Palestinians' violent past

The following is an excerpt which appeared in Daily Alert.com, June 30th.
At a time where history seems to be "adapted" to fit convenient solutions or interested parties, Israel must remind the world of the "other" side, which is nowadays forgotten. PR seems to be an importatn issue in our globalized world, were the media has a great ability to influence public opinion. This type of article, explaining verifiable historical facts, might not change the outcome of negotiations, or the necessity to make difficult compromises from the Israeli side, but these will certainly be viewed with greater understanding, consideration and respect.

Palestinians' violent past
by Ofer Bavli
Arab violence toward Jews in the Holy Land began decades before the State of Israel was established. It had nothing to do with ''occupation'' or ''settlements,'' and everything to do with preventing Jews from establishing their own state on their historical land. After the 1948 War of Independence, Jordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip for almost 20 years. Eastern Jerusalem was in Arab hands, ruled by the King of Jordan. And yet the Palestinians never rose against these Arab states, never demanded independence, never demanded to establish a capital in Jerusalem. In the 1950s and 1960s, Arab Fedayeen terrorists launched dozens of attacks against Israeli civilians. In 1964, three years before any Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Palestinians established the PLO, which began carrying out indiscriminate terror attacks against Israeli civilians. Recent experience in Lebanon and Gaza shows that whenever Israel made concessions, they were rewarded not with reciprocal concessions, but rather with more violence, terrorism and intransigence. The settlements never have been and never will be an obstacle to peace. History shows that dismantling settlements and making territorial concessions only make the Palestinians hungrier for blood. For the Palestinians, these concessions are a sign of weakness, causing them to launch even more terror attacks. The real obstacle to peace is the refusal of the Arab world to truly accept the existence of a Jewish state on our historic land. Although it occupies one-thousandth of the combined size of Muslim states, Israel's existence in the Middle East is, to most Arabs, unacceptable. They fight not for land, but for our destruction and elimination. Pressuring Israel to dismantle the settlements will not bring peace to the Middle East. It will bring more violence, more terrorism and more Israeli deaths. The writer is consul general of Israel to Florida.

Full article
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1114684.html

Good we didn’t bomb Iran

Israeli strike on Iran two months ago would have averted current uprising

Yair Lapid analyzes the situation in Iran, and how matters would have developed in a completely different way had Israel strike their nuclear sites. The people of Iran would have rallied behind their leader and this popular uprising would not have occurred.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3737558,00.html

Cojav Nolad's new judge..

Dana International, the new judge in the reality show Cojav Nolad (American Idol) is described as conquering hearts, colorful, vociferous and mostly she always has something to say(www.mako.co.il), as when she advised one of the participants to better become a "shepherd" since his singing reminded her of a dialogue between sheeps and goats.
Dana, from Yemenite origin, was born Yaron Cohen, and became an Israeli drag queen until she finally decided to officially follow her true self and become a woman. She won the Eurovision contest in 1998 and became famous across Europe.
She is now the most famous and outspoken judge in the famous TV series already in its seventh season.

The following video is from the Eurovision contest where she won with the song Diva, composed by Svika Pick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv83u7-mNWQ

Defining Israel

Israel is a State formed by several minorities, the most notables since the creation of the State, were Ashkenazim and Sefardim, the beginning of the '80's added a new large one, and fairly influential (we know have a flamboyant foreign minister), the russians. Aside from these divisions, there are religious and secular, within the religious sector there are the Ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox, Religious-Zionist, , leftists, rightists, Shalom Achshav, settlers, Jews, Arabs(or Palestinians)Israelis, Israeli-Jews, Israeli-Arabs, and the list could go on and on...; all of these groups claim to be loyal to the State and to follow the "right" path under which Israel should follow.
In this article Assaf Wohl revolves around this issue, on how Israel should define itself, if it someday does...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3735726,00.html

Brazilian soccer teams won't play in Israel

Brasil's soccer team is playing a mayor game in Ramallah, as a goodwill gesture towards the Palestinians, while making it clear they have no interest in playing in Israel.
It might be funny but for many of us, Jews in the Diaspora, our choices regarding the make up we'll wear or the food we'll eat, depends on the maker's support for Israel. Certainly the same holds true for the countries will visit or for sports team we will support. Actually Brasil has one of it biggest fans in Jews in South America.
I wonder if support will change in any way by this decision; I hope it does, as a goodwill gesture from us, some of their previous supporters in the Diaspora.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3732777,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3732777,00.html

