind what that Jewish Community want. It’s all about you and your ego.

            Most people wouldn’t have been aware of his presence in Australia. He was here on what was essentially a private visit. I was one of those invited

            ………………. And you gave him publicity. Well done!!

            Do me a favour, when David has finished with you, and win he will over your arrogance, don’t come here again.

          • Your attacks on me are over the top Shirlee. I am not bullying an organisation. I don’t know how one can bully an organisation.

            If an organisation claims to uphold certain values and they fail to meet that expectation then it is understandable that people will hold them to account. That is not bullying.

          • I feel sorry for you. I really do.

  20. Bill Rubinstein

    The real lesson of all this is that the JCCV chose to ostracize Feiglin in order to pursue its left-wing, politically correct agenda rather than a neutral Jewish agenda which represents the consensual position of the Jewish community. The current office-bearers of the JCCV appear to have altered the basic agenda of the JCCV in a way which reflects the views of a small left wing minority. Since roughly 40 of the 45 or so synagogues in Victoria are Orthodox, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of Jews who are religious oppose gay marriage and homosexuality on religious grounds. Their views have been marginalized, despite being the majority opinion. It is surprising that they, and other conservative groups affiliated to the JCCV, continue to pay their affiliation fees, for which they get kicked in the behind. It seems to me only a matter of time before the JCCV, with its leftist agenda, endorses the BDS movement.

    • I also find it a problem that the JCCV would make such a statement based on the Tweets of one person as claimed.

      The problem is not sufficient people care about the JCCV to change it. The Left are aggressive and excessive in their approach to everything.

      Bill, we need more articles to keep plugging this. I know they are watching

      • Completely agree with you Shirlee if only the progressives and fringe looney left would spend as much time bagging Israel & acting as Palestinian useful idiots rather than to support their fellow Jews . As is we don’t have enough enemies.
        Unfortunately even our mainstream Jewish organisations who have been infiltrated with leftist representatives as we can see from this JCCV episode and who are alienating anyone not on their looney left wavelength .

        Alan and I look forward to have BIll on our program Nothing Left on J Air radio in the next few weeks to discuss these issues . There are not many Jewish platforms available in our community for allowing views and opinions that are not P.C and so called progressive apart from JDU and Nothing Left.

        • It has been a given that those 12 or more leftist groups WITHIN our community – mentioned on 25/10/ by David Singer – are far better organised than those who ought to have opposed them efficiently… and that says it all. Yet the voices of “revolt” , such as Michael Burd’s, could have “infiltrated” just as well the same structures ! Not blaming, just saying it. Trouble is that each time those 12 or more attain their goals we repeat the same comments, not to mention that Michael Burnett is having now a ball – dressed up any way he wants – teasing all and sundry – I’l be sundry… (see “The Producers”).

      • Shirlee, unless you’ve spoke to Jennifer Huppert or David Marlow, you have no evidence of what motivation the JCCV had for issuing their statement about Feiglin.

        If you assert they issued it on the basis of my tweets then you are conceding my tweets were effective in pressuring the JCCV to issue the statement.

        I would suggest the underlying motivation for the JCCV issuing their statement was that the NSW JBD issued their statement about Feiglin first. In that case, you would probably want to understand why Vic Alhadeff issued that statement.

        Blaming the JCCV for an action equivalent to one initiated by the NSW JBD would seem to me to be blaming the wrong party.

        • You said it yourself Michael. So give it up. You really are tiresome.

        • Michael BARNETT, do yourself – and us – a favour and check the third phrase of your 05/11/2015 at 11.34 in which you suggest that the NSWJBD was the “motivation” for the JCCV statement etc. and then you contradict yourself, M. BARNETT, in the next, 4th phrase, in which “blaming” NSWJBD for the same would be wrong.