A Jewish role model

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=247501


On November 29, 1947, when the UN General Assembly, in a 33-13 vote, supported the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, Israel was already a fait accompli. Resolution 181 essentially gave international recognition to what was already a fully operating Jewish sovereign entity.

In the decades preceding the UN resolution, Jews who arrived in Palestine, first under Ottoman rule and later under the British Mandate, channeled unfathomable energies into turning rough terrain into viable agricultural land, draining the swamps of the Hula Valley and building a chain of settlements. Slowly but steadily, through years of hard work, self-sacrifice and determination, the Jews of Palestine transformed a desolate, unproductive landscape into a series of crop fields, fish ponds, fruit groves and pastures for sheep and cattle. In parallel, Tel Aviv quickly became a bustling city with small businesses and fastgrowing industry.

Leaders of the Yishuv, the nucleus of what would become the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the Jews’ historic homeland after nearly two millennia, set up a labor union, an education system, health services and a governing body.

The Jewish state-in-the-making even had its own military – the Haganah – which, as Tel Aviv University historian Anita Shapira has shown in her book Land and Power, was not the result of a fundamentally bellicose Jewish culture, rather a reluctant and incremental reaction to Arab violence that went against Jewish sensibilities.

The Jewish people’s meticulously planned push for statehood, imbued with pressing urgency in the wake of the Holocaust and the tragic plight of Jewish refugees after the war, contrasted sharply with an emerging Palestinian nationalism.

From its very inception, the Palestinian national movement, born as a reaction to Jewish immigration to Palestine, seemed less concerned with carving out a state for itself than with foiling the Zionist enterprise.
While Zionists were busy building, Palestinians – under the leadership of the ruthless and anti-Semitic Haj Amin al-Husseini – devoted their energies to pointless economic strikes (that hastened the Jews’ economic self-sufficiency), violent uprisings (that sparked devastating British retaliations) and debilitating infighting.

Channeling most of its energies toward hatred and destruction, the Palestinian national movement failed to prepare its people for statehood. During the years of Ottoman rule and the subsequent British Mandate, the Palestinians failed to create political parties and did not set up basic public-services or institutions of self-government.

It seemed a national movement bent solely on selfdestruction that cared little about self-realization. The same sort of destructive behavior continued after the establishment of Israel.

In recent years, the Palestinian Authority has slowly but haltingly begun building pre-state institutions of governance, most notably under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who has been touted as a Palestinian version of David Ben-Gurion.

Focusing on “creating facts on the ground,” Fayyad has improved Palestinian taxation, infrastructure and economic development. Transparency was introduced into a notoriously corrupt PA, facilitating the creation of American- trained and -funded security forces.

But Fayyad and what he stands for lack support in the Palestinian street (his Third Way list received 2.4% of the votes in the 2006 legislative elections). And Hamas continues to demand his resignation as a pre-condition for a reconciliation deal with the PA.

Even the PA’s unilateral UN bid for statehood, which has mistakenly been compared to the Jewish people’s successful UN campaign 64 years ago, seems more like the continuation of the Palestinians’ destructive strategy. The aim appears to be the creation of a Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip without making peace with Israel or forfeiting any Palestinian demands, including the right of return for refugees.

Unfettered by a peace treaty reached through dialogue, this mini Palestinian state would be free to continue its struggle against Israel.

Instead of focusing on their battle against the Jewish state, Palestinians should concentrate on completing the unfinished job begun by Fayyad. PA President Mahmoud Abbas recently admitted that his people had made a “mistake” when they rejected Resolution 181. It’s about time that Palestinians learn from Israel and put an end to what Abba Eban referred to in 1973 as the Arabs’ self-defeating tendency to “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Heal the health system

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=247227

Building bridges

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=247342

During the winter of 2004, rainstorms, snow, flooding and a minor earthquake destroyed the old Mughrabi Ascent. Connecting the Western Wall plaza to Mughrabi Gate, the earthen ramp was the only entry point for non-Muslims to the Temple Mount, which is under control of the Jordanian Waqf, the Muslim custodian of holy sites – though Israel has entry rights.

Tourists regularly used the ascent. So did some religious Jews motivated by a spiritual yearning to be as close as possible to Judaism’s holiest site and by the conviction that it is important to demonstrate a Jewish presence there – at least in the areas where, according to their understanding, Jewish law permits Jews to venture. (Under the agreement between Israel and the Waqf, Jews are not allowed to pray there out of deference to Muslim sensibilities.)

The ascent was also the only way large numbers of Israeli security forces could gain quick access to the mount in times of emergency or disturbances.

Seven years ago a “temporary” wooden ramp, which blocked about a third of the space reserved for female supplicants at the Kotel, was erected. In parallel, an interministerial committee began planning a new bridge.

Architect Ada Carmi proposed a bridge of glass and steel 200 meters in length (the original Mughrabi Ascent had been 80 meters long), extending from the Dung Gate to the Mughrabi Gate. The planning was accompanied by archaeological rescue excavations, a precondition under Israel law aiming to protect archaeological artifacts. Israel took meticulous care rescuing and preserving antiquities – Arab and Jewish.

Cameras were stationed at the excavation site proving the Temple Mount and its mosques were not in danger. Representatives of the Jordanian government, a delegation from Turkey and a delegation on behalf of UNESCO were allowed to visit the site – to no avail.

Muslim extremists used the excavations and the bridge plans as an excuse to stage violent demonstrations and incite against Israel. In February 2007, Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the more extremist northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, claimed that Israel was planning to build a third Temple.

“They want to build their temple while our blood is on their clothing, on their doorposts, in their food and in their water,” he said.

Islamic Jihad in Gaza launched rockets at Sderot. Leading Palestinian Authority cleric Taysir al-Tamimi called on Palestinians to go to al-Aqsa immediately “to protect it from the bulldozers of the Israeli occupation… which are working to destroy Al-Aqsa mosque.”

Israel buckled under the pressure. Carmi’s plans were scrapped. Instead, it was decided that the original earth ascent would be restored. But even this modest project, which entails the destruction of the temporary wooden bridge, has aroused the rancor of the Muslim world.

