Unintended consequences: The Sinai withdrawal and Iran

The Reuters website carried a feature on the recently published Israeli thriller, "Undersea Diplomacy", by Shlomo Erell. According to the article, “he's an ex-admiral with experience in Israel's most sensitive military planning”. (Significantly, retired Admiral Erell was Chief of the Navy in Israel in June 1967.)

The article quoted Erell as saying "it's pure fiction, but it's informed fiction". On that basis, I have a major concern with one of the assumptions of the plot, which centres around if and how Israel may make use of its Dolphin-class submarines, in the event of a showdown with an Iran on the brink of achieving the means to carry out its threat of wiping Israel off the map.

According to the article, the assumption is as follows:

Israel also has access to the Red Sea through Eilat port. But navy sources said there was no plan to dock submarines there because the narrow Red Sea, which is shared with several Arab states, is vulnerable to blockades at the Straits of Tiran.

In 1956 and 1967, Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran to vessels bound for Eilat was a casus belli for Israel and a catalyst for war on both occasions. I also recall that one of Israel’s last actions during the 1948 War of Independence was to establish a presence in Eilat, to secure Israel’s access to the Red Sea.

Unless there’s something I’ve missed here, I therefore find it disturbing and disheartening that Eilat’s vulnerability to blockade is simply taken for granted, based on which a possible route through the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba) is taken out of the equation without any further deliberation. Previous generations of Israeli military strategists would have drawn up plans to smash any such blockade; the present generation appears to be content to accept the situation and plan around it. (Note also that none of the countries with which Israel shares a Red Sea "frontage" has even given the slightest hint that any such blockade is being contemplated.)

The other item that concerned me was the statement that

Israel is assumed to have ballistic missiles, yet its small size may make surprise launches impossible: an unannounced missile test in January became news within minutes as the startled residents of nearby towns reported the roaring takeoff.

So, within the context of Iran’s threats to inflict a nuclear holocaust on Israel, we appear to have two unintended consequences of Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai, both of which serve to hamper Israel’s ability to deter Iran’s genocidal intentions:

• The abandonment of Eilat as a strategic naval asset and gateway to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
• The lack of suitable areas (away from population centres) from which unannounced or secret missile or rocket launches can take place. The vast expanses (by Israeli standards) of the Sinai peninsula would have been ideal for this purpose.

Menachem Begin OBM, who led Israel when a previous nuclear threat (from Iraq) was pre-empted, must be turning in his grave at the thought of the unintended consequences of the withdrawal from Sinai, which formed part of his peace deal with Sadat’s Egypt!

Can anything be done to address this hypothetical situation?

• Assuming that the novel does actually reflect Israeli strategy, the planning assumptions around Eilat, the Straits of Tiran and the Red Sea need to change, with Israel asserting its right to freedom of navigation in times of both peace and war.
• Israel’s naval facilities in Eilat should be upgraded to accommodate an expanded Israeli naval presence in the Red Sea, in addition to that in the Mediterranean.
• Israeli strategic and military planning should be updated to reflect scenarios in the event of regime change in Egypt (or Jordan), with either or both becoming part of the radical Islamist camp. This should include plans to retake the Sinai Peninsula and an understanding of what areas (if any) should be retained irrespective, e.g. the Straits of Tiran and the islands of Tiran and Sanafir.
• In any planning to reconquer the Sinai, it should be assumed that the western-most limit should be the Sinai passes (Khatmia, Gidi, and Mitla) rather than the canal itself, i.e. the entire length of both banks of the Suez Canal would remain in Egyptian hands and could continue to operate.

(As a youngster, poring over newspapers, books and maps of the region in the late 60s and early 70s, I was convinced that Israel would need to eventually conquer the Saudi Arabian shore of the Straits of Tiran and also establish an air and naval base somewhere in the Bab-el-Mandeb (where the Red Sea and Indian Ocean meet). While I’ve outgrown those daydreams, I do still believe Israel has assets and national interests in the Red Sea region and should not allow itself to be squeezed out by its own strategic assumptions!)

