Why the Board Should Vote "No" To Oxfam
 | By Jonathan Hoffman
January 21, 2013 | Share |
This is an edited version of the original, sent to Deputies - full links were appended. The motion to partner with Oxfam was carried 113 - 65, 15 abstentions
1. Why are you bringing this motion?
(a) Because the Oxfam project was initiated undemocratically
Whether or not you support it, in all likelihood the first you knew about the Grow Tatzmiach project was when you read about it in the JC in November.
Is this why you became a Deputy?
To have important decisions made in secret by the Board of Deputies Executive?
It’s entirely wrong that the Executive should push through such a project without discussion and a vote in the Board. It makes a mockery of the Board’s claim to be ‘democratic’. To the best of our knowledge even the Communities Issues Division under its new Chair has never discussed and voted on this project (save for hearing and vetoing our motion – which is not the same thing at all!). It is hardly conducive to encouraging people to stand as Deputies if an important and obviously controversial decision is presented to them as a fait accompli.
We are giving you a chance to make a difference to Board policy
(b) Because it is questionable whether the Board should be doing this at all
We question whether the Board under its Constitution should even be involved in this kind of project. The Board has 9 aims. One of them enjoins the Board to “Promote a better understanding of the Jewish Community within the UK and, to that end, develop relations with other ethnic and minority groups”. It does not say that we should undertake projects with charities such as Oxfam.
(c) Because Oxfam is one of the most anti-Israel charities
However we would not be bringing this motion if the Board was cooperating with one of the thousands of charities that do not delegitimise and demonise Israel. Our problem is with Oxfam. Oxfam is one of the four UK charities (alongside War On Want, Christian Aid, Save The Children) consistently displaying the greatest hostility to Israel . Here are some examples. Links in footnotes can also be found in the accompanying WORD document.
30 October 2012: Crisis Action, a London-based umbrella group of NGOs, called on the EU to implement a boycott of goods from Judea and Samaria. The report (“Trading Away Peace” ) was written and distributed by Crisis Action. It bears the logos of 22 members of Crisis Action. While Oxfam is not one, it is a “Core Partner” and one of 19 “Current Funders” of Crisis Action and when we asked it to distance itself from the boycott recommendation, it refused . And as recently as 2009 when Oxfam ended its contract with the actress Kristin Davis – who had been an Oxfam Ambassador – it explicitly endorsed a partial boycott, saying “Oxfam remains opposed to settlement trade.” So much for the statement you received from the Board on 24 December (“Oxfam has never called for a boycott of any Israeli goods, including settlement goods”).
July 2012: Oxfam itself produced a report (On the Brink) recommending that NGOs should engage in explicit violations of international law by “initiat[ing] and support[ing] development projects in the Jordan Valley and other parts ...of Area C...even if they have not been approved by the Israeli Civil Administration” (Area C is the part of Judea and Samaria where, under the Oslo Accords, Israel has full civil and security control (except over Palestinian civilians)).
A spokesman at the Embassy of Israel in London, Amir Ofek, commented :
Oxfam's latest report on the situation in the Palestinian territories puts a clearly political agenda above any humanitarian concern. Its call to the international community and to NGOs to initiate projects which clearly violate existing agreements is irresponsible and inflammatory. Far from advancing peace, such an approach undermines the prospects of reaching a negotiated resolution to the conflict
The report also demonises Israel for allegedly depriving the Palestinians of water: “In 1967, there were 209 active Palestinian wells in the Jordan Valley; today there are just 89. This is mainly due to Israeli restrictions on Palestinian well and water resource development.” This is simply untrue. The truth is that Palestinians’ share of aquifers increased dramatically once control of Judea/Samaria passed from Jordan to Israel in 1967, despite Israel’s limited water supply. Most of the water problems in the Palestinian territories are caused by the failure of the Palestinian Authority to implement Israeli-approved projects. Over half of the wells approved for exploitation of the territory’s Eastern aquifer, for instance, have still not been drilled, though Israel approved permits for the project in 2000.
