Shulamit Aloni, former minister and staunch civil rights supporter, dies at 85

Aloni, an Israel Prize laureate, was born in Tel Aviv and first elected to Knesset in 1965.

By Haaretz | Jan. 24, 2014 | 8:46 AM

Shulamit Aloni, the former leader of Israel's Meretz party and Israel Prize laureate who, throughout her life,
fought for equality and civil rights, died on Friday morning at age 85.
The cause of death was not disclosed, but Aloni died at her Kfar Shmaryahu home surrounded by family.
She will be laid to rest at 4 P.M. on Sunday in the central Israeli town's cemetery, her family said in a
statement.
Born in Tel Aviv in 1928, Aloni was a member of Hashomer Hatzair youth movement and later volunteered
 for the Palmach, an elite force of the Jewish underground military in pre-state Israel, fighting in the 1948
War of Independence.
Aloni was first elected to Knesset in 1965 on the ticket of Labor Alignment (Ma'arach), the predecessor of
the Labor Party. On the eve of the 1974 election, Aloni defected from Labor and founded Ratz, the
Movement for Civil Rights and Peace, which secured three seats in the eighth Knesset.
Aloni was appointed a minister without portfolio in Yitzhak Rabin's first government in 1974, but resigned
after the National Religious Party joined the coalition. In the 1984 election, Ratz won five parliamentary
seats after Peace Now members Ran Cohen – and later Yossi Sarid – joined the party.
Aloni was among the founding members of Meretz during the 12th Knesset, when Ratz formed an alliance
with Mapam and Shinui in 1991. The new party won 12 seats in the Knesset election a year later. Aloni, who
led the party, joined Rabin's coalition and was appointed minister of education and culture.

She served as education minister in Rabin's cabinet between 1992-1993 and as science and arts minister
between 1993-1996.
Aloni retired in 1996, after Sarid was elected Meretz chairman.
In 2000, she was awarded the Israel Prize for her lifetime achievements and contribution to Israeli society,
 despite protests from Israel's religious establishment.
In awarding her the prize, the committee of judges praised her for being a voice for citizens, for "struggling
 to repair injustice and hoist the flag of equality between the different peoples and faiths in Israel."
Aloni authored six books in her lifetime, including titles about children's and women's rights. In 2008, at
age 80, she published "Democracy in Shackles" (Demokratia BeAzikim), about the state of Israel's
democracy. In it, she wrote, "The state is returning to the ghetto, to Orthodox Judaism, and the rule of the
fundamentalist Rabbinate is only growing stronger."
She lamented that the "blooming, free and enlightened Israel that prided itself on research and progress
 now bows before the rabbis, Haredim and settlers, who demand everything for themselves in the name of
religion."
Aloni was married for 36 years to Reuven Aloni, who helped found the Israel Lands Administration.
He died in 1988. The couple lived in Kfar Shmaryahu, an upscale town not far from Tel Aviv, where they
raised three children, Dror, Nimrod and Udi.
Politicians mourn 'trailblazing' Aloni
Ministers and MKs from across the political spectrum mourned Aloni's death on Friday, praising her
courage and no-nonsense approach to defending civil rights.
Meretz leader Zahava Gal-On called Aloni "trailblazing" and said she would continue to inspire all Israelis
who care about civil rights and equality.
"She transformed Israel into a better place to live and never stopped fighting for the values she believed in
and with which she will forever be associated: peace, absolute equality irrespective of religion, gender and
race," Gal-On said, adding that the Meretz party would continue to defend the rights Aloni fought for
throughout her life.
Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog said that Aloni set an example for his generation. "Aloni instigated
significant change in Israeli public discourse and broke down the walls that protected antiquated ways of
thinking and outdated paradigms," Herzog said. "For this, as a nation, we must respect her. She will be
remembered as a courageous fighter for peace, coexistence and minority rights."
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said Aloni made great contributions to Israeli discourse about democracy
and said that despite their fundamental differences of opinion, "I always respected her determination in
standing up for her views and voicing her opinion loud and clear, as well as her great concern for Israel and
 its future."
Ya'alon said that his debates with Aloni were always "challenging" and that he valued her modesty and
integrity, and her "groundbreaking struggle for civil and women's rights, which brought about positive
changes in Israel's image and character."

Former Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin also recalled not seeing eye-to-eye with Aloni, but said he
respected her as a woman who "wasn't swayed by populism, but expressed her beliefs and views as they
were."

Tu B'Shevat

Today is Tu bishvat. which is the new year of trees. is a tradition for the last 100 years to plant trees in Israel on this day.

                                                       Children planting trees in Israel.