In June of this year representatives from Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Bahrain hijacked UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, convincing it to censure Israel for daring to renovate the bridge.

Now time is running out. Jerusalem’s chief engineer for dangerous structures and the firefighting service determined that the wooden ramp was dangerous and a fire hazard, and must be dismantled immediately. Meant to be a temporary solution, the ramp has been standing for seven years and is a disaster in the making.

Finally, it looked as though the dangerous ramps would be replaced. Over a 72-hour period starting this Saturday night, crews were to begin dismantling the ramp. However, on Monday Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, fearful of Arab reactions, ordered a delay in the demolition of the bridge yet again.

Apparently, the bridge has become an issue in the Egyptian elections. The Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, is claiming that the bridge could enable Israeli security forces to invade al-Aqsa Mosque. Posters were put up at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University calling on Muslims to protect the mosque.

This madness must stop. An absurd situation has been created in which some irrational Muslim leaders, intoxicated by their own lies – including the spurious belief that the First and Second Temples were never situated on the Temple Mount – have intimidated Israel into inaction.

Israel must not cave in to the insanity of Muslim extremism. The Mughrabi bridge must be replaced – the sooner the better.

Rabbis and the state

Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein decided Tuesday to investigate Safed’s Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu.

The A-G is, apparently, concerned that some comments made by Eliyahu or quoted in his name by the media might constitute incitement to violence against Arabs.

The alleged statements include “Arab culture is very cruel.” Another is “Arabs have different [social] codes altogether, norms of violence that have become ideology.”

Yet another is: “It’s like how thefts from Jewish farms have become an ideology. It’s like extracting extortion and protection money from farms in the Negev has become an ideology.”

Eliyahu was also quoted as saying that “Arabs treat their women according to cultural norms supported in the Koran that permit the beating of women. And we are not talking about gentle hitting. We are talking about chairs, abuse that causes the woman to be hospitalized after undergoing the nightmare of her life.”

Many of Eliyahu’s reported generalizations against Arabs were made in connection with a contentious public debate surrounding a letter signed by about 300 rabbis – including Eliyahu – in which it was declared that Jewish law forbids renting or selling property to “foreigners” – a codeword for non-Jews, which in this context meant Arabs.

In his decision to investigate Eliyahu, Weinstein also announced that he would not be probing Eliyahu or the other rabbis in connection with the letter, though he did not say why. Perhaps Weinstein was making a distinction between the letter, which was a Jewish legal opinion and Eliyahu’s private comments. Perhaps Weinstein refrained from investigating rabbis connected with the letter because they chose to use the term “foreigner” instead of “Arab” and therefore could not be technically accused of singling out one particular racial or ethnic group for discrimination.

But all of this legal hairsplitting is beside the point. It seems that Eliyahu has been singled out not primarily because of the statements that he made, but because he serves in a public office.

As rabbi of Safed, he receives a monthly salary from the State of Israel that is funded by tax payers’ money. (Depending on the size of the city, a rabbi can earn over NIS 20,000 a month.) Any controversial comment made by Eliyahu is more likely to arouse the rancor of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who resent having to pay his salary. And the state is more likely to justify intervening with the free speech of a rabbi who holds a public office because his statements are seen as a reflection of official state opinion.

In the interests of freedom of religious expression, the state should stop paying local rabbis’ salaries. Like all citizens of Israel, rabbis are entitled to full intellectual freedom and should be allowed to interpret Judaism however they wish, so long as they do not break the law by, say, inciting followers to perform violent acts.

To facilitate full religious freedom, the practice of keeping rabbis on the state payroll must end.

This is particularly true considering the fact that city and neighborhood rabbis are elected to office in a highly undemocratic way. The minister of religious affairs, a position often held by a member of an ultra-Orthodox political party, enjoys inordinate control. Secular Israelis and women barely have a say. Deals are made behind closed doors.




Practically speaking, there is no need for state-funded rabbis. Jerusalem has gone without a chief rabbi since 2002 and the only ones who seem to care are the religious political parties who see the appointment as an opportunity to enhance their influence. Meanwhile, privately funded organizations such as Tzohar, Chabad, the Masorti Movement, the Reform Movement, ITIM – The Jewish Life Information Center and many others provide the same services supposed to be provided by the chief rabbinate’s state-funded rabbis, but without all of the bureaucracy and lack of enthusiasm and incentive characteristic of state-run operations.

The A-G’s decision to investigate Eliyahu illustrates the irreconcilable tensions that result from tying religion to state and the infinite wisdom of separating the two, at least with regard to such issues as rabbis’ salaries. In order to protect religious freedom as well as Israeli democracy, city rabbis should no longer be paid from state’s coffers. If rabbis wish to express their opinions, let them do so as individuals, not as representatives of the State of Israel.

The new libel bill

Dozens of concerned journalists gathered at Tel Aviv’s Cinematheque Sunday to protest what they perceive to be an ominously widespread antagonism against the media. Some of the issues discussed included the government’s declining willingness to come to the aid of the financially-strapped Channel 10, the abrupt shutdown of the joint Palestinian- Israeli Kol Hashalom radio station, policy changes at IBA News – including the firing of Keren Neubach from the investigative news program “Mabat Sheni” and attempts to interfere with radio presenter Yaron Dekel’s “Hakol Diburim.”

But an “anti-libel” bill, approved in the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee last month and brought for a first reading in the Knesset Monday night aroused the most rancor. And rightly so. If passed in second and third readings by the Knesset, the legislation, a collaborative initiative of MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) and coalition MK Yariv Levin (Likud) would seriously intimidate journalists, editors and publishers.

The present limit on compensation for libelous reports would be increased six-fold to NIS 300,000. As is the case at present, the plaintiff would not be required to prove that he or she was damaged in order to collect compensation. And media outlets would be required to pay NIS 1.5 million in compensation to citizens whose full reaction – apparently no matter how long that reaction is – was not published as part of the report that was deemed libelous.