December 2009: It was lobbying by Oxfam which led the UK government to introduce guidelines on voluntary labelling of goods and produce originating from Judea and Samaria. This only served to encourage the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) lobby. Note that Oxfam had lobbied for compulsory labelling.
October 2009: Oxfam was accused by an Israeli NGO, Regavim, of being involved in constructing a water-siphoning system, which illegally diverted water from the “main authorised Palestinian water supply.”
August 2009: Oxfam severed ties with actress Kristin Davis (who had been an Oxfam Ambassador) due to her work endorsing the Israeli Ahava cosmetics company. In its statement Oxfam explicitly endorsed a partial boycott, saying “Oxfam remains opposed to settlement trade.”
January 2009: In a comment about Gaza after Operation Cast Lead, Oxfam International’s Director Jeremy Hobbs said: “The people of Gaza are living in the world’s largest prison but have fewer rights than convicts’ . This comment demonised Israel. Hobbs made no reference to the truckloads of goods entering Gaza every day nor did he mention why security measures were necessary – namely, because of the thousand of missiles being fired by Hamas terrorists at civilians in Israel’s south.
2003: Oxfam’s Belgian Office produced a poster of an “Israeli orange” dripping with blood to promote boycotts. The caption read: “Israeli fruits have a bitter taste...reject the occupation of Palestine, don't buy Israeli fruits and vegetables.”
Oxfam consistently paints a highly misleading picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict , departing from its humanitarian mission focused on poverty. Most Oxfam statements erase all complexity and blame Israel exclusively for the situation, and these distortions and their impacts contribute significantly to conflict. Further examples were provided by Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International, who said of Operation Cast Lead: “It has been a form of collective punishment illegal under international humanitarian law yet tolerated by the international community.” And in an Oxfam Press Release (29 December 2008) John Prideaux-Brune, Oxfam’s country programme manager in Jerusalem, said “The international community must not stand aside and allow Israeli leaders to commit massive and disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians in violation of international law .”
Oxfam also distorts economic analyses of the West Bank and Gaza, repeatedly arguing that that the sole impediment to Palestinian development is Israeli policy, ignoring intra-Palestinian limitations and factors.
(d) Because Oxfam partners with some deeply questionable organisations
A paper published this week by Stand For Peace demonstrates that Oxfam has no qualms in partnering with some very unpleasant organisations.
The Executive of the Board has said it will discontinue the Grow Tatzmiach project if Oxfam “partners with or supports any organisation that promotes or condones violence or partners with or supports any organisation that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.” The ‘Stand For Peace’ paper demonstrates that Oxfam’s links with such organisations are so numerous and so deep that even if the project goes ahead, it would need to be abandoned within days. Anyone who thinks that Oxfam is going to drop all these relationships simply in order to maintain the Grow Tatzmiach project is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
(e) Because the Oxfam project violates the Constitution
The Oxfam tieup violates one of the Board’s aims under its Constitution. The fourth of the Board’s nine aims in the Constitution is to "Take such appropriate action as lies within its power to advance Israel's security, welfare and standing". It has a second Constitutional responsibility to: "Support and seek to protect Jews and Jewish communities outside the UK" That includes Jews in Israel and in the Disputed Territories.
Cooperating with Oxfam (with the exception of persuading them to change their anti-Israel discourse and policies) runs directly counter to these constitutional obligations.
2. What damage does an Oxfam tieup do to the Jewish Community?
The Oxfam tieup sends entirely the wrong message to the worldwide Jewish Community and to the many non-Jewish supporters of Israel throughout the world. It gives a seal of approval (a hecksher) to Oxfam from the UK Jewish Community. There is little doubt that this is Oxfam’s agenda and the reason why they are willing to put £8000 into this project. They clearly want to sanitise Oxfam for those who on principle do not donate to anti-Israel charities.
We emphasise that we are NOT trying to ‘boycott’ Oxfam. To the extent that dialogue with Oxfam is aimed at moderating its anti-Israel discourse and policies, we welcome it and indeed would welcome being part of it.
