fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

November 29, 2011

Dear David Mamet: Reform Judaism doesn’t surrender

Leave a Comment / Opinion /

Read David Mamet’s opinion piece here: Conflict, choice and surrender

David Mamet’s recent, meandering tirade demands a response, even if cogency permits only a partial rejoinder. So, I will limit myself to where he begins and I where I “live,” with the Reform Movement.

He accuses Reform Judaism of categorically surrendering “Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews, and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel.” Thence, Mr. Mamet connects the Reform Movement to anti-Israel sentiment located on a spectrum that spans naïveté and, implicitly, self-hatred.

In the end, his condemnation avoids facts and invokes, in their stead, inapposite truisms. If “Napoleon taught us the logical end of purely defensive warfare is surrender,” Mamet has yet to demonstrate that Reform Judaism does indeed surrender. He omits the evidence, because it contradicts his argument.

The Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, which educates and trains clergy and leadership for the Reform Movement and beyond, maintains a campus in Jerusalem. There, we send all of our non-Israeli rabbinical, cantorial and education students for a full academic year, as we have since 1970. Despite market pressures to ease up on this requirement, HUC-JIR has held firm, because in part in defines us.

In Jerusalem, we also run a program for Israeli Reform rabbis, who invigorate Israeli Judaism with the progressive values (Hebraic and Zionist values) to which most Israelis subscribe. These committed leaders split the horns of the false Israeli dilemma between religious and secular life. And in so doing, they put Jewish religion at the heart—rather than at the margins— of the project of the Jewish State.

Reform Judaism also created the Israel Religious Action Center and the Association of Reform Zionists of America (find their link under the “Israel” tab at URJ.org), both dedicated not only to the core Zionist goal of a thriving Jewish State but also to its Jewish soul.

In ritual and halakhic terms, Mr. Mamet offers nothing more than an anachronistic caricature, and in so doing, debases the Jewish communal conversation. Hebrew is a staple in Reform services, as is the millennial tradition of mutual aid. In theory, we are more flexible on matters of halakha than other non-Orthodox movements, but it’s not clear to me that our practice differs all that much. Shabbat services in Reform synagogues are lively affairs. Torah study for adults and religious schools for children flourish, and Reform Jews’ connectedness to Judaism—traditional and progressive—thickens day by day.

As for our condemnation of fellow Jews in Israel: It is true that we will condemn someone for gratuitous violence, as we did in response to the recent arson attack on an Israeli mosque. And it is true that we will argue with fellow Jews for much less. But Mr. Mamet chooses to overlook the crucial fact that we argue with our coreligionists and, I trust, they requite le-shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven. We struggle with God Himself for the same purpose, namely, to work out the relationship between the sanctity of our Covenant, on the one hand, and the messy frailty of our worldly experience, on the other. Reform Judaism will not apologize for willingly, zealously engaging in that struggle, including both its traditional and modern aspects.

For the sake of that argument, allow me to concede that it is true that in the nineteenth century, the Reform Movement did begin to take major steps in distancing itself from traditional forms of Judaism. It is also true that a large part of the American Reform Movement was non- or anti-Zionist leading up to 1948. For that very reason, Stephen S. Wise created a Reform alternative, known as the Jewish Institute of Religion, an avowedly Zionist academy. Following Israeli independence, the Hebrew Union College merged with the Jewish Institute of Religion, embracing its Zionism.

The same Stephen S. Wise founded the American Jewish Congress, a more aggressive advocacy group than the older American Jewish Committee, which preferred a more staid form of stadlanut. In both guises, however, the Reform Movement—together with American Jews of all stripes—pursued the interests of immigrants from Eastern Europe both prior to and during the Holocaust. Likewise widespread solidarity characterized all American Jews’ aid for our brethren held captive in the Soviet Union.

Reform Judaism dedicates the human and financial resources to, and stakes its political and social capital on, those efforts. If you are affiliated with a Reform synagogue, you are directly supporting them.

Let us, therefore, examine the notion of “surrender,” attributed to us by Mr. Mamet. Reform Judaism is the plurality of affiliated North-American Jewry, actively furthering the interests “Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews, and [our] co-religionaries in Israel.” Far from surrendering these things, the Reform Movement does the hard work of bring North-American Jewry closer to them.

Mr. Mamet may not like our style. Fortunately for him, Reform Judaism will not accede to a monopolization of the Jewish conversation.

Dear David Mamet: Reform Judaism doesn’t surrender Read More »

In re-runs: Small brains and ‘born-again’ Christians

Leave a Comment / Uncategorized /

Remember that study claiming that “born-again” Christians have smaller brains than other Americans? It was ” title=”on the health page of its website”>on the health page of its website. The press release carried the dateline “May 25.”

