The conversion debacle: good or bad for Judaism?

Have the latest efforts to bar the gates of Judaism to all comers by the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Religious-Bureaucratic Complex in Israel turned out to be a good thing or a bad thing for Judaism (and for Israeli society)? Looking at some of the likely or possible outcomes, the answer might be – surprisingly –a good thing, at least in the long run. Let’s look at some of the perceptions and trends emerging from the crisis:

• The sight of several competing bodies of august Torah sages (yes, I’m being ironic) overturning one another’s actions and decisions and laying into one another’s motives and reputations brings all of Judaism into disrepute. Bad Thing.
• With the realization that things cannot continue as they are, the conversion crisis may become a driver for meaningful change in the relationship between religion and state in Israel, that affects society and individuals in so many ways. Good Thing.
• There is now a widespread realization that an Orthodox conversion is not the safe option it was once considered to be, as within Orthodoxy itself some conversions are now "less Halachic" than others. An Orthodox Jewish conversion looks to be as open to annulment as a celebrity Catholic wedding! Good Thing (at least for the liberal streams of Judaism).
• The fiasco does immense harm to the peace of mind and well-being (in all senses) of those who have converted, are in the process of doing so, or were preparing to begin the journey. Bad, very bad thing.
• The controversy may serve to discourage many from even attempting conversion, through any of the streams of Judaism, including Orthodoxy. Perhaps this was partly the intention? Bad Thing.
• These events must by now have convinced the modern and religious-national trends within Orthodoxy that they need to distance themselves in some way from the Haredim, or risk being devoured by them. That the only way they can accommodate the ultra-Orthodox is by ceasing to exist as a separate philosophy. Good Thing.
• The ultra-orthodox have been given enough of the proverbial rope to hang themselves, and have proceeded to do just that. Their unfitness to be the official guardians of Judaism in Israel must now be obvious to all. Good Thing.
• At the risk of becoming repetitious, those who have up until now refused to see that the Haredim have no standing in the eyes of anyone outside their own narrow communities must surely do so now. Good Thing.
• Perhaps in time all streams within Judaism will come to the realization that their view of Judaism must fall on one side or the other of the great divide – forward or backward looking. There are no other choices. Good Thing, at least potentially.

On balance, more good than bad may still emerge from this situation. The transformation will not happen by itself, however. We each need to do whatever we can to help disengage Israeli society from the Haredi–dominated Religious-Bureaucratic Complex, and demand of all our public figures that they do the same.

For the background to the conversion crisis, the best place to begin is the Religion and State in Israel blog. The weekly postings from 5 through 26 May 2008 link back to the original articles dealing with the crisis in all the major Israeli and other publications.

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

Building the wrong canal: An alternative to the Red-Dead Canal

The notion of a canal or tunnel from the Mediterranean or Red Sea to the Dead Sea has a long and distinguished (if somewhat fruitless) history. In the last years of the 19th Century, the concept of a canal and/or tunnel from the Med (running through the south of the Holy Land) was proposed to and embraced by Theodore Herzl.

Other backers of the concept over the last century included Walter Clay Lowdermilk, who included his proposal in his book "Palestine, Land of Promise". (I still treasure a copy of the 1944 edition.)

Palestine, Land of Promise,

In the wake of the oil crisis, the idea was promoted through to the early 1980s. This time, the proposal was for a canal from the Mediterranean near Katif, to the Dead Sea south of Masada. The +/-400m drop was to be utilised to generate anything from 300 to 600 megawatts of hydroelectric power per annum. The idea was eventually scrapped amidst concerns that it would raise (!) the level of the Dead Sea and dilute its chemical properties.

The above is by no means a comprehensive overview of the evolution of this idea.

The latest incarnation of the concept is in the form of a proposed joint venture between Israel, Jordan and the PA, and calls for a conduit from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. Despite serious concerns regarding the financial and ecological viability of the scheme, it appears to be gaining some traction, judging by recent newspaper reports in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post.

In a brief posting on this blog last year, I suggested that a better alternative to the Red-Dead Canal may be a Med-Kinneret Aqueduct (Mediterranean Sea - Lake Kinneret Aqueduct). I also undertook to produce a more detailed piece outlining the concept. Given the momentum gathering around the Red-Dead Canal concept, I felt it was time to fulfil that undertaking. Here it is.

