How did they get it so wrong?
SANITY eventually reigned this week, when Cambridge University Press agreed to withdraw its controversial religious studies textbook from bookshelves.
When alerted to the book’s content earlier this week, we could not believe what we were seeing and did some investigation to ensure it was no hoax.
Could it be that in 2009, there are schools in NSW teaching their high school students that Jewish people slaughter lambs and rub the blood on their doorposts? That polygamy is widely practised in a country as developed as Israel? And that Jewish people are all doctors and lawyers? It appeared so.
It took a few days, but after heavy lobbying from community leaders and the press, Cambridge University Press took the sensible route, withdrawing the book from sale pending a review.
But the question surely must be asked: how did this material pass editors’ and publishers’ eyes, with none of them raising a brow? A cursory check with a rabbi or lay Jewish studies teacher would have led to wholesale changes in the material covered. Arguably, much of the damage has already been done. There are thousands of students who have already seen the book and who may well be examined on its contents.
Hopefully teachers have relied on their experience and other resources and realised that this chapter on Judaism is riddled with half-truths, mistruths and utter nonsense.
As one religious studies teacher told The AJN, the section smacks of a bygone era. An era where Australians were not sensitive to the beliefs and practices of all different faiths and ethnic groups.
This whole episode is a reminder of the importance of Jewish community outreach and interfaith activities. It seems that the only people who can be consistently relied on to accurately portray Judaism are Jewish people.
It is incumbent on Jewish schools and community organisations to continue debunking the myths that Jewish people lack morals and grow horns. Moreover, we need to keep spreading the message that Judaism is a beautiful, ancient religion of peace, ethics and values, regardless of what the textbooks say.
The shifting sands of history
THEY say you cannot change the past, but that is a half-truth. You cannot change the events that have transpired, but you can certainly revisit and adjust your perceptions of those events.
Two very different stories this week are a case in point. A documentary, screening in Australia next month, retells the story of controversial Holocaust figure Dr Israel Kasztner from a fresh perspective. And next week marks the 14th anniversary of the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
About the only obvious thing Kasztner and Rabin have in common is that they were both assassinated by Jews, a fact that alone should give us pause.
In all other ways, these two figures are adrift on their own historical rafts. With each passing year, as with all historical figures, the currents of time shift our perceptions and shape their legacies. Sometimes the movement is slight, sometimes quite dramatic, but there is always change, with each new historian making their own contribution to the legacy.
For Kasztner’s supporters, which naturally include the Jews he saved and their progeny, but also many others who believe his negotiations with the Nazis were just, the latest chapter in his historical narrative has been welcome.
As evidenced by the sympathetic documentary Killing Kasztner and a new atmosphere of acceptance at Yad Vashem, Kasztner, some half-a-century after his murder, has a chance for some semblance of redemption.
This turn of events should in no way invalidate the feelings of those Holocaust survivors and historians who continue to find fault with Kasztner.
Constructively, we can say that we live in an era where the controversial nature of a historical figure need not be swept under a rug, but rather we can talk about it openly and, where necessary, agree to disagree.
Rabin, let it be said, falls into the category of those whose historical narrative has drifted only slightly thus far. While the peace process, which he fathered, may be in disarray, and the final negotiations he envisioned as part of the Oslo Accords never came together as he had hoped, Rabin himself is not held accountable for the miscues that followed him -– nor should he be. His peace accord with Jordan, while wilting from lack of progress on the Palestinian peace track, is arguably upheld as Israel’s most successful peace pact 15 years later. Rabin remains a giant among Israel’s past leaders.
Trying to prevent history from being reinterpreted over time may be as futile as attempting to nail jelly to the wall. Maybe that’s a good thing. Stagnancy leads to complacency. Our history is our legacy and our responsibility, and it requires our vigilance.
