The Strange Thing About Christmas in the Holy Land

Christmas is undoubtedly the biggest annual event in the world. Whether you are somebody who believes in the religious aspects of the festival, somebody who follows its traditions or somebody who does not believe at all, it is difficult to go through the December period completely unaware of Christmas.

Despite this fact, Christmas in the Holy Land is something of a non-event. This may be unsurprising as almost all of the citizens of Israel, Jews and Arabs, follow religions that do not believe in Jesus as the messiah, and do not celebrate Christmas. For those Christians who do celebrate the festival around the world, it is surprising that Christmas is hardly celebrated in the place where the story of Christmas actually began. Most Israelis have no idea of when Christmas occurs, or what it really means. In the years when the day falls on a weekday, it is a regular working day in Israel.

In recent years, Christmas has seen an influx of tourists to Israel. There are many pilgrims who wish to celebrate this special day by being in the places where Jesus actually spent his time, and where the best-known events of his life took place. Favourite spots include Nazareth, Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Bethlehem is under the control of the Palestinian Authority, and they ensure that the scene is properly set for the celebration of a midnight mass in Manger Square and in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for the many thousands of pilgrims who attend. Large numbers celebrate Christmas at the holy sites in the city of Jerusalem including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or by visiting the stations of the cross along the Via Dolorosa. Even though it is more traditional to visit the Jerusalem holy sites around the Easter holiday, many pilgrims can nonetheless be found in Jerusalem over Christmas as well.

Israel's holy sites play host to pilgrims from the three monotheistic religions. Under the Israeli government's policy, worshippers of all three religions have free access to their sites to celebrate festivals and at other times during the year. Whether it be Christmas, Ramadan or Yom Kippur, the sites are available to those wishing to visit in celebration of their own religious festivals. The policy of freedom to worship and celebrate festivals in Israel is so closely adhered to, that Christian pilgrims from Gaza were given permission to make the short trip to the West Bank to be allowed to celebrate Christmas in Bethlehem. With the recent security threats which have continued to originate from the Gaza Strip, this step is not insignificant. Naturally, it is also not something that the Palestinians would be keen to publicise for fear that Israel may have the opportunity to score some PR points.

For pilgrims visiting Israel over the Christmas period, being at the holy sites at this special time of year is certainly an unforgettable experience. They may, however, be disappointed when visiting shops and other parts of the country due to the complete lack of anything to do with Christmas. There are no decorations, tinsel or mistletoe to be found anywhere. For the majority of Israelis after all, it is a regular day like any other. Christmas decorations are more likely to be found in Israel during the festival of Succot when tabernacles are built and decorated. It seems to have become popular to recycle unsold Christmas decorations from last season to decorate the temporary booths that are constructed for this festival.

As a Jew who does not participate in all that is associated with celebrating Christmas, I feel good in the fact that other religions have freedom to visit and worship in our country. As long as they have respect for us and our land while here, I have no problem in allowing them free access to visit and worship as they wish. Besides bringing valuable tourist dollars to our economy, it epitomises the statement in our Declaration of Independence allowing for freedom of religion. It feels particularly good in light of our ability to rise above the poor manner in which these religions have treated Jews over the ages.

Playing Politics With the IDF Conversion Bill

With so many important matters confronting our government, I often feel really frustrated at the amount of time that seems to be wasted by politicians in playing needless political games. This is exactly the feeling that I have now watching the amount of time, effort and money that is being wasted in bringing the so-called IDF Conversion Bill through the Knesset.

The background to the story begins with what seems to be one of the great anomalies of the modern State of Israel. The Law of Return was enacted soon after the independence of Israel. This law is designed to give Jews an automatic right to take up citizenship in Israel without any need for a period of naturalisation. This was a particularly urgent need in the years following the Holocaust when so many Jews were displaced without being a citizen of any country, or who were citizens of countries that they were eager to escape from. The Law of Return grants the right to immediate citizenship of Israel to those who have one Jewish grandparent. The definition of those who have entitlement under the law, comes from the one that Hitler applied to those who he decided should be put to death under the "Final Solution". The definition is, however, at odds with the definition of a Jew under Jewish law. Under Jewish law (halacha), any person who has a Jewish mother is Jewish. This results in thousands of Israeli citizens, who have obtained citizenship under the Law of Return, who are not Jewish according to halacha.