Outline of the Med-Kinneret Aqueduct (Mediterranean Sea - Lake Kinneret “Water Conveyance Concept”)

Instead of a canal or conduit between the Mediterranean or Red Sea and the Dead Sea, the Med-Kinneret Aqueduct proposal envisages a conduit from the Mediterranean (in the vicinity of Haifa) to Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee). The “potential difference” in height between the Med and Kinneret would be converted to energy by means of a hydro-electric station. This energy would in turn be utilized to desalinate the seawater at a suitable stage between the intake (Med) and outlet (Kinneret).

• The Med-Kinneret Aqueduct project envisages an underground aqueduct (pipeline) between the Mediterranean Sea (in the vicinity of Haifa) to Lake Kinneret (or one of the streams feeding into it from the Galilee).
• The aqueduct would be no longer than +/-45km; less if the outflow can be directed into a tributary stream of Lake Kinneret.
• Unless there are major geological obstacles, the aqueduct could follow an almost exact west-east axis, south of the 33rd parallel.
• It is envisaged that the aqueduct would be constructed using state of the art tunnel boring machine (TBM) equipment and techniques.
• Water flowing through the aqueduct into Kinneret would be desalinated in transit, although perhaps not to the level of purity required for drinking water.
• The +/- 200m drop between Sea Level and the level of the Kinneret would be used to generate the energy required to desalinate the water. Any surplus or shortfall would be added to or taken from the national grid.
• Depending on all the other factors in Israel’s water supply and demand equation, water from the Med-Kinneret Aqueduct would be apportioned between consumption and nature. The allocation for consumption would be distributed by means of the National Water Carrier and related infrastructure, while the allocation for nature would be achieved by allowing the Kinneret to top up and releasing a portion to replenish the lower Jordan and eventually the Dead Sea.
• For any benefit to accrue to the Jordan River and Dead Sea, it would be necessary for Israel, Jordan and the PA to all undertake not to draw on the artificially replenished Jordan south of Kinneret.

Disadvantages of the Red-Dead Canal (Red Sea-Dead Sea Water Conveyance Concept)

There are many concerns regarding the mainstream Red-Dead Canal concept. The Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME) has done the work of documenting and consolidating these concerns in various papers available on their website. My shortlist of concerns may be somewhat different:

• The proposal addresses only the problems and threats faced by the Dead Sea itself. It does not address those relating to Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) and the lower reaches of the Jordan River (south of Kinneret).
• It requires the agreement and cooperation of two of Israel’s Arab neighbours, the chaotic and homicidal PA and the anachronistic but somewhat more robust Jordan. A joint venture of this magnitude may well work, but a less risky approach would to first test the water with smaller examples of regional cooperation.
• The canal and other facilities will not be contained within the borders of Israel. By some accounts, it would be almost entirely within Jordan’s territory. While we would all like to believe that peace between Israel and Jordan will endure, is it worth a $5 billion bet? (The lessons from the Erez industrial zone experience should not be forgotten.)
• At almost 200km, it has the longest of all the routes ever proposed for a canal terminating at the Dead Sea, originating at either the Mediterranean or Red Seas.
• While the Dead Sea is approximately 400 metres below Sea Level, the terrain of the Arava region dictates that the water first be pumped upward before flowing downward via natural elevation decline to the Dead Sea. This would detract from the ability of the scheme to function as a closed system, providing its own energy through hydro-electricity.
• No assessment has been made of the likely impact of the construction and operation of the canal on the fragile desert ecosystem.
• A great deal of uncertainty exists as to the ecological impact of introducing untreated water from the Red Sea into the Dead Sea.

