Israel – Page 107

More Canadas needed

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor speaks in Vancouver on Feb. 3 and in Victoria on Feb. 4. (photo from Ron Prosor via Jewish National Fund Vancouver)

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations says Canada’s foreign policy is at the “heart of the world’s moral compass.”

In an email interview with the Jewish Independent, Ambassador Ron Prosor credited Canada as being a voice of reason and justice.

“Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird have proven time and again to be true friends to Israel,” Prosor said. “They are at the heart of the world’s moral compass.… Canada is standing with Israel as we stand on the frontline in the battle against terror. They are often the first to denounce the anti-Israel bias and stand up as the voice of justice and reason. There are many examples of this bond: Canada was a strong proponent of the effort to make Yom Kippur an official UN holiday; it partnered with us to organize the upcoming special session in the General Assembly on antisemitism; and was one of the few countries to condemn the Syrian delegate … for comparing Israel’s policy to that of the Nazis.”

Prosor spoke to the paper in advance of his visit here in early February, hosted by Jewish National Fund of Canada, British Columbia. He will speak Feb. 3 in Vancouver at Congregation Beth Israel, at 7:30 p.m., and in Victoria the following day, at 7:30 p.m., at Congregation Emanu-El.

Prosor criticized efforts by the Palestinian Authority to gain recognition at the UN and at the International Criminal Court, saying it is an effort to avoid a negotiated resolution to the conflict.

“The Palestinians have found every possible opportunity to avoid direct negotiations with Israel,” he said. “They have engaged in a never-ending string of political games, literally shooting in all directions and missing the real target. The fact of the matter is that their habit of bypassing negotiations by taking unilateral action and blaming everyone but themselves will only move us further from peace. It’s time for the Palestinians to aim higher and find constructive solutions – beginning by engaging in meaningful dialogue.”

The United Nations is the body that, in 1947, passed the Partition Resolution intended to create a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine. Israel’s critics routinely note that the very agency that is responsible for its existence is repeatedly on record condemning Israeli policies. Prosor responds that the UN is not the same body it was nearly 70 years ago.

“The landscape of the UN has changed dramatically since its founding,” Prosor said. “Today, fewer than half of its member states are democracies. The halls of the UN used to ring with calls for human rights and human dignity; today, they ring with voices demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state. This year, the UN passed 20 resolutions condemning Israel. In comparison, the world’s worst human rights abusers – Iran, Syria, and North Korea – each received one condemnation. This anti-Israel bias pervades the UN system.”

Many of the UN’s most vociferous condemnations of Israel emanate from the UN Human Right Council (UNHRC).

“For years, the Human Rights Council has singled out Israel for condemnation,” Prosor said. “I have to note that some of the world’s most repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Cuba, are members of the Human Rights Council.”

Saudi Arabia is currently in the international spotlight for carrying out the first of 20 court-ordered floggings of democracy blogger Raif Badawi. After Friday prayers a week ago, Badawi, who created the blog Free Saudi Liberals, was lashed 50 times over the course of 15 minutes in a public square in front of a mosque in Jeddah. He is scheduled to receive the same punishment for a total of 20 successive Fridays, or 1,000 lashes. This is in addition to his sentence of 10 years in prison.

Despite this immediate example and other atrocities perpetrated by elected members of UNHRC, the body’s attentions are overwhelmingly focused on the Jewish state, Prosor said.

“To date, there have been 22 emergency meetings of the HRC to deal with situations around the world – 33 percent of them dealt with Israel,” Prosor said. “Additionally, Israel is singled out during regular sessions. Article 4 of the Council’s agenda examines the abuses of every single country in the world, except one. Israel – and Israel alone – has its own permanent place on the agenda: Article 7. This isn’t just a double standard, it’s a triple standard. One standard for democracies, one standard for dictators and a whole other impossible standard for Israel.”

“Another example is the UN’s UNISPAL [UN Information System on the Question of Palestine] website,” Prosor said. “It has advertised ‘apartheid tours’ in Israel and promoted a petition calling for the Canadian prime minister to cancel a visit to Israel.

“The UN could be playing a more constructive role by investing less time targeting Israel and more time advancing peace and security, economic growth, women’s rights, minority rights and so on,” he said. “None of this will be possible so long as the institution is held hostage by the world’s most repressive regimes.”

Though he is the lead representative of Israel at an organization that sometimes seems to have condemnation of the Jewish state as its primary mission, Prosor insists he is not intimidated.

