Carrying the Blame for the Breakdown of the Peace Talks

I am not too bothered that Israel has been blamed for the breakdown of the peace talks with the Palestinians.  I don't believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu will be overly concerned about this either.  Despite US Secretary of State John Kerry's denials that he is blaming Israel for the breakdown of the talks, he is quoted as saying that the peace talks broke down because Israel was not prepared to release the final group of 26 Palestinian prisoners.  When referring to the unilateral action taken by the Palestinian Authority to apply to 15 international organisations and treaties for membership, Kerry said that this is a response to the breakdown of the talks.  Maybe he did not mention the specific words that Israel is to blame, but his references seem quite clear where he is laying the responsibility.

There are a few reasons why I am unconcerned about the inappropriate attribution of blame.  Firstly, we have witnessed over the years that the stigma that may be associated with blame of this type, does not necessarily stick for too long.  We saw the openly hostile and dissenting attitude displayed by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David, where he rejected any form of compromise agreement out of hand.  He later managed to turn this situation around in a such a way, that it was difficult to believe that he had torpedoed the talks.  He succeeded in convincing the subsequent American administrations that he was genuinely seeking peace, despite having shown in no uncertain terms that this was not his intention.  All was quickly forgotten.  We are currently witnessing this form of political amnesia with the events in Crimea.  It was only a few weeks ago that the US, NATO and other western countries were up in arms over Russia's invasion of Crimea.  Now, despite ongoing criticism of Russia's belligerent behaviour on the Ukrainian eastern border, the world seems to have completely forgotten Crimea.  The Russian invasion is a fait accompli.

It is my view that Prime Minister Netanyahu acted exactly correctly in refusing to release the final group of prisoners.  If this means that Israel has to carry the blame, then so be it.  I think that Netanyahu was correct to embark upon the path to try to seek out a peace arrangement with the Palestinians, despite all indications that this was likely to be a futile exercises.  I think that he was correct to split the prisoner release into 4 separate stages, even though I question whether he was correct to agree the unilateral release of prisoners without any tangible equivalent steps on the part of the Palestinians.  Having insisted upon splitting the prisoner release into 4 stages, the prime minister was obliged to consider at each stage whether proceeding with that stage was in the best interests of Israel and her people.  All things considered, I would already have stopped things at the third stage.  The fact that he stood up to the international community and refused to release the fourth group, however, restored some of my confidence in him.

The prime minister has the obligation, on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, to seek out any possible way to peace that he can find.  In that sense, when John Kerry showed serious intention of finding a way to peace despite the conditions and circumstances not looking quite right, Netanyahu took the gamble.  He even agreed to the highly controversial step of releasing prisoners with blood on their hands, something that not everybody concurred with.  He went the extra mile to show intent and goodwill, in the interests of granting the gift of peace to our children and grandchildren.  The mistake in taking this step, was that the US interlocutors somehow did not value this step in the same way as Israel did.  For the country that has detained prisoners without trial in Guantanamo Bay for years, it seems strange that this demand was taken so for granted by the US.  I feel sure that the US would never have agreed to a similar step, perhaps not even in the pursuit of the elusive peace that we seek.  The decision for Israel to release prisoners who have been tried and found guilty of murder and terror acts, is not an easy one.  When it became clear that the peace talks were not progressing in a positive direction, Netanyahu did the right thing by cutting his losses.

History will yet judge Netanyahu's decision in entering into the peace talks, in releasing 78 prisoners, in insisting that he maintains some control over the process by continuing to approve construction in the West Bank, and in refusing to release the final group of 26.  It will also judge his attitude towards the substance of the talks, as well as judging the actions taken by the Palestinians.  I believe that trying and failing, is better than not trying at all.  This is especially true when it comes to matters of strategic national interest such as the peace talks.  I trust that history will judge him accurately, and not concur with the Kerry version of laying the blame.

Chag Pesach sameach.

Recognising Israel as a Jewish State

In the context of the on-again off-again peace discussions between Israel and the Palestinians, one of the most public issues of disagreement surrounds the insistence by Israel that the Palestinians recognise Israel as Jewish state, and the Jewish homeland.  Is this a valid demand, or is Prime Minister Netanyahu simply using this demand as an excuse to create a roadblock in the process?  What advantage would such a recognition bring to Israel, and to its relationship with a future Palestinian state?