Advantages of a Med-Kinneret Aqueduct

While I'm not suggesting that this Med-Kinneret Aqueduct scheme is without flaw, its flaws are fairly obvious and on a manageable scale. It also has some distinct advantages:

• The concept does not rely on agreements or cooperation between Israel and any of its neighbours. While this may or may not be an advantage in times of peace, it is definitely an advantage in the current climate of low level conflict (in the case of the PA) and distant peace (in the case of Jordan).
• Likewise, the aqueduct and related facilities would be entirely within the sovereign territory of Israel.
• At about 45km, the Med-Kinneret Aqueduct would utilise the shortest possible route between the sea and any part of the Jordan valley, by crossing Cisjordan (i.e. Palestine west of the Jordan) at its narrowest point.
• As the Med-Kinneret Aqueduct assumes an underground aqueduct constructed using tunnel boring machine (TBM) technology, pumping would not be required.
• The use of TBMs would also minimise the impact of the construction project on the ecology of the Galilee region, through which the aqueduct would pass.
• All sea water would be desalinated before being introduced into the Jordan River system, thereby avoiding most of the ecological “unknowns” around the Red-Dead Canal. (This is not to say that the Med-Kinneret Aqueduct would be without ecological impact.)
• Apart from the aqueduct itself, the scheme would utilize the existing Mekorot and National Water Carrier infrastructure, rather than requiring a whole new water supply network (at least within Israel).
• The proposal would address all the problems and threats currently faced by the Jordan River ecosystem; the dangerously low level of the Kinneret, the woeful state of the lower reaches of the Jordan itself, and the drying up of the Dead Sea. It would help to rehabilitate the entire length of the Jordan River below Kinneret.
• There would be indirect benefits to Jordan and the PA in terms of an improved Jordan River and Dead Sea system. The scheme may also generate a surplus of water which could then be supplied to Jordan, the PA or both.
• The Med-Kinneret Aqueduct could be tackled as part of an integrated plan to address Israel’s water supply and demand situation, and its need for water security, instead of a single megalomaniacal project.

Integrated water supply and demand planning

No single scheme can provide a complete solution for Israel's water crisis. As mentioned above, any solution needs to mesh with a broader exercise to integrate Israel’s water supply and demand planning. An exercise such as this would need to take at least the following into account:

• A comprehensive plan to rehabilitate all of Israel’s other streams and rivers.
• At a planning level, contain urban detritus (particularly paving, which prevents absorption) by preventing urban sprawl. Plan for more condensed cities, with clearer demarcation between the urban and the rural.
• Ongoing water restrictions across all sectors. This would include a ban on watering private and public gardens.
• A program to assist municipalities and other authorities to ensure that the country’s water supply infrastructure is properly repaired and maintained to prevent leaks.
• A plan to help migrate the Israeli agricultural sector to more water efficient crops and methods, without damage to this vital sector of the economy and national life.
• A program to encourage water conservation in the domestic and industrial sectors, e.g. through the installation of water saving plumbing fittings.
• An even greater emphasis on purifying and reusing waste water, using technologies developed in Israel and now being exported elsewhere.
• Stricter measures to prevent the pollution of water sources by industry or through agricultural runoff containing fertilizers and pesticides.
• Move ahead with current plans for the desalination of sea water at national and municipal levels.
• Continue and intensify afforestation projects to ameliorate the effects of climate change and Israel’s normal climate.

The concept of a Med-Jordan canal has a solid Zionist pedigree. Let's review all competing proposals (including this one) before committing to what appears to be a glorified joint Israel/Jordan/PA theme park or Disneyland Middle East in an inhospitable natural and political landscape.

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

Who’s looking after the back office for Judaism?

In an earlier post on my blog Cafe Birkenreis, I looked at the topic of Jewish social and religious or community services, mainly in the South African context. I’ve become increasingly aware, however, that the same issues are being encountered elsewhere in the Jewish world. I therefore thought that a précis or point form summary might help to understand the issues and suggest possible solutions.

I’ve defined Jewish community/religious/social services as all services provided by and to the community as a whole rather than a specific congregation. The list could include kosher/eco-kashrut supervision, ritual baths, burial services and charities, along with all other services in some cases supplied by a chevra kadisha or equivalent society.

By tacit agreement, these services have traditionally been looked after by Orthodoxy on behalf of the entire community.

Generally speaking, the arrangements appear to have suited everyone.

Increasingly, however, we are seeing what I can only describe as the Haredisation of these services. By this I mean that the bar of observance is being raised past the “comfort level” of many who utilise the services, while at the same time some who are otherwise considered members of their communities (the secular, members of progressive communities, the inter-married, converted, those with only one Jewish parent, etc.) are being excluded from receiving these services (or are opting out because of the level of discomfort).

