MKs and ministers who object to Dichter's bill must make an extraordinary effort to battle the bill entitled 'Basic Law: Israel - the Nation-State of the Jewish People' using all legitimate means.
7 november 2011/Haaretz EDITORIAL Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
On Sunday, Knesset legal adviser Eyal Yinon made it clear to Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin and his deputy, MK Mohammed Barakeh, that there were no grounds for blocking a bill entitled "Basic Law: Israel - the Nation-State of the Jewish People" from being submitted to the Knesset. Rather, he said, there should be both a public and parliamentary debate on the bill because of the broad implications it had for Israel's constitutional status.
In response, Rivlin announced that he would not conduct any further debate on the issue in the Knesset Presidium, claiming that the bill does not contravene the essential definition of Israel as a democratic country. He did, however, express his objections to the bill, which states that Israel's democratic regime would be subordinate to the state's Jewish identity, and which drops Arabic as an official language.
Both Jewish and Arab MKs from the left-wing parties, as well as other public figures, have expressed deep concern about the bill, sponsored by MK Avi Dichter (Kadima ), which, in practice, does away with the State of Israel's constitutional foundation. They argue, justifiably, that the bill contravenes the Declaration of Independence and its principles, and threatens the delicate balance between the state's national identity and its democratic and civil character.
The bill is making MKs in Dichter's own faction uncomfortable, with party chairman Tzipi Livni expressing her vehement opposition to it. Several Likud lawmakers and government ministers are also upset by the initiative, and certainly by the bill's wording.
But mouthing objections isn't enough. The bill may very well meet the technical requirements for submission to the Knesset, but it is a very risky venture. If it passes, it would be a watershed for Israeli democracy. It is liable to totally breach the dividing line between the principles of a democratic regime and the categorical, indisputable preference for the Jewish majority that will only deepen the growing distrust that Arab citizens have for the state.
MKs and ministers who object to Dichter's bill must therefore make an extraordinary effort to battle it using all legitimate means. It will be an important test for Livni, and for the entire legislature.
Mostrando postagens com marcador Jewish. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Jewish. Mostrar todas as postagens
segunda-feira, 7 de novembro de 2011
segunda-feira, 22 de agosto de 2011
TRAGEDY IN EILAT AND GAZA: HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND?
19 August 2011, Rav Shalom http://rabbibrant.com (USA)
by Rabbi Brant Rosen
In the wake of yesterday’s tragic violence in Eilat and Gaza, I commend to you this wise and rational-minded statement from Jewish Voice for Peace.
I would only add that I frankly think it’s remarkable, given Israel’s oppressive policies toward the people of Gaza, that we haven’t seen even more attacks such as this. To be sure, these kinds of incidents do not exist in a vacuum. History has shown us again and again that when people are oppressed, they tend to resist – often violently.
And when it comes to the history of Gaza, this resistance – followed by overwhelming Israeli military retaliation – has been ongoing since 1948.
As Moshe Dayan said during a funeral of an Israeli killed by a Gazan in 1956:
Do not today besmirch the murderers with accusations. Who are we that we should bewail their mighty hatred of us? For eight years they sit in refugee camps in Gaza, and opposite their gaze we appropriate for ourselves as our own portion the land and the villages in which they and their fathers dwelled.
This we know: that in order that the hope to destroy us should die we have to be armed and ready, morning and night. We are a generation of settlement, and without a steel helmet and the barrel of a cannon we cannot plant a tree and build a house.
Dayan, to his credit, understood the true source of Palestinians’ frustration and rage. But I think he was tragically wrong in his belief that Israeli machine guns and bomb shelters would be able to keep their rage at bay – or that their military power would ultimately keep Israelis safe. Yesterday’s incident in Eilat is but the latest proof of this sad reality. It didn’t work then, and it’s still not working now.
While I do not in any way condone Palestinian violence against Israelis, I do understand its source. And until these root causes are fundamentally addressed, I fear we’ll only continue to hear more tragic news such as this.
by Rabbi Brant Rosen
In the wake of yesterday’s tragic violence in Eilat and Gaza, I commend to you this wise and rational-minded statement from Jewish Voice for Peace.
I would only add that I frankly think it’s remarkable, given Israel’s oppressive policies toward the people of Gaza, that we haven’t seen even more attacks such as this. To be sure, these kinds of incidents do not exist in a vacuum. History has shown us again and again that when people are oppressed, they tend to resist – often violently.
And when it comes to the history of Gaza, this resistance – followed by overwhelming Israeli military retaliation – has been ongoing since 1948.
As Moshe Dayan said during a funeral of an Israeli killed by a Gazan in 1956:
Do not today besmirch the murderers with accusations. Who are we that we should bewail their mighty hatred of us? For eight years they sit in refugee camps in Gaza, and opposite their gaze we appropriate for ourselves as our own portion the land and the villages in which they and their fathers dwelled.
This we know: that in order that the hope to destroy us should die we have to be armed and ready, morning and night. We are a generation of settlement, and without a steel helmet and the barrel of a cannon we cannot plant a tree and build a house.
Dayan, to his credit, understood the true source of Palestinians’ frustration and rage. But I think he was tragically wrong in his belief that Israeli machine guns and bomb shelters would be able to keep their rage at bay – or that their military power would ultimately keep Israelis safe. Yesterday’s incident in Eilat is but the latest proof of this sad reality. It didn’t work then, and it’s still not working now.
