Shinui Reloaded or a Separation Movement?

In my piece “Exorcising the Haredi Golem” earlier this month, I suggested that a partial answer to Haredi manipulation of the political process in Israel may be to establish a grassroots NGO (along the lines of Omets (Ometz)). I suggested that a focused “single-issue” NGO (for the sake of argument, let’s call it the “Separation” movement) may be more effective than even a political party in addressing the challenges of exorcising the Haredi Golem from Israel’s body politic.

I was therefore interested to note that, according to this recent article in Ynetnews, the Shinui political party itself may make a comeback, no doubt with a new name, key players and some changes to policies and (hopefully) some new strategies. Would the welcome revival of Shinui in some form do away with the need for the mooted Separation movement? My answer is that there is room and a need for both a grassroots NGO and a political party with somewhat overlapping objectives.

For example, there will be occasions where a piece of legislation should enjoy wide support across the political spectrum. It would be the job of the Separation movement to “remind” politicians and parties alike of their duty to the public. Similarly, there may be times where Shinui Reloaded itself needs to be prodded to keep to the straight and narrow, e.g. as occurred with the attempt to introduce a civil marriage bill some years back. Shinui failed to support the bill, at the cost of a great deal of credibility.

Another issue frequently raised is the lack of accountability to the public on the part of MKs. This is usually ascribed to the fact that MKs do not represent a particular geographical constituency. One way that this may be addressed by the Separation movement is for it to keep track of the stance taken by political parties, other NGOs and public figures, including MKs and other politicians. Each political body or public figure could then be assigned a sliding-scale Taliban (or Ayatollah?) rating, based on his/her demonstrated commitment to support (or oppose) further concessions to the Haredim or other theocratic tendencies. It would then be a simple matter to remind politicians (and the public) of their demonstrated track record when seeking support from society.

This naming and shaming is by no means a foolproof solution, but will hopefully serve to let public figures understand that there is a political price to be paid (now or in the future) for kissing the rabbinic ring. From the first, Israeli politicians have shown themselves to be far too willing to hand the education, equality, personal status, rights and taxes of their constituents over to the Men in Black, but the trend has now escalated dangerously.

For an example of what can be tackled and achieved by this kind of single issue activism, we need look no further than the 'Green Now!' initiative launched earlier this month to start pressuring mayoral candidates to make environmental issues central to their campaign. According to the relevant JPOST report, “The groups will present the candidates with four specific demands, and promise to monitor which candidates adopt them and which follow through once they are elected”.

Another role that this proposed Separation movement could play is in building bridges between the secular and the religious. This is usually done on the basis of “educating” the secular public regarding religion. Perhaps it’s time for some education regarding democratic values, free societies and the benefits of separation between religion and state. Also included could be the values of Zionism that have stood the test of time; the value of labour, creating a just society, overturning the “inverted pyramid”, defence, purchase of land, etc.

This move for separation between religion and state should never be seen (or fought) as a struggle between the non- or anti-religious and the religious. It should instead be seen as a struggle between the democratic and secular forces (secular in the sense simply of freedom from religious influence on law) and those seeking to bring on the long, dark night of theocracy in Israel (while plundering the treasury in the meantime). This is not something I (or any right-thinking person) would want for Israel.

Altneuland: Exorcising the Haredi Golem

Shinui is coming back - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

'Green now!' campaign hopes to set agenda for mayoral elections | Jerusalem Post

Save all the beaches? Starting with Palmachim beach?

It is generally accepted that the green movement (in the broadest sense) in Israel is less mature than in other western countries, and that this is mainly due to Israel’s longstanding security concerns (in our blacker moments, her struggle for survival). While the safety and security of Israel and its citizens is far from being a “done deal”, Israeli’s have started allowing themselves the “luxury” of focusing on other issues, including the environment and social justice in general.

One trend that I find quite interesting is that the initiative is now frequently being taken by young, informal, local activist groups, often concerned with a single, specific issue. These groups have tended to make use of both activity on the ground (e.g. camping out at Palmachim beach) and innovative use of social networking tools such as Facebook and YouTube to further the cause. Venerable conservation bodies are then left floundering to explain why they have not acted, or in same cases signed off on some plundering of the common wealth by rapacious developers.

