Israel to Draft Ultra-Religious and Arab Israelis

The debate over universal, mandatory military conscription in Israel is heating up.  It is a very important debate, which may change the character of the country quite significantly.

Israel has in place universal military conscription for its citizens, men and women, at the age of 18.  Until now, there have been a number of categories of exemptions.  Military service in Israel is of great importance.  Aside from the existential threats that Israel faces on a continual basis, the military plays an important rule in developing networking, leadership skills and employment opportunities for many of Israel's young adults, across class lines.  This is discussed at length in Start Up Nation, which I reviewed recently.  Those who do not serve in the military or some other form of national service likely face reduced employment prospects and opportunities in Israel.  Hence, the development of greater equality in Israeli society, across various lines, is hindered by the large scale exemptions, which have existed until now.

One category has been the ultra-religious ("Haredi") community.  At Israel's inception, Israel's founding government agreed to provide an exemption from military service for a limited number of ultra-religious Yeshiva (a Jewish seminary) students, who would devote all of their time to the study of Torah. There was some basis in Jewish law for the institution of this type of arrangement on a limited scale.

However, over the years, the exemption became broader and broader as the Haredi community grew and came to be viewed as a general exemption from military service for all young Haredim who attend a yeshiva.  Over time, the effects of this exemption have been dramatic and extremely harmful to Israeli society.  The exempt Haredim who choose to study full-time rather than perform national or military service have wound up with significantly limited employment opportunities.  This is not only a result of their exemption from national service but also because of the lack of a general studies curriculum in the schools at which they attend.  This combination of non-integration with Israeli society and the failure to develop employable skills has led to toxic levels of poverty in the Haredi community.  Yet Israeli governments have continued to fund this system due to the nature of Israeli coalition politics and, particularly, the fear of alienating the Ultra-Religious parties. 

Recently, Israel's High Court of Justice struck down the law exempting the Haredim and held that equality in Israel would require a completely different apporach.  A committee was formed, the Plesner Committee, to institute a replacement law and conscript the Ultra-Orthodox.  Yet the religious parties have continued to hold substantial power in Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu has been very reluctant to upset the Haredim by changing the conscription law to include the Ultra-Orthodox community.  The media has been filled with reports of extreme statements from members of the Haredi community about intended civil disobedience in the event of mandatory conscription.  On-line news channels, such as Ynet News - Op-Ed have printed guest editorials attacking the idea of forcing this change on the Haredi community.

Yet, there is nothing in the Torah, the Talmud or other Jewish sources that would exempt all observant Jews from serving in the military.  To the contrary, Jewish sources, historical and biblical, are filled with stories of military events and of the necessity of defending the people and the nation.  As the Haredi population continues to grow, its members simply must recognize that they are as responsible for national defence as any other Israelis.  They are also responsible for economic self-sustainment and these goals will intertwine. Haredi veterans of the Israeli Defence Forces are almost certainly going to be much more employable than those who are exempt.  This will benefit the Haredim and the rest of Israel.

The other broad category of exemption has been Israeli Arabs.  Israel has historically recognized an exemption for its Arab citizens due to security concerns and other related issues.  But this is also a matter that must be reexamined.

The discussion here is about Arab Israelis, that is Arabs who are citizens of Israel. These Israeli Arabs enjoy the right to vote, access to full health care, education, freedom of speech, religious freedom and all of the other aspects of a free, open, democratic country that is far ahead of its Middle Eastern neighbours by any measure in any of these areas.  There are Arab Members of Knesset (MKs - members of Israel's Parliament), Arab judges  and Arab Israelis in high level positions across the country.

To be sure, many Arab Israelis have certain grievances and concerns, many of which are legitimate.  They would like to see equality of funding for health care, education, housing and other areas.  They would like to see employment prospects improve. They would not want to be forced to fight against their cousins  or family members in Gaza or the West Bank.

These are all legitimate concerns and should be addressed as mandatory universal military or national service conscription is instituted.  But for the same reasons that apply to the Haredi community, Israeli Arabs who are citizens should face the same obligations as other citizens.  Military service will improve relations between young Israelis and young Arabs.  It will improve employment prospects and will lead to greater equality.

This week, it was Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who led the charge to institute full conscription for everyone including Haredim and Arabs. Though he has dragged Prime Minister Netanyahu towards this goal kicking and screaming, it is Lieberman who has taken a principled, equality-oriented approach, regardless of the political intentions that Lieberman may have.

The reaction from the Israeli Arab community has been as shrill and rejectionist as the reaction from the Haredi community.  According to Ynet News, One MK, Jamal Zahaka, called the attempt to force compulsory service on Arab youth a "declaration of war on the Arab sector."  MK Ahmed Tibi urged the government to talk about "equal infrastructure, education, land allocation and employment" rather than military service.  To which Netanyahu responded that this is all "solvable."  There should be little doubt that universal military or national service conscription would lead to greater equality for Israeli Arabs who would come to be viewed as partners in Israeli society (like the Druze community currently) rather than as a potential fifth column.

Since the Kadima party, now lead by Shaul Mofaz, joined the current coaltion government, there has been a sense that some changes can be made to Israeli law in a number of areas.  One of these key changes, is a more equal approach to military and national service for all Israelis.  This is something that Lieberman is pushing very hard and that Mofaz seems bound to support (with his Kadima party).  Once it is addressed properly, the government can begin to address the even trickier issues of religion and the state, the electoral system - and of revised economic priorities.  These kinds of changes will only be possible with a broad governing coaltion in which the constituent members are all willing to stand up to the pressure from minority Haredi and Arab parties and to act for the benefit of all Israelis.  We will soon see if Prime Minister Netanyahu's current government can meet that test.

Postscript (Added July 3, 2012):  Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday announced that he was dissolving the Plesner Committee - and essentially caving in to the pressure from the Ultra-Orthodox.  It is unclear what will happen as a result of the High Court's decision, which mandated a change to the Tal Law.  However, it has become clear that Netanyahu will not readily support, at this time, a universal conscription bill that would include Ultra-Orthodox and Arab recruits.  

Jamri/Jumri Party in Kiryat Eqron, Israel

I went to a different kind of party last night - a "jamri" party.  What is jamri? (or pronounced "jumri?").  It is a yemenite food, similar to a pita.  It is made differently though.  The dough is much thicker.  The pita is cooked in a pan over a wood/charcoal fire - and it is also smoked from above.  The result is a very thick pita that is quite hard on the outside but chewy on the inside.  Because of the density, people only eat a small piece of it - along with other salads, appetizers and side dishes.  But at a jamri party, the jamri is certainly the main attraction.

The first step is to prepare the fire - which can take a while.  You need lots of wood, some dry palm branches and the right type of unit for containing the fire, and preparing the jamri.  Here is a photo of a special "jamri maker," prepared for these occasions.  Getting the fire to the right stage can take an hour or more.  So if you are invited to a jamri party, don't count on eating some fresh jamri right away...unless it has been made in advance...


The next step is the cooking process.  The dough should be made in advance.  Unfortunately, I don't have the recipe to add to this blog, though I can try to get hold of it.  But the dough is placed in pans which are set on the fire.  The palm branches are used to smoke the jamri from above and harden it on the top.

 After that, the jamri cooks for a while, hardening on the outside and cooking to a chewable dough on the inside.  This can take a while, perhaps as much 20-25 minutes to get to the proper texture and consistency.

Finally it is ready - to be served with scramled eggs, zhoug (Yemenite hot sauce), tehina, salads and other side dishes.  Jamri is typically viewed as something to be served with dairy so there are no meat products at this type of event.

I was skeptical at first since the jamri was so hard on the outside and so dense.  But the inside really was quite tasty and well worth the wait.

Here is a photo of the final product - just before it is served...

There are not many places in Israel where you can eat authentic jamri.  Though this was a traditional food eaten by Yemenite Jews who arrived in Israel in the late 1940s and early 1950s, only a small number of the next generation have learned how to make it.

So a jamri party is not only an opportunity to taste a unique dish that is not very common - it is also a chance to enjoy a rare Yemenite tradition that only some Yemenite immigrants have retained and transmitted.  Other Yemenite dishes, such as Jachnoon and Melawach are much more prevelant - even sold in frozen form in supermarkets across Israel and are likely to be available for quite some time.  But jamri requires special expertise and conditions to prepare.  Its future in Israel is much less certain unless some members of the younger generation pay careful attention and learn how to prepare it.

Woman Arrested for Wearing Tallit at Kotel

 A woman was arrested yesterday at the Kotel (the Western Wall) in Jerusalem and questioned for wearing a Tallit (a prayer shawl) in the women's section of the Kotel.  According to a Jerusalem Post report, the woman was fingerprinted, photographed and detained for three hours for wearing a men's Tallit.

The incident occurred during a monthly Rosh Hodesh (New Month) prayer service organized by the group Women of the Wall, an organization in Israel dedicated to fighting for religious equality of women and in particular, the right of women to conduct a Torah service at the Kotel.

According to an Israeli law from 2001, it is illegal for women to perform practices at the Kotel that are normally performed by Orthodox men.  This is includes wearing a men's style Tallit or putting Tefillin (phylacteries) and it also includes a ban on women reading from the Torah.