While I do not in any way condone Palestinian violence against Israelis, I do understand its source. And until these root causes are fundamentally addressed, I fear we’ll only continue to hear more tragic news such as this.
segunda-feira, 1 de agosto de 2011
RAMADAN & AV: CONNECTIONS & COLLISIONS
1 August 2011, The Shalom Center http://www.theshalomcenter.org (USA)
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Last night, with the coming of the New Moon’s sliver of light, Jews entered the month of Av; Muslims, the month of Ramadan. I want to take this moment to examine ways in which Jewish-Muslim relations have become entangled in the broader crisis of Europe and America that has led to attacks on Muslims and to the atrocious murders in Oslo last week.
Today, I want to share some sense of the spirit-lifting meanings and possibilities of this moment. Tomorrow, I want to examine the broader question of the wave of anti-Muslim feeling and action we are experiencing in America and Europe -- and what to do about it.
For Jews, the month of Av is one of foreboding, sorrow, and slow recovery – all built around memories of the Destruction of two Holy Temples in Jerusalem, one by the Babylonian Army in 586 BCE; the other by the Roman Army in 70 CE. The ninth day of Av – in Hebrew, Tisha B’Av -- has been set aside to mourn these disasters.
Jewish tradition blamed these disasters partly on Imperial arrogance, but partly on internal Jewish failings and corruptions.
And the tradition sought to transcend these traumas: In the Biblical era, on the seventh day after the commemoration of Destruction there was a rejoicing with erotic overtones: On the Full Moon of Av, young women danced in the fields and chose their husbands. In the Rabbinic era, seven Sabbaths of Consolation after the day of disaster were set aside to read Prophetic passages of hope, leading in seven steps to the renewal of Rosh Hashanah.
But efforts at transcending the trauma never fully worked. These two destructions helped set the tone of Jewish history as a series of traumas and victimizations – a tone that, after many later repetitions and especially the Holocaust, still deeply colors Jewish responses to history, even though a “Jewish state” now holds considerable political and military power.
For observant Muslims, Ramadan is a month of spiritual self-examination and redirection. Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset each day in order to turn their attention from physical satisfactions to spiritual growth; read the entire Quran during the month; increase their sharing with the poor; and late in the month celebrate the first revelation of the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. They end the month with Eid ul-Fitr, the Feast of the Break-Fast.
What can we learn from each other, living this “moonth” alongside each other?
The effort to transcend trauma is not for Jewish hearts and minds alone. Islam as a whole has during the last several centuries been conquered, colonized, subjugated by various Western powers, from Morocco to Indonesia. Palestinians in particular have tried to elevate this experience into a kind of Tisha B’Av of their own, observing the Naqba – the “Disaster” that came upon their community as Israel was established.
For them and for many other Muslims, the Disaster still means military weakness, less-creative arts and sciences, stagnant economies. Can the Disaster itself be turned into fertile soil for a new Islam --as Rabbinic Judaism flowered from the ashes of the Second Temple and as the Rabbis taught that Tisha B’Av was the birthing day of the Messiah?
And in the other direction, what can Jews learn from Ramadan? In Jewish tradition, the forty days from the beginning of the month of Elul to Yom Kippur were intended to be days of religious study and spiritual self-examination. But for most Jews, the currents of Modernity and its pressure for swiftness have swept away this practice, and even the Ten Days from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur are rarely taken as a time for self-assessment, repair of wrongs, reconciliation, and forgiveness.
Perhaps the daily practice of fasting is what helps to hold the great majority of the world’s Muslims to observance of Ramadan. Perhaps Jews should be rethinking what daily practice for a full month would have such an impact on our lives. (There is a tradition of blowing the shofar every morning of the forty days that lead to Yom Kippur, but the Jews who do this are rare today. And perhaps the ritual is too “ritualistic,” too little a dent upon our earthy daily lives, to raise our consciousness as fasting does.)
Perhaps there is even a hint of what Jews could do, in the cultural history of Morocco. There the Jewish and Muslim communities feed each other – literally – at the end of Ramadan and the end of Passover. Muslims bring Jews the first post-Passover bread -- for a celebration that became known as “Maimouna,” “Prosperity-time.” And Jews bring Muslims the first food for the great Break-Fast at the end of Ramadan.
Here and there in America during the last few years, Mosques and synagogues have been connecting during Ramadan. Precisely in the face of the tensions between the two communities that have arisen in the last decade, what if they agreed that every evening – or even just every Sunday evening -- during Ramadan, Jews would eat with Muslims, in synagogues or mosques (and as individuals got to know each other, in private homes)?
What if synagogues agreed that during every Shabbat during Ramadan, they would read and study a passage from the Quran?
Or what if the lesson were transposed into Jewish time – so that despite the rush of business and the craving for mid-summer vacation, Jews ceremoniously set aside 18 minutes every morning in Av or from the First of Elul to Yom Kippur to dedicate some money to healing the world – pursuing peace, seeking justice, protecting the Earth?
May your Av, your Ramadan, help lift you into a fuller awareness of the loving care we owe each other!