The time may be approaching when this sort of status quo will no longer meet the needs of the alternative or progressive streams of Judaism.

It would probably not, however, make financial or logistical sense for each stream of Judaism (e.g. Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Reform) to provide its own services, especially individual denominations do not have critical mass in a community.

The provision of Jewish community/religious/social services should therefore be shared across the whole spectrum of progressive Jewry, with these services being open to all within the family of Judaism.

All services must be provided in a non-denominational, egalitarian and pluralistic manner.

The services may best be run by an independent third party and made available to all the liberal streams of Judaism.

In the meantime, ABO (Anything But Orthodox) congregations should divert all contributions to existing providers of these services to a proxy fund, and pay these over to the existing service providers as a dedicated lump sum. As and when alternative providers come on stream, it would then be a simple matter to switch the dues to the alternative provider.

Pioneering service providers could assist in the process by establishing international best practices, frameworks/organizational makeup, documentation and centres of excellence.

Presumably many of the same people who are providing these services today would continue to do so, but with the pluralistic tone being set by management.

A manifesto for progressive Judaism worldwide

The European Region Conference of The World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) was held in Vienna on March 13 through 16, 2008. Rabbi Joel Oseran (Vice President, International Development) delivered an address to the conference that deserves to be far better known than it is. In fact, I believe it needs to become something akin to a manifesto for Liberal, Progressive and Reform Jewish communities worldwide.

The (presumably complete) text of Rabbi Oseran’s address can be read here or here, and I would encourage you to do so. A couple of highlights for me:

More Jews are living today in Europe than at any time in the past half century. Jewish communities throughout Europe are in the dynamic process of reconstituting their religious, cultural, social, educational, and, yes, even national identities.

And on the most personal, human level, we see tremendous movement before our eyes as well. Not a day goes by in Poland, in Hungary, in Germany and elsewhere across Europe when someone – not aware of having Jewish roots, not identifying as a Jew – doesn’t suddenly begin to question his or her identity, begin the personal search for religious meaning, posing the question: I want to know more about what it means to be Jewish - I just might be Jewish myself? More and more Jews – some according to Halacha, some according to patrilineality, some according to memory, some through being told by others and some through sheer intuition – more each day are thirsting for Jewish knowledge and connection. Sharing one common denominator - wanting to understand what it all means.

The last challenge I wish to stress may seem strange indeed to include but, in my opinion, it is at the heart of our problem. We liberal Jewish leaders in Europe have so deeply internalized our minority status, our meager numbers, our limited resources and our shortage of rabbinic leadership, that we simply do not ultimately believe in ourselves, in our message, or in the urgency of our action. Too often too many of us are content with the status quo. Too often, too many of us fail to realize that Jews across Europe need us, are waiting for us, are searching for a modern religious connection to their Jewish hearts and minds.

When I was in Budapest I saw clearly the powerful Neolog traditional denomination, absolutely uncontested as the religious leaders of the community, with their rabbinic school, rabbinic association, beit din, synagogue structures and what have you – all backed by the mighty Mashihitz structure. Everywhere you look, if it is Jewish and religious, it is probably Neolog. But when you ask, how many of Budapest's Jewish community is involved in any way whatsoever with organized Jewish Neolog life, the answer is, perhaps, five percent. And the same is true throughout Europe in community after community where Orthodox majorities are so prominently positioned. When you look deeper into the matter, you see clearly that the Jewish people are not looking to find their religious, spiritual answers from orthodoxies, whether Chabad, or Hassidic, or even Neolog. Jews all over the world are not all that different actually. Whether in New York, London, Moscow, Buenos Aires, Sydney or Budapest, modern Jews are searching for appropriately modern yet traditional ways of reconnecting to their Jewish hearts and minds. If we are able to present ourselves as a viable, serious option, with the key building blocks I mentioned previously, we will be over-subscribed because that is where Amcha is and wants to be.

The following remarks were not part of Rabbi Oseran’s address, but I thought them “quoteworthy”:

As we concluded this most successful conference, it was clear to all that there is much work remaining on our European agenda. We must more effectively reshape our European Region administrative and programmatic capabilities to respond to the growing needs of our European movement. We must dramatically increase our financial resources to support the emerging communities that play such an important role for all Jews in Europe. We must do better in connecting our European Region to other World Union constituencies, primarily those in Israel and North America. And we must redouble our efforts to ensure that Progressive Judaism becomes a fully and officially recognized member of all European Jewish communities.