This phenomenon particularly affects many of the immigrants who came from the countries of the former Soviet Union, and who increasingly found themselves hitting their heads against a bureaucratic brick wall as a result of their status as non-Jewish Israeli citizens. To them, it seems absurd that they are granted citizenship of a country, only to find that they are not treated as "full Jews" under the law. The great melting pot of Israeli society is the Israel Defence Force (IDF) and, as the IDF has seen more and more of these people coming through their ranks, they have decided to implement a program to allow those who wish to convert to Judaism during the course of their military training. Over the past eight to ten years, almost 5,000 soldiers have been converted to Judaism under the auspices of the IDF and its Chief Rabbi.

Recently, these conversions were brought into question by Israel's Chief Rabbinate, in its capacity as the national authority over all conversions to Judaism in Israel. This means that all those who were converted to Judaism during their military service, may find themselves being declared not "properly" Jewish if this is what the Chief Rabbinate decides. The status of 5,000 people is suddenly brought into question, and their lives thrown into turmoil. It seems that the reason for the Chief Rabbinate questioning the conversions has nothing to do with the process followed or the way in which the conversions were undertaken. We are told that they have found this all to be entirely kosher ! The reason for reopening these cases is seemingly all about power. The Chief Rabbinate needs to exercise the power which it has been granted on these issues, to ensure that the IDF Rabbinate does not exceed its own powers. The lives of the individuals concerned is nothing when compared to the necessity for these organisations to assert their power and authority.

The issue was brought to the Knesset when the Yisrael Beiteinu party,which has many of the IDF converts in its constituency of supporters, introduced a bill that will legally confirm these conversions and not allow them to be reopened by the Chief Rabbinate. Although I can fully associate with the party and its desire to represent the interests of its voters, the truth is that this issue should never need to be raised by the Knesset. This is an issue which can easily be sorted out between the Chief Rabbinate and the IDF, without Israel's legislature being forced to intervene. What makes things worse is the fact that the Shas party actually opposed the bill. The Shas opposition arises from the desire to strengthen Israel's Sephardi Chief Rabbi, who is also head of the conversion court. It seems as though the introduction of this bill is seen to be weakening his authority on this matter.

The Knesset battle is all about power. On the one hand, the converts and Yisrael Beiteinu are seeking to undermine the powers vested in the Chief Rabbinate, while Shas and its supporters are desperately working to strengthen them. Caught in the middle of this all is Prime Minister Netanyahu who has been forced to intervene, as the two parties opposing each other on the matter are both members of his governing coalition. A serious split on this seemingly insignificant issue could bring down the narrow coalition, and the government with it.

Irrespective of how the Knesset ultimately votes on this matter, it is shameful that precious government and parliament time needs to be devoted to this power struggle. While it may be true that the Chief Rabbinate formally has a power of veto on matters relating to conversions, there seems to be no logical reason why they could not come to an arrangement with the IDF to ease the path and future lives of the converts in question. Reopening conversions going back ten years seems to be a price that is too high to pay for the benefit of reinforcing the power of the Chief Rabbinate. The decision to do this has clearly been the wrong one. This is a classic case of power incorrectly exercised for personal gain.

For the record, the prime minister agreed not to enforce the coalition agreement (which binds members of government to vote in the way that the prime minister prescribes) for the purpose of voting on the IDF Conversion Bill, and allowed all members of the coalition to vote according to their conscience. The preliminary Knesset reading of the bill was passed by a large majority of 74 votes to 18. The significant issue of wasting valuable Knesset time has, however, not yet debated.

The largest issue at stake is the lives of 5,000 converts and their families. These are individuals who have come to Israel as new immigrants, and who have served the country with distinction by serving in the armed forces. This is the army that defends not only Israelis, but Jews around the world. It is right that those who have converted to Judaism according to the rules laid down, should be allowed to be secure in the knowledge that they are fully accepted within the Jewish fold. With so many Jews being lost to assimilation around the world, we can ill afford to disrespect and disregard those who choose to join the ranks, and who are prepared to put their lives on the line in the defence of the Jewish state. Jewish law requires us to respect converts to Judaism even more than those who were born Jewish. These converts deserve the greatest respect that we can give them.