“I walk the halls of this organization tall and proud of my extraordinary nation, one of the freest and more democratic countries on earth,” he said. “At the UN, I feel it is important to show the world what Israel is about beyond our conflict. We have so much innovation and ingenuity to share in agriculture, medicine, high-tech, education and more. We are a nation of just eight million that has produced 12 Nobel prizes, that sends satellites into space, puts electric cars on the road and develops the technology to power everything from cellphones to solar panels to medical devices. I feel privileged to represent Israel and the Jewish people.”

Prosor said he is bringing a message to Canada that emphasizes the parallels between the two countries.

“Israel and Canada share the same value system – we believe in democracy, justice, human rights and peace,” he said. “Together, we are standing firm amidst the stormy seas of global diplomacy to make the world a more peaceful place. The UN needs more countries like Canada – countries that are willing to take a stand and defend our common values.”

Pat Johnson is a Vancouver writer and principal in PRsuasiveMedia.com.

Israeli representative at UN

Rasha Athamni was the first Israeli selected to represent the nation as a youth delegate to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, serving during the 69th session from September through November 2014. The youth delegates program was started 1981 but, until then, Israel had not chosen to participate.

photo - Rasha Athamni was the Israeli youth delegate to the 69th session of the General Assembly, which ran from September through November 2014 — Rasha Athamni was the Israeli youth delegate to the 69th session of the General Assembly, which ran from September through November 2014. *(photo from undesadspd.org)*

Athamni, 29, was raised in the Israeli Arab town of Baka Al-Gharbiyah, the youngest of nine children and the first in her family to graduate high school and university; her parents do not read or write. She earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology and English literature from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and is currently working on her master’s in English literature. She also guides tours of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. In her first interview with media, Athamni spoke with the Media Line.

TML: What prompted you to apply to become a United Nations youth delegate … and on behalf of the state of Israel, no less?

RA: Ever since I was a child, my biggest dream was to become a member in this UN society because that’s the ideal, the universality, people go out and help others that are in need. I am a citizen of Israel and I have a right to apply and to go through the interviews, and that’s what I did. When I got the acceptance letter, I was just thrilled. Hundreds applied after there was a call for applicants published on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ website. Only 12 or 13 were invited to go through the interview and I was one of them. And then, after the final decision, I got be the first and only youth delegate for Israel for the UN.

TML: Is there a distinction between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians living in Israel and, if so, what is the difference?

RA: Well, it’s a bit complicated – that’s the best adjective that I can use to describe it. It’s a question every Arab citizen in Israel has to answer sooner or later. On the one hand, my mother’s side is Arabic; my parents are Arabs. On the other hand, I live in the centre of Israel and I have an Israeli ID and passport. But, I’m not Jewish, so it’s very complicated. You really need to establish a sense of yourself that is solid enough to represent Israel, especially at the UN.

TML: How did you end up where you are today, studying for a second degree at Hebrew University?

RA: I was primarily motivated by my mother because, ever since I was a little kid, she told me it was very important for me to go to school because that would be the best [chance] that I would have in our society and that I should appreciate that because she herself couldn’t do it. All she really wants in life is that one of her kids becomes a doctor. I didn’t become a doctor. That was disappointment number one, but I did get a degree in psychology and English literature from the best university in Israel, and now I’m doing my master’s in English literature.

TML: How did you get involved with the Israeli government?

RA: About two years ago, the students association at the Hebrew University was looking for a coordinator for a coexistence project that brought together eight Jewish and eight Arab Israeli women students. I applied and got the job. It was a very fascinating year for me and for each one of those students that participated.

It’s very funny when you think about it. Even though they study the same courses and they go to the same classes, you’d see the majority of Jewish students would sit on one side of the hall and the minority on the other side, so there’s this psychological barrier between them. After they got to learn about each other and meet each other, then the hate recedes. That’s beyond nationality, ethnicity or religion. That’s when that barrier just disappeared and they started to sit and study with each other. The Jewish girl would go and teach the Arab girl Hebrew and the Arab girl would go and teach the Jewish girl English.

One of the girls used to work as a tour guide in the Knesset. I needed to support myself, so I got information from her and I applied for the job, and I still give tours in Arabic, Hebrew and English.

TML: How did your family react to that?

