Uncategorized
Diaspora alarm over Israel: Your guide to what the critics are saying
(JTA) — I started reporting on North American Jews and Israel in the last century, and for years covered the debate over whether Jews in the Diaspora had a right to criticize the Israeli government in public. The debate sort of petered out in the early-1990s, when Israel itself began talking about a Palestinian state, and when right-wing groups then decided criticizing Israel was a mitzvah.
Nevertheless, while left-wing groups like J Street and T’ruah have long been comfortable criticizing the Israeli government or defending Palestinian rights, many in the centrist “mainstream” — pulpit clergy, leaders of federations and Hillels, average Jews nervous about spoiling a family get-together — have preferred to keep their concerns to themselves. Partly this is tactical: Few rabbis want to alienate any of their members over so divisive a topic, and in the face of an aggressive left, organizational leaders did not want to give fuel to Israel’s ideological enemies. (The glaring exception has been about Israeli policy toward non-Orthodox Judaism, which is seen as very much the Disapora’s business.)
In recent weeks, there has been an emerging literature of what I have come to think of as “reluctant dissent.” What these essays and sermons have in common, despite the different political persuasions of the authors, is a deep concern over Israel’s “democratic character.” They cite judicial reforms that would weaken checks and balances at the top, expansion of Jewish settlements that would make it impossible to separate from the Palestinians, and the Orthodox parties that want to strengthen their hold on religious affairs. As Abe Foxman, who as former director of the Anti-Defamation League rarely criticized Israel, told an interviewer, “If Israel ceases to be an open democracy, I won’t be able to support it.”
I read through the various ways Jewish leaders and writers here and in Israel are not just justifying Diaspora Jews who are protesting what is happening in Israel, but providing public permission for others to do the same. Here is what a few of them are saying (with a word from a defender of the government):
‘I didn’t sleep much last night’
Yehuda Kurtzer: Facebook, Feb. 8
Kurtzer is the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, the New York-based branch of the Israeli think tank that promotes a diverse, engaged relationship with Israel. In a recent blog post, he neatly describes the dilemma of Diaspora Zionists who aren’t sure what to do with their deep concerns about the direction of the Israel government, especially the concentration of power in a far-right legislative branch.
Centrist American Jews who care about Israel are caught between “those to our right who would see any expression of even uncertainty about Israel’s democratic character as disloyalty, [and] those on the other side who think that a conversation about Israeli democracy is already past its prime,” he writes. He is also concerned about the “widespread disengagement that we can expect among American Jews, what I fear will become the absent majority — those who decide that however the current crisis is resolved, all of this is just ‘not for them.’”
Kurtzer likens Israel to a palace, and Diaspora Jews as “passersby” who live beyond its walls. Nonetheless, he feels responsible for what happens there. “The palace is burning and the best we can do is to tell you,” he writes. “It is also how we will show you we love you, and how much we cherish the palace.”
An open letter to Israel’s friends in North America
Matti Friedman, Yossi Klein Halevi and Daniel Gordis: Times of Israel, Feb. 7
Three high-profile writers who moved to Israel from North America and who often defend Israel against its critics in the United States — Gordis, for one, has written a book arguing that American Jewish liberalism is incompatible with Israel’s “ethnic democracy” — now urge Diaspora Jews to speak out against the current Israeli government. They don’t mention the territories or religious pluralism. Instead, their trigger is the proposed effort to reform the Supreme Court, which they say will “eviscerate the independence of our judiciary and remake the country’s democratic identity.” Such a move will “threaten Israeli-American relations, and it will do grave damage to our relations with you, our sisters and brothers in the Diaspora,” concluding, “We need your voice to help us preserve Israel as a state both Jewish and democratic.”
All Israel Is Responsible for Each Other
Rabbi Angela Buchdahl: Sermon, Jan. 27
Buchdahl, the senior rabbi of New York City’s Reform Central Synagogue, isn’t looking to Israeli writers for permission to weigh in on Israel’s political scene. In a sermon that takes its name from a rabbinic statement of Jewish interdependence, she asserts without question that Jews everywhere have a stake in the future of Israel and have a right to speak up for “civil society and democracy and religious pluralism and human rights” there. She focuses on the religious parties who are convinced that “Reform Jews are ruining Israel,” as you might expect, but ends the sermon with a call to recognize the rights of all Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, “and also those living under Israel’s military control.” Of those Palestinians, she says, “We can’t feel comfortable sitting in the light of sovereignty next to a community living in darkness and expect to have peace.”
And like Kurtzer, she worries that concerned American Jews will simply turn away from Israel in despair or embarrassment, and urges congregants to support the Israeli and American organizations that share their pluralistic vision for Israel.
