Settling the issue

Ahead of tomorrow's (2.Sept) US organized peace summit with Israel (Netanyahu) and the Palestinians (Abu Mazen/Abbas) as well as the Quartet, last Sunday's New York Times (29.Aug) had an op-ed piece "In Israel, Settling for Less" by Gadi Taub a Hebrew University professor of communications and public policy who argued that the ongoing settler movement and 'the occupation' was a greatest threat to Israel and the "Zionist Dream" of Herzl.

In it he wrote:

The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state. (In fact, the Zionist movement had a functioning democratic parliament even before it had a state.)

This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers’ movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different. Although these religious settlers are relatively few — around 130,000 of the total half-a-million settlers — their actions could spell the end of the Israel we have known.

The most pressing problem with the settlements is not that they are obstacles to a final peace accord, which is how settlement critics have often framed the issue. The danger is that they will doom Zionism itself.

The religious settlement movement is not just secular Zionism’s ideological adversary, it is a danger to its very existence. Terrorism is a hazard, but it cannot destroy Herzl’s Zionist vision. More settlements and continued occupation can.

Seriously, settlements are NOT nor will they be the death knell of Zionism and State of Israel. While I have great difficulty accepting the wholesale settling of "Eretz Yisrael" without regard to the local Palestinian population and the general world view, I have even more problems with the Left's anti-religious and seemingly peace at any cost attitude.


Lost in his critique of religious Zionism (and specifically the "Gush Emunium"/right-wing religious factions) is that the mostly socialist--like David Ben Gurion--and secular--Herzl and the General Zionist-- elites created the institutions and have controlled the governments of Israel. If there are structural defects and fissures, it might be best to first look at them before blindly attacking minor actors.


It would also be helpful, if in evaluating others biases and ideological predilections, you also were critical of your own. To throw dirt on others is more a diversionary exercise than elucidating.


Another deceptive comment is:

Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his father’s theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible. ... energized by a burning messianic fervor, ... Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 [served] as confirmation of this theology and set out to fulfill its commandment. Religious enthusiasm made the movement subversive in a deep sense — adherents believed they had a divine obligation to build settlements and considered the authority of Israel’s democratic government conditional on its acceptance of what they declared to be God’s politics.

Although religious settlers often describe themselves as heirs of the early Zionist pioneers, they are anything but. Herzl’s vision was about liberating people, while theirs is about achieving a mystical reunion between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Herzl’s view stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of democratic national liberation movements, dating back to the American and French Revolutions; religious settlers are steeped in blood-and-soil nationalism. Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land. 

• I don't beleive that Herzl made any comment about the Arab/Palestinian population one way or another. He basically ignored them.
• Herzl's Zionism was sparked by the anti-Semitism he witnessed during his coverage of the Dreyfus Trail. Prior to this event, he was an assimilated (Hungarian) Jew who even advocated mass conversions of Jews to Christianity to gain acceptance in the world. (I would suggest that many of secular elites in Israel also seek international acceptance at the expense of promoting Jewish values and practices. But that's for another discussion.)
• Early Zionists certainly were deeply committed to "blood-and-soil nationalism", if it was the "watch tower movement/HaShomer", the creation of settlements in the middle of the night (during the British Mandate), the establishment of viable agricultural settlements, AD Gordon... Nation building, even at the expense of violence--against both Arabs and Jews--was deemed as a necessary evil.
• Missing in the discussion is: (a) Israel acquired the land in war ("fair and square") and have made repeated offers for peace BEFORE the massive settlement push only to have them rejected, (b) that the current wave of draft dodging is centered in the secular heartland of Tel Aviv and many of the elite military units are peopled by the same religious Zionists being critiqued by Taub.
• The loss of the 'zionist' elan is, IMHO, traceable to the decline in the quality of education (Jewish and general literacy). The siphoning of funds to anti-Zionist (read haredi/ultra-Orthodox) political forces. All of which occurred under the watch of the elites I believe Taub sees himself associated with.

The issue is not as Taub explains, a choice between "Jewish-dominated apartheid (through annexing the heavily Arab population with its massive birthrate), a non-Jewish democracy (viewed as dysfunctional a la Lebanon) or a 'one-state solution'... all of which will lead to civil war", rather it's creating a viable and dynamic Jewish state. To do so, there needs to be positive efforts to define ourselves as a whole and not promote factionalism and social/economic/religious/ethnic polarization. Israel needs to confront what it means to be a modern (and not necessarily Orthodox religious) Jew and how to design an infrastructure to create such people. Once we're clear about what we really stand for, I believe, others will respect it and assist us in creating a safe environment for us and our neighbors.

It won't be happening in the next year or two. Decades will be required.

One final comment. Yesterday's (31.Aug) terrorist attack just south of Hebron/Kiryat Arba that killed four people from Beit Haggai is another example of the danger of terrorism and the lack of peaceful intentions of the Palestinians--the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Clearly timed to coincide with the arrival of both Abbas and Netanyahu to Washington, it sought to derail the peace talks.


While the presence of Jewish Israeli settlers was a convenient target, I don't believe it was the only available one. Getting inside "the Green Line" and conducting a terrorist attack there is also viable. So, the condemnation of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, US President Obama, and even the PA crackdown on Hamas activists in the West Bank not withstanding, Arab terrorism remains a significant issue and challenge for the successful achievement of peace.


