Jews in Space: Why we need to be there

I apologise for the catchy, but somewhat misleading title…

Just to clarify, this has nothing to do with the Jews in Space sequence from Mel Brooks’ History of the World, Part I.

It also has little to do with the not insignificant number of Jewish and Israeli astronauts (or astronauts of Jewish descent), over the years, participating mainly in various NASA missions.

While Col. Ilan Ramon OBM was certainly the first (and thus far only) Israeli astronaut, Dr. Judith (Judy) Resnick OBM was the first Jewish astronaut with NASA, as well as being NASA’s second female astronaut and (obviously) the first female Jewish astronaut.

The honorary title of overall FJA (First Jewish Astronaut) belongs apparently to Soviet cosmonaut Boris Volynov (who flew two Soyuz missions in the late 60s).

Other names on this illustrious list include

• Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman, who flew on the Space Shuttles Discovery and Columbia five times between 1985 and 1996.
• Dr. David Wolf, who has flown three shuttle flights, spent four months aboard the space station Mir.
• Dr. Scott Horowitz has been in space four times between 1996-2001 on shuttles Columbia, Discovery and Atlantis. He served as pilot and was crew commander on his final mission.
• Dr. Garrett Reisman
• Dr. Gregory Chamitoff

To the purpose of this posting.

At the time of the Ofeq-6 disaster in 2004, I questioned in my mind whether the responsible authorities in Israel understood the importance of this delivery capability. These questions were not put to rest by Israel’s recent decision to launch TecSAR in association with the Government of India. While I’m all in favour of this kind of international cooperation, once again I hoped that the need for Israel to have a solid delivery capability or mechanism was not being neglected.

As a compulsive listmaker, over the last year or so I’ve been putting together my concerned layman’s wishlist of what I’d like to see in an Israeli space program in the broadest sense. Once I’m in a position to carry out more research (yup, we’re talking Google here), I hope to be able to make check marks next to many of these items. If I’ve left off any significant items, please drop me a line or use the Comments function.

The operating assumptions

• Recognise the importance of a comprehensive space program (civilian and military) for the safety, security and future of Israel.
• In the same way (and for much the same reasons) that we need to be part (albeit ambiguously) of the nuclear club, we need to be in this latter day space race
• While international cooperation in the field of space research is important, Israel must continue to develop its own satellite delivery capability, and must not be reliant on other countries to launch its satellites.
• Israel must be able to match or better Iran’s capability to deliver a warhead anywhere in the Middle East, accurately and without reliance on manned aircraft.
• It must develop the ability to temporarily blind, disable or even destroy the satellite of a hostile nation in the sky over Israel (or otherwise conceal activities on the ground, from both friend and foe).
• It must have the ability to protect its own space assets against attack and/or have redundant or backup systems for critical functions.
• Space is to be regarded as the top layer in a strategic umbrella over Israel.
• This umbrella should provide a permanent, redundant Command, Control, Computers and Communications grid over Israel and that part of the Middle East, using a combination of satellites in various orbits, UAVs and AWACS.
• Satellites to make use of overlapping and redundant orbits to achieve the required level of availability and reliability
• Mapping/identification of all satellites in our quadrant. Is it friend, foe or neutral, and what are its capabilities?
• Eventually, a weapons platform in its own right (a la Star Wars/SDI).

What the grid should eventually provide:

• A multi-dimensional picture of the whole of this sector of the ME, for both civilian and military applications, 24/7/366.
• A transport layer for all forms of data, video and voice communications, civilian and military.
• Secure/encrypted communications for government, military and emergency services.
• Redundancy for Israel’s Internet needs.
• GPS navigation for both civilian and military applications.
• Information regarding land use, urban and regional planning, vegetation and water usage.
• Assistance in border patrol and maritime security operations (terrorists, illegal immigrants/people smuggling, goods).
• Maritime communications, navigation and coast guard activities.
• Missile guidance and other military targeting systems.
• Support for Israel’s anti-ballistic missile and other missile defence needs, including defence from threats over the horizon.
• Signals intelligence (eavesdropping) and other military intelligence needs.
• Reconnaissance and surveillance.
• Electronic counter-measures?

