Israel and US Jewry betray birthright

By MICHAEL FREUND
From Jerusalem Post

It has been hailed across the political and religious spectrum by rabbis, educators, and statesmen alike.

In just four years, it has brought tens of thousands of Jews to Israel, injected tens of millions of dollars into the Israeli economy, and helped to energize Jewish youth in dozens of communities throughout the Diaspora.

It has made significant inroads in saving young Jews from assimilation and intermarriage, and reaffirmed the centrality of the Jewish state to the future of the Jewish people.

So this year, how exactly has Israel's government decided to reward the birthright israel program - known here as Taglit - for its unprecedented accomplishments?

By slashing its funding.

Launched in the year 2000, thanks to the vision of philanthropists Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman, birthright was as simple as it was ambitious: its aim was to give Diaspora Jewish youth an opportunity to reconnect with their heritage by offering them an all-expenses-paid, 10-day trip to Israel.

The critics and the naysayers wasted little time in attacking the idea. It'll never work, they said, since Jewish kids don't care about coming to Israel. And even if they do, asserted the program's detractors, what good can a whirlwind tour possibly do to ignite their latent Jewish identities?

Needless to say, the critics were wrong on both counts.

Take, for example, the fact that in the 1990s, before birthright was launched, the number of Jewish students visiting Israel annually was said to number just 1,500. In 2003, as a result of the program, the total reached 15,000, or 10 times the 1990s figure. In effect, then, birthright accomplishes in one year what all the other programs combined would take a decade to do.

Indeed, nearly 60,000 young Jews from 35 countries around the world have participated in birthright thus far, including groups from as far afield as Russia, Cuba, the US and Brazil.

But the impact is far greater than merely
quantitative. It also transforms people's lives, reinvigorating their Jewish spirit and forever binding their fate with that of the Jewish people.
Earlier this week, Gideon Mark, birthright's director of marketing, told me story after story of Jewish kids whose lives had been forever changed by their brief yet intense exposure to Israel.

Some decide to seek out a Jewish marriage partner, others become involved in Jewish communal or religious life. A handful have chosen to make aliya.

Even the Israeli army is impressed, noticing the impact the program has had on young Israeli soldiers accompanying the students on their trips around the country. As a result, Mark says, the army has expanded its cooperation with the group because it enables the soldiers to better appreciate their kinship with Diaspora Jewry and instills within them a greater sense of pride regarding Israel's accomplishments.

But despite its track record, birthright is now getting short-changed by both the Israeli government and American Jewish organizations.

IN THE 2004 budget passed by the Knesset last week, the government reneged on its previous promises and cut the program's funding by an astonishing 95 percent, from $9 million in 2003 to just $400,000 in 2004.

And the United Jewish Communities, the fund-raising arm of American Jewry, has also indicated that it will not live up to its original commitment, citing tough economic times, among other reasons.

Consequently, according to Mark, birthright will have to cut back on the number of Jewish students it brings to Israel this year. Instead of 20,000 or even 30,000 new visitors in 2004, as had originally been hoped, just 10,000 may now be able to come.

And so, at a time when Israel is clamoring for more travelers to visit its shores, the government, together with American Jewish organizations, has effectively undercut one of the most successful and meaningful Israel programs in the Jewish world today. The decision is even more puzzling when one considers the economic benefits birthright provides.

Since its inception, the program has received a total of $35 million in grants from successive Israeli governments, yet it is estimated to have generated more than $90 million in return for the economy. Much of these revenues have gone to industries hit especially hard by the Palestinian intifada, such as hotels, tour operators and even El Al. Hence, birthright has the distinction of being not only beneficial for Israel, but profitable too.

As Avi Rosental, the director of the Israel Hotel Association, said last summer: "Tourism is a major branch of the Israeli economy that has suffered a lot because of the geopolitical situation. The increase in birthright israel tourists will perhaps bring us to a turning point where hotels can rehire staff and increase employment all over the country."

It is not too late to repair the situation and save birthright from shrinking in size. Pressure must be brought to bear on both the Israeli government and the Jewish federations in America to give birthright the priority in funding it rightly deserves.

The economy may still be sluggish, and donations may indeed be drying up even as the Jewish community's needs continue to grow. But we are talking about the future of the Jewish people, about saving young Jews from assimilation and reconnecting them with their heritage.