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Last night, with the coming of the New Moon’s sliver of light, Jews entered the month of Av; Muslims, the month of Ramadan. I want to take this moment to examine ways in which Jewish-Muslim relations have become entangled in the broader crisis of Europe and America that has led to attacks on Muslims and to the atrocious murders in Oslo last week.
Today, I want to share some sense of the spirit-lifting meanings and possibilities of this moment. Tomorrow, I want to examine the broader question of the wave of anti-Muslim feeling and action we are experiencing in America and Europe -- and what to do about it.
For Jews, the month of Av is one of foreboding, sorrow, and slow recovery – all built around memories of the Destruction of two Holy Temples in Jerusalem, one by the Babylonian Army in 586 BCE; the other by the Roman Army in 70 CE. The ninth day of Av – in Hebrew, Tisha B’Av -- has been set aside to mourn these disasters.
Jewish tradition blamed these disasters partly on Imperial arrogance, but partly on internal Jewish failings and corruptions.
And the tradition sought to transcend these traumas: In the Biblical era, on the seventh day after the commemoration of Destruction there was a rejoicing with erotic overtones: On the Full Moon of Av, young women danced in the fields and chose their husbands. In the Rabbinic era, seven Sabbaths of Consolation after the day of disaster were set aside to read Prophetic passages of hope, leading in seven steps to the renewal of Rosh Hashanah.
But efforts at transcending the trauma never fully worked. These two destructions helped set the tone of Jewish history as a series of traumas and victimizations – a tone that, after many later repetitions and especially the Holocaust, still deeply colors Jewish responses to history, even though a “Jewish state” now holds considerable political and military power.
For observant Muslims, Ramadan is a month of spiritual self-examination and redirection. Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset each day in order to turn their attention from physical satisfactions to spiritual growth; read the entire Quran during the month; increase their sharing with the poor; and late in the month celebrate the first revelation of the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. They end the month with Eid ul-Fitr, the Feast of the Break-Fast.
What can we learn from each other, living this “moonth” alongside each other?
The effort to transcend trauma is not for Jewish hearts and minds alone. Islam as a whole has during the last several centuries been conquered, colonized, subjugated by various Western powers, from Morocco to Indonesia. Palestinians in particular have tried to elevate this experience into a kind of Tisha B’Av of their own, observing the Naqba – the “Disaster” that came upon their community as Israel was established.
For them and for many other Muslims, the Disaster still means military weakness, less-creative arts and sciences, stagnant economies. Can the Disaster itself be turned into fertile soil for a new Islam --as Rabbinic Judaism flowered from the ashes of the Second Temple and as the Rabbis taught that Tisha B’Av was the birthing day of the Messiah?
And in the other direction, what can Jews learn from Ramadan? In Jewish tradition, the forty days from the beginning of the month of Elul to Yom Kippur were intended to be days of religious study and spiritual self-examination. But for most Jews, the currents of Modernity and its pressure for swiftness have swept away this practice, and even the Ten Days from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur are rarely taken as a time for self-assessment, repair of wrongs, reconciliation, and forgiveness.
Perhaps the daily practice of fasting is what helps to hold the great majority of the world’s Muslims to observance of Ramadan. Perhaps Jews should be rethinking what daily practice for a full month would have such an impact on our lives. (There is a tradition of blowing the shofar every morning of the forty days that lead to Yom Kippur, but the Jews who do this are rare today. And perhaps the ritual is too “ritualistic,” too little a dent upon our earthy daily lives, to raise our consciousness as fasting does.)
Perhaps there is even a hint of what Jews could do, in the cultural history of Morocco. There the Jewish and Muslim communities feed each other – literally – at the end of Ramadan and the end of Passover. Muslims bring Jews the first post-Passover bread -- for a celebration that became known as “Maimouna,” “Prosperity-time.” And Jews bring Muslims the first food for the great Break-Fast at the end of Ramadan.
Here and there in America during the last few years, Mosques and synagogues have been connecting during Ramadan. Precisely in the face of the tensions between the two communities that have arisen in the last decade, what if they agreed that every evening – or even just every Sunday evening -- during Ramadan, Jews would eat with Muslims, in synagogues or mosques (and as individuals got to know each other, in private homes)?
What if synagogues agreed that during every Shabbat during Ramadan, they would read and study a passage from the Quran?
Or what if the lesson were transposed into Jewish time – so that despite the rush of business and the craving for mid-summer vacation, Jews ceremoniously set aside 18 minutes every morning in Av or from the First of Elul to Yom Kippur to dedicate some money to healing the world – pursuing peace, seeking justice, protecting the Earth?
May your Av, your Ramadan, help lift you into a fuller awareness of the loving care we owe each other!
sábado, 18 de junho de 2011
Deny! Deny!
18 June 2011, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
I AM fed up with all this nonsense about recognizing Israel as the “Jewish State”.
It is based on a collection of hollow phrases and vague definitions, devoid of any real content. It serves many different purposes, almost all of them malign.
Binyamin Netanyahu uses it as a trick to obstruct the establishment of the Palestinian state. This week he declared that the conflict just has no solution. Why? Because the Palestinians do not agree to recognize etc. etc.
Four rightist Members of the Knesset have just submitted a bill empowering the government to refuse to register new NGOs and to dissolve existing ones if they “deny the Jewish character of the state”.
This new bill is only one of a series designed to curtail the civil rights of Arab citizens, as well as those of leftists.