RA: My family is very apolitical. They grew up in a society where it was taboo to talk about politics because for them that meant either jail or exile. For me, now, that sounds like paranoia, being afraid to express your own opinion because of your background. There is some truth in that, but they just took it to the extreme. My family was really scared that my being involved in politics or social change or anything that has to do with the state of Israel could mean the demise of my image in my own community, and that’s a fear that they’re still experiencing. My mother, every time I call her, tells me that I shouldn’t do that and it’s never too late back out.

TML: Was there backlash from other Arabs or from Arabs who happen to be of Israeli descent?

RA: At the UN, no. They’re all very diplomatic. Whenever I introduced myself, they said, “Good job as the youth delegate of Israel,” even though that person was from Jordan, Yemen or Egypt. It just didn’t make any sense because they would attack Israel in the committee for human rights but they had no problem talking to an Israeli in the corridors.

TML: You said you represented Israel, responding to different discussions that go on in the United Nations.

RA: After I was picked to represent the youth of Israel, I had a two-month training period at the Foreign Ministry, then traveled to New York for three months, where my job was to summarize the meetings of the committee on human rights. I attended informal briefings at which UN delegates would discuss the terms and wordings of the resolutions, and would also go to events that the delegation would be invited to.

My most prominent moment came when I delivered a speech on behalf of the youth of Israel. This was at the opening of the first meeting of the human rights committee. When it was time for the youth delegation to speak, they spoke about the rights of the youth, why is it really important. Youth belong to a very strange category because they are not children and are not yet adults, so we tend to disregard their needs. A person needs to get a first degree and a second degree in order to just have the opportunity to apply for a job. These are just some of the topics that we covered, along with health, gender equality and education, which is very basic in our country but in other countries is a goal to strive for.

TML: Two of your passions are human rights and social responsibility. What issues were most challenging?

RA: Whenever I attended meetings of the committee for human rights, I had to sit in Israel’s space and, just sitting there, I felt terrified. On my first day, to my left there was Iran. In front of me was Egypt and Jordan, and behind me was Qatar. I felt what Israel feels like at the international level, being under attack even though this was my first experience hearing the attacks. What was interesting for me was how every country would attack Israel disregarding what they do within their own borders. You’d hear the delegation from Syria attacking Israel for violations on human rights, which doesn’t make much sense. A country representing their own people needs to address their own problems rather than pretending that everything is fine within their own borders, and then attack[ing] another country and join[ing] with others who are against it. That country most of the time happens to be Israel.

TML: As an Israeli citizen, how did that make you feel?

RA: It didn’t feel fair. There are always two sides to a conflict. It seemed that one side is more represented than the other side – that other side is Israel. I just felt that someone needs to be given a floor to express and talk about [the] good things that Israel is doing: the humanitarian assistance that Israel is giving to Gaza and the West Bank. There is a project called Save a Child’s Heart. Every Tuesday, a child from Gaza goes to Israel for heart surgery. There are also negatives, but you can’t just focus on that. There is much hope that is being missed when everyone focuses on the bad stuff.

Help soldier-students

Canadian Friends of Hebrew University (CFHU) is raising money to sponsor soldier-students pursuing their undergraduate degrees.

The Jewish calendar is full of remembrances and commemorations underscoring that, as a people, we find value both spiritually and culturally in reflecting and celebrating regularly. This year, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem marks 90 years of post-secondary education and research. Almost a quarter of a century prior to the establishment of the state of Israel,

Hebrew U was laying the foundations for a university, to facilitate higher learning and produce an educated population to build a well-rounded society.

Ninety years is a milestone for any institution. Given the difficult circumstances in which Hebrew U was established, there is even more cause for celebration. To honor this achievement, Canadian Friends of Hebrew University (CFHU) is raising money to sponsor soldier-students pursuing their undergraduate degrees who face financial insecurity as a result of having had to return to active duty with their units instead of earning money to pay for their education this past summer.

More than 1,000 Hebrew U students, many of them from combat units, had their lives put on hold during the Israel-Gaza conflict last year. All of these students had already delayed their entrance into university for three or four years to serve in the Israeli army. Finished with army service, they finally had the opportunity to attend Hebrew U and pursue their educational aspirations. However, during the summer months when they were working to fund their studies, they were called up to join their units and engage in active duty.

CFHU has recognized a tangible, significant way to help these students. Their duty to their country has interrupted their ability to finance their academic interests and CFHU is helping to eliminate the financial stress with scholarships to undergraduate students.

