fbpx

May 21, 2012

Israel summons South African envoy over product labeling

Israel’s Foreign Ministry summoned the South African ambassador to Israel over the publication of a notice announcing a ban on labeling as Israeli products that originate from the West Bank.

Ismail Coovadia was scheduled to visit the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem on Monday; no announcement was made by that night on whether such a meeting had taken place.

The Foreign Ministry was unable to call in Coovadia on Sunday because he turned off his cell phone, according to reports.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor called the South African decision to affix special labels on West Bank goods “racist.”

‘‘This is singling Israel out on a clearly political and national basis. This decision has racist characteristics,” Palmor said. “The government of South Africa does not clarify in the new regulation what is defined as made in Judea and Samaria. The European Union has a list and clear criteria to distinguish between products made in Israeli settlements and those that are not. The vague phrasing in the South African regulation shows that there are no clear criteria and therefore it will hurt Israeli products in general. “

Palmor added that Israel has not received any information on the matter from the South African authorities.

A spokesman from the South African Department of International Relations refused to comment on the issue, saying only that the ambassador would visit the Foreign
Ministry in Jerusalem for consultations. ‘‘This is a notice issued by the trade ministry, therefore the matter lies within their responsibility,’’ the spokesman emphasized.

Mary Kluk, national chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, issued a statement Monday saying that South African Trade Minister Rob Davies’ decision has transformed a technical trade issue into a political one.

‘‘This decision was taken by the minister based on his communications with lobby groups that have a pronounced anti-Israel political agenda,” Kluk said. “He has repeatedly declined to meet with the South African Jewish Board of Deputies in this regard.”

Kluk told JTA on Sunday that the Jewish community plans to submit its reservations on the proposal in the coming days. Jewish community leaders are deliberating with a legal team and intend to pursue the matter vigorously, she said.

Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat spoke with the heads of the Jewish community in South Africa and encouraged them to act on the matter, and to pressure other members of the government to distance themselves from the trade minister’s decision.

Livnat visited South Africa two months ago and met with her counterpart, Paul Mashatile. The minister told Livnat that his country will not promote sanctions against Israel.

Israel summons South African envoy over product labeling Read More »

Beinart-Suissa Debate – Afterthoughts

In my introductory remarks to the Peter Beinart-David Suissa debate at Temple Israel of Hollywood last Wednesday evening (May 16), I said the following to help give political context to what we would be hearing from each speaker:

In a thoughtful piece published this past week, Professor Shaul Magid of Indiana University, wrote that the response and rancor around Peter Beinart’s book “The Crisis of Zionism” represented four broad groups in the American and Israeli communities – the ideological left and right and the pragmatic left and right. A brief word about each:

Those in the ideological left question the viability of a Jewish state preferring a liberal democratic state in a one-state solution; this means the end of the Jewish State of Israel.

The ideological right includes a combination of Zionist revisionists and theological messianists and understands territorial maximalism (i.e. a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea) as necessary for Jewish survival; this might mean the survival of a Jewish state, but this “Israel” would not be a democracy because the Jewish minority would rule over the Arab majority.

The pragmatic left often uses rhetoric from the ideological left but emphasizes the welfare of the Jewish people and the importance of a Jewish democratic State of Israel. They are concerned that the occupation of the West Bank is compromising Israel’s democracy. Included among these are J Street, Shalom Achshav, B’tzelem, and Peter Beinart.

The pragmatic right uses the rhetoric of liberalism but looks to Jewish history rather than theology and argues that security must be the over-riding priority for the Jewish state in any two-states solution. This group includes AIPAC, The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and David Suissa.

A few thoughts:

1. The debate was friendly and civil. Each speaker spoke and I asked questions. Peter Beinart answered every question I posed and addressed every claim David Suissa made. Peter’s remarks were factually based, nuanced, pro-Israel, pro-peace, critical of Palestinian terror and mistakes, critical of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, and pragmatically left.

2. David Suissa’s presentation was emotionally based, rhetorically charged, and avidly pro-Israel. He avoided answering two of my questions but eventually did, the first on the Arab demographic threat to Jewish democratic nationalism in a “greater Israel,” and the second on whether Jerusalem should serve as the capital of both Israel and Palestine in an end-of-conflict peace agreement.