I have the highest regard for Israel’s esteemed conservation bodies, such as the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI), who carried the torch of the environment during long decades of official and public neglect. For a variety of reasons (mainly centered around budgets and resources), they are unable to tackle every single environmental ill; they are forced to choose, and in some cases compromise. Where other groups do take the initiative, however, it is important for the established bodies to lend support (even if only moral), or risk becoming irrelevant. Formal and informal/issue-specific bodies should form a “tag-team”, each using their strengths to compensate for the other’s weaknesses.

Those involved in conservation tend to have (or develop) one of three mindsets:

• Save everything!
• We can’t save everything (we need to pick our fights)
• They’re destroying OUR beach/park/river/trees!

We each need to decide which of these approaches suits us best and adopt an organisation that mirrors our approach. There is much wisdom in the time-honoured conservationist saying “Think Globally, Act Locally”. We would like to save the planet (eventually), but for now maybe we could “just” save all the beaches? One at a time? Starting with Palmachim beach? Even if we end up losing that fight, hopefully we’ll learn lessons we can apply to the next one. And there will always be a next one…

A few examples of these local initiatives:

Timna Valley:

http://www1.freewebs.com/timna-/index.htm

Pave paradise and put up a hotel complex | Jerusalem Post

Altneuland: King Solomon's Mines. No, really…

Kokhav Ya'ir (initiative to protect a forest from encroachment by a shopping mall):

YouTube - Kokhav Ya'ir (Israel) - save the forest support video

Palmahim Beach:

Facebook | help us save palmchim

Battle for the beach | Jerusalem Post

Who stole my beach? - Haaretz - Israel News

Other users of social networking:

Facebook | Israel, Judaism and the Environment

Facebook | Zalul Environmental Association for Israel

One I haven’t seen any opposition to yet:

US-Israeli developer brings golf to Israel's historic Mount Arbel - ISRAEL21c

The Jewish Agency and aliya in the 21st century

Have the leaked press reports regarding the Jewish Agency’s intention to restructure away its Immigration and Absorption (Aliya) Department been misinterpreted? If not, is this really another nail in the coffin of Zionism, or simply a recognition that the balance between Israel and the Diaspora has shifted, and that organisations concerned with aliya need to respond to that shift. I would argue that it’s more the latter, and that we need a new set of assumptions to guide the next century of Zionism. I see those assumptions or assertions being as follows:

The age of mass aliya is largely over. The last of those sources of mass aliya – the former Soviet Union (FSU) – has more or less dried up. The rest of the Diaspora has become concentrated in the western democracies; within that mainly in the English-speaking world, and within that mainly in the US.

Aliya on a large scale is being undermined at the back end by stakeholders with another whole (non- or anti-Zionist) agenda: principally the Orthodox establishment and rabbinate in Israel. In the case of the FSU, as many as one in three of the Jewish Agency’s hard won immigrants was denied Jewish status, or at least a soft landing in the Jewish world. A successful large scale immigration cannot take place under these circumstances, even if another source of immigrants existed.

Because of the first assertion, immigration for economic reasons is not on the cards for now. Aliya will tend to be broken down into:

• Personal fulfilment aliya (sometimes also motivated by factors such as anti-Semitism).
• The possibility of emergency evacuation of an entire Jewish community, e.g. in the even of a harshly ant-Semitic regime coming to power somewhere, or a failed state scenario (one of the possible outcomes for SA, for instance).

Only the first of these motivations lends itself to traditional approaches to aliya. The second we can only prepare for, not facilitate or promote.

Israel no longer needs immigrants in the same way that it did in the first, say, fifty years of its existence. Potential immigrants will be asking what the state can do for them, rather than what they can do for the state. (If we’re still looking to aliya to help us with our demographic challenges, by the way, then we’re in serious trouble. The most that we can hope to achieve from immigration is a net inflow each year, and even this modest achievement can easily be offset by illegal immigration across Israel’s porous borders.)

If Israel does hope to attract immigration not motivated by pure Zionism, it needs to adopt more of a “if we build it they will come approach”. Israel needs to step decisively into the western, liberal, democratic camp, and put aside its dangerous pandering to theocracy. Religious and personal freedoms need to be guaranteed along with economic ones. A state that is attractive to its own population will automatically become a magnet for immigrants, and vice versa. A vision and program, perhaps along the lines of the Reut Institute’s vision of an Israel “Becoming one of the top 15 countries in the world” are needed.