If the late Dr. Samuel Johnson were living in present-day Israel, he would phrase his famous dictum about patriotism differently: “Recognition of the Jewish Character of the state is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
IN ISRAELI parlance, denying the “Jewish Character” of the state is tantamount to the worst of all political felonies: to claim that Israel is a “State of all its Citizens”.
To a foreigner, this may sound a bit weird. In a democracy, the state clearly belongs to all its citizens. Mention this in the United States, and you are stating the obvious. Mention this in Israel, and you are treading dangerously close to treason. (So much for our much-vaunted “common” values”.)
As a matter of fact, Israel is indeed a state of all its citizens. All adult Israeli citizens – and only they – have the right to vote for the Knesset. The Knesset appoints the government and determines the laws. It has enacted many laws declaring that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state”. In ten or in a hundred years, the Knesset could hoist the flag of Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam. In a democracy, it is the citizens who are sovereign, not a verbal formula.
WHAT FORMULA? - one may well ask.
The courts favor the words “Jewish and democratic state”. But that is far from being the only definition around.
The most widely used is just “Jewish State”. But that is not enough for Netanyahu and Co., who speak about “the nation-state of the Jewish people”, which has a nice 19th century ring. The “state of the Jewish people” is also quite popular.
The one thing that all these brand-names have in common is that they are perfectly imprecise. What does “Jewish” mean? A nationality, a religion, a tribe? Who are the “Jewish people”? Or, even more vague, the “Jewish nation”? Does this include the Congressmen who enact the laws of the United States? Or the cohorts of Jews who are in charge of US Middle East policy? Which country does the Jewish ambassador of the UK in Tel Aviv represent?
The courts have been wrestling with the question: where is the border between “Jewish” and “democratic”? What does “democratic” mean in this context? Can a “Jewish” state really be “democratic”, or, for that matter, can a “democratic” state really be “Jewish”? All the answers given by learned judges and renowned professors are contrived, or, as we say in Hebrew, they “stand on chickens’ legs”.
LETS GO back to the beginning: the book written in German by Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism, and published in 1896. He called it “Der Judenstaat”.
Unfortunately, this is a typical German word that is untranslatable. It is generally rendered in English as “The Jewish State” or “The State of the Jews”. Both are quite false. The nearest approximation would be “The Jewstate”.
If this sounds slightly anti-Semitic, this is not by accident. It may come as a shock to many, but the word was not invented by Herzl. It was first used by a Prussian nobleman with an impressive name - Friedrich August Ludwig von der Marwitz, - who died 23 years before Herzl was even born. He was a dedicated anti-Semite long before another German invented the term “anti-Semitism” as an expression of the healthy German spirit.
Marwitz, an ultra-conservative general, objected to the liberal reforms proposed at the time. In 1811 he warned that these reforms would turn Prussia into a “Judenstaat”, a Jewstate. He did not mean that Jews were about to become a majority in Prussia, God forbid, but that moneylenders and other shady Jewish dealers would corrupt the character of the country and wipe out the good old Prussian virtues.
Herzl himself did not dream of a state that belongs to all the Jews in the world. Quite the contrary - his vision was that all real Jews would go to the Judenstaat (whether in Argentina or Palestine, he had not yet decided). They – and only they - would thenceforth remain “Jews”. All the others would become assimilated in their host nations and cease altogether to be Jews.
Far, far indeed from the notion of a “nation-state of the Jewish people” as envisioned by many of today’s Zionists, including those millions who do not dream of immigrating to Israel.
WHEN I was a boy, I took part in dozens of demonstrations against the British government of Palestine. In all of them, we chanted in unison “Free immigration! Hebrew State!” I don’t remember a single demonstration with the slogan “Jewish State”.
That was quite natural. Without anyone decreeing it, we made a clear distinction between us Hebrew-speaking people in Palestine and the Jews in the Diaspora. Some of us turned this into an ideology, but for most people it was just a natural expression of reality: Hebrew agriculture and Jewish tradition, Hebrew underground and Jewish Religion, Hebrew kibbutz and Jewish Shtetl. Hebrew Yishuv (the new community in the country) and Jewish Diaspora. To be called a “Diaspora Jew” was the ultimate insult.
For us this was not anti-Zionist by any means. Quite the contrary: Zionism wanted to create an old-new nation in Eretz Israel (as Palestine is called in Hebrew), and this nation was of course quite distinct from the Jews elsewhere. It was only the Holocaust, with its huge emotional impact, which changed the verbal rules.
So how did the formula “Jewish State” creep in? In 1917, in the middle of World War I, the British government issued the so-called Balfour Declaration, which proclaimed that “His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”
Every word was carefully chosen, after months of negotiations with Zionist leaders. One of the main British objects was to win American and Russian Jews for the Allied cause. Revolutionary Russia was about to get out of the war, and the entry of isolationist America was essential.
(By the way, the British rejected the words “the turning of Palestine into a national home for the Jewish people”, insisting on “in Palestine” – thus foreshadowing the partition of the country.)
IN 1947 the UN did decide to partition Palestine between its Arab and Jewish populations. This said nothing about the character of the two future states – it just used the current definitions of the two warring parties. About 40% of the population in the territory allocated to the “Jewish” state was Arab.
