What Is Wrong With Jewish Media?

What is Wrong with Jewish Media?

By Dovid Efune

Media - defined as the means of communication, such as radio, television, newspapers, and magazines that reach or influence people widely.

In seeking to label the period in which we currently live, time and again the term 'Information age' has been used. Rapid global communications and networking made possible by breakneck technological advances, have undoubtedly made the world a smaller place and facilitated the unsurpassed spread of knowledge. This has led in many ways to greater understanding between various cultures and communities around the globe. So let's have a look at how the 'People of the Book' have fared in a world of Notebooks and Facebook.

In a basic sense, Jewish media can be divided into two categories.  The first, communication amongst Jews and Jewish communities around the world; the second, Jewish communication with the world at large. Whilst in the first category there is certainly much room for improvement, progress in the second category is minimal, if existent, and remains a pressing challenge to Jewish leaders. Let us analyze and consider some of the opportunities that are out there.

If one had to ask a young Jew if there is a media outlet that they regularly turn to for news and information in the Jewish world that imparts them with a sense of belonging and involvement, it is likely that the most frequent response would be Jdate.  My own recent experience in advising an established sports promotion company on how to target advertising for a sports event to young Jews, soon made me realize that we would be hard-pressed to locate an outlet that could deliver this audience.

Secondly, in the world of Jewish media, the relationship between the content provider and consumer appears to be quite limited. The existing Jewish news outlets largely operate in somewhat of a parochial fashion, essentially dictating to their audiences what they should be reading, what they should be thinking about, and what they should be interested in. There is a serious need for an outlet that will strive to close the gap, and listen carefully to and involve the Jewish community and audience in order to supply the most relevant content that truly addresses their concerns, interests and ideals.

Thirdly, Jewish media is primarily localized, with independent news providers serving many of the world's largest Jewish communities. Whilst there are some larger outlets that report on happenings from around the globe, there is no comprehensive global media outlet that acts as a one-stop destination for all international Jewish news.

Perhaps a global Jewish news outlet could serve as a stepping stone for progress on the second category, namely, Jewish communication with the outside world. To be fair, there is one website that was launched for this purpose by Italy's Jewish community.  It is the first of its kind, quite groundbreaking in nature as it strives to act as a Jewish news source for non-Jews. The need and demand for similar projects is certainly widespread as there is an almost universal interest in what the Jewish nation is up to. Many around the world, from decision makers to the culturally curious are anxious to learn about Jewish ideas, opinions, and the issues that matter most to the Jewish community at any given time.

Whilst when delivering news, there are certain standards for reporting and presenting information in an informative fashion, the world of media is by no means limited by this and outlets can be utilized to represent a position and even a worldview. It is high time that Jewish communities begin to effectively communicate Jewish positions and interests on a global scale.

The strength of the media in today's world has been widely acknowledged and its influence and impact in its various forms have had great affect. As Jews, if we are to fulfill our mission to serve as a light unto the nations, we must strive to better harness these powerful tools of our time.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visitwww.GJCF.com for more information.

Salvaging the United Nations

Salvaging the United Nations

By Dovid Efune

Opposite the United Nations, on the northern wall of Ralph Bunche Park, is engraved the famous quotation from Isaiah 2:4: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." Founded on such utopian ideals, the UN is mandated with 'reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person' and 'saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war.'

During Shabbat services last week at the Park East Synagogue in New York, the congregation was addressed by the Secretary- General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon and the President of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss. In attendance was a diverse group of UN Ambassadors and Consuls General representing countries from across the globe. This remarkable gathering could only have been orchestrated by the synagogue's highly regarded Rabbi Arthur Schneier. The event was held in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27th.