Who incites more Palestinian hatred: Abbas or Netanyahu?

Their textbooks may sometimes preach hatred, but it is the humiliation of occupation that creates the most Palestinian rage against Israel.

By Peter Beinart | Jan. 8, 2014

Benjamin Netanyahu recently denounced “incitement” to hatred as one of the key obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace. “It all starts with education,” added Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. They were talking about Palestinian incitement, of course. But it got me thinking.

In 2012, former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin warned that, “Over the past 10-15 years Israel has become more and more racist. All of the studies point to this.”

Sadly, he’s correct. Last year, according to the respected Israeli Democracy Institute, 48 percent of Israeli Jews said living next to an Arab family would bother them. In addition, 43 percent want the government to encourage Arabs to leave Israel. A majority thinks important government decisions—not only on security, but even on economic and social issues—should require a Jewish majority. A Haaretz poll last August of Jewish Israeli 16 and 17 year olds found that 42 percent would object to having an Arab teacher.

What explains these hateful answers? Maybe it’s incitement?

A while back, I tried out the theory on an American Jewish hawk. I mentioned that there’s a public park in Hebron named for the notorious racist Meir Kahane, which includes the grave of Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Palestinians in 1994. There’s a moshav, a postage stamp and various streets named for David Raziel, who masterminded a July 6, 1938 attack in which Irgun operatives placed bombs in Haifa’s Arab market, killing 23 people. Many Israeli students attend schools run by Shas, whose spiritual leader, the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, called Palestinians “snakes,” Arabs “evildoers,” Islam “ugly” and declared that “goyim are born only toserve us.” Many Israeli textbooks no longer show the Green Line. 

When I presented this theory to my hawkish interlocutor, he looked at me like I was crazy. He didn’t deny the accuracy of my examples. He didn’t even deny that many Jewish Israelis dislike Palestinians and Arabs. But he explained, in the exasperated tone of one explaining something blindingly obvious, that this hostility stems not from postage stamps, textbooks or the statements of famous rabbis. It stems from the trauma of everyday life. Did I really not understand the second intifada’s impact on average Israelis: the horror of not knowing if the bus you step into will suddenly blow up; the anxiety of wondering if your kids will come home safe from the pizza parlor? Did I not realize that for the people of southern Israel, traumatized by rocket fire from Gaza, this suffering continues? Could I not see that if many Israelis, regrettably, harbor hostile feelings toward Palestinians, those feelings stem from the most powerful incubator of all: lived experience.

My hawkish acquaintance was right. Right about Israeli hatred and right about Palestinian hatred too.

Let me be absolutely clear: I agree with Netanyahu that Palestinian textbooks and media too often justify hatred, and even violence, toward Jews. I too am appalled when Palestinians publicly glorify suicide bombers or traffic in anti-Semitic stereotypes. I think America should push Israel and the Palestinians to restart the “anti-incitement” committee established in 1998 to monitor violence-inducing speech. And I don’t consider Israeli and Palestinian incitement equivalent. There’s good evidence, for instance, that Palestinian textbooks are more hostile to Israel than the other way around.

But despite all this, Netanyahu’s new focus on incitement largely misses the point. I’ve met many Palestinians who hate Israel. But I’ve never met one who attributes that hatred to street signs or textbooks. Instead, they talk about parents evicted from their homes, cousins jailed, lands taken, travel permits denied. One Palestinian friend, born inside the green line, told me about being unable to live with his West Bank-born wife inside Israel. Another told me that her husband, born near Bethlehem, has five brothers, all of whom have been shot by Israeli soldiers. I’ve lost count of the number of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim acquaintances who have recounted humiliating experiences at Ben Gurion Airport. In my experience, at least, Palestinians explain their anger toward Israelis in roughly the same way my hawkish acquaintance explained Jewish anger toward Palestinians: as the product of bitter, personal experience.

Benjamin Netanyahu can do something about that. Channel 10 recently reported that over the second half of last year, Israel increased its budget for the settlements tenfold. That means countless, fresh Palestinian stories of suffering and fury. When it comes to combatting the incitement that leads Palestinians to hate, Netanyahu need not wait for Abbas. He can start with himself.

In 2014, American Jewish leaders might lose control of the Israel debate

In 2014, American Jewish leaders might lose control of the 

Israel debate

Washington’s failure to clinch two-state deal would shift Palestinian focus to international groups 

and college campuses where organized Jewry holds little sway.