So while the status quo of settlements is a difficult issue, a wholesale retreat without real and enforceable security arrangements for Israel and Israelis is suicide.

An overstuffed cabinet

--Cleaning out my drafts--

Yesterday (3 Jan 2009) the new Government of Israel was introduced and formally sworn in. Benjamin Netanyahu is now officially the Prime Minister. His government of 71 people has a cabinet of 39--30 Ministers and (another) 7 Deputy Ministers--the largest in Israeli history. All the large parties--Likud (15 positions from 27 seats), Labour (5 from 13), Israel Beiteinu (5 from 15), Habayit Hayehudi (1 from 3), Shas (4 from 11), --have representation at the, now enlarged, cabinet table. Ynet has the full list and Haaretz has their pictures.

In these difficult economic times, I agree with Tzippi Livni's comment that such a large--gargantuan--government is misplaced.

The honorable prime minister-designate, the skinny man who is getting skinnier every day," Livni said, alluding to Netanyahu's feted metaphor of the private sector struggling to support the wasteful public sector. "On this thin man's shoulders you have now dumped this bloated government, filled with ministers of nothing, deputy ministers of nothings, and all sorts of other ridiculous titles," she said.

"A big and lavish cabinet is wrong at a time of economic constraints," said Livni, adding that "the public will have to carry the enormous weight of a bloated cabinet."

While her speech was certainly bitter and acerbic and many may claim it was an act of sour grapes, it was hard hitting and good to see that she actually has some fire in that belly. Whether it will help her maintain her political standing within Kadima and the country as a whole, only time will tell.

In response to her attack, Ehud Barak was quoted as saying her comments are

embarrassing statements... proof of her losing control." "The extent of her frustration is not a justification to say these things in the name of a 'more ethical politics,'" Barak's associates said.

"Ms. Livni should put her own house in order, and scrutinize the conduct of Kadima members, before giving lessons to others."

end for now

Hailing the chief

The Israeli Chief Rabbinate that is.


For the last several months, there's been a simmering argument about a proposed bill (by David Rotem MK, Israel Beiteinu, and Chair of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee) to streamline/reform the conversion process in Israel, by making the Chief Rabbinate the sole legal authority for conducting (and approving) all conversions to Judaism in Israel.

The proposed bill has two distinct shortfalls; (a) enraging world Jewry and widen the Israel-Diaspora gap (which is complicated by the political and financial support for Israel by world Jewry) and (b) the growing disillusion of Israelis (secular and "religious national") towards an increasingly extreme and parochial Chief Rabbinate, i.e. its "haredization."

First, let's deal with the Israel-Diaspora angle. 

Despite the clear concern expressed by the non-Orthodox/Jewish communal leadership during Rotem's 'explanatory tour' to North America a short while ago, earlier this week a bill was issued out the committee for Knesset approval. Diaspora Jewry is deeply upset.  The Jerusalem Post entitled its editorial of Tuesday (13.July) "Alienating the Diaspora" lambasting the proposal, and suggesting that despite passing its first reading, it will not be formally approved (third reading) as a result of promises made by  PM Benjamin Netanayhu and Ruby Rivlin (the Knesset Speaker).


Notwithstanding the "promise", all the major players in the Jewish communal world have been critical of the proposed bill.

Natan Sharansky, Chair of the Jewish Agency and appointed by  PM Netanyahu to lead a dialogue between Israel (Knesset) and world Jewry expressed deep disappointment over the bill passing the committee.

We cannot divide the Jewish people with legislation which many in the Jewish world view as defining them as second-class Jews, ... Jews abroad are the most loyal supporters of Israel, and stand at the forefront of the fight for Israel’s image around the world.

The proposed bill was supposed to have been discussed in detail with world Jewry, ... I hope the prime minister will send a clear message that this proposed legislation will not move forward without proper discussion and consultation with all those who feel they may be harmed by it.

Jerry Silverstein, the CEO of JFNA [the Jewish Federations of North America -- the umbrella organization of the North American Jewish Federations] who also attended the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee meeting expressed his disappointment:

This is very problematic for world Jewry; we don’t need this divisiveness, ... while at the same time stressing that “even though the bill ignores Diaspora Jewry, their support of Israel would not be conditioned on the fate of Rotem’s legislation.

The executive vice president of the Conservative Movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schoenfeld, referred to it as “destructive.” Reform Movement head Rabbi Eric Yoffie said it was “astonishing, foolish, disruptive.”

Kadima, the opposition party issued its own statement slamming the legislation as having the potential to give haredim a monopoly over conversions, and said the bill would not ease the conversion process in any way.

Rotem on his own part reiterated to The Jerusalem Post that his bill would have no bearing on conversions taking place abroad; rather, he said, it deals with the problems regarding conversion within Israel that can be remedied by allowing city rabbis to conduct conversions.

I am not seeking to alter the procedures of conversion to make it easier, but to expand the options for conversion, without breaking the boundaries of Halakha.

The bill is a revolution that will ease the process and prevent retroactive conversion cancellations

When asked about the understandings that such legislation would only come after a dialogue with all streams of Judaism, led by Sharansky at Netanyahu’s behest, Rotem said 

he had already told Jewish leaders in the US that he wouldn’t let anything hold back his advancement of the legislation. I can’t put off solving the problem of hundreds of thousands of people (in reference to immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jews by Halakha).