Since the withdrawal from Sinai, and especially since the withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, Israel has had to learn some harsh lessons about the real long-term costs of (particularly) unilateral withdrawal from territories. Let’s hope that some of these lessons will be applied to Israel’s future political and military thinking.

Or am I reading too much into what is just the plot of a novel?

If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to our Altneuland RSS feed. You can also subscribe by email and have new posts sent directly to your inbox.

Israel needs a new school of negotiating skills

Israel reportedly has agreed to withdraw from the Golan Heights as part of a peace deal with Syria.

Reading headlines such as this, it sometimes seems as if all Israeli politicians, leaders, diplomats and behind the scenes dealmakers attended the same school of negotiating skills. If that is the case, then I think Israel desperately needs a new school of diplomacy; one that will teach its students to first talk about our rights and demands long, long before they start talking about what we’re prepared to concede. This is important enough to repeat. Our primary message should be about what we want, the very last thing about what we’re prepared to give up.

Let’s forget for now that only a little more than six months ago, Israel was apparently forced to destroy a secret Syrian nuclear facility not intended for peaceful purposes. Let’s assume that Syria is a genuine negotiating partner in the search for peace in the Middle East. Where to from here? And where does that leave us in regard to the Golan Heights?

Let’s first look at the kind of issues that should be on Israel’s list of demands. We don’t even have to use the word demands. What are our expectations and rights in sincere negotiations with a Syrian peace partner? How about the following:

• Syria to immediately cut all ties with Hezbollah and end all support for and arms shipments to them.
• Syria to halt all interference in the internal affairs of the Lebanon.
• Syria to cease all military and related cooperation with North Korea, especially in the fields of nuclear energy and missile development.
• Syria to refrain from all efforts to join the nuclear club, whether for military or supposedly civilian purposes. (Want nuclear power for peaceful energy? They’ll be queuing up to build you a nuclear power station.)
• Syria to put an end to any form of support for or safe haven for terrorists (or their cousins the freedom fighters, gunmen, militants, militias and radicals) directed against Israel or the West. This is primarily but not exclusively directed towards Hamas and its leader Khaled Mashal.
• Syria to end all military and related ties with Iran, and dissociate itself from Iran’s calls for Israel’s destruction.
• Finally, Syria to end all attempts to obtain or exploit weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical or nuclear) and delivery mechanisms such as missiles, or to deploy them against Israel.

Would a list such as this be met with hysterical laughter or be rejected out of hand by Syria? So be it. That will (or should) tell us all we need to know about Syria’s intentions and the sincerity of their desire for peace!

Assuming things have now got that far, let’s look at some of the arguments as to why it may not be such a great idea to cede the Golan Heights, and what the alternatives may be.

(I’m not going anywhere near a discussion as to whether the Golan Heights are part of Eretz Israel or not, and if so whether leaders are “permitted” to cede it or not. That issue has no place in concerns about Israel’s national interests and strategic defence needs.)

The price already paid

The Golan has already been paid for twice over in Israeli blood, sweat, tears and lives, in two major wars and countless lesser incidents. Do we really need to continue justifying holding on to it? Is it really worthwhile taking that chance?

Status of the Golan Heights

Unlike Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Golan has been formally part of Israel proper since 1981. If this status (of being part of the territory of the State of Israel) is to have any real meaning, we cannot afford to dispense with it so casually.

In addition, my understanding is that both a Knesset majority and a national referendum are required before the Golan can be ceded. Shouldn’t that be made clear to our “negotiating partners”?

Regime change in Syria

Any peace agreement with Syria at this stage will be with a regime (and a fragile regime at that), not with a nation and its people. There is no Syrian Peace Now movement. A peace deal is highly unlikely to survive the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement by a radical Islamist regime. (Come to think of it, have we made plans for such outcomes in Egypt and Jordan?)

Peace or security

Security is more important than peace, and can even be achieved without peace. Peace, on the other hand, is not sustainable without security. At least not for Israel, in this place and time.

Defensible borders

The need for defensible borders (assuming a land war, not an over the horizon high-tech star war) does not go away, even in a peace deal with a genuine partner. It is extremely difficult to see how Syria fits that category.