Haredim threaten boycott if Jerusalem elects Zionist rabbi

The Jerusalem municipality is trying to turn Jerusalem into a city for all its citizens; over the years the Ultra-Orthodox community has apropriated Jerusalem as if it "belonged" to them, alienating non religious Jews, imposing "modesty" rules in places of work, harasing women who do not comply. Believing they are the true followers of Halacha they hold Jerusalem prisoner to their demands, threatening to withdraw their approval on religious matters, such as kashrut, from different establishments such as restauransts or hotels, whom without the Orthodox population support feel their bussineses could be jeopardized.
The following article, refers to this issue that so much divides Israeli society, this time refering to the appointment of a Religious-Zionist Rabbi to the Jerusalem Rabbinate, which the Haredim plan to boycot if this Rabbi is elected.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3735669,00.html

Leibowitz on State and Religion

Yeshayahu Leiwowitz interprets the role of the Torah in the sovereign State of Israel in a controversial way, contrary to the status quo which he sees as “hypocrite”. He supports separation of Religion and State for the benefit and truthful development of both. ¨

I agree with most of his comments, yet I believe that separation of Religion and State would develop into the creation of a “secular” State inhabited by “citizens”, without religious identification. As much as it necessary to re-evaluate the role of the Rabbinate in Israel and the consequences of its current actions(as well as the State’s), I doubt a State of Israel deprived of its Jewish content, legally speaking, would be beneficial for Israelis or for the Jewish people in general. While to de- politicize religion seems necessary, the effect of completely eliminating religion from the State should be carefully evaluated due to the particularity and centrality of Israel as a Jewish State.

According to Leibowitz there are three possibilities of viewing the role of the Torah and its place in society in the State of Israel:

- Are the laws of the Torah given to create a sociopolitical system?
-Are they given to be applied within an existing system?
-Should they be discarded (since they were given to a past society) and create a new social order with the required “justice and righteousness”?

For Leibowitz religious Jews have not been able to explain the role of the Torah in the Modern Israel, or provide an answer to which is the sociopolitical system based in the Torah by which the State should be ruled. The Torah, as currently conceived by the State and its religious authorities, is limited to the Shulchan Aruch. There has been no further creation from the part of religious authorities of Halachic rulings that would apply to the current situation in the Jewish’ people history, that is, the Jewish people being politically sovereign in their own State; nowhere in Rabbinic writings was this envisioned; social questions of an independent Jewish society were not relevant for ancient or Middle Ages’ rabbis who did not live under political sovereignty, and there has not been a clear interpretation of this topics by Orthodox groups living in the State of Israel.
As mentioned, there are no Halachic rulings in this regard, but only those related to Jewish life under foreign political rule. Instead of presenting new Laws that would abide to the current state of affairs, the Rabbinate has tried to ‘adapt’ already existing Halachic rulings to fit the new situation with little success. Actually the religious establishment in Israel is highly politicized and as a consequence is viewed by many within society (religious and non-religious as well) as being coercive and abusive of their power (primarily regarding the laws of marriage, divorce, conversion and kashrut), thus creating a largely polarized society.
The ideal would be to understand the judicial and moral ideas derived from Halacha and the way to institute them into a new social order, a guide to the religious man to society, nation, country, etc. New rulings are needed to deal with the present conditions, Jews living under Jewish sovereignty; but most of all, is the belief of Leibowitz, there needs to be a separation of Religion and State for religion to achieve its true, honorable place in society and thus, begin a process of education and formation in Jewish values.

The following are excerpts from Lebowitz’ STATE AND RELIGION (translated by David Landau); First appeared in Tradition vol. 12,No.3-4(Winter/Spring 1972) ¨
“
….. The dualism "national religious" is not a maintainable one unless one or both of the terms are falsified, i.e. either "national" must be distorted from its purely secular meaning, widespread at least since the French Revolution, and must be given a meaning directed at the traditional term "the Community of Israel”—in which case it becomes synonymous with "religious" and is superfluous; or else "religious must be distorted from its true meaning denoting the system of the Halakhah –and must be made to mean merely an accessory of national-political life –in which case it is valueless.

Religion and the State of Israel

The problem of "state and religion"—which is in fact the problem of the future character of the Jewish Nation and Judaism—is not raised by the official existence of the State of Israel, but by the administrative and legal disputes between the various partners in the executive and judicial apparatus of the state. The two great states of values, the religious and the humanist, the open conflict between which moulds the character of the individual and his society, are not represented by two camps fighting for these values. The "religious" camp does not fight for the Torah, the "secular" camp does not fight for man: 'they both fight for the state; the nationalist passion which is common to both sides leads to the situation wherein the state—which is only the external trappings of some content of intrinsic value—takes the place of that content itself.