Action or Reaction? The Rabbis' Ruling in Context.

A ruling initiated by the Chief Rabbi of Safed, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, has again served to split Israeli society along the religious-secular divide. The ruling prohibits Jews from renting their properties to Arab tenants. The ruling was initially signed by 18 rabbis, after which it was signed by a further 50 rabbis from across Israel, many of them municipal rabbis.

Rabbi Eliyahu and his followers have warned that renting Jewish properties to Arabs will deflate the value of their homes and the value of others in the neighbourhood. Further, the rabbis warn that the way of life of the Arabs is different to that of the Jews, and that there are those Arabs who are bitter and hateful to Jews and who will meddle in their lives to the point that they become a danger.

The ruling is undoubtedly racist, and can be seen as an act of incitement. How can such a ruling be justified in a democratic country? It certainly doesn't make for good news sound bites nor good public relations. It has prompted many citizens of Israel to speak out, and to call upon the Attorney General to take action against the rabbis in question. The fact that many of the rabbis are civil servants means that they can be held to account by the government that pays their salaries. In a region which is already volatile, statements like these rub salt in the wounds of the conflicts which rage on every front.

The current state of Middle Eastern politics is such that it is difficult to determine whether an individual action is merely intended as a provocation to make a point, or whether it is genuinely a response to provocations or attacks. Under these circumstances, it is possible to justify almost any action as being a valid reaction to unreasonable behaviour by the other side. Inevitably, any controversial act leads to a chain of responses which, if not controlled, can spiral out of control. The rabbis in this case are citing prior actions by Arabs as justification for their ruling. But how far can we go in using previous negative behaviour to justify current action?

Was the first action that began the conflict, the act by Abraham to expel Ishmael and Hagar from his family at Sarah's insistence? Ishmael went on to father the Islamic people while Abraham's son Isaac was in the chain of the Jewish people. This may, indeed, have been the start of the Middle East conflict as we know it. But how relevant is this in looking at the ruling of the rabbis in the year 2010?

When looking at the endless cycle of action and reaction, I am inclined to look back a short 63 years to the day when the United Nations approved the Palestine Partition Plan. It was on this day that the world's nations agreed to bring into existence the State of Israel as a Jewish democratic country. This was the original action - taken by a majority of the world's countries. This also gave rise to the original reaction, this time taken by the Arab nations. They immediately attacked the newly independent State of Israel with a view to destroying the Jewish state. Every act since then could be characterised as a link in the chain of reactions to the "original reaction". This includes the recent ruling by the rabbis which attempts to hang onto each and every part of the State of Israel for Jews. It is my contention that such a ruling would not be necessary, and may have not have been issued, were it not for the fact that the Arabs have been intent on destroying Israel and her Jewish citizens from the outset.

In this context, the rabbis' ruling is not entirely without basis or justification. It is probably true that renting apartments to Arabs will reduce the value of the flats in the neighbourhood. Many Jewish Israelis are reluctant to live next door to Arabs in view of terror attacks, and the assistance given by Israeli Arabs to Palestinian terrorists in their attempts to find civilian targets for their outrageous acts. These attacks have frequently led to Jews being killed and maimed. Nobody would wish to have people like that as their neighbours. Arabs have also been found to exploit such a situation by creating an infiltration of a Jewish neighbourhood which has frightened the Jewish residents away. This effectively leaves the neighbourhood free to be taken over the Arabs. In a land where possession is everything, such a tactic can have enormous consequences for the demographic make-up of the area. In short, the ruling of the rabbis can be viewed as a reaction to events that have been building over the last six decades.

Although there are many Israelis who have spoken out in objection to this ruling and the related statements by the rabbis, most of those who will read and judge the ruling are those living outside of Israel. They will interpret the ruling on the basis of the environment in which they live, and predicated on the experiences that they have in their own local neighbourhood. Statements like this would be wholly unacceptable in Europe or the Unites States. But life in these parts of the world is a million miles away from life in the Middle East, and it would be entirely inappropriate to judge events in Israel by the same standards.