Ban Ki -moon spoke of the UN as an organization that was created "in part to prevent a Holocaust from ever happening again," and "to speak out for those who would otherwise not be heard." He presented a replica of the 'B' that appears in the infamous inscription in the gates of Auschwitz: 'Arbeit Macht Frei,' and explained that, "prisoners at Auschwitz had been ordered to make that sign, and in their anger they decided to take a stand. If you look carefully at pictures of the gate, you will see that the 'B' is upside down. What might appear as a mere piece of design is actually a daring act of defiance. Hidden within the German message emblazoned on that gate, the prisoners of Auschwitz delivered a message of their own: all is not right here. Something is upside down, brutally so."

The speech was moving and his sentiments were echoed shortly after by the President of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss.

But let's face it; despite these principled ideals that were no doubt expressed in genuine sincerity, many agree that the UN in its current state is a sham, an absolute mockery of the very ideals on which it was founded.

An organization that has allowed Libya a seat at its Human Rights Council, can never be taken seriously as an authority on Human Rights. Sadly, the UN has become not only a place of refuge but a platform for many of the world's most oppressive regimes and worst human rights violators.

At her last public appearance prior to completing her tenure, Israel's previous Ambassador to the UN, Prof. Gabriela Shalev, harshly criticized the UN saying:

"Sadly, there are countless human tragedies and immeasurable human suffering around the globe. Yet the United Nations reserves the overwhelming majority of its condemnation only for Israel. This can only be interpreted as the "politically correct" modern anti-Semitism. We cannot stop the witch-hunt against Israel that regularly takes place at the United Nations today." She then concluded by saying that, "this hypocrisy, this double standard, this double talk, which is unleashed inside the United Nations, is checked only by one country, Israel's best and closest ally, the United States of America."

Both Prof. Shalev and the current Israeli representative to the United Nations shared with me that what they find hardest about working at the UN, is the volume of libelous accusations leveled against Israel on a regular basis.

Many believe that there are rare instances when the right to freedom of speech and expression is forfeited by an individual or organization, namely when this speech endangers the lives or jeopardizes the safety of others. Whilst there are others that may argue that no voice ever that deserves to be silenced, all should agree that to empower these individuals by placing them in positions of responsibility is simply criminal.

In truth, if the UN is to serve as an organ of morality it certainly can't be achieved within the current framework and some serious restructuring is in order.

The first thing that needs to be made clear is that membership at the table of civilized nations is not a free ticket, and there are certain principles that member states will need to uphold. Not all methods of government are equal, and often the yardstick is the level of equality that is shared by all citizens of a particular state.

The UN must implement a thorough grading system whereby countries are assessed based on their human rights records, the freedom of their societies, and the extent by which the government was democratically chosen to represent its citizens. Membership at the UN should be multi-tiered, with levels of authority granted according to the above grades, and only those nations led by representative governments will wield the power to form resolutions and implement policy.

In some ways the system would be similar to the criteria used by other international alliances, except that the level of economic stability, education or natural resources of a country will not be taken into account. What will set the UN apart is that the grounds for acceptance and thus becoming a voice of authority on an international stage will be purely moral.

What would it take to implement change on this level? Perhaps a failure similar to the one that prompted the disbanding of the League of Nations? After all, what is the value of the UN, if it is unable to sustain peace among the world's peoples? What is the value of an international body that has strayed so far from its charter that it has all but lost the voice of morality that is so urgently needed?

For some of the world's nations, we live in an unprecedented age of freedom and opportunity; for others, oppression and prejudice live on. If the UN is to truly serve as "a voice for those who would otherwise not be heard," drastic change is essential.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit algemeiner.com for more information.

The Finkler Question and Answer

The Finkler Question and Answer

By Dovid Efune

In most cases, when a good book is written and published, it is read, reviewed and then critiqued, assigned to a library shelf and often soon after forgotten.  The Finkler Question by British author Howard Jacobson started out the same way but has since sharply veered off the beaten path and found for itself a position of prominence in the arena of public discourse, specifically on matters relating to Jews and Israel.