Other alternatives

What about other alternatives? A new international frontier that fulfils both sides’ legitimate objectives (assuming one side’s objective isn’t still the destruction of the other)? A demilitarised zone? Syria to cede additional territory to Israel? (Think that’s crazy? Let’s not forget who started the wars, not to mention which side lost them.)

Land for peace

“Land for peace” is quite possibly the most dangerous formula ever espoused for a situation such as the one Israel finds itself in. We need to get back to a “peace for peace” mindset and away from the land for peace delusion.

Every time one smoothes the Golan Heights garment, more loose threads snag:

• Exactly why should there be a "price for peace", and if so, who should be paying it?
• Does Syria really desire peace? If so, what is she prepared to sacrifice for it? If not, can she be bribed to accept it?
• If the Syrians are not a threat, why do we need to appease them? If they are, why do we need to appease them?
• Even assuming the need to cede the Golan is accepted, why the sudden urgency?
• Is there some deep-seated reason why we allow ourselves to be treated like Germany at Versailles, or have we simply been out-manoeuvred?

I’m all in favour of genuine peace with Syria, and any of Israel’s other neighbours. I’m less in favour of a peace agreement that does not meet Israel’s legitimate interests and needs.

I’m totally against a peace agreement that fails to address Israel’s security concerns and need for defensible borders, particularly in the event of regime change in Syria.

The bottom line is, I believe Israel will need to retain the Golan Heights in perpetuity, or at least further into the future than any of us can envision right now.

In the broader context, Israel must now move from Concessions-Based Diplomacy to Rights-Based Diplomacy.

We have now reached the point where we have no concessions left to make that do not endanger our very survival. Yet peace still remains a mirage…

A democratic Judaism: no reason for complacency

This excellent article ("A Democratic Islam?") by Daniel Pipes appeared in both the Jerusalem Post and Middle East Forum websites. It deals with the question of whether Islam is anti-democratic by nature, and also touches on the slow process of Christianity becoming reconciled to democracy. This gives the (presumably unintended) impression that Judaism has nothing to worry about regarding its relationship with democracy. But how true is this? Let’s have a look at some of the arguments for and against Judaism being compatible with democracy.

For

• Jews (although usually not organised Judaism) have always been in the forefront of the struggle for freedom and democracy everywhere they are represented, usually far in excess of their numbers.
• Israel is generally considered to be the only genuine, thriving democracy in the Middle East.

Against

• Our body of law (Halacha) hasn’t had to confront issues relating to religion and state for 2,000 odd years.
• We’ve only been in the statehood business for 60 years. Organised, legal Jewish national political life only began with the liberation of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire; let’s call it 90 years. Even stretching it to 150 years (since the start of practical Zionism) is not a long time for a pre-democratic faith to adapt to democracy.
• The boundaries between religion and state in Israel are not clear (so much so that Israel has even been described as a theocracy with some democratic features).
• A significant minority calls for Israel to become a Halachic State. That minority is also demographically the fastest growing in Israel, threatening to displace Israel’s secular/traditional majority, until now the guardians of Israel’s democracy.
• That same sector is attempting to impose a level of public observance that most are not comfortable with, while at the same time attempting to shirk the obligations of adulthood and citizenship on a vast scale, and laying claim to a disproportionate share of the public purse.
• The interpreters and practitioners of Halacha who currently hold sway may well be the most anti-intellectual, backward, misogynistic, sexist, superstitious, and xenophobic group ever to have filled that role in Jewish history.

My take? Israeli democracy is not a fragile hothouse bloom, but it is under threat from a significant sector within Israeli society. This sector believes that Halacha is immutable, and that democracy should give way to it, rather than the other way around.

Democracy has always enjoyed solid support from mainstream Zionism and Israeli society, but this support hasn’t necessarily been internalised by Judaism itself (at least not the Orthodox streams we need to be concerned with).

In my opinion, we don't need to choose between Judaism and democracy. If we commit fully to democracy, Judaism will flourish, as it has in virtually all modern democratic societies.

I’d like to see a far greater emphasis on the part of those involved with Jewish and Middle East studies (in both academia and think tanks) to address the relationships between religion and state, Judaism and Israeli democracy and educate the public regarding the trends, pitfalls and similarities with other religions.