On That Distant Day
Hillel Halkin: Jewish Review of Books, Winter 2023
In his 1977 book “Letters to an American Jewish Friend: A Zionist Polemic,” the translator and author Hillel Halkin made a distinction similar to Kurtzer’s image of Israel as a palace and the Diaspora as passersby: Jews who don’t emigrate to Israel are dooming themselves to irrelevance, while immigrants like him are living on the stage where the Jewish future would play out. His mournful essay doesn’t address the Diaspora, per se, although it creates a permission structure for Zionists abroad to criticize the government. Halkin sees the new government as a coalition of two types of religious zealots: the haredi Orthodox who want to consolidate their control of religious life (and funding) in Israel, and a “knit-skullcap electorate [that] is hypernationalist and Jewish supremacist in its attitude toward Arabs.” (A knit skullcap is a symbol for what an American might call the “Modern Orthodox.”) Together, these growing and powerful constituents represent “the end of an Israeli consensus about what is and is not permissible in a democracy — and once the rules are no longer agreed on, political chaos is not far away. Israel has never been in such a place before.”
Halkin does talk about Israeli expansion in the West Bank, saying he long favored Jewish settlement in the territories, while believing that the “only feasible solution” would be a two-state solution with Arabs living in the Jewish state and Jews living in the Arab one. Instead, Israel has reached a point where there is “too much recrimination, too much distrust, too much hatred, too much blind conviction, too much disdain for the notion of a shared humanity, for such a solution to be possible… We’re over the cliff and falling, and no one knows how far down the ground is.”
Method to Our Madness: A Response to Hillel Halkin
Ze’ev Maghen: Jewish Review of Books, Jan. 10, 2023
Ze’ev Maghen, chair of the department of Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University, is hardly a dissenter; instead, his response to Halkin helpfully represents the views of those who voted for the current government. Maghen says the new coalition represents a more honest expression of Zionism than those who support a “liberal, democratic, egalitarian, inclusive, individualist, environmentally conscious, economically prosperous, globally connected, etc., etc., society.” The new government he writes, will defend Israel’s “Jewish nationalist raison d’être, and keep at bay those universalist, Western-based notions that are geared by definition to undermine nationalism in all its forms.” As for the Palestinian issue, he writes, “I’d rather have a fierce, hawkish Zionist in the cockpit than a progressive, Westernized wimp for whom this land, and the people who have returned to it after two millennia of incomparable suffering, don’t mean all that much.”
The Tears of Zion
Rabbi Sharon Brous: Sermon, Feb. 4, 2023
Brous, rabbi of the liberal Ikar community in Los Angeles, doesn’t just defend the right of Diaspora Jews to speak out in defense of Israeli democracy and Palestinian rights, but castigates Jewish leaders and communities who have been reluctant to criticize Israel in the past. “No, this government is not an electoral accident, and it is not an anomaly,” she says. “This moment of extremism has been a long time in the making and our silence has made us complicit.”
—
The post Diaspora alarm over Israel: Your guide to what the critics are saying appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel
(JTA) — The former executive director of Human Rights Watch is defending the group after two staffers quit over allegations that a report accusing Israel of a “crime against humanity” was blocked from publication.
Omar Shakir, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Israel-Palestine team, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari tendered their resignations after they said the organization refused to publish a report concluding that Israel’s denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees amounted to a “crime against humanity.”
“I’ve resigned from @hrw after 10+ yrs—most as Israel/Palestine Director—after HRW’s new ED pulled a finalized report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees on eve of its release & blocked for weeks its publication in a principled way,” Shakir tweeted earlier in the week.
He linked to an article about the resignations in Jewish Currents. Shakir, who formerly worked as a legal fellow for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long engaged in pro-Palestinian legal advocacy, is on Jewish Currents’ advisory board.
In a resignation letter obtained by Jewish Currents, Shakir wrote, “I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law.”
Multiple former Human Rights Watch staffers panned Shakir and his critique, including Ken Roth, the group’s former executive director and himself a vociferous critic of Israel. Roth’s replacement, Philippe Bolopion, was named in November.
“The new @HRW director was right to suspend a report using a novel & unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity,” tweeted Roth, whose father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. “It had been rushed through the review process during a leadership transition.”
Danielle Haas, who served as the senior editor at Human Rights Watch from 2009 to 2023, criticized Shakir sharply in a post on X.