The State of Israel was established in 1948 by the common actions, common efforts and common sacrifices of both religious and irreligious Jews as a state of secular character.
The secularism of this state is not the product of any conscious intent but of its essential reality: it was riot established on the strength of the Torah, nor from any impetus of the Torah, nor by the guidance of the Torah or by its commands, nor is it run according to the Torah.
Whether we define ourselves as "religious" or as "irreligious," all of us set up together this state as Jewish patriots, and Jewish patriotism—like all patriotism—is a secular human trait with no religious or holy content.

The Religious Need for Separation of Religion from the State

A religion whose standing in the state is similar to that of the police, the sanitation authorities, the post office or the customs… there could be no worse abasement of religion; nothing weakens the strength and influence and persuasiveness of religion and prevents the winning of hearts more than religious institutions which are kept by a secular state, more than investing secular with an official religious aura, than religious laws included like aberrations in a code of secular legislation; than a secular government which imposes an arbitrary selection of religious practices on the public without obliging itself or the public to recognize the authority of religion; than religion not for holy motives but for political convenience.
(Religion)..makes its demands only with regard to particular details within the general framework of the secular law and the secular life of the State and of society; these demands are divorced from the overall programme of life which the Torah lays down, and they seem strange, illogical and unjust against the background of the totality of secular life. To the majority of the people, these demands are uncomprehended and incomprehensible, since they are put forward within the framework of the laws and regulations of a secular regime, and therefore they produce only mockery and anger. The form which religion has taken on in the reality of the Israeli State and society gives it the appearance of petty interferences, hindrances and pinpricks against the "normal"—i.e. secular—fabric of life, and not that of an alternative way of life. Therefore it is both hated and despised.
The truth is that religion lacks all power in the State of Israel land in its society and lacks all real influence in shaping their character. Yet there are large segments of the public who feel that they are subject to "religious coercion." The "religious laws" in the State are enacted by a secular authority in the form which suits it best (out of governmental interests). They lack all religious meaning, and in most cases their content.
. The truth is that they constitute secular governmental coercion of religion, and at the same time they provide ammunition for anti-religious elements to arouse irritation and ire against religion—
The prohibition which the secular regime imposes in certain places (only in those places, and not in others) on public transport on Shabbat is no more than a bribe to Orthodox Jews to look the other way. This prohibition also lacks all religious meaning: the Halakhot of Shabbat contain no such ridiculous commandment which permits Jews to travel on Shabbat, but forbids buses to operate on Shabbat. The hypocrisy of this arrangement, which is insisted upon by the religious establishment, denigrates the honour of religion and makes the religious stand laughable.

Releasing Religion from its Subservience to the Political Regime

Who is to maintain the religious institutions which the religious community needs?
The religious community itself,……. , as it did in all ages and in all places for as long as organized religious Jewish communities have existed on earth without the help of the United Jewish Appeal or contributions from the Imam or the Sultan—its rabbis, its shochtim, its synagogues, its graveyards, etc., and never complained. Only in the State of Israel, which has turned religion into a departmental service of the secular government, has the Orthodox community become corrupted and become used to receiving funds for maintaining its religious institutions from the secular authority, and in this way making its very existence dependent on this authority.
The separation of religion from the state would not entail pushing religion into a corner of the state and of society, or the truncation of Orthodox Judaism from political reality. On the contrary: the separation of religion from the state means the beginning of the great confrontation between Judaism and secularism within the Jewish Nation and within its state and the beginning of the struggle between them for the conquest of the nation. Religion, which serves today as one of the administrative functions of the secular state, has no say except in those sectors of public life which the secular authority permits it to deal with. A religion which was independent would be the fundamental opposition to the secular regime in the state, an opposition which demands a clear and explicit alternative—in all fields of life in the state and in its society”.

Carter, again...

Carter was honored this saturday by the PA in the West Bank, this was part of his acceptance speech:
"I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years," he said Saturday, adding that this is a feeling shared by members of his family.
"I have two great-grandsons that are rapidly learning about the people here and the anguish and suffering and deprivation of human rights that you have experienced ever since 1948," he said.

I assume the suffering of the Israeli people, and of generations of Jews before them, of endless persecution, death and suffering is not as important in the eyes of Carter. It would be good if he taught his great- granchildren(and so maybe he might learn a little as well) of the Jews' suffering well before 1948, and after...