There seems to be much public disagreement over this demand, with most Israelis supporting the prime minister's insistence that our neighbours (and those around the world) be prepared to publicly acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.  But how justified is Israel to demand that the international community should recognise it as a Jewish state.  Most countries around the world are happy to be simply recognised as a country by their name, with some adding the nature of the country's government to its name such as kingdom or republic.  Despite the opposition voiced by the Palestinians, there is a precedent for countries adding the predominant religion to their names as in "The Islamic Republic of Iran" or "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan".  Even though the international community has not always liked the activities of these Islamic republics, there has never been a question about recognising them as Islamic republics.  So why should there be any problem with recognising Israel as a Jewish state, even without adding this to its name?

The nature of Israel as a Jewish state has been a public matter since even before the State of Israel was established.  The Balfour Declaration, in which the British government ackowledged in 1917 that it viewed "with favour the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people", was only one of many public statements made about the nature of Israel as a Jewish state.  Of course, the "Palestine" referred to by Balfour is modern-day Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and even includes Jordan.  UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was passed in November 1947, and includes reference in Part I A3 to independent Arab and Jewish states coming into existence in the area formerly known as Palestine.  Israel's Declaration of Independence was unequivocal in declaring Israel as the Jewish state  when it says, "... declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as The State of Israel".  It could not be much clearer.  So, what drives the Palestinians need to deny this, and what gives them the right to change a decades-old reality?

The Palestinians have never admitted publicly why they wish to deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, but I speculate that it is connected to the issue of the return of the refugees.  This is a highly controversial matter that continues to be one of the points for discussion in the peace talks.  During the War of Independence in 1948, approximately 700,000 Arab residents of the nascent State of Israel fled their homes.  This was despite the invitation by the new Jewish government of the state for them to remain in their homes, and take up citizenship of the new state.  Those who chose to stay have enjoyed a relatively comfortable existence as citizens of Israel, with all democratic rights that flow from that.  Those who fled, on advice from the Arab leadership, were advised that they would have the opportunity to return triumphantly to reclaim their properties and to reclaim all the land which is the State of Israel.  That triumphant moment never came, and the refugees remain cooped up in refugee camps in countries on Israel's borders to this day.  Of the original generation of refugees, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 still remain.  The descendants of the refugees now number around 5 million.  They have been kept in these camps as a form of pressure on Israel and the international community to allow the refugees to return to their original homes.  With 5 million people now part of the discussion, there is clearly no prospect that Israel will admit them as citizens of the State of Israel.  There is a discussion, however, about how this problem will be resolved such that these people will be given permanent homes and citizenship.  It is likely to be a combination of some moving to the West Bank, with others being naturalised in the countries in which they currently live, and in which most of them were born.  The connection between this issue and the issue of recognising Israel as a Jewish state, is that the act of recognising Israel as a Jewish state effectively means that the Palestinians will give up on any claim to move refugees of any significant number into Israel itself to return to the  homes in which they once lived.  The Palestinian leadership does not seem to be ready for this yet.

There are those who ask why Israel continues to insist that the Palestinians formally recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, when this same requirement did not form any part of the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt.  I believe that the answer to this is that the Jordanians and the Egyptians never doubted this.  The reason why they were at war with Israel is because it is a Jewish state, and the reason that they were finally prepared to reach a peace agreement with Israel was because they were prepared to accept this fact.  The recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel was the fundamental basis of the peace agreements.  The agreement with the Palestinians is much more complex, and is based on many other substantial points that are yet to be agreed.  The reason why Prime Minister Netanyahu is making a big issue out of recognising Israel as a Jewish state, is exactly because the Palestinians deny it.  I believe that most citizens of Israel would support the position that he takes.

When countries are founded and nations created, there is usually a common bond that connects the people in that country.  The common thread that connects Israelis who have come from all four corners of the earth over the past 66 years, is the fact that they are Jewish.  The majority of the citizens in Israel identify themselves as Jewish, and there is no way of denying this.  This is the will of most of the citizens, and any national agreement entered into with a party that denies this fact will not have the support of the citizens of Israel.   Now that this issue has such a high public profile, with the Palestinians continuing to be ambiguous about their recognition of Israel's Jewish character, many citizens of Israel would demand that the Palestinians unequivocally acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state before any agreement is signed.

The issue of recognising Israel as a Jewish state has been brought to the forefront of the peace talks.  The reason for this is really not clear, as the Palestinians have not explained why they object to this recognition.  For Israelis, the fact that they are objecting is cause for concern, and reason to insist that no peace deal can be signed without it.  This is surely the most basic requirement for any neighbour of Israel which wishes to respect Israel's existence according to the will of the majority of her citizens.