Still not convinced? I’ve included a lengthy extract from Pipes’ article. Just substitute Judaism and Halacha for Islam and Shari‘a and see if you think there’s still reason for complacency.

I disagree with that conclusion. Today's Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.

Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church's political role lasted painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another six centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam's transition be smoother or easier?

To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari‘a, lies at the core of the problem.

For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari‘a's public aspects. Atatürk frontally did just that in Turkey, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.

Atatürk's efforts and Taha's ideas imply that Islam is ever-evolving, and that to see it as unchanging is a grave mistake. Or, in the lively metaphor of Hassan Hanafi, professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, the Koran "is a supermarket, where one takes what one wants and leaves what one doesn't want."

A Democratic Islam? - Middle East Forum

HAS Search for Israel Community Toolbar

Until reading this article on the ISRAEL21c website, I had no idea that Conduit.com (who built the Web toolbar for the HAS Search for Israel Community Toolbar initiative) is an Israeli company. (I mentioned the HAS Search for Israel Community Toolbar in a posting in August 2007.)

The Community Toolbar “keeps [you] connected with Israel as [you] browse the web, by providing the latest in news, travel, streaming audio, and more.” The initiative is supported by Heritage Affinity Services (HAS) Advantage (the first Israel supporting credit card).

For every downloaded toolbar, HAS Advantage and the JNF plant a tree in forests devastated by this summer’s war. In addition, for every 180 searches they will plant an additional tree.

Almost 3,000 trees have been planted to date. This sounds to me like a great way to support Israel through the JNF, while going about your day-to-day computing tasks.

My one criticism of the HAS Search for Israel Community Toolbar is that there is no response to suggestions and requests regarding enhancements to the toolbar. I have formally logged a number of requests for changes, e.g. additional sources for Israeli news, but the requests seemingly disappear into electronic purgatory. I would like to help in building some momentum and community around this toolbar, but that requires Heritage Affinity Services and Conduit.com to also play their part.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Israel Company Brings 'Community' to Your Web Browser - ISRAEL21c

Conduit.com - Free community toolbar Builder in a Few Easy Steps

Altneuland: Search for Israel Google toolbar

To get your FREE Toolbar and Plant a FREE Tree click here:

HAS Advantage the first Israel supporting credit card

HAS Search for Israel Community Toolbar Home

Winemaking as an appropriate agricultural export for Israel

I enjoyed this JewishJournal.com article regarding the Domaine du Castel winery (although I have to confess that I know and enjoy little about wine). This comment from owner Eli Ben-Zaken in particular caught my attention:

For Ben-Zaken, winemaking is an appropriate agricultural export for Israel, because so little water is required to grow grapes compared to oranges and other foods, but it is also an important way to connect Israel to the rest of the Western world. "Wine-making is something we share. It's visceral, and it's a bridge to other Western countries."

The article continued by saying that:

So far, however, no one else has copied Ben-Zaken's high-density planting. "From the beginning we believed that this is the answer to high-quality wines, but so far no other wine producers here have copied us, probably because of the expense involved in buying the grapes and the narrow tractors to fit between the rows," says Ben-Zaken. He scoffs at the label ‘boutique' and explains that in France the term for wineries that produce less than 3,000 bottles a year is ‘garagiste'; being a small winery in France, however, isn't necessarily equated with being a new winery. "Many of the garagistes have been making wine for generations," he points out.

In some of my previous postings, I’ve tried to develop the argument that Israel needs to transform its agricultural sector into one that is water and land in-tensive[1], rather than one that is water and land ex-tensive. Such a transformation is essential if Israeli agriculture is to survive the market, natural and man-made forces arrayed against it. Statements such as this, however, carry a lot more weight when made by those who are actually doing it!

Links/Reading/Resources:

Meet that little old winemaker, Ben-Zaken

Altneuland: Boutique wineries: a model for the survival of Israeli agriculture?

Altneuland: Water: What price should Israeli agriculture pay?

Domaine du Castel

Domaine du Castel « HaKerem: The Israeli Wine Blog

[1] By water and land intensive agriculture I mean one that uses both finite resources as efficiently (lovingly would not be too strong a term) as possible.

