Sixty things I love about Israel

1. I love that the women are not only hotter than Mitzpe Ramon in July but that they also have a Passover Seder. (Much like the fourth dimension, my human brain is incapable of processing this.)
2. I love the outdoor cafes/kiosks on Rothschild and that Israelis universally agree that Starbucks (the altar to which American consumers bow their heads and pray) stinks.
3. I love that I don't look at the people I meet as French, Russians, or Australians, but rather as Israelis who are trying to make it here just like I am.
4. I love my Ulpan teacher from Kitah Bet, Dafna, who spoke to us like we were four so we'd understand her.
5. I love that falafel is a healthy snack (OK, maybe I just love choosing to believe the American myth while I scarf it down forty-seven times a week.)
6. I love that people I know from all over the world are always visiting this place, the center of the Jewish world.
7. I love that I can tell a joke about Rosh Hashana at a comedy club here and know that it will be understood by everyone in the audience.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (23)

Don't appease me or Iran

Andrew Silow-Carroll, editor -in-chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, published an Op-Ed column in the NJJN that was also published in the May 25, 2008 edition of The Jerusalem Post, entitled "Please appease me: What's your Iran plan?" In his essay, Silow-Carroll correctly suggested that neither Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, nor Senator Barak Obama, the current leading (in terms of the pledged delegates count) Democratic presidential candidate, and for the sake of completeness - even though Silow-Carroll does not mention her -Senator Hillary Clinton, no current political candidate has presented the American public with any plan for dealing with the variety of threats emanating from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (3)

Requisites for a real friend of Israel

The 2008 Presidential campaign has brought forth statements from all the major candidates, both Democrat and Republican, of the depth of their support for the State of Israel, and their commitment to maintaining the close relationship that exists between the United States and the only real democracy in that area of the world. On the face of it, there would appear to be very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans regarding support for Israel. The politically naive would be able to look at all the candidates and seeing their near equal "support" for Israel, come to the conclusion that a choice for one's candidate could be made upon other criteria, since all major candidates support Israel.

Rarely has the statement "a little knowledge can be dangerous" had more applicability. Based on their respective records as well as their campaign statements, we know that all the major candidates believe that Israel has the right to maintain itself as a "Jewish State". But the fact that all these candidates support Israel's right to be Jewish, doesn't translate to each one turning out to be equally helpful to Israel to maintain her existence in a very hostile neighborhood. With the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) issuing daily threats to Israel, and Iran's proxies - whether Hizbullah in Lebanon or Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the PFLP in Gaza - attacking Israel and Israelis with relative impunity, it is crucial for the next president of the United States to understand that what occurs in Iraq has direct consequences to Israel's security just as surely as events in Ciudad Juarez effect conditions in Texas, or those in Toronto effect New York.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (6)

Bush and the Diplomacy of Inadvertence

A recent Jerusalem Post article quoting documents obtained by Vanity Fair magazine 'Bush approved plot to oust Hamas', gives an insider look into decision-making in the Bush White House. While the article deals only with the Palestinian elections and the resulting Hamas victory, it throws light on how this administration arrives at other decisions such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, its encouragement of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

But let's start with the article's focus, the Palestinian elections and their aftermath. In pursuit of what can only be called his Dogma of Democracy, Bush not only disregarded input from Abbas and Olmert, both of whom clearly foresaw the Hamas victory and warned the president, but he also chose to ignore the advice of Cheney's chief Middle East adviser David Wurmser who, according to the article, "resigned a month after the Hamas takeover." Even Muhammad Dahlan, Abbas' security chief and designee by Bush to carry out the military coup against Hamas is quoted in the article as saying, "Everyone was against the elections, everyone (that is) except Bush. He (Bush) decided, 'I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.'"

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (2)

Talkbacks and the fear of peace

Whenever the suggestion appears in print of an opportunity for Israel to explore possible peace with the Arabs, be they Saudis, Palestinians or Syrians, the majority of talkbacks, particularly from the Diaspora, dismiss the idea outright and brand the author as a Leftist, a luftmensch. As if Israel must always survive in a state of war, a permanent garrison state.

In a recent JPost article, David Kimche described meeting Prince Turki al-Faisal, intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. In that meeting the prince again raised the Saudi peace initiative. Kimche observed in his article that not only the Saudi prince, but such prior Israeli intelligence chiefs as Avraham Achituv, Carmi Gillon, Ya'acov Peri and Amos Manor, each considered representing right-wingers while serving at their posts, eventually came to represent positions favoring peace with the Arabs. If today's critics found them acceptable in the past, should this at least suggest caution in dismissing them today because they appear to have changed their understanding of Israel's long-term needs?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (35)

The next holocaust?