As part of a "compromise" the Israeli government has allowed mixed events including mixed prayer and Torah reading at the Davidson Centre - at the south wall of the Kotel.

But the actually Western Wall is overseen by  Orthodox religious authorities.  This means that the Kotel is divided so that it has a women's section and a men's section.  Women are not allowed to bring  a Torah scroll into the women's section or to pray or sing out loud.  Effectively, in a society in which only a minority of the population are Orthodox Jews, the Israeli government has ceded control of a site that is holy to all Jews to a minority Orthodox population exclusively.

It is time that the Israeli government reviewed the way it oversees religious affairs in Israel.  Perhaps this new governing coalition (with the addition of the centrist Kadima party led by Shaul Mofaz) will try to address some of these issues.  After announcing last month that it would begin funding Conservative and Reform Rabbis (to a limited extent and with limited roles - while still not recognizing their rights to perform weddings or funerals), the time has come for the Israeli government to review the rules pertaining to the Kotel along with a range of other rules and laws relating to religious affairs in the country..

For starters, the government should implement a three section solution at the main wall instead of the current two section division  - the Kotel should have men's, women's and mixed sections;   The government should also overturn all of the laws relating to women's prayer at the Kotel - in the mixed or women's sections - whether out loud, in groups, while wearing a Tallith or Tefillin.  As a compromise, the Orthdox and ultra-Orthodox should be able to continue to control part of the Western Wall area and to conduct prayer as they see fit in that area.

Some Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox have argued that this is a holy place and that, as the most rigorous adherents of Orthodox Judaism, they should be able to oversee the Kotel and should have the right to bar practices that they view as inappropriate and otherwise dictate the site rules.  They argue that the Women of the Wall are simply being "provocative" by wearing their prayer shawls in public and that women should not be able to pray out loud anywhere near the Kotel.  But the Kotel does not and should not  belong to the Ultra-Orthodox or even the Orthodox.  It belongs to Jews of all denominations and of both genders. And all of these Jewish people should have the right to access the Kotel even without following ultra-Orthodox practices.

The public observance by the Women of the Wall of Rosh Chodesh is not something that should attract police attention, arrests or other forms of public humiliation.  Rather it is those who would prevent women from praying in public who should be monitored.  A Kotel divided into three sections would be the best way of dealing with this as it would be a compromise that all sides could complain about equally.  A pluralistic approach to Judaism at this important symbolic and holy location would be a key message for a more pluralistic approach to Judaism throughout Israel.  This would be a significant step towards improving gender equality in Israel generally.

Ra'anana Wine Festival - June 27th/28th, 2012

This picturesque location will be the scene for Ra'anana's 2nd Annual Wine Festival, which will be held on June 27th and 28th, 2012 from 6:30 to 11:00 p.m. According to organizers, the event will feature dozens of Israeli wineries as well as gourmet food vendors (offering a variety of products including olive oil, chocolate and cheese). Here is the Hebrew link for the event Ra'anana Wine Festival 2012

As with most other Israeli wine festivals, there is a set admission price (60 N.I.S. - about $16) (Only 55 N.I.S. for Ra'anana residents). You are given a wine glass which you can keep at the end of the evening. You can wander around the festival and sample wines throughout the evening. After that, you can stumble home if you live in Ra'anana or grab a bus running right along Ahuza Street.

The Israeli wine industry has been growing tremendously over the past few years. There are now close to 300 wineries in Israel producing somewhere between 58 and 60 million bottles of wine annually. Many of these wines have been recognized in international wine competitions.

I have written about a number of different Israeli wineries elsewhere on this blog - including Binyamina Binyamina Winery, Recanati Recanati Winery and Dalton Dalton and Adir Wineries - to name a few. I have also blogged about the Kosher wine festival that was held in Jerusalem in January, 2012 Jerusalem Kosher Wine Festival 2012. Israeli wines have improved greatly over recent years and production levels have increased steadily. There has also been a growth in consumer interest in Israel, sparked by a number of wine store chains that have been trying to educate the Israeli public and grow a broader "wine culture." Of course a great deal of this delicious Israeli wine is also exported.

There are many different annual wine festivals in Israel each year, some of which have been taking place for quite a number of years. The festival at the Israeli Museum in August is usually one of the highlights of the wine calendar. But Park Ra'anana is a great location for a wine festival and this will only be the 2nd year for this event. I'm sure this evening will be lots of fun and the festival will probably continue to grow in size from year to year.

Addendum:  The website "Baligam" -Baligam Coupon Site Baligm Coupon Site has added a coupon for the 2012 Ra'anana Wine Festival - but it is only available on the site until Tuesday June 26, 2012 at 7:00 a.m. (Israel Time).  The coupon is for 36 N.I.S. per person - instead of 60 N.I.S. at the door.  So if you are planning to attend, this is a worthwhile deal.

African Migrants in South-Tel-Aviv: Some Recent Issues

For Jewish people, Passover marks the beginning of a 50 day time period between two Jewish holidays. The holiday of Passover - Pesach - commemorates the exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the eventual land of Israel. 50 days later, Jews celebrate the holiday of Shavuoth, which marks the receipt of the Torah. On Shavuoth, the Torah reading that is read out loud in synagogues across the world includes the Ten Commandments. The two holidays, Shavuoth and Pesach, are linked by the idea that with freedom comes responsibility; that it is the rule of law that brings order and justice to a community.

As Jews in Israel celebrated their freedom and independence this year, marking not only the holidays of Pesach and Shavuoth but other national holidays that fall within that same 50-day time period including Israeli Independence Day (Yom Haatzmauth) and Israel's Memorial Day (Yom Hazikaron), Israelis were also forced to wrestle with the issue of freedom for a different group of people - African migrants who have made their way to Israel from Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea.

What are the legal and moral obligations of western democracies with respect to refugee claims? Are countries obligated to receive and provide shelter for all those who arrive from war-torn or famine-torn countries? If so, if that is something intended by the UN, does the U.N. and its constituent countries have any obligations to help settle, disperse or absorb these refugees and migrants? Or is it just a matter of requiring the nearest country to absorb whatever numbers arrive?

Over the past few years, Israel has seen a very large number of migrants from different African countries, particularly Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea enter the country. (Eritrea borders Sudan and Ethiopia - see map). Many of these migrants walk through Egypt on a perilous journey to make it to Israel's border, where they cross illegally and enter Israel. Along they way, they are often aided by Bedouins, some of whom provide helpful support. But many are not as lucky and face all kinds of difficulties crossing through Egypt where they can wind up being jailed, attacked or even shot to death by Egyptians including Egyptian military officials or police.

Until recently, Israel's border with Egypt was not very secure. Migrant Africans have been crossing into Israel in all different ways, other than through the official border crossing stations. The Israeli government is now in the process of building a giant wall along the border to control immigration access, primarily as a reaction to this flood of illegal immigration.

Some monitoring groups have put the estimated number of African migrants reaching Israel at 1,500 to 2,000 per month, with estimates of a total of 60,000 now living in Israel, a country with a total population of approximately 7,800,000 of whom, close to 6 million are Jewish.

Many of the African migrants have congregated in the South Tel-Aviv neighbourhood of Hatikvah. According to Israeli law, the children of the migrants are able to attend school and many have been doing so. But since the parents are not legal immigrants, they are not given ID numbers and are therefore not entitled to work in Israel legally. They are not being treated as landed immigrants - though a few hundred have been treated as such. As a result, they are currently living in slum like conditions amidst a population that is very concerned about the threats to its public safety, security and its financial capacity to provide support to this growing number of newly arrived migrant Africans. As difficult as these conditions are for the African migrants who arrive, the migrants are also aware that Israel treats them much better than any of the surrounding Middle Eastern countries, though many would prefer to make it to Italy or France.

This issue has created a great deal of discussion and controversy recently in Israel, particularly after a few highly publicized incidents of criminal conduct involving migrant Africans and at least two brutal sexual assaults. The issue has occupied many of the news headlines, the airwaves on radio talk shows and political discussions, particularly, after some highly publicized crimes.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu got the ball rolling by noting that 60,000 could soon turn into 600,000 and that could "threaten our existence as a Jewish and Democratic State." A few days later, Likud MK (Member of Knesset - the Israeli Parliament) Miri Regev called the Sudanese migrants "a cancer in our body." The Israeli Minister of the Interior Eli Yishai called for the detention and expulsion of all asylum seekers. The Attorney General, Yehudah Weinstein has asked for a court order to permit large scale deportation. So far, his request has been rejected though Israeli courts are still hearing these petitions.

Not surprisingly, some of these provocative, racially laced statements fostered an environment in which a group of 1,000 Israeli protesters turned up in the Hatikvah neighbourhood on Wednesday night May 23, 2012 to demand that the Africans be expelled. Some Sudanese and Eritreans were beaten up by some of the protesters. 17 Israeli were arrested. Protesters held viciously worded banners directed at illegal African immigrants.