3. I asked both men that if Israel and the Palestinians were unable to agree on a two-states for two-peoples solution, which would they prefer? (1) A single Jewish state over “greater Israel,” or (2) a partitioned land accommodating two states, Israel and Palestine. In #1, Israel’s Jewish character would be preserved but it would lose its democracy. In #2, Israel would be able to retain a Jewish majority and its democracy. Peter affirmed #2. David challenged the premise that Israel holding onto the land it currently controls would mean that there would be an Arab majority. He made this claim by excluding Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinians from a Palestinian state. The bottom line for David was that he did not accept partition of the land nor a shared Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine. Indeed, he seemed not to support two-states for two-peoples. That being the case, I mis-characterized him in my introduction as a part of the “pragmatic right.” Rather, David is likely ideologically right.

4. David claimed that only 1% of the West Bank is populated by Jewish settlements. The actual percentage is far greater because each settlement includes security zones surrounding it, and both the settlement and its respective security zone are part of land controlled by Jewish regional councils. Taking everything together, settlements in fact control 40% of the West Bank. Of that 40%, both ​B’tzelem ​and ​Settlement Watch of Shalom Achshav ​(two Israeli human rights organizations) claim that one third is owned by private Palestinians. Peter made these points during the debate, but he passed over them quickly and I felt it important to restate them here.

The debate between Peter Beinart and David Suissa reflects the vast difference of opinion and perspective that animates the discussion both within the American Jewish community and in Israel itself on the nature of the conflict and the possible solutions. One of my Israeli friends, a significant leader in the State of Israel, watched the debate and reflected that to solve this problem will require new and original thinking because the status quo is unsustainable for Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state.

I believe that Peter Beinart’s book The Crisis of Zionism is a must-read for anyone interested in peace, Israel’s security, viability and future.

View the entire debate here.

Beinart-Suissa Debate – Afterthoughts Read More »

Orthodox conversions in Israel down dramatically, study shows

Orthodox conversions in Israel are down by 31 percent over the past two years, according to a new report.

“Both demographic changes and bureaucratic hurdles have contributed to this change,” said Rabbi Seth Farber, director of ITIM: Resources and Advocacy for Jewish Life.

The ITIM study, released on the eve of Shavuot, in which Jewish tradition celebrates the conversion to Judaism of Ruth, shows that the total number of Orthodox conversions performed in Israel in 2011, including Jews from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopians, has been cut nearly in half since 2007.

There were 4,293 Orthodox conversions in 2011, compared with 8,008 in 2007. From 2008 to 2010, the number of Orthodox conversions fell from 6,221 to 4,645.

ITIM’s report also discussed other developments in conversion in Israel during the past year, including Israel’s inability to develop clear criteria for recognizing conversions from abroad.

“Despite the 2005 Supreme Court ruling which calls upon the Ministry of Interior to recognize the autonomy of local Jewish communities on issues relating to conversion, the State of Israel continues to make it difficult for converts to make aliyah,” according to the report.

“This is against the spirit of Jewish tradition,” Farber said.

The report will be placed on the table of the Knesset Immigration and Absorption Committee this week.

Orthodox conversions in Israel down dramatically, study shows Read More »

Knesset passes bill giving tax breaks to settlement donors

The Knesset passed a bill that provides tax benefits to Israelis who donate to West Bank settlements.

The bill, an amendment to the Income Tax Act, grants a 35 percent tax break on donations to nongovernmental organizations that encourage settlement anywhere in the country, such as the Negev and the Galilee, and including the West Bank.

A vote on the bill’s second and third readings passed the Knesset plenum Monday evening by a vote of 33 to 13. Several members of the Kadima party joined the opposition in voting against the bill.

Donors to non-Jewish settlements also receive the tax break.

Knesset passes bill giving tax breaks to settlement donors Read More »

Opinion: Teach children to be their own Internet filters

Tens of thousands of Jews filled Citi Field in Queens on Sunday and heard from haredi Orthodox leaders that the Internet should be avoided in the home at all costs and used sparingly at work, and then only with a filter blocking content that could be damaging spiritually.

Debate as you will what some may see as draconian edicts to protect the Jewish community from moral corruption. But at the heart of the matter is a question that should concern us all: How do we keep our children safe on the Internet?

We know that we cannot work around the Internet. Research from the Pew Foundation indicates that 54 percent of children say they go to Google first when they have a question, as opposed to only 26 percent who say they go to a parent and 3 percent to a teacher. Rather we must figure out how parents and teachers can make this important tool work safely and effectively for our kids.

The difficulty is that even the simple solutions are incredibly complicated. Powerful filters can block illicit images and material, but those filters often block out the good with the bad and limit far too much useful information. This solution has been discussed and debated on our own campus concerning Internet access in dormitories.

Some yeshivot have considered avoiding technology altogether and sticking with books and blackboards. But that would leave students without the digital competence required to succeed academically in college and beyond, not to mention that it would rob teachers of increasingly exciting and effective educational tools.