In case you missed the study the first time around, researchers found that the size of the hippocampus was measurably smaller in born-again Christians and people of no faith at all than members of other religious groups. Shrinkage of the hippocampus is caused by stress, and so the researchers said:

“One interpretation of our finding—that members of majority religious groups seem to have less atrophy compared with minority religious groups—is that when you feel your beliefs and values are somewhat at odds with those of society as a whole, it may contribute to long-term stress that could have implications for the brain,” Amy Owen, lead author of the study and a research associate at Duke University Medical Center, said in a Duke news release.

The study authors also suggested that life-changing religious experiences could challenge a person’s established religious beliefs, triggering stress.

Time has not made the association between religious beliefs and the size of the hippocampus seem any more plausible to me. But I still don’t know how you otherwise account for their findings, other than an unaccounted for variable.

Thanks for the tip, In re-runs: Small brains and ‘born-again’ Christians Read More »

New 86-year effort to Tweet The Bible, one verse a day

Leave a Comment / Uncategorized /

I’m a tech-savvy guy, but I’m not exactly an early adopter. I’m more of a 2.0 adopter. But I appear to be getting in on the ground floor of ” title=”at Genesis 1:18″>at Genesis 1:18.

Don’t worry. There’s still plenty of time for you to follow Tweet The Bible, a collaborative effort to consecutively tweet every verse in the Christian Bible. At one verse a day, the project will take 86 years.

As ” title=”Tweet every verse”>Tweet every verse in short order in the Bible or to use Twitter New 86-year effort to Tweet The Bible, one verse a day Read More »

MOT join Occupy L.A. in protest against eviction

Leave a Comment / California, Community, News /

Sarah had just gotten off of a plane after visiting her family in Thanksgiving before coming to the Occupy L.A. at Los Angeles City Hall. She sat in solidarity with dozens of demonstrators around a tent set up in the center of the camp. She held onto a surgical mask soaked in apple cider vinegar, which would help her “continue to breath if they use less-lethal weapons,” such as tear-gas, she said.

Sarah was among the Jewish people I met while spending the early hours of the morning—- from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. – at Occupy L.A. on Monday, November 28, the day LAPD was scheduled to clear the encampment out but ultimately let the protestors remain. The future is uncertain for Occupy L.A., but the Los Angeles Times reported today that the movement has filed a court order to block the eviction.

According to Reuters:

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had given protesters until 12:01 a.m. local time to dismantle their tents and clear out of the park or face a forcible removal, setting the stage for the latest showdown between leaders of a major U.S. city and the Occupy Wall Street movement.

On Nov. 25, Villarigosa ordered that the Occupy protestors would need to clear out on Monday. Four activists were arrested during otherwise peaceful clashes with LAPD officials arrested four activists on Monday morning, approximately five hours after this deadline passed.

Ben Segal, 26, a student at UC San Diego, drove up to Los Angeles to take part in the demonstration on Sunday night and Monday night, “because we wanted to support the occupation here and stand in solidarity with the [movement],” Segal said, linking arms with his girlfriend, Feliz, as they formed a chain with other demonstrators encircling the four-block-radius park around City Hall.

“We tend to be pretty active historically,” Segal said of Jews getting involved with causes like Occupy L.A.

David Feldman, who identified as a non-religious Jew, joined demonstrators on 1st St. around 1 a.m. on Monday, and he pledged to remain for as a long as he could keep his eyes open.

“There are certain moments where it’s important for people to take a stand and I think this is one of those moments,” he said.

Also around 1 a.m., Tony Maldonado, a Mexican American Italian Jew and filmmaker, asked a trumpet player to play “Johnny Comes Marching Home,” an American Civil War-era song, and the musician obliged.

Before the police and demonstrators clashed on Monday morning, Maldonado said that the Occupy L.A. was growing stronger and more resilient than ever.

We’re capturing the “American spirit because people do understand what’s happening,” Maldonado said. “Maybe they can’t support us all the time, but they understand what’s happening, and they’re watching what’s happening.”

Maldonado criticized Villaraigosa for his decision to announce the camp be cleared out. “He never came out once to talk to anybody. He could’ve come out the day of Thanksgiving…yesterday, he was in the press room [at City Hall], he could’ve come out…and talked to everybody and said, ‘No matter what has happened, we need to work together on this thing. We need to work on the detail. What do you want? We’re going to work with you.’”

On Monday morning, demonstrators caused 1st St. – all that’s separating Los Angeles City Hall, where the Occupy encampment has been operating for eight weeks now, from the Los Angeles Police department headquarters – to be closed off between Main St. and Spring. St.

By 4 a.m., nearly 100 police officers in riot gear formed a perimeter around the south edge of the Occupy encampment, standing in a row and blocking off one crosswalk at 1st St. and Main St. and two crosswalks at 1st St. and Spring St.