The advocates of the “Jewish state” make much of the sentence in the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” (generally called the “Declaration of Independence”) which indeed includes the words “Jewish State”. After quoting the UN resolution which called for a Jewish and an Arab state, the declaration continues: “Accordingly we … on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”
This sentence says nothing at all about the character of the new state, and the context is purely formal.
One of the paragraphs of the declaration (in its original Hebrew version) speaks about the “Hebrew people”: “We extend our hands to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the independent Hebrew people in its land.” This sentence is blatantly falsified in the official English translation, which changed the last words into “the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land.”
As a matter of fact, it would have been quite impossible to reach agreement on any ideological formula, since the declaration was signed by the leaders of all factions, from the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox to the Moscow-oriented Communist Party.
ANY TALK about the Jewish State leads inevitably to the question: What are the Jews – a nation or a religion?
Official Israeli doctrine says that “Jewish” is both a national and a religious definition. The Jewish collective, unlike any other, is both national and religious. With us, nation and religion are one and the same.
The only door of entry to this collective is religious. There is no national door.
Hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russian immigrants have come to Israel under the Law of Return with their Jewish relatives. This law is very broad. In order to attract the Jews, it allows even distant non-Jewish relatives to come with them, including the spouse of the grandchild of a Jew. Many of these non-Jews want to be Jews in order to be considered full Israelis, but have tried in vain to be accepted. Under Israeli law, a Jew is a person “born to a Jewish mother or converted, who has not adopted another religion”. This is a purely religious definition. Jewish religious law says that for this purpose, only the mother, not the father, counts.
It is extremely difficult to be converted in Israel. The rabbis demand that the convert fulfill all 613 commandments of the Jewish religion – which only very few recognized Israelis do. But one cannot become an official member of the stipulated Jewish “nation” by any other door. One becomes a part of the American nation by accepting US citizenship. Nothing like that exists here.
We have an ongoing battle about this in Israel. Some of us want Israel to be an Israeli state, belonging to the Israeli people, indeed a “State of all its Citizens”. Some want to impose on us the religious law supposedly fixed by God for all times on Mount Sinai some 3200 years ago, and abolish all contrary laws of the democratically elected Knesset. Many don’t want any change at all.
But how, in God’s name (sorry), does this concern the Palestinians? Or the Icelanders, for that matter?
THE DEMAND that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the Jewish State” or as “the Nation-State of the Jewish people” is preposterous.
As the British would put it, it’s none of their bloody business. It would be tantamount to an intervention in the internal affairs of another country.
But a friend of mine has suggested a simple way out: the Knesset can simply resolve to change the name of the state into something like “The Jewish Republic of Israel”, so that any peace agreement between Israel and the Arab State of Palestine will automatically include the demanded recognition.
This would also bring Israel into line with the state it most resembles: “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan”, which came into being almost at the same time, after the partition of India, after a gruesome mutual massacre, after the creation of a huge refugee problem and with a perpetual border war in Kashmir. And the nuclear bomb, of course.
Many Israelis would be shocked by the comparison. What, us? Similar to a theocratic state? Are we getting closer to the Pakistani model and further from the American one?
What the hell, let’s simply deny it!
-----------------------
From WIKIPEDIA
Uri Avnery (Hebrew: אורי אבנרי, also transliterated Uri Avneri, born 10 September 1923) is an Israeli writer and founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement. A member of the Irgun as a teenager, Avnery sat in the Knesset from 1965–74 and 1979–81.[1] He was also the owner of HaOlam HaZeh, an Israeli news magazine, from 1950 until it closed in 1993.
He is famous for crossing the lines during the Battle of Beirut to meet Yassir Arafat on 3 July 1982, the first time the Palestinian leader ever met with an Israeli. Avnery is the author of several books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including 1948: A Soldier’s Tale, the Bloody Road to Jerusalem (2008); Israel’s Vicious Circle (2008); and My Friend, the Enemy (1986).
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
I AM fed up with all this nonsense about recognizing Israel as the “Jewish State”.
It is based on a collection of hollow phrases and vague definitions, devoid of any real content. It serves many different purposes, almost all of them malign.
Binyamin Netanyahu uses it as a trick to obstruct the establishment of the Palestinian state. This week he declared that the conflict just has no solution. Why? Because the Palestinians do not agree to recognize etc. etc.
Four rightist Members of the Knesset have just submitted a bill empowering the government to refuse to register new NGOs and to dissolve existing ones if they “deny the Jewish character of the state”.
This new bill is only one of a series designed to curtail the civil rights of Arab citizens, as well as those of leftists.
If the late Dr. Samuel Johnson were living in present-day Israel, he would phrase his famous dictum about patriotism differently: “Recognition of the Jewish Character of the state is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
IN ISRAELI parlance, denying the “Jewish Character” of the state is tantamount to the worst of all political felonies: to claim that Israel is a “State of all its Citizens”.
To a foreigner, this may sound a bit weird. In a democracy, the state clearly belongs to all its citizens. Mention this in the United States, and you are stating the obvious. Mention this in Israel, and you are treading dangerously close to treason. (So much for our much-vaunted “common” values”.)
As a matter of fact, Israel is indeed a state of all its citizens. All adult Israeli citizens – and only they – have the right to vote for the Knesset. The Knesset appoints the government and determines the laws. It has enacted many laws declaring that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state”. In ten or in a hundred years, the Knesset could hoist the flag of Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam. In a democracy, it is the citizens who are sovereign, not a verbal formula.