By Peter Beinart | Jan. 1, 2014 |

In the spirit of the season, let me hazard a prediction: 2014 will be the year that America’s Israel debate begins
 to pass the organized American Jewish community by.
The first reason is the end of the American-dominated peace process. Despite John Kerry’s best efforts,
 the most likely scenario is that 2014 will be the year he fails. Even if Kerry manages to convince Israeli
and Palestinian leaders to accept a “framework agreement,” which lays out guidelines for a final deal, it’s
 unlikely he can get it implemented. At the end of the day, Benjamin Netanyahu still leads a party
dominated by people opposed to a Palestinian state. Indeed, the man he’s just appointed as his top foreign
policy advisor publicly opposes a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to embrace a territorially viable
 Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem would mean losing his political base, something that
throughout his political career he has adamantly refused to do. In Dennis Ross’ memoir, he recalls
Netanyahu explaining that a leader can never abandon “his tribe” of core supporters.
For almost four years, nothing the Obama administration has done has changed that. And now, with
violence against Israel increasing and Obama having signed an Iran deal that Netanyahu hates, John
Kerry has less leverage and Netanyahu has more excuses. Yet the more Kerry caves to Netanyahu -
for instance, by backing a 10-year Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley even though theClinton 
Parameters called for Israel to leave within three - the weaker he makes Mahmoud Abbas, a man who
may be too weak to sign a conflict-ending deal already.
Kerry himself has said that if “we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” He’s right. If he
fails, the United States won’t take another shot until it inaugurates a new president in 2017, and maybe
 not then. In the meantime, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle will move outside Washington as Palestinians
take their case to international organizations, college campuses, religious and labor groups and European
consumers. And for the organized American Jewish community, that’s a disaster because universities,
 international organizations and liberal religious groups are exactly the places the American Jewish
establishment is weak.
It’s sadly ironic. The organized American Jewish community has spent decades building influence in
Washington. But it’s succeeded too well. By making it too politically painful for Obama to push Netanyahu
 toward a two-state deal, the American Jewish establishment (along with its Christian right allies) is making
 Washington irrelevant. For two decades, the core premise of the American-dominated peace process has
been that since only America enjoys leverage over Israel, the rest of the world should leave the
Israel-Palestinian conflict in America’s hands.
But across the world, fewer and fewer people believe Washington will effectively use its leverage, and if the
Kerry mission fails, Washington will no longer even try. The Palestinians are ready with a Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that shifts the struggle to arenas where the American Jewish
establishment lacks influence. In the Russell Senate Office Building, Howard Kohr and Malcolm Hoenlein’s
 opinions carry weight. In German supermarkets and the Modern Language Association, not so much.
But the decline of the American-led peace process is only one reason 2014 may spell the decline of
organized American Jewish influence. The other is Iran. For two decades, AIPAC and its allies have
successfully pushed a harder and harder American line against Iran’s nuclear program. In Congress,
where a bipartisan group of senators has just introduced new sanctions legislation over White House
objections, that hard-line agenda remains popular. But in the country at large, it risks alienating the
Americans who will dominate politics in the decades to come.
It’s no secret that young Americans are less unwaveringly “pro-Israel” than their elders. According to a
2013 Pew Research Center poll, while a majority of Americans over 65 say they sympathize primarily
 with Israel, among Americans under 30 it drops to just over one-in-three, with a plurality of respondents
saying they sympathize with both sides.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t a pivotal issue in American politics. But Iran is, and the generational
 divide is just as strong. The Iraq War was a far more disillusioning experience for young Americans than
 for their elders, and you can see Iraq’s legacy in the polling on Iran, where according to a 2012 Pew poll,
Americans under 30 were thirty points more likely than Americans over 65 to prioritize “avoid[ing]
military conflict” with Tehran over “tak[ing] a firm stand” against its nuclear program. When I asked the
indispensable folks at Pew to break down the age gaps within the parties, they found that young
 Republicans were almost as anti-war as old Democrats. Which helps explain why, in the 2012 Iowa Caucus
and New Hampshire Primary, Republicans under 30 favored anti-interventionist Ron Paul over his
nearest challenger by a margin of almost two to one.
These are long-term trends. The American Jewish establishment won’t become irrelevant anytime soon.
But 2014 may be the year when the downward trajectory of its power becomes clear. Wiser American
Jewish leaders, aware of the BDS movement’s efforts to move the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside of
Washington, might have pushed Netanyahu to embrace the core tenets of a two-state agreement, and thus
given skeptics more reason to believe Washington can still deliver. Wiser American Jewish leaders, aware
of the war-fatigue among America’s young, might have avoided pushing sanctions that, as my colleague
Chemi Shalev has argued, risk convincing many Americans that the American Jewish establishment is
sabotaging a diplomatic deal.
The wisest leaders foresee change, and adapt to it, while there is still time. For the leaders of Jewish
America, 2014 may be the year it becomes too late.