What could possibly be more important than that?

The writer served as deputy director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.

- posted by Yishai @ 12:56 PM Permalink Home

Balancing Act

Protocols links to a fascinating interview at Haaretz: Survival of the fittest. Ari Shavit interviews Benny Morris, a leftist historian who wrote a book on the "atrocities" perpetrated by the Jews in the War of Independence. The fascinating part is that he defends it:

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

The interview consists of Shavit asking many different forms of the question, "Are you serious, you cold, heartless bastard?" Read the whole thing.

In fact, Morris does come across as shockingly cold. But I think the struggle he seems to have gone through is important for everyone to deal with. We need to all be comfortable answering questions like: Is the establishment of the state of Israel morally justified? If so, why? Were we justified in establishing a Jewish majority in a land with an Arab majority, and instituting laws that gave preference to Jews (such as the Law of Return)? If the only way to establish the state was through questionable fighting during the War of Indepndence, does that mean it is no longer justified? If it was justified, does that mean the Arabs are justified in blowing up buses?

Morris frames the answers in terms of relative badness in a hostile world. We as Jews were (and are) fighting for our survival. Morris is not comfortable saying that our survival is only justified if we can get it for free, without trampling on any lofty ideals like peace and brotherhood among all people of the world. You need to think about ideals on one level, but be prepared to compromise on them in a world that is far from ideal. Whatever you think of his stance, these are questions that everyone needs to be struggling with.

- posted by Ben @ 4:24 AM Permalink Home

Idiotarian of the Year

I'm happy to see that LGF has voted Rachel Corrie the Idiotarian of 2003. Eric Raymond defines idiotarianism as the "species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it." Rachel Corrie gave her life so that others may die. She died defending a tunnel for smuggling of terrorists and their weapons into Israel. Anyone who thinks that that is a good moral cause to die for gives a bad name to the word "moral."

- posted by Ben @ 4:12 AM Permalink Home

Re: Tentative bumper stickers

from the top o my head:

1. Nyu York? Los Anjeloos? Ani maadif yerushalayim
(New York? Los Angeles? I'll Take Jerusalem!)

2. Aliyah m'America Zu HaAtid
(American Aliyah is the Future)

3. Tkumat Aliyah
(Aliyah Revolution)

4. Chibakta Oleh Chadash hayom?
(Have you hugged a new immigrant today?)

5. Shirts: Savlanut b'vakasha, ani oleh chadash(a)
(Patience Please, I'm a new immigrant)

6. Ramallah - Meechaz bilti chuki
(Ramallah is an illegal settlement outpost)

7. Arik! Al tizrok Tzion
(hmm, this one is a racy army pun - lit: Arik, don't throw away Zion)

8. Tnu l'pollard Laalot Artza
(Let Pollard Make Aliyah to Israel!)

9. Lama Hem m'fachadim m'arutz 7?
(Why are they afraid of Arutz 7?)

10. ani mesarev legaresh yehudim.
(I refuse to expel Jews)

That was five minutes worth. This is fun
(feel free to submit suggestions)

- posted by Ezra @ 5:25 PM Permalink Home

Picture of Malkah at Tel Aviv rally (courtesy of RotterNet)

- posted by Yishai @ 4:48 PM Permalink Home

A Government without a People for a People without a Government

The most noteworthy statement to come out of the "The People of Israel Will Not Surrender" rally, that was held at Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on January 12th, 2004, did not come from any of the many Knesset members who graced the podium to speak out against the Prime Minister's and other Likud leaders' latest obsession over unilateral withdrawal. Rather it emanated from the man who was single handedly responsible for the scheduling of the rally in the first place, namely, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

In a statement issued to the media after the rally, the Prime Minister unequivocally stated that, "Israel is a democracy, and decisions are made not by protesters, but by the government - my government." It is ironic that Sharon claims to be the defender of Israel's democracy, when he himself serves as one of the prime obstacles to Israel being able to function in a truly democratic manner.

Demonstrations, like the "The People of Israel Will Not Surrender" rally, are the backbone of a vibrant democracy, falling under the individual's Right to Assemble and Freedom of Speech. Once a government is elected, a citizen has little recourse when displeased by the policy of his elected officials, short of waiting until the next set of elections roll around. One of the few methods that a citizen has at his disposal is through demonstrations.