With Israel now having the Israeli Space Agency (civilian) and with the Israeli Air Force now having been transformed into the Israel Air and Space Force (IASF) (at least in name), I’m hoping we can look forward to both vision and execution on Israel's Final Frontier. No doubt bodies such as the Israeli Space Society and the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies will also play a role in this regard.

Here’s to the launch of the next generation of Ofeq satellite from within Israel’s borders!

Links/Reading/Resources:

YouTube - Jews in Space

Israeli MoD May Seek Emergency Funds to Replace Ofeq-6

IAI’s TecSAR Satellite Transmits First High-Quality Photos

Israeli Space Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Puts Air Force in Charge of Space Activities - Hotly Debated Decision Renames the Service the Israel Air and Space Force

The Fisher Institute For Air And Space Strategic Studies

Needed: A Big Tent approach to worldwide Jewish education

According to this JTA Breaking News piece dated 12 February 2008:

A prestigious Jewish school in London was accused of discrimination for refusing to accept the daughter of a convert.

The JFS, formerly known as the Jewish Free School, rejected the application of a girl whose mother is a convert to Judaism and a teacher in the school, the Times of London reported Tuesday. Her father is an Orthodox Jew.

The office of the chief rabbi, which acts as the school's religious authority, does not recognize the mother's conversion, which took place more than 20 years ago under the auspices of the same office.

The Times reported that children from two other families were refused admission based on questions about conversions. The school, which receives government funding, says the refusals were based on religion, not race.

The Lightmans have been battling for admission on behalf of their daughter, now 13, for four years.

In the same way that The Jewish Outreach Institute (JOI) has been advocating a Big Tent Judaism (“Big Tent Judaism | to engage, support and advocate for all those who would cast their lot with the Jewish people”), I would argue that the time is ripe for a Big Tent approach to Jewish education worldwide, to accommodate those who want a pluralistic Jewish (day-school) education for their children. This would include all “hyphenated Jews”, whether referred to as half-Jews, non-Halachic Jews, non-Jews; anyone who happens to have been born with the "wrong" Jewish parent (or grandparent).

Obviously Orthodox establishments such as the JFS are not going to be offering any such pluralistic Jewish education, nor are “those who would cast their lot with the Jewish people” going to be welcome in their hallowed halls anytime soon (unless the legal system compels it). On the other hand, those on the progressive end of the Jewish spectrum have, generally speaking, put insufficient emphasis on Jewish day-school education, so options are limited here.

A Big Tent approach to Jewish education may therefore require the establishment of an International Jewish Day Schools Movement (IJDSM). This is something I have suggested previously, and I hope to produce a detailed proposal in this regard during the course of this year. In outline, however, such a network should be able to offer the following:

• A non-judgemental and inclusive admissions approach that would treat (for admissions purposes) those with one Jewish parent as being “under the presumption of Jewish descent” (equilineal descent) and would also respect conversions performed by all the recognised streams of Judaism.
• A “no child excluded” approach, including financial assistance to ensure that a Jewish education is never denied for financial reasons. (This cross-subsidisation would require support from the Jewish donor and wider community.)
• Above-average secular academic program.
• Compulsory Hebrew and pluralistic Jewish Studies program. (Jewish Studies would take a “highest common factor” approach acceptable to the entire spectrum from secular through to liberal Orthodox. Religious instruction would be regarded as a matter for the home and the synagogue.)
• Diversified sports program, with the emphasis on team sports.
• An emphasis on social justice (Tikkun) and care of the environment
• Participation in the various Zionist youth groups and Jewish Scouting movements encouraged.
• Preparing children to participate fully both in the life of the Jewish community and that of the community around them.
• Uniform standards/curricula worldwide, but adapted to local conditions/laws where necessary
• Models to allow existing schools/Jewish day-school networks to affiliate with or become part of the IJDSM
• Adapt to worldwide Jewish demographic trends by allocating resources (including opening and closing schools) in accordance with these trends.