Israel's chief rabbinate questions 'commitment' of leading U.S. Modern Orthodox rabbi to Jewish law

Israel's chief rabbinate questions 'commitment' of leading 

U.S. Modern Orthodox rabbi to Jewish law

Rabbi Avi Weiss was previously disqualified from attesting to the personal status of members of

 his NY congregation seeking to marry in Israel.

By Yair Ettinger | Jan. 3, 2014 | 12:23 AM | 

The Chief Rabbinate has doubled down on its opposition to a leading American modern Orthodox rabbi, 

Avi Weiss, saying it doubts “the degree of his commitment to customary and accepted” Jewish religious law.

About two months ago, in a move that roused protests from Orthodox rabbis in both Israel and the United
 States, the Chief Rabbinate disqualified Weiss from attesting to the personal status of members of his New
York congregation who sought to marry in Israel. The decision even sparked a Knesset debate in November
on the rabbinate’s opaque policy of disqualifying certain Orthodox rabbis overseas based on no clear criteria.
Weiss, founder of the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical school, represents the left flank of the Orthodox
 community, and he recently upset many in that community by becoming the first Orthodox rabbi to grant
ordination to women. But he is also highly influential in the American Orthodox community, hence the
outrage when the rabbinate refused to accept his affidavits regarding the personal status of people seeking
 to marry in Israel.
Weiss’ battle against the rabbinate’s decision is being led by attorney Assaf Benmelech on behalf of the
Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah organization. Thus earlier this week, the rabbinate’s legal advisor, Harel
Goldberg, sent Benmelech a response.
“The Chief Rabbinate has been contacted by various rabbis known to the rabbinate, some of whom hold
positions in the RCA [Rabbinical Council of America], who claim that Rabbi Weiss’ halakhic positions, as
expressed in various incidents and under various circumstances, cast doubt on the degree of his commitment to customary and accepted Jewish halakha,” Goldberg wrote, using the term for Jewish religious law.
The rabbinate hasn’t yet completed its own investigation of Weiss, Goldberg continued. “When this
investigation is finished, and to the degree that the Chief Rabbinate thinks there is a problem with
recognizing affirmations of Jewishness made by Rabbi Weiss, the findings of the investigation will be
brought to Rabbi Weiss for comment before a final decision is made.”
Regarding how the rabbinate decides which rabbis overseas it considers trustworthy, Goldberg wrote that
 it makes these decisions by asking other rabbis from the same country, “who are known to and trusted by
representatives of rabbinate,” about the rabbi under investigation. The rabbinate is careful to cross-check
 the information it obtains by asking several different rabbis from the same country, he added.
Rabbi Donniel Hartman, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, said it would be a
mistake to confine the debate to Weiss alone.
“It’s clear that the rabbinate is right about Weiss, from its perspective, and that’s the problem,” he said.
 “We have a Haredi [ultra-Orthodox] rabbinate with a Haredi worldview, but it serves the non-Haredi
public. That’s the Israeli absurdity we’ve created. It’s clear that by Haredi criteria, there’s doubt about
Weiss’ commitment to halakha. But the moment the State of Israel determines that there is only one
halakha, and it’s Haredi, we will disqualify not only Weiss, but most of the Jewish people. The question
isn’t only about the bounds of Orthodoxy. This is a rabbinate that’s disconnected from the lives of most
 of the Jewish people. The riddle that’s hard to answer is why the state allows this.”
Within Israel, Weiss is also being supported by Tzohar, an organization of moderate religious Zionist
rabbis, and ITIM, an organization that helps Israelis navigate the rabbinic bureaucracy. His American
supporters include superstar lawyer Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who in November asked President Shimon
Peres to intervene in the issue of Weiss’ disqualification.
“I am forced to see yet again how basic rights, such as the right to marriage, the right to self-definition
and the right of religion, are trampled by none other than the Israeli democracy we value so,” Dershowitz
wrote Peres. “This is yet another result of the rather unsuccessful fusion of Religious law and Israeli law,
and the problem seems to only intensify over time.”