Despite the best of intentions of David Rotem (who also happens to be Orthodox) to serve his Russian base, the crafting of the legislation has fallen prey to the haredi components of the government coalition and unless extraordinary measures are taken by the PM and  Knesset Speaker Rivlin to remove the issue from its calendar--something not unprecedented as it's happened in the past including in the late 1980s--irreparable damage will be caused to Israel-Diaspora relations already strained over other political issues (e.g. settlement policy) and social issues (the loss of a common language--literally and figuratively) confronting the relationship.

The "Who Is a Jew" issue has plagued the relationship for ages as an Orthodox controlled Israeli political establishment seeks to confront a non-Orthodox religious establishment/reality outside of Israel. It's a battle that can't be won by either side with any degree of equanimity.

From the internal Israeli perspective, enhancing the powers of an already marginalized Chief Rabbinate, will only further alienate the general--secular and moderate religious--public from the Rabbinate.

Due to political shifts within the Israeli political landscape, principally the erosion (dare I say disappearance) of the NRP [National Religious Party] and its power base in the Knesset (whose voters have shifted their votes and allegiances to right-wing [pro-settlements in the Territories in Gaza (when it was available) and the West Bank/Judea-Samaria)  and the enhanced presence of the haredi parties. Its enhanced presence in the government has facilitated its influence to affect legislation (as well as state funds) to support its causes and supporters.

• It now controls the religious court system allowing it to place "their people" into open judicial positions, which affect in addition to religious issues; e.g. conversions and halakhic issues, also personal status like marriage, divorce and inheritance (which since the days of Ben Gurion was entrusted to the religious court system).
• It controls the process for the election/appointment of community (city and neighborhood) Rabbis as well as the two Chief Rabbis.
• As part of the coalition agreements, funds--prior to the national (regular) budget debate--are earmarked for the haredi educational systems, as well as the perpetuation of the draft deferments for yeshiva students.

The result has been a disaster for modern religious life. The non-orthoprax Israeli public is either offended (because of its treatment of them) or alienated from the Chief Rabbinate and looks elsewhere--if at all--for its religious services. The national religious public, purportedly the focus/target of the Chief Rabbinate feels marginalized. They too, seek to create their own institutions, where possible, for religious/halakhic guidance and services.

It seems that the goal of the haredi world, which never accepted the authority of the Chief Rabbinate, they have their own halakhic decisors,  is to emasculate the institution by placing 'inappropriate' people to serve as the Chief Rabbi (this is particularly the case with the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, the Sefardi one is determined by R' Ovadia Yosef). Thus by alienating the secular population and marginalizing the modern/national religious population they can convince the political establishment to disband the office completely.

If either scenario happens Israel and Jewish life will be diminished. The time is now to make our voices heard for a sane and mutually respectful policies be enshrined into law.

A right to justice?

Yesterday's Haaretz featured an op-ed piece by Karni Eldad that argued that Israel's High Court of Justice and particularly its President (chief justice) Dorit Beinisch, is biased towards "liberal" and leftist causes and against "conservative" (be it religious or political) rightist issues. It's an old argument which was especially prominent during her predecessor's, Aharon Barak, term as President who believed that everything is judicable--amenable to  a Court decision and was viewed as both liberal and a judicial activist (i.e., legislating from the bench). (His name and reputation was alluded to during Elena Kagen's US Supreme Court nomination hearings before the US Senate).

Citing a comparative study, conducted by Regavim (a NGO which monitors and documents illegal activities on state land), of five years of petitions to the Court submitted by Arabs (and their leftist supporters) against illegal construction by settlers and those submitted by rightest organizations against illegal Arab construction, she argues that the Court has consistently sided with those on the left.

She writes:

[T]he report examined the process' procedural elements ... like the time given to respond, the number of hearings held, the time elapsed between hearings and the composition of the panels of presiding judges.

For example, how much time on average does the High Court of Justice give a respondent to submit a preliminary reply? If the petition comes from the left, it is 25 days. On the other had, if the petition comes from the right ... 88 days to reply. Even before the arguments have been heard, the court can issue an interim injunction. Here the finding is perhaps the most glaring: In 90 percent of petitions submitted by the left and the Arabs, the court issued an interim injunction, while in cases of petitions by the right the number is zero. Not once.

Now for the hearing itself, before a three-judge panel. The claim is that the considerations when choosing judges are completely practical. If so, why is it that in 60 percent of the petitions submitted by the left, Beinisch is present at the hearings, as opposed to zero when the petitions are from the right?

If you think all this is coincidental, see how many days it takes the court to set a date for a first hearing: 389 days for a petition from the right, 177 for a leftist-Arab petition. Even when it comes to interim injunctions, the gap is glaring: 35 percent of leftist petitions produce such injunctions, zero in cases of rightist petitions. In the hearings themselves, the court is quick to decide when considering rightist petitions: The average number of hearings held are 0.5 for the right and 1.9 (almost four times more) for the left.

The report is certainly damning of the High Court, and I expect that the facts are accurate. But is is just (another) partisan missive how the Court is out of touch with the common people, i.e an elitist left wing club, or is it a demand for a public debate on the role of the Court and the judiciary in general?