This violence and hatred was roundly condemned by Prime Minister Netanyahu. But the underlying issues are quite difficult. Israel cannot be expected to absorb hundreds of thousands of migrant Africans merely because they arrived at Israel's borders. At the same time, Israel is not about to send people back to places where they face a high risk of death because of political or military-civilian strife. Even if the main issue is starvation or disastrous economic conditions, rather than political fighting, civil war, or threatened genocide, there is still a compelling case to be made that a significant number of these migrants should be allowed to stay in Israel, even if only temporarily, until the African strife is resolved.

After all, many Israels know their history well and know that no country wanted to accept Jewish refugees who were trying to flee Europe in search of safety. Many Israelis feel that it is incumbent on Jewish people to demonstrate that they can address this type of issue more appropriately. Some other Israelis have responded by arguing that the current wave of migrant Africans are economic refugees who are seeking a better life - and that this is a very different category from people fleeing genocide. Moreover, they argue the UN and other international agencies, bodies and states must share this challenge and find a way to resettle these African migrants if they cannot be repatriated.

Israeli courts are hearing and adjudicating applications to deport or expel large numbers of these migrants. Some Knesset members have been calling for the full and immediate expulsion of all illegal migrants. But the source countries each present their own difficulties. Whether it is extremely dangerous conditions (as in the case of Eritrea) or countries that do not have diplomatic relationships with Israel (Sudan), it is simply not feasible to expect that Israel will
be able to carry out that type of mass repatriation (or expulsion).

Moreover, even if Israel could expel all of these migrants, there are a growing number of voices calling for Israel to find a way to absorb at least a significant number.

The additional goal with which Israel must contend is to ensure that Israel, as a Jewish state, continues to serve as a homeland, a haven and a place of refuge for Jewish people from around the world. Israel has absorbed Jewish refugees, in large numbers from Ethiopia, Yemen, the former Soviet Republic and other places. Israel has also absorbed and sheltered non-Jewish refugees from countries including Cambodia and others. But demographically, culturally and religiously, Israel is not in a position to grant hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish migrants landed immigrant status.

So how does Israeli reconcile the "freedom" for the people of Israel with the freedom sought by the African migrants? This has not yet been answered. There have been many different ideas thrown about, including the idea of running large refugee type camps in southern Israel or caravan housing communities until the problems in African blow over somewhat - but that could be generations and could require enormous financial contributions on Israel's part; or simply absorbing and dispersing a certain number of migrants throughout the country rather than see them concentrated in one area. The key challenge will be to absorb at least a certain number in a way that allows them to get decent education, housing and healthcare and to truly become Israelis, while cognizant of the "mission statement" of the country of Israel to serve as a homeland for the Jewish people. And even significant absorption would still means tens of thousands of African migrants who Israel will not be able to absorb. The other countries of the world will have to assist with creative solutions to help the fleeing people of Africa. Even though Israel is closer to Africa than most European countries, it is a very small country and cannot be expected to address a disproportionately large share of this challenging problem.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the world and the African countries will tackle the real problem and will find a way to improve the situation in Africa and reduce or eliminate the need for so many people to flee.

Peter Beinart: The Crisis of Zionism - A Review

After reading and reviewing the wonderfully optimistic book Start-Up Nation, I decided to "balance" it by reading Peter Beinart's The Crisis of Zionism. Beinart is a self-described liberal Zionist with a serious interest in Judaism and in the future of Israel. His book is an attack on Israeli policies with respect to the disputed territories and a call for action in the form of a boycott of West Bank products. Unlike other members of the anti-Israel left, Beinart calls for those boycotting West Bank products to make an equally vigorous effort to buy products and patronize companies from within Israel's "green line." This, he proposes, is intended to offset the idea that boycotting the West Bank is "anti-Israel."

Beinart's book is well written and interesting but ultimately, somewhat flawed. His view of Israel's role in its ongoing dispute with the Palestinians is either naive or willfully blind in that he seems to place the blame for just about everything squarely on Israel's shoulders. There is little discussion in the book of Palestinian extremism, nor is there any real discussion of a legitimate compromise proposal for ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Moreover, throughout the book, Palestinian acts of terrorism are minimized or downplayed. Beinart even finds a way to blame the failure of Camp David and the subsequent 2nd Intifada on Israel, even though he concedes that Arafat does not even appear to have made a genuine counter-proposal in response to the huge concessions that were proposed by the Israelis. Nevertheless, Beinart's focus on the urgent need to reach a peace deal with a two state solution is intended to benefit Palestinians and Israelis and is laudable.

His chapter entitled "The Crisis in Israel," focuses on the discrepancy between Israeli democracy and equality of rights within the "green line" area and the current situation in the disputed territories. There is nothing new here about the idea that Israel is facing an increasingly difficult challenge in trying to reconcile the idea of a "Jewish State" with the goal of a liberal, democratic State, while trying to find a way to resolve the issue of the territories. The current status quo threatens not only the lives and living conditions of the Palestinians but also threatens Israel's condition as a viable liberal democracy. It is hard to disagree with this part of Beinart's analysis and many Israelis, on the left and in the centre of the Israeli political landscape would agree.

Beinart then switches over to the United States, where he paints a grim picture of American Jewry. Characterizing the vast majority of Jews as liberal democrats, Beinart rails against "America's major Jewish organizations" as having lurched to the right. A particular focus of his attacks is Abe Foxman, National Director of the ADL, who is "beholden to no one but the philanthropic dollar." Beinart attacks the ADL and the AJC (American Jewish Committee) for supporting the policies of the Israeli government and for failing to "challenge the occupation." He even manages to defend former President Jimmy Carter, despite the overwhelming evidence that Allan Dershowitz has put forward with respect to Carter's ill-will towards Israel.

In a chapter entitled "Is the Occupation Israel's Fault?," Beinart minimizes the security threat to Israel that an immediate withdrawal from the territories would entail by arguing that Israel is already within rocket range of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. He suggests that Israel should rely on its "credible deterrent." Of course, this is not been a great success with respect to Gaza from which Israel has faced numerous rocket attacks after withdrawing its forces. Beinart then runs through the peace deals offered by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and concludes that these offers were rightly rejected by the Palestinians as insufficient, even though, he concedes, "there is a dispute about whether Arafat made any offer at all." While there were (and still are) clearly disputed issues, including the future of Jerusalem (in particular the Temple Mount), the issue of Palestinian refugees and the exact nature of the land swap envisioned, Beinart seems to suggest that Israel should have fully conceded its position on each of these issues. Moreover, despite the fact that the issue of "land swaps" was supposedly negotiated down to a difference of 4% of the total area of the West Bank (the Israelis proposing to keep 6% and the Palestinians proposing 2%), Beinart also lays the blame for this failure on the Israeli side. From Beinart's viewpoint, the dispute comes down to the disputed West Bank city of Ariel, which Israel refused to agree to dismantle.

Beinart goes on to describe subsequent events when former President Bill Clinton outlined parameters that "went well beyond Barak's proposal at Camp David": "Arafat accepted the Clinton parameters in principle, but then offered reservations that rendered his acceptance virtually meaningless." Beinart paints former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza as part of a "hidden agenda" to allow Israel to continue to hold the rest of the West Bank. By way of contrast, on the Palestinian side, even Hamas gets off lightly. Its charter, calling for Israel's destruction is downplayed and Beinart justifies Hamas' decision to fire missiles into Israel. Again, he concedes that "Hamas had been killing Israelis since the 1990s," but somehow makes the case that if Israel had just lifted its blockade against Hamas and ceased any attacks (including retaliatory attacks), everything would have been wonderful and the Hamas rocket attacks would have ceased. None of this is intended, on my part, to argue that the situation in Gaza is very good. However, I think it is fair to say that if the Palestinian leadership took a different tactic following Israel's unilateral withdrawal, there could have been significant economic cooperation between Israel and Gaza that would have greatly improved the situation for Gaza's Palestinians. Instead, Gaza's leadership focused on amassing weapons, firing rockets and public relations exercises instead of working towards an arrangement with Israel that would have ameliorated conditions for Gazans.

In a chapter entitled "the Jewish President," Beinart reviews President Obama's credentials as a liberal, philo-Semitic president, whose own daughters attended a Solomon Schecter Day School in the Chicago era. Describing Obama as having been influenced by the late influential Conservative Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (who marched with Martin Luther King Jr.), Beinart also describes the connection between Rabbi Arnold Wolf of Chicago's Temple Solel, who was one of Obama's "earliest and most prominent supporters." Overall, Beinart describes Obama as sharing a liberal Zionist view of Israel with a range of influential Jewish friends. According to Beinart's description, this would include pressuring Israel to make concessions with respect to the occupied territories, but in the name of preserving a liberal Zionist vision of Israel rather than as a way of attacking Israel.