Between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., a row of police officers advanced gradually on 1st St., moving in a long line that stretched from Main St. to Spring St., which run parallel to each other, on the south edge of the Occupy camp, eventually making four arrests of activists after demanding that all protestors – and media – remove themselves from the street.

Commander Andrew Smith, LAPD spokesman, said that the arrested parties were in violation of California Penal Code 409, which says, “Every person remaining present at the place of any riot…after [it] has been lawfully warned to disperse…is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Since the Occupy Wall Street movement began in September, causing Occupy movements to spring up around the country, there has been some debate about whether or not the Occupy protests have a pervasive anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist element. I had a few brushes with anti-Zionism at the Monday morning demonstration.

Of these anti-Zionist instances, one protestor held up a large cardboard sign that said “Occupy L.A., Not Palestine” in spray-painted writing; another protestor walked around yelling the same slogan. When I went up to the latter protestor and asked him why’d he come to participate in the demonstration – and told him that I write for the Jewish Journal – he said, “Nothing wrong with Jewish people, just Zionism.”

In October, progressive Jewish groups, including Progressive Jewish Alliance and IKAR, showed solidarity with the Occupy L.A. movement, helping to construct a sukkah amongst the tents. I didn’t walk by the sukkah on this trip to Occupy L.A., but Journal reporter Jonah Lowenfeld reported earlier this month that the sukkah had been “repurposed.”

 

MOT join Occupy L.A. in protest against eviction Read More »

Egypt Islamists expect gains in post-Mubarak poll

Leave a Comment / Is Featured?, News, Worldwide /

Egyptians voted on Tuesday in a parliamentary election that Islamists hope will sweep them closer to power, even though the army generals who took over from President Hosni Mubarak have yet to step aside.

The election, the first since a revolt ousted Mubarak on February 11, unfolded without the mayhem many had feared after last week’s riots against army rule in which 42 people were killed.

General Ismail Atman, a ruling army council member, said he had no firm figure, but that turnout would exceed 70 percent of the 17 million Egyptians eligible to vote in the first round that began on Monday. “I hope it will reach more than 80 percent by the end of the day,” he told Al Jazeera television.

Atman was also quoted by Al-Shorouk newspaper as saying the election showed the irrelevance of protesters demanding an end to military rule in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and elsewhere.

Les Campbell, of the Washington-based National Democratic Institute, one of many groups monitoring the poll, said earlier it was “a fair guess” that turnout would exceed 50 percent, far above the meager showings in rigged Mubarak-era elections.

The United States and its European allies are watching Egypt’s vote torn between hopes that democracy will take root in the most populous Arab nation and worries that Islamists hostile to Israel and the West will ride to power on the ballot box.

They have faulted the generals for using excessive force on protesters and urged them to give way swiftly to civilian rule.

The well-organized Muslim Brotherhood, banned but semi-tolerated under Mubarak, said its political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), had done well in the voting so far.

“The Brotherhood party hopes to win 30 percent of parliament,” senior FJP figure Mohamed El-Beltagy told Reuters.

The leader of the ultra-conservative Salafi Islamist al-Nour Party, which hopes to siphon votes from the Brotherhood, said organizational failings meant the party had under-performed.

“We were not dispersed across constituencies, nor were we as close as needed to the voter. Other parties with more experience rallied supporters more effectively,” Emad Abdel Ghafour said in the coastal city of Alexandria, seen as a Salafi stronghold.

But he told Reuters the party still expected to win up to half of Alexandria’s 24 seats in parliament and 70 to 75 nationwide out of the assembly’s 498 elected seats.

Abou Elela Mady, head of the moderate Islamist Wasat Party, made no predictions, but praised the turnout and said the party would accept the result despite electoral violations.

Soldiers guarded one banner-festooned Cairo voting station, where women in Islamic headscarves or Western clothes queued with their families. Judges kept an amiable eye on proceedings.

ISLAMIST VOTE-GETTERS

Islamists did not instigate the Arab uprisings that have shaken Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, but in the last two months, Islamist parties have come out top in parliamentary elections in Morocco and post-revolutionary Tunisia.

Egyptian Islamists want to emulate those triumphs, but it is unclear how much influence the previously toothless parliament in Cairo can wield while the generals remain in power.

If the election process goes smoothly, the new assembly will enjoy a popular legitimacy the generals lack and may assert itself after rubber-stamping Mubarak’s decisions for 30 years.

“Real politics will be in the hands of the parliament,” said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian political analyst.

One general has said parliament will have no power to remove an army-appointed cabinet due to run Egypt’s daily affairs until a promised presidential poll heralds civilian rule by July.

The army council assumed Mubarak’s formidable presidential powers when it eased him from office on February 11. Many Egyptians praised the army’s initial role, but some have grown angry at what they see as its attempts to retain its perks and power.