The bill comes at a particularly inopportune time as the Israeli press grapples with economic woes resulting in part from the ongoing transition from print to Internet and falling advertising revenues along with a rise in the influence of various business interests over editorial decision-making.

But even in the best of circumstances, amending the 1965 Defamation (Prohibition) Law – strongly influenced by restrictive British law – to further curtail press freedom is a bad idea.

For decades, our courts have struggled to balance American law, which, tends to tolerate a greater degree of press freedom with English law, which tends to prioritize protection of the reputation and privacy of individuals, organizations and corporations as noted by Attorney Todd Harris Fries in an article entitled The Law of Defamation in Israel: A Comparative Study.

For instance, in Haaretz vs. Israel Electric Corporation in 1977, the daily was sued in the Supreme Court by the director of the IEC for publishing an article condemning the company’s director for allowing the IEC to buy him an expensive luxury company carduring a recession. The director said that he would sell the car. But having failed to do so, the paper commented that “in fact, the Electric Corporation is not interested inselling the car,” implying that the director was being deceitful. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Haaretz.

The Supreme Court, basing itself on New York Times vs. Sullivan, a landmark decision issued in 1964 by a US court, accepted Haaretz’s plea of good faith, even though the defaming opinion included injurious, false statements of fact.

The decision stressed that the democratic nature of Israel required a freer press as a check on those who held power, particularly public figures responsible for tax payers’ money.

However, IEC appealed for a further hearing. And the decision was overturned in IEC’s favor. This time, the court cited the English approach. Allowing criticism of public officials “would tend to deter sensitive and honorable men from seeking publicpositions of trust and responsibility and leave them open to others who have no respect for their reputation.”

The court argued further that over-protection of speech may endanger democracy. In particular, the court noted that the rise of Nazism was facilitated by the propagation of defamatory falsehoods about the Weimar Republic.

Haaretz vs. Israel Electric Corporation demonstrates nicely how our courts struggle to balance an America style championing of uninhibited, robust, and wide-open freedom of speech with an English conservatism that understands the need to protect the privacy and reputation of all individuals, including public figures.

It would be extremely unwise to upset this delicate balance by introducing legislation that would severely intimidate an already embattled news media.

Gradual democracy

Over the weekend, ahead of the first round of parliamentary elections slated for next Monday, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians packed Cairo’s Tahrir Square. It seemed a sterling example of positive democratic forces pushing back against an evil military junta vying to retain control. The multitudes who took to the streets were, after all, demanding their right to democratic representation in free and open elections.

Protesters criticized the Supreme Council of Armed Force (SCAF) for delaying the transfer of power to the people. SCAF, which took over in the wake of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in February, originally pledged to give control to civilians by September. Now it says a presidential election will not take place before 2013. And last week SCAF laid out a blueprint for the next constitution, giving the military special political powers and protection from civilian oversight. Outraged, Egyptians returned to Tahrir Square in numbers not seen since July.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has come out publicly on the side of the people. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned the military junta of the dangers of preventing the transition to democracy.

“If, over time, the most powerful political force in Egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, they will have planted the seeds for future unrest, and Egyptians will have missed a historic opportunity,” Clinton said.

But is Egypt’s headlong rush for democratic elections an “historic opportunity?” Will it lead to more stability in the region? Will it advance women’s rights or the rights of minorities such as the Copts? We understand the US’s delicate position.

The Obama administration does not want to be perceived as an opponent of democractic rule. After propping up dictators throughout the region, including in Egypt, the US hopes to improve its standing on the Arab street by supporting Egyptians’ yearning for freedom.

More fundamentally, championing democracy and civilian rule against an autocratic military regime resonates deeply with Americans.

Unfortunately, the choice is not between a military junta and a democracy that will champion human rights, protect minorities and women and uphold freedom of the press. Through its Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood is expected to win a major role in the country’s parliament and become the biggest political counterweight to the military junta.

This has major negative consequences not only for Egyptian society but also for US interests. It is not at all clear that the $1.3 billion in aid that Washington provides each year will continue to give it influence over Cairo. The fate of Egypt’s cold peace with Israel will be uncertain. And the rise of an Islamist, anti-Israeli leadership in Egypt will likely further embolden terrorists in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

In the name of democracy and in violation of the Oslo Accords, the Bush administrationinsisted that Hamas be allowed to participate in the 2006 Palestinian elections. This led not to the creation of a democratic regime, but to the establishment of an Islamist terror base bent on the destruction of Israel. This is hardly a reassuring precedent.

Parliamentary elections are now unavoidable, regardless of whether they are advisable. But perhaps time still remains to help ensure that Egypt’s transition from dictatorship to popular rule does not deteriorate into the creation of another tyrannical Islamist regime.

Instead of opposing a delay in presidential elections, the Obama administration might support it. If the junta is allowed to hold on to executive powers until April 2013, the newly elected Egyptian parliament, via a 100- member Constituent Assembly, could in the interim hammer out a constitution that includes elements that protect human rights and basic freedoms, and prevents discrimination against minorities and women.

The junta for its part must give up its unreasonable demands for veto power over any text drafted and the right to dissolve the assembly.

The transition from dictatorship to civilian rule is an admirable goal. But bowing to the populist cry from Tahrir Square and rushing into “democratic elections” is liable to make Egypt’s first free and open vote its last.

Poverty in Israel

Income inequality and poverty rates in 2010 were bad, but not quite as bad as in 2009. That was the not-so-encouraging message that came out of the latest Poverty and Social Gaps Report released Thursday by the National Insurance Institute.

In 2010, 433,300 families, or 19.8 percent, lived under the poverty line, defined, roughly speaking, as half the median income, down from 20.5% in 2009. Before factoring in welfare transfers and other benefits, 32.6% were below the poverty line, down from 33.2%.

Despite a slight improvement, Israel continues to rank – along with the US, Mexico and Chile – as the OECD country with the biggest gap between the richest and poorest.

The NII’s research department, headed by Dr. Daniel Gottlieb, attributed the modest improvement in the Jewish state’s embarrassingly high levels of poverty and income inequality to a healthy labor market.

