Water: What price should Israeli agriculture pay?

According to this recent article in Globes:

The government has just announced that the price of water will go up 11.3% beginning in January for household use. At first, this price increase appears economically sensible, since water is scarce and over-consumption is widespread in Israel. A price increase will reduce demand and save water. But the logic stops here, because the farmers who consume more than 60% of the national water will see their water bill go up by only 2.5%. Apparently, political interests and lobbying strength replace economic logic and trump market efficiency.

Government policy that artificially lowers the price of water to farmers leads to higher water consumption and increased damage to the environment.

For most of its history, Zionism correctly understood the importance of agriculture in creating a balanced society in Palestine/Israel. As a result, at least until a few decades ago, the Israeli agricultural sector was rightly regarded as one of the jewels in the Zionist crown. This appreciation of the role of agriculture began to change, however, as the farming sector’s share of the Israel’s water consumption came under scrutiny (perhaps there was also an element of early post-Zionism in this evaluation?).

Where to now for Israeli agriculture? Does Israeli society expect farming to fall on its collective pitchfork in the name of water conservation? Should it immediately begin paying market related prices for its water usage? Does the embattled Jewish farmer even have a role in a 21st century Israel, and in a world of Climate Change and water scarcity?

I believe that, especially in a world impacted by Climate Change (Global Scorching), the importance of Israel’s farming sector will increase rather than reduce, with the factors below having greater impact:

• Climate Change will continue to cause the world’s supply of usable fresh water to shrink.
• Globally, agricultural land will increasingly be taken out of food production and instead be dedicated to bio-fuel production.
• The world’s shrinking agricultural acreage will be further eroded by desertification of marginal and even core farming lands
• As the true cost of transport (taking Climate Change impact into account) becomes factored into the price of agricultural goods, food will once again need to be grown as close to the consumer as possible. Importation from faraway or more favourable climes will become increasingly expensive and difficult.

For geopolitical reasons as well (aka the Rough Neighbourhood), Israel needs to be as food independent as possible, and for now cannot afford to rely on even its (physically) closest neighbours being prepared to make up any food deficit.

Israel will thus increasingly be forced to rely on its own efforts to “feed the nation”, as countries are forced to export less and import more to meet their own needs.

Lastly, the continued (or restored) health of Israeli society simply requires that we maintain a rural/agricultural population at a basic level, and continue to steward our agricultural resources for as long as we inhabit this planet.

How do we then balance the competing claims of water conservation and a robust farming sector? I see the objectives as being:

• Continue to reduce agriculture’s footprint on water consumption.
• Move towards a situation where agriculture is eventually able to pay market rates for water.
• Continue to maintain and, if possible, even expand Israel’s agricultural capability and capacity.

To do this would require a concerted effort involving government (such as the ministries of agriculture and environment affairs), organised agriculture, the private sector (especially the water technology industry) and the national water authority, as well as universities and academia. This effort would need to be directed towards addressing at least the following issues:

• Reduce the farming community’s water consumption, utilize lower quality water, and return as much as possible to the system.
• Make greater use of the drip irrigation and other water-efficient irrigation methods that largely have their home here.
• Migrate towards less “water intensive” methods of agriculture, e.g. greater use of greenhouses and hothouses, organic farming and the Permaculture philosophy.
• Place more emphasis on so-called forest farming and tree crops, which require less irrigation.
• Put more focus on crops grown for direct consumption by humans, rather than those grown for meat production.
• The increased use of crop varieties that are more drought resistant (while avoiding the ecological trap of GM crops).

This cannot be achieved overnight and would need to be planned and budgeted for. In the interim, society as a whole would need to continue to subsidise the agricultural sector until it can pay its own way as regards water. Consider, however, that at the moment the farming sector is in effect subsidising the skewed value society places on the food we eat each day. Perhaps when food is priced correctly - and when the benefits accrue to the producer and consumer rather than the middle man - farmers will no longer have to beg our indulgence.

There is no doubt that the present and future of Israel lies in the world of high-tech and services rather than the orchard and the plough. In the interests of remaining centered (not to mention eating), however, we should not allow Israel’s farms to fall into neglect. An asset and culture such as this can be lost in a decade, but take lifetimes to restore.

I think it would be appropriate to close with this quotation from an article on the California Farm Bureau Federation website:

The Dead Sea article criticizes local governments for permitting unrestricted use of irrigation, which produces only 3 percent of Israel's gross national product but uses up half of its water supply. Where have we heard that type of criticism before? Was it about California's Colorado River allotment and the fact that very few farmers use most of it to grow crops?

Very few people seem to ask how much food would cost if farmers did not grow crops or why there seems to be a market for these crops that farmers grow.