My sense is it's more the former than the latter. Though I would certainly welcome an opportunity to examine the relationships between and operations of the three branches of government (assuming an American model), the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. I sense, though, that it would be extremely complex and complicated due to the interweaving of special interest groups, political expediency (on the part of the government to hold its coalition together) and the (benign ?) neglect which has created precedent and inertia for change.

What is clear, is that to most Israelis, as demonstrated by a recent poll, the court is not to be highly trusted to advance a sense of justice and equal protection under the law. The Courts (as well as the police and political system) are not to be trusted and respected.

It's difficult to create and then maintain a robust democracy if the societal institutions are not trust-worthy.

Or, as the op-ed piece ends with a quote from the first President of the Israel Supreme Court, Shimon Agranat:

there is nothing more destructive to a society than a sense among its members that they are subject to a double standard. The sense of inequality is one of the harshest feelings.

Israel--a caring community 1

Two small news items over the last couple of months caught my eye; one dealing with an attempt to shorten the school summer vacation, the other dealing with refunding—in cash/credit card credit—for returning (recently) bought items instead of a store credit. Both demonstrate how caring Israel is towards its clients.

A. School vacation

As it stands now, Israeli school children get too much uncoordinated vacation—school off while the business world (and parents) are open. The school year is contractually determined with the teachers’ unions. If all is well, the teachers decide to show up on the first day instead of striking, school opens on 1 September and ends (elementary school) on 30 June.

Assuming they everyone is in their place for the year, the kids are off in addition to the haggim (High Holidays, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuot), the arvei and issurei hag (the day before and after the holiday/hag), all of Hanukah, three days of Purim (Tannit Esther, Purim day and Shushan Purim), the week before Pesach, Lag B’Omer (since most kids have stayed up the night before and are in no condition to attend anyway) and the state (mandated) holidays—Memorial Day (half a day), Independence Day, election day (since the schools are used). Surprisingly, the list doesn’t include Yom Yerushalayim [Jerusalem Day commemorating the recapturing of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War]. In total, schools, in addition to the two month summer vacation, are closed for additional 18 days (38 if you also include the actual days of hag and hol ha’moed), for a total of nearly three months. While it may be a boon for the different “vacation activity providers”, it wreaks havoc for parents and their pocketbooks.

A couple of years ago, then Chair of the Knesset Education Committee, Michael Melichor sought to reduce the number of school vacation days, only to have it shot down by the teachers’ unions.

This year, the Knesset sought to shorten the summer vacation. The unions objected. They went so far as to demand that teachers, including principals boycott summer meetings.

I realize that teachers’ salaries are (too) low, the formal school day is too short, from 8:00 (or so) until 13:00 and the week long (Sunday through Friday). That, the education of your child heavily dependant on parental involvement, supplementing the school day by paying for extra classes in the afternoon (either dropped from the regular school day or as enrichment), paying for “extras” like computers, acting as school aides and setting a tone for excellence. The lack of active parental means poor educational opportunities for the students/children. In other words, better off neighborhoods/parents make better schools.

And, this is in the country of “the people of the book.” Somehow, Israel, its governments (national and municipal) has made education a low priority.

B. Consumer Rights

I have always been disappointed and amazed how impossible it is to get your money back—cash or credit card credit—after returning an item to the store. If they agree to take back their merchandise, they expect you to be satisfied with a store credit (which should be used within a month or two). In Israel, the customer can't be considered to be right.

This was reinforced by an item I noticed in the “Business in Brief” section in the English The Marker of 18 May 2010, “Manufacturers horrified at money-back bill”:

“Many people will come to the stores not in order to buy but in order to entertain themselves by buying and returning products,” said Uriel Lynn, the president of the Israeli Chambers of Commerce, yesterday. … “Instead of educating the consumer to act seriously, they will be taught to act irresponsibly,” he added. He called the bill “superfluous and harmful,” and said it would upset the balance of proper commercial relations—just because the consumer changed their mind.

Wow, forcing stores to return a customers money because they changed their mind or didn’t like the gift someone bought them, instead of being allowed to keep their money, is equivalent to inculcating irresponsible behavior and will destroy the natural order of doing business. That most other countries in the world, in name of customer relations actually return people’s money and they continue to attract new costumers seems to be beyond belief for Israeli businesspeople and its spokesperson Uriel Lynn.

What can one expect from the person, when he was a member of Knesset (Likud), who proposed separating the elections of the Prime Minister and the Knesset itself. It was an abject failure and was finally rescinded after two election cycles and the country still experiences its aftershocks today with weak major parties and unwieldy coalition governments.

Five years after the Knesset passed a law requiring stores to refund money to customers who returned purchases, instead of just giving store credits or exchanges, the ministry (Industry, Trade and Labor) finally created the regulations needed to enforce it. Luckily, the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee continued to continued to forge ahead with the legislation stipulating that the store must return the money in the same manner the customer paid: cash for cash or checks, and cancellation of credit card charges. But it gave the industry, trade and labor minister the authority to determine which products and services could be canceled or returned for monetary refunds.

Unfortunately, the legislation has a number of holes or “catches” including:

• Every return of a product or cancellation of a service will cost the consumer 5% of the value of the transaction, or NIS 100, whichever is less. In some cases, such as electrical and electronic items, the store can charge a 10% cancellation fee if the original packaging has been opened.
• Certain items, however, are excluded - for example, furniture that is installed in the customer's home, or merchandise produced especially for the customer. Food, drugs and nutritional supplements are also not included.