The main problem with the ruling and similar acts is that it allows no optimism for the future. To feel optimistic, one needs to feel that the chain of action and reaction can be broken at some point, to allow the groundwork to be laid for a more normal coexistence. While restraint has previously been interpreted as weakness and exploited in the worst possible way, it will ultimately be the only way to coax peace out of the situation of war that we currently find ourselves in. The trick is to find the right moment to act tough in defence of your rights and your people, and the right moment to be flexible in the search for peace. This is, however, like a search for the Holy Grail.

Israel's Greatest Tragedy

Israel is fighting probably her greatest single disaster in her 62 year history. A fire continues to rage in the Carmel Forest on the outskirts of Haifa. The fire has destroyed thousands of acres of forestlands, has burnt down numerous homes including the devastation of an entire kibbutz, and has tragically claimed the lives of 41 people. Not only is this Israel's worst fire ever, it is also the largest loss of life in a single incident in Israel's history including natural disasters and terror attacks.

Is comes as something of a surprise that a country like Israel, which has been forced to fight numerous wars and stave off waves of terror attacks designed to threaten her very existence, ultimately finds that a fire results in greater loss of life. This has perhaps been caused by the fact that the winter rains, due already some time ago, have simply not materialised. The country has seen two short rain showers in the last nine months. It would be a gross understatement to say that the countryside is like a tinderbox. A small spark would be all that is needed to set the whole country alight.

The irony is that most of the lives were lost in an act of trying to save those who have been working to destroy Israel. The incident took place when the flames began to approach near to the Damon prison in the Carmel Forest which housed some 500 Palestinian security prisoners. The prison service mobilised all its forces to evacuate the prison in order to save those housed in the prison from the fire. Amongst those called to help was a group of cadets in training to be prison officers. They were put on a bus and immediately transported to the prison in the fire zone. The bus was held up along the road as a result of access restrictions caused by the fire. The driver was instructed to turn the bus around on a narrow road, at which point the fire caught up with the bus and engulfed it and its passengers. This single tragedy cost 36 lives of those endangering themselves to save the lives of those who wish to see us destroyed.

In the case of a disaster like this, it sometimes helps to draw strength from any positive aspects that may arise from the situation. We are fortunate in that there are a number of positives that serve to lighten the heavy burden borne by this tragedy. The first positive aspect is the response by outside countries to the call sent out for help. Prime Minister Netanyahu succeeded in overcoming a classic Israeli character weakness when he acknowledged that Israel cannot go this one on her own, and put out a call for international help. The response has been astonishing with many nations sending manpower or equipment to help in the efforts. These countries include Russia, Cyprus, Greece, the UK, the USA, Azerbaijan, Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, France and Spain. More surprisingly in view of regional politics is the help that has been provided by Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and even the Palestinian Authority. It is true that Israel has always been first to offer assistance to other countries in the wake of national disasters, even those who refuse to recognise Israel's place amongst the nations of the world. This has shown itself to be reciprocal in Israel's hour of need. We have much to be grateful to these countries for. It is clear that things would have been a great deal worse without their help.

The second positive aspect coming out of this natural disaster is the leadership shown by the prime minister and members of his government. In addition to reaching out to outside countries for help, Netanyahu has shown himself publicly to be in charge. He has held numerous TV news conferences to brief the country on the latest developments. He has shown himself to be fully up to date with all aspects of the fire, and has visited the fire scene daily to acquaint himself with facts on the ground. Today, the government's weekly cabinet meeting will be held in the Carmel Forest area in a show of unity with those who are threatened and have lost their homes. Netanyahu seems to have learned the lessons of the lack of leadership shown by President George W. Bush during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He has certainly not repeated that mistake.

The third positive point is the extent to which the Israeli public has pulled together to help and support those in the fire zone. Homes and community centres have been opened up and down the country to provide assistance to the 17,000 people who have been evacuated from their homes. Some of these people have lost all of their possessions as the fire swept through everything that they owned. Collections are taking place to provide the basic necessities to get these people through the next few days until they can get back onto their feet. It is true that the process of rebuilding will take more than simply a few days. It is, however, pleasing to see the willingness of others to help during their darkest days.