Prime Minister Sharon, through his comments, effectively disenfranchised an entire segment of the population, comprising hundreds of thousands of individuals. He essentially told them that there are two things that they could do about their disapproval with his policies, nothing and like it. That is not exactly the type of expression that one would expect to hear coming out of the mouth of the Prime Minister of Israel, a country which prides itself on being the only true democracy in the Middle East, but it does put Sharon in the company of every Arab dictator in the Middle East. After all, if Israel is to be just like all the nations....

The problem is further exacerbated. When an individual votes in Israel's national elections, in order to determine who will serve in the Knesset as well as Prime Minister, he is not able to vote for a particular candidate, rather he must vote for a party. The number of votes each party receives determines how many seats each party will receive in the next Knesset. In that sense, each voter is voting not for a particular candidate that one feels is qualified or worthy of leadership, rather for an ideological platform.

This system serves as a threat to Israel's democratic system, as can be seen from the current state of the Likud. The official Likud platform is staunchly against the creation of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River. Yet, Prime Minister Sharon and the members of his Likud led government are in fact calling for the establishment of that very thing. What is the voter in Israel to do when the only criteria by which he is able to determine who he wishes to elect is by voting for a party's ideological platform, only to find that the elected officials are not bound to adhere to it? Can there be a greater mockery of Israel's democratic system than this?

Consider the following as one of the many possible reforms that could be made the current electoral system in Israel, which would serve to improve its current state of affairs. Short of the ideal reform, where all members of the Knesset would be elected through direct elections, Israel will be divided into 12 electoral districts (consistent with the theme of the twelve tribes of Israel). From each district, ten representatives will be elected to serve in the Knesset, for a total of 120 seats. Each party would then form a list of the ten candidates that would be running for election within a particular district, and who, upon their election, would be directly responsible for and answerable to their specific constituency.

Only when terms such as accountability (for which there is currently no word for in the entire Hebrew lexicon) and constituency become commonplace in Israeli society will the elected leaders be forced to both hear and listen to the will of the citizens of Israel... Only when the citizens of Israel are able to truly elect leaders that will represent them and be held accountable for their actions, and not as the current system has it, where 120 kings are elected to the Knesset, answerable only to themselves. Only then will Israel's citizens truly have a voice through which they can be heard and help shape the future of their country, and that of the Jewish People.

- posted by Ze'ev @ 3:55 PM Permalink Home

Wish I Was There

"MK Molli Polishuk (Shinui) said that she is not at all bothered by the prospect of the dismantling of outposts, "which, in the best case, have 20 fanatics - most of them with American accents..." MK Michael Eitan (Likud) called out, "Don't you have any feeling? You make fun of those who leave a land where they have great material wealth and come here to help us, and you mock them - while at the same time kneeling before the other Americans [the U.S. government] who are still there." Polishuk, somewhat taken aback at Eitan's attack, defended herself, "I do have feeling, and I did not mean to make fun of their accent. I was just saying that they just recently arrived in Israel, and are trying to determine our agenda."

- posted by Ezra @ 3:06 PM Permalink Home

Israeli Democracy

Sharon had a pretty surprising reaction to yesterday's rally against withdrawing from settlements:

Sharon reacted to the demonstration by saying that "Israel is a democracy," and that "things are decided not by demonstrators, but by the government." "I believe that to reach peace, Israel will not be able to hold all the Jewish communities," he told a Jerusalem press conference.

I think the point of a democracy is that, in the long term, things are decided by the demonstrators, i.e., the public. The government is supposed to represent the people. Of course, once elected, the only thing preventing the government from going against the will of the public is the next election. Still, it's a pretty chutzpadik dirision of a major public protest. It really just fuels the assumption that I think most Israelis have, which is that they have absolutely no say in the decisions of the government.