With the Diaspora now less and less a source of immigrants, donations, or both, should Israel simply turn its back and allow it to wither away (perhaps hoping to catch an immigration windfall somewhere along the line)? That would be one approach. A better approach would obviously be to “invest” in order to bolster Jewish communities worldwide (including the growing secondary Israeli Diaspora). This “capital” can then continue to provide a “dividend” into the future (donations, potential immigrants, tourism, support, etc.). The investments required are becoming more and more clearly understood and include mainly:

• Formal education, especially Jewish day school education
• Jewish camping, scouting and youth movements of all shades
• Israel experience tours and extended study and/or volunteer programs (Taglit-Birthright Israel and MASA)
• Shlichot (emissary) programs, especially those involving youth
• But also: Informal cultural and educational programs promoting Hebrew, Hebrew folk dance and community singing and even martial arts (Krav Maga).

JAFI’s budget constraints may mean the end of a chapter in Zionist achievement. It doesn’t have to mean the book is now closed.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Jewish Agency may shut immigration dept.

The Jewish Agency For Israel Homepage

Aliya - definition - Zionism and Israel -Encyclopedia / Dictionary/

Reut Institute

Taglit-Birthright Israel: Homepage

Masa Home - Israel Journey

Altneuland: A bungled Aliya

Judaising your Desktop (5): KKL-JNF Calendar of Concepts and Events

The KKL-JNF in Israel published its novel “KKL-JNF Calendar of Concepts and Events” (created by Izi Mann) in September 2006 for the year 5767 (2006-2007). The calendar was announced as follows at the time:

It is with great pleasure that we hereby present our computerized Calendar of Concepts and Events relating to Zionism, Jewish history, Israel and the environment for the year 5767(2006-2007) in Hebrew and English.

The concepts and events calendar file can be integrated into your Outlook and to most electronic calendars on the market. Installation is straightforward, absolutely secure and will not harm other data or functions which you are using.

You can view the e-mail message announcing the electronic calendar file here:

Altneuland eSnips Folder

Here’s a random sample of an entry from the electronic calendar file:

Tue 2007/07/24

1938

Kofer Hayeshuv

In the wake of the Arab riots in Palestine, the National Committee founded Kofer Hayeshuv. Its purpose was to finance the massive expenses required to defend Jewish localities and organize activities of the pre-state Jewish army, the Haganah, during the 1936–1939 Great Arab Uprising. Money was collected through donations and taxes levied – inter alia – on travel in public transport and on places of entertainment. The funds were used to build fences, pave safe routes, train settlement groups, etc.

A kind of “This day in Jewish history”, but limited to the Zionist era, and integrated with your Outlook calendar.

The instructions for downloading and importing the iCalendar file (for 5767 only) are contained in the e-mail message on eSnips and are repeated below for easy reference:

1. Save the file to your hard disc or on your desktop:

Hebrew file: ftp://kkl.org.il/kkl/Site_links/hebrew.ics

English file: ftp://kkl.org.il/kkl/Site_links/english.ics

2. In Outlook, select “file” from the main menu and click on “Import and Export”.

3. In the drop-down list, select “Import an iCalendar or vCalendar file (.vcs)” and click on “Next”.

4. Browse to the folder in which you saved the calendar file, select the file and click “OK”.

The computer will take a few seconds to load the information into your calendar

After the installation, the heading of each event will be shown in your calendar for the appropriate day. To obtain the full information, place the cursor on the heading, double click on the mouse button and you will then be able to read the complete entry.

An automated procedure was also provided, but I was never able to get this routine to work in my environment.

For those of us who spend much of their working day interacting with Outlook, this is a great way of adding a little “Ivritkeit” to your desktop. It should work with any version of Microsoft Outlook, as well as other e-mail/calendar/PIM applications able to handle the iCalendar format.

I was hoping that the calendar for 5768 (2007/8) would have seen the light of day by now. During August 2007, I queried when a new version would become available, and was assured that it would be out for Rosh Hashanah. Sadly, this hasn’t yet happened.

If you’d like to see something similar published for 5768 and beyond, please drop a note to Ahuva Bar-Lev (Liaison, Information and Publications Department, KKL-JNF Jerusalem) at this e-mail address AhuvaB@kkl.org.il and ask about an update. If enough interest is shown, perhaps the next posting in this informal series will be to announce the 5768 calendar.

Links/Reading/Resources:

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

Altneuland: “Search for Israel” Google toolbar

Altneuland: More on Judaising your Desktop (Part 3)

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

Altneuland eSnips Folder

ICS File Extension - Open .ICS files

kkl-home

This Day ... In Jewish History

A home for Religion and State in Israel

In a blog posting in October last year, I mentioned the indispensable Religion and State in Israel Weekly E-newsletter edited by Joel Katz. I closed off by saying that:

My only criticism (actually a suggestion) is that no archive of previous issues of the newsletter exists. Or rather, that no publicly accessible archive exists on the Web. This should be a relatively easy exercise to accomplish should the demand warrant it.