Tibet, Israel and the Jews: The limits of non-violence

We have seen some excellent analysis of the current situation in and regarding Tibet over the last few weeks. Below is a sample of articles that appeared towards the end of March in JPOST, The Forward and FrontPageMagazine.com.

Are Tibetans the new Jews? | Jerusalem Post

Our Debt to Tibet - Forward.com

A Tale of Two Peoples

A few points stood out for me:

Tibet lost its independence at about the same time as the State of Israel came into being. The parallels between the Jewish and Tibetan dispersions have not been lost on the current Dalai Lama, who long ago took the initiative to find out what lessons from the Jewish Diaspora he could apply to that of the Tibetans.

It is a sad commentary on the nature of the world that more than 50 years of non-violent resistance to the Chinese occupation have done far less to highlight the plight of Tibet than a few weeks of rioting and disruption of Olympic torch relays.

It screams to the heavens how much more deserving of independence and international support the Tibetans are than the Palestinians, who have had autonomy and independence thrust on them at various stages since the 1930s, and on each occasion have rejected it as insufficient.

Rightness and justice without power are not sufficient in themselves. It’s sometimes a shock to realise that this does not only apply to the Jewish people.

From a Jewish religious and cultural perspective, the elephant in the room “was [for the Dalai Lama] to learn why so many young Jews abandon their roots and come to him for spiritual nourishment”. This is probably as true today as it was when he asked that question 1990 and still awaits an answer or program to address it.

The Big Agenda for Jews and Judaism?

I don’t seem to have received my invitation for “Facing Tomorrow,” the three-day conference convened by Israeli President Shimon Peres to coincide with the country’s 60th anniversary celebrations. I guess they must still be finalising the list of invitees for the “Wannabe Jewish Blogger” category? Just in case the invitation doesn’t arrive in time for me to make the necessary arrangements (administrative and clerical errors no doubt occur when one is organising an event for more than a thousand leading politicians, scholars and scientists from around the world), here’s what I’d like to see on the agenda. Let’s call it The Big Agenda for Jews and Judaism.

How will the human race survive on Earth, and what will be the contribution of individual Jews, Jewish communities, Jewish theology and Israel to saving the planet for all of its inhabitants?

What kind of definition (or definitions) of Judaism and Jewishness will allow us to embrace rather than exclude the majority of those who consider themselves Jewish (or Israeli, for that matter) in one way or another.

What kind of Judaism (or Judaisms) will emerge from our relationship with the Global Village, the open societies of which we are largely a part and the marketplace of ideas? Will it thrive or just survive? Will it be backward or progressive? Will it attract or repel its children and those on its fringes?

How do we ensure that Israel can continue to exist as a Jewish state and also as a democratic and secular state in the Middle East through the 21st century and beyond? How do we ensure its security, prosperity and appeal, even in the absence of peace? How do we address the external military and other threats, and the internal threats of crime, corruption, moral, creeping theocracy and the erosion of the rule of law?

What do we need to do to ensure that the Jewish communities in the Diaspora can thrive and expand and not merely survive or contract in the open societies they mainly inhabit? What kind of leadership, institutions and infrastructure will be needed? How do we encourage “connectedness”?

How do we go about deepening and strengthening the ties between Israel and the Diaspora? How do we ensure that we remain siblings and not just distant cousins? Have we got to grips with the shifting balance in population and wealth between the two? Begun to address the changing nature of aliya and the growing Israeli expatriate community?

Have I left any major items off the Big Agenda? Any items that can’t be slotted in underneath one of these major headings? Drop me a line and let me know.

Peres To Convene Confab on Israeli and Jewish Future - Forward.com

Peres: We've seen worse times - JTA, Jewish & Israel News

Judaism’s holiest site? You wouldn’t think so…

According to this article on The Canadian Jewish News website:

Yuval Baruch…made archeological history in October 2007 when he uncovered pottery artifacts on the site of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. They are considered to be the first physical evidence of human activity during the time of King Solomon’s Temple (the First Jewish Temple).