These are certainly ambitious challenges that we must take on if we are to succeed as the world's leading Jewish religious movement. The Vienna conference left us all encouraged that we are indeed ready to work for our future as members of a proud Jewish heritage.

While the progressive streams of Judaism may not be in a position to compete with organizations such as Chabad head-on in terms of funding, we need to understand and act on our appeal to a great many of those looking for answers. Most would prefer their Judaism without the excess baggage of family dynasties, holy men and miracle workers, superstition and worship of dead rabbis as the Messiah. Most would prefer a Judaism that does not require the sacrifice of reason, conscience and the benefits and pitfalls of living in an open society. Most would prefer a Judaism that does not require the wearing of outlandish 17th or 18th century Eastern European costume. Most would prefer a Judaism that does not require Israel to be transformed into a corrupt, backward theocracy, or a country that assassinates its own leader in the name of retaining some part of the Land of Israel. For all of those, the progressive streams of Judaism can provide an answer.

While the article refers to the progressive movement in Europe, it has relevance for all Liberal, Progressive and Reform Jewish communities worldwide. We are all in a position to help those looking for spiritual answers, either as members of a developing congregation, or as members of more privileged communities in a position to help bootstrap those on the periphery.

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

Is CAMERA trying to warp Wikipedia?

This post was originally intended as a comment on a brief item on The Telegraph (the JTA blog). After several attempts at posting the comment, however, I had to admit defeat and have posted it here instead.

I’m not sure why CAMERA is being simply dismissed as a “hawkish pro-Israel group”. Here’s what they have to say about themselves:

Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East. CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Far from attempting “to warp articles in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia”, I believe they are simply attempting to correct the anti-Israel bias that has become a subtext in many articles concerning the Middle East.

Nor have they been underhand about their efforts to recruit editors to correct the bias. In fact, those efforts were highlighted in a recent article on their home page (CAMERA: How and Why to Edit Wikipedia).

It is also worth mentioning that Joel Leyden of the Israel News Agency has been documenting the anti-Israel bias of many Wikipedia editors and other issues with Wikipedia on the INA site for several years. To view these articles, search for “Wikipedia” on the Israel News Agency site. Don’t bother with the built-in search facility on the site, as it returns no results. Instead, use Google with the following search term to view the relevant articles:

wikipedia site:http://www.israelnewsagency.com/

or click on the link below to run the search:

http://search.conduit.com/Results.aspx?q=wikipedia+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eisraelnewsagency%2Ecom%2F&ctid=CT460815&octid=CT460815

Whose bayonets?

I am not a fan of Moshe Feiglin and his Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) movement. I have no choice, however, but to agree with his analysis in a recent article “Shamir's Blunder” in The Jewish Press, in which he says:

From the end of the War of Independence in 1949 until the Gulf War in 1991, Israel’s civilian population was out of bounds. Israel had created a balance of fear, making it clear to the world that shelling Israel’s civilian population was not an option and would lead to all-out war. When the Syrians shelled Israeli towns in 1967, Israel retaliated by conquering the Golan Heights.

But in the Gulf War, under intense pressure from Israel’s Left, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir overturned two strategic principles that Israel had carefully preserved until then. The first principle was that only Israeli soldiers would be responsible for Israel’s security. The second principle was that any attack on Israel’s civilian population would be completely unacceptable. When Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on Israel’s cities, Israel opted to hide behind the broad shoulders of the American and British soldiers, moved U.S. Patriot missiles into strategic locations – and instructed its citizens to cover all windows with sheets of plastic and masking tape.

Ultimately, Israel will have no choice but to restore the power of deterrence that it lost in the Gulf War. But in the meantime, Israel has a two-pronged strategy for dealing with the threat to its existence. First, it rolled out the red carpet for the American president so that he will be kind enough to protect Israel after it surrenders Jerusalem. Second, it has provided its citizens with a glossy pamphlet explaining which room to hide in when the missiles strike.

These strategic principles go all the way back to at least the early 1920s, and were best framed by Jabotinsky as “an iron wall of Jewish bayonets” in his fundamental “On the Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”.

