On July 23, in conference with his "council of seven", Netanyahu announced that Israel will accede to Turkey’s demand that Israel return the confiscated flotilla ships. Debka.com reports that Netanyahu once again has misguided hopes that the Israeli-Turkish relationship can be revived. “Misguided” because this is only the latest effort to engage with Turkey, all the previous initiatives failed. It was only last month that a failed “secret” meeting between trade and labor minister Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu blew up in Netanyahu’s face because Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, was not consulted with.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
Showing posts with label Netanyahu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netanyahu. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Josephus and Conversions: Is World Jewry Destined to be Divided?
“Titus retired to Antonia intending to launch a full scale attack at dawn the next day and surrounded the sanctuary completely. It had, however, been condemned to the flames by G-d long ago…the 10th of Loos the day which centuries before had seen it burnt by the king of Babylon. But it was the Jews themselves who caused and started this conflagration (Josephus, The Jewish War, VI,254).
What did the Jews do that made them the destroyers of the holy temple? Was it their decision to fall back on it as a last defense, or perhaps the very fact that they went to war with Rome? According to many it was the discord that existed amongst the various factions of Jews that devolved into self destructive baseless hate.
Regardless, as Josephus aptly pointed out 1,940 years ago, the 10th of Loos, or as Jews know it the 9th of Av was, is, a day of Jewish mourning. According to the bible, it is the day when the Jews received the news from the 12 spies, 10 of whom proclaimed that the promised land, Canaan, was a death trap. Because the Jews rejected G-d’s promise that Israel would be given to them and mourned their impending destruction G-d proclaimed that “you mourn for no reason, I will give you a reason to mourn”.
Later Solomon’s temple was set on fire by the Babylonians in 586 BCE as they sacked the city of Jerusalem, and killed 100,000 of Jews. It was in the 9th of Av 1492 that the Jews were expelled from Spain. WWI began on the 9th of Av 1914, which according to most students of history led to WWII and the holocaust. It was on the 9th of Av that the expulsion of the Jews by Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza was signed into law. The irony of the date is one of the great under-reported paradoxes in history. The “disengagement” from Gaza led to Iran’s proxy, HAMAS, establishing a base in Gaza, and the 1000’s of rockets that continue to rain on Israel’s population.
Not to be outdone the Jewish community is once again embroiled in a internal struggle. This time over, it involves a controversial conversion initiative, the “Rotem bill”. The bill, passed 5-4 by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, stipulates that all conversions in Israel must be approved by the office of the chief Rabbinate. Moreover, any Jewish convert that wishes to move to Israel under the “Law Of Return” -which ensures automatic citizenship to any Jew to preclude another scenario were Jews are persecuted with nowhere to flee- will have their conversion evaluated by the Orthodox Rabbinate.
The powerful Reform/Conservative movement in America and the smaller albeit growing Israeli Masorti (essentially the Israeli conservative movement), are up in arms claiming that this bill effectively disqualifies their conversions, and ultimately delegitimizes their interpretation of Judaism. Furthermore, leaders of the American Jewish-liberal faction, have authored public letters condemning the bill and arguing that it will foster disunity between the American and Israeli Jewish communities at a time when unity is imperative. Supporters of the bill including FM Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Netanyahu’s minority partner in the Knesset counter that this will streamline the often frustrating/complicated conversion process for many immigrants, who are the political base of the Lieberman’s party. The Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, and National-Religious parties, which at first opposed the bill, now support it as it “will ensure that all those that claim to be Jews are actually Jews”. Meanwhile Netanyahu repudiated the bill asserting that it will divide the Jewish community while preventing any Likud committee members from attending the vote.
There are three issues here that I believe need to be addressed:
1. Is this bill and the Law of Return racist?
2. Is this bill intended to undermine progressive Judaism?
3. Is this bill another Josephus-like self afflicted division in global Jewry?
Before we can discuss whether the bill is racist it is important to first address what made this bill necessary. Namely the growing number of immigrants to Israel who came to Israel under the Law of Return, and desire to convert, or have had apocryphal conversions. The Law of Return stipulates automatic Israeli citizenship to any individual with one Jewish grandparent. The reasoning behind this thinking was that Hitler classified anyone with a Jewish grandparent as Jewish.
The fact that a Jew and the immediate family of a Jew gain near automatic citizenship under the Law of Return is often labeled racist. Yet this law is not so much asserting Jewish racial superiority or inherent rights. Rather it is intended to allow for the implementation of the philosophy behind the creation of the state of Israel. In other words Jews for two millennia have been at the mercy of tyrants, demagogues, emperors, popes, caliphs, reformists, and fascists. The only way Israel can offer maximum protection to Jews is by granting them a retroactive place of refuge, i.e. you always have/had a place where you will be relatively safe. Another way to understand the Law of Return is that it asserts that Jewish citizenship in Israel is rooted in the bible and secular history. Thus the Law of Return is not granting new citizenship to Jews but rather making sure that the person coming through the border is already a citizen, by virtue of the their biblical and historical relationship with Israel. This is not just premised on religion but also unambiguous historical records, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Indeed many countries like Germany, Spain, Poland, and Japan, also give preferential consideration for prospective immigrants with ethnic ties. Is this racist? I don’t think so.