Joel appears to have taken the suggestion to heart. Shortly thereafter, Religion and State in Israel acquired a permanent address on Blogger, right here.

The weekly e-newsletter is still required reading for anyone interested in the skewed relationship between church (synagogue) and state in Israel. The newsletter can be accessed through e-mail subscription, RSS (Atom) feed or directly on the blog’s home page.

(Please note that the Religion and State in Israel newsletter is no longer hosted on Constant Contact, but is instead hosted on FeedBurner. You can find the link on the Religion and State in Israel blog homepage (top left) or here.)

If you care about Judaism and Israel, and how the unwholesome relationship between them is working to the detriment of both, please sign up. As far as I’m aware, this is the most comprehensive resource (in English) regarding these issues, and the weekly compilation rarely misses anything of significance.

Altneuland: Religion and State in Israel Weekly E-newsletter

Religion and State in Israel

Weekly review of media coverage on issues of religion and state in Israel. Religion and State in Israel is not affiliated with any organization or movement.

More on Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Israel

In January 2008, I posted an item suggesting that the concept of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) might be catching on in Israel. You can read the piece here:

Altneuland: Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) for Israel?

Judging by this more recent article on the Haaretz website:

Meet your personal farmer at Or-Gani - Haaretz - Israel News

and this and other related items on the marvelous Green Prophet blog, it appears that things might be even more advanced than I realized.

Green Prophet » Blog Archive » Community Supported Agriculture: Organic, Local and Tasty!

Follow the links in the Green Prophet piece for some valuable resources for organic farming and CSA in Israel, including agro/eco-tourism and volunteering in the organic farming space.

Kol Tuv to everyone promoting and of course putting the concept of Community Supported Agriculture into practice in Israel. It was once possible to rely on the Zionist ethos and intuition to underline the importance of agriculture for a viable Jewish existence in Israel. In these times, however, we are going to need movements such as CSA to safeguard this national treasure (Israeli agriculture) from the market and other hostile forces ranged against it. Although the quote below refers to the situation in the US, it is just as relevant to Israel:

Since our existence is primarily dependent on farming, we cannot entrust this essential activity solely to the farming population--just 2% of Americans. As farming becomes more and more remote from the life of the average person, it becomes less and less able to provide us with clean, healthy, lifegiving food or a clean, healthy, lifegiving environment. A small minority of farmers, laden with debt and overburdened with responsibility, cannot possibly meet the needs of all the people. More and more people are coming to recognize this, and they are becoming ready to share agricultural responsibilities with the active farmers.

(Trauger M. Groh and Steven S.H. McFadden, Farms of Tomorrow. Community Supported Farms, Farm Supported Communities. Kimberton, PA: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association, 1990. p. 6)

Quoted in:

Defining Community Supported Agriculture

Exorcising the Haredi Golem

An unsolicited proposal from the Diaspora…

The untimely (and distasteful) demise of Shinui as a political force in Israel spelled the end of Israel’s only free market liberal party (as far as I’m aware). Shinui was also one of the last bastions against the creeping Haredisation of Israeli public life, funded by the (still mainly secular) Israeli taxpayer.

Some of the issues confronted by Shinui have been adopted by NGOs. For example, I understand that an NGO called Omets (or Ometz) is attempting (my précis) to promote good governance and the rule of law in Israel.

Putting the two concepts together, I was wondering whether it would make sense to form a “single issue” Israeli NGO, focused completely on addressing the issues around the separation of church and state in Israel, and in particular those where principles of equality are compromised.

Why this concept might work

Unlike a political party with a wider platform (hence more issues to disagree on), a single issue NGO or movement may appeal to a much broader audience. As a non-partisan movement or pressure group it would not advocate political views on other issues, thereby alienating potential support.

How would such an NGO function?

• By using all the tools available to citizens in a democracy: elections at all levels of government, lobbying, petitions, peaceful protests and demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, the media, and of course the courts.
• A focus on those areas where constitutional and democratic norms and the principle of equality have clearly been violated. (Blanket draft exemptions to yeshiva students would be a prime example of this.)
• Placing particular emphasis on exposing and challenging all inequitable political coalition deals in court, as this is usually where the rot begins. Deals that favour a particular constituency should by definition be treated as illegal or unconstitutional.