For the Soldier-Student Scholarship fundraising campaign, CFHU has formed a partnership with the elite undercover operation unit of Duvdevan. What better way to recognize the 90th anniversary of Hebrew U than to help students who protect Israel? The campaign will culminate in a celebratory event on Sunday, May 3, at Beth Israel Synagogue. The evening will feature a presentation from Duvdevan soldiers and will give the community an opportunity to understand what it means to be a soldier-student.

For more information about the campaign and the May 3 event, contact the CFHU office at 604-257-5133 or visit cfhu.org/news/the-soldier-student-scholarship-campaign.

Open Hillel raises questions

On the issue of Jewish belonging, I have always pushed for as wide a tent as is necessary to accommodate the range of Jewish experience. Inclusion, rather than ideational boundaries, has been my watchword.

But now, since the Open Hillel conference held at Harvard in October – which billed itself as helping create a “Jewish community that all Jews can feel included in, not just those who pass a political litmus test” – I’ve been feeling a little bit more prescriptive around what values should matter, especially around the centrality of Israel to Jewish life.

On one hand, I’m instinctively positively predisposed to a movement like Open Hillel. Previous reports of a Hillel student board member stating he was forced to step down because he sought to host a Palestinian solidarity activist speaker following the screening of a Palestinian documentary give me chills. And I find Hillel’s guidelines about rejecting speakers who hold Israel to a “double standard” frustratingly enigmatic. There is good conceptual reason to hold Israel, a democracy, to a different standard than Syria, for example. And there is an understandable reason to “single out” Israel when we, as Diaspora Jews, devote more emotional, financial and political resources to the Jewish state than to almost any other.

But, now, my doubts. First was LGBTQ and Palestine solidarity activist Sarah Schulman’s Facebook remarks about the conference. In her post, she railed against the “bullshit of LGBT Birthright,” accusing it of being a forum for “pinkwashing.” I’m partly sympathetic to the pinkwashing charge, awareness of which Schulman herself helped propel in a 2011 New York Times op-ed. There is much to be criticized in Israel’s hasbarah efforts, especially in light of the government’s apathy towards the morally corrosive occupation. But there is a gap: Where is the desired opportunity among Open Hillel activists and participants like Schulman to encourage a deep and textured cultural and political engagement with Israel? Birthright may not be the answer. But what is?

Echoing my thoughts were Steven M. Cohen’s reflections, also posted publicly on Facebook. There, Cohen praised the Open Hillel conference for opening up a much-needed debate on Israeli policies, including criticism of the occupation, but he lamented the apparent “abjuring of the primacy of Jewish or Israel attachment” among participants.

And then came an essay by Holly Bicerano in the Times of Israel, where she criticizes Hillel International’s “Vision for Israel,” which states that “Hillel desires that students are able to articulate why Israel plays an important role in their personal Jewish identities and how Israel continues to influence Jewish conversations, global Jewish peoplehood and the world.”

Bicerano is concerned that, “This particular vision is predicated on the supposition that having a Jewish state must be an integral part of every deserving Jew’s identity.”

My personal, liberal variant of Zionism abhors the occupation, desires to redress political inequalities among the state’s ethnic groups, and opposes the general trend towards illiberal legislation in the Knesset. But, at the very least, I see an important role for Israel’s existence in the life of the Jewish people. While theological commitments are subject to the debates of rationalists, Israel helps secure a sense of peoplehood. Where Jews now speak the languages of their host societies, Israel’s Hebrew revival reminds us of our shared heritage. Where Diaspora Jews must negotiate a minority identity within a majority culture, Israel enables a sense of collective Jewish autonomy.

It follows that were I to find myself in the position of coordinating a campus-based, non-denominational Jewish organization such as Hillel, I would surely encourage students’ right to wrestle with, criticize and protest the policies of Israel. But I would rue the day that the notion of Israel as a component of collective Jewish identity was simply left at the curb.

So, I support the diversity of political views around Israel that were given an airing at the Open Zion conference and I welcome a much-needed, on-the-record conversation about the indignities of the occupation. But if, like Cohen, I am troubled that some of the Open Hillel proponents reject the relevance of sensitive and textured Jewish cultural and political engagement with Israel writ large, what am I to conclude about the fledgling movement?

What I conclude is that we must encourage more Open Hillel gatherings to be held. We must convene discussion not only among the converted. In the marketplace of ideas and attachments, we must realize that the most compelling identity markers will win. Therefore, we must seek to understand how, if Israel is so central to the Jewish identity of so many, it is precisely not this way to so many others. And, if it happens to be decades of Israeli settlements and occupation that have helped push younger Jews away, we must double down – as if we needed a further reason – to do something about those policies too.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She blogs at Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward. A version of this article was originally published on haartez.com.

