The Pendulum Swings

It is noticeable how the relationships between Jews and their host countries fluctuate over the years.  Who would believe that the Jewish community in Germany would be increasing in numbers today after all that happened in the Holocaust, or that Jews would return to live in Spain and Portugal after the inquisition?  The wave of anti-Semitism that is currently being seen in Europe and around the world comes as something of a surprise to those who thought that the world has become  more tolerant towards Jews.  The rate of assimilation of Jews around the world shows that Jews continue to wish to be less identifiable in their host countries, partially as a result of the threat that they feel by being identifiably Jewish.  It is also noticeable that the relationship between Diaspora Jews and Israel goes through its ups and downs.  Israel had the unwavering support of Diaspora Jews at the time of independence, and during the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars.  In more recent times, however, Jews from around the world have been some of Israel's fiercest critics.

The swing of the pendulum has been particularly noticeable in South Africa in recent times.  The Jews of South Africa have traditionally been regarded as loyal South African citizens, while also being considered strong Zionists and supporters of Israel.  This community has not been without its fair share of contradictions and controversies over the years.  The community was split during the apartheid era between those who supported the struggle for democracy, and those who preferred to maintain a lower profile and show loyalty to the regime of the day.  The community has also, at times, shown contradictory behaviour towards Israel over the years.  Despite being regarded as one of the most Zionist communities in the world, it is also true that the majority of Jewish South Africans who decided to leave South Africa over the years, did not choose to make Israel their home.  The highly regarded South African Jewish education system and Zionist youth movements have recently produced graduates who seem more concerned about criticising Israel for the plight of innocent Palestinians, while choosing to ignore the role played by the Palestinian leadership in getting their innocent citizens to this situation, and also ignoring the constant attacks by the same "innocent" Palestinians that Israel is continuously forced to protect herself against.  None of this detracts from the support that the South African community has shown to Israel over the years.

Since the release of Nelson Mandela and the ascendence of the African National Congress (ANC) to government, the existence by Jews in South Africa has been like walking a tightrope.  It is well understood that the ANC is a great friend of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, and not a supporter of Israel.  This goes back to the days of the struggle against apartheid, when the ANC and PLO were "brothers-in-arms" supporting each other in fighting their respective "struggles".  This close relationship has been reinforced over the past 21 years since the ANC has been in government.  And while the ANC has not quite come out in an open revolt against the Jews living under its regime, it has used every possible opportunity to come out in opposition to Israel, its policies and its actions.  Although this opposition is directed against Israel, it is understood as an attack on the local Jewish community by the community, and intended as such by those launching the attack.  This has, in effect, been a slow but sure sign to the Jews in South Africa that its government is pursuing a policy that will ultimately cause them to question where their true allegiance lies.  It has been noticeable how the South African Jewish leadership, with Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein at the helm, has done all in its power to transmit the communication to the government that Jews are loyal to South Africa and its government.  While being careful always to emphasize that they are proud Jews (and supporters of Israel in the most part), the Jewish community has sent a message of "South African first".  The message from the government in return, has been one of tolerance of the Jews rather than one of welcome with open arms.

There are signs that this uneasy status quo may be on the verge of changing.  A recent announcement by an ANC official that the government may seek to review the dual nationality law, could represent the tipping point.  The reason given for the possible review of this law, is the fact that a number of South African Jews have joined the ranks of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as lone soldiers.  The thinking seems to be that, by revoking the right to dual citizenship, Jews will be forced to choose between being a South African, or enlisting with the IDF.  In effect, the community will need to choose between its allegiance to South Africa and its allegiance to Israel (along with their Jewish identity).  In order to put this into its correct perspective, it is worth noting that the latest information I have for lone soldiers serving in the IDF reflects that there are fewer than 50 South Africans in this number.   While it is true that there are others serving in the IDF who also carry South African citizenship (largely as a result of their parents originating from South Africa), it is clear that we are talking about a tiny number of people who are in reality being targeted by this new provision.  The real, and perhaps hidden, target is the Jewish community in South Africa as a group.  The fact that many thousands of non-Jews of all creeds and cultures may be affected by a review of the dual citizenship laws in South Africa, seems to be completely lost.  It seems as though the action directed against the Jews is more important than the widespread consequences to others.  It is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