All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power [the Mandatory] strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad's bayonets -- a strange and somewhat risky taste -- but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.

[Jabotinsky, V., “On the Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, in On the Way to Statehood (Hebrew), pp. 258-259.]

Many things may appear to have changed since then, but the need for an iron wall of Jewish bayonets to protect Jewish lives (and the sanctity of Jewish life) in Israel has never gone away.

From all that I have read and heard, the man in the street in Israel, the centre or Middle Israel understands this well enough. Now we need our Israeli leaders to catch up with their constituencies.

Links/Reading/Resources

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

Mount Arbel: Greenwashing golfing greens

According to this recent ISRAEL21c article, the Israel Land Authority has given Joseph Bernstein’s development company, Israel Resorts & Clubs, the final approval necessary to develop a golf resort on the ecologically sensitive Mount Arbel, overlooking the Sea of Galilee.

The new $150 million resort, which should open in 2011, will have an 18-hole championship golf course sculpted by Robert Trent Jones, Jr., a renowned golf course designer. There will be social, golf and residence club programs, with cultural, spiritual, sports and touring activities organized for members.

The development, on land owned by the agricultural farming cooperative Moshav Kfar Hittim, will cater to between 600-900 people in large suites and villas. It will be home to a world-class spa, a culinary program, an organic farm, a winery, a beach club, and a tennis academy.

Similar golf resorts are planned for elsewhere in Israel; the goal is to build three or four at various locations across the country. In my comments on the article, I said:

Despite Mr Bernstein’s assurances that he “intends the resort to be environmentally friendly”, it’s hard to believe that this proposed golf estate will be less of an environmental disaster than any other golf course or golf estate elsewhere in the world. I hope that the green movement in Israel will mobilise to prevent this development from taking place.

In a country where both land and water are at such a premium, can there really be a justification for squandering them on this elitist venture?

Some of the ecological and other impacts of golf estates and golf courses include:

• The use of large tracts of land, reduction of biodiversity and destruction of habitat and wildlife
• Valuable agricultural land taken out of use, with the resultant impact on food production
• The introduction of alien vegetation
• An unsuitable use of scarce resources such as water in an arid zone country like Israel, especially given that Israel is currently experiencing a water crisis. Even the use of treated waste water is not without adverse effects.
• The pollution of water sources through the fertilizers and pesticides that always accompany golf courses
• Aggravation of existing urban sprawl problems, especially in areas such as this without existing infrastructure
• The creation of elitist socioeconomic enclaves, with none of the promised benefits to the local community.
• Where jobs are created, they tend to be unskilled or menial
• Money tends to be spent within the confines of the estate or the golf tourist’s home country
• Given the sport’s increasing popularity, its ecological footprint is greater than ever, even where courses and estates are planned and managed in a sensitive manner

An ecologically sensitive site such as Mount Arbel can only be “mined” once by means of a damaging and elitist project such as this. Once the development has taken place, the site will have been stripped of all other long-term, sustainable goods and values; its memory, historical, archaeological and spiritual connotations, free access for locals, tourists and pilgrims, agricultural productivity, its value as a vista and a visual resource, its existence as an open space and a habitat for creatures we haven’t given a price tag. All of these will be gone, or at least degraded beyond recognition or redemption.

Israel needs tourism. What it doesn’t need are the dubious benefits of golf tourism for the privileged few. It should instead focus on sustainable programs to accommodate and promote ecotourism, agrotourism and geotourism over the long term. This, along with Jewish and Christian tourism in the contexts of pilgrimage and support for Israel are what should be powering the tourism agenda and industry (while also leaving these national treasures intact for a time when the global tourism bubble bursts).

I know that the guardians of Israel’s environment are already having to confront a huge and growing list of threats, but perhaps the fight against golf courses and estates in a small, arid country is one more item that simply has to become part of that agenda.

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

World Golf News - ARBEL by the SEA to become Israel’s premier golf resort

Israel's Sacred Golf Course Converts Bomb Craters Into Bunkers

America's 18,000 Golf Courses Are Devastating the Environment

The Impact of Golf Estates - Environment South Africa

Is Tiger Woods Bad for the Environment? | MetaFilter

Ecotourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agrotourism and agricultural diversity

Geotourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geotourism Trend Aims to Preserve Local Charm - MSN Travel Articles

Holy Land sites nominated for New 7 Wonders of Nature

In March this year, the JTA published a Breaking News story regarding nominations and voting for sites to be included among the New 7 Wonders of Nature.