Aliyah: a 10-year high

According to initial end-of-year figures released by the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption, aliyah hit a 10-year high in 2014, with the arrival of some 26,500 new immigrants. This marks a 32 percent increase over 2013.

For the first time, France tops the list of countries of origin for immigrants to Israel, with nearly 7,000 new immigrants in 2014, double the 3,400 who came the year before.

Some 5,840 new immigrants came from Ukraine, compared to some 2,020 in 2013. This dramatic 190 percent increase is due primarily to the ongoing instability in the eastern part of the country.

Aliyah from western Europe is up 88 percent, with the arrival of some 8,640 immigrants. Some 620 came to Israel from the United Kingdom, a 20 percent increase over 2013. The number from Italy doubled to some 340. Aliyah from Belgium saw a modest decrease, to 240. German aliyah remained stable, at approximately 120.

Aliyah from the former Soviet Union was up 50 percent, with the arrival of some 11,430 immigrants, with 4,830 from Russia, Belarus and the Baltic states, 300 from the Caucasus and 390 from Central Asia.

Aliyah from Latin America remained stable, with the arrival of some 1,070 immigrants. Aliyah from Brazil saw a 45 percent increase, with 300 immigrants, and approximately 297 came from Argentina, 76 from Mexico, 70 from Venezuela, 62 from Colombia, 58 from Uruguay and 52 from Chile.

Aliyah from North America increased modestly, with the arrival of some 3,870 immigrants compared to 3,600 in 2013. Approximately 3,470 immigrants came from the United States and 400 immigrants came from Canada, compared to 384 the year before.

Eastern Europe saw 232 people make aliyah, compared to approximately 270 in 2013. Approximately 126 came from Hungary, 32 from Poland, 24 from Romania and 24 from Bulgaria.

Some 190 immigrants came to Israel from South Africa, roughly the same as 2013, while 200 came from Australia and New Zealand, a slight decrease from the year before.

More than half of the immigrants who came to Israel in 2014 were under the age of 35. The eldest immigrant was born in 1910 and made aliyah from France at the age of 104. The youngest came from the United States and was only several weeks old. Tel Aviv led the chart of cities receiving new immigrants, with approximately 3,000 new Tel Avivians. The coastal city of Netanya came second and Jerusalem came in third.

Oil spill heightens urgency

A ribbon-cutting ceremony to inaugurate the new Regional Collaboration Centre for Research and Development and Renewable Energy near Eilat. (photo from Jewish National Fund via jns.org)

The worst oil spill in Israel’s history was the unplanned backdrop for a recent international conference on green energy held in Eilat, the country’s southernmost city. A busy port and popular resort city located at the northern tip of the Red Sea, Eilat is at the epicentre of the Jewish state’s renewable energy industry.

The Eilat-Eilot Green Energy Sixth International Conference and Exhibition, held Dec. 7-9, was the culmination of six events that comprised Israel Energy Week and offered participants from around the globe a concentrated encounter with the emerging world of alternative energy in Israel. The conference focused on challenges facing the renewable energy industry, including storage and supply of electricity, development of methods to manage electricity flow and financing to advance projects.

It also focused on the key role renewable energy plays in the southern Arava, a stretch of Negev Desert from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba in which Eilat and the Hevel Eilot Regional Council are located. This arid, sun-drenched area is Israel’s main locale for sustainable development and functions as an international showcase for Israeli innovation in the field of green energy.

“Renewable energy, with an emphasis on solar, is a major focus of our municipal activity and plays a key role in the region as a whole,” Meir Yitzhak Halevi, the mayor of Eilat, told conference attendees. “The city of Eilat and the Hevel Eilot Regional Council, which together account for 13 percent of Israel’s land area but less than one percent of the country’s population, have recognized the potential offered by the sunlight and open space that exist here in such abundance, and are concentrating on renewable energy as a catalyst for regional growth.”

According to Udi Gat, head of the Hevel Eilot Regional Council, the area has already reached nearly 60 percent daytime energy independence and in eight months will generate nearly 100 percent of the energy consumed each day in the southern Arava. By 2020, the municipality and regional council anticipate that the area will be completely energy-independent and free of fossil fuel and carbon emissions.

“We want to generate more electricity, even beyond the needs of Eilat and the regional council. We want to help the country produce electricity from an inexpensive source – the sun – and to be Israel’s electricity storehouse or ‘bank,’” Gat said.