The matter of South African nationals serving in the IDF has been a bone of contention for some time.  The South African government has previously threatened to arrest South Africans who have served in conflicts fought by the IDF, with the intention of extraditing them to The Hague to answer accusations of war crimes.  There has been much discussion about the fact that it is illegal for South Africans to serve in the IDF at all.  Former Minister of Home Affairs, and serving member of parliament and leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, Prince Mangusuthu Buthelezi MP, helped to clarify this point.  In response to the announcement by the ANC of the possible review of dual citizenship, Buthelezi put out a statement during a visit that he was making to Israel.  He said that the law makes it illegal for South Africans to serve in the army of a foreign country, only if this country is at war with South Africa.  With the countries having formal diplomatic relations, including the exchange of ambassadors, there can be no possible interpretation that Israel and South Africa are at war.  As such, there is nothing illegal about South Africans serving in the IDF,

Chief Rabbi Goldstein's forceful response to the announcement of a possible review, recognises the change that this announcement represents for the Jews of South Africa.  While his video still reinforces his traditional message of the loyalty of the Jews to South Africa, he emphasizes the deep insult and hurt that the announcement of this review is causing to the Jews of South Africa.  He also makes abundantly clear the close link that the Jews in South Africa have to the State of Israel.  Rather than attempting to play down the dual loyalty that Jews in South Africa feel, both to their host country and to the Jewish homeland, he plays this up.  The purpose of him reinforcing the dual loyalty seems to issue a warning to the ANC and the South African government that the Jews may ultimately choose to prefer their links to Israel over their loyalty to South Africa, if pressed to make a selection.  The underlying message being sent seems to be for the ANC not to test this loyalty.  Despite all of this, the writing appears to be on the wall.

South Africa is commonly held up as a shining example of a country that has succeeded in achieving a peaceful revolution, to transform a discriminatory society into a democracy.  Much credit must be given to those on all sides of society for the creation of the "rainbow nation".  It seems, however, that despite 21 years having passed since this landmark transformation, the revolution is not yet over.  It seems as though affirmative action is giving way to more open discrimination against Whites, with Jews at the front of the line.  While a review of the dual nationality laws may require the Jews to make their choices about which side of the fence that they prefer to choose, it is also likely to require a similar choice for many other South African citizens with dual nationality.  Even though a government official has attempted to calm the stormy waters by stating that the government has no current intention to change the dual nationality laws, it gives clear indication of some of the thoughts circulating within the ruling party.

Historically, Jews have been forced to pander to their host countries, even in the wake of extreme discrimination, for fear that they would have nowhere else to go.  This is no longer the case, thanks to the existence of the State of Israel.  And while Diaspora Jews don't necessarily always agree with the Israeli government, and frequently publicly criticise its actions, Israel will always be there to accept Jews.  This gives the Jews in South Africa a power and a strength to make their choice, when called upon to do so.  There can be no doubt that the pendulum continues to swing.

Shana tova.

Another Refugee Crisis

The latest refugee crisis has succeeded in stirring the emotions of many around the world.  The same is true for those  in Israel and Jews around the world.   The sight of the men, women and children moving across land and sea in unrelenting conditions to escape the disaster that has fallen upon them as a result of a civil war of human making, can only bring out the most heartfelt sympathies in anybody who has seen the pictures on TV and social media.  Some are calling this the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.

The emotions of the Jewish community are particularly affected, because it was precisely this type of disaster that befell our ancestors 75 short years ago.  It will never be forgotten that, as a result of the world failing to mobilise to accept refugees who were running from the disaster of war and genocide in Europe, and failing to act to stop those who were carrying out the genocide, 6 million of our people were systematically annihilated.  Jewish sympathy is no less than that of others around the world, despite the fact that many of the refugees come from countries that seek the destruction of the State of Israel, and the death of the Jews.

Israel has already provided a great deal of assistance to victims of the Syrian war over the past few years, despite the fact that Syria has no diplomatic relations with Israel and despite the fact that Syria has formally been at war with Israel for the past 67 years with the intention of wiping Israel off the map.  Thousands of victims of the Syrian civil war have streamed across the border from Syria into Israel seeking medical and humanitarian assistance.  The IDF has provided first aid assistance to many of these victims via mobile medical units along the Syrian border, and supplied them with humanitarian aid.  Irrespective of which side of the conflict they have come from.  Hundreds of others have been admitted to Israeli hospitals for medical treatment, some undergoing complex life-saving surgery to nurse them back to health.  All of these services have been provided courtesy of the Israeli tax-payer, and nobody has been denied humanitarian assistance on the grounds of opposing political or religious views, or any other grounds.  This humanitarian work has been undertaken without fanfare, desire for recognition or international headlines.