The best example of such worldwide consistency may be the American International Schools (AIS) or Deutsche Internationale Schule networks, but with a far more centralised or hierarchical structure.

It’s time for the Lightmans - and all those in similar situations – to stop humiliating themselves and wasting their energy banging on the closed doors of the Orthodox world, and instead throw their weight behind more democratic, pluralistic and open Jewish alternatives in culture, education and worship.

(I haven’t even touched on the most shocking aspect of this story, the allegation that “The office of the chief rabbi, which acts as the school's religious authority, does not recognize the mother's conversion, which took place more than 20 years ago under the auspices of the same office. [my emphasis]. The truly despicable retrospective annulment of conversions by Orthodox rabbinates in Israel and elsewhere is fast becoming a trademark of this stream of Judaism.)

Links/Reading/Resources:

Jewish school accused on admissions

The Jewish Outreach Institute

Big Tent Judaism

jewish matrilineal patrilineal descent

Arabic and English: The right decision for the wrong reasons

The Israeli Education Ministry’s January decision to drop Arabic from the compulsory core curriculum appears to me to be the right decision taken for the wrong reasons.

How should such decisions be taken? They should be taken by considering the best interests of the pupils to be educated, and of the country as a whole. As the decision was taken in the vain hope of getting the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) schools to adopt the official “compulsory core curriculum”, this patently hasn’t happened.

On the surface, the Education Ministry would appear to have the upper hand. After all, in terms of a High Court of Justice ruling secondary schools are barred from receiving government funds if they do not teach the compulsory core curriculum. Instead of adopting “a take it or leave it” (better yet, a FIFO attitude) towards the recalcitrant schools, the Education Ministry has bent over backwards to accommodate them (to the extent that Tamir asked the court two weeks ago to put off implementing its ruling for a year).

Leaving that issue aside for now, what would be in the best interests of the pupils to be educated, and of the country as a whole? In my mind, there is no question that English should become a compulsory subject throughout primary and secondary schooling. Arabic, on the other hand, should become optional.

Achieving this would probably require a change in the official status of English, with English becoming the third official language of Israel. This would merely formalise the de-facto situation, rather than being a fundamental change to language policy.

Why English?

Firstly, English is the language of most of the Diaspora communities; in very round numbers the other 50% of the worldwide Jewish population. At a time where Israel and the Diaspora appear to be drifting further and further apart, having Israeli youth at home with English can only help matters.

Secondly, English has already become the global lingua franca (lingua anglia?). Individuals, companies, societies and countries cannot compete in the global village without having a good grasp of English. I don’t think I need to spend more time making this case for English. Without it, Israel will simply fall behind in the race.

I pulled these quotes from a random entry in my search results:

English is the official language of aviation and maritime communication. It also is increasingly the language of international business, science and diplomacy. It's one of the official languages of the European Union, the United Nations, NATO and the International Olympic Committee.

It's estimated that more than a billion people in the world speak English, at least at a basic level, and some predict that the number will rise to 2 billion in the not so distant future. For that reason English is often referred to as a global language.

It should be pointed out, though, that these millions of people around the world who have learned English haven't necessarily done so out of admiration for or a desire to communicate with Americans or other native English speakers. The primary reason is to communicate with each other.

For example, if a Korean businessman wants to conduct trade in the global marketplace with Japan, China, Australia and Italy, he doesn't need to know the languages of all those nations. English serves as the common denominator for all.

What of Arabic?