The long lines of traffic heading up to the fire zone are not only curious onlookers wishing to see first-hand the results of the fire's devastation. Many of these people are volunteers wishing to provide help and relief to the weary fire-fighters. Such is the indomitable spirit of people in this country that teenagers and young adults are lining up to go into personal battle against the fire. The fact that they are putting themselves into harm's way seems not to be a consideration. For them, it is more important that they offer their help rather than be concerned about their personal security. This was the spirit of Elad Riven z"l, a 16 year-old boy killed in the line of duty. Elad had been volunteering with his local fire department in Haifa as part of his high school personal obligation. All Israeli high school students are expected to undertake some voluntary work as part of their personal obligation to Israeli society. Elad could not see his colleagues from his local fire station deployed on the front lines without going to truly fulfil his personal commitment. It was here that his young life was taken alongside his senior fire-fighting colleagues.

Today, Israel will bury tens of its finest and bravest. This time not killed in the line of defending the country against the threat of war or terror attack, but killed in a fight against a natural disaster. The circumstances are different, but the spirit is the same. This is the spirit that says that nothing will be allowed to overcome the will to survive in our homeland.

Our condolences and heartfelt sympathy goes out to the families of those who have perished in this disaster. Yehi zichram baruch - may their memories be blessed.

WikiLeaks Heaven For Israel

We have only seen the tip of the WikiLeaks iceberg so far. The direction of the floe seems clear and there are already more than one or two embarrassed faces around. We have discovered from a 2009 cable released on WikiLeaks, that Libyan president Colonel Gadafi cannot manage to be away from his Ukrainian nurse, Galyna, described as a "voluptuous blonde". The US embassy staff in Tripoli speculated that she keeps him healthy in more than one way. We all know that diplomats like to gossip - is this not what they are paid to do? Perhaps some of us did not realise the extent to which they gossip, and what they are prepared to say in cables that were once assured of secrecy.

Having examined some of the recently released information from an Israeli perspective, I am fast coming to the conclusion that WikiLeaks is one of the best PR tools the Israeli government has accidentally come across. Almost all of the stories surrounding Israel, and particularly those connected to Iran, have served to substantially enhance Israel's world standing. The documents show that many countries are saying in private the things that only Israel has been brave enough to stand up and say publicly. More than this, it seems as though many countries are relying on Israel to undertake actions that will help them, without giving any public backing to Israel for these.

I was sure that Israel could not be the only country that recognised the threat presented by the Iranian nuclear program. I was astonished that, until quite recently, the USA seemed to be ambivalent about it, even going as far as supporting the Iranian claims that the program was intended for civilian purposes only. Finally, the Americans had the good sense to recognise the real threat that this Iranian development presents, not only to Israel, but to the entire free world. Perhaps it was the Saudi Arabians who convinced the Americans of the threat when calling on them to "cut off the head of the snake", as described in another WikiLeaks document. Not only has the USA finally recognised the threat publicly, Israel's position is further vindicated by the release of the WikiLeaks documents where some of the back channel information has been made public. The attitude of the Saudis, however, seems to the same as other countries in the region. Everybody appears to be waiting for Israel to do the dirty work on behalf of the rest of the world. Why should others risk their citizens and their army if Israel will do the work? Not only this, it is quite conceivable that the Saudis would come out publicly criticising such an attack, while privately thanking their lucky stars that there is a country like Israel which is prepared to stand up for what it truly believes.

The Emir of Qatar is quoted in a further WikiLeaks document as telling US Senator John Kerry that he can't blame Israel for mistrusting the Arabs. His sympathy for Israel is further supported by his privately-held (now publicly known) view that Israel has been under threat from the Arabs for so long, and this justifies Israel's lack of trust in the Arabs. This statement was made not long after he broke off what little ties there were between Israel and Qatar. Although no diplomatic relations exist between the two countries, there was an Israeli commercial mission in Qatar which was sanctioned by the Emir. He decided, however, to expel the mission when the Gaza War broke out.

These are only a few of the numerous examples of duplicity being shown towards Israel and now exposed by WikiLeaks. In public, Israel is forced to endure a great deal of criticism and humiliation. In private, many of those criticising Israel support the actions that Israel is taking against some of the world's bully-boys. The WikiLeaks revelations will go some way towards exposing these countries and their two-faced actions.