Suppose unsubsidized Israeli food were 10 times more expensive. Then the irrigation would produce 30 percent of Israel's gross national product without any increase in water supply. In that case, everyone would be clamoring for protection of the irrigation supply because of high food prices, instead of its restriction.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Private water - a public good

Experts: Average rainfall may not be enough | Jerusalem Post

Commentary--Troubled waters: Finding the right balance

The Israel Democracy Institute (IDI): Constitution by Coercion

For the most part, Israel’s founding generations had a healthy disdain for the moribund Orthodoxy they encountered, both in Palestine/Israel and their countries of origin. Sadly for later generations, however, they failed to translate this appraisal into a formal modus vivendi between religion and state. Perhaps as a result of the character of the countries where immigration to Palestine/Israel largely originated from, Israel also did not have a robust tradition of separation between religion and state, but instead took the path of least resistance; the so-called “status-quo” inherited from the Ottoman and Mandate regimes.

Rather than using the planned introduction of a constitution for Israel as an opportunity to address this shortcoming in Israel’s body of legislation, institutions such as the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) are instead proposing that the existing situation be formalised as part of the constitution.

According to this report in Haaretz:

At issue are five main areas: Rabbinical court jurisdiction regarding marriage, divorce and intimacy, as it stands pre-constitution; conversion to Judaism and other religions; the Jewish nature of the Sabbath and Jewish holidays in the public domain; observing kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) at state institutions; and granting Israeli citizenship to the relatives of anyone eligible to immigrate to Israel.

In my opinion, a constitution that puts these issues beyond the oversight of the High Court (which is what is being proposed) is far worse than no constitution at all. At least under the current order it is still possible to obtain recourse, either by means of the courts or even conceivably through legislation. Once congealed with the constitution, these avenues of appeal would be closed.

The IDI presents this as something on which we can and should compromise in order to get buy in from the religious sector. I believe, however, that if there’s no consensus regarding these issues, they should rather be excluded from the constitution. Attempting to “compromise” (by no means the same as consensus) on such fundamental issues is the worst of all possible options. No issue that affects Israeli society as a whole should be put beyond the scope of the courts, especially not these critical issues around personal status. These are not peripheral issues that can or should form part of constitutional deal-making, but fundamental constitutional issues. Show stoppers, red lines, dealbreakers.

While I don’t pretend to understand fully the role that the IDI has assumed for itself, I believe that it should rather be using its influence to educate the public regarding the importance of separation between religion and state, instead of attempting to persuade them of the need for or inevitability of a theocracy.

Perhaps the IDI and the debate as a whole would benefit from having in place an international panel of Jewish and other interested jurists to guide the IDI and the public on these issues? Not only is it likely that Jews in the Western Democracies have a much clearer understanding of the benefits and necessity for separation between religion and state, but this is an issue that potentially affects every Jew worldwide, not only those who are citizens of Israel. It is therefore important that their input should at least be taken into account.

My guess is that, having toiled mightily over their proposed Constitution by Consensus for the last seven years, they rightly want to see their labour of love become the foundation stone for an eventual Israeli constitution. They should not, however, be prepared to sacrifice Israeli democracy and the rights of the Israeli public to achieve it.

The IDI needs to get back to basics and show an understanding of what the role of a constitution should be in protecting the man on the street from the power of both kings and bishops.

Israeli politicians and public figures - from the greatest to the lowliest – from Ben Gurion to Olmert – have always been far too willing to sacrifice their constituents and principles on the altar of appeasing a non- or anti-Zionist clerisy and its followers, or for some other perceived good. This needs to come to an end.

This is not a Constitution by Consensus but a Constitution by Coercion. By putting forward this Reactionary proposal, the IDI is positioning itself as one of the enemies of democracy in Israel.

(By the way, if the demographic predictions are true (trend is not necessarily destiny) then the proponents of a theocracy may eventually get their own way anyway, when the shrinking and out-bred secular public is in its dotage. In the meantime, let’s not be hasty.)

By all accounts, the person who appears to have the best grasp of what is at stake here is Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann. To quote once again from the Haaretz report:

Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann is opposed to introducing a constitution if it includes a compromise on matters of religion and state, which would preclude the High Court of Justice intervening in these areas.
Haaretz has learned that Friedmann intends to object to the initiative of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee to introduce a constitution that includes compromises with the religious parties on religious issues, and that he claims it would be better not to pass a constitution at all rather than include such compromises.
"If you want to present an entire constitution by removing the High Court of Justice from matters of religion and state, then I am opposed to such a constitution," Friedmann told Haaretz on Monday.
Under the proposed compromise, religious legislation would be protected from invalidation by the court, and would not be subject to constitutional principles such as the principle of equality.
At issue are five main areas: Rabbinical court jurisdiction regarding marriage, divorce and intimacy, as it stands pre-constitution; conversion to Judaism and other religions; the Jewish nature of the Sabbath and Jewish holidays in the public domain; observing kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) at state institutions; and granting Israeli citizenship to the relatives of anyone eligible to immigrate to Israel.
Thus, it would be possible to legislate that women cannot serve as rabbinical court judges and that there are Jews who are barred from marrying, while it would not be possible to nullify these laws for infringing on constitutional rights.
Friedmann's position is that the only issue that makes a constitution necessary, that justifies the High Court's intervention, and in which its activism is beneficial, is the religious issue.
Under the political compromise being forged by the Knesset Constitution Committee, the constitution would stipulate that on certain matters of religion and state - including marriage and divorce - the High Court would be barred from exercising "judicial oversight" and nullifying laws on religion and state matters that violate the basic rights set down in the constitution.
A similar proposal, revoking the court's authority to exercise judicial oversight on religion and state matters, was presented in the Israel Democracy Institute's draft for a proposed constitution.