It is the language of our neighbours, both within Israel itself and in the Middle East. Learning Arabic should be encouraged, especially for those considering careers in government and the diplomatic service, the police, military and intelligence, as well as fields such as tourism, teaching and academia. As Israel's native Arabic-speaking population shrinks due to natural attrition, those who master Arabic will find themselves increasingly in demand, both in the current state of cold peace/low-intensity war, and hopefully in a future where full peace exists between Israel and its neighbours.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Education Ministry drops Arabic studies from core curriculum - Haaretz - Israel News

It's worth it to study a foreign language (phillyBurbs.com) | Lou Sessinger

Judaising your Desktop (4): Israeli and Jewish holidays in Outlook 2003

Like many of us, you probably spend a large part of your working day in an e-mail/PIM application. Things being as they are, the chances are that the application is one of the versions of Microsoft Outlook.

Some users of Outlook 2003 would have noticed that their Outlook Calendar does not reflect any Israeli or other public holidays or Jewish religious holidays for 2008 or later. The reason for this is that, when launched, Outlook 2003 included recognised holidays only up to the end of 2007. In order for Outlook to include holidays for 2008 onwards, it is necessary to apply an update provided by Microsoft and edit some of your Calendar settings.

Although this posting is specifically directed towards users of Outlook 2003 (or Microsoft Office Outlook 2003, to give the product its correct title), users of other versions of Outlook may also get value from it. Even if your country’s public holidays are up to date, you may still want to add the Israeli public holidays or Jewish religious holidays to Outlook.

This is more in the nature of a fix than an enhancement. The assumptions are that you’re using one of the later versions of Windows (probably XP), you’re located in one of the English-speaking Western democracies (or you’re an English speaker in Israel), and that your PC is configured accordingly. The procedure below should be carried out in roughly the sequence given below. Steps have been outlined only briefly, as the Microsoft and third party documentation do an excellent job of providing the detail.

Add Israeli public holidays and Jewish religious holidays to Outlook

Start off by exiting from Outlook 2003 and any other running applications. This is the standard advice given when installing any new/upgraded component on your PC.

Determine whether you have the correct version of the Outlook holiday file. For Outlook 2003 the file name should be Outlook.hol with a date of 12-Sep-2006 or later. (Perform a search for the file on your C:\ Drive.)

If your Outlook.hol file has an earlier date, you will need to download and apply the update described in the Microsoft Support knowledge base article KB924423. Links have been provided below.

Alternatively (if you haven’t already done so) you may want to install Office 2003 Service Pack 3. The links to a description of this service pack (SP) and the download area have also been included below.

Once you have successfully downloaded and installed either the fix or the service pack and verified the Outlook.hol date stamp, run Outlook 2003.

Add the holidays (through to 2012) to your Calendar folder by following these steps:

Click Tools | Options

From the Preferences tab, click Calendar Options

From the Calendar Options dialog box click Add Holidays

From the Add Holidays to Calendar dialog box, check the following “locations”:

• Your country (if in the Diaspora)
• Israel
• Jewish Religious Holidays

Click OK

You may receive warnings to the effect that “Holidays for [location] are already installed. Do you want to install them again?” It should be safe to click OK, as holidays prior to 2008 are not included in the updated Outlook holiday file.

The selected locations’ holidays for 2008 through 2012 should now appear in your Calendar.

In the event that holidays are duplicated for some reason, follow the procedure below to remove the duplicates (or download a utility to remove them automatically).

• Open your calendar.
• On the View menu, point to Arrange By, click Current View, and then click Events.
• Click the Location column heading to sort the list of holidays by country.
• Click to select the first holiday that you want to delete.
• Hold down the Shift key, and then select the last holiday that you want to delete.
• Press Delete to remove all the selected holidays from your calendar.

But wait, we’re not done yet. You can also give the following features of your Outlook Calendar a Blue and White look and feel:

(All of these options can be accessed from Tools | Options | [Preferences tab] | Calendar Options.)