As much as Obama is described in the book as a supporter of everything that is good about Israel, Netanyahu is no doubt, in Beinart's view, the devil incarnate. Describing Netanyahu as an heir to the chauvinistic Jabotinsky school of right wing Zionism, Beinart traces Netanyahu's political lineage from Jabotinsky to Benzion Netanyahu (Prime Minister Netanyahu's late father) to Netanyahu himself. Along the way, he suggests that Netanyahu is a racist, advocates a policy of physically transferring Palestinians out of Israel and the West Bank, and sprinkles in selective quotes from Netanyahu's 1993 book, A Place Among Nations, and its 2000 reprint, A Durable Peace. Overall he describes Netanyahu as a monist Zionist, who "subordinates external moral considerations to Zionism itself." He also reviews Netanyahu's close connections with AIPAC and wonders about the source of Netanyahu's electoral campaign funding. While Beinart may ultimately be accurate in his description of Netanyahu's reluctance to agree to the type of peace deal that Netanyahu's predecessors were being pressured to sign (if only the Palestinians would have also agreed), Beinart omits the massive swing in Israeli popular sentiment that followed the collapse of the peace talks and the onset of a new wave of violence. In a sense, Beinart's book advocates boycotting Netanyahu as much as any given policy. Ultimately, with the recent change to Netanyahu's coalition to now include the Kadima party, it remains to be seen whether there is any accuracy to Beinart's description.

Beinart's antipathy towards Netanyahu comes through even more clearly as Beinart describes the public clashes between President Obama and Netanyahu. Noting that Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote in the 2008 Presidential election, Beinart argues that he and many others were hopeful that Obama could lead a shift in U.S. policy to bolster the liberal Zionist vision of Israel that they shared and bring about an end to the Israeli occupation of the territories. But Beinart goes on to describe a series of confrontations between Obama and Netanyahu and concludes that Obama was completely "humbled" as a result of pressure from AIPAC and other powerful, sometimes unnamed, Jewish and fundamentalist Christian sources. Ultimately, Obama was forced, as Beinart describes it, to back down from insisting on a complete settlement freeze and was publicly embarrassed and humiliated in the process. Of course, another possibility is that Obama began to rethink some of his policies with respect to Israel but that wouldn't fit too well with Beinart's thesis.

Beinart's chapter on the future of American Jewry hits closer to home since his description is also somewhat applicable to Canadian Jewry - and even Israeli Jewry. Jewish families who send their children to Jewish day schools are the ones who are continuing to carry on Jewish traditions and minimize the likelihood of intermarriage and assimilation. These families, especially in the United States, but in other areas as well are predominantly Orthodox. This means, in Beinart's view, that the number of actively involved, liberal, non-Orthodox Jews is steadily declining, relative to the overall population of committed Jews. Since these liberal Jews are the people who would share Beinart's view of a liberal Israel, their influence is steadily waning in the Jewish community. I have to note that this is also the case in Israel, which provides full state support for Orthodox schools but does not have a sufficient number of liberal, Jewish schools in which children can learn about and practice liberal Judaism. For Beinart, the net result is a prediction that the major American Jewish organizations will come to be dominated increasingly by Orthodox Jews with an illiberal agenda. This type of change is also occurring in Israel and has led to many different challenges pitting Orthodox Jews against others who advocate an egalitarian, democratic agenda. The ultimate result, if Israel does not save itself now, according to Beinart, would be a lurch towards a non-liberal version of Jewish Zionism at the expense of the liberal Zionist vision that many of the founders of Israel originally shared, and which included principles of democracy and equality for all Israeli citizens.

Beinart's solution to all of this is to propose a modified version of the "Boycott, Divest from and Sanction" ("BDS") campaign. He calls for people to refer to Israel as being divided into two parts - "democratic Israel" and "non-democratic Israel." He also calls for a boycott of settlers and their products while tempering that with an "equally vigorous embrace of the people and products of democratic Israel." He proposes that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights not be included in the definition of "non-democratic Israel" since the Palestinians in those areas can actually obtain full Israeli citizenship.

If the only existential issue that Israel faced was dealing with the territories, Beinart's analysis might make some sense. But he dramatically minimizes that true existential threats to Israel. He barely mentions the 2006 war with Lebanon, the Iranian nuclear threat, the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the other threats that Israel faces. In short, he has a very rosy picture of how Israel might defend itself from attacks that would emanate from very close range following a full withdrawal from the territories. Moreover, given the fact that he has shifted the blame for the failure to reach a peace deal to Israel, almost entirely, he implicitly absolves the world from the need to pressure the Palestinians equally.

With the two sides, according to Beinart, having come as close to a deal as he describes, one would think that it would make sense to pressure both sides. For example, it seems quite unrealistic to expect that Israel will accept a "right to return" for the Palestinian refugees. Most Jews living in surrounding Arab countries left or were expelled following the establishment of Israel. Moreover, one state was designated as a Jewish state and the other as a Palestinian state. Sure, the Palestinian state should be entitled to offer an unlimited right of return for Palestinians from anywhere in the world who wish to return to the area and live in the Palestinian state. But to this point, even as Beinart describes it, the Palestinians appear to be demanding the right to have refugees return to and live in Israel, while having a Palestinian state that is virtually, if not completely, free of Jews.

Many in Israel, on the left and even the centre of the political spectrum will agree with Beinart's overriding thesis that Israel cannot continue as a liberal democratic country without reaching a peace deal with the Palestinians. And many would like to see that deal concluded as soon as possible and believe that Israel should be willing to make significant concessions to reach a deal. Yet many in Israel, even those on the centre and the left, have real concerns, based on experience from the last go-round, that the Palestinians are not prepared or are not politically able to make corresponding concessions that will be required to reach a deal. The central flaw of Beinart's book is that he downplays this possibility and places virtually all of the blame on Israel, which allows him to advocate joining the BDS crowd, with a modifying twist. A more balanced recount of historical events might have led Beinart to advocate pressuring (or boycotting) both sides in an effort to reach a lasting deal.

Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle

Many of the readers of this blog may have already read Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle,” since it was released in 2009. By I only had the chance to read it recently, and I thought I would add some short comments to my blog.

Written by Dan Senor and Saul Singer, Start-Up Nation is an essay-style book about the factors that have led to Israeli success, primarily in the high tech area. It is a fairly quick read, filled with interesting facts and information. The authors interviewed quite a number of people in putting together their report-style work, including Israeli business leaders, entrepreneurs, politicians and others.

Senor and Singer run through some of the aspects of Israeli society that have contributed to Israel’s unique success in some high tech areas. They highlight the mandatory military service that all Israelis are required to perform and write extensively about the positive benefits of that service. In particular, they highlight Israeli military culture, which is much “flatter” and less hierarchical than most other militaries. According to Senor and Singer, Israeli recruits and serving members of the armed forces have a great deal of independence and autonomy. They are encouraged to question their superiors and make crucial decisions themselves. Unlike the U.S. slogan of “salute the rank, not the person,” Israeli soldiers are taught to pay more attention to the decisions the person is making. This culture of individual responsibility and questioning of authority continues after military service into workplaces across the country. A CEO might face abrupt questioning from a very junior employee and that is viewed as very helpful for corporate development.

The authors also discuss a number of other factors including the impact of massive immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union and from Ethiopia; the adaptation of technology from the military to the private sector in so many areas; the participation by the government and government-related organizations in funding start-up business; a sea change in the way the Israeli government has regulated economic policy in Israel since the mid ‘90s; and a general cultural idea that it is okay to fail in business – the first time or even the first few times.

Along the way, a fascinating history of Israel’s economic development is presented. This is not an all-encompassing look at the history of Israel nor is it a political essay. The authors briefly touch on the need to address issues involving Israeli-Palestinian tensions, secular-religious tensions and other issues that might threaten the continued success of Israel’s economy. But above all, this is an optimistic and fascinating look at the massive growth of the Israeli economy – with an effort to suggest how some other countries might emulate some of Israel’s key strategies.

Jerusalem Day 2012 - In Jerusalem and Ra'anana

April and May are filled with various holidays and days of commemoration in Israel. Yesterday, Israel celebrated Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), marking the 45th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.

In many ways, Jerusalem is really the heart and centre of Israel and of the Zionist enterprise. The historical link of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is visible for all to see at the archaeological ruins at the heart of the Old City of Jerusalem. The epicentre of the story is the tunnels that have been excavated next to the Kotel (the Western Wall) where visitors can travel underground through history to see the multiple layers that have been built and rebuilt on the site where the two great temples once stood and the surrounding plaza area.

Today, the Dome of the Rock, the large golden domed mosque, which was built in 691 CE, some 620 years after the destruction of the second Temple, sits on exactly the spot where the Temple once stood. It is little wonder then that the Old City of Jerusalem is so hotly contested.

According the original U.N. partition plan in 1947, Jerusalem was to be an "International City" with full access to all to the religious sites that are holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians. During Israel's Independence War in 1948, Jordan gained control of much of Jerusalem and the Old City in particular, including the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and other sites that are holy to three of the world's major religions. Israel held the western half of Jerusalem, where the Israeli parliament (the "Knesset") was established. Jerusalem was named the capital of Israel though, to this day, only a few countries have recognized it as such. Most others have insisted in putting their embassies and consulates in Tel-Aviv.

Between 1948 and 1967, Jews were denied access to Jerusalem's Old City. Many of the religious sites were destroyed and desecrated. Ruins were removed. The city was divided with part held by Jordan and the other part held by Israel.