WHAT FORMULA? - one may well ask.
The courts favor the words “Jewish and democratic state”. But that is far from being the only definition around.
The most widely used is just “Jewish State”. But that is not enough for Netanyahu and Co., who speak about “the nation-state of the Jewish people”, which has a nice 19th century ring. The “state of the Jewish people” is also quite popular.
The one thing that all these brand-names have in common is that they are perfectly imprecise. What does “Jewish” mean? A nationality, a religion, a tribe? Who are the “Jewish people”? Or, even more vague, the “Jewish nation”? Does this include the Congressmen who enact the laws of the United States? Or the cohorts of Jews who are in charge of US Middle East policy? Which country does the Jewish ambassador of the UK in Tel Aviv represent?
The courts have been wrestling with the question: where is the border between “Jewish” and “democratic”? What does “democratic” mean in this context? Can a “Jewish” state really be “democratic”, or, for that matter, can a “democratic” state really be “Jewish”? All the answers given by learned judges and renowned professors are contrived, or, as we say in Hebrew, they “stand on chickens’ legs”.
LETS GO back to the beginning: the book written in German by Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism, and published in 1896. He called it “Der Judenstaat”.
Unfortunately, this is a typical German word that is untranslatable. It is generally rendered in English as “The Jewish State” or “The State of the Jews”. Both are quite false. The nearest approximation would be “The Jewstate”.
If this sounds slightly anti-Semitic, this is not by accident. It may come as a shock to many, but the word was not invented by Herzl. It was first used by a Prussian nobleman with an impressive name - Friedrich August Ludwig von der Marwitz, - who died 23 years before Herzl was even born. He was a dedicated anti-Semite long before another German invented the term “anti-Semitism” as an expression of the healthy German spirit.
Marwitz, an ultra-conservative general, objected to the liberal reforms proposed at the time. In 1811 he warned that these reforms would turn Prussia into a “Judenstaat”, a Jewstate. He did not mean that Jews were about to become a majority in Prussia, God forbid, but that moneylenders and other shady Jewish dealers would corrupt the character of the country and wipe out the good old Prussian virtues.
Herzl himself did not dream of a state that belongs to all the Jews in the world. Quite the contrary - his vision was that all real Jews would go to the Judenstaat (whether in Argentina or Palestine, he had not yet decided). They – and only they - would thenceforth remain “Jews”. All the others would become assimilated in their host nations and cease altogether to be Jews.
Far, far indeed from the notion of a “nation-state of the Jewish people” as envisioned by many of today’s Zionists, including those millions who do not dream of immigrating to Israel.
WHEN I was a boy, I took part in dozens of demonstrations against the British government of Palestine. In all of them, we chanted in unison “Free immigration! Hebrew State!” I don’t remember a single demonstration with the slogan “Jewish State”.
That was quite natural. Without anyone decreeing it, we made a clear distinction between us Hebrew-speaking people in Palestine and the Jews in the Diaspora. Some of us turned this into an ideology, but for most people it was just a natural expression of reality: Hebrew agriculture and Jewish tradition, Hebrew underground and Jewish Religion, Hebrew kibbutz and Jewish Shtetl. Hebrew Yishuv (the new community in the country) and Jewish Diaspora. To be called a “Diaspora Jew” was the ultimate insult.
For us this was not anti-Zionist by any means. Quite the contrary: Zionism wanted to create an old-new nation in Eretz Israel (as Palestine is called in Hebrew), and this nation was of course quite distinct from the Jews elsewhere. It was only the Holocaust, with its huge emotional impact, which changed the verbal rules.
So how did the formula “Jewish State” creep in? In 1917, in the middle of World War I, the British government issued the so-called Balfour Declaration, which proclaimed that “His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”
Every word was carefully chosen, after months of negotiations with Zionist leaders. One of the main British objects was to win American and Russian Jews for the Allied cause. Revolutionary Russia was about to get out of the war, and the entry of isolationist America was essential.
(By the way, the British rejected the words “the turning of Palestine into a national home for the Jewish people”, insisting on “in Palestine” – thus foreshadowing the partition of the country.)
IN 1947 the UN did decide to partition Palestine between its Arab and Jewish populations. This said nothing about the character of the two future states – it just used the current definitions of the two warring parties. About 40% of the population in the territory allocated to the “Jewish” state was Arab.
The advocates of the “Jewish state” make much of the sentence in the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” (generally called the “Declaration of Independence”) which indeed includes the words “Jewish State”. After quoting the UN resolution which called for a Jewish and an Arab state, the declaration continues: “Accordingly we … on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”
This sentence says nothing at all about the character of the new state, and the context is purely formal.
One of the paragraphs of the declaration (in its original Hebrew version) speaks about the “Hebrew people”: “We extend our hands to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the independent Hebrew people in its land.” This sentence is blatantly falsified in the official English translation, which changed the last words into “the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land.”
As a matter of fact, it would have been quite impossible to reach agreement on any ideological formula, since the declaration was signed by the leaders of all factions, from the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox to the Moscow-oriented Communist Party.
ANY TALK about the Jewish State leads inevitably to the question: What are the Jews – a nation or a religion?