What are the issues?

The list of issues to be tackled would consist of all the usual suspects:

• The entire framework of laws and regulations that allows for blanket deferments and exemptions from the draft to yeshiva students.
• An immediate end to all government (including municipal) subsidies to private schools (including the Haredi school system), at the expense of state run education. The taxpayer should not be expected to foot the bill for any but state run schools.
• The immediate closure of private schools that refuse to teach a compulsory core curriculum. Israel simply cannot afford the luxury of schools that now leave up to 25% of the schoolgoing population without skills with which to enter the workplace
• Withholding welfare grants to households that are voluntarily indigent. Full time study in a yeshiva or kollel should not be regarded as study for the purpose of welfare or study grants.
• Child subsidies to be on a flat rate basis irrespective of the size of the family. Attempts to use these subsidies to promote large families are an anachronism and have consistently backfired against the state.
• Limited alternative forms of national service to be extended to a period of three years, i.e. in line with initial military conscription.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. I would be glad to hear of any significant items that should be included.

Why now?

By some estimates, the Haredi population will have reached “critical mass” in Israel within no more than a generation or two. At this point it will almost certainly have become impossible to secure Israel’s character as a democratic secular state with a Jewish and Zionist nature. This may be the last opportunity to prevent the transformation of Israel into Haredistan and its eventual demise.

Do we need another NGO?

Bodies such as IRAC are doing a wonderful job of exposing and attempting to counter these abuses. IRAC has a much broader agenda, however, and its association with Reform Judaism may limit its appeal in some quarters. I believe that a broad based, single issue NGO outside the political system may succeed where other organisations have failed.

What I’ve referred to as the Haredi Golem did not bring itself into existence, nor does it continue to thrive without assistance. It is very much the creature of successive Israeli coalitions, deals and governments. I have no doubt that the Haredim in Israel will continue to flourish. Let them do so, however, on an equal footing with the rest of Israeli society, and without the benefit of an inordinate share of the public purse.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Shinui

Shinui - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Omets (Ometz) an Israeli NGO

Golem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious Action Center - Resources from the Israel Religious Action Center

Responses to Inter faith relationships: The Shiva approach and the Simcha approach

We are all used to reading and hearing statements like the following (which appeared in J. - the Jewish news weekly of Northern California). The piece dealt with Conservative Judaism’s clergy association’s (Rabbinical Assembly) policy of prohibiting intermarried Jews to address its annual convention.

No observer of the American Jewish scene can remain neutral on the issue of intermarriage. Over the long run, it clearly poses a demographic threat to the national Jewish population. In a free society like ours, intermarriage is a thorny problem to solve.

Maybe it seems old-fashioned, but Conservative Judaism’s unapologetic stance on intermarriage has merit.

So much so, in fact, that it has become part of our unexamined “common sense” on the issue. This conventional wisdom says that the phenomenon (intermarriage and inter faith relationships in general) is the greatest threat to our survival in the Diaspora (Israel clearly has a different set of challenges).

I would like to examine this accepted conventional wisdom in a little more depth, and even suggest that inter faith relationships are less of a threat than we believe, provided that we find ways to respond to (and even accommodate) these relationships. I would even go so far as to suggest that it is this lack of positive response that constitutes the real demographic threat from intermarriage.

Simply put, our traditional response is to regard the Jewish partner in an IFR (inter faith relationship) as being lost to the Jewish people (along with the non-Jewish partner and their offspring) and operate accordingly. This immediately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This approach (let’s call it the Shiva approach) may have worked in an age where the Jewish people was a separate social (and sometimes even legal) entity, and where the Jewish authorities had coercive powers. In an era where a significant number of Jews are fortunate enough to be able to vote with their feet (not to mention their wallets) on just about every issue that concerns them, it becomes self-defeating.

The Shiva approach may also have worked in past ages, where the forces of repulsion between Jews and non-Jews were far greater than the forces of attraction. Despite the world-wide resurgence in anti-Semitism in all its variants, this is not the case at present. Jews probably now have more in common with their neighbours than at any other time within recorded history.