Nevertheless, this year’s poverty report does little to cover up Israel’s chronic economic ills.

One of them is the low rate of participation in the labor market. Our low unemployment rate – below 6% this year – is deceiving. It takes into account only those actively seeking employment. Hundreds of thousands – particularly Arab women and haredi men – are not counted because they are not looking for work. Just 80.5% of Israelis aged 35 to 54 are employed compared to an OECD average of 85.8%.

It should come as no surprise that 55% of haredi families (according to Central Bureau of Statistics data) and 53.2% of Arab families (according to the NII poverty report) live under the poverty line.




And even those who do work are disappointing unproductive. Since the mid-1970s, productivity has trailed behind the G7 – France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and Canada.

Though Israel is at the cutting edge of innovation in a number of fields, a large and growing number of workers are increasingly less productive than their Western counterparts. GDP per capita in Israel was $27,280 in 2009 compared to over $43,000 in the US. And in 2005 GDP per hour in Israel was $35 compared to a G7 average of close to $45.

The Jewish state is in desperate need of an educational revolution to fight poverty. More than ever before, the quality of one’s education determines economic success and separates the haves from the have-nots. In 2010, over 85% of Israelis with 16 years or more of education were employed, compared to 75% of Israelis with nine to 10 years of education. And Israelis with academic degrees enjoyed significantly higher income levels, particularly as they reached middle age. In 2008, Israelis with academic degrees aged 40 to 44 earned on average NIS 14,235 a month, compared to just NIS 7,036 a month for those with 12 years of schooling.

Unfortunately, a disappointingly small percentage of high school graduates are equipped with the requisite skills, as Dr. Dan Ben-David of the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel showed in a recent paper, from which much of the data presented here was taken.

In 2009, of the total number of Israelis in the 12thgrade age group – including haredim and east Jerusalem’s Arabs – just 39% matriculated at a level that would enable them to be accepted to university.

Since 1999, Israelis have consistently scored below their counterparts in 25 relevant OECD countries in all but one of six international assessment exams. And this was true even after excluding Arabs and haredi boys (who do not even study the material).

Arab Israelis scored below Third World countries such as Jordan, Tunisia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and Colombia. And the top 5 percentiles of Israeli students did not fare any better. In 2009, Israel’s top pupils ranked below the top pupils of every other country except Spain. And the bottom 5% did worse than the worst students abroad.

Though educational reforms are not the only way, no other single step can make such a crucial impact on lowering poverty rates and reducing income inequalities. Unless a significant overhaul of our educational system is implemented immediately – including a demand that the growing number of haredi youngsters learn English, math and sciences and that Arab schools receive significant funding increases – the next generation of Israelis will be unprepared to support their families – let alone compete in an increasingly knowledge-based global market.

Free-market Judaism

For some time now Tzohar, a group of modern-minded Zionist Orthodox rabbis, and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel have been engaged in a power struggle. Broadly speaking, while the Chief Rabbinate has tended to defend the autonomy of city rabbis and rabbinical judges, especially their right to issue stringent rulings wherever they see fit, Tzohar has sought to find leniency while remaining within the boundaries of Orthodox practice.

Perhaps the single most contentious issue splitting the two sides, which reached crisis proportions in the last week, has been Tzohar’s marriage initiative. For nearly a decade,the group has made available a cadre of motivated and enthusiastic Orthodox rabbis willing to officiate at weddings on a pro bono basis. And in recent years, it opened up an office in Lod where couples can register for marriage instead of going to their local Chief Rabbinate-appointed rabbi.

Until about a week ago, both the Chief Rabbinate and Religious Services Minister Yaakov Margi turned a blind eye to the Lod office – technically a violation of the directives of the Chief Rabbinate, which has a monopoly over marriage registrations. But internal pressure to close down Tzohar’s marriage initiative grew. Eventually, a compromise was reached, however this undoubtedly will not be the last clash between the two sides.

Apparently, Chief Rabbinate-appointed rabbis were disgruntled by the fact that Tzohar was encroaching on their sources of income, which are augmented by payment received for officiating at weddings.

The guiding principle behind the Tzohar initiative is to make the marriage ceremony inviting and relevant for non-Orthodox Israelis without deviating from normative Orthodox practice. Tzohar rabbis understand that unless Orthodoxy is user-friendly, more and more Israelis will either opt out of Jewish practice altogether or choose non-Orthodox expressions of Judaism.

Many Israelis have traveled abroad and been exposed to more liberal forms of Jewish expression. Others have been influenced by Israel’s transition in recent decades from centrally planned socialism to a free market economy that encourages individual choice.

Meanwhile, the Chief Rabbinate has been undergoing a haredization process. Haredi political clout, buoyed by Shas’s ascendancy and a dramatic haredi population growth, has been translated into influence within the Chief Rabbinate. The national-religious sector, which once controlled the Chief Rabbinate, has lost influence due in part to a shift in focus from the rabbinate to the settling of Judea and Samaria. Under haredi influence, the chief rabbinate has become increasingly supportive of the strictest interpretations of Halacha: Conversions performed by non-haredi rabbinical courts are not recognized; women seeking divorces encounter reluctant rabbinical divorce courts; kosher supervisors are unwilling to find solutions in Jewish law for Jewish farmers during the the shmita sabbatical year. And because the Chief Rabbinate is a state-funded body, it suffers from all the ills that afflict big government: mind-numbing bureaucracy; advancement based on seniority, not merit; and a total lack of a service ethos.

Under the circumstance, steps need to be taken to ensure that the state-recognized monopoly over marriage registration is not relegated to any single group or body, especially one that represents a particularly stringent version of Judaism. Instead, Orthodox rabbis representing a diverse range of opinions should all be allowed to perform weddings. (A bill to that affect will be presented by MK Tzipi Hotovely.) Couples should be allowed to choose freely among a variety of choices.




Ideally, recognized non-Orthodox streams – Reform and Conservative – should also be allowed to conduct weddings as long as they adhere to basic consensus tenets such as matrilineal descent.