Settling the Land

This week’s parasha, Beshalaj, retells the story of the spies sent to Israel to report on the Land previous to its conquest by Joshua. Most of the spies’ report was negative; it was indeed a land of milk and honey, but its inhabitants were “giants”, they would not be able to conquer it or live there.
How much of their report was true? Or why did they choose to express themselves in this way, discouraging people for battle?
Berel Wein analyzing this weeks’ parasha in the J.Post, brings an interesting perspective: how much do we really love our Land?; is it enough, especially for Jews in the Diaspora, to express this love for Israel in financial donations, prayers or lobbies from the respective countries, “defending” Israel for afar but not actually settling there.
Jews in the Diaspora still pray for Zion, for a return to Jerusalem as if it would still be a dream, but it is not, it is real, Israel is real, and as Wein argues, it needs to be accepted by our enemies, but first and foremost is has to be accepted by the Jews.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371070670&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Religious intolerance

The Jerusalem municipality opened a public parking lot in downtown Jerusalem to alleviate the parking problem that exists in the city, thus allowing tourists and visitors; seculars, to be able to park on the Safra Parking lot.The situation developed into a violent protest by Ultra-Orthodox and settlers whom by claiming they are in a “Battle for Jerusalem”, clashed with police forces throwing bottles, rocks and even dirty diapers! at them.Once more ultra orthodox and settlers display their unwillingness to tolerate others, to “love your neighbor as yourself”, to understand that Torah means not only abiding by rituals but that a great, if not the greatest part of it, relates to communal behavior, respect for others, their property and their lives, respect for the State you live in and certainly “fight” for your beliefs, in the proper way; sadly these groups of Ultra-Orthodox fail to understand this and with their shameful behavior give religion a bad name; certainly not helping to bridge the divisions among the Israeli population that are fired even more with this kind of violent acts in which the general public fails to identify a small group of extremist-rioters, but see “religious” people in general as intolerant and disrespectful of the people and the country their living in.
It saddens me to think that this has greatly contributed to the widen rejection of religion by Israelis, leading ignorance regarding Jewish sources, which ultimately debilitates Judaism in general, no matter in which way one practices it.
As Uri Orbach points out in his article in Ynet, all the religious community is paying for this “recklessness”.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3727972,00.html

Refugees

In his recent visit to Italy Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi offered those to where expelled from Libya to be able to return. Expelled Jewish Italians, even though not specifically mentioned, were part of those allowed to return. One of the central issues preventing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is the problem of the Palestinian refugees; those who fled their house during the War of Independence or those who were ‘expelled’ by Israel, must be allowed to return, so say the Palestinian leadership. Kaddafi’s move brought to my mind a dangerous prospect; what if other Arab countries respond in the same way and proclaim that Jewish refugees to return to their homes in those countries; would they ask in exchange for Israel to do the same? . I hope their pride and ‘hatred’ towards the Jews would prevent them from this move that would entail ‘reciprocity’ from Israel and thus, its demographic destruction.

US president friend of Israel: asset or liability

Since President Obama was a candidate worries began to arise regarding his stance towards Israel, would he be a ´good´ or a ´bad´ President for Israel.
We, Jews in the Diaspora, and I assume many in the US, tend to view US elections in this frame, a President of the United States, for us, is the one who is good for Israel, American concerns aside.
Bush was considered a true friend, Obama raised questions, and concern.This led me wonder what is the meaning of ´good´, what is the difference between being good or being ´correct´, of doing the right thing, that would certainly imply political considerations, since there seems to be no ´true´ friendship without ulterior political motivations that would benefit the states involved. It is also true that the Jewish lobby is perceived as ´strong´´, and they might be so, but in reality how much would they be able to achieve if the matter was not in the interest of the US as well.
President Bush, as mentioned before, regarded as a great friend of Israel, did not, until the very end of his presidency, got involved in searching for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; so I guess being a friend means letting the other believe he can do whatever he pleases, believing that in the end it will not have to deal with international’ opinion, or with the reality on the ground.
Obama has not said anything others have not previously stated, that is, the necessity to stop settlement activity and the two state solutions; in my view, despite concerns of his ‘Islamic’ background, nothing new has been stated that could be viewed as being against Israel by Obama or his administration.
In my view, the idea of a US president who is a friend of Israel has been a liability in many cases instead of being an asset. What I am suggesting is that defending Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s sovereignty and its right to be recognized among the nations of the world should not regarded as a ‘favor’ by a friend. It is and should be presented as the just, correct and proper thing to do by any country that abides by international Law. By presenting the US position regarding Israel as ‘objective’, the US is demonstrating that is it doing what is right for any state to do regarding other whose survival is at stake, and maybe then it would be perceived as a reliable negotiator and fair player by the nations of the world, especially the Arab nations of the world, hopefully dropping the ‘excuse’ of friendship that implies profit for one of the parties, as a reason for impending successful negotiations.