Here’s our scenario. Our Jewish protagonist has met “someone” and is now thinking along the lines of significant other, committed relationship, maybe even life partner or (gasp) marriage. This actual or potential partner is not Jewish, but usually “not seriously something else”. He/she is now ready to “introduce” the other to family, friends and community (including the weight of generations back to Abraham and Sarah). Will “they” (a “they” that is something more than those actually being introduced) accept his/her choice? In their minds they already know (or believe they know) the answer already: not in a million (or 4,000) years! The Shiva approach has become such a part of our cultural response to IFRs that we believe we know the answer even before the question has been asked.

My observations (admittedly mainly in SA) tell me that, in the majority of cases, individuals correctly assume that their choice will not be endorsed by the community, and accordingly don’t even make the effort or attempt to remain within the fold. This perception and the underlying realities must be changed. Leaving the community should be a last resort where no common ground can be found.

Would this work for you? Telling someone who has just (hopefully) met the love of his/her life that what he/she is doing is finishing Hitler’s work?. No way in hell! This can only be a sure-fire recipe to alienate both partners permanently. Keep in mind that unless you’re living in the equivalent of a Ghetto or Shtetl, the chances are that most (perhaps 80 or 90%) of potential dating/marriage partners you meet will not be Jewish. Excluding 90% of your potential market has its own probable outcomes.

Does this scenario HAVE to mean the end of the (Jewish) line? Is this an Oy vey or a Mazal Tov situation? A tragedy or an opportunity? Do we approach it as Shiva or Simcha, or simply pretend it makes no difference?

Our traditional approach, of course says this is an Oy vey moment and, true enough, if we (as affected individuals and as a community) are not geared up to respond, there will not be a happy Jewish outcome. In the past (50 years, a century or more?) we’ve become accustomed to treating IFRs as a tragedy, with both the family, the community and often even the individual him/herself seeing it in those terms.

But has this natural reaction, translated into a formal response or a strategy been successful in either reducing intermarriage or bringing those in IFRs back into the fold? I think it would be fair to say that, by and large, it’s been a total, almost a catastrophic failure.

The Shiva approach almost universally leaves both partners (and any children) lost to the Jewish collective, leaves both partners with negative feelings (including guilt) towards Judaism and the Jewish community, and leaves families divided.

(It is instructive to note that in these situations, the other partner’s place of worship (if any) will almost invariably do everything possible to welcome and integrate the Jewish partner, and will bend over backwards to accommodate any children born to the union. On the Jewish side, however, they will face almost complete rejection. Some choice. Some strategy.)

What, then are the desirable Jewish outcomes, how can we assist those in IFRs to achieve them, and does this Simcha approach hold more promise than the discredited Shiva approach?

• Assist the couple (and later the budding family unit) in celebrating their life cycle events in a Jewish context and manner (starting with the wedding, if there is to be one)
• Allow them to retain (or even deepen) their affiliation with organized Jewish life, including congregation membership, etc.
• Assist them in running a Jewish home (enough of a challenge when only one partner is Jewish, even assuming the other partner agrees).
• Make every effort to ensure that any children will be brought up Jewish, receive a Jewish education (preferably a Jewish day-school education) and be recognized as Jews, at least consistently by their own stream of Judaism.

Organisations such as InterfaithFamily.com and The Jewish Outreach Institute (JOI), as well as the JOI offshoot Big Tent Judaism are already doing excellent work to change attitudes towards those in IFRs. What we now need is a global acceptance from all the progressive streams of Judaism that the Shiva approach cannot and will not work, and a willingness to attempt the Simcha approach. While there are some concrete steps that need to be taken, most of the changes needed have to do with attitude:

• To reiterate: A change in attitude, on the part of family members, Jewish institutions and those affected themselves. This is perhaps the most essential and most difficult change.
• Acceptance. That IFRs are a fact of life in open societies. Let’s take what we have and work to strengthen and deepen the commitments.
• Synagogues, schools and JCC’s to create environments where families with only one Jewish partner/parent (either) are accepted and the children welcomed.
• Accommodate the non-Jewish partner in all life cycle events, starting with a wedding.
• Recognise equilineal descent (one/either Jewish parent) as a presumption of Jewishness across all progressive streams of Judaism.

The Simcha approach should not be seen as a blanket endorsement or blessing of IFRs. It is simply an acknowledgement of things as they are, of tens of thousands of individual decisions forming a trend. It is also an attempt to secure a Jewish outcome for IFRs, and requires commitment and minimum standards to be adhered to by all parties. This may include the following:

• Undertaking to examine the option of conversion to Judaism with an open mind, now or at some stage in the future
• A commitment not to practice another religion publicly or within the home (widespread cultural practices such as Christmas Trees are probably OK)
• An undertaking to keep a Jewish home (that in itself needs more definition)
• A sincere effort to celebrate all Jewish holidays and life cycle events, with special emphasis on those relating to children
• Commit to raising any offspring of the union or the Jewish partner as Jews
• Emphasis on providing a Jewish education; if possible a Jewish day-school education
• Brownie points for synagogue membership, etc.