Baruch, who is Jerusalem’s district archeologist at the Israel Antiquities Authority…

The Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, is where Jews believe Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac at God’s behest. It is now covered by Islam’s Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

“I was not supposed to be left there alone, as the Waqf always has someone present when Israeli archeologists are on the site. It was in the evening after 8 p.m., and by chance the Arab electrical workers left me and a member of my staff for about 15 minutes while they went to pray. When I was alone in that brief time, I found the pottery shards among dust near the bedrock level,” he says.

The tunnel to which Baruch got access, was a sealed archeological level – “about 400 metres long,” he says – that was exposed during the inspection in the area close to the southeastern corner of the raised platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock.

At one time – not that many decades ago – discoveries of this nature would have caused widespread excitement in Israel and throughout the Jewish world, as well as amongst Bible Christians and those with an interest in the history and archaeology of the Holy Land. Sadly, this no longer appears to be the case; reports such as this seemingly attract little attention or interest.

It also struck me how shocking it is that Baruch ("Jerusalem’s district archeologist at the Israel Antiquities Authority") was only able to make the discoveries after accidentally being left alone on the site for a quarter of an hour. In a sane world, the IAA would be allowing someone from the Waqf to accompany IAA field staff doing what they are supposed to do.

It is also a sad reflection on current realities that the IAA is powerless (or is rendered powerless by politicians) to prevent the industrial-scale vandalism and destruction still taking place on the Temple Mount. I dealt with this strategy of denial in a bit more depth in my posting “Completing the work of the Romans: the WAQF and the Temple Mount”.

Some of the unintended consequences of the failure to limit the authority and activities of the Waqf on the Temple Mount include:

• A massive loss of credibility and trust for the Israel Antiquities Authority. This once highly regarded and a-political body is now seen as having failed to protect Israel’s archaeological heritage where it matters most, and as just another tool of the government of the day.
• It is seen as part of a pattern of the steady erosion of Israeli sovereignty on all fronts. I am not the first to point out that if that erosion continues to take place, it will quickly start to constitute another unnecessary existential threat for Israel. Israel’s sovereignty needs to be extended over every inhabitant and every square inch of its territory. (This includes administered, annexed, disputed or occupied territories, until such time as they are no longer within Israel’s security envelope.)
• Allowing Jewish history and heritage to be trampled upon in this manner will inevitably be laid at the door of centre/left end of the political spectrum. In reality, however, much of the damage was actually done on Ariel Sharon’s watch. Rather than becoming a political football, however, this needs to be addressed as a national and a Jewish concern, not just a concern of the political and religious right.

Nothing will change or improve under the present government[*]. At some stage in the near future, however, we need to get to grips with what needs to be done to protect the heritage and status of “Judaism’s holiest site”.

The Canadian Jewish News - Archeologist finds artifacts from time of Solomon’s Temple

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

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

[*] According to the latest Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center update (Mon 2008/04/07), Israeli Attorney General Moves To Block Shurat Hadin's Prosecution Of Islamic Waqf :

According to the law, the Attorney General's office had 15 days after the private indictment was filed to decide whether it would like to adopt the prosecution on its own or allow the citizen prosecutors to proceed independently. Recently, after weeks of delays, the Attorney General Mazuz decided to choose none of the above and announced in his letter that he will ask that the entire case be stricken. The government lawyers are arguing that it is in the public's interest not to bring the WAQF official to court! Mazuz claims, that the private indictment is not the proper proceeding in this instance, but refuses to take the prosecution upon himself.

The easiest demographic problem we’ve ever had

This posting is in response to an Op-Ed on the JTA website, “Make it pay to study Judaism”. After several attempts resulting in “Post rejected” error messages (I still have no idea why), I finally managed to post my comments (below), but the paragraph breaks were stripped out.

