'Price tag' is Israel's anti-Semitism

'Price tag' is Israel's anti-Semitism

Op-ed: There are relatively more hate incidents against Arabs in Israel than hate incidents against Jews in France. 
Yizhar Hess (from Yedieot Acherunot – the most read daily newspaper in Israel)

Please read the following sentence slowly: Relatively, there are more hate incidents against Arabs in Israel than hate incidents against Jews in France.

One has to read this sentence twice in order to understand its shocking meaning. And even then, the natural tendency is to question the data, to repress, to ignore. The dissonance is too heavy. Especially for us, the sons and daughters of a nation which was the victim of the most horrible phenomenon of hatred in human history.

The meaning of the comparative figures is hard to digest, but denial is more dangerous.

 A total of 554 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded around the world in 2013, according to a comprehensive report prepared by the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University. The figures point to a certain drop compared to the previous year, but anti-Semitism has not only failed to step down from the stage of history, but in some places it is even a key player. Maybe not a lead actor, but definitely a character actor. Ever present, existing, above and below the surface.

 But can we condemn anti-Semitism firmly, clearly, unequivocally – as it deserves – without turning our heads towards what is taking place in our own backyard?

 Nineteen incidents of hatred against Arabs were recorded in Israel in 2013. The first took place in Jerusalem in January, when the Nabi Daud Mosque was desecrated with malicious graffiti, and the last one took place on the final day of the year in the village of Dura al-Qara. Three vehicles were torched, and the malicious graffiti left no room for doubt: Price tag.

 When one examines these numbers courageously, the earth starts moving. Nearly eight million residents live in Israel. On average, we are talking about one anti-Semitic incident per 400,000 people.

 Russia, for example, which has 142 million residents, recorded 15 anti-Semitic incidents that year, one incident per 9.5 million residents. Germany, which has 81 million people, recorded 36 incidents, one per two million people. Even France, which had the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2013, recorded 116 incidents. With its 66 million residents, we are talking about once incident per 600,000 people.

 Where do we take this disgrace? That's a good question. We must not get dragged into the overly familiar political dispute. It's not a matter of left and right, nor is it a matter of routine political haggling. Something important has happened in Israel.

 The Jewish tradition has many faces. Those trying to find support for racist perceptions in it will probably be able to do that, but those seeking to derive a moral-humanistic purpose from it will almost always have the upper hand.

 When Hillel the Elder was asked to define the one rule the entire Torah is based on, he said: "That which you wouldn't want done to you, don't do to your friend." Hillel gave us a comprehensive, cross-generation rule of thumb for every ethical and legal, private and public indecision.

 Ant-Semitism is anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. It is similar in its motives and pathology in every language. The natural expectation from every person is to feel internal, literally physical, rebellion when he encounters it – all the more so if he is Jewish.

 Yes, Jews have an extra duty when it comes to racism. The claws of racism have engraved this duty into our arms. We must all feel great shame in light of these hate crimes taking place almost every day recently by veiled and heartless thugs, who wish to celebrate the superiority of the Jewish people in its fatherland by degrading and humiliating the other.

 Only if we spew this abomination from within us we will be able to hold up a mirror to the world with integrity.

 Attorney Yizhar Hess is the CEO of the Masorti Movement in Israel, which is a member of the Tag Meir ("Spreading the Light") forum.

A Jewish state: It’s our problem, not theirs

A Jewish state: It’s our problem, not theirs

one cannot enter a negotiation without a clear sense of one’s red lines, the deal-breakers, those issues over which compromise is intolerable. When these red lines lead to a breakdown in the talks, there is neither room nor grounds for self-criticism or self-blame. The purpose of a deal-breaker is to be precisely that – to delineate the issues which if compromised would result in unacceptable harm

It is critical, however, that one not only delineate one’s red lines, but even more importantly, think very carefully and strategically in determining their identity. It is OK and at times necessary to reject a deal and walk away, despite the consequences of such an act. Careful thought in advance ensures that one does so, only because the consequences of accepting the deal are more severe. A skilled negotiator always keeps these two consequences in his or her mind and is careful to avoid a misplaced red line, which instead of protecting, generates greater harm.

In our negotiations with the Palestinians, the purpose of our red lines is to ensure that a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and the formation of a Palestinian state not undermine our legitimate security concerns or our identity as a Jewish state. I will leave to others far more knowledgeable than I to debate the necessity and nature of Palestinian demilitarization, a presence in the Jordan Valley, the exact demarcation of the border, and the like. Our defense and security experts do not agree on the specifics, but most of Israel is united against a deal which neither recognizes nor attempts to address these security concerns. In fact, I believe that a significant part of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s longstanding popularity lies precisely in the fact that the vast majority of Israelis from across the political spectrum trust his instincts and commitment to properly define and preserve our security red lines.