We also don’t need to abandon our efforts to facilitate relationships where both partners are Jewish. Not just as a knee-jerk reaction, but because (quite frankly), there IS more likely to be a Jewish outcome. The whole business of a life partnership is a whole lot easier when both partners are Jewish and a common cultural background gives marriage (or other forms of partnership) greater chance of success. Not an insignificant factor when one looks at the odds stacked against a successful long-term relationship.

There is still more than a grain of truth in the overused quotation that says "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and then expecting different results.". We cannot really expect a different result by continuing to use the Shiva approach. In a time and place where we’re all (to a greater or lesser extent) Jews by Choice, we need to stop blaming (or chasing away) the customer. Let’s change the tone of our whole message from Shiva to Simcha and see what difference it can make. What do we have to lose, apart from ditching a losing formula?

Note - This article obviously does not deal with those on the Orthodox/Ultra-Orthodox end of the spectrum, who as a community attempt to avoid both the benefits and challenges, the blessing and the curse of open societies. The Shiva approach can and does work in communities (mainly ultra-Orthodox) where the collective carries a much greater weight than the individual. Most of us live in societies where the individual is paramount, and wouldn’t have it any other way.

Glossary:

IFR - inter faith relationship

Links/Reading/Resources:

j. - Conservatives' "inmarried-only" rule must go

InterfaithFamily.com

The Jewish Outreach Institute

Big Tent Judaism

Jewish Justice: jewish matrilineal patrilineal descent

Gaza: The injustice of even-handedness

I tend to avoid commenting on incidents such as the latest “outbreak of violence” in Gaza; there are many other commentators far better informed and qualified than I to analyse these events and global media reaction to them. In this case, however, I simply have to make a few comments, particularly regarding the reaction of the UN and its esteemed Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.

The quotations are from a briefing appearing on an official UN news website. It struck me because of how - what I assume to be - attempts at even-handedness can serve to disguise the issues and roles of the various players, and thereby possibly even prolong the conflict. The briefing begins on a righteous note:

The Security Council and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have condemned the escalating violence in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel, which has claimed dozens of civilian lives in recent days.

Very noble. All right-thinking people would presumably join in the call to condemn “escalating violence”. Violence, however, does not simply escalate by itself. Someone needs to pull the trigger. Strip away the layers of smoke and mirrors, media manipulation, spin, and political correctness and we find terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli population centres, and desperate attempts by Israel to prevent such attacks and protect its population, while trying to avoid casualties on the other side. Why not actually just say so?

Council members met in emergency session late last night and early today to discuss the situation in the Middle East, where the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have launched air and land attacks on targets in Gaza and Palestinian militants have fired dozens of rockets at targets in southern Israel, including the city of Ashkelon.

Why are the IDF air and land attacks mentioned BEFORE the terrorist rocket attacks? Except in this alternate universe, those rocket attacks preceded the IDF response, and were the direct cause of this response. Why does this statement not simply say so? Instead, it gives the impression that the exact opposite occurred, or that it’s such a mess that nobody can figure out what really occurred.

It would also be helpful to have a refresher as to why these guys are militants and not terrorists. Terrorism is as terrorism does, and launching rockets against civilians is by definition terrorism. Here’s our answer: the rockets were launched against “targets” in southern Israel, not Israeli villages, towns and cities. Hence, we’re dealing with militants, not terrorists. Well, I sure am glad we cleared that one up!

The United Nations estimates that at least 59 Palestinians – including 39 civilians – were killed yesterday in Gaza, and hundreds more injured, while two Israeli soldiers are reported to have been killed in the fighting and an Israeli civilian was killed in Sderot following a rocket attack and at least five other civilians were injured in Ashkelon.

Once again, failing to follow the timeline of events makes for moral and political confusion between aggressors and victims, attack and defence, right and wrong.

It would also be helpful to know who keeps track of civilian and military casualties here. Members of Hamas and other terror groups are not members of a legitimate armed force of a nation or state. Are they then counted among the civilian casualties, as were members of Hezbollah in Lebanon?