ELECTORAL VIOLATIONS

The election is taking place in three regional stages, plus run-off votes, in a complex system that requires voters to choose individual candidates as well as party lists. Full results will be announced after voting ends on January 11.

Election monitors have reported logistical hiccups and campaign violations but no serious violence.

Armed with laptops and leaflets, party workers of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing and its Islamist rivals have approached muddled voters to guide them through the balloting system and nudge them toward their candidates.

In the Nile Delta town of Kafr el-Sheikh, Muslim Brotherhood workers were selling cut-price food in a tent where they also distributed flyers naming the FJP candidates in the area.

Some Egyptians yearn for a return to stability, uneasy about the impact of political turmoil on an economy heading toward a crisis sure to worsen the hardship of impoverished millions.

Others worry that resurgent Islamist parties may dominate political life, mold Egypt’s next constitution and threaten social freedoms in what is already a deeply conservative nation of 80 million people whose 10 percent Coptic Christian minority complains of discrimination from the Muslim majority.

Copts, like Muslims, were voting in greater numbers than in the Mubarak era. “Before, the results were known in advance, but now we have to choose our fate,” said Wagdy Youssef, a 45-year-old company manager in Alexandria.

“Copts like others want civilian rule,” he said. “I voted for Muslims because they represented moderate views and stayed away from a few Christians on the lists I saw as extremist.”

As voting resumed in the chilly, rain-swept coastal town of Damietta, Sayed Ibrahim, 30, said he backed the liberal Wafd Party over its main local rival, the Salafi Nour Party.

“I’m voting for Wafd because I don’t want an ultra-religious party that excludes other views,” he said, in jeans and a cap.

Additional reporting by Marwa Awad in Alexandria, Shaimaa Fayed in Damietta and Tom Perry, Patrick Werr, Peter Millership and Edmund Blair in Cairo; Writing by Alistair Lyon; Editing by Peter Millership

Egypt Islamists expect gains in post-Mubarak poll Read More »

Travel Happy Hour TODAY!

Leave a Comment / Travel /

Travel with Technology! What is your favorite travel app?

Meet fellow travelers and the creators of both Ship Mate and StudioMini!  Come to share your favorite app and learn what others are using on the road!

WIN TICKETS to LACMA and Skirball Museums!

First TWENTY people will receive FREE download codes for SHIP MATE APP!!

We also have SHIRTS to give away!
Don’t miss out!!

Happy Hour Prices for Drinks and Appetizers!

See you at 7pm, X-Bar Century City!

” title=”http://www.wesaidgotravel.com/apps.html”>http://www.wesaidgotravel.com/apps.html

More information about us: Travel Happy Hour TODAY! Read More »

Prime Minister Fayyad: ‘Unity and Non-violence’ requisites for statehood

Leave a Comment / Is Featured?, News, Worldwide /

With skepticism rife over a Fatah-Hamas rapprochement and the Hamas demand to replace him, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the man credited with energizing the movement toward statehood and the man Western governments want holding the PA’s purse strings, discusses the pending issues with Friedson Friedson, President and CEO of The Media Line news agency, at his Ramallah office. Below is the first of two sessions between Prime Minister Fayyad and Ms. Friedson.

Friedson:  Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for taking the opportunity to speak with me and The Media Line.

Fayyad:  My pleasure.

Friedson:  Is there going to be a unity government comprised of Fatah and Hamas?

Fayyad:  Well, I’m hoping that as a matter of fact, sooner rather than later. We Palestinians can have – at long last – one government that is able to run the affairs of the Palestinian people both in Gaza and the West Bank. I personally view that as an essential first step toward re-establishing unity. I have always maintained that the state of Palestine which we are seeking cannot and will not happen unless our country is re-united—and one government is a key instrument of getting there. We just cannot keep going in the way we’ve been going for four years now: separated; separate governing processes; unable to get together physically; having lots of responsibilities there; wanting to discharge them more fully and adequately toward our own people. It just can’t continue. This is really most unnatural. We must see this operation come to an end.  Now, in terms of the makeup of our government, that is what has been discussed extensively in various forms of dialogue which I hope can conclude sooner rather than later. This process has been going on way too long in my humble opinion.

Friedson: Will Salam Fayyad be able to continue as prime minister if there is a unity government?