In June 1967, during the six-day war, Israel took control of the Old City of Jerusalem. The Israeli government later declared that it had annexed Jerusalem, reunited it and “liberated” the City. Jerusalem's holy sites are now open and accessible to all. The Dome of the Rock is managed by Muslim religious authorities and is fully accessible to Muslims. Similarly the Christian religious sites are open and accessible to all. Since 1967, Israel has excavated, restored and rebuilt much of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Old synagogues have been reopened. The plaza area of the Kotel has been expanded and is clearly the religious heart of the country. Jews from all over Israel (and all over the world) visit the Kotel for holiday celebrations, bar mitzvahs and, in the case of tourists, as one of the most important highlights of a trip to Israel.

Jerusalem is also at the centre of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides lay claims to the very same piece of land on which the Dome of the Rock now stands and on which two Temples once stood. The Old City of Jerusalem and East Jerusalem have significant Arab populations and the Palestinians would like to make Jerusalem the capital of their eventual state. While some Israeli negotiators have been willing to make some concessions with respect to Jerusalem, none of these concessions were viewed as sufficient by the Palestinians. The Bill Clinton brokered peace talks apparently collapsed over this very issue. Now the political climate in Israel has shifted somewhat and there is little appetite for any deal that might give up control over East Jerusalem and certainly not the walled Old City, which includes Judaism’s holiest site.

It might be fair to say that Jerusalem Day is marked most fervently by Orthodox Jews and in particular by those on the right of political spectrum. Yesterday, for example, a group of observant Jews went to conduct prayer services on the grounds of the Dome of the Rock, since this was the exact spot on which the Temple once stood. Though this is somewhat provocative, it is a site that is holy to different groups and ought to be accessible as such.

Jerusalem celebrations took place across the country. Here in Ra’anana, at the centre of the city, Yad L’Banim, a communal sing-a-long was organized where participants were invited to join in singing songs about Jerusalem.

I decided to wander over to the festivities which were about ten minutes walking distance from my place. The evening featured well known counter-tenor David D’Or along with a group of symphony musicians. It also featured a group of singers known as “Kolot Min Hashamayim” – “Voices from the Heavens” from the Melachim School. The Mayor of Ra’anana, Nahum Hofri, was invited to the stage and led the singing of one of Israel’s most iconic songs, Yerushalayim Shel Zahav (“Jerusalem of Gold”).

But after watching the performances for a little while, I couldn’t help but notice that there were no women singers. Kolot Min Hashamayim is a religious choir which uses prepubescent boys to sing the female parts. I was standing and listening to some well- known pieces of music that feature some wonderful female vocal parts which were all being sung by young boys. While this is common in Orthodox Synagogues, singing liturgical pieces, it has certainly never been a major part of public Israeli national celebrations. In fact, one of the great things that Israel has produced has been music, sung by men and women together. Here, from looking at the program, there were no "mixed" performances scheduled and no women vocalists. Standing and watching these performances, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of "Sharia creep" – the idea that the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox were expanding their influence beyond synagogues to include public celebrations. As I have written in other blogs, the issue of public performances by female vocalists has been attracting a great deal of attention as ultra-orthodox groups have been trying to limit or eliminate these performances. Feeling that I was participating in something that was edging closer to Iran, I couldn’t help but leave before the evening ended.

Is there a tie in between the fervent celebration of Jerusalem Day and the issue of Sharia creep, barring women from singing publicly? Perhaps not, though it is probably fair to say that those on the political and religious left are much less inclined to celebrate Jerusalem Day as fervently. For many on that end of the spectrum, Jerusalem Day is a reminder that there is a still a great deal of unfinished business – that the need to reach a peace deal or an arrangement with the Palestinians is urgent and that Jerusalem is still at the heart of the dispute. Even so, there is probably still a broad national consensus supporting the current Israeli political position that the Old City of Jerusalem can never again be divided, which is at least some cause for commemoration and celebration by all those who support that view.

Lag B'Omer in Israel: National "Bonfire Day"

For Israeli kids, Lag B'Omer is one of the most exciting holidays of the year. It takes place on the 18th day of the Hebrew month of Iyar. This year, that was the 10th of May, 2012. The holiday marks the anniversary of the death of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a great Mishnah-era rabbi. There are many religious aspects to the celebration of the holiday, primarily observed by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthdox communities. For example, many Orthodox families only cut their son's hair for the first time when he turns 3 years of age - at the first Lag B'Omer after the third birthday.

For most other Israelis, the holiday is bonfire day. People across Israel celebrate the holiday after sundown the previous evening by getting together and lighting huge bonfires. If you were to fly over Israel at 9 or 10 p.m., or even 12:00 a.m. on Lag B'Omer, it would probably look like the country had been attacked. Huge fires everywhere and billows of smoke.

Israelis gather around these bonfires and roast marshmallows, sing songs and enjoy barbecued food while making the bonfire as big as possible. From just after Pesach (Passover), you can see young kids walking along streets and sidewalks pulling wagon loads of wood that they have found to store and prepare for the big day.

The remarkable thing, in typically Israeli style, is the emphasis on independence and relatively minimal supevision for teens as young as 13. Often, groups of kids, 13-18, gather together for bonfires and barbecues without any adults or adult supervision. It seems incredible that some of these fires don't get completely out of hand but children in Israel are often given a great deal of independence and responsibility from an early age.

Many of the older kids stay out all night and Lag B'Omer is a school holiday. For parents, particularly parents of teenagers, it can be stressful worrying about the safety of some of these bonfires. Is your child going to be the foolish one who tries to show everyone that he or she can jump through the bonfire, unscathed? (Don't think I'm making that up...) But for the kids, Lag B'Omer really is a highlight of the year. Most are well behaved and there are relatively few incidents reported each year. Israeli culture has taken a holiday that was religious in origin and turned it, largely, into a secular fire festival, accessible to and celebrated by Israelis across the spectrum from the religious and ultra-religious to the avowedly secular and atheist.

Shirat Machar Musical Group Releases New CD

Shirat Machar ("Tomorrow's song") held a CD launch concert last night at Beit Barbur in Tel-Aviv. The concert was attended by several hundred people and was a great musical success.

Shirat Machar is an Israeli vocal group, something like a Glee-type show choir, but with much less extravagant production. The group is comprised of teenagers from all over Israel who are part of the Noam youth movement. The executive producer of the group is Dror Alexander, a well known Israeli musical producer who has produced Dudu Fisher's performances and has been involved in major broadway productions that have been staged in Israel.

Potential members audition for the group each year as the older members graduate high school and begin compulsory military service. This year, Shirat Machar was made up of 11 young men and women, all in high school from grades 9 to 12. Led by Amishar Frutkoff, the group practised weekly (and sometimes more often) to prepare for a number of different performances that it held during the year and to record Shirat Machar's 4th CD. Group members travelled from different places to attend practice sessions in Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv or, sometimes, at members' homes in different locations.

As part of Noam (Israel's Conservative Jewish youth movement), Shirat Machar members are all involved in Noam, whether as counselors, educational staff, camp staff or coordinators. Somewhat of a blend between Scouts and USY (United Synagogue Youth - the North American Conservative Jewish youth movement), Noam runs weekly programs all over Israel. It also organizes a number of annual trips ("tiyulim") which can include desert or mountain hikes, camping, and water activities. The highlight of its calendar is a summer camp program that runs annually in July. Noam's events always include educational activities and egalitarian religious (Conservative) services. Noam emphasizes egalitarianism, Jewish heritage and tradition, Zionism, and, most importantly - "tikkun olam" - making the world a better place. This can mean becoming involved in community activities, social welfare projects or other programs that allow Noam members to help others and to build a better world.

Shirat Machar was established four years ago to be the musical ambassador of Noam. It performs at most major nationwide NOAM events and has also performed in the United States and at the annual national Masorti movement assembly in Israel. This year, Shirat Machar performed at a dinner at the latter event, which was attended by Israeli President Shimon Peres. As President Peres began his speech, just after a Noam musical number, he commented about how proud he was to see young women and men singing together in this type of group after recent media reports of attempts by ultra-orthodox Jews to prevent women from singing in public.

Shirat Machar's new CD is entitled "B'Shir v'Kol Todah" - "In Song and in Voice - Thank You." The CD includes 11 tracks. Some are versions of liturgical music - Zamru, Ivdu et Hashem. Other tracks include meddlies of songs by well known Israel singers Shlomo Artzi and Eyal Golan. The CD also includes the Noam theme song.

Like any organization, Shirat Machar is not without its challenges. The group has been funded by Noam and by the Masorti movement in Israel. Masorti Israel has been facing significant financial challenges and as a result, it has had to cut some programs. At this point, the Masorti movement has announced that it will not be able to continue funding Shirat Machar, which could mean that this would be its final year.

The annual funding required is approximately $18,000 (Canadian - or U.S. -the difference is minimal these days...). While members each pay an annual fee, the $18,000 has historically been provided by the Masorti movement and Israel. At this point, Shira Machar is looking for sources (or even just one source) for funding for the coming year (2012-13). Interested sponsors in Canada can donate money to the Centre for Masorti Judaism http://masorti.ca/donate.html and can earrmark the money for Shirat Machar. Sponsors from the United States can do that same at http://www.masorti.org/donate Full tax receipts are provided by both sites.