Hiatus

Afer taking a break from writing blogs for a few months, I will be posting a new blog soon.

I have recharged my batteries, and am ready to share some more of my views on the ever-interesting situation in Israel and the Middle East.  Even though I have not written for a while, the material continues to accumulate and  I am not short of interesting topics to write about.  I have some quite definite views to express about the recent events.  Stay tuned to hear more.

Thanks to my readers for continuing to check in, and for being patient during my period of hibernation.

Watch this space for more .....

The Case in Favour of Acting Against Syria

The UN weapons inspection team has left Syria, after completing its investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria in an attack a couple of weeks ago.  Following the horrific scenes that were splashed across our TV screens and strong intelligence corroboration, it is difficult to anticipate that the UN team will conclude that no chemicals were used.  Indeed, there has been strong intelligence and media information to suggest that this is not the first chemical attack in Syria over the past couple of years.  With reports that 1,000 were killed in the most recent attack, however, it is by far the most serious use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War so far.

Not only is the use of chemical weapons abhorrent to all sensible people, it is also outlawed by a number of international treaties and UN resolutions.  Syria's use of chemical weapons is an anathema to anybody who has any sensitivity to human suffering.  It is also an act that is objectively illegal in terms of international law.  The fact that these weapons were used by a government on its own people, is a fact that is extemely difficult to understand.  People should ordinarily be defended against terrible attacks like this by its national government, in the same way as young children should be defended by their parents.  When the parents are guilty of causing damage to the children, an outside body needs to be available to step in to protect those who are innocent and have no others to protect them.  The same is true of the situation in Syria.  This is the moment for the international community to step in, and protect the innocent men, women and children of Syria from being hurt by their own government forces.  It is also the moment for the international community to send the message that contravention of international law has consequences.

For Israelis and for Jews, the requirement for the international community to act is a much more personal issue.  The dithering of the international community in situations like this almost always evokes the parallel of the failure of the international community to act against the Nazi genocide machine.  International forces were implored to bomb the train tracks that led to the Auschwitz extermination camp, but refused to do so.  Millions of lives were lost as a result.  Jews can never forget this failure to respond.  For Jews living in Israel, it goes even further.   Failure to act against Syria could put Israel's security at direct risk.  There can be no doubt that Syria is watching to see if the world responds to this event, as a precedent for how it may behave in the future.  Syria's benefactor, Iran, is also watching with eager eyes.  Until now, Iran has been allowed to develop its nuclear weapons program with impunity.  By seeing that the international community does not respond to protect innocent people and international law when required, Syria and Iran will be led to understand that they have a free hand to do almost as they please in the future by virtue of the failure on the part of the international community to respond.  This is a message that we cannot afford to send.

It is understandable that the major world powers are war-weary, and are not seeking to open a new front after having fought harsh and costly battles in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.  Their reluctance to get involved in Syria is all the more understandable after it transpired that the Second Gulf War was instigated after publication of faulty intelligence information.  These events damaged reputations, and harmed the trust that was placed in world leaders at the time by their citizens.  Nobody amongst the current world leaders wishes to repeat these mistakes.  The British House of Commons has already voted, and rejected British military participation in Syria.  President Obama confounded even his closest advisers by deciding to seek the approval of Congress before taking action in Syria.  This approval is by no means assured, despite the strong conviction on the part of the president that action is required.  The American people, and Congress, needs to be more convinced that this will not end up being another Iraq or Afghanistan for US troops.  Somehow, world leaders need to be able to to sell the importance of intervention in order to get the support of their local constituencies.

There are a number of precedents in recent years for short, sharp operations that do not draw foreign troops into a protracted war.  Libya is one example that springs to mind.  This would surely be a good template to use in Syria.  It represents a sound solution that will mean the international community responds to unacceptable behaviour, while foreign forces are not drawn into protracted commitments in faraway countries.  The objective of such an operation will surely be to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons still being stored in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other countries. Such an action will make the region and the world a better and safer place.