Competition will push rabbis to find innovative ways to reach out. And Israelis will no longer feel coerced intocelebrating a wedding in a way that feels uncomfortable.

What we are advocating is, in effect, “free-market Judaism,” which, we believe, will foster religious expression and provide a positive alternative to the Chief Rabbinate’s counterproductive monopoly.

A slippery slope

The Left is up in arms. Two bills that aim to clamp severe restrictions on foreign government funding of Israeli human rights NGOs were approved for government support Sunday by a committee of cabinet ministers in a 11-5 vote.

In response, Peace Now Director Yariv Oppenheimer said that “Israeli democracy has been surrendered to right-wing extremists and is in a state of bankruptcy.”

Labor Party head Shelly Yacimovich urged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to “open his eyes and conduct himself as [prime minister] Menachem Begin did when he elevated the rule of law above all else and would not lend a hand to the destruction of Israel’s democratic institutions.”

Indeed, the bills are problematic. One, sponsored by MK Ophir Akunis (Likud), would limit to just NIS 20,000 a year the amount that a foreign government, government-sponsored foundation or group of governments such as the European Union could give to an Israeli NGO considered “political.”




The other, sponsored by MK Fania Kirschenbaum (Israel Beiteinu), would take away tax breaks enjoyed by NGOs, resulting in a 45 percent tax on foreign governments’ donations.

Though Kirschenbaum’s legislation, unlike Akunis’s, does not single out “political” NGOs, it nevertheless is seen as targeting left-wing bodies, which tend to be funded by foreign government and quasi-government bodies. Rightwing NGOs, in contrast, often receive financial support from foreign individuals and private organizations.

But while the proposed legislation, still in their preliminary stages and expected to undergo a revamping before being voted on in the Knesset, seems to be unabashedly ideological and intended to punish only one way of thinking, it is still too early to dismiss our democracy as “bankrupt,” “destroyed” or in any other way significantly compromised.

These two bills, and other controversial legislative initiatives, are all being discussed in lively, open public debates and are being proposed by lawmakers voted into office in free, democratic elections. And even if the bills are passed as is, which is highly unlikely, NGOs will not be prevented from operating, though funding will be harder to come by.

Critics of the bills, who are quick to declare the demise of our democratic system, show a surprising lack of understanding for the populist forces demanding a restriction on funding to NGOs openly antagonistic to Israeli institutions and policies. For decades NGOs have abused the openness of Israeli society and exploited their status as human rights’ watchdogs to advance a decidedly anti-Israel agenda.

But the turning point was the Goldstone Report. Issued by a UN committee chaired by Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist, the document made unfounded claims, later retracted by Goldstone, to the effect that IDF troops had purposely targeted civilians during Operation Cast Lead, an invasion of Hamas-controlled Gaza in December 2008-January 2009 meant to stop rocket and mortar fire against Israeli civilians.

The committee’s erroneous conclusions, which wreaked irreversible damage to Israel’s moral standing in the world, were based on information received from NGOs, some of which are now being targeted by the two controversial bills.

Nevertheless, while we understand the motivation behind Akunis’s and Kirschenbaum’s bills, restricting NGO funding is not the answer. Left-wing NGOs perform an important role in keeping the IDF and other institutions to their high moral standards. Using ideological criteria to determine which NGOs are eligible for donations or tax breaks, and which are not, curtails freedom of speech and is a slippery slope that could lead to politically motivated witch-hunts.

Legislation sponsored by coalition chairman Ze’ev Elkin (Likud) and framed after the US’s Foreign Agents Registration Act was already passed back in February, making the Akunis and Kirschenbaum bills superfluous. Under the law, drafted in consultation with Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, all NGOs, regardless of their political leaning, must issue quarterly reports on their foreign government funding. Those which refrain from disclosure will be subject to a fine of nearly NIS 30,000.

The sort of transparency promoted by Elkin’s bill has brought to light the fact that European governments spend more on left-wing NGOs operating in Israel – between $75 million and $100m. a year – than their total contributions to nonprofit human rights groups in other Middle East countries, according to NGO Monitor.

We hope the Europeans will begin to realize that their money would be best put to use not in Israel, the region’s only true democracy, but in places such as Syria, Yemen, Egypt and elsewhere where human rights are regularly and egregiously trampled.

No pardon Katsav

Moshe Katsav refuses to give up. When allegations against the former president first surfaced over five years ago, he chose to fight. He foolishly rejected an unjustly generous plea bargain extended to him by former attorney general Menachem Mazuz, insisting instead on waging a legal battle to clear his name completely – and lost.

He appealed to the High Court of Justice in the hope that the seven-year prison sentence for rape and sexual harassment imposed by the Tel Aviv District Court would be overturned – and lost again.

Now, instead of humbly accepting the verdict and saving Israeli society yet another embarrassing reminder of how he besmirched the presidential title for base ends, Katsav – through a surprisingly large and vocal group of close friends – is pushing for a pardon from his successor, President Shimon Peres.

Katsav’s lawyers, apparently uncomfortable with the sheer chutzpa of such a move, and the very real danger of a public backlash, have refused to verify or deny reports of a pardon request. However, one unlikely supporter of a pardon is former justice minister Yossi Beilin, who said on Sunday that he wouldn’t want to see a man who served as a state symbol sitting in prison so long, as he believes Katsav does not represent a public danger.

To this day, Katsav has denied having sexual relations with any of the women he was convicted of raping and harassing. He, therefore, cannot even request the pardon himself, since doing so would be a tacit admission of guilt.

The argument being made on Katsav’s behalf is that Israeli democracy successfully passed the test when the High Court rejected Katsav’s appeal. The justice system has made its point that no one, not even the president of Israel, is above the law. Butsending a former president to prison would be a degradation of the institution of the presidency.

We beg to differ.

Pardoning Katsav would undermine the principle of equality before the law by providing special treatment to men in positions of power.

More importantly, a pardon would send out a highly problematic message to women: A man who abuses his authority to extract sexual favor might be prosecuted.