While my blog is generally not a fund raising vehicle - and in fact - it currently does not include any advertisements - it seems to me that this is a very important project with a relatively modest funding request. Music is such an important part of Jewish tradition. Getting young people involved musically is often a path to continued and increase involvement in a range of areas. With Shirat Machar's emphasis on music and on Noam values, the members of Shirat Machar are ambassadors of the Conservative movement in Israel and worldwide. The group touches Noam members throughout Israel who see and hear them perform and it also helps further the values of egalitarianism, Judaism and tikkun olam.

Please pass this along to anyone you know who might be in a position to make a contribution or who might have a suggeston. Shirat Machar is a non-profit choir. We hope that its name, "Tomorrow's Song" will ring true and that Shirat Machar will continue in the coming years.

For more information or to see pictures and video clips, please visit the web page... https://www.facebook.com/ShiratMachar

Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism by Salim Mansur - Review

Is multiculturalism in a liberal democratic country a flawed policy? Salim Mansur makes that argument in his recent book Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism. The book is thought provoking and contains a considered review of the works of many different writers and thinkers in a broad range of disciplines, including, primarily, philosophers and political scientists. Ultimately, however, the attack fails unless you accept Mansur’s definition of multiculturalism. Otherwise, Mansur’s book can be read as sounding the warning bell about a number of different issues that justifiably need to be addressed. But if the reader does not accept Mansur’s initial all-encompassing definition of multiculturalism, the rest of Mansur’s argument falls short.

Mansur begins with a definition of multiculturalism as the idea that “all cultures are equal and deserving of equal treatment in a liberal democracy.” With this definition, he asserts that multicultural societies, by definition, accept that any practice, by any cultural group, should be protected and promoted. He further claims that multiculturalism “assaults liberal democracy” by recognizing group identity and by causing the country to adapt to the requirements and values of other cultural groups. If this is what multiculturalism really meant, then perhaps Mansur might be right. But I do not believe that most inhabitants of multicultural countries really believe that this is a correct summary of a multicultural mission statement.

Mansur’s primary argument is that individual freedom is the primary hallmark of a truly free society and that any imposition of equality rights cuts into true “freedom.” Perhaps tellingly, he starts with the idea that “all men are created equal.” So who is really free under that vision of freedom? Men only? White men only? Struggling to get around this problem, he posits a “correction” to this liberal theory and notes that both the emancipation of women and the elimination of slavery and black/white discrimination were “corrections” to the principle of liberty that was defined originally but had otherwise fallen somewhat short.

In providing a list of truly free countries in the world today, Mansur includes the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, countries of Western Europe and Israel. What makes these countries so free? On the one hand, Mansur is correct that they value fundamental freedoms including freedom of speech, religion, a free judiciary and other freedoms. On the other hand, these countries also aim to protect and promote equality, including equality of opportunity, regardless of skin colour, gender, religious or cultural heritage, background or other characteristics. In some ways, it can be argued that these countries are truly “free” because they are multicultural. Anyone, regardless of his or her religious or cultural background, gender, colour or other personal characteristics, whether shared with a group or not, can participate equally in a truly free society.

Interestingly, Mansur includes a quote from the late former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau citing one of the purposes of multiculturalism:

“to assist members of all cultural groups to overcame barriers to full participation in Canadian society”

This does not really seem that objectionable. Yet Mansur argues that the recognition of the importance of any group or collective rights is “flawed.” Does that mean that all minority religious practices should be banned? Mansur does not propose this, though it might be the logical conclusion to his line of argument.

As the book develops, Mansur turns his attention to those who would take advantage of multiculturalism and use it to destroy a multicultural society. He argues that “host countries in the West readily provide welfare to those, such as radical Muslim priests and Islamists who brazenly ridicule and preach hatred for liberal democracy and the culture of freedom that separates the West from the cultures of the East and, in particular, the world of Islam.” This is certainly an issue that all of the “free” countries listed by Mansur must grapple with, especially those with significant immigrant populations. However, it is not answered by the idea that free countries should simply eliminate their tolerance of different minority practices. Countries like Canada can and do draw lines, even where the placement of the line is contentious.

Mansur discusses the paramount nature of free speech in a democratic country with references to various writers from Mills to Rawls. In discussing some of the threats to free speech and the abuses of it, Mansur writes about the “insidious threats” that freedom of speech faces. Specifically he refers to the 2007 U.N. resolution to combat the “defamation of religion” and prohibit “blasphemy.” Or the Danish cartoon incidents. Or the fatwas over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. He also cites the trial of Geert Wilder for his documentary Fitna, the human rights commissions’ battles involving Ezra Levant and the use of human rights legislation and mechanisms by the Canadian Islamic Congress to attack Mark Steyn’s writing.

These are all frightening examples of the use of free speech or limitations on free speech by those who would limit many other freedoms. But this is not a general problem of multiculturalism, which strives to accept a range of diverse cultural practices within a liberal democracy. These are extreme threats. To fight these threats does not mean that countries must abandon multiculturalism.

Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have issued decisions in a number of areas that support multiculturalism. To name a few, Canadian courts have permitted observant Jews to put up Sukkoth (temporary huts) during the festival of Sukkoth in condominium units that prohibit balcony structures; they have permitted Sikhs to wear turbans as police officers; they have upheld the right of seventh day Adventists and other Sabbath observers not to work on their Sabbath. There are many other examples. All of these decisions would likely be viewed by Mansur as promoting and supporting multiculturalism. Yet, they are aimed at ensuring that Canadians from different backgrounds can participate fully in society. There is nothing “insidious” about that.

Mansur’s real target is fundamentalist Islam, not multiculturalism, though he disguises it. He attacks the “root cause” apologists for 9/11 such as Noam Chomsky and Linda McQuaig, who he argues “shift responsibility for the Islamist terrorists to the socio-economics of capitalist-imperialism.” He cites Muslim authors who call for Jihad and rail against certain western values like gender equality. He attacks Sharia law and the possibility of any western countries incorporating components of Sharia law into their systems and the dangers that might present. “Espousing acceptance of other cultures, irrespective of how such acceptance diminishes liberal democracy’s unique set of values” will destroy liberal democracies, he argues. Mansur is certainly correct that many tenets of Islam, as he describes it, such as gender inequality, Jihad, and discriminatory treatment of non-Muslims clash with liberal democratic values. But that does not lead to the conclusion that free countries should simply become intolerant of Muslims or of all Muslim practices.

Along the way, Mansur denounces dual citizens, liberal academics who blame the west for the state of the less developed non-European countries and any restrictions on free speech. But he backtracks slightly at the end of his book, arguing that there is no basis for ethnocentric prejudice by the majority population and no need to reject the cultural norms of their minorities. However, if any such practices collide with the core values of a liberal democracy then that aspect needs to be reformed or rejected accordingly. Mansur does not explain what he would do about the practices or beliefs of the Catholic Church, many Christian fundamentalist groups or others who would not accept his self-defined “core values of a liberal democracy.”

Ultimately, while Mansur demonstrates convincingly that free countries must carefully consider where they draw the line over which cultural practices to accept and which to prohibit, he fails to prove that countries should simply adopt intolerance of multiculturalism as the only appropriate means of remaining free.

Unorthodox by Deborah Feldman - A Review

I had the chance to read Unorthodox by Deborah Feldman recently. This autobiographical memoir tells the story of a woman growing up in the ultra-orthodox Satmar Chassidic community in Williamsburg, New York and her eventual escape from that community.

Feldman's book is a fairly quick read. The prose is fairly simple and at times choppy. It is written in a first person, present tense style, so that events that occurred many years ago are described as though they are current events.

On hearing about the book, I was quite interested to read it. I came away with a bit more of a mixed feeling.

On the one hand, I was quite moved by Feldman's vivid description of the oppressive nature of Satmar society, particularly with respect to women. The book is filled with incidents throughout Feldman's childhood that demonstrate the ways in which women and their aspirations are suppressed. From a very young age, it is only boys that are introduced to and taught to learn from high level Jewish religious texts. Through the use of Tzniut ("modesty") rules, girls are kept covered up and hidden away. Even their voices are not to be heard in public. Decisions are made for them throughout their lives. Feldman describes how she was transferred from the rules of her grandfather (she was living with her grandparents) to a husband who was selected for her and to a hope that her new husband would not be too "strict."

There is a description of a Simchat Torah celebration that I felt was particularly poignant. All of the women are up in the balcony waiting to watch, through a small slat, as the Satmar Rebbe enters the synagogue and dances the Torah. The women are confined to the role of outsiders and do not really participate in the celebration other than as spectators. Sadly, this is not only case in Satmar communities but applies to most other Orthodox religious institutions. In fact, a friend of mine was telling me about her celebration of Simchat Torah a couple of years ago in an Orthodox shul and she described it in a very similar way.

Feldman also devotes much of her book to her feelings of being an outsider. Inspired by the writings of authors such as Roald Dahl, in particular his book Matilda, as well as a range of other books, Feldman describes her resistance to accepting everything that she was being taught. I could really relate to this theme of the book, as Feldman, the self-described trouble maker, rails against abuses of authority, whether by teachers, or other authority figures. She applies this not only to questioning the gender discrimination aspects of Satmar society that are mandated, but other rules and issues and even the very existence of God, or at least the nature of God and the truth of many of the rules that have been instilled as God given law. This is very rebellious for a girl in an ultra-religious school.