I want to focus on our other red lines, those meant to protect and preserve the identity of Israel as a Jewish state. There are many sub-issues to these red lines, from the necessity of ending the occupation, to ensuring the demographic balance necessary for our Jewish democratic character, to our stake in Jerusalem. Over the last number of years, a new issue has emerged as a primary demand, and under Prime Minister Netanyahu, a deal-breaker: the recognition by the Palestinian Authority of Israel as a Jewish state.

At present, we know that Palestinian leadership has rejected this demand, destining the current negotiations to failure. Unto itself, if this requirement is critical to our future, the fact that it causes a breakdown should not be upsetting, saddening maybe, but not upsetting, for we have no interest in accepting a deal irrespective of its consequences. The goal of the negotiations is not to bring about Israel’s surrender, but an advancement of its deepest interests.

My problem is not with the articulation of red lines meant to ensure the future viability and vitality of Israel as a Jewish state, but rather with the particular articulation of this red line: that the Palestinians formally recognize Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. It is critical, for us, to be meticulous in the formation of our red lines and not to get bogged down in rhetoric, slogans, or self-defeating conditions.

If by recognizing Israel’s identity as a Jewish state our goal is to ensure that the Palestinians accept that the consequence of peace is that the Palestinian state is now the sole homeland of the Palestinian nation, while Israel is the homeland of Israelis, the majority of whom are members of the Jewish nation and the minority of whom are Palestinian, the importance of this red line is critical and not subject to compromise. However, it should be stated as such, and not in its “Jewish state” formulation.

There is no meaning to a peace treaty if after an agreement, Palestinians still believe that their national aspirations can be fulfilled outside of the Palestinian state, and more specifically in Israel. The core issue, red line, and deal-breaker for Israelis is that Palestinians forego their claim to a right of return into the land which constitutes the State of Israel. Palestinians need not forego their narrative about this right, just as Israelis need not forego our narrative regarding the Jewish people’s right to the ancient Land of Israel. Neither of us needs to forego our rights, but rather our claim to the actualization of those rights. This is the basic meaning of a peace treaty, the recognition of each other’s borders and foregoing of one’s claim to the other’s land.

The use of the terminology, “Jewish state,” to express the above is confusing, unhelpful, and detrimental to Israel’s basic and legitimate interests. The self-evident demand of relinquishing claims and aspirations for national fulfillment and expression in the land of one’s peace partner, is a core part of our legitimate security concerns. Without it, we will remain in a permanent state of conflict and instability. The problem with articulating it in terms of recognizing Israel as the Jewish State, is that this formulation locates the issue within the context of Israel’s Jewish identity concerns, an issue which we, the members of the Jewish nation must pursue, but which we neither need nor expect outsiders, even if they are peace partners, to share with us.

While I would not mind if the Palestinian Authority chose to recognize the Jewish character of Israel and the historic right of the Jewish people to our homeland here in Israel, their recognition of such is of no consequence to me, let alone a red line. If they in fact were willing to recognize it as such, I would be very interested in engaging in a profound dialogue with them as to their understanding of the Jewishness of Israel, an understanding that has so far eluded most Israelis.

When this security concern is couched in a language of Jewish State, we are not only confusing the issue, but harming, I believe, Israel’s interests and needs. In a negotiation, and in the arena of politics, you are only as strong as your best argument, and are harmed by your weaker ones. The frontline of our campaign must be the Palestinian desire to actualize their right of return and in so doing, defeat Israel in a bloodless war and not some vague category of Jewish statehood.

According to our Declaration of Independence, the meaning of “Jewish” in Jewish state refers to the identity of the nation for whom the State of Israel is its rightful expression of sovereignty. The parallel to Jewish state in this sense is Irish state, French state, Palestinian state, and not Christian state or Muslim state. Israel is a Jewish state not in the sense that it is where Judaism is sovereign, but where the Jewish people are the majority and consequently sovereign, all the while protecting the inalienable rights of national and religious minorities, as behooves a democracy.

While this was the intent of the founders of the country and a meaning shared by many Israelis, it is not fully understood, let alone accepted, by many other Israelis. For them, a Jewish state is where Judaism must determine much of the legal and cultural fabric of the country. It is Jewish not because it is the homeland of Jews, but the homeland of Judaism. This latter position profoundly undermines the democratic commitments of Israel, and our ability to overcome it is one of the central challenges that we face in the decade to come.