At that stage, three Israeli sites were identified as having been nominated. According to the story:

As of Tuesday, the Dead Sea was in 38th place, the Ein Gedi oasis was in 97th place and the Rosh Hanikra rock formation was in 168th place.

Given the amount of effort that was put into the voting campaign to get Jerusalem on the Monopoly board (with or without its country designation), I was surprised that nothing similar was done for the New 7 Wonders of Nature.

In my opinion, all the Israeli environmental organisations should be encouraging the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish public to register and vote for the Israeli sites. Being designated a New 7 Wonders of Nature site (or even one of the 21 finalists) is sure to give a much needed boost to the struggle to preserve these unique sites for posterity.

In order to vote for the existing sites (or even nominate another site not yet considered), first register on the New7Wonders website. Only minimal details are required in order to register, and the registration is not effective until you action a confirmation e-mail. Registration and voting can be done simultaneously, and you are required to vote for seven sites (even if you’re interested in only a few). I selected the following in order of preference. The current ranking (where applicable) is shown in brackets.

1. Dead Sea, Lake (35)
2. Ein Gedi, Oasis (13)
3. Rosh Hanikra, Rock Formation
4. Red Sea Reef
5. Mount Sinai, Mountain
6. Cedars of Lebanon, Nature Conservancy Park
7. Wadi Rum, Desert (62)

Predictably, most of the sites are listed under Asia, with the Red Sea Reef and Mount Sinai being listed under Africa. The sites are divided under Israel proper, the PA, Egypt, Jordan and the Lebanon.

The whole voting procedure for the New 7 Wonders of the World can be best understood by referring to this flowchart from the New7Wonders website:

Please use the Tell a Friend button liberally to ensure that as many Holy Land sites as possible will make it to the shortlist, thereby hopefully attracting more conservation energy to both the sites themselves and broader environmental concerns in Israel.

Links/Reading/Resources:

Israeli sites nominated as natural wonders

Vote Jerusalem on the Monopoly Board!

New7Wonders: Welcome to New7Wonders

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

Happy 60th birthday, Israel!

Dear Israel,

Happy 60th birthday!
May you have many, many more, and may the best of your dreams come true.
Thanks for always being there for us.
Sorry we can't be there to share the occasion with you. L Maybe next year.
You're in our thoughts and prayers constantly.

Love,

Us

Altneuland
Blog: http://blog.altneuland.info/
Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Altneuland
E-mail: http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=307264

Salvaging Rudolf Kastner

One of my first postings on this blog was a brief item concerning Rudolf Kastner (Reszo Kasztner). The piece contributed nothing new to the controversy, but merely referred to Caroline Glick’s article on Yad Vashem's decision to honor Kastner and suggesting that, as a form of antidote, the reader get hold of a copy of Ben Hecht's “Perfidy”.

I first read Perfidy as a teenager in the mid-70s. Unlike Elliot Jager I was not a member of the JDL, although I was at that time a fervent admirer of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane A"H, who recommended it. Without the benefit of the fax or Internet, I scoured bookshops, pored over “books in print” catalogues and laboriously typed letters to obscure addresses to obtain copies of his books, pamphlets and other writings. I corresponded with him on a few occasions and eventually met with him during my stay in Israel, also participating in some Kach/JDL activities, such as a demonstration on behalf of Syrian Jewry.

Even more than 30 years later (and even although Kahane is no longer part of my pantheon of Jewish greats), I still see Perfidy as one of the most searing, powerful pieces of literature of our age, and it shaped my view of Zionism and the Holocaust for a considerable time.

Given the brevity of my initial post regarding Kastner, I'm therefore always surprised that the search term [Rudolf] Kastner has been bringing readers to my blog ever since. Not many, and not for very long, but consistently. Perhaps when I have more of a grasp of the concepts of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), I’ll understand it better.