Voicing deep concern about the loss of civilian life and the escalation of violence in the region, Council members called on all sides to respect their obligations under international law and to immediately cease all acts of violence.

Once again, wonderful eve-handed sentiments; “civilian life”, “escalation of violence”, “respect obligations under international law”, “immediately cease all acts of violence”, etc. In this case, however, only one side (Israel) has any obligations under international law. Neither Palestine nor Gaza are states, but an explosive cocktail of semi and non-state actors, including unrepentant terrorist organisations. How appropriate is it to issue such statements calling on both sides to respect norms and obligations only incumbent on the one?

UN humanitarian agencies operating on the ground, especially the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), are also continuing their efforts to help people in distress.

That sounds terrific, but I’m not aware of UNRWA, or any other UN humanitarian agency helping the people of Sderot or Ashkelon. Would it be gross injustice, therefore, to conclude that the UN cares only for people in distress on the Palestinian and not the Israeli side?

Mr. Ban condemned and urged an end to the Palestinian rocket attacks, which he noted “serve no purpose, endanger Israeli civilians, and bring misery to the Palestinian people.”

“Endanger Israeli civilians”? How about kill, maim and traumatise Israeli civilians, Mr Ban? “Bring misery to the Palestinian people”? You mean the Palestinian people who democratically elected a terrorist organisation as their government of choice, and consistently support the use of rocket attacks on civilian targets and the use suicide bombing against Israelis? Those Palestinian people? Forgive me then for caring just a tad more for the misery being brought to the Israeli people!

The Secretary-General also said that while Israel has a right to defend itself, “I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children. I call on Israel to cease such attacks. Israel must fully comply with international humanitarian law and exercise the utmost restraint. Incidents in which civilians have been killed or injured must be investigated and accountability must be ensured.”

Thanks Mr Ban, you have no idea how much your recognition of Israel’s right to defend itself means. Just for one minute there I thought you were going to question the right of a member state of the UN (a state that, in the legal sense, owes its existence to the UN) to defend itself from attacks against its civilian population by terrorist organisations. (A democratically elected terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation nonetheless.)

About your liberal use of the highly charged term “disproportionate and excessive use of force”, would it not be more fitting to send an objective commission of enquiry to the region to examine whether the use of force was justified, before making statements like this? Statements that you know very well will be wielded like a club against Israel’s name and reputation?

Just by the way, apart from the children, how do you know who was a civilian and who a combatant? Has Hamas now adopted the use of dog tags?

There’s one more thing missing from this paragraph, Mr Ban, and that is your unequivocal condemnation of the embedding by Hamas of military installations within civilian contexts; the use of civilians as human shields. Oh well, I expect we’ll see it in your next statement on the subject…

All schools operated by UNRWA in Gaza have been closed and many families are trapped inside their homes because of the violence, and Mr. Ban called on Israel to facilitate full access to hospitals and medical centres for the injured.

I’m saddened by news of the closing of schools and families trapped in their homes, just as I have been on hearing about the children of Sderot falling victim to rocket attacks in their schools and homes. Maybe you missed some of those news reports? I have a few clippings I can send you. And I’m sure Israel would be glad to facilitate full access to hospitals and medical centres. Perhaps this could be timed to coincide with the cessation of rocket attacks on Israeli hospitals?

In addition, he voiced extreme concern about the effect they are having on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process, and he called on members of the international community and other stakeholders to use their influence on the parties to both stop the violence and allow humanitarian relief to flow.

There is no meaningful Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process, but I know you’re obliged to pay lip service, so I’ll let that one go.

I choose to believe that you’re attempting to be even-handed, Mr Ban, but this moral equivalence been a member state of the UN and a band of murdering terrorists, between civilisation and barbarism, and between democracy and various shades of autocracy and theocracy just undermines your message and your mission. Surely you MUST know that Israel does not need the influence of members of the international community and other stakeholders in order to play its part in a real peace process.

Save your breath for convincing the other side.

We heard much from the UN regarding Israel’s denial of goods, services and utilities to Gaza just a little while back. If that option is denied to Israel, and the use of military force in defence is also unacceptable, what remains? Is Israel expected to just kneel and wait for the sword stroke?

Mr Ban, I have an enduring image of you flinching behind the microphone stand when the mortars fell on Baghdad. I imagine that your ordeal there has helped shape your sympathy for the people of Gaza. I look forward to you expressing the same sympathy for the people of Sderot and the rest of the Negev.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Security Council, Secretary-General alarmed by deadly violence in Middle East