If we have yet to resolve the meaning of the term, how can we expect Palestinians to agree to it? Are they, in so doing, agreeing to the primacy of Judaism in Israel, and in so doing, destining Israeli-Palestinians to being second-class citizens in a Jewish theocracy? This interpretation, while rejected by me and possibly Prime Minister Netanyahu, is a viable interpretation, and still an unresolved debate.

When Palestinian right of return is combated through the language of Jewish statehood, we are both shifting the conversation away from the central issue and at the same time, giving the Palestinians the tools to reject our legitimate concerns.

It is possible that peace in our time is unattainable. Both sides need to relinquish some of their claims in order to enable the viability, security, and prosperity of the other. The purpose of the negotiations and red lines is for each side to test the other’s sincerity on this issue. It is not to subdue the other into accepting terminology or slogans which have nothing to do with our ability to live side-by-side in peace.

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman,  President of Shalom Hartman Institute of Jerusalem

J Street’s rejection is a milestone in the growing polarization of American Jews

J Street’s rejection is a milestone in the growing polarization of American Jews

On many issues, the liberal advocacy group is closer to American Jewish views than most of the organizations that voted to keep it out of the Conference of Presidents.

By Chemi Shalev | May 1, 2014

The liberal advocacy group J Street has made a lot of mistakes since its inception six years ago. It took positions that were perceived as anti-Israeli. It was not always upfront or completely forthcoming about its backers and funding. According to some sources, its leader Jeremy Ben Ami succeeded in losing friends and alienating supporters even when he recently appeared before the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that J Street was asking to join.

Critics of J Street will claim that these factors played a major role in the conference’s decision on Wednesday night to reject J Street’s bid for membership by a vote of 22-17, far short of the two-thirds majority needed. Whether that’s true or not makes very little difference, because the emphatic repudiation of J Street will be widely perceived nonetheless as a milestone in the growing polarization and fragmentation of the organized American Jewish community, as a vivid manifestation of its escalating right-wing intolerance and possibly as a harbinger of a fateful schism to come.

For J Street itself, the establishment’s brush-off is actually a godsend. Rather than getting sucked into the consensual machinery of the Conference of Presidents or being colored by its right wing-tinge, the organization is now the aggrieved party deserving of sympathy as well as the leading alternative to what many younger Jews see as the fossilized infrastructure of the so-called “Jewish establishment.” In the expected absence of a peace process, J Street could be viewed as the last American Jewish bulwark against blind adherence to occupation and annexation.

And though executives led by Malcolm Hoenlein gave J Street more than a fair hearing and played its membership procedures strictly by the book, the Conference of Presidents will likely be slammed not only for its small-mindedness but for its warped voting apparatus that gives tiny Jewish fringe groups with two functionaries and a telephone number the same voting rights as powerhouses such as the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents over a million members, and the Anti-Defamation League, possibly the most prominent Jewish organization in America outside of AIPAC, both of which supported J Street’s acceptance. By keeping J Street out, the conference shot itself in the foot, eroding its claim to represent the entire Jewish community.

Moreover, by turning away J Street, the Conference of Presidents appears to be spurning the majority opinion of the American Jewish community itself. Whatever its alleged misdeeds and misdemeanors, on most issues of the day J Street is far closer to prevailing American Jewish views that most of the organizations that voted on Wednesday to keep it outside the gates. Like J Street, the clear majority of American Jews oppose settlements, support a two-state solution and endorse the administration’s efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran. And most American Jews – 69 percent to be exact – voted in favor of Barack Obama, who is fully supported by J Street but loathed by a significant portion of the so-called “Major Jewish Organizations.”

In rejecting J Street, the conference chose exclusion over inclusion, intolerance over understanding, division over agreement, a bunker mentality over open mindedness. J Street’s unequivocal rejection will be interpreted as a victory for the ascendant forces of right-wing fanaticism who are now engaged in a perpetual purge of the Jewish establishment, communal organizations, college campuses and even the Salute to Israel Parade of disloyal dissenters and deviants, in their own prejudiced eyes. They walk hand in hand with similar agents of arrogant chauvinism who are on the rise in Israel as well, as shown in the letter of support sent by none other than the chairman of Israel’s ruling coalition MK Yariv Levin to the fringe advocates for the eviction of left-wing groups from the annual New York parade.

They want to be the gatekeepers of the proverbial Jewish tent and the sole arbiters of its entry requirements. They wish to keep the pro-Israel camp holy and pure and molded in their own image. They don’t mind the fact that soon they may find themselves alone in the tent or that it is Israel real enemies – and not J Street – who are deriving the most satisfaction from a Jewish community that is starting to tear itself apart.