The book was awarded the highly prestigious Man Booker Prize and has received many reviews, the vast majority of which were overwhelmingly positive.  Whilst I certainly agree that Jacobson is a highly talented wordsmith and his book is a masterpiece, I am by no means a literary critic and therefore instead of reviewing the book I would like to bring attention to some of the Jewish issues that it highlights.

Through his primary characters, Julian Treslove, a middle-aged non-Jew who is somewhat obsessed with Jews and his Jewish friends Libor Sevcik and Sam Finkler, Jacobson cleverly presents a multitude of arguments and counter arguments on the Arab-Israel conflict. Libor is an older widower who seems ready to bury his head in the sand when it comes to addressing Jewish causes, and Finkler heads a group called ASHamed Jews who are actively embarrassed by 'the way Israel conducts itself.'

The Finkler Question also cleverly explores various expressions of Jewish identity and the struggle of many modern Jews to find the contemporary relevance in their heritage, providing a vivid illustration of the challenges that they are faced with.

One such issue that arises on multiple occasions throughout the narrative is the relationship between being Jewish, and identifying with Israel. There are many Jews that are of the opinion that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand, that what the Israeli's are up to in Israel has no bearing on how Jews are   the world. This is the case of Sam Finklers' group in the novel who claim that it is possible to accuse Israel of war crimes, and yet remain proudly Jewish.

But what they fail to realize, as the author keenly illustrates, is that haters and bigots rarely compartmentalize, and more often than not, in their eyes, anti Israel and anti-Jewish are wholly interchangeable. Israel is the Jewish State, the homeland of the Jewish people and association with Israel is an inherent part of being Jewish whether one admits it or not.

There is also another bigger and thoroughly disturbing malady highlighted by Jacobson that faces Jewish communities around the globe, namely; that very few Jews are actually aware of what Judaism is really about. For the story's characters, being Jewish at times means being smart, at times it means belonging to a group, at times it is ritualistic, guilt ridden or family centric. But most of all, throughout the book, the characters' Judaism is defined by their victimhood. In truth this may be one of the greatest Jewish challenges of our time.

About a year and a half ago, Britain's Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks told me the following:

"The challenge to a new generation of Jewish leaders is to think differently about the Jewish future, to stop thinking of ourselves as victims, stop thinking of ourselves as the people that dwell alone and start thinking about Judaism as a way of life, as a faith and as an approach to the world.  I offer my one line definition of Judaism "Judaism is the voice of hope in the condescension of humankind".  Nowadays when you read about Jews it's about Antisemitism, the Holocaust, boycotts, Israel,  50% out -marriage rates, but that is not who we are, these are the problems."

He then continued to say, "Where do I read in the news about Judaism having a message of hope for humankind, yet when I lecture in America at various institutions, they are hungry for a Jewish message and they certainly don't want a Jewish message which says " the world hates Jews". We are the world's oldest and most persistent victims, I don't think anyone wants that message. If you tell a young generation of Jewish teenagers, we want you to know about Jewish history come to Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen and Treblinka and you'll know what it is to be a Jew, then they will have two or ten thoughts before marrying another Jew and having Jewish children. Who wants to confer the status of victimhood onto their children and grandchildren?"

He concluded by saying, "I'm afraid we have been walking in precisely the wrong direction by focusing on all the negatives of recent Jewish history and the Jewish present and have failed to connect with the spirit. We have failed to connect with the positives and we have failed to connect with the message of Jews to humankind "through you will all the families of the earth be blessed". When you give over this message everyone responds, Jew and Non-Jew alike so I challenge the next generation of Jewish leaders and the generation after to think about Judaism in a completely new way."

The Finkler Question portrays this Jewish struggle in a comprehensive and intimate fashion, the sad fact that most Jews today simply don't know what being Jewish means. Perhaps the Finkler answer comes with a shift in focus; the new generation must direct all of its resources in striving to convey the authentic Jewish message of positivity, hope and belief in a better future.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.GJCF.com for more information.