The IDF remains on high alert in anticipation of a possible US strike on Syria.  For Israel, such a strike is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand it sends a message to Syria and Iran that the US remains ready and willing to intervene militarily in the region if rquired, and also will possibly destroy stockpiles of dangerous weapons held on Israel's borders.  On the other hand, a strike on Syria by the US will almost certainly elicit a strike on Israel by Syria.  Syria will not wish to have its honour publicly dragged through the mud by the US in the case of a strike by it on Syria.  The only realistic way for Syria to retaliate against the US is to strike its closest regional ally, Israel, in response.  It is for this reason that the IDF is on high alert, and the reason that many Israelis are opposed to a US strike on Syria.  By the US turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Israel will be assured a greater prospect of peace and quiet in the short-term.  In the longer-term, however, this would be a much more dangerous situation.  Syria will continue to build its stockpile of chemical weapons on Israel's border, and will continue to understand that they can use them with impunity and without necessarily being held to account.

In spite of the obvious short-term threat to Israel, it is my view that US and the international community needs to step in to respond to these actions as a matter of priority.  Syria cannot be left in any doubt about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons.  This will also send a clear message to Iran about the willingness of the international community to intervene when required.  I have every faith in the IDF, and its ability to repel any attack that Syria may launch on Israel in retaliation to a US attack on Syria.

Any action of war should be taken seriously, as it always results in people being killed.  Even if the US manages to undertake a short, sharp and concentrated attack on Syria, it will inevitably result in loss of life. This may even risk Israeli lives depending on how Syria chooses to respond.  I have no doubt, however, that this is preferable to the alternative which allows Syria to believe that it has free reign to behave as it pleases in the future.  Actions involving chemical weapons should always have consequences, and this is no exception.  Teaching Syria (and Iran) this lesson now, will ensure greater regional stability in the longer-term.

Poacher Turned Gamekeeper

New Israeli finance minister Yair Lapid is learning that it is much easier to be criticising from the sidelines, than it is to be taking action from within the government.  Having spent much of his life as a journalist and TV presenter which had him criticising governments and government policy, his switch into politics has given him the opportunity to prove his own credentials.  The poacher turned gamekeeper is discovering that life in the political goldfish bowl is not quite as easy when he is having to fend off the arrows, as it was when he was shooting them.

Lapid has finally presented his budget for 2013-2014 for government approval.  When he was playing politics from outside governmental circles as a journalist, he was mostly focused on what the government was doing to improve social equality, and to address the needs of the weakest elements of Israel's society.  In his position as the minister of finance, he now knows that this nut is a tough one to crack.  How does a responsible government work to improve social equality, while also working to close the huge budget deficit and finance the mountain of government debt all at the same time?  The resulting budget prepared by Lapid and approved by the Knesset is much more about fiscal responsibility, than it is about helping the poor and the weak in Israeli society.  It includes increased tax rates, increased VAT, increased taxes on alcohol, tobacco and other luxury goods, and huge swathes cut from government spending.  Even the hallowed defense budget had three billion Shekels cut from it.  The result of this is that Lapid's popularity has dropped dramatically since he assumed his job as minister of defense.  In mid-April, Lapid was the most popular politician in Israel, topping even Prime Minister Netanyahu.  By the time May rolled around, Lapid found himself the target of anti-government street protests promoting social equality.  His popularity has steadily plummeted in the process.

The job of Israeli finance minister is something of a thankless task.  This is especially true for a finance minister who wishes both to promote economic stability and growth, while also helping the weak and vulnerable.  The difficulty was emphasised by reports that were published recently about key aspects of Israel's economy.  A report published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has placed Israel first in poverty rate amongst developed nations.  The report said that one in five Israelis live in poverty, and one in three Israeli children live in poverty.  Israel's State Revenue Administration of the ministry of finance published its own report which showed that half of Israeli wage-earners do not earn enough to pay tax.  Given that the tax threshold in Israel is NIS 4,700 (less than US$ 1,300) per month, this is a sad statement about the conditions that people are forced to work in.  When considering that unemployment in Israel is at a relatively low 6.9%, there is not a great deal of hope that the economic situation can improve dramatically by some miraculous boost to the number of people in work.  The Boston Consulting Group published a statistic of its own when it said that Israel has the 10th highest number of millionaires in the world, when measured as a percentage of households.  Fully 3.8% of Israeli households are millionaires.  This simply reinforces the huge gap between rich and poor in this country.