The only real answer is that as parents and teachers, we must instill in our children a strong value system based on Jewish morals and traditions that allows our children to become their own filters when exploring the Internet. That would be far more powerful than any protective software.

The onus is clearly on us because it seems that children will listen to our rules, at least when it comes to the Internet. Only three in 10 young people reported to a Kaiser Foundation survey that they are given clear rules about how much time they may spend using a computer, watching TV or playing video games. The average child with no rules spends more than three hours per day on such media. Those who are given rules spend considerably less time.

Yeshiva high school students said they would be receptive to rules. More than half of those surveyed by researcher Debbie Fox, director of the Aleinu Family Resource Center, a program of the Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, said that they would welcome more guidance from parents regarding Internet use.

These same students, in fact, said that they would be far stricter with their own future adolescent children regarding responsible Internet use than their parents, and would monitor their children much more closely.

The dangers of the Internet are not limited to challenging content. A 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation study showed that about half of students in grades seven through 12 said they do their homework with media open that do not pertain to their task at hand. In other words, about 50 percent of middle and high school students are doing homework with divided attention. And while some kids may believe that they are being more efficient, multitasking has been proven in adults to cause higher levels of stress and lower levels of efficiency.

While some kids can multitask well, it’s up to parents to actively determine if their children work more efficiently while doing so or while focusing on their work without interruption. Parents should collaborate with their children to test whether they are more efficient when not being interrupted or distracted, and then meter their background activity accordingly.

The greatest challenge of all, however, may be making sure that our kids completely separate from the Internet at times.  According to the Pew Foundation, 75 percent of American teens prefer texting to in-person contact with friends. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that this generation’s empathy levels among adolescents are significantly lower than those of previous generations.

It may seem that adolescents in every generation feel isolated and tuned out at some point or another. But it turns out that their computer habits may be compounding the problem. Parents need to teach children that some of their relationships must include direct face-to-face interaction without the distraction of text messages and cell phone calls.

While some of what occurred at Citi Field this past weekend might seem foreign, we must work to ensure that our students and our children can grow up as highly moral and successful Jewish digital citizens.

Dr. Eliezer Jones is the educational technology specialist at Yeshiva University’s Institute for University-School Partnership. Dr. David Pelcovitz is the Gwendolyn and Joseph Straus chair in psychology and Jewish education at YU’s Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration. For more information about safe Internet rules and guidelines, visit www.yuschoolpartnership.org/parentguidedigitalage.

Opinion: Teach children to be their own Internet filters Read More »

What Your Body REALLY Wants!

Being overweight is not a problem. It is a decision. One good or bad decision can have a dramatic ripple effect on the rest of your life. Anything that has the power to change our mental discipline can, and will, eventually have an effect on the decisions we make. Losing a loved one, a painful break-up, divorce, being laid off, having children, infidelity, big lifestyle changes, or trauma can derail a person’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being, and can cause him or her to make decisions that have powerful consequences.

A decision leads to action, which leads to the reality you experience, good or bad, fat or skinny. If your reality is flower-print mumus, type 2 diabetes, and a love affair with the pizza delivery guy, chances are, it’s time to make a different decision.

Winston Churchill said, “The Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” Well… haven’t you? You’ve tried Atkins, gone on the latest celebrity detox, counted calories and carbs and “points”, or gone the gym for four hours a day, every day for six months. That’s dedication! But none of it worked. Why not? The list is long, if you’ve got time. It costs a lot of money, takes a lot of time and energy, it’s boring and unhealthy, you’ll feel incredibly deprived, it feels like a second job, it’s just not sustainable, and all you’ve ever lost is your sanity.

Common sense would support the idea that if you eat less food, you’ll lose more weight, or that if you exercise more you will burn more calories and lose more fat. But our bodies don’t work this way, and neither do our brains. At least not in the long term. Our brains are driven by pain and pleasure. We want to avoid pain, and we want to experience pleasure, and we seek it out automatically and subconsciously.

When we don’t get adequate protein, dopamine levels drop significantly and we experience a mental fog. Many people believe that if they severely reduce their carbohydrate intake or remove them altogether, their body fat will be broken down when they exercise. Instead they are lowering their capacity to burn fat, and ultimately destroying their metabolism. The body will break down muscle to try and form carbohydrates, which raises stress hormone levels and causes carb cravings.

My advice to you is to make a new decision and end the struggle by feeding your body what it wants: a combination of lean protein, healthy fat, and complex high-fiber carbohydrates. For more tips, information, and weight loss products visit www.ExpressHomeTrainer.com.