“‘Nourish a wolf,’ Aesop said, ‘and it will eat you.’ For years, @hrw tolerated, placated, excused, and incubated @OmarSShakir as BDSer-turned-Israel/Palestine director. Now it’s their turn to get the ideological mob treatment,” wrote Haas. “His old tricks used v. others, now turned v. them: petitions, division, politics. Appeasement always bites you in the end.”
Shakir served as the lead researcher and author of a 2021 Human Rights Watch report that argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians had crossed the threshold into apartheid. The report was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time. In 2019, he was deported from Israel in accordance with a law that banned entry to foreigners who publicly call for boycotting the Jewish state or its settlements.
NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group, wrote in a post on X that the internal dispute at Human Rights Watch served as “a reminder of what happens when an NGO promotes the most extreme activists to positions of influence.”
The episode is casting light on the issue of Palestinian refugees, who many pro-Palestinian advocates believe should be able to return to the homes and communities their families left in 1948. Such a right is widely seen as both out of step with international precedent and a tactic to undo a Jewish majority in Israel.
While Human Rights Watch has long supported a right of return for Palestinian refugees, Shakir told Jewish Currents that the group is more hesitant when applying that principle in practice.
“The one topic,” he said, “even at Human Rights Watch, for which there remains an unwillingness to apply the law and the facts in a principled way is the plight of refugees and their right to return to the homes that they were forced to flee.”
In a statement shared with Jewish Currents and the New York Times, Human Rights Watch stated that the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and its publication was “paused pending further analysis and research.”
“In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards,” the group said.
The post Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit
(JTA) — Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit to Australia this weekend, which was scheduled in the wake of the Bondi massacre in December, has drawn widespread opposition and planned protests, including from some Jews.
Following Herzog’s invitation to visit the country by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, some Labor party members and pro-Palestinian groups called for the invitation to be rescinded.
Those calls have reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with Australian human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti calling on Albanese to rescind the invitation or arrest Herzog on arrival for inciting “genocide.”
Australia’s minister of foreign affairs, Penny Wong, defended the visit in an interview with ABC radio, telling the station that it was the wishes of the Jewish community following the December terror attack on a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney that killed 15.
“We have the Australian Jewish community who have been targeted in an overtly antisemitic terrorist attack. We have had 15 Australians die, we have families mourning, and this was a request from the Jewish community for President Herzog to visit,” said Wong, herself a staunch a critic of Israel.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald published Friday, Herzog called Sidoti’s statements “another lie and another distortion of the facts,” adding that he was visiting the country to “visit my sisters and brothers of the Jewish community to console and pay our respects to the grieving families and to the community.”
Herzog is expected to visit the country from Sunday to Thursday and is slated to meet with Albanese as well as the survivors and the families of the victims of the shooting.
Multiple groups have petitioned for Herzog’s possible arrest. On Thursday, Human Rights Watch cited a U.N. Commission of Inquiry report accusing Herzog and other Israeli leaders of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” in calling on Albanese to consider deploying local laws to prosecute him.
“While showing appropriate concern for the Jewish community, the Australian government should not shy away from denouncing and pushing for an end to the Israeli government’s longstanding serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law,” the human rights NGO said.
The progressive Jewish Council of Australia lodged a legal complaint last week calling for Herzog to be “arrested or barred from entering Australia.”
The complaint, which was jointly filed with the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Australian National Imams Council, alleges that Herzog “incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
Widespread protests against Herzog’s visit have been planned throughout Australia by the Palestine Action Group, including in Sydney, where New South Wales Police have announced restrictions on protests, citing the behavior of some protesters who “continue to incite violence and cause fear and harm.”
New South Wales Police have deployed thousands of officers to ensure the mandate is upheld. They have also warned that they will arrest protesters who breach the restrictions in place.
While officials said during a press conference earlier in the week that there was “no particular known threat” to Herzog known by police, a 19-year-old Sydney man was granted bail on Thursday after he being charged with making online threats to Herzog.
The executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, condemned the protest efforts as the group issued a rebuttal on Friday to claims against Herzog.
“We are disturbed and saddened by the groups and individuals determined to politicise this visit by labelling it ‘divisive’ and attempting to misrepresent Herzog’s words after October 7,” he said in a statement. “Our view is that, after Bondi, Herzog’s visit is not only appropriate, but an essential part of the healing process — and we are very confident we represent the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews in saying as much.”