Many point to the huge military burden that Israel has had to carry over the years as the main contributing factor to the current economic challenges.  It is true that with a defense budget of NIS 50 billion (approximately US$ 13.5 billion) and making up around 6% of GDP, Israel does indeed carry a huge defense spending burden.  This is exacerbated by the fact that the ultra-Orthodox and Arab sectors have significantly lower employment than other sectors of society, and earn substantially less than other groups.  This places a heavy burden on the social services for these population groups, who boast larger families and much lower income.  While addressing the earning power of the ultra-Orthodox and the Arabs will not be a magical solution to heal all Israel's economic woes, this must certainly be one of the actions to help the economy back to full health.

There is no easy fix to the Israeli economy that will give an answer to all the questions in the short-term.  The solution is longer-term austerity and responsible fiscal policy.  Even this will not answer all the economic questions that are being asked of our finance minister, but it is important to create an environment for economic growth.  This will give the best possible platform to provide as many possible answers to the numerous questions being asked.

In 65 short years, Israel has built its economy from zero to one which is now in the elite club of the most developed economies in the world in the OECD.  This is nothing short of a miracle, and has been constructed with no help from natural resources, and with maximum exploitation of human capital.  The enormous economic growth and success that Israel has experienced can be attributed in no small way to the hard work and innovation of the average Israeli.  The time has now come to re-examine this approach, and to reinvent it in order to move forward with the new set of realities.  Israel stands on the verge of a natural gas boom which is set to provide noticeable impetus to the economy.  The ultra-Orthodox community once numbered a few tens of thousands, but is now 10% of the population and growing.  The model adopted by the modern Orthodox community, that allows them to live a traditional Jewish life and work to contribute economically, needs to be expanded to the ultra-Orthodox community as well.  Attention needs to be paid to the growing Arab sector to ensure that it makes its fair contribution to the economy.  Weaker people in our society need help, and those who spend their days working to make a living should be entitled to make a living from the work that they do.  The country needs to be able to continue to protect itself, without the defense budget crippling the economy.  These are only a few of the enormous challenges that need urgent addressing.

With all of this in mind, there are some who wonder why Yair Lapid was so eager to take on the role as minister of finance.  Is he really up to this enormous task, and can he make a real difference?  Time will only tell.

The Importance of Preemptive Strikes

Israel's recent double strike on Syrian weapons storage facilities has, once again, raised the issue of the validity of preemptive strikes.  Israel has used this tactic on more than a number of previous occasions, has already struck Syria already a few times this year.  There are those who go as far as attributing Israel's continued existence to the fact that she has been prepared to go out and defend herself even before the attack materialises.

The issue of preemptive strikes as a defense mechanism to counter a potential threat has a number of inherent problems attached to it, particularly when this encroaches on the sovereign territory of another country.  Firstly, there is always the question as to whether the perceived threat is real and credible.  We saw the consequences of a bad call on the perceived threat when it was revealed that intelligence information was incorrect prior to the Second Gulf War.  This dogged both Tony Blair and George W. Bush until the end of their respective tenures, and continues to dog them in their personal capacities to this day.  Secondly, there is the question as to whether one sovereign country has the right to attack another sovereign country in defense of itself even where the threat is sure.  It could easily be argued that there is an element of hypocrisy in this concept.  Does it make a difference if the perceived threat is not an immediate one, but rather a perceived future threat?  This is the case with Israel's strikes in Syria last week, where the rationale for the strike was that Hezbollah may use these arms against Israel at an undetermined time in the future.  There are no firm answers to these questions, and the international community has historically judged such deeds on the basis of the parties involved, rather than the act.  On this occasion, Israel succeeded in capitalising on the negative views currently held by the international community towards Syria and Hezbollah, and escaped with little or no censure by the international community - something quite rare for Israeli attacks.  But this has not always been the case in the past.

Israel, a small island located in a sea of aggressive and hateful enemies, has been forced to employ the tactic of preemptive strikes in order to survive.  Some of Israel's most famous and important victories - most notably that in the Six Day War - were achieved by surprising the enemy before they were able to inflict damage.  The Egyptian air force was destroyed while on the ground in 1967.  This surely paved the way for the famous Israeli victory.  Israel was roundly criticised for sending its air force aeroplanes to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor site in Iraq in 1981.  It was only many years later in 2005 that President Clinton finally acknowledged for the first time that the strike on Osirak by Israel was a "really good thing".  Similarly, the strike on the Syrian nuclear facility that was carried out by Israel in 2007, attracted criticism from Mohamed ElBaradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Imagine if the civil war in Syria being waged at this time involved the added concern of nuclear weapons.  With the benefit of hindsight, the Israeli strike in 2007 has potentially saved massive consequences.

