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.