The Israel Democracy Institute

Constitution by Consensus

Friedmann opposes constitution that compromises on religious matters

Jews for Jesus: Why it works

JTA is currently running a series of three lengthy articles on the efforts of Jews for Jesus to proselytize among us. (I’m using Jews for Jesus as a convenient handle for all of these missionary organization and approaches.) I thought it might also be instructive to get a handle on how, where and why the Jews for Jesus (JfJ) approach works, and what we can do about it. Here’s how I see it:

• Focuses on the vulnerable. JfJ tends to focus on the most vulnerable or disadvantaged members of the community. This includes immigrants, the disaffiliated, the poor, those who don’t feel secure in their Jewishness or feel slighted or rejected by the Jewish community, or some part thereof, i.e. anyone who’s ever “wanted to belong”.
• Uses ignorance. JfJ is far more likely to appeal to those who are ignorant (or simply less educated) about Judaism, Jewish beliefs and the history of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Christianity (even dressed up in a Tallit) simply does not have that much appeal to the informed Jew, unless other non-religious or psychological factors are involved.
• Uses Jewish artifacts. An obvious one. JfJ makes use of Jewish customs, rituals, traditions and ceremonial objects as the draping over the mannequin, which otherwise tends to look somewhat unappealing to even the most alienated Jewish eye.
• Uses Jewish pride. This might seem strange to some, but many otherwise totally disaffiliated Jews nevertheless still consider themselves Jews out of pride. JfJ allows them to still regard themselves as Jews, while adopting a whole other belief system.
• Uses warmth and caring. A real cunning strategy! What a non-Jewish friend of mine (a former born-again Christian) calls their “club of love”. Let’s face it; many of our Jewish institutions, even the ones we love dearly, don’t much look like a shoulder to cry on (still less a place to go to for a free meal). This is not a tactic; this is genuine; in most cases they really do care about those they are attempting to proselytize.
• Focuses on the individual. As one of the interviewees in the series of articles says “theirs isn’t a numbers game”. They appear to be willing to expend an almost inordinate amount of effort on each potential convert.

Simply understanding why JfJ works (to the extent that it does) gives us a far better understanding of what we need to do to counter this missionary effort. Not that I believe that we should be doing anything special to counter missionary activity; we can best do that by continuing and intensifying efforts to reach out to everyone on the fringes of Judaism’s Big Tent. JfJ does, however, give us some pointers as to where we should be concentrating:

• Those at risk. The most vulnerable, excluded and peripheral members of our community are those most at risk
• Jewish education. Should be a lifelong process, accessible to all. We should not only have a clear understanding of what Judaism is and isn’t, we should be able to argue it.
• Don’t just focus on the trappings of Judaism; focus on the good old-fashioned theology behind it. Those being proselytized need to understand that, while the rituals may be Jewish, the theology is undiluted Christianity. (And yes, the original Christians were Jews, but Christianity today scarcely resembles anything Jesus and his Disciples would recognize, still less be comfortable with…)
• Give those “at risk” the tools to back up their last-ditch effort at Jewish pride.
• Warmth and caring. With many Jews in Western Democracies becoming increasingly affluent, the warmth and caring associated with Diaspora Judaism for the last two millennia is becoming a scarce commodity, and can’t just be manufactured on demand. Addressing this is beyond the scope of this piece (and this writer!).
  
• Focus on the individual. In playing the numbers game, we’ve forgotten about all the individuals making up those numbers. If we get this right, the numbers will follow.

Let’s put these things into practice! Jewish outreach on a global scale is too important for Jews and Judaism as a whole to be left in the hands of Chabad.

You can read the JTA articles individually here, or download a .PDF file containing the full text of all three:

JTA.org -- Evangelical movement on the rise

JTA Forum: Article Comments: Saying 'Shema,' preaching Jesus

JTA Forum: Article Comments: Cozying up to prospective converts

Messianics Rising: A JTA Special Report

More on Judaising your Desktop (Part 3)

In some of my very early posts (see below), I made a couple of suggestions for “Judaising” components of your PC desktop, by making use of JAFI’s wonderfully retro screensaver, and/or by installing the HAS Advantage/JNF Search for Israel Google toolbar.

Altneuland: A little bit of Zionist nostalgia on your desktop?

Altneuland: “Search for Israel” Google toolbar

If you’d prefer some superb Israeli landscape photography as your screensaver, how about some of Shai Ginott’s stunning images of (mainly) JNF forests? Here are the basic steps to make this change:

• Navigate over to Shai Ginott’s website.
• Click on the Gallery tab
• Scroll down to the Spring in the air, 2005 slideshow and click on the Hebrew text.
• (Alternatively, you can go direct to the link for the Spring in the air, 2005 slideshow)
• Save the presentation to your default file download location on your HDD
• Open Microsoft (Office) PowerPoint (or your preferred open source alternative)
• Open the slideshow (the default filename is spring.pps)
• Select File, Save As. Instead of saving using the default Presentation (.PPT) file type, select your preferred image file type (e.g. JPEG, *.jpg).
• Select the option to “export every slide”.
• Each slide will be saved as an individual picture file in a folder entitled “spring”.
• Configure either the My Pictures Slideshow screensaver (XP) or Google Photos Screensaver (all supported operating system versions) to display the images from Spring in the air, either in addition to or instead of your existing photo feed. (Google Photos Screensaver is part of the indispensable Google Pack).