3. What message does the Oxfam tieup send about the Board’s attitude to Israel?
Particularly to Israelis, the Oxfam tieup sends entirely the wrong message about the Board’s attitude to Israel. Here is a message received from an Israeli resident, Hadar Sela:
The traditionally warm ties between the British Jewish community and Israel make the decision by representatives of that community to partner an organisation with a rich history of delegitimisation of Israelis especially perplexing and demoralising to those of us committed to the two-state solution which the BDS movement - of which Oxfam is part - rejects
The Board will rightly be accused of inconsistency. The Oxfam tie-up is diametrically at odds with the Board’s stance on the Co-Op’s partial boycott. How can activists trying to change the Co-Op’s policy carry any credibility, when the Board is seen to be happy to cooperate with Oxfam? The same applies to those attempting to change the stance of the Methodists, the Quakers, the University and College Union and many others. This Oxfam tieup effectively pulls the rug from under the feet of anti-boycott campaigners. It emboldens Israel’s enemies – they will say “If even the Jewish community accepts Oxfam’s anti-Israel discourse and policies, then Israel must unquestionably be in the wrong.”
In summary ….
VOTE ‘NO’ ON SUNDAY TO THE OXFAM TIE-UP!
COMMENTS
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 18:50 Rate this: -1 points | The idiot will undoubtedly repost it after hours but that will be way too late |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:17 Rate this: 2 points |
|
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:45 Rate this: -1 points | Jonathan why were you afraid for the outside world to hear this wonderful speech that " helped win over a third of the votes"? And why is the original version deleted and replaced by an edited version? You accuse Rabbi Goldstein of having barren arguments. Well there is no argument so barren as an argument you are afraid for people to hear. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:49 Rate this: -2 points | Good Boycott News for 2013: BREAKING: American jazz/jazz fusion guitarist and pianist Stanley Jordan has decided to respect the cultural boycott of Israel, and cancel his planned appearance as the headlining artist for the Israel Red Sea Jazz Festival (his image was used to create publicity posters in Hebrew for the state-funded event). Jordan engaged in a long discussion on his facebook fan page with many people including Palestinians. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:58 Rate this: -1 points | " Why.............." Because he is a chicken chit. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 11:16 Rate this: -1 points | Well, given such egregious actions of the Executive, there's only one thing for you to do.... RESIGN Right? |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 11:29 Rate this: 2 points |
|
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 12:59 Rate this: -2 points | Lollapalooza Israel collapses as artists stay away The Ynet article also noted: 'The festival’s main sponsor, the company NMC United, pulled out not long after the festival was announced, after the production was unable to guarantee that international artists would visit Israel'. Meanwhile Lollapalooza’s two remaining international franchises are going ahead in Brazil and Chile |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 13:47 Rate this: -1 points | Mr/Ms Goldfish, you state that
Perhaps, but unlikely. The battlelines were drawn well before the motion was voted on. Speeches, and they were mostly good - and only one, a Ms Pike from North Salford, descended to the Hitler comparison - were preaching to the converted. There are those synagogues and organisations which are incredibly right wing - Such as Stanmore, Canons Park and Belmont, as well as the JNF - and those which are centre left, such as the whole of MRJ, Masorti and LJ, and the "brainwashable" students. The voting, by and large, was along denominational and generational lines. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 13:59 Rate this: 2 points | suzanna: Lollapalooza Israel collapses as artists stay away
|