While the initial release of WikiLeaks documents seems to play into Israel's hands, it will be interesting to plot where this leads the future of information secrecy in the world of international politics. I wonder whether WikiLeaks will have the same impact on the world of international diplomacy that the Internet had on general information availability. Before the Internet revolution and the advent of search engines like Google, information was usually obtained by going to libraries or paying professionals to provide it. Now, it takes a few seconds via an Internet search. Will the release of documents by WikiLeaks ensure that diplomatic secrecy will be impossible to safeguard in the future? Will countries like Israel also come under pressure to make available political secrets? Probably not, but it may cause the whole secret world of international politics to become more transparent in the future.

For Israel, such a future is not very attractive. Particularly in its formative years, Israel was fortunate to be able to achieve a great deal using back channels. These dealings were only made possible by the secrecy with which such interactions were shrouded. Some of these back channels are still in operation today and will probably remain relevant as long as Israel continues to be in a situation where certain countries seek her destruction. This fact, along with the constant situation of war along her borders, necessitates secret dealings not visible to the general public in order to survive.

In the short-term, WikiLeaks has proved to be a gift from heaven for Israel. This benefit will be greatest if the established rules of international diplomacy do not change substantially in the future. If the world expects international politics to be played out more in the public eye in the future, the short-term gain for Israel may be translated into longer-term pain.

Shas Shows its True Face

Two interviews published in local newspapers with ultra-orthodox Shas member of Knesset Chaim Amsellem have served to publicly expose some of the inner workings and beliefs of the Shas parliamentary party in a way not previously seen. Although operating within a democratic environment, the religious parties in the Knesset have a distinctly undemocratic way of working, and this has been challenged in the open by Rabbi Amsellem.

Israel's proportional representation system requires each party contesting Knesset seats to submit its list of prospective members of Knesset prior to any general election. The way in which the order of the names on the list is determined varies from one party to another. In the case of the non-religious parties, democratic primaries are held in which party members vote for those who wish to be placed on the list. The position the list of each prospective member of Knesset is determined by the results of the party vote. In the case of the ultra-orthodox Haredi parties, and the Shas party in particular, the list is drawn up by the "Council of Torah Sages". In the case of Shas, this is a council headed by the party's spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and includes rabbis and "wise men" who are members of Yosef's inner circle. Their decision is final and no appeals against it are offered. This council represents the final word on all major issues concerning the party, including decisions about participation in a coalition and policy on many important issues. It is remarkably undemocratic in its workings considering the democratic environment in which it operates.

The rebel Shas member of Knesset came out criticising some of the policies followed by Shas in a newspaper interview conducted a few weeks ago. In his interview published in Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper, he condemned strictures against conversion, growing joblessness and army evasion among yeshiva students and an absence of non-religious education for children. These criticisms amount to an attack on the very foundations and beliefs of the ultra-orthodox world. Their type of Jew is one who will study religious texts as a vocation in order to promote the religion in the most literal sense. This means that there is no need for secular education at schools - there will be no use for subjects that are not focused on the religion in their ideal world. In addition, young men and women are encouraged not to enlist for the army, but rather to attend yeshiva where they will further their religious education. This also sets the pattern for their future lives as young men are encouraged to remain for the rest of their days in this religious framework at yeshivas studying the religious texts. They are able to gain exemption from the army via a special deal struck between the state and the religious institutions many years ago. They are able to continue studying at yeshivas thanks to stipends granted to them out of government money, to allow them to continue their religious learning indefinitely.

Amsellem has recognised the effect on Israeli society of following this policy, which has resulted in a dramatic growth in the number of yeshiva students in Israel. Limiting the education at primary and secondary school level ill-prepares young people for the challenges of daily life, irrespective of the vocation chosen. The policy also reduces the number of young men and women enlisting in the army. In its current situation of being constantly under threat of attack, Israel needs all the soldiers it can get. Once these young men and women get married and begin to raise children, there is an increasingly unmanageable burden on the state arising from the responsibility to fund their stipends without receiving any contribution in return from employment.

To add insult to injury, it turns out that many of the young yeshiva students are not suited to religious study and have no desire to pursue it. There seems to be no exception for these young people, and they are forced to toe the line and be squeezed into the religious framework despite the obvious problem that they have no place there. The ultra-orthodox system does not make allowances for these young people to find alternative vocations and paths for development, where they may seek a more appropriate way for them to make their contribution to society. Chaim Amsellem was speaking out not only against the sausage machine system and uniform path expected from all Haredi young people, he was also speaking out in favour of directing these people towards a life that will allow them to have a useful place in society. This does not mean that they will be forced to leave the religious fold. On the contrary, their religious convictions may be strengthened by virtue of the useful contribution that they can make and the happier place they can have in society.