But ultimately, he will be shielded from justice – by another powerful man.





The vast majority of women who are rape victims do not come forward. They fear the reactions of police, state prosecutors, the courts and even friends and relatives.

Indeed, the objectification of women continues to promote a blame-the-victim dynamic. If women wear revealing clothing or show outward expressions of friendship towards men, they are accused of “provoking” outbursts of rape.

Cultural ambiguities about “what she means when she says no,” to paraphrase a popular song by Dan Almagor from the 1960s, while less pervasive, are stubborn and deep-rooted. Judicial decisions help change public perceptions.

In the 1990s, after Supreme Court judge Mishael Cheshin derided the song’s message during the Kibbutz Shomrat rape case, Almagor changed the lyrics to: “You say ‘no’ so nicely that it sounds more inviting than ‘yes’.” This was an improvement, though by no means a full appreciation of a woman’s right to say no.

A presidential pardon would be a setback to Israeli society’s move towards gender egalitarianism.

What’s more, Katsav might still represent a danger to society. He and his supporters seem not to have fully comprehended that abusing one’s position of authority is a form of coercion comparable to the use of physical force.

As long as Katsav refuses to admit that he is a rapist and express remorse for his actions, he cannot begin the process of rehabilitation.

Now, just one small bit of business remains to be taken care of.

In the garden of Beit Hanassi, the President’s Residence, there are sculptured busts of all previous presidents, including Israel’s eighth president, Moshe Katsav.

In light of his conviction, and for the sake of removing the stain to Israel’s honor, Katsav’s bust should be removed from the garden.

A wake-up call

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=245195

Call them asylum-seekers or refugees, infiltrators or migrants, no matter how you choose to define them, Africans, particularly Eritreans, are flooding over our borders at a rapid rate.

According to figures just released by the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority (PIBA), about 950 migrants are known to have illegally made their way into Israel since the beginning of November.

Last weekend alone, some 620 Africans are known to have crossed our border with Egypt. In June, a PIBA representative told The Jerusalem Post there were more than 35,000 African migrants in Israel, 80 percent of them Sudanese or Eritrean. Since thenestimates of the number of Africans who have penetrated the border monthly range from around 500 to 2,000.

Work on a five-meter-high fence covered with barbed wire that will close off a 230-kilometer section along our border with Egypt is progressing rapidly. So far 65 km. has been erected. An additional 40 km. will be finished by the end of the year and the entire fence is slated to be completed by September 2012. But the question remains, what is to be done in the meantime? And even after the fence and the accompanying sophisticated radar systems are in place, we might continue to see illegal migration, if not from Egypt then from our lengthy border with Jordan or by sea.

In addition to building a barrier, therefore, it is imperative that our political leaders revamp Israeli policy vis-a-vis refugees and asylum-seekers. As a study by the Metzilah Center titled Managing Global Migration noted, Israel is probably the only Western democracy without legislation governing the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers.

Israel, a country created in the wake of the Holocaust to be a national homeland for the Jewish people after nearly two millennia of exile among the nations of the world, has a unique moral responsibility toward refugees and asylum-seekers. And our country has so far maintained a good record on refugees and asylumseekers.

Already in 1954, Israel signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which upholds the principle of non-refoulement prohibiting the return of refugees to their country of origin where they might suffer persecution on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality or political activities.

The Jewish state has strictly adhered to the convention.

But, unfortunately, we have yet to put in place the necessary legal infrastructure for implementing the convention's principles. As a result, Israel’s refugee and asylum-seeker policy lacks uniformity and transparency.

Processing of requests is done in an ad hoc way. No arbitration bodies with expertise inimmigration law have been created. Migrants often remain in a state of limbo for years, and many begin working illegally in jobs that could be filled by Israelis.

It seems clear that a large percentage of the African migrants making their way into Israel are seeking economic opportunities, not refuge or asylum. One way of discouraging these sorts of migrants would be to eliminate the incentive for coming, by prohibiting their employment. However, banning the employment of African migrants would result in a severe humanitarian crisis.

On the other hand, legislation passed by the Knesset in a first reading in March, which empowers the state to imprison migrants – some of whom might be refugees or asylum-seekers – in a detention facility where basic living conditions could be provided to those prohibited from working appears to violate the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

There are no easy answers. But we have an obligation to rise to the challenge. For nearly 2,000 years the Jewish people were guests, refugees or asylum-seekers in other peoples’ countries. Sometimes they benefited from their hosts’ good treatment, sometimes they were expelled, discriminated against and persecuted.




Now with a sovereign country of its own the Jewish people must not only serve as a moral example of how developed countries should deal with refugees and asylum-seekers, but also make sure that a strong Jewish majority is maintained in a sovereign Jewish state.

It is time for the government to hear the alarm bells, wake up and do something.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=245195

Dead Sea awareness

Time is running out. On Friday, November 11 at 11:11 p.m. Zurich time (1:11p.m. Israel time) the New7Wonders of the World vote will draw to a close.

Our very own Dead Sea is one of the 28 finalists that stand a chance of being chosen – via Internet ( www.new7wonders.com) or SMS (texting “Dead Sea” to 2244) – as one of the world’s most amazing natural sites.

Organized by the Zurich-based New7Wonders Foundation, the goal of the campaign is to raise world awareness for natural wonders. Bernard Weber, the founder of New7Wonders, is quoted on the foundation’s website as saying that he was motivated by the desire “to find an idea, a word or a simple concept that everyone on our planet would immediately understand and be motivated to act upon.”

Weber’s slogan for the campaign is: “If we want to save anything, we first need to truly appreciate it.”

The message is eminently applicable to the Dead Sea.

Famous for its therapeutic minerals and for the way people float in it like corks, the Dead Sea is evaporating away at a rate of one meter a year.

Fresh water that once ran from the Jordan River to replenish the Dead Sea is now siphoned off to provide increasingly scarce drinking water for the rapidly growing Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians and Israelis.

Mineral extraction, on both the Israeli and Jordanian sides of the Dead Sea, which includes accelerated evaporation, is also adding to the shrinkage.