But now, the the floodgates to Europe have finally opened.  Instead of seeking medical attention across the Israeli border, the eyes of the war victims have stretched further afield.  Thousands of refugees are swarming across the Mediterranean to seek shelter in the calmer waters of Europe.  European leaders have been caught somewhat off guard at the suddenness of the developing situation.  Some leaders mumble phrases about the Shengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation, which are designed to secure and protect the borders of European countries.  Despite their mumblings, they seem to have no real clue as to how the provisions of these agreements can possibly be applied under the current circumstances.  Some countries seem resigned to accept the refugees that turn up on their borders, while others are doing all that they can to re-route their flood of humanity or pass them on to other neighbouring countries to get rid of their problem.  The humanitarian nature of the citizens of many European countries is demanding that their leaders relax provisions in order to accept a share of responsibility for rehousing the refugees, while others are concerned about what this may mean in the longer term for the makeup, nature and culture of their country.

Without detracting from the immediate humanitarian disaster that needs a short-term solution, European and world leaders can be justified in asking a few searching questions as longer-term solutions will need to be considered once the refugees have been clothed, fed, treated and housed in the near-term.  Some of the questions, to which I have not found answers yet, are the following:

1. What happened that the refugee problem has suddenly arisen at this time?  The Syrian civil war and the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan have been ongoing for some time already.  Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands have been killed, and many more injured and displaced.  Why did these refugees not run and seek shelter in Europe some time ago?  What was the real trigger to the sudden flight that we see now?  Is this related in any way to the more public involvement of ISIS, and the realisation of what an ISIS caliphate will mean to them?
2. How many of the refugees are really economic migrants?  In recent years, there has been a distinction drawn between those who seek asylum as refugees, and those who do so in order to improve their economic situation.  Many countries try to do their best to make this distinction clearer, in order to provide required assistance to refugees while rejecting economic migrants who do not qualify for naturalisation.  The migrants naturally do all that they can to confuse those trying to separate the refugees from the economic migrants, in order to secure themselves the best possible chance of being accepted to a new country and a new life.  It is clear that many of the current wave of refugees are escaping war-torn countries and situations in which it is impossible to survive.  Amongst them, however, are more than a few who are truly economic migrants and who are merely jumping on the bandwagon to take advantage of a situation.
3. Where are their Arab brethren in assisting the refugees?  All of the refugees in the current crisis are Arabs.  Some are Christian Arabs, but the vast majority are Moslem Arabs.  Most of them are Sunni Moslems, who made up some 74% of the Syrian population prior to the civil war.  With countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates being majority Sunni Moslem, there is surely enough money and space to accommodate the  refugees within the Sunni Arab world quite easily?  And yet, there seems to be a thundering silence from the Arab world at a time when their brethren are desperate for help.
4. Is this a ploy to gain a greater Muslim foothold in Europe?  The words of Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, cannot be ignored entirely.  He said that Europeans risk becoming a minority on their own continent.  This is an interesting concept, particularly when there is no such thing as a "European" nationality.  The European continent has historically been split, divided and conflicted by many different interests, nationalities and religious strains.  In the face of a threat to the continued existence of these nationalities in their current form, however, a European nation has suddenly and unexpectedly arisen.  There are those who contend that this refugee crisis is a conspiracy on the part of Muslim leaders to allow Muslims to infiltrate in Europe in a manner greater than has been the case until now.   There is much evidence of the effects of the Islamisation of Europe.  Muslims have made attempts to set up enclaves of Sharia law in the UK and France (in addition to what they achieved in some African countries).  The sight of British and French-born Muslims leaving their homes to join the ranks of ISIS has shocked many.
5. What is the role of ISIS in the crisis?  An ISIS announcement in the midst of the building refugee crisis in Europe said that hundreds of ISIS activists are scattered amongst the refugees claiming asylum in Europe.  It is difficult not to notice the disproportionate number of young men among the refugees.  While the announcement by ISIS may simply be opportunistic rather than an action that was pre-planned, it is something that cannot be completely ignored.