I applaud this innovative effort to come up with solutions for integrating the immigrants from the former Soviet Union (FSU). I do also have a few comments and questions, however:

• To simply dismiss 1/3 of these immigrants (and their offspring) as “not Jewish” seems a bit harsh. Many would consider them “non-Halachic Jews” or “Patrilineal Jews” rather than “non-Jews”.
• I’m open to correction, but doesn’t the Law of Return concern one Jewish grandparent (any), rather than one Jewish grandfather?
• I don’t see this as a demographic time bomb, but rather as a sociological time bomb. These immigrants are not a threat to the nature of Israel in the same way as perhaps the Arab/Muslim and Haredi minorities are; they are more committed to Israel than either of the other minorities mentioned.
• My opinion is that, rather then get even further enmeshed in religious issues, the state needs to take a step back. Israel needs to walk the talk and really become the Jewish AND democratic state it claims to be. The way to do this is to stop backing the claim of Orthodoxy to be the only authentic Judaism. All the major Jewish denominations (including and especially Masorti/Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist) should enjoy equal status, and all should be allowed to perform conversions recognized by the state.
• This is the easiest demographic problem we have ever been faced with, and can be addressed in the space of one generation!
• Regarding the “generous grants available to those who wish to learn in yeshivot”, this should come to an end. Perhaps one in a thousand should be studying Talmud full time, and they should be subsidized by their immediate communities, not society as a whole. The only exception should be those studying to become congregational rabbis in recognized institutions of higher learning.

While I’m in favour of these innovative efforts on behalf of the FSU immigrants, I don’t believe they will help to overcome the problem of the intractable Israeli rabbinate who still hold the keys. The only democratic, Jewish and just solution if for all the major streams of Judaism to be put on the same footing as Ashkenazi and Sephardi Orthodoxy.

See also my earlier piece regarding this issue, A bungled Aliyah.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Op-Ed: Make it pay to study Judaism - JTA, Jewish & Israel News

Altneuland: A bungled Aliyah

Replacing felled trees: necessary but insufficient

According to this recent Ynetnews article:

A newly proposed Knesset bill attempts to combat global warming. The bill, proposed by Knesset Member Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor), stipulates that contractors who cut down trees for construction and development purposes will be required to plant a new tree for each one that they have chopped [down].

Replacing mature felled trees on a one-for-one basis is a necessary but insufficient measure for protect Israel’s urban forest heritage. According to this article in Time magazine (quoted in my blog posting “Does this apply to Israel as well?”):

Simply replanting does not suffice because small, young trees require decades to grow to full size. "A big tree does 60 to 70 times the pollution removal of a small tree," says David Nowak, a project leader with the U.S. Forest Service's Northern Research Station in Syracuse, N.Y.

In fact, according to a UK study I read recently (reference not available), a ratio of six saplings planted to replace each mature tree felled is probably the minimum required to restore some sort of balance to the trees' roles (although this referred to rural rather than urban settings).

MK Pines-Paz deserves our support and praise for championing this piece of legislation. Perhaps in time (although time is a luxury we do not really have) the Green coalition in Israel could introduce more comprehensive legislation to specify the required “tree cover” for all property developments, depending on the density of the project.

Developers should also be required to certify that every effort has been made to accommodate and retain existing mature trees within the site, rather than beginning each project with a totally denuded site. This certification should be backed up by appropriate aerial or satellite photographs with overlays highlighting mature trees to be retained or sacrificed.

Such legislation could also require that mature trees be transplanted rather than simply felled, and that new plantings should be partly in the form of mature transplanted trees rather than saplings.

Creating such a “secondary market” for the removal, care and transplanting of mature trees would not only help us to retain the benefits of these trees for the environment, but would also create opportunities for Israeli arborists (perhaps with the assistance of the KKL-JNF) to develop a new competency and industry segment.

The most shocking commentary on this relatively modest effort to salvage the work of those who cared enough about future generations to plant trees is contained in the final paragraph of the article, which read:

Should the bill pass the required readings in the Knesset, it is up to the Interior Ministry to enforce it. The [Interior] ministry objects to this measure, and is already actively seeking ways to either change or circumvent it.

Little wonder respect for law and order and the rule of law continues to erode at an alarming rate!

Those who witness the illegal felling of trees (especially in the context of property development) should report it to the IUED’s Green Alert advisory service, or to any of the other Israeli conservation bodies.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Substitute trees for a greener world - Israel Activism, Ynetnews

Why Cities are Uprooting Trees - TIME

Altneuland: Does this apply to Israel as well?

kkl-home

Adam Teva V'Din-Israel Union for Environmental Defense