The post Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The coffee capital of the world
צו הערן דעם אַרטיקל און אַנדערע אַרטיקלען דורכן פֿאָרווערטס־פּאָדקאַסט, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ:
אין מײַנע יונגע יאָרן האָב איך געקוקט סײַ מיט ביטול, סײַ מיט רחמנות אויף די אַלע דערוואַקסענע, קאַווע־אַדיקטן, וואָס קענען ניט אויפֿשטיין אין דער פֿרי אָן אַ טעפּל, אָדער אַ גאַנצן טאָפּ קאַווע. דאָס הייסט, אויף איבער 80% אַמעריקאַנער. זעענדיק ווי דער טאַטע גיסט אָן אַ טערמאָס מיט קאַווע, ער זאָל האָבן מיט וואָס איבערצולעבן די נסיעה צו דער אַרבעט, האָב איך געשוווירן צו זיך אַליין, אַז איך וועל קיין מאָל ניט ווערן פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט פֿון דעם דאָזיקן אומווערדיקן געטראַנק.
אָבער די יוגנט איז פֿול מיט נאַרישע געדאַנקען, און נאָר די יאָרן ברענגען חכמה און פֿאַרשטאַנד. איצט דערמאָן איך זיך אין יענע אידילישע צײַטן און וווּנדער זיך, ווי אַזוי האָב איך אָן קאַווע אָנגעשריבן די אַלע אַרבעטן פֿאַר דער שול און געלייזט די אַלע מאַטעמאַטישע רעטענישן? הײַנט וואָלט איך די רעטענישן ניט געלייזט אַפֿילו מיט קאַווע. נאָר צום גליק, האָב איך אַנטדעקט, אַז די קאַווע איז ניט אַזאַ געפֿערלעכער סם־המוות, ווי איך האָב זיך דעמאָלט פֿאָרגעשטעלט.
פֿאַקטיש שאַדט די קאַווע ניט צום געזונט, פֿאַרקערט, זי היט אָפּ דעם טרינקער פֿון פֿאַרשיידענע קרענק, ווי ראַק און פּאַרקינסאָנס. זי פֿאַרשטאַרקט די מוסקלען, קלאָרט אויס דעם קאָפּ, און גיט צו מער ענערגיע און שוווּנג. ניטאָ קיין ספֿק, אַז אַ גרויסן חלק פֿונעם מענטשלעכן פּראָגרעס אין די לעצטע 400 יאָר האָבן מיר צו פֿאַרדאַנקען דער קאַווע, וואָס אָן איר וואָלטן אונדזערע דערפֿינדער אַנטשלאָפֿן געוואָרן אין מיטן דער אַרבעט און אפֿשר גאָרניט דערפֿונדן.
פּונקט אַזוי וויכטיק ווי די קאַווע אַליין, איז די קולטור אַרום דער קאַווע. אין יאָר 2011 האָט „אונעסקאָ“ אָנערקענט די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור ווי אַ טייל פֿון דער „אוממאַטעריעלער קולטור־ירושה“ פֿון עסטרײַך, און דערמיט באַשטעטיקט ווין ווי די קאַווע־הויפּטשטאָט פֿון דער וועלט. דאָרט איז קאַווע ניט בלויז אַ געטראַנק, נאָר אַ גאַנצער לעבנס־שטייגער מיט אַ טראַדיציע פֿון הונדערטער יאָרן.
לויט דער לעגענדע איז דער ערשטער ווינער קאַפֿע אויפֿגעקומען נאָך אין „מלך סאָביעסקיס צײַטן“ — טאַקע אין 1683, ווען דער פּוילישער קעניג יאַן סאָביעסקי האָט באַפֿרײַט ווין פֿון דער טערקישער באַלאַגערונג. צווישן די זאַכן, וואָס די טערקישע אַרמיי האָט דאָרט איבערגעלאָזט, זײַנען געווען זעק מיט קאַווע־בעבלעך. סאָביעסקי האָט זיי איבערגעגעבן צו זײַנעם אַן אָפֿיציר, וואָס האָט דערנאָך געעפֿנט דעם ערשטן קאַפֿע.
