April 2007

How is it that Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut, two of the most meaningful days of my year, have silenced me?  My first year of civilian life in Israel (following three years in the military), and I’m unable to convey the mass of emotions.  Part of this silence – at least towards the international community – might be the result of a rumor I’d heard that some American communities celebrated Yom Haatzmaut on the usual calendar date, rather than postponing the celebration by a day, as was done in Israel due to Shabbat.  If this is true, then those communities were celebrating the birth of our state in the same hours that Israelis were honoring the memory of those who made the event possible.  Could the continental [ideological] divide possibly be any more blatant?

Then, last night I attended a study session – the first in a series for students – on Brenner and Berdichevski.  Religious and secular students of varied Jewish and academic backgrounds huddled together, studying the Zionist texts of our ideological forebearers.  And all I could think was:   this is Zionism!!  Studying and probing and analyzing and affirming and challenging and engaging the texts of our people.  Yet there’s a clear and obvious qualifier for entry into this precious debate:  a mastery of Hebrew.

It seems painfully obvious to me that Hebrew is the only language in which this debate – Zionism, the discussion of the Jewish people, the creation of a Jewish future – can, and must take place.  Language is culture; Hebrew is the language of the Jews.  It is, therefore, the only language by which our culture can naturally develop, continuing to grow directly from its roots.

What is the meaning of Zionist discourse in English?  And how, really, can one claim to be a Zionist today without access to modern Hebrew culture, without being able to engage the fruits of contemporary Hebrew culture and society?

Moreover, how is it possible that today, when Hebrew thrives, when we have the privilege of learning, studying and speaking in Hebrew, in developing mainstream Jewish culture in the historical – and now modern – language of our people, how can it be that a great majority of the purportedly committed and educated Jewish – albeit Zionist! – fails to see the importance of examining primary Zionist texts; opts out of contemporary Israeli culture; denies the possibility of meaningful national Jewish discourse in our native tongue.

Yiddish bound us as a people in our past; today, we have the privilege of speaking, learning, writing and debating in the language of our people’s birth; Hebrew is not only it the language of our past and the language of our prayer; it is the language of our sovereignty.  So, even if the future of Zionism and the Jewish people is to be cross-continental, isn’t it only logical that internal Jewish discourse take place in the in the language of our people?

In the face of all that divides us – geographically, politically, religiously, ideologically – speaking a common language – the language of our people – is a simple thread that has the power to keep us united.

**A few words about Flolow:  Graduate of Barnard and JTS and an officer (res.) in the Israeli army.  A recent immigrant to Israel, she volunteered for the army and was recently released after almost three years of service.  Flo loves to speak Hebrew and hates to be categorized; surprisingly, these preferences have posed a bit of a challenge, given her choice to live in Israel.  She prides herself on being both an ardent fan and a disdainful critic of Israeli society, and hopes to be able to do something about it now that she’s here.

Haaretz: “War probe report accuses Olmert of ’severe failure’”

Jpost: “Winograd report cites ’serious flaws’ in management of Second Lebanon War”

Ynet: “Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz Failed” 

NRG: “Harsher than expected report…Serious conclusions against the Prime Minister”

See BoZ coverage here.

From the Winograd Report:

We impose the primary responsibility for these failures on the Prime Minister, the minister of defense and the (outgoing) Chief of Staff. All three made a decisive personal contribution to these decisions and the way in which they were made…

We single out these three because it is likely that had any of them acted better - the decisions in the relevant period and the ways they were made, as well as the outcome of the war, would have been significantly better…

The Prime Minister bears supreme and comprehensive responsibility for the decisions of ‘his’ government and the operations of the army. His responsibility for the failures in the initial decisions concerning the war stem from both his position and from his behavior, as he initiated and led the decisions which were taken.

The Prime Minister is responsible for the fact that the goals of the campaign were not set out clearly and carefully, and that there was no serious discussion of the relationships between these goals and the authorized modes of military action. He made a personal contribution to the fact that the declared goals were over-ambitious and not feasible.

And Olmert says he’s not resigning?

It doesn’t get much better for Peretz:

The Minister of Defense did not have knowledge or experience in military, political or governmental matters. He also did not have good knowledge of the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals.