My Orthodox Rabbi and Teacher is Honored by our Movement

David Hartman and the Reform Movement: ‘Kindred Spirits’ in Questioning (Video)
This is a transcript of Donniel Hartman’s remarks at the 2013 URJ convention after accepting the movement’s Rabbi Alexander Schindler Award on behalf his father, my rabbi and teacher Rabbi Prof. David Hartman.   By DONNIEL HARTMAN   Very often we only remember to say thank you, we only appreciate, we only really respect people sometimes after they die. But your love and respect and kindness to my father was something that he felt in his lifetime. He felt it, he counted on it, and he was nurtured by it. And as his son, and on behalf of my family, I thank you for that. For in many ways, even though tonight he’s getting the award and he’s not here, he felt that award for decades. Watch the entire award ceremony on the youtube link  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S5asOdfysE#t=18   My father was an Orthodox Jew whose love of God compelled him on a journey to search and to build a Judaism of honesty. God didn’t diminish his sense of self; God obligated him and pushed him to stand tall as God’s covenantal partner and to ask, “How do I create a Judaism of excellence? How do I create a Judaism that makes sense? How do I create a Judaism of depth? How do I create an honest Judaism?” For he believed that only such a Judaism would continue and be deserving of continuity in our open marketplace of ideas, the marketplace that my father so loved to live in.     Today, in the few places that it happens, when an Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform rabbi sit on a stage together, they’ll be challenged and asked, “Please each one of you, say what it is that you respect most about the other.” Invariably, when asked to speak what they feel most respectful and most important about the Reform Movement, people will very often say it is your commitment to tikkun olam and to social justice. Those of you who knew my father know that he never spoke about tikkun olam. That’s not what he loved in you. What he loved in you was the kindred spirit to search for a Judaism of honesty, to build the Judaism of excellence.     A Judaism of honesty and excellence doesn’t just obligate us to look at our tradition, and to question, and to doubt, and to change that which needs to be changed. Very often the greatest challenge that we face to build that Judaism of excellence, to be honest, is not to simply try to correct a tradition that is 3,000 years old. Very often it is also to correct ourselves, to correct our own presuppositions, our own truths, our own givens. The most common leap of faith that people make is not a leap of faith in the name of God – if only it was so! It’s more often than not the leap of faith that we make in which we continue to walk in the path that we’re familiar with, that’s comfortable, that keeps our givens and presuppositions precisely in the same place.     What my father most respected about you and the Reform rabbis who were his hevrutas was your courage to question your own presuppositions. Over the last decades, your movement has not just simply been asking itself where it wants to go, but it also has been looking carefully and asking, where have we come from? Loyal to the last two centuries but also questioning, and saying, what must we change? What must be a new approach to Torah and mitzvah? What did we, as a movement, possibly get wrong? And it was precisely rabbis engaged in that question who found in my father a kindred spirit. And it is precisely in those rabbis that my father found a kindred spirit.     To be willing to criticize yourself is the beginning of building a new path of honesty, and my father loved that. He loved it and respected it in this movement. But there’s something else that moved him deeply.     My father was a Zionist. He didn’t just make aliyah. He loved living in Israel, and he loved Israel. For him, to be a Jew started with his commitment to the Jewish people. It started with a covenant of destiny, to be connected to a people. Torah came second. And for him, Israel was the canvas on which this people was going to write its new Torah, was going to shape a society built on Jewish values and Jewish ideas. For him Israel was not simply a place where Jews lived, it was the heart of what it meant to be a modern Jew. He looked at the Reform Movement and at Reform Jews, and he was amazed, because the truth is you should have walked away from Israel a long time ago. How much insult, how much alienation, how much lack of respect should a person take before they say, “Enough! What do I need it for?”     In a Jewish world where love for Israel is all too often dependent on having to agree with it, and if I don’t agree with it completely or it doesn’t live up exactly to what I want it to be, well then I can’t love it, I want Israel – and my father coined this term – I want Israel to be my nachas machine. And if it’s not my nachas machine, I’m not interested, goodbye. Or for others, love for Israel means agreeing with it, and therefore I need to agree with it by definition, or love for Israel is measured by the size of the flag that I wave. What he loved about you is that your love for Israel is measured in the fact that you’re willing to fight for it.     My father said in the ‘70s, Israel is too important to leave up to Israelis. And he saw you as people who were willing to fight to build a different Israel, who were not willing to walk away, even though in truth you should have. People who said, I don’t care what you do, the one thing you’re never going to do is to get me to leave you. I’m going to fight for you, and I’m going to love you enough to fight with you, to build a different type of Israel. My father believed that the meaning of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people was to create a place where all Jews could feel at home, where all Jews could be respected. Not simply a place where all Jews would be drafted into the army, not a place where all Jews are allowed to die, but a place where all Jews could live and breathe and be respected. He dreamed of such an Israel. And he loved you for fighting to create such an Israel.     Thank you very, very much for this beautiful honor that you’ve bestowed upon my father. Thank you for the kindness, for the respect, for the Torah that you came to him to learn. Thank you for walking with him. He loved being with you, and he was inspired by you. Thank you very much.