Fayyad:  You know, on the basis of what has transpired and most recent contacts especially between the two main factions, Fatah and Hamas, it is no secret that excluding me from the possibility of being the prime minister in the next government was something that was a major issue and topic of discussion and consideration in that direction. Now, I myself have always considered that this should not be an issue, and that as far as I’m concerned, I am not now and I will never be and I can never accept being in a position of even being just thought of as an obstacle in the way of getting us there, in terms of getting the county united again. And most recently and ahead of the most recent round of negotiations which took place in Cairo, and well before that, I actually called on the factions to agree on a consensus choice other than the existing prime minister—other than me—with a view to making absolutely clear that statements and speculation as to me being the obstacle or impediment were completely unfounded and that they should really be free to go ahead and do that. That really is my position. What is really important to us is to come to the point where we can have that government – one government – and immediately the important thing is to think about what that government is going to do. This government that is going to run the affairs of the Palestinian people up to the point we have elections – that’s another important issue which I think should be definitely finalized in terms of dates for elections and all because it’s really high time for our people to have the opportunity to have their say in the form of inclusive, transparent, open elections – we must be allowed to do this and we must allow our people the opportunity to do this.  It’s not going to be just basically a mere caretaker up until the election. That government should really begin to do serious work to reunite the country. It’s easy to say, “reuniting the country,” reuniting institutions and people. What that means is quite complex and requires a lot of serious effort and that government requires a lot of support in order for it to be able to do these things and for it to be able to make inroads into the reconstruction of Gaza which is overdue. So a lot of challenges; a lot of tasks and that’s what I believe we should be focused on rather than this debate which really is a bogus controversy so far as the identity of the next prime minister. I think that should be dispensed with. There are a lot of qualified people out there and all that is required is that there be agreement and consensus on one; we should move on.

Friedson:  Having said that, the word on the street is that you might run for president.

Fayyad:  I have not considered anything in politics beyond what I’m doing right now. It is a uniform point of view of anyone who has followed my career until now and what I have been doing for more than 40 years; this would not really come as a surprise. I have just described to you the complexity of the task of the government that is going to take over in the run-up to elections and I hope this is something that is not just talked about but is something that will actually happen. I say this from the point of view of somebody who knows first-hand under these difficult conditions – highly complex conditions – domestically, regionally and internationally – as well. Given all of that, you just cannot think of anything else but what you’re doing. What I am being completely focused on is to be able to continue to chart these difficult waters; build on the progress that we’ve been able to achieve in various fields of government in terms of deepening our readiness for statehood; continue to provide support for our political activity internationally. These are really difficult challenges, so, no, I have not and I will not be thinking about anything but what I’m doing.

Friedson:  Your presence has allowed Western governments to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority. So let’s just say you did leave the government as the prime minister. Won’t a sizeable amount of [international] support be placed in jeopardy?

Fayyad:  I hope not. I think over the past few years, and this probably is or should be one of the key reasons why we have this much support and international confidence, if you will. I’m really personally flattered by all of this, but at the same time I believe it’s a reflection by and large of the progress that we’ve been able to make in institutionalizing governance processes including in the important area of monitoring finances. If the donors have confidence and faith, it’s not so much, I believe, in the fact that there is x, y or z running the show now. It’s a direct consequence of them having assurance that there are mature governance processes in key areas of government including, importantly, public finance. And so therefore I hope that would not happen. This is far too much of a responsibility, a burden, for anyone to continue to think of himself as the address through which the money, assistance, aid can go only. Exclusively. And I would really regard it, to be honest with you, as a failure on my part if it ends up being the case. I shouldn’t be talking in terms that extend beyond what I consider to be new modesty, because that’s who I am. But if I would think in terms of, well with hesitation I say the word “legacy” – I would really not want it to be my legacy on whose shoulders lies the whole responsibility of being the sole address through which, in which, the international community has confidence when it comes to assisting the Palestinian people or Palestinian Authority…

Friedson:  So how do you view your legacy?

Fayyad:  It is one of institutionalizing things. It is one of basically converting all energies that we have at the individual level as well as collectively into one part of national effort that is really capable of projecting the kind of true, real, genuine readiness for the state of Palestine that is going to happen; that I really have set out from the beginning as a goal, as a compass for everything that we really do. That’s really the most important thing. So it is progress toward the goal of institutionalizing all of these processes and I believe that is what matters.

Friedson:  Mr. Prime Minister, placing your role in the next government aside, American legislators from both parties are warning that the United States cannot fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas because it’s on the terror list. How iron-clad do you see this stipulation as being?

Fayyad:  When we talk about one government, and I mentioned among other things that number one, it is important to have that; and number two, to discuss the makeup of that government and what it should be like, it’s platform, we touched a little bit on the tasks of that government. I do not believe that our friends in Congress would disagree with what I said about the need for us to have one government. No one can because it is, for me, a straightforward point of logic for us to want to see our country re-united. On the basis of that same logic, I see no difficulty and come to the conclusion that this cannot but be the universally-shared conclusion because that state of Palestine – in order for it to happen – must have Gaza as a component. We Palestinians can’t have a state without Gaza. And to the extent that a two-state solution is not only a Palestinian interest, but a regional interest and an international interest, there cannot but be a convergence of views on the need for our country to be reunited. This said, I think it’s incumbent on us Palestinians to really try to manage our own affairs in ways that would not interfere with our capacity to interact effectively with the international community including the United States and especially the Congress of the United States. It’s incumbent upon us to really find a way. I believe the important thing – and I believe it would be really important not to get engaged in some categorization of what might happen and characterization of that government as being [a] factional government of this color or that color or the rest of it. But really to concentrate more on issues that matter maybe more on a level of priority. For example, when it comes to matters of platform – tasks for this government – would it not really be a major consideration that this government, or one of its key tasks, is to oversee the implementation and observance of a doctrine of non-violence? I believe this is a major, major task for the government…

Friedson:  Do you believe fundamentalism within Hamas can actually go beyond this?