If you’re interested in purchasing any of Shai Ginott’s other work, there appears to be a problem when adding something to the shopping cart on her website. The following error message is generated and the item does not appear in the cart.

Cannot create locset.db D:\web\sites\starwebz_sites\shaiginott\cgi-bin\locset.db Permission denied

I did advise her of this some time back and received an acknowledgement, but the error persists.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Screensavers

HAS Forest

Shai Ginott photography. Israel & holy land images, nature, Photo archive, workshops, lectures books

How do I add my photos to Google Photos Screensaver?

Converting Slides to Screensavers - WorldStart Computer Tips and Computer Help

Google Pack

Big Tent Judaism: Do the mystery shopper test

In his recent opinion piece "Let’s Put Out A Communal Welcome Mat” in the Forward, Adam Bronfman had this to say:

Many of the institutions that feel the warmest to those already on the inside are the chilliest to newcomers, without the insiders ever realizing. Yet each of those insiders has friends and relatives that are not connecting to the Jewish community.

Think this doesn’t apply to your congregation or institution? Carry out a mystery shopper test on your own synagogue or temple. You might be in for a nasty surprise! We are not always the best judges of how welcoming our communities are, given that we’re in our comfort zones when in that familiar environment.

Either way, I hope that this initiative to adopt an “All are Welcome” approach for “Big Tent Judaism” will be taken up by all the alternative streams of Judaism (including Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform, as well as those who consider themselves non- or post-denominational, or who simply refuse to be labelled). I also hope that this initiative will not be restricted to the US (where it originated), but will permeate all alternative Jewish communities world-wide, both in the Diaspora and Israel. This includes not just the English-speaking Jewish communities, but also those in places such as the FSU, where open forms of Judaism are struggling to gain traction.

Here’s what the Jewish Outreach Institute (JOI) had to say in launching the Big Tent Judaism Coalition recently:

“But Rabbis,” those who are reading these words might respond, “My Jewish institution already is welcoming.” We have no doubt your institution is welcoming—to you. For those of us on the “inside” (and we happily count ourselves among them), it is difficult to imagine our beloved Jewish homes, synagogues and organizations as potentially cold and unwelcoming places. But we are insiders. Those who have not yet ventured into our homes, synagogues and community centers may not have experienced that sense of community. Perhaps they’ve never been invited. Or maybe they ventured in but we on the inside did not rush to greet an unfamiliar face, instead expecting that job to fall to someone else. The tension between how we feel about our institutions and how newcomers perceive them is one with which we must grapple.

It is why we have chosen to together issue a challenge to everyone involved in the Jewish community: We must look at our institutions from the outside. We need to evaluate how our institutions can best welcome in all newcomers, those who have not yet stepped over the threshold. It’s time to put out our welcome mats. Let’s post signs that say “All are Welcome,” and state it in all of our institutions’ marketing materials and on our websites.

To truly welcome all, we must look at why newcomers are choosing not to engage with the Jewish community and address those reasons head on. For example, cost of membership and programming can often stand in the way of those who would like to engage in our institutions. By giving newcomers “free samples” of our offerings, we can lower their barriers to participation and provide access to Jewish community programming.

Let’s make sure that the welcome mat is put out for all the marginalised and disadvantaged in our midst; the less-learned, observant or financially well-off, the mentally and physically handicapped, along with non-Orthodox converts and the inter-married and their children, who have in a sense become the “Mamzerim” of the 20th/21st century Jewish world. Instead of writing them off, as some streams within Judaism would have us do, let’s welcome them for who they are; family making the attempt to come home again.

The other aspect of putting out the communal welcome mat into Big Tent Judaism is the welcome mat (or perhaps “helping hand” might be a better term) the federations of the major alternative streams of Judaism need to extend to whole congregations. By this I mean that we frequently find mention of the (mainly financial) ordeals of alternative Jewish congregations throughout the world, but particularly in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and even Israel itself (for different reasons). Perhaps its time for each established congregation in a Western Democracy to adopt or twin with a struggling congregation elsewhere in the world. Assistance might be financial, expertise, teaching or spiritual resources, a “recycled” Torah scroll, etc. Assisting another community in this personal way would benefit both parties in re-discovering what it means to be part of a community.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Let’s Put Out A Communal Welcome Mat - Forward.com

JOI Op-Ed: Let’s Create a Big Tent Judaism

JTA Forum: Article Comments: Op-Ed: Let's create 'Big Tent Judaism'

Big Tent Judaism

The Jewish Outreach Institute

ALEPH--Alliance for Jewish Renewal

USCJ: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism

The World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ)

Jewish Reconstructionist Federation | JRF

International Federation of Secular Humanistic Jews

MyJewishLearning.com - History & Community: Non-Denominational & Post-Denominational

MyJewishLearning.com - History & Community: State of the Denominations

Is Judaism a club? Unity, not uniformity!