Studies suggest that if nothing is done, the world’s lowest body of water will stabilize at about 100 meters lower than it is now. Nevertheless, that would spell disaster for the environment, and for the tourist resorts on its shores.




That’s where New7Wonders comes in.

Worldwide appreciation for the Dead Sea, as reflected in a successful voting turnout, will increase the motivation to save it. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions.

One of the more grandiose ideas put forward is building a 200 kilometer-long conduit to bring water from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. Some would replenish and stabilize the Dead Sea. The rest would be desalinated – using the energy gained from its downhill run to the lowest point on the surface of the earth – to supply fresh water, particularly to Jordan, one of the most water-poor nations in the world.

However, if this multi-billion-dollar project, known as the Red-Dead Canal, is implemented it might yield a paradoxical result: While attempting to preserve the Dead Sea, we might end up fundamentally, and irreversibly, changing it beyond recognition.

The Red Sea is briny and so chemically different from the fresh water that has been replenishing the Dead Sea for thousands of years that it might radically transform the Dead Sea’s consistency and composition.

Research by the Geological Survey of Israel suggests that sea brine added to the hyper-salty, denser Dead Sea will float on the surface, mixing in only over years, or decades.

Algal blooms resulting from the mixture could turn the water from blue to reddish-brown. What draws tourists and admirers would be lost.

A World Bank feasibility study that cost millions of dollars and has been conducted over the past several years will have the final say. It has already been submitted and is expected to be published soon.

Further complicating matters is our relations with Jordan.

Amman was miserably uncooperative in a recent attempt to get the Dead Sea listed with UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. If the two countries could not work together on the UNESCO bid, how will they manage to cooperate in a multi-billion-dollar project? If the Dead Sea is indeed voted one of the New7Wonders, many positive benefits could result.

Indeed, after the ancient ruins of Petra in Jordan won the title in 2007, tourist visits nearly tripled.

However, while raising world consciousness about the Dead Sea’s plight is animportant and noble goal that should be pursued, there are no easy solutions.

Changing charity

The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) have kicked off their three-day annual General Assembly, this year in Denver, Colorado. And one of the major items up for vote is a major overhaul in the way federations give to Israel.

If approved by JFNA trustees, the federations will create a Global Planning Table that will be determine their philanthropic budget policy worldwide, including in Israel.

Creation of the Global Planning Table will have a direct impact on the way the Jewish Agency for Israel and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) are funded. No longer will the 75:25 ratio that favors the Jewish Agency be maintained.

Instead, “the GPT will work to determine priorities, strategies and action in order to make the greatest impact where needed most,” according to a JFNA executive summary prepared for the General Assembly. In other words, local Jewish federations will have more freedom to choose to give to Israel – or not to.

Critics have argued that the Global Planning Table proposal is the result of a breakdown in mutual responsibility [arvut hadadit] and historic partnership betweenAmerican Jewry and Israel. America’s Jews, claim the critics, no longer want to be obligated to give to the Jewish Agency or to the JDC. And in coming years they will continue to give less and less to Israel.

These critics might be right about their forecast, but not about the cause. Undoubtedly,American Jewish philanthropy has undergone major changes in recent years.




Donations to Israel via the Jewish Agency and the JDC have steadily dropped. In 2007, the agency got $159.5 million, while JDC received $58.4m. The amount has steadily dropped to the point where in 2010 the two organizations shared $135m.

The 2008 financial crisis has dampened philanthropic activity. But there has also been a transformation in the way federations and individual philanthropists want to see their money spent.

If in the past federations entrusted the Jewish Agency, JDC and other philanthropic “managing agencies” with the decisions, in recent years, federations have opted for more self-empowerment by giving directly to their favorite causes, without go-betweens. In part, this is because the agency and JDC are no longer the indispensable intermediaries between the grantors in America and the grantees in Israel.

Federations are doing it on their own. There has also been a conceptual shift from “charity” to “strategic philanthropy.”

American donors are no longer satisfied with providing general support to alleviate poverty, hunger and sickness.

Today’s philanthropists want long-term, systematic and structural solutions. Justifiably or not, philanthropists feel their money is put to better use when they are in control and when working directly with grantees.

But perhaps the demand by Jewish federations for a funding shake-up is also the result of changing relations between Israel and US Jewry. Once upon a time, Israel was dependent on US Jewry’s largesse. But this is no longer the case. If anything, the two countries now share mutual economic interests. The Jewish state has become a strong, prosperous nation with a high standard of living, a good quality of life and an innovative business sector. Israel’s economy actually managed to weather the financial crisis better than the US’s.

Meanwhile, America has been plagued by a troubled medical system, high unemployment, stagnant GDP and a destabilized banking system. Compounding the situation is the fact that the US is overextended militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast, Israel’s socioeconomic ills, while real, are less formidable than America’s and are being addressed on the backdrop of impressive GDP growth of 3.3 percent in annual terms in the first half of 2011 and unemployment below 6%. It should come as no surprise that many young American Jews are opting to make aliya, and not just out of ideology.

Therefore, the proposed overhaul in the way Jewish federations give to Israel should be seen as part of a larger reevaluation of the changing relations between an increasingly vibrant and robust Israel and an America that is looking increasingly challenged domestically and abroad.

If Israel can pay back in some small way American Jewry’s enormous generosity over so many years by ceasing to be an economic burden, this would be the ultimate Zionist act.

Iran in the media

Public speculation about whether Israel is planning a preemptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has erupted on numerous occasions in the past.

Already in the early 1990s, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who was then head of Military Intelligence and later was chief of the General Staff, predicted in private that if the Islamic Republic was not stopped it would have a bomb within a decade.

In June of this year, outgoing Mossad head Meir Dagan sparked controversy when he warned that an Israeli attack on Iran would be a “stupid idea.” However, over the past week, the pitch and fervor of public discourse have reached unprecedented heights.


High-ranking politicians – such as Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor andMinister-without- Portfolio Bennie Begin – warned of the potential dangers resulting from a lively public debate about a subject best left to the discretion of political leaders who are privy to top secret intelligence data and analyses.