Set First day of week to Sunday

Under Calendar work week, set First day of week to Sunday

Enable alternate calendar: Hebrew Lunar

Under Advanced Options, check Enable alternate calendar and set the alternate calendar to Hebrew Lunar (this assumes that your default calendar is set to English or another European language)

Show an additional time zone: IST

• Under Advanced options, click Time Zone.
• From the Time Zone dialog box, check Show an additional time zone.
• For the Label, enter IST
• Select (GMT+02:00) Jerusalem for the Time zone
• Check the Adjust for daylight saving time box

Click OK until all dialog boxes are closed and your new options are saved.

Various subtle changes will now be reflected in your Outlook Calendar, depending which view you are using.

While you may still require a paper, software or web-based Luach for more specialised applications, setting the above options in Outlook will help keep you more connected to “Jewish time”, whether you’re in Israel or the Diaspora.

Previous blog postings in this “series” can be read here:

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

Altneuland: “Search for Israel” Google toolbar

Altneuland: More on Judaising your Desktop (Part 3)

Links/Reading/Resources:

Description of the updates for Outlook 2003 and for Office 2003 MUI Pack: March 15, 2007

Download details: Update for Outlook 2003 (KB924423)

Description of Office 2003 Service Pack 3

Download details: Office 2003 Service Pack 3 (SP3)

Microsoft Outlook Holiday Issues

Duplicate Remover Tools for Calendar

Targeted assassination: the least bad option

This piece was originally intended to refer to the recent (11/02/2008) JTA Breaking News item “Hamas leaders go underground”, rather than the assassination of Imad Mughniyah, but was overtaken by those events. According to the JTA story:

Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip have gone into hiding for fear they could be targeted for assassination by Israel.

Ismail Haniyeh, the top Hamas politician in Gaza, and the commander of the Islamist group's terrorist operations, Ahmed Jaabari, disappeared from public view this week, Palestinian sources said Monday.

The move appeared to be a response to Israel's decision to step up airstrikes and other pinpoint military operations against Hamas following its cross-border rocket salvos.

While I'm reluctant to assume the role of armchair general (or corporal), I do believe we should support Israel’s right to use tools such as targeted assassination in order to deter or defend itself against terror attacks. Perhaps the only proviso should be that attacks are reserved for those individuals whose technical or leadership skills make a significant contribution to the terror organization. In this regard, the debate should not be about whether the character or abilities of the individual make a difference, but about what other factors (if any) make a difference.

In one respect, I would go even further than current Israeli policy apparently dictates: refusing to respect the arbitrary distinction between the so-called military and political wings of terrorist organizations. These distinctions might be very convenient for the organizations themselves, and protect the undeserving from the consequences of their endeavour, but there’s no reason why Israel (or the West) should be bound by them. There is a very thin line between those who promote and facilitate terror, and those who control or carry out the operations. We should permit ourselves to cross it at will. In particular, the spokesmen for organizations such as Hamas should see themselves as having a target on their chests. Those who stand in front of the TV cameras in their tailored suits and justify the murder and maiming of civilians should consider themselves martyrs in the making.

Those who criticise the scale and proportionality of Israel’s operations in Lebanon during the First Hezbollah War should welcome the use of targeted assassination and surgical strikes, where collateral damage is kept to the bare minimum (keeping in mind that these are military operations, not day trips).

Is targeted assassination a moral response to terror? Of that I have no doubt.

Is it effective? I’m less certain about the answers to that question, and I do think that Israel ought to have more arrows in the quiver of possible responses to terror and other attacks by non- or semi-state actors.

Does it provide a complete solution to the problem of rocket and terror attacks across Israel’s borders, and against Jewish and Israeli “targets” worldwide? Obviously not. I for one, however, would rather read about Hamas kingpins scrambling unheroically for cover than about the children of Sderot traumatized by the nightmare of Kassams and Colour Red rocket warning sirens.

Until something better comes along, let’s think of it as our least bad option.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Hamas leaders go underground

Not everyone is replaceable - Haaretz - Israel News

Imad Mughniyah: A worthwhile target - The Telegraph

The JNF’s pine forests: Pine deserts or nurse crops?