This posting was prompted by a letter to the editor published in the 2 November 2007 edition of the SA Jewish Report (p12) in which a correspondent (H Stein) compared Judaism (he considers Orthodoxy and Judaism to be synonymous with one another), saying in part:

…as a High Court judge once said: “If you wish to be a member of a club, you must follow the rules.”

This quotation is routinely trotted out whenever the issue of alternative streams of Judaism and/or Orthodoxy’s strict requirements for conversion are debated.

Leaving aside the question of whether this quote can be attributed to a mythical un-named High Court judge or not, here’s why I think this analogy doesn’t work:

The members of a club (having followed protocol) are usually empowered to change the club’s rules. Mr Stein presumably believes Judaism’s rules were handed down completely intact almost 4,000 years ago, and have remained totally unchanged since then. So, not much of a club.

Most successful clubs (unless they are already oversubscribed) actively try to attract and welcome new members or member candidates, not push them away. The candidates’ motives are also usually not brought into question. Wanting to belong to a club is its own motivation. Once again, hardly an accurate description of Mr Stein’s Judaism.

Has Judaism ever been a single, monolithic club as envisaged by Mr Stein? Within documented history, I believe that Judaism was only ever one club when it was forced to be so by the outside world, wanting a “single address” for the Jewish people (usually to impose discriminatory taxes and other measures). Like to go back to those days? Let me know how that works out for you…

So, does the club analogy fit at all? Yes, if we think of Judaism as a loose federation of clubs, rather than a single monolithic or hierarchical club. This loose federation of clubs is tied together by a common history and destiny, rather than by a single rigid set of common beliefs and practices.

I would venture to suggest that very few human enterprises are ever just one club (perhaps with the exception of the Communist Party, hardly a model we should wish to emulate). Judaism is no exception.

I’m pleased to see that Mr Stein still believes that “those Jews who support Reform or Independent are still regarded as Jewish brethren”. Saying that you can’t tolerate Reform (Judaism) but love Reform Jews must be a difficult mental balancing act, something akin to saying you hate Zionism but love Israelis.

We need unity Mr Stein, not uniformity!

Completing the work of the Romans: the WAQF and the Temple Mount

Shurat HaDin (Israel Law Center) deserves a vote of thanks to for taking on the WAQF (Islamic Trust) over the deliberate destruction of ancient Jewish relics on the Temple Mount. In fact, Shurat HaDin (ILC) appears to be one of the few bodies emerging from this disgraceful episode with any form of standing.

According to their news item:

150 Israeli Citizens File Landmark Criminal Prosecution of The Waqf Over Temple Mount Destruction

Shurat HaDin Leads Legal Effort to Confront Jerusalem Islamic Extremists

November 5, 2007: A group of 150 Israeli citizens, representing a broad cross section of the Israeli public, have initiated an unprecedented criminal prosecution of WAQF (Islamic Trust) leaders in Jerusalem – alleging that Islamic officials have engaged in the deliberate destruction of ancient Jewish relics on the Temple Mount. The indictment was filed in the Jerusalem District Court today by means of a private law suit. The private indictment is first of its kind in Israeli legal history and utilizes a seldom applied section of the criminal code. If convicted, the WAQF officials face years in prison.

All who care about the Jewish past, present (and presence) and future in this land should be grateful to the ILC for having tackled this matter, where those responsible failed to do so. The ILC is worthy of your financial support, and not just on this issue. See their website for further details.

Let’s look at the conduct of the various players in this shameful drama:

The actions of the WAQF are, of course, totally disgraceful. Given their record over the past decades, however, they are pretty much what we might have expected, and should have been anticipated. In a nutshell, they are simply carrying on a process of de-Judaisation and Arabisation/Islamisation that has been going on since at least the 1920s. The role of the WAQF belongs to a long gone era; the era of Moshe Dayan and his compliant West Bank mayors. It has no place in the present day realities of Islamofascism and terror. The role of the WAQF needs to be completely limited, to the point where they are purely responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the mosques that existed prior to 1967, and can wield little more than a broom on the Temple Mount. They should certainly not have the authority to excavate, still less build extensive underground structures purporting to be mosques. (I haven’t even touched on the safety and engineering aspects of much of their “work”.) In the early days of the Israeli administration of the disputed territories, the important principle of maintaining the status quo between conflicting religious interests was strictly applied to holy sites. It should be no different here.

The inaction (and even hindering) on the part of the government is likewise a scandal. Given what we're steadily finding out about the personalities and policies making up the Olmert government, however, we should probably not be surprised. Still, this does not excuse their dereliction of duty in this case.

Special mention needs to be made of Israel Antiquities Authority, the body charged with preventing just such vandalism. According to their website:

Antiquities Law. The Antiquities Law 1978 was enacted in order to protect the antiquities of the country, i.e., any object, which was made by man before 1700 CE, or any zoological or botanical remains from before the year 1300 CE...