Fayyad:  Let me tell you: What I’ve just described to you, the doctrine of non-violence, is something we attach a greatest deal of importance to. I personally believe in the immense power of non-violence. But it is generally true that this approach, this doctrine, is more broadly shared today in Palestine than at any point before. I think we should take advantage of it and try to formalize it. Therefore, I say, if you have the prospect or possibility of having a Palestinian government, a key task of which is to oversee the implementation of such an important doctrine, would not that represent a major advance or improvement relative to status quo or status quo ante? My answer is, “Yes.” It’s a major improvement relative to what we have. If we ignore other elements, would that government be ideal? I’d say, “No.” But there’s hardly an ideal government anywhere in the world for that matter. I’m someone who looks at the realm of what is possible. What is practical. What is pragmatic and how we might be able to move. A guiding principal, or litmus test, if you will, is whether or not by moving in such-and-such direction we’re not we’re paving the way toward improving the situation. Whether the day after is now going to be better than the day before. In other words, whether we’re going to be better in regards to the status quo is the yardstick by which I measure things. Are we assured that such government is going to be perfect from every other point of view?  The answer is no. But my answer is, “Let us begin. Let’s create conditions that are better tomorrow than they are today and build on that. Create a new dynamic: a Palestinian Authority that’s able to function in Gaza.” Being able to enforce, observe and implement a doctrine of non-violence throughout the occupied Palestinian territory is a major advance in being able to formalize what has now become a broadly shared conviction in this doctrine of non-violence. I believe that it is very important to formalize that and for that to become a key ingredient for the platform of the government. This is how I look at things. Now, if we don’t get that, then I myself would say that would be a case of too many missing ingredients. It will be a case of too many things that we don’t have.  So I would say it’s important for us to take note – take good note – of the opinion of the international community, but it incumbent on us, too, to explain ourselves. I believe that the international community is reasonable…

Friedson:  But if you cannot get them – Hamas – to adopt to non-violence, then what would happen?

Fayyad:  I have just described to you what I believe would be absolutely essential in terms of the platform of that government, in terms of its key tasks and responsibilities. And if that is not really agreed upon, if that doctrine of non-violence is not a key ingredient in the platform of that government, then again I say, it will be from our own point of view, a case of too many missing ingredients.

Friedson:  Hizbullah is also on the terror list and controls 21 out of 30 cabinet seats in the Lebanese government. Yet, the United States provides aid there.  Are the situations comparable? Do you see this as a reason to believe that aid will continue notwithstanding the threats to cut off support?

Fayyad:  It is way above my pay grade to engage in cross-border comparisons. I’ll just confine myself to what is possible, reasonable, do-able on our side; and I just described to you, Felice, what is our point of view; what I believe is absolutely essential from our point of view relative to our own objective. Basic and most fundamental of our objectives – what is that? To have a state of our own. What does that mean and what does it require? It requires functional security. Functionality of security requires that the state and its agencies is the address and the state – and only the state – will have purview over security matters.

Friedson:  Speaking of obligations, you yourself have criticized Arab governments for failing to make good on pledges to the Palestinian Authority. If the United States and Western governments suspend aid, do you feel you can rely on the Arab governments to fill in the gap?

Fayyad:  We have problems now in terms of aid flows. We have an interruption and we have so far an overall flow of aid that’s been less than programmed for this current fiscal year 2011, and what we got of it did not always come in a timely way, which complicated our task and precipitated a financial crisis, which at one point during the year, or twice, made it impossible for us to pay salaries. Not to mention our failure to meet other important obligations to the private sector, vendors, suppliers. This is a major problem for us. To me, the issue is really not to look for other sources of funding in order to overcome the difficulties we face with some sources. Whether they are in the region or outside the region. The solution to me lies in stepping up our own efforts in attaining self-reliance and in the meantime reducing substantially on our reliance on aid. We have made a good deal of progress over the past few years, specifically since 2008 toward reducing our dependency on aid and reliance on it. In numbers, in fact, the aid allocated to us to help us with current expenditure has declined from $1.8 billion in 2008 to about $1 billion this year. This is a significant decline. In GDP terms, it’s a 60% decline from 2008. Actually, under current baseline for financial policy, we’re projecting a couple percentage points more reduction in the deficit of the Palestinian Authority.  We’re not looking for other sources to make up the difference. What we’re looking for to make up the difference is ourselves. We asked ourselves, “Can we do more? Can we go beyond the original base line?” And our answer was, “We must.” We must find a way to substantially reduce the deficit in 2012 beyond the level that was planned on the original baseline and we’re doing it. It is my firm expectation. Based on the strength of measures that we are contemplating and we are about to phase in. We are going to be able to substantially reduce our level of deficit in a way that should make it the last year in which we’re going to need external financial assistance for current budget support for current expenditures. That’s a major achievement. It will be yet another sign – a very important sign—of the advanced state of maturity of governing ourselves; of the level that we have reached.