What Your Body REALLY Wants! Read More »

Taking Back Our Souls, A response to sexual abuse

I have been getting many texts and emails asking me to weigh in on the latest New York Times article entitled, ” title=”Citi-Field Baseball Stadium” target=”_blank”> Citi-Field Baseball Stadium with the masses to discuss this issue openly and to apologize to every abused child forced into their own silence. I have personally experienced this pain and have had firsthand experience in dealing with the long term psychological trauma caused when a community attempts concealment as opposed to open dialogue. However, I wish not to speak of my own personal experience but rather on my own complex reaction to these heinous crimes and some thoughts on how we should build from it.  Thus, I am making my own Taking Back Our Souls, A response to sexual abuse Read More »

May 21, 2012

In pursuit of the president

The candidates for the Egyptian president reflect a cross-section of society, politics ‎and stages of modern history, writes Ahmed El-Tonsi in Al-Ahram Weekly.‎

The forthcoming presidential elections will witness a competition among three generations, as ‎well as between many candidates. The personalities of the latter and their popular images will be ‎major factors in determining the voting behaviour of the vast majority of Egyptians. Two ill-defined ‎forces will have a major impact on the selection of the next president: the youth forming more ‎than 60 percent of the voters and those voters casting protest ballots against the candidates of ‎Political Islam.‎

Tensions in Tripoli: The Syrian Crisis and its Impact on Lebanon

Syria’s ongoing violence is having a negative impact on already tense sectarian ‎divides in neighboring Lebanon, writes Benedetta Berti of the Institute for ‎National Security Studies. ‎

‎[T]he most severe byproduct of the Syrian crisis is the current rise of inter-sectarian ‎tensions. The recent violent confrontations inTripoli are a reflection of a largely ‎factionalized and polarized society, characterized by a growing Sunni-Shiite divide. ‎With the Sunni community largely backing the anti-Assad forces and the Shiites ‎standing behind Assad, the Syrian crisis has escalated the tones of already sour ‎political relations and the deep sectarian rift.‎

Will Turkey become our new-old best friend?‎

Paul Alster of the Times of Israel explores the reasons why Turkey’s abrasive prime ‎minister has stepped away from alliances with Tehran and Damascus and is taking ‎steps to mend fences with Israel. ‎

This easing of the tensions in the eastern Mediterranean is surely more down to ‎necessity on the part of the Turks than to a sea change in the attitude of their leader. ‎With the door to Europe slammed in its face, Syria and Iran remaining on the ‎international blacklist, no improvement in its relationship with Greece, and problems ‎on its eastern frontier with Syrian refugees and Kurdish separatists, Turkey is surely ‎keen to find friends in the region. Israel would be wise to make the most of the ‎opportunity, while, of course, exercising caution and only moving one step at a time.‎

Navigating the future of NATO

Writing in the Chicago Tribune, Madeleine Albright offers praise for the NATO ‎alliance, and takes a look at its current and future challenges. ‎

Since its founding, NATO has been important not only for what it does, but for what it ‎represents. In the aftermath of Hitler and in opposition to Stalin and his successors, the ‎alliance was both the symbol and the substance of Western democratic resolve. ‎Although in hindsight, this period may be thought of in glowing terms, in fact the ‎members of the organization engaged in continuous debates about tactics, mission and ‎burden sharing. NATO today is not explicitly aligned against any country, but it does ‎remain the best prepared and most potent group opposed to terrorism, international ‎aggression, and mass violations of human rights. This does not mean that NATO will act ‎in every crisis, but its potential to do so when called upon is an indispensable and ‎unique international asset.‎

Now we’ll never know the truth ‎about Lockerbie

With the death of the Libyan jailed for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, Robert Fisk ‎of the Independent revisits long-held beliefs that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi did not ‎carry out the 1988 attack that killed 270 people. ‎

I’ve gone through these files and I long ago concluded that they were devastating. There was ‎a Lebanese connection – probably a Palestinian one, too. And there was a press conference ‎in Beirut held by Ahmed Jibril, head of the pro-Syrian Popular Front for the Liberation of ‎Palestine General Command in which Jibril (born Palestine 1938), suddenly blurted out – ‎without ever having been accused of the atrocity – the imperishable words: “I’m not ‎responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They are trying to get me with a kangaroo court.” Of ‎course, there was no court, not then, just a bunch of pseudo-diplomats and journalists with ‎too many “intelligence connections”, who were fingering Syria for the Lockerbie crime.‎

 

May 21, 2012 Read More »

Opinion: Why American Jews need to criticize Israel

When a family member behaves self-destructively, what do you do? Do you become an apologist, an enabler, or do you call him out? Do you blame everyone else but him, or do you intervene? Do you sit back and just hope things will improve on their own, or do you take urgent action?