The Minister of Defense did not develop an independent assessment of the implications of the complexity of the front for Israel’s proper response, the goals of the campaign, and the relations between military and diplomatic moves within it. His lack of experience and knowledge prevented him from challenging in a competent way both the IDF, over which he was in charge, and the Prime Minister.

All this report really said was just a reconfirmation of what everyone already knew Olmert and Peretz were in over their heads. Because of this, they should do the right thing and resign. This is not about politics, its about doing the right thing, they need to go home.

It was Global Darfur Day yesterday and the occasion was marked by vigils and protests here in Israel. Yad Vashem also called for an immediate end to the genocide.

It seems that, slowly, the Darfuri refugees here in Israel are getting out of incarceration and into Kibbutzim in order to work and earn a living. This is a good step forward. The holdup now seems to be a glitch in the health checkup funding system that is preventing the refugees from getting their initial medicals that will allow their health insurance, provided by the Israeli branch of the UNHCR, to take effect. While this probably reflects normal bureaucratic nonsense and not anything malicious, it clearly needs to be overcome. In the meantime, despite the fact that some generous Israelis are paying out of their pockets for medical treatments, many of the refugees are sitting at the Kibbutzim not allowed to work and not able to receive healthcare.

A story from a friend who recently got back from milium on the Southern border. Much of his time was spent stopping illegal immigrants. The only category of people who were simply released, rather than investigated and likely deported, were Darfuri refugees. These refugees, who each had a certain amount of money on them, were taken to the Beer Sheva bus station and allowed to go. Strange, and certainly not in the news.

Where did this come from?

A vast majority of Israeli Arabs would support a constitution that maintained Israel’s status as a Jewish and democratic state while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities, according to a poll whose results were published on Sunday.

This compromise solution, which demands recognition of the Jewish character of the State and the fundamental Jewish People’s Right to Return, by minorities, yet demands that Israel improve greatly on its commitment to equal rights, would come out to look like something reminiscent of Jabotinsky’s ideas circa 1930’s, from his “The Jewish People’s War Front,” Chapter 18, called “The Arab Question–with no Dramatics” (poor translation of title, and following quote, by yours truly):

“1) There shall be equal rights for all citizens of all races, religions, languagues, or classes, with no limititations, in all aspects of the public life of the land—on the condition that nothing be done that interferes with any Jews from foreign lands returning to his homeland–to the Land of Israel—and to become automatically an “ArtziYisraeli” citizen.

2) In every cabinet where a Jews serves as the Prime Minister, the assistant Prime Minister will be Arab; and vice versa.

3) There will be proportional represenation of Jews and Arabs also in the obligations that the state requires and also in the benefits the state provides. This princicple includes elections to parliament, civil and military service, and budgetary allotments.”

And it goes on. Jabotinsky clearly believed that the Jewish State’s right to exist as a Jewish State emerges out of the Jewish majority. This is why the Right of Return exists not, primarily on behalf of the individual Diaspora Jew, but, rather, in service of the Jewish community here in Israel democratically seeking to maintain its control over the character of the State. As Jabotinksy says in that same chapter, “The Jews are willing to give the Arab minority in the Hebrew Land of Israel the maximum of rights that the Jews demanded for themselves, but never achieved, in other lands. But while reading this draft [the points above, plus some more, -Ed.], we must remember, that according to the principle which is the “A to Z” of Revisionist Zionism, Israel cannot acheive political independence except after the emergence of a Jewish majority.

For those who think they know something about Jabo, I’m sure that comes to you straight out of “left field.” But it certainly speaks directly to the key questions arising out of this survey and the recent Arab initiatives.

Originally, when blogsofzion first started, I was assigned to write about Religious-Zionist issues. So I guess it’s my duty to report on the demise of the 70 year old flagship newspaper of Mafdal, Hatzofeh.

A bit of history: Hatzofeh was first published in August 1937 by Meir Bar Ilan as a paper of Mizrahi. Remember, this was at a time when Mafdal didn’t exist, as there was not yet a State of Israel. Since December 1937, it had been published daily. But starting in 1997, another right wing-Zionist paper, Makor Rishon, was printed weekly, and in 2003 Shlomo Ben Zvi and Ron Lauder acquired both papers. Starting April 25th, Hatzofeh will no longer exist as an independent paper, but will rather become a weekend insert in Makor Rishon, which will now be published daily.