IAA Law. The Law of the Israel Antiquities Authority states that the IAA is the organization responsible for all the antiquities of the country, including the underwater finds. The IAA is authorized to excavate, preserve, conserve and administrate antiquities when necessary.

This body should accordingly be the focus of most of the censure, and part of a campaign to restore stability should include compelling the IAA to carry out its legal obligations, if necessary by means of court action. Donors should also make it clear that any further support is dependant on the IAA playing its proper role in the protection of this and other historical sites.

What about the Jewish people at large? While condemnation has been fairly widespread, it appears that this is just not an issue that will bring people out into the streets. So, just why should we care strongly about this issue, when we already appear to be suffering from cause/issue “fatigue”?

I have a few suggestions as to why we should see this as important:

Every culture, nation or tribe I can think of cares about the historical record contained in the archaeological stratum beneath its feet. There is no reason why we should be any different. Quite the opposite; as a nation still attempting to reconnect with our past and our land after an absence of two millennia, we have more reason than most.

A strong interest in archaeology was long a part of the healthy Israel myth/ethos. I would like to think that it is still something that could help lead us out of the blind alley of post-Zionism.

Even if the concept, idea or site of the Temple is no longer central to Judaism (or at least to mainstream Judaism), the Temple and its remains are a key part of our history (both the actual events and the remaining archaeological record). I regard it as self-evident that if we don't care about our past, it will be that much more challenging to care about the present and the future.

This wanton destruction of the concrete record of the Jewish presence here is bound to give ammunition to those few who call for the removal of all Islamic structures on the Temple Mount and the building of a Third Temple. While this is not a major concern at the moment, it is not a negligible one either, nor should we underestimate the dangerous potential of these trends.

Even if Israel at some stage in the future feels the need to give up the Temple Mount in one of those acts of self-flagellation euphemistically referred to as "sacrifices", there is no reason why we should allow the destruction to begin already. Demonstrating that this is an issue that evokes strong feelings today may even lessen such a possibility in the future. (We politely don’t mention much these days that the Temple Mount was chosen as the site for Islamic shrines because of its existing status as a Jewish holy site. This is something of a Muslim tradition worldwide.)

Lastly, we should care about it because it is part of a larger campaign to erase and deny history, repudiate our claims to a homeland here and deligitimise the very existence of the state. (This history denial in some ways resembles its far more dangerous cousin, Holocaust denial. On the one hand, an attempt to deny that events or a whole era ever took place. On the other hand, an attempt to wipe out all physical traces of our history from the archaeological record.)

It is one of the ironies of our recent history that one of the ex post facto justifications for the continued occupation of Judea and Samaria and the annexation of east Jerusalem was to ensure the protection of the holy sites of all faiths. Happily, the Christian and Islamic holy sites are at least enjoying this protection!

Additional links:

150 Israeli Citizens File Landmark Criminal Prosecution of The Waqf Over Temple Mount Destruction

Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center

Israel Antiquities Authority

The Temple Mount Archaeological Destruction

(This is an unofficial site covering the work of the Committee for the Prevention of the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, who have manfully been “holding the fort” on the issue for years.)

The Destruction of the Temple Mount Antiquities, by Mark Ami-El

(The JCPA has provided wise counsel on this issue since at least 2002.)

Resources for Religion and State in Israel

In a previous posting, I suggested that anyone interested in issues around the suffocating relationship between religion and state in Israel subscribe to the “Religion and State in Israel Weekly E-newsletter”.

(This resource currently takes the form of a newsletter only, with no associated website. Hopefully this will change as interest grows.)

After a hiatus of some months, I am pleased to see that the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) weekly Pluralist and other e-newsletters are being published again, with a new format (and apparently a new editor?).

The family of e-Newsletters consists of the following:

WEEKLY: The Pluralist

Weekly highlights of Religion and State and religious pluralism in Israel. Select news articles and recent IRAC achievements.

MONTHLY: Inside IRAC

IRAC's monthly newsletter updates. Highlights IRAC's court cases, public policy advocacy, social action projects, and legal aid for new immigrants.

PERIODICALLY: Special Knesset Updates and Special Interest Issues

Briefings from IRAC's Knesset lobbyist. Updates on proposed bills, new legislation, coalition work for social justice and the fight for religious pluralism in Israel. Briefings on special IRAC coalition projects.

You can subscribe to IRAC's various e-Newsletters here:

Religious Action Center - Subscribe to IRAC's E-Newsletter!

For those who are not familiar with the work of IRAC, the following is taken from their website and the latest edition of The Pluralist:

The Israel Religious Action Center is the public and legal advocacy arm of the Reform Movement in Israel (known as the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism).

IRAC's mission is to advance religious freedom and pluralism, tolerance, social justice and civil liberties in Israel, based on the belief that these values are intrinsic to and stem from a liberal understanding of Judaism.

Since its establishment in 1987, IRAC has been a leader in the struggle for freedom of religion and conscience in Israel.