- posted by Ben @ 5:37 PM Permalink Home

PM Sharon: Aliyah My Top Priority

From Israel National News
11:39 Jan 12, '04 / 18 Tevet 5764

Answering a question about Russian immigration to Israel at a Sunday press conference, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared Aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel) his top priority. "The main target of the government I lead," Sharon told reporters, "is Jewish immigration to Israel. And we believe that the answer to our problems here is first of all immigration. And we put a target that within 12-15 years, we will have to absorb here another million Jews, according to the Law of Return. We believe that the potential immigration from what used to be the Soviet Union is still about one million, according to the Law of Return. But we are making efforts everywhere, in the United States, in Latin America, in Europe - mostly when we see the growing spread of anti-Semitism. We already managed to absorb 1.2 million within 12 years or 13 years in the past, and with all the problems, we don't have any people without roofs over their heads. It was a tremendous effort, but we have done it.

"We see the situation. Of course, it depends upon many things, including a change in the economic situation. In Russia Jews are making efforts to send more children over here to study here, and usually when they come to study here, later they come and serve in the military and become part of sharing the lives of Israeli citizens here."

- posted by Yishai @ 12:30 PM Permalink Home

Yamit

JPost is carrying a timeline of the rise and fall of Yamit, the Jewish community built in Sinai, and destroyed as part of the peace agreements with Egypt. It includes a quote from one Ariel Sharon, justifying the destruction of Yamit:

"The ruins of Yamit will bear eternal proof that we have done over and above human imagination to meet (our obligations) under the peace treaty so that our children will not point an accusing finger at us and tell us we have missed the opportunity. No Arab army has succeeded - and never will succeed - in demolishing an Israeli town. Only we, with our own hands, were forced to destroy Yamit. We were compelled to erase her from the face of the earth to implement the peace agreement on time without spilling Jewish blood."

I think that arguments could be made either way about whether the destruction of Yamit, and the peace treaty in general, were a good idea or a bad idea. But, I have to questions Sharon's claim that the ruins bear witness of how far we went for peace. I really never hear anyone, Jew or non-Jew, saying, "Look how much Israel has done for peace - they even gave up Yamit." Instead, the ruins of Yamit set a precedence for Israel's willingness to destroy what it has built, in return for promises of non-belligerence. The destruction is permanent, and leaves an emotional scar on everyone involved, and many who were only bystanders. The promises of non-belligerence, on the other hand, are far from our utopian visions of peace, and may not even be recognizable years later. Egypt continues to foment anti-Semitism, and does nothing to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. We may still be better off with the peace treaty, but the precedence of the destruction of Jewish towns by the Jewish state will not be easily overcome.

This destruction is the exact opposite of the Zionist goal of building a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael. If you think that we only have a right to the pre-1967 areas of Israel because Jews form the vast majority of people there, then you need to justify the early Zionist goal of building settlements in the land, when Jews were only a small minority of the population. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the goal was clearly to get hundreds of thousands of Jews to move to a land dominated by Arabs, buy land, build communities, and establish a Jewish majority. This was justifiable because we were returning to our land, not conquering new land. The settlements build in Yesha were merely a logical continuation of this goal. If we state now that Jews have returned to historical Israel to stay, and that we will continue the Zionist mission of bringing more Jews from the Diaspora to settle the land, then we will be able to defend and continue the return to Zion with strength and a sense of purpose. However, if we continually send the message that no community is permanent, and we are ready, willing, or even eager to expel hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes that were built as part of the Zionist project, then we call the whole project into question.

Of course, we need to take this into consideration before building the community in the first place. Will this be a community that is sustainable, and is this a location which we want to include in our Zionist project? But once we make that decision, we need to support it with continued funding and encouragement of new development, not by constantly announcing our willingness to destroy the community. The places in which we have built in Yesha and the Golan are sustainable, and could be strengthened if we wouldn't falter in our commitment to them. Now that these communities have been built and are thriving, we need to consider the devastating effect that expelling Jews from them will have. It will encourage the Arab population to continue pressing us to destroy more of our own communities, and it will send the message to the Jews of Israel and the world that the Zionist project is over, and may never have been legitimate.

The outposts that the government is now talking about dismantling are all small, and most of them are very close to existing larger communities. The goal of destroying them is not so much practical as it is emotional. It is meant to send the message to the world that Israel is willing to make "painful concessions,," (didn't Sharon say that Yamit accomplished that?), and it tells Israeli Jews that we have firmly entered the period of post-Zionism, and further Zionist activity will not be tolerated. Maybe you think these are worthwhile goals, but even if they are, the consequences and long-term effects on our own national consciousness needs to be considered.

- posted by Ben @ 3:04 AM Permalink Home