Friedson:  What do you say to those who warn that because of the political situation fiscally, everything can collapse?

Fayyad:  Well, fiscally, everything is already collapsing. Not can or will. It is collapsing already under the heavy weight of the suspension of the transfers of our revenues that the government of Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. We are fast approaching the point of being completely incapacitated by this, and I really mean it. Now we cannot move checks as low in value as $5,000 and $6,000 without making a special effort with the banks. We really are on the verge of being completely incapacitated by this measure by the government of Israel. Now, those revenues which the government of Israel transfers to us are revenues it collects on our behalf under the agreement that regulates economic and financial relations – the Paris Protocols, which go back to 1994. Under the terms of that agreement, Israel – without any condition or qualification – is to transfer on a monthly basis money it collects on our behalf under that agreement. That should not be subject to any conditions of any kind. It’s not in the agreement that Israel could resort to such measures.

Friedson:  Worse case scenario you envision happening?

Fayyad:  I’m realistic. You know, in theory some might say that you should look to others to come up with the difference. But realistically, what is it we’re talking about? We’re talking about an amount of money that comprises about two-thirds of our revenues – about $100 million to $110 million per month. I just told you the order of magnitude. I told you our budget deficit for 2011 is about $1 billion. So figure we’re talking about depriving us of about $100 million a month of our revenues. That would have doubled – it’s been happening since January of this year – our financing requirement. Now, if we could not come up with $1 billion in external assistance, how can we even begin to think that we can come up with $2 billion? So it’s wholly unrealistic to expect that the withholding or suspension of transfer of money from Israel is something that can be compensated for by donor assistance. As a matter of fact, I can tell you that there is nothing we can do by adjustment that can begin to make compensation for the withdrawal of that money.  Worse case scenario, I will go back to what I just told you. This was not meant to be a dramatization or exaggeration at all. This would incapacitate us completely. You’re taking away from us two-thirds of our revenues. It is difficult for me to see how that can be compensated for by external assistance given the difficulties we have experienced in getting much less by way of external assistance. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to think of adjustment measures that we could take that would really make the adjustment for the withholding of that money. We’re talking about $100 million per month. This is major. In principle, it is possible. In theory, it is possible. In reality, how realistic is it going to be given the orders of magnitude? Makes it unlikely and makes it difficult for me to think that it will be possible to deal with this problem by looking for money from other sources.  You know, we have been living a hand-to-mouth type of existence, living in a crisis mode for more than a year and a half.  I know Palestinian finances. The state of Palestinian finances is something of which I have intimate knowledge of since the inception of the Palestinian Authority and from various angles in different capacities from long before I joined the Palestinian Authority in 2002.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Palestinian Authority has never faced a financial situation that is more difficult than the one it is facing now. When I say we’re on the verge of becoming completely incapacitated, I really mean it literally. This is how difficult it is. This is not something you’re going to be able to resolve by having a little more external assistance. The only way it can be resolved is by the government of Israel doing the right thing and that is to live up to the agreement we have—the one that governs our relationship in money and finance. Continued failure to resolve this issue should rightly cast serious doubt about the capacity of the political process to deal with the more difficult issues that are to be negotiated between us and the Israelis. The international community, with all of its influence and its involvement and the fact that it’s been providing us with lots of support to help us with our capacity building and with our effort to get ready for statehood; if with all that standing the international community cannot convince the government of Israel to do the right thing when it comes to the money that should be transferred unconditionally, how much faith can we really have in the ability of the international community to do the heavy lifting that’s necessary to facilitate the political process between us and Israel adequately, effectively in a way that can produce an outcome?

Felice Friedson is President and CEO of The Media Line news agency. She can be contacted at felice_friedson@yahoo.com.  © 2011. The Media Line Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Prime Minister Fayyad: ‘Unity and Non-violence’ requisites for statehood Read More »

[UPDATE] Rockets fired across Lebanon, Israel border

Leave a Comment / Israel, News /

An exchange of rocket fire hit the Lebanese-Israeli border Tuesday in the first such incident since 2009, coming at a time of heightened regional tensions over Syria and Iran’s nuclear program.