The question arises as to whether Europe has learned the lesson of wars and refugees to extend a helping hand (in some cases) to the current refugees?  Or has the Internet and social media forced their hand due to public demand, such that they have no choice but to help the refugees?  Never before has a refugee crisis of this magnitude been such a social media sensation.  It is reported that many of the Syrian refugees are buying SIM cards in their new European host countries even before buying food, to ensure that their predicament can be on Facebook as soon as possible.  This has certainly proven itself to be a powerful tool in their hands.  Previous crises of this magnitude have not enjoyed the same level of European and western response before.  We can only think back to the crises during the Holocaust and those in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, to name but a few, where the response was much less enthusiastic and resulted in the deaths of millions of victims.

War is never a pleasant event, and our generation seems to experience more than its fair share of conflict.  It is pleasing that there are countries who are prepared to come to the short-term aid of the refugees.  But does this present a longer-term problem for these countries?  These are questions that only time can answer.

Starting on the Wrong Foot

The entire process that led to the forming of Israel's 34th government in 68 years of independence was filled with drama and unexpected events.

Opinion polls in the weeks leading up to the election predicted that the two largest parties, the Likud and the Zionist Union (formed out of a pact between the Labour and Hatnua parties), would be fighting each other off to form the new government.  The feeling was that one or two seats would separate the parties.  Even the election's exit polls did not predict the extent to which voters ultimately favoured the Likud over Zionist Union.  When the election result was announced showing that the Likud won 6 seats more than the Zionist Union, it took everybody in the country by surprise.  Even the members of the Likud were shocked at the size of the victory, especially in view of the earlier predictions.

The pendulum of expectation swung in the opposite direction.  All of a sudden, there was the expectation that Prime Minister Netanyahu would form a broad-based, strong, right-wing coalition government in double quick time.  As it turned out, the formation of the government took way longer than expected, is the narrowest possible government and is not nearly as strong as people thought and hoped it would be.   With these fluctations came swings in the public's expectation about how long this government can reasonably survive, and whether it has the ability to govern and make the changes that are so needed in Israeli society.

If the lead-up to the new government contained its fair share of surprises, the process of forming the government has also been less than inspiring.  The prime minister has been forced to compromise on many fundamental ideas that his electorate stand opposed to, in the interests of attracting coalition partners into the government.  For example, he has been forced to go back on legislation, that was put in place during the previous government, to force ultra-Orthodox yeshivah boys to undertake military or national service like all others of their age.  He has also been forced to redirect huge sums of money to the ultra-Orthodox sector, at a time when the Israeli government has implemented large budget cuts as part of an austerity plan.  Many Likud voters are horrified at these and other concessions.

One of the persistent rumours that refuses to go away concerns the reported approach that Prime Minister Netanyahu made to Labour leader Isaac Herzog to join the coalition.  The prime minister is reported to have approached Herzog on condition that he agrees to abandon his pact with Tzipi Livni, and bring only the Labour faction into the new government while leaving Livni and her Hatnua members out of the coalition.  Herzog refused, thereby turning down the opportunity to be part of a national unity government, and provide Israel with a much more stable coalition.  Has he spited the people of Israel by preferring to see Prime Minister Netanyahu fail in his endeavours?  There are many who believe that he has chosen the egotistical path, rather than setting his ego aside in the interests of serving the Israeli electorate.

The make-up of the new cabinet is also not a huge source of inspiration.  For starters, there are a total of 21 ministers in the new government, surpassing the 18 ministers that were recently legislated as being the maximum allowed in any government.  Netanyahu was forced to pass an amendment law through the Knesset to allow him to appoint 21 ministers to have sufficient jobs to dish out to all coalition partners.  The important job of foreign minister has been left vacant and has been assumed by the prime minister.  He has also retained the communications ministry, ministry of health and ministry of regional cooperation for himself.  It seems as though Netanyahu may be reserving these in case he is able to convince Lieberman or others to join the coalition in the future.