The Green Prophet blog (“Foreseeing a green, environmentally-sound future for Israel and its neighbours.”) commented on this recent Haaretz article regarding the JNF’s maturing pine forests. The article makes the case for rehabilitating the reputation of these much-maligned plantations, but also raises some additional questions. From the article:

…over the years, the pine forests became the focus of attacks and scorn, and the tree soon became identified with Jewish National Fund forests. The monotonous pine landscape, which appeared to have been copied and pasted all over the Galilee, the coast, the Jerusalem hills and the northern Negev, was poorly received by nature lovers who wanted to see local species and groves indigenous to the Land of Israel.

"Now we are seeing a process of selection through natural renewal," Osem says. "Trees that survived the selection process spread their seeds. The forest thus adapts itself to the region. The assumption is that after several generations, the forest will have adapted to its environment. A generation for a pine is 80 to 100 years. The approach today is that the forest's natural processes will create the next forest, a diversified, local forest."

"In order to reach a diversified forest, which is what we are aiming at today, we must start with a pioneering forest, a forest that grows quickly and creates a canopy for undergrowth, which is the next generation of the forest," says Zidan.

We are left with the impression that the pine monoculture did no great harm to the JNF’s afforestation efforts, although a generation (in pine forest terms) may have been lost due to the fixation on pines. Is this not in itself a problem, i.e. would these areas not be a great deal closer to their managed climax vegetation had a more diversified planting regimen been followed?

Is the emergence of this next generation of forest cover therefore a matter of planning or luck? Did nature correct the JNF’s mistakes (basically pull their chestnuts out of the fire), or did this happen in terms of a far-sighted plan?

According to the JNF (US) website, “The Bible tells us that God originally filled the land with olive, pine, cypress, tamarisk, acacia, and carob trees. These are the species that we plant today to renew and nurture the land.” Is this an admission that a nurse crop was not really a necessary phase in the rehabilitation of these areas, or that the pine nurse crop may not have been the best choice?

Perhaps what we now need are clear statements from the KKL/JNF Israel’s forestry division regarding the following:

• Are nurse crops still needed, or can future plantings more closely reflect the desired climax species mix?
• If nurse crops are still required, what will the makeup be, or will the pine monoculture remain?
• Is there a plan to help migrate existing forests to a more mixed/indigenous composition, or will nature be left to take its course?

Let's hope these issues will be addressed before planting begins on the next generation of forests in Israel.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Green Prophet » Blog Archive » Israeli Forests Are Pining Away

Clearing the pine tree's name - Haaretz - Israel News

Holy Land Certificate

Green Prophet

Jewish National Fund: Plant Trees and Bring Water to Israel

Forests in Israel

Should the Holocaust and Apartheid be bracketed together?

In a letter to the editor of the SA Jewish Report, Don Krausz (Chairman, Association of Holocaust Survivors in Johannesburg) said that “We view the Holocaust and Apartheid as two of the worst examples of racial persecution of our time.”

With all due respect to Mr Krausz and his sombre credentials, I just wonder whether it is appropriate to bracket these two historic events or systems together under the simple heading of "racial persecution". While this is not intended to be an exercise in “my persecution was greater than yours”, let’s not forget the basics around these two terms.

The Holocaust was an event unique in the annals of history, in terms of its sheer scale, its systematic and scientific nature and (lest we forget) its persistence and success; somewhere in the order of 90% of those Jews who fell within the grasp of Nazi Germany perished (an inverted decimation), and European Jewry quite simply ceased to exist in less than half a decade.

Apartheid also had its roots in theories of race carried to insane extremes. It was a harsh system of economic, political and social discrimination against all those deemed to be Non-Whites, carried out over several decades. It deprived Black African, Coloured and Indian or Asian South Africans of culture, education, liberty, property, opportunity, dignity and almost all other values and social goods. It was an unspeakable system. What it did not do, for the most part, was deprive its victims of their lives. It was not Genocide, unless we want to rob that term of all its meaning in an exercise in political correctness. There was never a systematic effort to exterminate the Non-White population of SA.