The importance of achieving energy independence was conveyed to the conference in a dramatic way when, four days prior to the start of the gathering, an oil pipeline ruptured during maintenance work at a construction site about 12 miles north of Eilat. Five million litres of crude oil spilled out and fouled an estimated 250 acres of scenic desert, including a nature reserve. Delicate coral reefs beyond the nearby shoreline were also threatened.

Word choice matters

The Jordan River is “the only river on planet earth that on its good days is a few feet wide, and people claim that it has a bank 40 miles wide.” (photo from Beivushtang via Wikimedia Commons)

Settlements or Jewish communities? West Bank or Judea and Samaria? East Jerusalem or eastern Jerusalem? Those are some of the language choices that journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are faced with each day – and those choices should not be taken lightly, experts say.

“It’s the terminology that actually defines the conflict and defines what you think about the conflict,” said Ari Briggs, director of Regavim, an Israeli nongovernmental organization that works on legal land-use issues. “Whereas journalists’ job, I believe, is to present the news, as soon as you use certain terminology, you’re presenting an opinion and not the news anymore.”

“Accuracy requires precision; ideology employs euphemism,” said Eric Rozenman, Washington director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

At the conclusion of his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues that writers have the power to “send some worn-out and useless phrase … into the dustbin, where it belongs.” Many Jewish leaders, organizations and analysts wish to do just that with the following terms, which are commonly used by the mainstream media in coverage of Israel.

West Bank: Dani Dayan believes the “funniest” term of all that is used in mainstream coverage of Israel is West Bank. Dayan is the chief foreign envoy of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization representing the municipal councils of Jewish communities in an area that the Israeli government calls Judea and Samaria, in line with the region’s biblical roots. Yet, media most often use West Bank to describe the area in reference to the bank of the river situated on its eastern border.

“[The Jordan River] is the only river on planet earth that on its good days is a few feet wide, and people claim that it has a bank 40 miles wide [spanning across Judea and Samaria],” Dayan told this reporter. “There is no other example of such a thing in the geography of planet earth. That proves that West Bank is the politicized terminology, and not Judea and Samaria, as people claim.”

Member of Knesset Danny Danon (Likud) has said it’s “ridiculous” that West Bank – a geographic term that once described half of the Mandate of Palestine – has “taken on a political meaning that attempts to supersede thousands of years of Jewish tradition.”

“The correct name of the heartland of the Land of Israel is obviously Judea and Samaria,” he said.

Rozenman, the former editor of the Washington Jewish Week and B’nai B’rith Magazine, draws a distinction between the context of Palestinian and Jewish communities in the area. “If I’m referring to Palestinian Arab usage or demands, I use West Bank,” he said. “If I’m referring to Israeli usage or Jewish history and religion, etc., I use Judea and Samaria. Israeli prime ministers from 1967 on, if not before, used and [now] use Yehuda and Shomron, the Hebrew from which the Romans latinized Judea and Samaria.”

West Bank is fair to use, “so long as it’s noted that Jordan adopted that usage in the early 1950s to try to legitimate its illegal occupation, as the result of aggression, of what was commonly known as Judea and Samaria by British Mandatory authorities,” added Rozenman.

Dayan, meanwhile, prefers to call Palestinian communities in Judea and Samaria exactly that. “The area is Judea and Samaria and, in Judea and Samaria, there are indeed Palestinian population centres, and that’s perfectly OK,” he said. “We cannot neglect that fact, that yes, we [Jews] are living together with Palestinians. And, in Judea and Samaria, there is ample room for many Jews, for many Palestinians, and for peaceful coexistence between them if the will exists.”

Settlements: Judea and Samaria’s Jewish communities are often called settlements, a term that can depict modern-day residents of the area as primitive.

Settlements “once referred in a positive manner to all communities in the Land of Israel, but at some point was misappropriated as a negative term specifically against those Jews who settled in Judea and Samaria,” Danon said. “I prefer to use ‘Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria’ when discussing the brave modern-day Zionistic pioneers.”

Dayan said that “settlements” is not pejorative, but still inaccurate. “It’s a politically driven labeling in order to target those [Israeli] communities,” he said. “Most communities in Judea and Samaria are not different from any suburban or even urban community in Europe, in the United States, in Israel itself, or elsewhere.”