Today’s Haaretz in the The Marker section reported that the Knesset Economics Committee approved the regulations forcing stores to fully refund the buyer’s money. They come in force in three months.

Great news. Now we’ll see how it trickles down to the actual store level.

General alert

Couldn't pass on the opportunity to comment on the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal (commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan) by US President Obama yesterday.

Obstinately, because of the candid and critical comments attributed to him and his aides in a recent Rolling Stone magazine article, The Runaway General.

While I haven't yet read the article, I'm still not convinced that his firing was appropriate or even necessary.

Yes, the war effort in particular and military policy is the purview of the civilian authorities; i.e. the "Commander-in-Chief " US President, his Cabinet and advisors. And, yes, McChrysal was impolitic in publicly airing his--and his aides--critical and negative opinions of the president and his extended civilian team of advisors. However, was it really a fire-able offense?

Was it more an issue of trying to change team leaders in the face of unsuccessful military campaign in Afghanistan? Punishment for not toeing the line vis-à-vis the Administration plans? Was it personal? Was it just an excellent opportunity for Obama to demonstrate he's really decisive and able to get angry (in response to the criticism about his handling of the BP oil spill)?

I don't see the situation in the same light as Harry S Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas McArthur (you think there's a bias/prejuice against the Mc people??). In that case, there was a clear refusal to carry out a Presidental order. Here's there's a question about the development of policy. Once issued, he pursued the order vigourously and in good faith.

It's becoming clearer that despite the 'primitive' nature of Afghanistan, it has defeated the two greatest modern military machines, the USSR in the 1980s and the USA in the 2000s. The counter-insurgency approach only works if you can get the support of the local/indigenous population. Currently, the US/NATO forces are views not as liberators but just another foreign occupying force. The political/social culture continues unabatedly. Unless, its essence is deciphered by the NATO forces quickly and soon, the war (assuming it's directed at Al Quada and its Taliban supporters) will be a complete failure.

So, I wish Gen. David Petraus the best of luck in his new assignment. One only hopes, he'll be able to convince his civilian supervisors how to adjust their war plans to better ensure victory or plan for a dignified withdrawal of forces. His legacy is at stake.

Full Court Press

Last week was a difficult one for the haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") community vis-à-vis the Israeli judiciary. Last Monday, 14.June, the High Court of Justice ruled that state stipends for married yeshiva students [kollel] were unconstitutional.

As reported by Haaretz, the Court ruled that

the provision of state stipends to adult yeshiva students violates the principle of equality stipulated in the budget foundation law as well as legal precedents.

The following day, Tuesday the 15th, the Court announced that unless the parents desegregate the school in Immanuel, they will be held in contempt of court and will be sentenced to two weeks in jail. While the latter decision/announcement generated more outcry, it's worth looking at the former issue as well as the common denominator between the two before examining the Immanuel situation.

The common denominator between the two is the lack of political will by the government/national bodies to set appropriate limits. Due to political considerations--creating and maintaining a government by courting and placating the haredi political parties--rather than any overarching policy or economic consideration, societal needs (and the budget to support them) are skewed away from the general public towards a special interest group. While, we’re currently speaking about the haredi-non-haredi world especially in the education area, the issue applies in other areas of Israeli life too; the military, conversion and public life (marriage and divorce), settlement policy …

The stipend issue reflects how political considerations trumped rational government policy considerations.

The government in response to the petitioners argued

that the underlying purpose of the allocation was not economic, but rather ideological, with the goal of encouraging religious study.

The Court, in response ruled

that the purpose of the stipend was clearly economic even if the income support also served to encourage religious study, and as such there is no justification for discriminating between yeshiva students and students at other institutions.

The Court's rationale, as expressed by its President Dorit Beinish

the purpose of the studies is not relevant to the issue of economic assistance. "The need for income support is identical whether the student is enrolled at an institution of higher education or a conservative institution of religious studies, or a married student at a kollel," she wrote, adding, "Because of their studies, none of these students can support themselves through work. But under the current legal situation only one of these groups is entitled to receive income support payments."

The sole dissenter, Justice Edmond Levy (a religious Jew and deeply involved in the Immanauel decision) argued that

the budget law reflects policies and goals that are entrusted to the cabinet and the Knesset, rather than the court.

While, I agree with Levy's general rational and that it adds fodder to Shas Chairman Eli Yishai (MK, Interior Minister and a Deputy PM) attempt to redress the issue in the Knesset, it also reflects how skewed the decision-making procress is.

Yishai is quoted as saying

'The High Court ruling is a blow to the spiritual status quo of the nation of Israel' ... Shas intends to introduce a bill that would maintain the status quo with regard to income support for married yeshiva students or alternatively to address the issue through the Economic  Arrangements Bill, the supplementary legislation that accompanies the annual state budget. 'The Knesset will fix this.'

Unfortunately, the Knesset won't really fix anything and any attempts to do so will be accompanied by threats of leaving the government if its needs aren't met.

This brings us to the Immanuel "crisis".

It has generated a great deal of reaction for the last week or so. The Jerusalem Post itself as of 22.June list 67 separate articles.