The IRAC website can be found here:

Religious Action Center - Resources from the Israel Religious Action Center

Sviva Israel: Innovative Jewish social environmental organization

THE JERUSALEM POST recently carried an article (Reduce, reuse, recycle) by Carmi Wisemon, executive director of Yedidei HaSviva - Sviva Israel, an Israel-based social-environmental organization.

The organization appears to be fairly new; it certainly hasn’t come up on my radar before. According to their refreshing new website:

Yedidei Hasviva - Sviva Israel is an innovative Jewish social environmental organization based in Jerusalem.

Combining the study of traditional Jewish texts with hands-on service learning, and community activism we encourage Israelis to take active responsibility for their environment, fostering a sense of concern for others by creating a humane and caring community based on traditional Jewish environmental ethics and the modern principles of sustainable development.

Yedidei HaSviva - Sviva Israel was founded by a concerned group of Israeli and Anglo Saxon educators, health professionals, business people and professionals, who want Israel's children to be brought up in clean, hygienic and orderly communities and to enable those living in urban communities to experience the pleasure, tranquility and wonder of the natural world.

We believe that by creating a global Jewish partnership with communities who are already proficient in these areas, Israelis will be better able to learn these necessary skills.

I’m not sure why those involved felt it necessary to start a new organization, rather than throwing their weight behind existing conservation bodies; presumably those on the spot know best. The commitment to “creating a global Jewish partnership with communities who are already proficient in these areas” is certainly a very welcome trend.

Sviva Israel, Innovative Jewish social environmental organization

The Haredisation of Jewish Education in SA

An article on page 3 of the SA Jewish Report for 19 October 2007 covered the appointment of Dr Max Price as vice-chancellor of UCT (University of Cape Town). The article had this to say regarding Dr Price’s involvement with Jewish education in SA:

Commenting on his communal involvement, Price said he had served on the South African Board of Jewish Education for three years “because I thought that the (Jewish) community was isolating itself significantly from the community around it and needed to become more integrated.

“I was part of that community and therefore needed to play a role in trying to break that isolation and create more integration - I have to say I wasn’t successful.”

What was being hinted at here was made a good deal clearer in this letter to the editor, published in the 2 November 2007 edition Entitled “GOOD ENOUGH FOR UCT BUT NOT SABJE” the letter from Joseph Hasson of Cape Town had this to say (I have had to quote extensively from the letter).

THERE IS a disturbing tendency for a certain segment of the South African Jewish community to dominate communal bodies and structures and use them to advance their own agendas and conceptions of Jewish identity.

It is ironic when our own Dr Max Price is appointed vice chancellor of the University of Cape Town, yet not so long ago he was persona non grata in the Jewish community’s own election of educational leaders.

Price was elected and served on the South African Board of Jewish Education (SABJE) from 2000 to 2003. He was bounced in 2003 when the Orthodox religious leadership mobilised to ensure its preferred candidates won seats on the board.

In 2006, Price once again ran for election.

He has been an active member of the KDVP PTA since 1998. Despite being the only candidate with educational credentials and expertise garnered outside of the Jewish community, Price was not elected. Why?

He, and other so-called “liberals”, has long been perceived as a progressive, open-minded critic of some of the SABJE’s policies and this earned him his place on an unofficial “blacklist”.

Price spoke out against the marginalisation of parents during the initial (2001 to 2003) restructuring of the King David Schools; the rumoured closure of the KDVP campus in 2002; and the introduction of increasingly religious and conservative policies, which undermine the traditional, secular, reform, and liberal ethos of many learners and parents.

Orthodox synagogues, by virtue of their membership, are granted the majority of voting delegates at the SABJE’s conference. At the 2006 conference, at least one voting delegate known to me, was shown a list of candidates for whom he should vote by the chairperson of the synagogue he represented. The list allegedly originated from the UOS leadership and Beth Din, communicated to the chairperson via the synagogue’s rabbi. This is not democracy.

Decision making in community institutions gains legitimacy from broad consultation, in this case with learners, parents and the community members whom the conference delegates and board members represent. It is parents who should hold the majority say in matters affecting school policy.

Despite constitutional changes in 2006, this is not the case and therefore parents do not truly control their children’s education.

The problem is not the institution of the SABJE or its current leadership. The SABJE has a competent board with the highly distinguished Adrian Gore as its chairperson. The problem is allowing the Orthodox religious establishment to control the SABJE and thus the school’s ideological and religious policies.

A few decades ago, the Kind David Schools (KDS) (and those following a similar model elsewhere in SA) were the consensus schools, the cornerstones of the SABJE's day schools network. While some objected to the idea of Jewish day schools in principle, and others wanted a Yeshiva education for their children, Kind David schools enjoyed almost universal support from the SA Jewish community. Sadly, this no longer appears to be the case. KDS has moved religiously further right than even the SA Jewish community is comfortable with, while at the same time being increasingly outflanked on the religious right by smaller schools and Yeshivot, in most cases funded by Jewish communal funds through the SABJE! Those uncomfortable with the “Haredisation” of Jewish education are migrating to private schools such as Crawford, along with so-called non-Halachic Jewish children, now barred from KDS.