These historical experiences also put a context to the ongoing standoff with Iran concerning the development of its own nuclear facilities.  A preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be much more difficult, and would have far greater consequences than the ones carried out against Iraq and Syria.  Both of the previous attacks solicited no military response at all.  This miraculous escape, after catching each of these countries off guard, is highly unlikely in the Iranian context.  It is almost assured that any attempt to carry out a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities would include a substantial response.  It is for this reason that Israel has tried using different tactics against Iran, including mounting a concerted campaign to assassinate key personnel employed in the Iranian nuclear industry and using cyber warfare to destroy software and hardware in use by the Iranian nuclear facilities.  Until now, these tactics have served to slow the processes down at best, and have not been effective in halting Iran's march towards becoming a nuclear power.  Israel is still considering a game-changing strike that will kill off Iran's nuclear push once and for all.  The threat posed by a retaliation to such a strike is surely much lower than the threat presented by a nuclear Iran.  Despite this fact, the threat presented by retaliation is substantial.

While not completely invincible, Israel's military and intelligence establishments have proven themselves over and over again.  Mistakes have certainly been made, but reports of potential threats which are reported by these organisations are always taken seriously by the Israeli government.  This is based on its amazing track record of getting things right more often than getting them wrong, and managing to sniff out information in a seemingly impossible way.  The way that the Israeli organisations work seems somehow to be different and more effective than similar intelligence agencies elsewhere in the world.  A potential threat to Israel which is reported by Israeli intelligence will almost certainly be taken seriously.  Equally, the Israeli intelligence community is well aware of the importance of the advice that they offer, and the consequences of giving bad advice or making mistakes.

It seems highly unlikely that Israel will reverse its tactic of preemptive strikes against enemies in the near future.  This tactic which has proved very effective in the past, and critical to Israel's survival. Despite the fact that a great deal of Israel's focus is on defense rather than attack, as evidenced by new developments such as the Iron Dome, the tactic of attack is often the best form of defense.  Despite this fact, we all wish to believe that this will always be used sparingly and very cautiously.  Ultimately, however, it is one of the ways that Israel will be able to maintain any superiority over its enemy neighbours around the Middle East.  If attacks and threats against Israel persist, Israel will be forced to employ measures to protect herself.  These measures include preemptive tactics to prevent the possibility of attacks taking place, and to prevent loss of innocent lives.  Extreme circumstances demand extreme measures.  It would be difficult to argue that Israel is not living under extreme circumstances.

War Against Women of the Wall

The group known as "Women of the Wall" have elevated themselves onto the front pages of the Israeli press in recent times.  They have clashed with police in Jerusalem over their desire to have the right to pray at the Kotel, the Western Wall, in their own way and style.  For them, their way and style means wearing a talit (prayer shawls) and tefilin (phylacteries), and undertaking other prayer-related activities which are usually the preserve of males in Orthodox Judaism.  Their mission says, "........ our central mission is to achieve the social and legal recognition of our right, to wear prayer shawls, pray, and read from the Torah collectively and out loud at the Western Wall".  Why does this lead them to become criminals in the eyes of the Israeli justice system?

Some of these actions on the part of the Women of the Wall have attracted attention from Jerusalem police officers, and even led to some of the women being arrested.  The legal system has relied on the law in Israel that requires respect for "local custom" at the site, which in this case refers to the Kotel.  The police have been called to arrest Women of the Wall on the basis that their actions do not respect local custom.  Clearly, the "local custom" is determined by what the Orthodox establishment demand.  Such arrests have been made on more than one occasion.

While we understand that, in most Orthodox Jewish custom, women do not wear prayer shawls and do not read from the Torah in public, the question is whether there is any actual prohibition on women doing these things?  It seems as though the customs of women not undertaking these activities stems from the fact that, in Orthodox Jewish law, women are not obliged to fulfil them in the way that men are.  In the case of the talit and tefilin, these are precepts (mitzvot) that are time-bound.  This means that there are certain times that the mitzva should be undertaken, and other times when it should not.  As a general rule, such time-bound mitzvot are not required to be undertaken by women in terms of Talmudic law.  It is not exactly clear why this is this case, but there are views that it is because women have a higher spiritual wisdom (bina) than men, and this exempts them from time-bound mitzvot.  Others contend that it is a more pragmatic issue of women having so many other household chores to take care of, that they can be exempted from time-bound mitzvot.  Our Talmudic sages are divided as to whether women are prohibited from performing mitzvot from which they are exempt.  The Rambam, one of the most famous of the Talmudic sages seems to accept that there is no prohibition on women performing mitzvot that they are not obliged to perform, and chooses instead to discuss whether women should pronounce the blessing which states that they are obliged to perform the mitzva before actually performing it.  He is supported in this discourse by Rabbi Yosef Karo and others.  This seems to give sufficient doubt to indicate that women are not entirely without justification when choosing to perform such mitzvot, and there is a strong case which supports women being free to carry them out.

Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky was drafted in by the government to try to help the situation. The actions to prevent the Women of the Wall from expressing themselves during prayer have served to alienate many US Jews from Israel.  The US community, which is notoriously heterogeneous in its interpretation of Judaism and which values pluralism in Jewish thought and practice, has reacted extremely negatively to the standoff at the Kotel.  It was hoped that Sharansky will be able to use his balanced approach to suggest a compromise solution, and that he can use his links with the US Jewish community to heal the rift which has developed.  Sharansky recommended allowing the Women of the Wall to use a separate section of the wall, known as Robinson's Arch, to allow the Women of the Wall to express themselves and carry out their practices without others being offended.  While this was originally accepted as a possible compromise by the Women of the Wall, their position has hardened recently and they are now rejecting this solution.

The hardening of their position coincided with the ruling by an Israeli court a few weeks ago, which decided that these actions by the Women of the Wall do not actually constitute disrespect for local custom at the site.  This reinforces the lack of agreement by the Talmudic sages.  This court ruling means that their actions no longer constitute an offence for which women can be arrested.  The Women of the Wall were emboldened in their view that their actions are entirely acceptable, and decided that there is much less justification in accepting a compromise solution that means they are forced to pray hidden from general sight.

The influence of the ultra-Orthodox in Israel has been substantial over the past few years, particularly during the years that successive governments owed their continued existence to the support of the ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset.  The ultra-Orthodox influence has pervaded many aspects of Israeli society.  Numerous concessions have been granted to the ultra-Orthodox community to keep them supporting the government, the most famous of which is the exemption of young ultra-Orthodox boys and girls from serving in the IDF.  This has granted disproportionate power to ultra-Orthodox groups.  With the construction of Prime Minister Netanyahu's most recent government that excludes the ultra-Orthodox parties for the first time in many years, ultra-Orthodox power has been substantially reduced.  Many in Israel are happy about this, as the influence of the ultra-Orthodox has permeated the lives of so many individual Israelisl.  Perhaps the drama at the wall is an attempt for the ultra-Orthodox establishment to exert their power where they can.

Even though the ultra-Orthodox establishment has been given control over the Western Wall, and Chief Rabbi of the Wall Shmuel Rabinovitz has rabbinic jurisdiction over this site, it should be understood that the Western Wall is a public asset for Jews in Israel and around the world.  As such, decisions such as those affecting the Women of the Wall should not be taken lightly.  It is not as in an individual synagogue where congregants are free to move elsewhere in the event that they do not wish to accept the rules pertaining to the synagogue.  The Western Wall has no alternative in Judaism.  To the extent that there is even the slightest doubt about the interpretation of a particular element of Jewish law, as is the case here, the rabbi has a responsibility to consider the national and international ramifications of his decision.

I salute the Women of the Wall for standing by their convictions, and for being prepared to take on the ultra-Orthodox establishment.  This is not an easy decision, and life has been made extremely for them as a result.  Ultimately, I believe that they will prevail, and that they will be granted the right to pray as they wish.  In reality, anybody who does not like this is not obliged to be present at the Kotel when the women are there.  Until now, the Women of the Wall have conducted their prayers monthly on rosh chodesh at a time known in advance.  This allows plenty of alternative opportunities for those who wish to attend the wall, without being forced to endure anything that they do not wish to see.  This simply demands a little tolerance and understanding by all parties, something that is unfortunately in short supply in Israel, especially in the ultra-Orthodox establishment.

The time has come for the government to exercise its control over the Kotel, and ensure that all who wish to pray there are able to do so.  It is ironic that the IDF, without the support of the ultra-Orthodox youth, was responsible for liberating this holy site during the Six Day War, only for the site to then be turned over to the control of the ultra-Orthodox.  This is a national holy site, and all Jews should have the right to worship there.  Bravo Women of the Wall.