At its core, the issue revolves around the desire of Ashkenazi haredim, actually Slonim Hassidim, to establish a separate educational track (and now a institution) from their Sephardic neighbors for their teenaged daughters at a local Beit Yaakov high school.

The Ashkenazi parents present the issue as one of cultural difference, the need to have their daughters learn with other girls whose families share the same religious philosophy and life style (no TV, dress code). As one Slonim parent said

It may seem strange to you that we make such an issue out of whether the girls are allowed to keep a collar button open or not, whether they’re allowed to roll up their sleeves or not, whether their socks cover their legs completely or not, but for us, it’s like heaven and earth.

As such, they view the court decision

as a case of reverse religious coercion. 'If the Supreme Court ordered you to educate your children in a way you could not tolerate, would you agree?' ... 'This is a religious war'

The Sephardi parents see the see the issue as racism--the refusal to accept Sephardim as equals.

As reported by Larry Derfner "This is a religious war" in the Jerusalem Post Magazine of June 11,

Last August, Justice Edmond Levy wrote for the three-justice panel: “In the case before us, it is easy to see that the aim of the rules was plainly and simply to separate the girls of the hassidic (Ashkenazi) sector from their Sephardi peers... This was not coincidental and proves, like 1,000 witnesses, the discriminatory aims of those who initiated the separation.”

At the time, there was literally a wall dividing the hassidic from non-hassidic streams in the settlement’s Beit Ya’acov girls’ elementary school. Two years earlier, the town’s hassidic parents, along with some Sephardi allies, had prevailed on the principal to allow them to divide the school into two: a strict hassidic stream and a less strict, non-hassidic one. They built a wall in the middle of the school corridor as a well as a fence in the middle of the playground so there would be no contact between the girls on either side. To prevent the girls from even making contact with each other through the fence, the hassidic parents covered it with blue-and-white fabric.

Meanwhile, the hassidim did not comply with the court order to integrate, sending their daughters to a “pirate” school instead. The court threatened to fine the parents, as well as the haredi school system to which they belong, and even put the parents in jail if they didn’t integrate their daughters in Emmanuel.

The primary mover to petition the state for redress has been Yoav Laloum whose story is told in last Friday's (18.June) Haaretz.

For Laloum, he paints the picture as

discrimination against the Mizrahi public [which] is only part of a profound problem in Haredi society, which is itself based on racism. The other problem is the increasing religious extremism that Ashkenazim are forcing on the entire Haredi public.

If that's isn't racism, what is it? Everyone knows that there's racism that is reflected in discrimination in the Talmud Torah schools, the [teachers] seminars, ... the problem here is deeper. It's a matter of Ashkenazi control and hegemony. A relatively small community that is trying to impose its extremist lifestyle on all of society. In Immanuel there are 30 Hasidic families, as compared to a Sephardi public of 500 families.

... the entire debate between us revolves around whether the girls' blouses will be buttoned up to the wrist or 10 centimeters below the elbow. There's no argument about the fact that everyone, all the parents, meet the stringent requirements of halakha. We're not talking here about Shabbat observance, yes or no. The argument is about stringencies. If you want stringencies, impose them on yourself. Once and for all, you have to understand that if the father wears a blue shirt that doesn't make the home any less a house of Torah. I have no problem if every group establishes a school. We didn't stop them from establishing a school on their own, we stopped them from taking control of an existing school, which receives [state money]. It was a hostile takeover and we had to act.

Based on what I've read, I am persuaded to agree with Prof. Menachem Freidman (Bar Ilan University and the leading authority on haredi society) who suggested that the Sephardi presentation of the facts is closer to the truth. He further posits

Hassidic movements like Slonim have a whole culture, a tradition, and their general feeling is that Sephardim are culturally inferior – not only in Emmanuel, but throughout haredi society. In non-haredi society, too, but not as much, ... And the tragedy is that many religious Sephardim have accepted this. The better students, the children of successful or scholarly religious Sephardim, don’t want to study in Sephardi schools. For them, getting into an Ashkenazi yeshiva is a symbol of success.

Another angle to the story is the role of government funding of education, including the haredi Independant Education system.

Friedman argues that the Education Ministry, backed by the Supreme Court, has the full right to insist on integration at Beit Ya’acov because the school, like all schools in the haredi Independent Education system, are funded 100% by the state.

'If they want to do like Natorei Karta and the other ultra-haredi communities that refuse all government funding, that set up their own privately funded schools, then the hassidim in Emmanuel can set any rules they want, discriminate any way they like, according to the law,' says Friedman. 'But they’re not a private school, they’re a state-funded school, so they don’t have that privilege.'

Meanwhile the the Ashekenazi haredi population, in part abeted by the Shas leadership--especially Rav Ovadia Yosef--, have taken to the streets to protest. When the men (fathers) went to jail for contempt of court the Deputy Minister of Education, Meir Porush (Degel Torah, a haredi party) as a form of protest (to the Court and the government) set up his office in front of the jail. He's still in office.
Where's Bibi and why hasn't he fired Porush and imposed government discpline? Has he discided that political expendicy --preserving his government--permits him to "sell out" the rest of the country values. Short-term politics trumps long term needs.
 
It's best summed up by the difference in actions and words of Justice Edmond Levy.
 