The tent is getting smaller

Amid what had been a steady stream of volunteer commitments I had undertaken in the Jewish community, it seems I now have some more free time. I could be pleased by the fact that I am freed from a major board commitment, but I’m not. Because something’s rotten in the state of Diaspora Jewish communal discourse.

Let’s back up. After seven years of dedicated service on the board of a large Jewish organization here in Ottawa, where I helped initiate policies around ecological sustainability, reform the board’s governance and procedures, work on LGBTQ inclusion, and reformulate our mission statement to better reflect the organization’s values, I found myself having risen through the ranks of the board’s executive to the position of vice-chair. All this along with teaching adult education classes at the institution, creating an innovative women’s athletic program there and being a regular user, along with my family, of a variety of programs and services. Normal board succession procedures imply that I would be next in line for chair – a position I had made plain to those in charge that I was willing to take on.

But rumblings over the past half-year suggested that I was potentially radioactive in the minds of some donors. Why? Because of my writings on the subject of Israel. In short, the board’s selection committee made clear that they’d be better off without me.

Readers of my columns know that while I am frequently critical of Israeli policies around the occupation and other anti-democratic moves afoot in Israel, I am squarely in the camp of liberal Zionism. This means that, in addition to criticizing the occupation and pressing Israel to make the necessary conditions to engage in a meaningful peace process, I oppose full-out boycott of Israel leading to the undermining of its core identity as a Jewish state. I have publicly debated anti-Zionists and non-Zionists – both in person and in print – on these issues, and I regularly tout the importance of Israel engagement and Jewish and Hebrew literacy. These are all ideas that I also put forth both in my columns in local Canadian Jewish papers and in international media, in Haaretz, the Forward and, before that, in Open Zion at the Daily Beast. Still, it seems that when it comes to positions of community leadership, none of this is enough to establish one’s loyalty to a tent that is rapidly shrinking.

We’ve heard this all before, of course. Witness the stonewalling reaction Peter Beinart received by the Toronto-based Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs when his organizers tried to get him an audience with Hillel on campus during his three-city Canadian tour a couple of years ago. And then there’s the canceling of David Harris-Gershon’s talk at the Jewish community centre in Washington, D.C., earlier this year.

It’s by now a truism that the breadth of policy debate among Israelis themselves far outsizes what is evidently permitted within the Diaspora Jewish community. But then, neither do Israeli Jews have to actively work to inculcate Jewish identity, as I frequently have in my writings, including promoting Jewish education, pushing for the active use of Hebrew, examining the value of synagogue affiliation, defending Jewish and Zionist summer camping experiences and, yes, insisting on the value of a Diaspora connection to Israel.

So, I’m left to ask this: what is it, ultimately, that we, as Jewish community volunteers and activists, are being asked to be loyal to? Are we being asked to promote Jewish community vitality, wrestle with ideas around Israeli politics and policies, encourage Jewish literacy, and consider realities that preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic character? Or are we being asked to simply support the endless occupation just as we see Israel’s democratic character crumbling before our very eyes, as the country becomes more and more of a pariah state? I think I know the answer. But how I wish it weren’t so.

“Jewish state bill” should be nixed

A proposed “Jewish state bill” may be up for a Knesset vote next week. An amalgamation of previous drafts, the bill would, among other things, enshrine in Basic Law Israel’s Jewish identity, reserve the right of national self-determination to Jews only, institutionalize Jewish law as the basis for Israeli law, and de-list Arabic as an official language, relegating it to “special status.”

Passed by a 14-6 majority of cabinet ministers on Sunday, the bill – which includes some 14 principles – still requires Knesset approval. With Yesh Atid and Hatnua threatening to leave the coalition government in reaction to the proposal, the Knesset vote was postponed until the middle of next week, at least.

“The vote set off a stormy cabinet session in which two of his most centrist coalition partners voted against the proposed bill and voiced fierce opposition, claiming that at this sensitive juncture it would likely just escalate tensions,” reported CBC.

President Reuven Rivlin is against the bill, saying it undermines the country’s Jewish character and calls into question the success of Zionism. Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein also has come out against the bill, writing a legal opinion that was published in Hebrew on Walla, indicating, according to various news reports, that the planned proposal features “significant changes in the founding principles of constitutional law as anchored in the Declaration of Independence and in the basic laws of the Knesset, which can flatten the democratic character of the state.”

Despite these and many other criticisms and concerns expressed within Israel by Israelis, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has said he is determined to pass the bill, “with or without consensus.” He confusingly added, “I don’t know a country that is more democratic, or a more vibrant democracy than Israel in the world, certainly not in our region.” Yet this point of pride would no longer exist if the bill passed.