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 14:16 Rate this: -1 points | What I still don't get is why someone who has his face plastered all over this blog site and is photographed at every anti-Israel event going is afraid to show his face in a live stream. It doesn't add up. Where's Richard Millett's camera work when you need it? |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 14:47 Rate this: -1 points | So....we had one comment about Hitler and one about brainwashing....neither speaker would speak on camera.... I geddit. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 14:47 Rate this: -1 points | Maybe he didn't want folks to be able to compare the glamour mug shot above with the reality. And as for Richard he is probably busy with his new hobby of filming honking London buses. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 15:19 Rate this: -2 points | More news about Veolia! (a few weeks later) Davis, California – The Davis Committee of Palestinian Rights (DCPR) is happy to report that Veolia Water North America has withdrawn as a prospective bidder on a $325 million dollar project that would provide treated water from the Sacramento River to residents of Woodland and Davis in Yolo County, California. The announcement came at the December 20, 2012 meeting of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (Water Agency), a joint powers authority between the University of California – Davis and the cities of Woodland and Davis. Veolia’s withdrawal followed efforts by citizens of Yolo County to prevent Veolia’s bidding due to the company’s involvement in the violation of Palestinian human rights. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 15:27 Rate this: -1 points | Ynet reported in Hebrew that: As had already been reported in December, many difficulties cropped up over the last few months in recruiting the famous artists to take part in the festival, and the production had also run into logistical and financial difficulties in its attempt to produce three consecutive days of performances at Hayarkon Park in Tel Aviv. Lollapalooza Israel has also been removed from official website |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 15:30 Rate this: 0 points | Earlier this month, the website for Lollapalooza Israel disappeared. It now redirects to the site for the South Lake Tahoe dance event the Snowglobe. The latter is also promoted by Lollapalooza organizer C3 Presents. If it was 'postponed' why delete any mention of it? |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 18:06 Rate this: 0 points | I fear that Jonathan is one of those prophets who are destined to not be appreciated in their own life time. |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 18:16 Rate this: 0 points | You mean the prophets that didn't want people to hear their prophesies ? |
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 18:41 Rate this: 2 points |
|
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 18:53 Rate this: 2 points | Here is the letter refuting the BDS on Stanley Jordan . International artists scheduled to perform in the January 2013 Red Sea Festival were targeted by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS) in an attempt to get them to cancel their tours. The following is a response to these BDS efforts from Christophe Deghelt, the manager of jazz musician, Jacky Terrasson. We have hightlighted salient points but urge you to read it in its entirety. The original text is in French. We have provided an English translation. Jazz musician, Jacky Terrasson CAN ONE STILL PLAY A CONCERT IN ISRAEL? Christophe Deghelt Wednesday, January 9, 2013 The following is a blog entry that risks making waves. However, I wanted to share a debate that was important to us. For some time now, artists invited to play a concert in Israel are routinely accosted by organizations urging them not to travel there, nor to support the Israeli government and its politics. They claim that Israel is an Apartheid state and a colonial power committing war crimes against Palestinians. It's obvious why the debate concerning this region of the world, so long embroiled in a violent and unending war, would be extremely lively and complex. Culture seems to be an issue today, perhaps even a new battlefield, in this very sad conflict. For the last several days, two jazz artists, Erik Truffaz and Jack Terrasson have been swept into a fierce controversy, a furious and passionate debate on Facebook and other social networks and websites regarding their participation at the Red Sea Jazz Festival in Eilat, Israel this month. These artists are renowned and recognized for their talent, their humanity, their very open-minded approach, their pacifism and their generosity. Here then, in this blog entry, is our position regarding this debate. We state it in view of pulling ourselves out of this difficult controversy and averting the pitfalls of oversimplification, blindness, manipulation and intolerance. First, for context, some background information. On December 12, 2012, we finalized a contract with the organizers of the Red Sea Jazz Festival to have Jacky Terrasson perform two concerts there. On January 2, we received a letter from BDS France (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) asking us to boycott this concert. Here is the letter: [BDS Letter] - not included in this translation On January 4, I contacted the representative of that organization, Mr. Dror Warschawski. We spoke a good hour over the telephone, explaining to him why we agreed to play in Israel. We explained to him our refusal to be made instruments in this conflict and our refusal to boycott this festival or our