With this preface we can better understand the relationship between, and the implications of, the Rotem bill and the Law of Return. If “who is a Jew” is decided by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate then those eligible to move to Israel by choice or by genocide, would be subject to the Orthodox criteria for conversion, which is designed to prevent opportunism, minimal acceptance of Judaism, and Jewish tradition. Furthermore, if it is passed by the Knesset it will inevitably delegitimize progressive Judaism.
The question is whether that delegitimization is the intended goal or a bi-product of a bill purely formulated with domestic issues in mind?
Unfortunately the media has focused on the dividing results of the bill without giving the other motivations sufficient consideration. After all the bill's positives may outweigh its negatives. The debate can’t be complete without considering that Lieberman simply wants to gain concessions for his political base who are predominantly eastern-European immigrants and would benefit from streamlined conversions. At the same time the motivation may be a lot more complex than concluding that it one or the other.
One perspective offered is that Lieberman is creating leverage with Netanyahu to be used in the upcoming budget debate. Lieberman will drop support for the bill if Netanyahu will agree to Lieberman’s budget demands.
It may also be that Lieberman, the uncompromising strongman in rightwing Israeli politics, is actually challenging the prodigious influence of American Jewry in Israel. There is no question that American-Jewish progressives are the ideological allies of the political left in Israel –Lieberman’s sworn foes. Moreover Jewish-American progressives, actually helped elect Obama, the man who tried to have Lieberman’s right-wing party replaced with Tzipi Livni’s left-leaning Kadima. Thus this bill serves Lieberman’s interests by weakening the progressive Jewish-American establishment. At the same time the majority of progressive Jewry are staunchly pro-Israel and continue to be so. Is Lieberman intentionally weakening his political opponents abroad to strengthen his domestic position? If so he may actually be putting himself before his country.
From whatever perspective it is clear that Lieberman’s primary intentions vis-a-vis the bill are difficult to pin-down. That being said there is certainly merit to the assertion that this bill will divide the global Jewish community.
The real question is whether this bill will result in another display of the Jewish communities masochistic tendencies described by Josephus 2 millennia ago, in this very month, or does this bill actually offer an iconoclastic opportunity?
I guess it depends on how you see the nature of our existence. If everything happens for a greater purpose then this event is another keystone in a necessary progression towards a greater good. Who knows, perhaps this an opportunity to overcome global Jewry’s propensity to allow a difference of opinion to devolve into baseless hate.
However this turns out let it not divide us!
What did the Jews do that made them the destroyers of the holy temple? Was it their decision to fall back on it as a last defense, or perhaps the very fact that they went to war with Rome? According to many it was the discord that existed amongst the various factions of Jews that devolved into self destructive baseless hate.
Regardless, as Josephus aptly pointed out 1,940 years ago, the 10th of Loos, or as Jews know it the 9th of Av was, is, a day of Jewish mourning. According to the bible, it is the day when the Jews received the news from the 12 spies, 10 of whom proclaimed that the promised land, Canaan, was a death trap. Because the Jews rejected G-d’s promise that Israel would be given to them and mourned their impending destruction G-d proclaimed that “you mourn for no reason, I will give you a reason to mourn”.
Later Solomon’s temple was set on fire by the Babylonians in 586 BCE as they sacked the city of Jerusalem, and killed 100,000 of Jews. It was in the 9th of Av 1492 that the Jews were expelled from Spain. WWI began on the 9th of Av 1914, which according to most students of history led to WWII and the holocaust. It was on the 9th of Av that the expulsion of the Jews by Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza was signed into law. The irony of the date is one of the great under-reported paradoxes in history. The “disengagement” from Gaza led to Iran’s proxy, HAMAS, establishing a base in Gaza, and the 1000’s of rockets that continue to rain on Israel’s population.
Not to be outdone the Jewish community is once again embroiled in a internal struggle. This time over, it involves a controversial conversion initiative, the “Rotem bill”. The bill, passed 5-4 by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, stipulates that all conversions in Israel must be approved by the office of the chief Rabbinate. Moreover, any Jewish convert that wishes to move to Israel under the “Law Of Return” -which ensures automatic citizenship to any Jew to preclude another scenario were Jews are persecuted with nowhere to flee- will have their conversion evaluated by the Orthodox Rabbinate.
The powerful Reform/Conservative movement in America and the smaller albeit growing Israeli Masorti (essentially the Israeli conservative movement), are up in arms claiming that this bill effectively disqualifies their conversions, and ultimately delegitimizes their interpretation of Judaism. Furthermore, leaders of the American Jewish-liberal faction, have authored public letters condemning the bill and arguing that it will foster disunity between the American and Israeli Jewish communities at a time when unity is imperative. Supporters of the bill including FM Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, and Netanyahu’s minority partner in the Knesset counter that this will streamline the often frustrating/complicated conversion process for many immigrants, who are the political base of the Lieberman’s party. The Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, and National-Religious parties, which at first opposed the bill, now support it as it “will ensure that all those that claim to be Jews are actually Jews”. Meanwhile Netanyahu repudiated the bill asserting that it will divide the Jewish community while preventing any Likud committee members from attending the vote.