UNIFIL, the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon, said at least one rocket was fired at northern Israel, prompting the Israeli army to return fire. The Lebanese army said Israel launched four rockets in return.

Two buildings in Israel’s western Galilee area were damaged, Israeli media said, but there were no reports of casualties. Residents said they heard two explosions and that houses shook.

The Lebanese army said it had deployed extra troops and patrols in the Rmeish area in Lebanon, just 2km (1 mile) from the border, where a rocket launcher was found. UNIFIL said it was inspecting both sides of the border.

A security analyst and former UNIFIL member Timur Goksel said the attack did not bear characteristics of Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shi’ite guerrilla army and political movement that fought a 34-day border war with Israel in 2006.

But he said the attack was unusual, first because it was in a Christian village not usually a site of rocket launchings, and second because the weapon used was a longer range Grad missile that had better aim compared to the older, shorter rockets which are fired randomly.

“This looks more serious. The type of rocket and apparent targeting of settlements suggests they were not noisemakers, they actually hit something and didn’t mind causing casualties. This one could have caused huge mayhem,” he said.

The Israeli-Lebanese border has been largely quiet in recent years, though some have worried about a possible spillover of tension from a popular revolt in Syria against President Bashar al-Assad, and from a stiffening of Western sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

Syria, seen as the faultline for the region’s geopolitical balance and an ally of Hezbollah, has launched a crackdown to try to quell unrest. The U.N says some 3,500 people have died since March.

CALL FOR RESTRAINT

UNIFIL called for restraint. “This is a serious incident in violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 and is clearly directed at undermining stability in the area,” it said in a statement.

Israel said it was trying to establish who fired the rockets from Lebanon, but that it held the Lebanese government responsible and would deliver a complaint.

“The Lebanese government is responsible for everything that happens in Lebanon and everything that exits from its border,” Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said.

The Lebanese army said a rocket launcher was found in the Rmeish area of south Lebanon.

In Lebanon, security sources said the rocket fire hit Israel from an area between the villages of Aita Shaab and Rmeish. They said Israel fired four artillery shells in response, but they landed in fields and caused no damage.

An Israeli military spokesman said the rockets were the first fired since 2009 across the border.

“Several rockets hit western Galilee. The Israeli army considers the incident severe and is targeting the origins of fire,” said a statement from the military spokesman’s office.

Israel’s Ynet news website said residents saw plumes of smoke where the rockets struck.

[UPDATE] Rockets fired across Lebanon, Israel border Read More »

Second Palestinian convicted in Fogels’ murders

Leave a Comment / Is Featured?, Israel, News /

A second Palestinian man was convicted in the murder of five members of the Fogel family in a West Bank Jewish settlement.

Amjad Awad, 19, was convicted Monday in a military court for the March 11 murders in Itamar. His cousin, Hakim Awad, already was convicted and sentenced to five consecutive life sentences for the murders.

Both confessed to the murders; forensic evidence reportedly is available linking them to the crime scene.

The cousins murdered Udi Fogel, 36, and Ruth Fogel, 35, and their children, Yoav, 11; Elad, 4; and Hadas, 3 months, in a Shabbat eve attack on their home in the northern West Bank.

Three of the Fogel children survived the attack. Two were sleeping in a side bedroom and were not discovered, and a daughter was out of the house at the time of the killings. She came home to discover the bodies.

Second Palestinian convicted in Fogels’ murders Read More »

West Bank communities refuse blood drives over MDA deal

Leave a Comment / Israel, News /

Two communities in the West Bank refused to allow Magen David Adom to hold blood drives in their jurisdiction to protest MDA’s promise to the Red Cross to pull back operations in the West Bank.

Peduel and Tapuach, part of the Shomron Regional Council, instead organized a blood drive this week to send donations directly to a hospital blood bank in central Israel.

Under a 2005 memorandum of understanding signed by MDA and the Palestine Red Crescent Society with the International Committee of the Red Cross, MDA agreed not to operate in the West Bank as it does in pre-1948 borders Israel, and to remove the Star of David emblem from ambulances used in the area.

The memorandum has come to light in recent days.

“MDA will continue to operate as long as the state of Israel decides that there are citizens there. As it was yesterday, so it will be tomorrow,” MDA Director-General Eli Binn told Israel National News, a pro-settler news service, on Monday.

Volunteers from the West Bank have curtailed their hours in light of the memorandum and have replaced the Star of David on ambulances using decals.

In the memorandum, Israel is called an “occupier” and agrees that its ambulances can only be protected in Israel’s “internationally recognized borders.” The memorandum also calls on MDA to “ensure that it has no chapters outside the internationally recognized border of the state of Israel.”

West Bank communities refuse blood drives over MDA deal Read More »