A great deal of time is also spent discussing sexuality. Feldman describes the suppressive rules that are maintained throughout adolesence and then she provides a very detailed account of very personal experiences including her first time in the Mikvah (ritual bath), her wedding night and her own experiences with her husband. I began to wonder whether there was too much information here and how difficult it must be for her ex-husband to see so much written about his intimate life with his former wife published in this type of book.

There is an unpolished, at times juvenile feel to the book, written by an author who is not yet 25, presenting an autobiography. The book, as one might expect, has generated a great deal of controversy. Some have asserted that chunks of the book are fabricated or fictitious. Someone has even created a website dedicated to attacking parts of the book (http://deborah-feldman-exposed.blogspot.com/). Feldman's introductory remarks do not dispel concerns a reader might have that the events in the book may not have occurred. A sense of credibility and authenticity slowly melts away as the book progresses. Towards the end of the book Feldman describes herself, now having taken up smoking, sitting in a non-Kosher restaurant and eating all of the foods that were previously forbidden to her by the rules of Kashrut. Yes, she has fully rebelled, but I couldn't help but feel a certain lack of credibility or feel that a humility of purpose had been compromised by the end of the book. As a result, the later parts of the book resonated less with me and caused me to wonder about some of the earlier parts.

Overall, however, I think the theme of the suppression of women that Feldman describes is genuine, whether or not every aspect of the book is factual. Israel has been wrestling with this issue in its ultra-orthodox communities as I have described in a number of other blog articles. Gender discrimination is an issue that even squarely challenges mainstream Orthdox Judaism, a religion that continues to insist on gender-based rules while most other aspects of liberal democratic societies have moved or are moving towards gender equality. I have also written about this in many other blog articles and perhaps that is why I was so drawn to reading the book.



.

Mezuzah in Connecticut Causes a Stir: Condo Board Backs Down

There is a you tube video making the rounds about an incident in Stratford, Connecticut. A condo resident, Barbara Cadranel, was ordered by her condo association to remove her Mezuzah from her door or face a fine of $50 per day. Other condo residents had crosses and Easter decorations on their doors, but they claimed that the Mezuzah had to be removed because it was actually on the door post rather than the door. Isn't it incredible how petty and nasty some people can be? Is there really any reason for insisting that someone remove a religious object from their door other than anti-Semitic or some other Xenophobic prejudice? At least in this case, the matter was resolved without litigation about one week letter. Various sites, including CTpost.com have reported that Ms Cadranel was able to keep her Mezuzah on her door without any further issues.



In Canada, a more complicated issue went all the way to the Supreme Court a few years ago. Can condominium residents put up Sukkahs on their balconies during the festival of Sukkoth, despite a condominium rule that prohibits balconies from having any kind of structure? Incredibly, there was so much hostility in the condominium complex that the parties fought this issue out at three different court levels. Perhaps even more incredibly, the Sukkah dwellers lost in the Quebec Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal. It took a narrow 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to find that people have the right to carry out a week long religious practice provided that it does not cause any interference or problems for the other condominium dwellers.

The majority of Canadian Supreme Court judges provided a practical and reasonable explanation of their decision. If the minority religious practice causes minimal disruption and does not create any harmful effect, then the rights of the members of the religious minority should trump any other right such as "private property rights." This will permit them to practice their religion and feel welcome in the country, even as a minority. Of course if the condo members wanted to erect a permanent structure or carry out a disruptive, noisy or unruly practice, the Court might have seen things differently. There are limitations as to what one can do on the basis of minority religious practice.

In a bitter dissent, the minority of the Supreme Court judges argued that a person who moves into a condo unit should be bound by whatever rules that condo happens to have in place. This logic raises more than a few questions. If they have a rule that says "no vehicles or moving objects of any kind in the condo" does that mean that residents confined to wheelchairs must move out? Can the condo board have a "no hat" policy? Or can the condo simply say no Jews, no blacks, no gays or whatever else it wishes to put into its condo rules? Not in Canada. In Canada, unlike most U.S. jurisdictions, human rights legislation is intended to govern some places that might be considered "private." So a golf club, condo board or other quasi public institution must not operate with discriminatory rules or even rules that have a discriminatory effect.

The real issue that both of these types of cases raise is the juxtaposition between minority religious practices and the rights (or prejudices) of the majority. Every liberal democracy that has a significant minority population is wrestling with and will continue to struggle with this issue. In France, one example has been the rule against the wearing of religious symbols in schools. In Israel, Jerusalem has seen a great deal of public debate over the use of gender-segregated buses, operated by ultra-religious groups or that run through ultra-religious communities. Other countries have enacted or tried to enact bans of Kosher slaughter of animals or of ritual circumcision.

There may well be some disputes that are not easily resolved. Some religious practices may well have a significant effect on others. These issues are the difficult ones that will make their way through various court systems. But prohibiting someone from putting up a Mezuzah on their doorpost? That should certainly not be seen as an issue that requires any serious reflection. Fortunately, the condo board in Connecticut agreed without having the matter percolate through the court system.

Kitniyot or Lo Liyot (To Eat or Not to Eat Legumes on Passover)

As another Pesach (Passover) has come and gone, I have continued to reflect on the issue of kitniyot eating during the holiday.

I discussed the issue briefly just before Pesach in one of my blog articles. Observant Jews are prohibited from eating any kind of “chametz” during Pesach. Chametz was traditionally defined, under Jewish law, as any of the five grains – wheat, spelt, barley, oats and rye – which came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. These products were all strictly forbidden and still are among all Jewish communities.

However, from the beginning of the 13th century C.E. in France, according to Rabbi David Golinkin (See Responsa OH 453:1 5749), a custom began, among Ashkenazi Jews of adding a whole range of legumes (“kitniyot”) to the list of prohibited items. The practice spread in certain communities and became widespread among Ashkenazi Jews in many parts of Europe by the 15th and 16th centuries C.E. The list of prohibited foods grew to include peas, lentils, mustard, sesame seeds, poppy seeds and even peanuts. Even today, some rabbis are determined to continue adding food categories to the list. Quinoa is an example of a food that some rabbis have recently banned without a really coherent justification.

Interestingly, Sephardic Jews and Yemenite Jews never adopted this custom of prohibiting kitniyot. They considered the Torah prohibitions against eating chametz sufficient and followed those prohibitions strictly. Some Jews mistakenly believe that this means that Sephardic Jews are more lenient about Pesach. But that is not really the case. They simply never accepted that the prohibition against eating chametz should be extended to a whole range of foods which were never really chametz. Some rabbis, even Ashkenazi rabbis, have called the custom “mistaken” and even “foolish.”

Legally speaking (at least regarding halacha – Jewish law), it is not strictly forbidden to eat kitniyot on Pesach. But it has now become a custom that has been followed for hundreds of years by Ashkenazi Jews. As with many other customs, it is very difficult to draw the appropriate line between maintaining religious practices and customs on the one hand and modernizing these practices where appropriate and permissible. The main argument that is usually presented by non-kitniyot eaters is one of tradition – that this has been the practice in our family and our community for hundreds of years – and who are we to end our family traditions?

Like with many other practices, these are not easy decisions. Many observant Jews are worried that changes to tradition and continuity are slippery slopes. When I spoke about this issue with a close relative, she said “well if you are going to eat rice and beans, I guess you will no longer need to change over your dishes on Pesach.” The implication was that adopting a different practice with respect to kitniyot was part of a leniency that would lead to more liberal practices in other areas.

Since we attend a Conservative synagogue, we have certainly accepted the need to change, modernize or review certain practices. For example, one could argue that it has been a tradition for many years in the Orthodox Jewish community to prevent women from playing any active role in the prayer services. Most Conservative synagogues have now accepted fully or at least partially egalitarian practices that mark a change in traditional practice. Should we not accept this same type of argument with respect to kitniyot? Of course, many observant Jews are opposed to these changes, which they also view as part of a slippery slope. They point, particularly, to U.S. Conservative and Reform synagogues and claim that once you allow for an egalitarian service, you will soon make many other wholesale changes to the traditional service, so much so that it will no longer really resemble a “traditional” service. I have to admit that drawing the line can be very challenging in dealing with these issues.

Living in Israel, there is another reality as well. The majority practice is now clearly one of permitting kitniyot during Pesach. The supermarket shelves are filled with products that are marked, in tiny letters, “for kitniyot eaters only.” Restaurants are open across Israel, mostly “for kitniyot eaters.” It is not just Sephardic Jews but Ashkenazi Jews as well, even those who are Orthodox and very observant. In Israel, not eating kitniyot during Pesach has come to be viewed as an extreme practice, limited to some specific Ashkenazi communities, mostly ultra-religious or immigrant Jewish communities (from the U.S., South Africa etc.,). As a result, it is extremely difficult to find many products during Pesach that are kitniyot free. Products like oil, margarine and even tomato sauce usually say, in small letters, that they are for kitniyot eaters only.