Still with me?

Now, on rare occasions I’ve opened up the Hatzofeh website to look up an article. When I buy a paper before Shabbat, it tends to be Makor Rishon. And Mizrahi themselves were the ones who sold the paper. So for me it’s hard to feel too broken up about this merger. To me, it does make sense that two similar, right wing papers should merge. But on Datili (in Hebrew), Raz Kil opines that this is a sad sign. He reads this merger as a loss, as an indication that Mizrahi and Mafdal have once and for all given up the ghost of being able to unite all aspects of Religious Zionism, from Gush Emunim to Kibbutz Hadati.

I feel that this merger is indicative of a different trend. I have some friends who have been advocating for years that Mafdal and all religious-Zionist parties are anachronistic. They argue that the best path to take is to integrate religious-Zionist parties into larger political parties, similar to how Meimad did with Labor. It seems that this newspaper merger, with Hatzofeh being absorbed by the right wing and religiously bent - but not overtly religious - Makor Rishon, falls under this principle.

I think the larger question is whether Mafdal, the last of the original political parties from 1948, will follow the path of it’s newspaper, one of the last political party dailies.

[this article was printed in the London Jewish Chronicle, a pdf of which can be found here. Full pre-edited article text below]

Remembering the Holocaust is one of the few imperatives of contemporary Jewry, one of the few things the disparate streams of the Jewish people can agree upon. But what exactly are we remembering? The Shoah narrative is normally retold in a way that positions the Jews as an object in someone else’s drama: the subject is Hitler, his rise to power, and what he did to the Jews. In this narrative, the Jews only react after the fact, bewildered. Jews here play the part of the powerless victim, a person with little to no agency. As in Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, the Jews are nothing but supporting actors in Oskar Schindler’s story; as in Roman Polanski’s Pianist, it took the goodhearted Gentiles to save the talented Jews; as in the much-recounted story of Anne Frank, the most Jews could do was hide away and hope.

(more…)

TECHIES, DESIGNERS AND CREATIVE TYPES WANTED! Interested in developing cutting-edge, socially focused technologies to change the way the Jewish people think, work and live?

Want to join a team dedicated to creative exploration and generating new projects and applications for the Jewish community? Then check out the PresenTense Institute for Creative Zionism.

The PICZ is a summer institute running from June 18th until July 31 in Jerusalem. Dedicated to transforming the way the Jewish people think, program and work, PICZ is developing an incubator for social entrepreneurs inspired by a fusion of the best of contemporary hi-tech business practices and the vision of Zionist thinkers across the ideological spectrum such as Ahad Haam, AD Gordon and Zeev Jabotinsky.

As such, we’re seeking innovators on the cutting edge of Jewish creativity: programmers and designers, informal educators and school vice principals, nonprofit managers and biotech visionaries–anyone with a vision and a portfolio of innovation. Know any of these? Are you one? Join us now! Through PICZ, Institute fellows will be introduced to the best and the brightest of Israel’s hi-tech, social and political circles–giving birth to a network of Zionist thinkers and doers: Chalutz 2.0.

More info below, or online at www.creativezionism.com

I was just struck by a passage I read in Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America.” While analyzing religion and democratic tendencies, he writes, “A religion which became more insistent in details, more inflexible, and more burdened with small observances during the time that men became equal would soon find itself limited to a band of fanatic zealots in the midst of a skeptical multitude.” This statement made me immediately think of the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel.  Tocqueville’s analyses and predictions are often spot-on concerning American democracy and I believe that there is a lesson to be learned here with regard to Israeli democracy. The ultra Orthodox Israeli community is expanding, not shrinking, and is becoming an increasing burden on the Israeli economy, society, and morale. Likewise, injustice and inequality in Israeli society continue to be a fact of life– whether concerning women, the Israeli Arabs, or migrant workers.  Tocqueville makes an important connection between these two aspects of Israeli life. As Israel embarks on its 60th year, I pray that it confronts inequality, and that as one benefit of that process, it sees a decline in religious extremism.

— Next Page »