As a duty to my readers, I therefore thought it may be appropriate to mention that since my original piece was published, at least two books (that I’m aware of) have been published concerning Kastner. Both volumes are available through Amazon, and both appear to be aimed at rehabilitating Kastner’s reputation, although I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read either.

Dealing with Satan: Rezso Kasztner's Daring Rescue Mission

Kasztner's Train: The True Story of an Unknown Hero of the Holocaust

Adam Fuerstenberg reviewed Anna Porter’s Kasztner's Train in the virtual pages of the Forward earlier this year.

A hat tip to a Ynetnews reader by the name of Edward S., who made mention of The Man Who Played God: A Novel About Hungary and Israel, 1944-1956 by Robert St. John. The novel is still available in limited quantities from Amazon.

The Man Who Played God: A Novel About Hungary and Israel, 1944-1956

I remain to be convinced that Kastner should be regarded as one of the heroes of the Holocaust. What we can say, however, is that in an inhuman era, he was expected to make choices no person should ever be expected to make. In our time, more apparent effort is made to redeem one hostage than was made to save 100,000 lives then. This is as it should be, but puts us in a poor position to second-guess him.

With Israel’s 60th anniversary approaching, perhaps it’s time for us to lay those ghosts to rest? To quote from Elliot Jager’s JPOST article:

Today, I see no value in willing ourselves to remain embittered, perhaps in perpetuity, over Zionist ideological divisions during the Mandate and the Shoah era. It's time to move on.

The true villains of the Shoah, let us never forget, were first the Nazis and their enablers, then those who barred the gates of refuge, and those who rioted to keep them barred.

In a sense, WW2 was two parallel or overlapping wars. The war between the Allies and the Axis was a clear cut struggle between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. In the war against the Jews, however, there were very few Good Guys (even amongst the Allies), and their efforts made little material difference to the eventual outcome.

So, while I’m not suggesting that we sanitise this part of our history, perhaps we should reconcile ourselves to it.

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.

Modest proposals for Yom HaShoah and Yom Hazikaron

Proposal 1 – the scope of Yom Hazikaron

My understanding is that Yom Hazikaron (Israel Fallen Soldiers and Victims of Terrorism Remembrance Day) originally commemorated veterans and fallen members of the IDF and other uniformed/security services and paramilitary organisations since 1860. It was later expanded to also include Israeli civilians killed by acts of terrorism.

I would like to make a proposal that the scope of Yom Hazikaron be changed one more time, to also embrace the Jewish victims of radical Islamist terror worldwide. I believe this would be appropriate, not only because most victims were targeted as Jews, but also because many of the acts of terror were purported to be in response to Israeli acts or policies (or simply the existence of Israel or Zionism).

In the case of the worst single example of Islamist terror – the 9/11 World Trade Centre bombing - there seems to have been a strong belief on the part of the perpetrators that they were attacking a specifically Jewish target rather than simply an American one. In fact, it would appear that 4-500 of victims were in fact Jewish, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of the almost 3,000 victims. This is almost half as many again as were killed during the entire Second Intifada.

While local Jewish and communities and national authorities no doubt commemorate the victims in a suitable manner, it would also be appropriate for them to be remembered in the state of the Jewish people as victims of this worldwide latter day war against the Jews.

Proposal 2 – A flower for the season

Flowers and floral wreaths are an integral part of the memorial ceremonies and acts of homage for both Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) and Yom Hazikaron (despite the sentiments of the Haredi Grinch). I would like to suggest that one of the beautiful flowers endemic or indigenous to Eretz Israel (perhaps a red Anemone?) be selected as the preferred flower for this time of remembrance. As with Poppy Day in Britain, the Commonwealth and elsewhere, paper lapel stickers with an image of the flower could be used in national fundraising initiatives, as well as showing solidarity with the spirit of the season. The lapel badges could then be worn for the +/-7 days from 27 Nisan through 5 Iyar (Yom HaAtzma-ut (Israel Independence Day)).

Links/Reading/Resources:

Yom Hazikaron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jew-Hatred and Jihad

Google Answers: Jewish Victims of September 11

'Standing at attention for Remembrance Day siren worthless' - Israel Jewish Scene, Ynetnews

Israel Flowers Photography - The Red Wildflowers Gallery

BBC NEWS | Magazine | When's the right time to start wearing a poppy?

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.