Walking along the streets of Ra’anana during Hol Hamoed, the intermediary days of Pesach¸ it was very interesting to see the range of food places that were open for business and strictly kosher for Passover during the holiday. Some hamburger places were open and were using corn flour to make the buns. Some pizza places were open (one was actually kitniyot free and used potato flour). Two falafel shops were open, using corn flour to make the pita breads. Lavan, the popular yogurt place was open, with a slightly changed list of toppings (no granola this week). And of course, the coffee bar Aroma was open for business, with bourekas and other pastries made from corn flour. All of these places were labelled as strictly kosher for Passover, but for kitniyot eaters only. And they were all being frequented by observant Jews, many of whom were Ashkenazim.

In his 1989 responsa, Rabbi Golinkin addressed some of the reasons for doing away with the custom. One of the reasons that he cited is to eliminate the custom because it “detracts from the joy of the holiday by limiting the number of permitted foods.” This is a point echoed by a friend of mine from Ra’anana, who reminded me that Pesach is a holiday about celebrating freedom from slavery and about redemption. It is not supposed to be a holiday of suffering. So many of the rules that Ashkenazim have followed during Pesach have unnecessarily limited our food choices and made it very difficult to enjoy the culinary aspects of the holiday. Not to mention the effects on regularity of eating matzah every day without eating enough of these other kitniyot products.

As someone who has always followed the kitniyot prohibitions during Pesach, I am not sure that I would feel comfortable sitting down to eat a bowl of rice on Pesach despite all of the arguments set out above. But, as Rabbi Golinkin suggested in his responsa, even for those uncomfortable eating rice and beans, there should still be little reason to avoid peas, green beans, garlic, mustard, sunflower seeds, peanuts, canola oil and the many derivatives of these products.

I guess I still have another year to think about it but I’m inclined to change my practice. If we are in Toronto celebrating Pesach, we may have to reconsider to ensure that non-kitniyot eaters feel comfortable eating at our house over the holiday. But otherwise, I'm likely to say "pass the kosher l’Pesach humus so I can spread some on my corn tortilla."

Yom Hashoah V'Hagvurah 5772 - April 2012

Tonight marks that start of Yom Hashoah v'Hagvurah, Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes' Remembrance Day, in Israel and across the world. The annual date for commemoration of the Holocaust coincides closely with the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, 69 years ago.

As people across the world, Jews and non-Jews alike, try to come to grips with the enormity of evil, the murder of six million Jews and millions of non-Jews, Israel is holding commemorative ceremonies across the country.

According to Yedioth Ahronot, one of Israel's major daily newspapers, there are approximately 198,000 Holocaust survivors living in Israel today. Last year, some 11,700 died and the remaining survivors are not getting any younger. Many of these survivors are still able to tell their stories and we hope that we will have the privilege and opportunity to listen and to hear their words.

In many of the ceremonies, detailed accounts about specific Holocaust victims or survivors are recited. One of the recurrent themes of Israel's Holocaust Memorial Center, Yad VaShem, has been the idea of individual dignity. "L'kol Ish Yesh Shem" - Each person has a name. Despite the fact that six million people were murdered, we remember that each person had a name, a life, dreams, hopes and a family. Each person had a story. By recounting these individual stories, of victims and of survivors, we remember the individual humanity of the millions of victims and survivors.

For some, Holocaust commemoration is accompanied by a universalist message; that people everywhere must fight prejudice and hatred and that we must be vigilant in ensuring that the world takes steps to actively prevent and stop genocide from occurring. This is the message that is powerfully imparted at the Holocaust Memorial Center in Washington, D.C.

While many in Israel share this view and reflect on this universalist message, there is another message that is of equal if not greater importance. For Israelis and for many Jews across the world, the Holocaust demonstrated that the Jewish people could not rely on anyone other than themselves for their survival as a people. That message resonates at Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust Memorial Center, which has a less universalist focus than its newer Washington counterpart. For many Israelis, only a strong and powerful Israel can protect the Jewish people against the many worldwide threats.

At this evening's Yom Hashoah V'Hagvurah commemoration in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu cited the Iranian threat, an existential threat to Israel and the Jewish people that focuses on the latter of these lessons. Yet in a world in which a Norwegian Nazi-inspired mass murderer is trying to use a trial to promote a message of hatred, and the Syrian dictatorship continues to massacre Syrians, we cannot help but also consider the other lessons of the Holocaust as well.

Aside from the importance of Israeli strength and Jewish resolve, and of the importance of the universalist fight against evil and intolerance, tonight and tomorrow, above all else, we remember the millions of victims who perished during the Holocaust, their lives and their stories, and the lives and stories of the survivors who were scarred for life.

Kitniyot, Passover Preparations and Other Random Observations

I hope everyone enjoyed my April Fool’s column about the pigs in Beit Shemesh. Hopefully no one was too offended.

This time, I thought I would provide a few different observations about the frantic few days before Pesach (Passover) as Israel prepares for 7 days (this year 8) of Hametz free eating. This might be a bit more thematically disjointed than some of my other blog entries.

During Pesach, all around the world, observant Jews follow the biblical prohibition against eating Hametz, leavened foods made from five species of grains. Many people are extremely meticulous in their Pesach observance. They clean their houses completely to rid them of all traces of Hametz and then change over their dishes, kitchen utensils and other kitchen items to use only items that are “Kosher for Passover.”

As if this weren’t strenuous enough, many Ashkenazi Jews follow an additional prohibition against eating kitniyot, a whole additional category of prohibited products on Pesach, which derives from a rabbinical ruling from around 700 years ago. Sephardi Jews did not follow the ruling and continued to eat kitniyot on Pesach. Ashkenazi Jews followed it and continued to expand their list of prohibited items on Pesach. There is enough controversy about this issue to provide material for a lengthy essay. However, for reasons mainly of tradition, we have continued to follow this Ashkenazi custom, for now, which means no rice, beans, corn, or a range of other products on Pesach.

In Israel, where the combination of observant Sephardi Jews, observant Yemenite Jews and secular, non-observant Jews (of all different backgrounds), all of whom happily eat kitniyot during Pesach, vastly outnumbers the observant Ashkenazi community, it has become logistically more and more difficult to even follow the custom of avoiding kitniyot. For example, it is extremely difficult to find Kosher for Passover, kitniyot free margarine. One place in Ra’anana that I know of, Meatland, sells it – and there may be other places – but it is not sold in any major supermarket chain. All of the margarine is labelled as “for kitniyot eaters only.” It is virtually impossible to find non-kitniyot cooking oil. Again, Meatland sells some – but it is palm oil – which, of course, is dangerously high in saturated fat content, as opposed to the Canola Oil that everyone else is using – which is labelled as “for kitniyot eaters only.” You can get some olive oil – but it is quite pricey and it really changes the taste of some baked goods. I asked someone at Meatland if the margarine was kitniyot free. “All of our products are,” he answered, “we will never sell kitniyot during Pesach, God Willing” he added.

As another example, most of Ra’anana’s Kosher restaurants are open during Pesach but most are certified as “for kitniyot eaters only,” like the pizza places that use corn flour or the yogurt place that apparently has evil kitniyot in its yogurt. I suppose that by now, it probably makes sense to follow the old “when in Rome, do as the Romans do…,” on this issue, which is supported by relatively recent Conservative and Orthodox Ashkenazi Jewish Rabbinical opinions (modern opinions), but so far we have resisted, out of deference to a silly family tradition that we continue to observe. There's even a Facebook page - the "kitniyot liberation front" dedicated to having Ashkenzi Jews eliminate the practice of prohibiting kitniyot during Pesach. But let’s face it; Judaism does have many traditions, derived from Rabbinic rulings, which are often not entirely logical.

Turning to another unrelated issue, I was reminded of the directness of Israeli society when I visited the local butcher. He asked what I wanted. I asked for some boneless chicken thighs. He told me that they were now all out and reminded me that there would now be no fresh meat until after Pesach, because of the holiday. He suggested I get some chicken breasts instead. He told me they were cheaper and lower in fat. He looked at me and told me that I look like a guy who should probably be worried about my cholesterol and so I would be better off eating the chicken breasts instead. I’m not necessarily saying he was wrong – but where else would you hear that from your local butcher, who I didn’t even know?

I also saw the Israeli economic system in action while I was in the supermarket. The woman ahead of me had a bill of about 780 N.I.S. That would be about $210. She negotiated a deal with the cashier (everything is negotiable in Israel) whereby she paid 180 N.I.S. in cash, 100 on a credit card and five post- dated cheques, each for 100 spread over the next 2 months. This was a supermarket bill!... Yet, Israelis pay in “multiple payments” everywhere – at the gas station, the local convenience store (the “makolet”) and other places. It seems like it must make things extremely complicated for both merchants and consumers. People can be paying in June for a supermarket bill from March, while making a new order that they will continue paying until October.

Yet somehow, with the pressure-filled preparations for detail oriented holidays (like Pesach, Sukkoth and others) throughout the year, the Israeli in-your-face directness and even the crazy state of the Israeli economy, Israel still managed to rank 14th in the 2012 World Happiness Report, 4 spots ahead of Great Britain and only 3 behind the United States. Not bad at all for a country facing existential threats from many of its surrounding neighbours, internal religious-secular tensions and chilly relationships with many of the world’s countries. Imagine how happy Israelis would be if we had peace!

Wishing everyone a happy, healthy and Kosher Pesach.