Unfortunately, the Shas leadership does not view things in the same way as Rabbi Amsellem. They were particularly unhappy about the manner in which he expressed his views, and the Council of Sages decided to expel him from his Knesset seat and from the party. By choosing him to be one of their members of Knesset, they expect him to toe the line. Failure to do so gives them the right to remove him from the list, and they did not hesitate to take action. Amsellem, however, took his rebellion against the party hierarchy to the next stage and has refused to relinquish his seat. Together with this, he issued his harshest criticism of the Council of Torah Sages yet. He expressed the view that each Knesset member should have the right to speak his or her mind, and that the upper echelon of spiritual leadership should be sticking to its role in the religious world and should not be meddling in politics. He accused the party's leadership of trying him in a "kangaroo court" where he had no opportunity to present his own views or defend his position.

Support for Rabbi Amsellem's position has not only come from the secular world. It seems that there is an increasingly large constituency of Shas supporters who agree with his view, but may be afraid to express it. Amsellem has now given these people a voice to express their opinions and frustrations. While many of them may not be minded to challenge the revered position of the Council of Torah Sages, they would be delighted to be given an opportunity to find a vocation that can give them a useful position in society that can bring greater value to themselves,their families and the State of Israel.

In dealing with Amsellem's revolt in this way, the Shas party hierarchy has shown its true colours. While working for the benefit of its own constituency and special interest group, the Shas party frequently works against the better interests of the State of Israel and her people. A country of little more than 6 million people cannot afford to carry passengers who do not serve to defend the national security of the country, nor contribute anything to her economy while all the time sucking on the state coffers. It is my hope that Rabbi Amsellem can succeed, not only in hanging onto his Knesset seat, but also in mobilising similar thinking people within his community to change the face of Shas and other ultra-orthodox parties alike.

How Relevant is NATO to World Security?

Member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have been meeting in Lisbon over the past few days. This meeting of member countries is regarded as one of the most important meetings of NATO in recent times, as its purpose has been to define a new mission statement, and to sign up to a new strategic doctrine for the next decade. But how successful has NATO been in addressing the real security needs of its 28 member states, and how relevant is NATO in our current world order?

NATO came into being as an organisation for military cooperation in 1949, when the first 12 member states from Western Europe, Scandinavia, the USA and Canada signed an agreement in Washington DC. The parties agreed that an armed attack on one or more NATO members in Europe or North America would be considered an attack on all members. Under such circumstances, all member states would be obliged to assist the member under attack, although the nature of the assistance was left quite vague. It did not necessarily oblige member states to respond with military action against the aggressor in helping its fellow NATO members. This key concept was articulated in Article 5 of the NATO charter.

In the early years of NATO, it proved valuable in forging cooperation between the defence forces of the member states. This allowed for the standardisation of many pieces of equipment in use, and many processes and practices employed by the military. It created "best practice" across many military forces. NATOs first real test as an organisation came with the Korean War in 1950. The threat posed by the Communists forced member states to make available a NATO force, and the forced the organisation to formalise the way in which it ran itself. The Soviet Union was refused membership of NATO in 1954, and this resulted in the USSR setting up its own rival to NATO. The establishment of the Warsaw Pact to stand up to NATO laid the groundwork for the Cold War, which lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. NATO's first Director-General, Lord Ismay, once famously stated that the organisation's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". The Warsaw Pact was eventually dissolved in 1991, thereby removing NATO's main adversary and perhaps part of its reason for existence.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought into question NATO's relevance in the modern era of conflict and military threat. NATO took an active role in the Balkans War where NATO forces operated against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The attack on US soil on September 11, 2001 resulted in NATO invoking Article 5 of its charter for the first time in its history. The attack on the US was considered an attack on all NATO members, and NATO responded by joining US forces in the war in Afghanistan. This war has occupied NATO for the last decade.