Official Israeli doctrine says that “Jewish” is both a national and a religious definition. The Jewish collective, unlike any other, is both national and religious. With us, nation and religion are one and the same.
The only door of entry to this collective is religious. There is no national door.
Hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russian immigrants have come to Israel under the Law of Return with their Jewish relatives. This law is very broad. In order to attract the Jews, it allows even distant non-Jewish relatives to come with them, including the spouse of the grandchild of a Jew. Many of these non-Jews want to be Jews in order to be considered full Israelis, but have tried in vain to be accepted. Under Israeli law, a Jew is a person “born to a Jewish mother or converted, who has not adopted another religion”. This is a purely religious definition. Jewish religious law says that for this purpose, only the mother, not the father, counts.
It is extremely difficult to be converted in Israel. The rabbis demand that the convert fulfill all 613 commandments of the Jewish religion – which only very few recognized Israelis do. But one cannot become an official member of the stipulated Jewish “nation” by any other door. One becomes a part of the American nation by accepting US citizenship. Nothing like that exists here.
We have an ongoing battle about this in Israel. Some of us want Israel to be an Israeli state, belonging to the Israeli people, indeed a “State of all its Citizens”. Some want to impose on us the religious law supposedly fixed by God for all times on Mount Sinai some 3200 years ago, and abolish all contrary laws of the democratically elected Knesset. Many don’t want any change at all.
But how, in God’s name (sorry), does this concern the Palestinians? Or the Icelanders, for that matter?
THE DEMAND that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the Jewish State” or as “the Nation-State of the Jewish people” is preposterous.
As the British would put it, it’s none of their bloody business. It would be tantamount to an intervention in the internal affairs of another country.
But a friend of mine has suggested a simple way out: the Knesset can simply resolve to change the name of the state into something like “The Jewish Republic of Israel”, so that any peace agreement between Israel and the Arab State of Palestine will automatically include the demanded recognition.
This would also bring Israel into line with the state it most resembles: “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan”, which came into being almost at the same time, after the partition of India, after a gruesome mutual massacre, after the creation of a huge refugee problem and with a perpetual border war in Kashmir. And the nuclear bomb, of course.
Many Israelis would be shocked by the comparison. What, us? Similar to a theocratic state? Are we getting closer to the Pakistani model and further from the American one?
What the hell, let’s simply deny it!
-----------------------
From WIKIPEDIA
Uri Avnery (Hebrew: אורי אבנרי, also transliterated Uri Avneri, born 10 September 1923) is an Israeli writer and founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement. A member of the Irgun as a teenager, Avnery sat in the Knesset from 1965–74 and 1979–81.[1] He was also the owner of HaOlam HaZeh, an Israeli news magazine, from 1950 until it closed in 1993.
He is famous for crossing the lines during the Battle of Beirut to meet Yassir Arafat on 3 July 1982, the first time the Palestinian leader ever met with an Israeli. Avnery is the author of several books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including 1948: A Soldier’s Tale, the Bloody Road to Jerusalem (2008); Israel’s Vicious Circle (2008); and My Friend, the Enemy (1986).
segunda-feira, 6 de junho de 2011
MKs slam 'racist' Upper Nazareth mayor
Upper Nazareth Mayor Shimon Gapso tells local Arabic-language weekly if he had been present during October 2000 clashes between Israeli Arabs and police, more Arabs would have been killed.
6 june 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
By Jack Khoury
MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz ) yesterday asked the attorney general to weigh in on whether Upper Nazareth Mayor Shimon Gapso should be allowed to remain in office in light of remarks he made to a local Arabic-language weekly. Gapso told the paper that if he had been present during the October 2000 clashes between Israeli Arabs and police, more Arabs would have been killed.
He also said his city would never become a mixed Arab-Jewish city, although 16 percent of its residents were Arab, and that a mosque would never go up in his city.
"The picture emerges of a mayor in Israel leading racist policies in broad daylight, who does not hesitate to intentionally harm the most basic rights of citizens dependent on him for education and religious services," Gal-On wrote to Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.
She reminded Weinstein that in 2008, his predecessor, Menachem Mazuz, had disqualified the mayor of Ramle, Yoel Lavi, as a candidate for head of the Israel Lands Administration for making racist remarks against Ramle's Arab population.
Arab lawmakers also called for Gapso's dismissal, with MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al ) commenting that Gapso's statements "proved why we are unwilling to accept the definition [of Israel] as a Jewish state."
MK Afou Agbaria (Hadash ), who heads the Knesset anti-racism caucus, said racism was spreading from cabinet ministers to mayors.
Mohammad Darawshe, co-executive director of the coexistence organization the Abraham Fund, said: "To speak in military terms about Arab citizens is the antithesis of neighborliness and mutual respect."
More on this topic
Court rules water a basic human right
6 june 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
By Jack Khoury
MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz ) yesterday asked the attorney general to weigh in on whether Upper Nazareth Mayor Shimon Gapso should be allowed to remain in office in light of remarks he made to a local Arabic-language weekly. Gapso told the paper that if he had been present during the October 2000 clashes between Israeli Arabs and police, more Arabs would have been killed.
He also said his city would never become a mixed Arab-Jewish city, although 16 percent of its residents were Arab, and that a mosque would never go up in his city.