Israeli fans. All the while, we expressed our sympathy towards the Palestinian cause, our sadness over this ferocious war and our primary mission, namely, to deliver a message of peace. At the same time, RTS (Swiss Radio) was going to broadcast a live debate that Sunday evening on the issue of Erik Truffaz's appearance at the Red Sea Jazz Festival (the producer having contacted us over the weekend, but we were unavailable to take part in the debate). We noticed that Erik and Jacky's Facebook pages were overrun with intimidating comments, not from our fans, but from activists. Some of these comments are really obnoxious, rising to the level of sheer harassment and blatant denigration. Facebook has become a battleground for BDS campaigners, our fans, Israelis and those supporting Israel. How sad! On January 7, we received a new message from BDS, this time via email. This message was more insistent. It branded the festival as having a "stamp of shame." Here is the email: Mail BDS [translation not included] Our office and our artists are now receiving a veritable tidal wave of emails from complete strangers. Faced with this pressure and harassment, we've decided to publish a response defending our position on our blog and our social networks. I think our response presents a third way, a more just and more tolerant way, to emerge from this conflict in which artists are used as political instruments. Here it is: [Mr. Deghelt replies to letter from Mr. Warshawshi, of The BDS Campaign in France] As I pointed out to you over the telephone, we do not agree with your "pressure tactics on artists," or your Cultural Boycott. We refuse to be made into instruments, and we won't give in to your pressure, whether by email, by mail, by telephone or on Facebook. Performing in Israel does not mean we approve of the Israeli government or its politics, and it doesn't mean we don't understand the turmoil and the suffering of the Palestinian population. Your attempt to railroad artists into a black-and-white dilemma is intellectually dishonest. To allege that by performing at the Red Sea Jazz Festival we are supporting the Israeli government, or that by cancelling our concert we'll be showing our compassion towards the Palestinian people, demonstrates an extremely reductive attitude. We refuse to be placed in either category. 1) Jacky hasn't performed in Israel for more than 15 years and many of his fans are elated by his impending arrival. We love human beings, whether they are Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish or Muslim, and we will always perform for humankind. We don't segregate our audience or our fans. 2) We are apolitical, we play music, and we carry a message of peace and love. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is extremely complex. We disapprove all acts of violence on both sides and are profoundly saddened by this conflict and its tragic consequences. 3) If the Eilat Festival is financed in part by the Israeli government, it demonstrates their openness towards culture and jazz, which only benefits the examination of cultures in general. A dictatorship would not invite foreign artists, quite the reverse. Jacky's fans in Israel are like all other jazz fans, humane, pacifist and hoping for peace in this part of the world. They are your best allies and yet you seem to want to punish them. Moreover, the Eilat Festival is an international festival recognized for its quality and its openness to the world. 4) Boycotting this festival sends an unjust message to the Israeli population as a whole, to our fans and to our friends, and stigmatizes a population and a country instead of contributing something peaceful and sending a message of hope. We are free to express our convictions in Israel and I've spoken about this to the Festival organizers. Let's push your reasoning to its conclusion. Assuming no foreign artist appeared in Israel and the jazz festival ceased to exist...who would win? What would happen to the openness, the freedom, and the chance to present a different culture? What would happen to expressing our opinions? What about the arts policy in Iran, Syria, and Mali today? No more foreign artists. Is this your sense of openness and dialogue? 5) You say that certain Palestinians won't be able to attend Jacky's concert and that is indeed very sad; we would be happy to play in Palestine, if ever invited (this still hasn't been the case). We are not responsible for this situation and can only deplore it. The road to a better world is a long one. 6) We concur with Erik Truffaz in his response to you: if we had to agree with the politics of the countries inviting us to perform, we wouldn't have many places in which to perform. Our mission lies elsewhere, in music and the hopes of carrying a message of peace and tolerance to the people of our planet. 