Levy in his Stipend Law decision wrote

Torah study is a commandment, and both the Knesset and the cabinet have asserted that it should be funded by placing on the public the burden of providing an income for Torah students. It is a values-based decision that is grounded in the recognition that Torah study is vital to the Jewish people, and I do not believe that the court has the authority to change it. In addition, very modest sums are allocated for this purpose, with the aim of ensuring only the most basic necessities.

Yet, in in the Immanuel case, where he was the lead Justice, he responded to the Ashekenazi parents lawyer suggesting that the issue was one of freedom of the parents to determine (in consultation with their Rabbi), he's quoted as saying

The issue at hand is a ruling handed down by a court. No ruling by a court, certainly not one by the Supreme Court, is subject to approval by anybody, not even a religious authority. A ruling does not require the approval of this or that rabbi.

If the rule of law is to prevail and if the welfare of the entire country is to be promoted instead of catering to special interests (and the squeakiest wheel), the government and Israel must start with restoring order in Immanuel. Otherwise, it could (and will) spread like a wild fire through the country.

Sea Sick

The “Freedom Flotilla” whose sole purpose was to create a media event as detrimental to Israel by delivering “humanitarian aid” by challenging the Israeli (naval) blockade on Gaza arrived into Israeli controlled waters early, ~4:30, this morning. What exactly happened after that everything entered into “the fog of war.” While they didn’t get close to the coast of Gaza, the bottom line is they were successful. Israel has now two black eyes and is entering into another difficult period of intensive negative media and international attention. Undoubtedbly, the next week will be a difficult one. The reverberations will last much longer.

At minimum, the facts are, as reported by the VOA:

At least nine passengers were killed, and dozens of others were injured, when Israeli commandos stormed ships bringing aid to the Gaza Strip early Monday. The flotilla, led by a Turkish ship, was in international waters about 60 kilometers off the coast of Israel when it was intercepted.

Israel says seven soldiers also were wounded in the violence.

Before looking at the international fall out, several questions beg to be asked.

1. What was Israel's response and thinking about what would/could and did transpire? What was Israel thinking when it launched its response?
2. It seems clear that the Arabs/Moslems prepared the ground for this operation. Why did Israel allow itself to fall into this trap? Why is it only AFTER the foreign (and specifically the Arab/anti-Israeli) press had the entire morning to itself--there was an Israeli news blackout--that Israel finally responded with press conferences and press releases. Why weren't they prepared in advance? This isn't the first time that Israel has had to deploy its military in a hostile situation. In today's world, as shown in the first Gaza war, people don't have patience to wait for the truth. The pictures and statements--however doctored and perverted--have already made their rounds and impressions.
3. What is about Israel and its government, that it perpetually "shoots itself in the foot" when it comes to framing an issue or executing a "peace" project? Sharon's idea to evacuate Gaza looked great on paper--including the international press coverage--, but years later the former residents are still in limbo. The fall out from the recent Gaza War and the Goldstein Report continue unabated. While it's been said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to make peace and have their state, it seems that Israel never misses an opportunity to screw up and control its message proactively.

As I heard on a radio program this afternoon (Monday), the Arab/Moslem elites (governments and actors) have internalized that they are unable to defeat Israel on an actual battle field, but in the diplomatic and PR arenas they can be--and are--more successful. Currently, they are pinning Israel into corner where its legitimacy to both exist as well as to defend its sovereignty is questioned. It can do no right. In such an environment, it's difficult to stay on message (assuming there's actually one) when you're forced to field questions about your legitimacy to exist.

In terms of tactics, see Haim Watzman's South Jerusalem blog about whether naval commandos were the appropriate people to deploy (and the ensuing comments on the blog)

Wouldn't it have been better--as suggested by a neighbor--to have disabled the ships and then assist them by towing them into port (Ashdod) and have a press conference there? Then instead of a humanitarian disaster, Israel could portray itself as a savior and then transfer the safe--no explosive--items to Gaza.

They couldn't claim they didn't know about the flotilla.

• It's been in the Israeli news for the last several weeks and in the international headlines since late last week as they set sail. The "landing" was put off a number of times from Friday evening (after Shabbat) until early this morning.
• Haaretz even published a number of articles and op-ed pieces pro and con the flotilla. Sunday, it was Gideon Levy's turn.
• They publicly announced, if only to an Israeli audience, that plans were being developed involving the Prime Minister, Foreign Ministry and the IDF, to ensure that it was handled quietly and avoid an international backlash.

The fallout from the international media was immediate and negative.

Aljazera in "Outrage over Israel Attack" and "Deadly Israeli raid on aid ship" lists a number of critical comments including the expected mostly from the Arab and Islamic world, as well as Europe--the EU, Germany, Ireland (Eire), Italy and the UK--, different UN bodies and the US.

First is the statement from the Turkish foreign ministry, who were the primary (state) sponsors of the flotilla [as 'confirmed' by Micheal Martin, Irish foreign affairs minister in his statement "I am gravely concerned at the reports emerging of the storming of a Turkish ship this morning by Israeli commandos. My department is seeking to establish the full facts of what has occurred and confirm the safety of the eight Irish nationals who sailed with the Turkish-led flotilla"]:

The interception on the convoy is unacceptable ... Israel will have to bear the consequences of its actions.

We strongly condemn it and await an immediate explanation.

By targeting innocent civilians, Israel has once again clearly displayed that does not value human lives and peaceful initiatives.

We forcefully condemn these inhumane activities by Israel.