Undoubtedly, Begin was right to argue – in a diatribe apparently directed against Dagan – that public servants were obligated to “guard state secrets forever, also after they leave their positions.”

It was unclear, however, in what way Dagan, or any other public servant for that matter, such as the ones who might have generated last weekend’s banner-headlined story inYediot Aharonot titled “Atomic Pressure” had in fact revealed such secrets. If censorship laws were broken, the guilty party should be prosecuted in a court of law, not publicly lambasted by politicians.

Nor is it immediately clear how, even if it could be stopped, public speculation about whether Israel should or should not attack Iran is damaging to Israeli interests, as Begin and Meridor have claimed.

True, it can be argued that the recent flurry of Hebrew media reports was an intentional ploy to “unveil” Israeli plans for an attack, and thus ruin the element of surprise.

Or they could be an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of such an attack, by claiming, as sources in the Yediot Aharonot story did, that only two men – Prime MinisterBinyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak – were involved in the decision-making process.

Contradictory media reports claimed that Netanyahu was working to assemble a majority in the inner cabinet of eight in favor of a strike and had recently won over previously skeptical Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

The government does not seem to be taking measures to defuse the situation. Several news media outlets, both local and foreign, described a major IAF exercise in Sardinia, Italy, over the weekend, planned months ago, that was said to include all of the types of planes Israel would use in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Meanwhile, The Guardian added fuel to the speculation fire when it reported Wednesday that the British military was accelerating planning for its part in a potential US-led attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And The New York Times reported that the Obama administration planned to bolster the American military presence in the PersianGulf, perhaps to position itself better for a possible military confrontation with Iran.

Though Begin, Meridor and others believe otherwise, these media reports, coming ahead of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, due on Tuesday, that is expected to offer new information about Iran’s attempts to develop designs for warheads and delivery systems, actually seem to serve Israeli interests.

The media spotlight clarifies that eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat is not solely an Israeli concern.

The US, Britain, Italy and perhaps other nations have a vested interest in making sure that the military option remains “on the table” along with more robust economic sanctions and various sabotage techniques ranging from cyber-warfare tactics – a la Stuxnet and “son of Stuxnet” – to the assassination of key Iranian atomic energy experts.

Also, the discourse inside Israel and abroad helps refocus attention on the Iranian threat and away from other issues such as the Palestinian bid for statehood in the UN.

All the talk and media exposure also serve to obscure Israel’s real intentions. Therefore, while it is of utmost importance that public servants safeguard military secrets, the renewed interest – both locally and abroad – over the possibility of a preemptive military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities seems to be serving Israeli interests quite well.

UNESCO's vote

A huge cheer of joy erupted Monday in the General Assembly room of the Paris-based UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) after "Palestine" was voted in as the organization's 195th member.

However, the event was, in reality, not a cause for celebration but another lamentable example of the moral bankruptcy of the UN and its organizations.

While the US, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Israel voted against it, such bastions of human rights and freedom as China, Russia and Brazil voted in favor.

Disappointingly, Austria and France ­ two states which should have known better ­ voted in favor, while Britain could do no more than abstain.

In its rush to aid the Palestinians in their unilateral bid for internationally recognized statehood status, UNESCO completely disregarded its own declared educational and cultural standards based on equality and mutual respect.

Instead, UNESCO effectively endorsed the warped, hate-mongering Palestinian national "narrative" as reflected in the Palestinian Authority's official school textbooks, cultural policies and popular media.

Impact-SE, a research organization that monitors and analyzes schoolbooks and curricula across the Middle East, with an eye toward determining their compliance with international standards on peace and tolerance ­ like those set by UNESCO ­ found shameful examples of anti-Semitism being taught in the Palestinian educational system.

Indeed, textbooks used in PA schools conveyed rabidly anti-Semitic messages (Jews are described as violators of treaties, deceivers, murderers of children, disembowelers of women and impersonators of snakes) erased Jewish peoples' ties to the land of Israel (Rachel's Tomb is presented as the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque, and the Kotel is described simply as Al-Buraq Wall) and supported jihad while, completing ignoring the option of a negotiated peace settlement with Israel.

The study quotes the following paragraph from a eighth-grade book: "Today the Muslim countries need urgently jihad and jihad fighters in order to liberate the robbed lands and to get rid of the robbing Jews from the robbed lands in Palestine and in the Levant." Nowhere in official PA textbooks is the Holocaust mentioned, though there is an entire chapter on World War Two.




One ambiguous passage states: "The Jewish question is first and foremost a European problem." Before the UNESCO decision, there might have been a chance, through international pressure and dialogue, to influence the PA to gradually revamp textbooks so that they more closely reflected reality.

Perhaps a new generation of Palestinian children could have been raised not on anti-Semitism, stereotypes and lies, but on respect for those who are different, the value of peaceful negotiation and recognition of the Jewish people's ties to the land of Israel.

But by accepting "Palestine" as a member, UNESCO has effectively given its stamp of approval to the sort of vicious indoctrination undergone by Palestinian schoolchildren at a young, impressionable age.

Can we honesty expect any future Palestinian leader to criticize the abhorrent messages that appear in PA textbooks if UNESCO failed to? Any leader who dared to introduce reforms would be fighting an uphill battle, not only against Palestinian prejudices and its culture of violence and self-victimization, but also against a respected UN institution's decision.

What's more, according to UNESCO's own rules, accepting "Palestine" as a full-fledged member means that UNESCO essentially waives its right to interfere in ­ or even criticize Palestinian education policies. If anything, Palestinian schoolbooks will inculcate children with even more uncompromisingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel messages.

And the messages presented in school will continue to be reinforced in Palestinian media and in mosques. Consequently, the chances for peace between Israelis and Palestinians will get even slimmer.

Seen in this light, PA President Mahmoud Abbas's statement that the UNESCO decision "is a vote for peace" is utterly incomprehensible.

Rather, it is a vote for bigotry, hatred and conflict.