The Lisbon meeting seems to have been dominated by concerns of NATO members as to how their forces can be extricated from the quagmire of the war in Afghanistan. Afghan president Hamed Karzai also attended the NATO meeting to engage in this discussion. The difficulty in the relationship between NATO and the Afghan government was reflected in a difficult meeting earlier in the week between Karzai and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus. Karzai has expressed concern about certain tactics employed by NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan. Although the war in Afghanistan has cost NATO member countries huge sums of money to support and significant loss of life to its soldiers, it has at least provided some relevance to NATO as an organisation over the past decade. This relevance is waning, and could run out completely with the approach of the the targeted withdrawal date of NATO forces from Afghanistan in 2014 or 2015.

To help define NATO's role in the future, NATO asked former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to assemble a committee of experts and to draft recommendations for NATO's strategy over the next ten years. The Albright document makes interesting reading, not only for what it does say, but specifically for what it does not. In my view, it is far too bland and reflects a lack of willingness to tell things as they really are. In following this path, NATO runs the risk of being irrelevant and not addressing the real security and military risks confronting its member countries.

Interestingly and tellingly, the Albright committee document is indirect and weak when addressing the threats on NATO members arising from the Middle East. Although there is a reference to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and her other neighbours, Albright's document calls upon NATO to be involved by adding value to dialogue groups in the region. This is tantamount to avoiding the issue at all. Considering that many security experts have gone as far as labelling this conflict as having a substantial impact on the stability and security of the free world, the recommendation of the NATO experts is surprising. More than this, the experts call upon NATO to help to implement a peace agreement consistent with conditions that have been laid down. There is no reference to playing a role in getting to this agreement. Is this something that does not interest or affect NATO as an organisation?

Most interesting of all is the way in which the nuclear threat posed by Iran is addressed. The document simply says that the allies should be open to discussion with its partners on the implications of a possible nuclear breakout by Iran. Surely, this is the world's greatest military and security threat. Considering the fact that most NATO members are situated in Central and Western Europe and, fall quite neatly into Iran's missile range, it is my view that NATO is simply ignoring the greatest threat to its member countries and to world peace. When adding to that its unwillingness to recognise the threat posed by Iranian proxies in the Middle East in the form of Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and others, NATO risks making itself completely irrelevant to its member states. One of the requirements for membership of NATO is that members must be democratic countries. As the only democratic country amongst a sea of nations seeking the downfall and destruction of NATO members, Israel is surely a natural ally and partner for NATO. Ignoring this fact risks the relegation of NATO to the trash heap of history.

One of the driving forces behind this policy of ambivalence is surely Turkey's membership of NATO. Once, Turkey was a critical member of the organisation in that it gave geographical access to locate missiles in critical positions to counter the threat of the Warsaw Pact. These days, Turkey's position on the world political stage is much more threatening and less in line with its NATO allies than ever before. Having had its approaches for membership to the European Union rebuffed, Turkey is increasingly moving into the clutches of its ally Iran. Both countries share the fact that vast majority of their populations are Muslims. Previously this was not a major factor, and now it is not politically correct to point it out. The truth, however, is that this is an increasingly important issue when evaluating the military and security risks of the modern world. Turkey has shown its true colours in recent months by working in NATO to prevent the sharing of critical security information with Israel. Such an act weakens the security of the vast majority of NATO members, and shows that Turkey's continued membership of the organisation, while moving increasingly closer to Iran, is a direct conflict of interests.

Since it came into being in 1949, NATO was never really called upon to exercise its main objective as set out in Article 5. Even though the article was invoked in 2001 for the first time, the circumstances in which the article was exercised were completely different from the situation that was envisaged 60 years ago. The attack on a NATO member was not by the army of a country, but by the army of a renegade terrorist group representing one of the world's major religions. NATO may now have agreed upon its strategy for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it has failed to show what relevance the organisation will thereafter. The threat from Russia is long gone, and NATO now has the chance to establish itself a strong position in protecting its members from the Islamic threat. Attacks on London, Madrid, New York, Washington and other locations on the soil of NATO countries have already shown NATO to be ineffective against this threat so far. There is still time to respond to it by recognising the problem and taking actions to protect members against it. Failure to do so will, however, prove NATO's irrelevance, and ultimately spell the end of the organisation.