7) Your activism and your intolerance are abominable. Phony Facebook "fans" have posted messages expressly asking our musicians not play in Israel. This is sheer harassment. Moreover, it's really quite surprising because these fans purporting to sway the artists are not fans at all, but simply your army of little soldiers polluting the calm and positive spaces of our artists'Facebook pages. 8) During our phone conversation, you insinuated quite slyly that you were a big fan of Jacky Terrasson, that you used to buy his records and attend his concerts, but that you would think twice about it now, knowing he plays for Israel. Your questionable words, like the tone of your last email, won't change our convictions. I don't believe for an instant that you are a fan of Jacky Terrasson. 9) What bothers me the most about your effort...is your hatred of Israel, a pathological hatred, blind and most assuredly hidden behind a veil of "political correctness." Your actions don't demonstrate a love or defense of Palestinians but rather a hatred for Israelis. At one time, we knew full well in what direction such madness had driven our world. You are an anti-Zionist and deceitfully and paradoxically an anti-Semite (you, the grandson of a rabbi renowned for his humanistic views). You hide this under the pretext of representing a humanitarian organization, under the pretext of being a defender of justice. 10) When Stanley Jordan, the Portico Quartet, cancelled their concert at the Red Sea Jazz Festival, it was their choice, which we respect. Some of our artists refuse to perform in Israel. Those are their political convictions, we live in a democracy, and we sincerely respect all opinions. Well then, respect ours as well. We believe we can be more useful by being invited to play for the people of Israel, than by refusing to perform in a country of whose government's decisions we disapprove. Jacky Terrasson is free to draw his own opinion, after his arrival. Don't force people to think what you would like them to think...this is intellectual tyranny and manipulation, the same tyranny and manipulation you attribute to Israel's rulers. 11) Palestine needs international support, positive actions and peace, and it's not by advocating violence (both intellectual and verbal) and intolerance that you'll help Palestine. I myself have been to Ramallah to produce a free concert featuring Shakti, which the U.N supports. We helped finance a school of music for children victimized by the war. These are positive actions, non-violent, meaningful and humane. Pitting both sides against each other is not striving towards peace; it is adding fuel to the fire. 12) In my agency, I represent Muslim artists, Israeli artists, and people of many different religions and nationalities. My office is a place of tolerance, peace and dialogue. I have produced more than 3000 concerts in the world, and it's the first time I have received such obnoxious letters. You, a man of science, you should stick to the rigors of analysis instead of engaging in an open battle with artists. I will end by quoting Koffi Annan who said, "Tolerance is a virtue that makes peace possible." Very cordially yours, Christophe Deghelt http://deghelt-productions.com/blog/files/25f794123d7d6608b1088b43986010... Translated into English for CCFP by Talia Shulman Gold |
Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:05 Rate this: 2 points |
|
is returning to israel this summer, see Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:26 Rate this: 1 point | Cliff Richard and Uriah Heep? Haven't the Jews suffered enough? ;-) |
Wed, 01/23/2013 - 17:28 Rate this: 0 points | That letter from Chris Deghelt couldn't say it better. If you boycott somebody or something every time you have a disagreement, you'll become an unhappy, bitter person. I disagreed with Elvis Costello when he cancelled a performance in Israel. I initially stopped playing his records, but subsequently resumed and just physically segregate them from my other records. |
Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:09 Rate this: 1 point | David Brown in this week's JC nails it:
And as for the threat by some extremist groups and synagogues to withhold funding, if they don't pay they should have no say. Kick them off the Board. |
Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:13 Rate this: 0 points | Interesting speech on Sunday, very passionate, especially the echoing of the three "Nos" of Khartoum at the end. Unfortunately, I found it quite astounding that those who proposed the motion chose not to speak from the streaming microphone. Surely, as Orwell said, "Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." Why so coy, then? And was it really necessary for Rosalind Pike to make the Hitler comparison? Very bad form. Still if people are scared to show their faces - a fear of a harrowing time at work, perhaps? - and have their views known, what can you do? It's good that these views are minuted, Hansard-style, so everyone will be able to follow who said what to whom. Also, it was most insulting to the students and the young