A recent survey of Israeli high schoolers found that 82% believed another holocaust was possible. In light of the fact that Israeli education is justly criticized for not promoting Jewish and Zionist identity among our youth, the number is astounding. How is it that, if our young can clearly see the danger, that our leaders in Israel and in the Diaspora do not? Are we too timid, too concerned with offending non-Jews, to recognize and admit the danger, a danger which, if not appreciated may well exceed the price we paid in the previous effort at solving the Jewish Problem?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (19)

Letter to MK Yishai: 'Your support could not have been more timely'

Dear MK Yishai
 
I was very gratified by the decision of Rabbi Yosef and Shas to openly support the release of Jonathan Pollard. During our earliest correspondence Jonathan and I agreed that his only real possibility for release would result from the intervention of the Israel Government on his behalf.
 
As one who helped organize and was first Director of Justice for the Pollards in 1989 I have taken an active interest in his case for many years. In 1989 I brought Jonathan's sister to Israel to lay the foundation for grassroots and governmental support for his release. That visit resulted in a letter from the Chief Rabbis to President Reagan, the public support of Interior Minister Hammer, and a meeting in the Knesset with more than 30 members from all parties. From that meeting, and with the assistance of the office of MK Geula Cohen, we were able to draft a petition calling for Pollard's release. The petition was signed by more than seventy members and delivered to the White House by an official delegation of Knesset members in early 1990. 

Hands off the Law of return, Part II: Jewish Denial

In a previous submission, Hands off the Law of Return , respondents covered the spectrum of issues related, it seemed to me, to the title, but few spoke of the issues raised in the article itself. For instance, why was the Law and its Grandparent Clause among the first Basic Laws enacted by the new State of Israel, why was this law considered a priority? Why, if it was to be the gatekeeper regarding persons to be granted instant refuge and citizenship did it not defer to Halacha, Jewish traditional law, defining a Jew as born of a Jewish mother? Why instead was the Law written to include the child of a single Jewish grandparent, regardless of the grandchild's present religion, as gateway to Jewish identity for purposes of refuge? All of these questions relate back to the foundations of Zionism, to the very need and quest for a state of the Jews.
 
I
 
Religious Jews had, as far back as the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman dispersion, returned to Zion in small numbers to fulfill the Halachic injunction to physically live on the land. With the Enlightenment, Europe broke the bonds of Christian theocracy and emancipated the Jews. For the first time in the Diaspora, Jews were accepted as equals and citizens in the lands of their residence. But with "European enlightenment" came a new theory of Jewish difference. No longer seen through the lens of religion, Jews were now designated biologically different, a race separate from their neighbors. And the secular version of anti-Judaism, racial antisemitism was born. Faced with this new and even more virulent discrimination and persecution, Jews came to realize that ,even as they were now granted civil citizenship in their countries of residence they were still, and would always remain the 'Other', foreign in the eyes of their hosts and neighbors.

'The strike ruined my year in Israel'

Perhaps this may seem like a selfish rant, but in essence, as a student I have a right to be selfish about my education, as does every other student in the country, and in the free world, for that matter.

I am currently involved in the Overseas Program at the University of Haifa, on exchange from Canada. In the spring I decided to come to Israel for my final year of school, and for over half a year was set on this plan. Travel arrangements were made and dozens of hours were spent dealing with the "small things", like making sure my credits transfer properly. On top of the regular arrangements a student makes when preparing for a year abroad, I also applied and was accepted for the MASA scholarship program. This program made the whole thing feel like even more of a genuine Jewish experience because the funding comes from the Jewish Agency, and in return a participant needs to partake in a volunteer project.

All set to go to Israel for my fourth time, a Zionist at heart, I was quite excited; I had only traveled to the country before on organized trips such as with birthright and Hillel.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (4)

Hands off the Law of Return!

The Law of Return is the single most important document defining the character of the Jewish State and its relationship with the Jewish People. The move to amend it represents the most serious assault on that relationship since Ben-Gurion proclaimed statehood in 1948.
 
Menachem Ben-Sasson, chairman of the Knesset Constitution Committee announced that he would hold 12 hours of discussions with the intention of cobbling together a constitution in time for Israel?s 60th Independence Day celebration. Among the controversial issues the committee is to consider is a ?compromise? version of the Law of Return. According to Ben-Sasson all sides will be taken into consideration, all sides will be represented in the final document. This is not encouraging since ?all sides? to be considered includes the Rabbinate?s push for a Halachic-only definition of 'Who is a Jew'. Such a definition would potentially alienate the majority of Jews living in the Diaspora. The third rail of Israeli-Diaspora relations, Who is a Jew must have no place in redefining the Law of Return.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (2)