"The picture emerges of a mayor in Israel leading racist policies in broad daylight, who does not hesitate to intentionally harm the most basic rights of citizens dependent on him for education and religious services," Gal-On wrote to Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.
She reminded Weinstein that in 2008, his predecessor, Menachem Mazuz, had disqualified the mayor of Ramle, Yoel Lavi, as a candidate for head of the Israel Lands Administration for making racist remarks against Ramle's Arab population.
Arab lawmakers also called for Gapso's dismissal, with MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al ) commenting that Gapso's statements "proved why we are unwilling to accept the definition [of Israel] as a Jewish state."
MK Afou Agbaria (Hadash ), who heads the Knesset anti-racism caucus, said racism was spreading from cabinet ministers to mayors.
Mohammad Darawshe, co-executive director of the coexistence organization the Abraham Fund, said: "To speak in military terms about Arab citizens is the antithesis of neighborliness and mutual respect."
Court rules water a basic human right
quinta-feira, 2 de junho de 2011
TOUR OF EAST JERUSALEM
26 May 2011, Rabbis for Human Rights http://rhr.org.il/eng (Israel)
Rabbi Gideon D Sylvester
Our Beit Midrash for Human Rights spends many hours in the classroom studying sources and meeting rabbis and activists to learn about Judaism’s understanding of Human Rights and how it can be out into practice.
This week, it was time to get out into the field and witness some of the issues first hand. The morning began with a presentation by Rabbi Shlomo Fuchs looking at the symbolism of barriers in Jewish thought, then after snatching a quick cup of coffee and some borekas, students boarded the buses and set off for their first stop with a panoramic view over the old city of Jerusalem.
Rabbi Arik Ascherman used this magnificent visual aid to explain the work of Rabbis for Human Rights and to examine the tensions that the unification of East and West Jerusalem has created. He also introduced a local resident who spoke about life in East Jerusalem and the associated difficulties of obtaining building permits and sitting in checkpoints.
The next stop was Gilo, where Rabbi Ascherman and tour guide Royee Amir explained the construction of the separation barrier and the problems created by its route through the Arab villages, swallowing land belonging to Arab farmers who live there and preventing them form reaching their orchards. Students had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss their perspectives on the wall.
From there, the group travelled past the new settlement of Har Homa and into the winding roads of the Palestinian neighborhood of Tabo. Here they witnessed the contrast between the beautiful, modern Jewish settlements and the severe poverty and lack of investment in the Arab neighborhoods.
The final stop was Sheich Jarrach where students met Muhamed Sabah who related his family history and their sense of injustice at how they had lost their home.
By mid afternoon, it was time to get ready for Shabbat and students rushed home to prepare for Shabbat.
Commenting on the trip Beit Midrash director Rabbi Gideon Sylvester said, “It was an important trip, and our students were moved by seeing the issues first hand. They particularly appreciated the clear explanations which provided the historical background and contemporary significance of the issues. This week, they returned to the Beit Midrash talking about the issues with even greater passion and commitment”.
Rabbis for Human Rights
Rehov HaRekhavim 9
Jerusalem, Israel 93462
Tel: +972.2.648.2757 | Fax: +972.2.678.3611
e-mail: info@rhr.israel.net
Rabbi Gideon D Sylvester
Our Beit Midrash for Human Rights spends many hours in the classroom studying sources and meeting rabbis and activists to learn about Judaism’s understanding of Human Rights and how it can be out into practice.
This week, it was time to get out into the field and witness some of the issues first hand. The morning began with a presentation by Rabbi Shlomo Fuchs looking at the symbolism of barriers in Jewish thought, then after snatching a quick cup of coffee and some borekas, students boarded the buses and set off for their first stop with a panoramic view over the old city of Jerusalem.
Rabbi Arik Ascherman used this magnificent visual aid to explain the work of Rabbis for Human Rights and to examine the tensions that the unification of East and West Jerusalem has created. He also introduced a local resident who spoke about life in East Jerusalem and the associated difficulties of obtaining building permits and sitting in checkpoints.
The next stop was Gilo, where Rabbi Ascherman and tour guide Royee Amir explained the construction of the separation barrier and the problems created by its route through the Arab villages, swallowing land belonging to Arab farmers who live there and preventing them form reaching their orchards. Students had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss their perspectives on the wall.
From there, the group travelled past the new settlement of Har Homa and into the winding roads of the Palestinian neighborhood of Tabo. Here they witnessed the contrast between the beautiful, modern Jewish settlements and the severe poverty and lack of investment in the Arab neighborhoods.
The final stop was Sheich Jarrach where students met Muhamed Sabah who related his family history and their sense of injustice at how they had lost their home.
By mid afternoon, it was time to get ready for Shabbat and students rushed home to prepare for Shabbat.
Commenting on the trip Beit Midrash director Rabbi Gideon Sylvester said, “It was an important trip, and our students were moved by seeing the issues first hand. They particularly appreciated the clear explanations which provided the historical background and contemporary significance of the issues. This week, they returned to the Beit Midrash talking about the issues with even greater passion and commitment”.
Rabbis for Human Rights
Rehov HaRekhavim 9
Jerusalem, Israel 93462
Tel: +972.2.648.2757 | Fax: +972.2.678.3611
e-mail: info@rhr.israel.net
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)