So, ghastly as the system may have been, I’m certain that most Holocaust victims and survivors would have chosen to Live under Apartheid (even at its height) than Die in the Holocaust. On the other hand, few of the victims of Apartheid would have knowingly or willingly traded places with victims of the Holocaust.

So, without wanting to labour the point, we have seen too many efforts (whether well or ill-intentioned) to blur the uniqueness of the Holocaust by inappropriate comparisons with other horrific events. Let’s not be guilty of it ourselves.

Similarly, we see increasing efforts to tar Israel with the brush of Apartheid. While these efforts may partially succeed in deligitimising Israel, they are actually more successful at blunting the unique meaning of that system and its impact on the victims.

So whose Nakba is it anyway?

According to this recent article in Haaretz,

The Zochrot (Remembering) organization, which supports promoting the Palestinians' right of return to the destroyed communities… last week celebrated a breakthrough: Senior Jewish National Fund-Keren Kayemeth L'Israel (JNF) officials notified the organization that in parks that have a sign explaining the history of the area, the Palestinian villages that were once located there would also be mentioned.

With so many other pressing issues to confront, is this something we (as Zionists, supporters or citizens of Israel) should be concerned with, or is this just a harmless gesture towards historical facts? Here’s why I think we should object.

In very simplistic terms, Zionism almost universally accepted the stipulation that the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people would be achieved without prejudicing the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities there. There was, quite frankly, no such commitment on the part of the Arab population of Palestine or its leadership.

When Israel’s War of Independence broke out it was not (at least initially) a war between states or armies, but rather a war between neighbours, in a sense perhaps the first Palestinian civil war. It was clear to all objective observers at the time that the Arabs were the aggressors, the Jews simply attempting to defend themselves (unless you consider just being there as aggression). Those who chose not to take up arms against the nascent Israel remained largely unharmed, and today they and their descendants number more than 20% of Israel’s population.

So yes, starting a war of aggression against your neighbours, losing it, and then losing your homes could be considered a Nakba (catastrophe), but it’s your Nakba, not mine. There’s no good reason why I should be adding this to my burden of Jewish guilt.

I can’t help thinking that, in the real world, this is as close as it gets to a kind of cosmic justice, with attempted actions, having failed, bringing consequences very much in tune with what was intended for the original victims. (This is not to deny that many innocent individuals were also caught up in the events.)

It is also difficult not to compare the fate of these villages and their refugee populations with that of the Sudeten Germans after the fall of the Third Reich (indeed, some historians have made exactly that comparison). Not only has there never been a serious proposal for the return of this group to their homes - in what is now the Czech Republic - but nobody would seriously suggest that the Czechs be overly concerned with commemorating their fate.

The keeping of these maps, recording of place names and locations, etc., is something that rightfully belongs in the camp of Palestinian Arab irredentism. It is not something that needs to be part of the Israeli, Jewish or Zionist landscape, memory or “narrative” (to use a term much abused in the name of political correctness).

Citing the names of destroyed villages on park signs does not in itself seem to be a big deal. Seen as just a small part of the bigger picture of the denial and uprooting of Jewish history and connection with Israel (as a prelude to physical removal) it looks a little different, and the State of Israel and the JNF should have no part of it. Write to your MK…

JNF to erect signs in parks, citing destroyed Palestinian villages - Haaretz - Israel News

Stay home or go home: a disservice to the SA Jewish community

This piece was prompted by a letter (Don't Help Them Pack for Sydney) to the editor of the SA Jewish Report from Michael Bagraim (formerly of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD)) on 30 November 2007, in which he took the Australian Jewish community to task for attempting to capitalise on (and even encourage?) Jewish emigration from SA. The editor of the SAJR responded by refusing in principle to censor such ads, while at the same time stating that “the Jewish Report, editorially, will never advocate emigration, except to make Aliyah”. Bagraim's letter (as published) read as follows:

It has been brought to my attention that the Australian Jewish News has announced a rather unpleasant programme to market Sydney's North Shore to South Africans considering immigration.
They are adding all sorts of incentives to convince South African Jews to immigrate in the next 10 years.
The project has made some spurious estimates of a further 30 000 who would immigrate within the next 10 years. Clearly this negative conjecture is based on nonsense.
As a Jewish community we have always said either stay home or go home and we should stand together in this situation.