Israel is our family member. Most American Jews feel that way. My parents, Ethel and Philip Klutznick, instilled in their children a concern for and support of the young and emerging State of Israel. They first took my brothers and me there in 1959, when I was 16 years old. I remember meeting David Ben- Gurion, Israel’s founder and first prime minister. I have always been proud of the Jewish state. But it must be said: Israel’s leaders are giving Israelis—and American Jews—less and less of which to be proud and increasingly more to be concerned about.

Take democracy and the rule of law. Like most American Jews, I’ve always admired Israel’s democratic institutions. It has a Supreme Court that for years served as an international beacon of jurisprudence.  When an Israeli prime minister strays, he is forced to resign, and when a president is found guilty, he goes to prison. They are not above the law.

Yes, it is a relatively young democracy and it is operating under stress. But nothing can excuse the current Israeli government’s disdain for both the letter and the spirit of the law when it comes to unauthorized construction of settlements in the West Bank, in violation of Israeli law, often on land privately owned by Palestinians. Never before has an Israeli government so openly thumbed its nose at the law and at the Supreme Court in an effort to launder illegal actions of the settlers. Last week the Netanyahu government’s actions prompted leading Israeli jurists to sign a petition titled “the demise of the rule of law.”

Take Israel’s active and robust civil society. Groups such as Peace Now, who fight for peace, or groups that fight for Israeli minority rights or for Palestinian human rights, are faced with an avalanche of bills and laws, some endorsed by the government and some passed by the Knesset, which target Israeli non-profit groups that criticize government policies. Some bills target Israel’s Arab minority. Other bills target freedom of speech and even the authority of the Supreme Court.

Israel’s ruling coalition came to power through elections and presumes to represent most Israelis. An Israeli government, however, that is trying to turn majority rule into majority tyranny undermines democracy.  Don’t take my word for it. Visit the website of the Israeli Democracy Institute or the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

Or take the government’s lackadaisical approach to reining in militant settlers who attack not only Palestinian civilians but also senior Israeli officers in the West Bank. It is the extremist settlers’ way of deterring the removal of settlement outposts that were built in violation of Israeli law, and it works. Israeli officials have said repeatedly that they are reluctant to enforce the law in the West Bank because they fear the violent wrath of the settlers.

Israel faces many challenges, and I know there is no silver bullet to address them all. But I also know that Israel’s most appalling failure is not ridding itself of the occupation and achieving a two-state peace settlement with the Palestinians. Sure, the Palestinians bear a part of the responsibility for the diplomatic stalemate, but as President Shimon Peres and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin said recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu could have struck a two-state deal with Palestinian Authority President Abbas but chose not to. By denying Israelis the peace they deserve, Netanyahu and his government are bringing the Jewish state closer to becoming a binational state, closer to the destruction of the Zionist dream: a Jewish, democratic state in the land of Israel.

American Jews don’t pay taxes in Israel. We don’t serve in its army. We don’t vote there. But it doesn’t mean that we don’t have a say.  We have not only the right but the duty to support our brothers and sisters in Israel, such as Peace Now (Shalom Achshav), who disagree with the path their leaders are charting for them. We are our bothers’ keepers. We must act accordingly.

(James B. Klutznick, the co-founder and vice chairman of the Chicago-based Senior Lifestyle Corp., is the new chair of Americans for Peace Now.)

Opinion: Why American Jews need to criticize Israel Read More »

’60 Minutes’ Investigates Eden Cemetery Allegations

In September 2009 The ” title=”Service Corporation International” target=”_blank”>Service Corporation International, owner of ” title=”60 Minutes segment” target=”_blank”>“60 Minutes” segment that aired May 20, Anderson Cooper took a broader look at problems raised about SCI at some of the 1,800 funeral homes and cemeteries it owns.

Cooper looked into cases where SCI double sold plots, then exhumed existing graves when the new body arrived.

While funeral homes are federally regulated, cemeteries are regulated on a state level, leading to often patchy oversight, according to Cooper’s report.

Joshua Slocum, executive director of the ” title=”law suit,” target=”_blank”>law suit, filed by Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti, LLP, in Newport Beach, testified that some 200 bodies were disturbed or moved. But SCI says its investigation found problems with four graves, and the situations were handled directly with the families.

SCI, which did not comment on camera for “60 Minutes,” told the Jewish Journal in January 2012 that it follows protocol and properly handles human remains.

“We have different versions of what happened than the plaintiffs do,” SCI spokesperson Lisa Marshall said. “We are continuing to prepare for our day in court.”