The incident that occurred in open sea which is a gross breach of international law, could cause irrevocable consequences for our relations.

We wish to express our condolences to the bereaved families of the deceased, and swift recovery to the wounded.

Then from Hamas (Ismail Haniya, Hamas leader in Gaza) we hear:

The government of Hamas call on Palestinians to carry out a total strike in Gaza and West Bank to show solidarity and protest the Israeli crimes.

We request emergency session for the UN Security Council, Arab League and Islamic Conference and we demand the Palestinian Authority to stop all forms of negotiations.

The government decided to grant those on board Freedom ships the medal of honour.

We appeal to the UN to withdraw from the Quartet.

The government has decided to name the May 31 "the freedom day". We demand the Arab League to carry out all decisions to stop the siege of Gaza.

We say to those heroes that the essence of your honourable blood has reached us before the aids you are carrying to us.

We salute everyone on board the Freedom ships.

The Arab League released the following statement:

Secretary General Amr Moussa has called for an emergency meeting at the League's headquarters in Cairo on June 1.

The attack clearly shows Israel's aggressive nature and its disrespect to international and humanitarian rules and laws.

We call on the international community to take immediate steps against Israel, a rogue state that practices all forms of terrorism and piracy, and instigates tension and instability in the region and in the middle of the Mediterranean sea.

In addition to the UN Security Council press release, there were also two comments from UN human rights workers:

a) Navi Pillay, UN high commissioner for human rights

I am shocked by reports that humanitarian aid was met with violence early this morning reportedly causing death and injury as the boat convoy approached the Gaza coast.

The blockade keeps undermining human rights on a daily basis.

The current situation falls far short of what is necessary for the population to lead normal and dignified lives.

I condemn once again the indiscriminate firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel.

(b) The UN Relief and Works Agency

We are shocked by reports of killings and injuries of people on board boats carrying supplies for Gaza, apparently in international waters.

Such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza

Lastly, there's a statement from the White House

US President Barack Obama "expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded" in a phone call to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

"The president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible."

Another thoughtful response came from the International Crisis Group,

Flotilla Attack the Deadly Symptom of a Failed Policy

Brussels/Washington/Jerusalem
31 May 2010

The International Crisis Group condemns Israel’s assault on a flotilla of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza, which resulted in a tragic loss of life.

At the same time, the incident is an indictment of a much broader policy toward Gaza for which Israel does not bear sole responsibility.

For years, many in the international community have been complicit in a policy that aimed at isolating Gaza in the hope of weakening Hamas. This policy is morally appalling and politically self-defeating. It has harmed the people of Gaza without loosening Hamas's control. Yet it has persisted regardless of evident failure.

“The flotilla assault is but a symptom of an approach that has been implicitly endorsed by many”, says Robert Malley, Director of Crisis Group’s Middle East Program. “It is yet another stark illustration of the belated need for a comprehensive change in policy toward Gaza.”

International condemnation and calls for an inquiry will come easily, but many who will issue them must acknowledge their own role in the deplorable treatment of Gaza that formed the backdrop to today’s events. The policy of isolating Gaza, seeking to turn its population against Hamas, and endorsing a "West Bank first" approach was not an exclusively Israeli one. To focus on this recent tragedy alone is to miss the much wider and more important political lessons.

The policy toward Gaza is in need of thorough re-examination. The US, EU and Quartet as a whole have been calling for relaxing the siege on Gaza. That is welcome, but opening the humanitarian tap is not an appropriate answer to a policy whose fundamental premise is morally callous and politically counter-productive. Instead, Gaza should be open to normal commercial traffic with adequate international end-use monitoring.

“Today, we have witnessed the sad outgrowth of a failed and dangerous policy”, says Louise Arbour, Crisis Group President. “One hopes it can provide an opportunity for a long-overdue course correction.”

While governments were 'forced' to issue statements, there were also statements from anti-war groups. Britain's Stop The War Coalition expressed what I fear is the typical statement,

The action should see Israel condemned under international law.

Israel has repeatedly flouted law and public opinion worldwide in its treatment of the Palestinians.

The decision by Israel to attack the flotilla with such loss of human life shows it is arrogant and deadly intent in opposing any aid to the Palestinians.

I heard pretty much the same thing this morning during a radio interview  on Israeli radio (Reshet Bet) with a/the Flotilla spokesperson, Greta Berlin.

• How the flotilla and its participants are unarmed civilians just wanting to bring needed 'humanitarian' supplies to the poor innocent Palestinians of Gaza.
• How the boats were outfitted with cameras (I assume webcams) recording all the events.
• How the Israeli commandos dropped from a helicopter and immediately upon setting foot on the boot, began firing their weapons.
• How Israel again is lying about its commitment to deliver the supplies (see below).

All of this is, of course, expected since Israel is used to shooting and killing innocent Palestinians they'll also have no compunction about shooting other innocent civilians.

Somehow missing or minimized were:

• That Israeli soldiers were injured by both hot (guns) and cold (knives and daggers) weapons carried on board. See the IDF You Tube clip of their "non-violent" welcome on the lead boat Mavi Marmara.
• The supplies weren't typical humanitarian items like food, medicines and clothes, but were instead Israeli 'contraband' (on their prohibited list) items like cement, paper and water filtration systems...

An unmitigated PR disaster.