די בליצײַט פֿונעם ווינער קאַפֿע איז אָבער געווען סוף 19טן, אָנהייב 20סטן יאָרהונדערט, ווען די שטאָט האָט געקאָכט מיט קאַוועהויז־ליטעראַטן און קינסטלער. זיי פֿלעגן באַשטעלן איין טעפּעלע קאַווע און זיצן איבער אים אַ גאַנצן טאָג, און דער דעמאָלטיקער קעלנער האָט זיי ניט געטשעפּעט. אין זײַנע זכרונות האָט דער פּראָזאַיִקער שטעפֿאַן צווײַג באַשריבן דעם קלאַסישן ווינער קאַפֿע אַזוי:
„ער שטעלט מיט זיך פֿאָר אַן אינטסיטוציע פֿון אַ ספּעציעלן סאָרט, וואָס מע קען זי ניט פֿאַרגלײַכן מיט קיין ענלעכער אין דער וועלט. דאָס איז טאַקע געווען אַ מין דעמאָקראַטישער קלוב, צוטריטלעך פֿאַר יעדן איינעם פֿאַר אַ ביליקן טעפּל קאַווע, וווּ יעדער גאַסט האָט געקענט פֿאַר אַ גראָשן זיצן שעהען לאַנג, שמועסן, שרײַבן, שפּילן אין קאָרטן, באַקומען זײַן פּאָסט און, דער עיקר, קאָנסומירן אָן אַ שיעור צײַטונגען און זשורנאַלן. יעדן טאָג זײַנען מיר געזעסן שעהען לאַנג, און האָבן גאָרנישט פֿאַרפֿעלט.“
זינט די 1990ער יאָרן איז די קאַוועהויז־קולטור צוריק אַרײַן אין דער מאָדע און די ווינער האָבן מזל, וואָס ניט ווייניק פֿון זייערע אַלטע קאַפֿעען זײַנען נאָך פֿאַראַן — כאָטש ווי ערטער ניט פֿאַר שרײַבער און קינסטלער, נאָר פֿאַר גבֿירים און טוריסטן. אין דער אַלטער קײַזערלעכער קאָנדיטערײַ „דעמעל“, למשל, מישן זיך די ריחות פֿון קאַווע און שאָקאָלאַד מיטן גלאַנץ פֿון שפּיגלען און גאָלדענע הענגלײַכטערס. אַז אַן אָרעמער שרײַבער וואָלט זיך דאָרט געזעצט צו דער אַרבעט, וואָלט ער ניט פֿאַרענדיקט אַפֿילו די ערשטע זײַט, ווײַל די ניט זייער העפֿלעכע קעלנערינס וואָלטן אים אַרויסגעטריבן.
צו דער ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור געהערט אויך אַ רײַך־אַנטוויקלטער קאַווע־וואָקאַבולאַר: באַליבט איז דער „מעלאַנזש“ — האַלב קאַווע, האַלב געשוימטע מילך; די „אײַזקאַווע“ — אַ דריטל קאַווע, אײַזקרעם און קרעם (זייער געשמאַק!); דער „פֿאַרלענגערטער“ — האַלב מאָקאַ (קאַווע מיט שאָקאָלאַד), האַלב הייס וואַסער. ווי אויך מער עקזאָטישע מינים: די „קאָזאַקן־קאַווע“ — אַ מאָקאַ, געמישט מיט צוקער, רויטווײַן און וואָדקע; דער „אָטעלאָ“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ מיט הייסן שאָקאָלאַד; און די „צאַרן־קאַווע“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ, באַדעקט מיטן פֿאַרצוקערטן געלכל פֿון אַן איי. דערצו קומט יעדע קאַווע מיט אַ גלעזל וואַסער און אַ קיכל אָדער ביסקוויט, וואָס מאַכט פֿונעם קאַווע-טרינקען אַ גאַנצע צערעמאָניע.
אין די לעצטע יאָרן איז די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור נאָך „באַרײַכערט“ געוואָרן מיט אַן אַמעריקאַנער אימפּאָרט — די פֿירמע „סטאַרבאָקס“ האָט געעפֿנט אַ צענדליק פֿיליאַלן אין דער שטאָט. איינער אַזאַ קאַפֿע שטייט אַנטקעגן דער „הויפֿבורג“, דעם קײַזערלעכן פּאַלאַץ, וווּ עס האָט אין משך פֿון 600 יאָר רעזידירט די האַבסבורג־דינאַסטיע. דערווײַל זײַנען די ווינער אפֿשר צופֿרידן, וואָס זיי האָבן נאָר אַ צענדליק „סטאַרבאָקס“, און ניט 250, ווי ניו־יאָרק.
איין וויכטיקע זאַך האָב איך זיך געלערנט פֿון די ווינער: דרך־ארץ פֿאַר דער קאַווע. זי איז ניט סתּם אַן אַדיקציע, וואָס האָט פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט כּמעט די גאַנצע מענשהייט. זי איז אַן אַדיקציע מיט אַן אַריסטאָקראַטישער טראַדיציע און מיט אַ לאַנגער היסטאָריע פֿון קינסטלערישער שעפֿערישקייט. אַזוי דאַרף מען טראַכטן, ווען מע פֿילט אָן דעם טערמאָס מיט קאַווע אין דער פֿרי.
The post The coffee capital of the world appeared first on The Forward.