members of the community to claim they would be brainwashed. Do you not believe they are strong willed and minded enough to think for themselves? Equally strange was Gary Mond's call for unity. What unity? Jews united? When did that ever happen? We are much better and stronger when we are diverse. That's why we are still around. We aren't so much the People of the Book as the People of the Row. This "Israel first and foremost" approach is what poisons the debate and causes disunity, not the other way around. Quite amusing were those who were against the tie-up who said they had the full backing of their synagogue councils. Did they think we didn't consult? Of course we did, and got unanimous support to vote in favour of the co-operation. It was very strange that you mentioned Sderot and others from your side saying that we must not negotiate with enemies. But that's exactly what Israel did with Hamas to get a ceasefire in the south. And to get Gilad Shalit freed. If the Jerusalem Municipality works with Oxfam, why can't we? And even the Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub says we should engage. At Limmud he said we should each engage with those bodies in Israel that reflect our individual values, including the UK Task Force on the plight of Israeli Arabs and the New Israel Fund. Is he an anti-Zionist too? Perhaps Isi should write about that, or has he been instructed to stop attacking British Jews? It's a rumour. I get it that you want the community and its elected bodies to be sub-contractors for the Israeli government (especially if it's a far right government like this and the next one), but do we really have to be "more Catholic than the Pope"? Still, all's well that ends well. |
Fri, 01/25/2013 - 10:32 Rate this: 0 points |
Millis as usual hasn't a clue - this time we have it in writing. |
Fri, 01/25/2013 - 11:11 Rate this: 0 points | Let's be frank Millis like many others in the UK (the BBC and the Guardian to name but two) does not understand Israeli politics or even what the Israeli voter looks for when exercising his/her democratic right to vote. |
Fri, 01/25/2013 - 12:20 Rate this: 0 points | Let's be civilised and look at this sensibly. We aren't going to agree, but let's try to understand each other's perspective. I agree with you that the old left/right paradigms don't work when it comes to Israel. Therefore, in my opinion, Likud and Habayit Hayehudi are exclusionist parties which do not like - to put it mildly - people who do not share their ethno-religious background. They are statist, where everything is subservient to the state and its institutions and symbols. Yesh Atid are NIMBYs - Not In My Back Yard people, which has a charismatic leader who represents the resentful secular middle class. The question is whether he'll sell-out and therefore be a flash-in-the-pan, much like his late father's party was. Those three parties will be the basis of the next government, with the other centrist parties, Livni and the rump of Kadima, serving as a fig-leaf. Because with 6 and 2 seats respectively it's difficult to be an effective opposition in Israel. Whether the ultra-Orthodox can get enough of a get-out clause when it comes to "sharing the burden", their housing and education will determine if they join. Their institutions do rely a lot on state funding, as I'm sure you'll agree, so if I were a betting man, I'd say they'll swallow a bit of their pride in the name of "unity" and do a deal. Israeli Finance Minsters have proved to be able to get funds to coalition partners, even if their room for manoeuvre is limited because deficit has grown to 40 billion shekels - almost twice as much as Netanyahu and Steinitz predicted. Problem is that very few people are buying Bibi's BS. The Obama Administration is "inured", the new Congressmen and women are less attached than those who went before and diaspora Jewry - until recently considered a strategic asset - are getting less enamoured with the situation in Israel. American Jews, particularly among the young, are certainly going that way. How much has been squandered on Birthright (I loved the Eretz Nehederet skits on them)? You are right on another thing. Diaspora Jews should leave Israel to its own devices. It really has nothing to do with us and we should stop seeing everything through an "Is it good for Israel?" prism. It's a debate which has poisoned the atmosphere here and elsewhere - cf, the lead-up to last week's debate on the Grow/Tatzmiach Oxfam tie up. If Israel has chosen to go down the one-state route so be it. It's sad, but so be it. |
Fri, 01/25/2013 - 12:31 Rate this: 0 points | which is pretty much in line with Obama's attitude. That is, he doesn't regard it as any part of his job to prevent Bibi from deriving Israel over the edge of the cliff. |
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
LATEST COMMENTS
Rich Armbach
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 18:48
Rate this:
Too too funny