There are three issues here that I believe need to be addressed:
1. Is this bill and the Law of Return racist?
2. Is this bill intended to undermine progressive Judaism?
3. Is this bill another Josephus-like self afflicted division in global Jewry?
Before we can discuss whether the bill is racist it is important to first address what made this bill necessary. Namely the growing number of immigrants to Israel who came to Israel under the Law of Return, and desire to convert, or have had apocryphal conversions. The Law of Return stipulates automatic Israeli citizenship to any individual with one Jewish grandparent. The reasoning behind this thinking was that Hitler classified anyone with a Jewish grandparent as Jewish.
The fact that a Jew and the immediate family of a Jew gain near automatic citizenship under the Law of Return is often labeled racist. Yet this law is not so much asserting Jewish racial superiority or inherent rights. Rather it is intended to allow for the implementation of the philosophy behind the creation of the state of Israel. In other words Jews for two millennia have been at the mercy of tyrants, demagogues, emperors, popes, caliphs, reformists, and fascists. The only way Israel can offer maximum protection to Jews is by granting them a retroactive place of refuge, i.e. you always have/had a place where you will be relatively safe. Another way to understand the Law of Return is that it asserts that Jewish citizenship in Israel is rooted in the bible and secular history. Thus the Law of Return is not granting new citizenship to Jews but rather making sure that the person coming through the border is already a citizen, by virtue of the their biblical and historical relationship with Israel. This is not just premised on religion but also unambiguous historical records, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Indeed many countries like Germany, Spain, Poland, and Japan, also give preferential consideration for prospective immigrants with ethnic ties. Is this racist? I don’t think so.
With this preface we can better understand the relationship between, and the implications of, the Rotem bill and the Law of Return. If “who is a Jew” is decided by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate then those eligible to move to Israel by choice or by genocide, would be subject to the Orthodox criteria for conversion, which is designed to prevent opportunism, minimal acceptance of Judaism, and Jewish tradition. Furthermore, if it is passed by the Knesset it will inevitably delegitimize progressive Judaism.
The question is whether that delegitimization is the intended goal or a bi-product of a bill purely formulated with domestic issues in mind?
Unfortunately the media has focused on the dividing results of the bill without giving the other motivations sufficient consideration. After all the bill's positives may outweigh its negatives. The debate can’t be complete without considering that Lieberman simply wants to gain concessions for his political base who are predominantly eastern-European immigrants and would benefit from streamlined conversions. At the same time the motivation may be a lot more complex than concluding that it one or the other.
One perspective offered is that Lieberman is creating leverage with Netanyahu to be used in the upcoming budget debate. Lieberman will drop support for the bill if Netanyahu will agree to Lieberman’s budget demands.
It may also be that Lieberman, the uncompromising strongman in rightwing Israeli politics, is actually challenging the prodigious influence of American Jewry in Israel. There is no question that American-Jewish progressives are the ideological allies of the political left in Israel –Lieberman’s sworn foes. Moreover Jewish-American progressives, actually helped elect Obama, the man who tried to have Lieberman’s right-wing party replaced with Tzipi Livni’s left-leaning Kadima. Thus this bill serves Lieberman’s interests by weakening the progressive Jewish-American establishment. At the same time the majority of progressive Jewry are staunchly pro-Israel and continue to be so. Is Lieberman intentionally weakening his political opponents abroad to strengthen his domestic position? If so he may actually be putting himself before his country.
From whatever perspective it is clear that Lieberman’s primary intentions vis-a-vis the bill are difficult to pin-down. That being said there is certainly merit to the assertion that this bill will divide the global Jewish community.
The real question is whether this bill will result in another display of the Jewish communities masochistic tendencies described by Josephus 2 millennia ago, in this very month, or does this bill actually offer an iconoclastic opportunity?
I guess it depends on how you see the nature of our existence. If everything happens for a greater purpose then this event is another keystone in a necessary progression towards a greater good. Who knows, perhaps this an opportunity to overcome global Jewry’s propensity to allow a difference of opinion to devolve into baseless hate.
However this turns out let it not divide us!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
No Mention of Turkey in the Obama/Netanyahu Press-Conference
This afternoon Barack H. Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu held a post meeting press-conference. They discussed Iran, the peace process, Gaza, Israeli nuclear arms, and even answered a question on the settlement freeze by an intrepid Israeli journalist. But no mention of Turkey’s demand for a UN “impartial inquiry” into the Flotilla provocation with a bad ending or a request that Israel apologize to Turkey. In fact while the Arab states, Hamas, Iran, and even Netanyahu’s Israel speech congratulating America on July fourth, were mentioned Turkey was not (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/07/06/HP/R/35121/President+Obama+USIsrael+bond+unbreakable.aspx).
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