Outside of the country, the United States State Department cautioned that Israel should “stick to its democratic principles.” This warning was roundly rejected by Jewish Home party MK and Economic Minister Naftali Bennett, who reportedly said, “We will manage the affairs of the state of Israel. We have to deal with the ramifications of what sort of state we want. In the end, this is our problem, an internal problem, and I don’t think anyone has the right to wade into it.”

Just what kind of state this bill is proposing is not clear. Not to wade into it too deeply but we find ourselves agreeing with the U.S. State Department and the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, who made a statement about how “well-meaning” (we’re not sure about that) and “unnecessary” the bill is, the latter being an opinion expressed by many of those that lean to the right in Israel. We even find ourselves agreeing, at first blush, with those on the left in Israel who are calling the bill racist.

In his Nov. 25 Haaretz column, Bradley Burston writes, “Listen to the words of Mahmoud Seif, uncle of sergeant-major Zidan Nahad Seif, the Druze Arab Israeli policeman slain … as he fought to stop the terrorist murder of Jews at prayer in a Jerusalem synagogue…. ‘The “nation-state law,” is saying, in other words: “Only the Jews should remain here.”’

“‘What about the Druze? What about the many, many Arabs who are loyal to the country?’ he asked on Army Radio this week.

“‘What are they going to do now? This is a law for Jews only.’”

Twenty percent of Israel’s population – one in five – is not Jewish.

All logic, all compassion, all pragmatism – everything! – cries out against this bill. Please, Knesset, vote it down.

On being a Sar-el volunteer

Gerald Lecovin on the production line at Matzrap Army Camp this past October. (photo from Gerald Lecovin)

Matzrap Army Camp, October 2014: It’s 8:15, time to work. Breakfast and flag raising are over. The Henna Hannahs are already on the job. This is the name I have given to the seven or eight elderly ladies who have been bused in from a senior citizens home, the color of their hair belying the rest of their bodies. They sit at a table, shmoozing while they place various combinations of medical supplies in small plastic bags, which are then sealed and placed in containers going out to the troops. They work steadily till lunch, which they are given before being bused back to their home. This is their – and our – contribution to Israel’s welfare.

We are 30 Sar-elniks, mostly Canadian, whose job it is to open containers, packs and medical vests coming back from the front. We empty them out, remove items that are no longer useable, replace the items and then repack everything. Containers are then sealed in plastic bags, put on pallets and shipped out. While they are replaced by more containers and the process repeats itself, there is a feeling of accomplishment every time a pallet leaves.

On this tour of duty, we were helped by groups of young solders training to be medics. There were 18-year-old women and, later, men who were from an elite Seal unit. The women were a reflection of Israeli society; Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Russians. Each with the ubiquitous cellphone. One day, one of the soldiers played songs for us by her favorite singers: Satchmo and Tony Bennett. Go figure! Comparing them to our kids of similar age was edifying.

Lunch is from 11:45 to 1:15. This is the big meal of the day. Salads, choice of hot meat entrée or vegetarian. By this time, the camp is jumping and we are eating with soldiers and staff. We return to work till 3 or 4 p.m., depending on the workload. Supper is at 5:45, and sometimes we have a lecture in the evening. This is our routine. Once a week, they plan an outing and we are bused to some site of interest.

Sar-el, which is an acronym for “service to Israel,” was conceived by General Aharon Davidi in 1983 when there was a need for laborers to bring in the crops as the soldiers were away fighting. Through his contacts in the United States, he managed to get 600 volunteers. Since that time, more than 50,000 people, of which 35 percent are Christian and 65 percent Jewish, have volunteered. About 3,500 from 60 countries come each year.

Originally, the age limits were 18 to 65, but when the general himself reached 65, he removed the upper limit. The oldest of our group was 92. People come for an average of two to three weeks; some for months. Of our group, only two were first timers. One was returning for his 100th time. I was a relative neophyte: this was my third time.

The feeling of being able to contribute to Israel in a meaningful way, and not just financially, is a strong magnet. I know this because I interview those volunteers that come from the West Coast and many of them contact me upon their return to share their thoughts.

For more information about Sar-el, visit sarelcanada.org.

Gerald Lecovin is a longtime resident of Vancouver, and has been active in community affairs. For the last 10 years, he has been Sar-el’s representative on the West Coast.