In a previous posting, I called for the establishment of an international Jewish day schools movement (I hope to deal with this subject in more detail in the near future). It now appears to me that such an organisation has a role to play not just in places where a good Jewish education is hard to find, but also in places like SA, where there is the appearance of a surfeit of Jewish education. If the SA Board of Jewish Education is to increasingly become the SA Board of Orthodox Education (or even the SA Board of Haredi Education) then a non-denominational alternative needs to be provided, and Jewish communal funds need to be redirected accordingly.

While each of the major streams within Judaism has its own networks of Jewish Day Schools, something I’d like to see is an international non-denominational Jewish Day Schools network, offering a consistent “entry-level” Jewish education to whoever requires it. In addition to an above-average secular education, these schools should provide Hebrew and Jewish studies classes, but leaving religion to be dealt with at home and in the synagogue.

Apart from consistency and the cultural and non-denominational approach, it is essential that attendance be subsidised by philanthropists and the wider Jewish community, to ensure that the education is available to all who want it for their children, without cost being a prohibitive factor. While I understand that there are many who would not – as a matter of principle – send their children to a faith-based school, I believe there are many who would if finances permitted.

Jewish education is too important to be left in the hands of a clique of Orthodox rabbis, while the model steadily being adopted by the SABJE is becoming more and more relevant to less and less people.

A detailed, academic study of the evisceration of the King David Schools can be found in the excellent “Prophets and Profits: Managerialism and the restructuring of Jewish schools in South Africa” by Chaya Herman. You can obtain it here:

Prophets and Profits: Managerialism and the Restructuring of Jewish Schools in South Africa

Recognition of Jewish Patrilineal Descent

If you have a stake (personal or theological) in the issue of what has come to be termed Jewish Patrilineal Descent, here’s a site that needs to be on speed-dial on your bookmarks/favourites or your preferred link management software:

JEWISH JUSTICE (jewish patrilineal descent)

Although commonly referred to as the issue of Jewish Patrilineal Descent (I prefer the term “equilineal descent”), what is essentially being advocated is the idea that Judaism is acquired through either parent, not just a mother. According to the website’s home page:

Jewish Justice is dedicated to achieving recognition of patrilineal descent by all Jewish organizations, including and especially Israel, through peaceful protest. Knowledge is power, and this web site is designed to empower all those who believe in this cause with the knowledge they need to defend their beliefs. You will find a complete analysis of the Torah, Haf-Torah and other Jewish texts such as Talmud and the writings of Josephus, as they relate to this topic.

(The section for the Talmud and later commentators is in progress and should be published by end-2007.)

Don’t be put off (or fooled) by the use of clip-art or the sometimes confrontational approach to issues or people. This site falls into the intellectual heavyweight category, and will do more to advance the theological arguments in favour of widespread recognition of patrilineal descent than any other resource I have come across. Be ready to unlearn everything you ever thought you knew about Matrilineal Descent, including how long and how firmly it’s been a part of Judaism.

The site is not just about the theological dispute however. In some ways, it’s more about justice than theology (hence the name, Jewish Justice). Jewish Justice essentially calls for justice for anyone who happens to have the “wrong” Jewish parent, i.e. a Jewish father rather than a Jewish mother. It embraces all “hyphenated-Jews”; those branded by some “half-Jews”, “non-Halachic Jews” or even “non-Jews”.

The site includes some sample protest letters you can edit and forward to the various Jewish denominations, as well as Israeli authorities. You can request to be included on a mailing list for updates, and there is also a basic forum for comments/feedback. If you’re going to advance the usual arguments against Jewish Patrilineal Descent, though, this is NOT the place to do it… There is also a Links Page; this site (Altneuland) takes pride in having been included here.

Some of the content is now available in Spanish and Russian, and a French version is also planned.

World Solidarity Day for the Kidnapped Soldiers (2)

In a previous posting regarding "World Solidarity Day for the Release of the Kidnapped Soldiers", I wrote that:

I was actually hoping to find some sort of banner or widget to include on my blog, but I haven’t come across anything as yet. If anyone is aware of anything along these lines, please drop me a note using Comments.

While I didn’t have any feedback, I managed to find what I was looking for, courtesy of our friends at GIYUS (Give Israel Your United Support). It’s featured prominently on the right of this blog page.

My only gripe is that it doesn’t feature all 8 MIAs (missing but presumed alive) rather than solely the 3 kidnapped soldiers. Perhaps GIYUS will make an updated one available once this particular campaign is over?

World Solidarity Day for the Kidnapped Soldiers

GIYUS.ORG - Give Israel Your United Support

If you’re a blog or website owner, you can get the badge here to add to your site:

Collactive: GIYUS.org - We can't lose hope

With all the dubious causes to which Jewish communal funds sometimes find their way, it saddened me to see on official MIA website that "The International Coalition for MIS has closed down due to lack of funds, and the website has not been updated since July 2005."

ICMIS Home Page: The International Coalition for Missing Israeli Soldiers

(BTW, the site mentions six cases officially listed as "soldiers missing but presumed to be alive" (presumably as at July 2005), but gives the details of only five. Is there in fact a sixth, bringing the total to nine, not eight?)