The “stay home or go home” position taken by both Bagraim and the SAJR appear to be commendable, both patriotic (in SA terms) and in line with Zionism. It is also totally out of step with the factors someone might take into account when contemplating leaving SA permanently.

First the “stay home” option. We would all like to think that our noble commitment to remaining in SA and making it a better place to live will make a difference. In reality, however, Jews are a small, shrinking minority within a larger, also shrinking minority (the so-called White population) and, despite all our good intentions, there is little we can do to prevent SA’s gradual (but accelerating) slide into becoming Just Another Failed African State (JAFAS). This is not at all Hitler’s Germany; there is no credible or specific threat to Jews as Jews in SA. The fate of SA Jewry is, however, tied to that of the Whites, increasingly under economic and physical pressure from all the ills afflicting SA, including rampant violent crime, corruption at the highest levels, “affirmative action”, the breakdown of education, health and policing systems and our crumbling transport, energy and basic municipal services infrastructures. When making their go/stay choices, individuals are quite rightly taking these factors into account, and so should those who presume to advise or speak in the name of SA Jewry. This is not the time or place for pointless flag-waving and Proudly Jewish SA slogans. If there is no long-term future for SA Jewry, we need to acknowledge this, even if only behind closed doors.

Next the “go home” option, i.e. Aliyah? Go for it! If you’re a committed Zionist, and you believe the time or circumstances are right, then Mazal Tov! I firmly believe, however, that 21st Century Zionism no longer requires the negation of the Diaspora. In fact, given the unique shift in the population balance between the Diaspora and Israel over the last 60 years, one could make the case that it is the Diaspora that is in need of strengthening, not Israel. I believe that Israel no longer “needs” immigrants in the way that it did in earlier decades. Unless there is a physical threat to a Jewish community requiring evacuation, Aliyah should now be a matter of personal fulfillment, not the needs of the state.

So should those be the only options available to SA Jews? In reality, most of those leaving SA will end up choosing the “third option”, emigrating to one of the English-speaking western democracies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK or the US). They will in time no doubt contribute substantially to their adopted countries and to the strengthening of the Jewish communities there.

The representatives of the organized Jewish community in SA obviously have their own agenda, e.g. keeping their communities viable, not offending the government of the day, etc. These considerations are not, however, top of mind for those contemplating a life-changing move such as emigration. So, while the “third option” might not suit our leadership, people should not be subjected to an outdated and misplaced patriotism for making decisions based on the best interests of themselves and their loved ones. (Given the ill-fated history of attempted Jewish emigration during the 20th Century, we should be the last to place obstacles in our own path.)

In a nutshell, the long-term viability of the SA Jewish community is at best questionable. Individuals and families need to evaluate the options (tough it out, emigrate, or make Aliyah) based on their own best interests and should not be subjected to ideological or moral bullying, jingoism or guilt-trips from those in leadership positions. Emigration needs to be seen as a legitimate and realistic option for many, not as something that may not even be spoken of.

South African Jewish Newspaper - Jewish Community News
http://www.sajewishreport.co.za/pdf/23-november-2007.pdf

(The Eskom electricity supply crisis in SA has severely impacted the operations of this Blog and the activities of this writer since mid-December 2007, in terms of lost productivity and damaged PC and networking equipment. At the peak of the so-called load-shedding, power was being interrupted 4-6 times per day, for 2-4 hours at a time. I apologise to both my readers for the lengthy hiatus, originally intended to be only a week at the seaside.)