Aryeh Deri, head of Shas, is the new economics minister.  He has recently served a jail sentence and now come out of an exclusion period, during which he could not serve in a public position, as a result of having been found guilty of taking bribes while a government minister.  Yoav Galant is the minister of construction.  This is highly controversial seeing as Galant was prevented from taking up his appointment as the IDF Chief of General Staff due to irregularities found in the construction of his personal residence on public property.  Miri Regev is the new minster for culture and sport, despite having made it quite clear that she really wanted to have the welfare portfolio.  Habayit Hayehudi's Ayelet Shaked is probably the most surprising and high profile appointment to the new government, having been appointed as the minister of justice.  In this position, she has a huge influence over the appointment of judges to the supreme court, as well as many other aspects of Israel's judicial policy and justice system.  She has also secured herself a seat in the security cabinet, the narrow inner cabinet that is responsible for formulating and implementing Israel's security, defense and foreign policy on a daily basis.  At 39 years-old, she is considered an extremely young appointment to a critical position, despite clearly being very capable.  It is reported that Likud old-timer Benny Begin only knew of his appointment to the cabinet, as minister without portfolio, at the moment that it was announced in the Knesset.

The Knesset session to present the new government was held on Thursday 14 May.  The session epitomised a circus more than a meeting of Israel's legislature.  At first, Arab members of Knesset created an intentional and sustained disruption during the prime minister's address, that resulted in  a number of them being evicted from the chamber.  A few other Arab members decided to leave of their own accord in sympathy, although they did return during the address by the leader of the opposition.  Miri Regev was also issued a warning for heckling and disruptive behaviour, although managed to survive without being ejected.  Leader of the opposition, Isaac Herzog, delivered a stinging rebuke and criticism of the prime minister and his new government.  He was heckled by members from the religious parties, who were also issued with warnings.  While the job of the official opposition (and its leader) is to ensure that the government is held to account, there are times when it is appropriate for the opposition to support the government and to show some unity in helping with its efforts.  There are many who feel that this occasion was the perfect opportunity to show some unity and support.

The inconspicuous start to the new government continued further with a reshuffle coming less than 10 days into the life of the new government.  Likud number 2, Gilad Erdan, decided that he would be better off working within the new government rather than from the back benches.  While his disagreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been resolved, Erdan finally agreed to accept the ministries of public security, strategic affairs and public diplomacy.  Despite him trying to put a spin on why he changed his mind to justify his actions, it is clear to all that this is a big U-turn on Erdan's party.  Netanyahu was happy to reshuffle his new government in order to accommodate Erdan.  Benny Begin, who was asked to resign his position as minister without portfolio to accommodate Erdan joining the cabinet, was not happy to comply with the request.

Despite the problematic manner in which the government has finally come into office, it does not detract from the fact that new government has a lot of important work to do.  Israel is under much pressure on the international diplomatic front to move forward to a peace agreeement with the Palestinians.  It also has to maintain firm security against those who are determined to destroy her and her people while also addressing the social and welfare needs for the weakest members of society in a tough economic climate.  All of this needs to achieved in a climate of lower levels of government spending to manage the economy responsibly.  Israel needs a firm, stable and decisive government that can make the difficult decisions that confront it.  Even though the manner in which the new government has started out life does not seem to bode well for the future, we all hope that we will be confounded by the extent to which the government is able to achieve great things.  We wish them much success.

Is this Really Racism?

Demonstrations have taken to the streets of Israeli cities in recent weeks.  While demonstrations in Israel are not new, these demonstrations were different and unique.  For the first time since the first Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel in Operation Moses in 1984 and in  Operation Solomon in 1991, Ethiopian Jews have demonstrated against their plight in Israel.  The images of black-skinned Israeli Jews battling against mostly white-skinned Israeli policemen that were displayed across much of the media in Israel and abroad, were perfect to fuel those who accuse Israel of racism and even apartheid.  But nothing could be further from the truth.

While the treatment of the Ethiopians in Israel leaves much to be desired in many instances, the underlying reason for the treatment that they have been forced to endure has nothing to do with racism.  Instead, this a story of a cultural chasm between two groups of Jews that has left one group greatly disadvantaged.  It is a story of natural human behaviour and survival instinct, and it is a story of the integration into society of a minority group to the point that they finally find their voices to stand up for themselves.

The story of the immigration of the Ethiopian Jews to Israel is uplifting and depressing in equal parts.  They were rescued from the African desert out of the jaws of starvation and anti-Semitic genocide.  They had suffered from the severe famine that had affected the African continent for years, and had been subjected to horrendous anti-Semitic discrimination by their fellow country people.  After much deliberation, the Israeli government accepted their claims to be Jewish, and sent planes to airlift them to safety, shelter and nourishment.  The stories of thousands of people crammed onto aeroplanes, many of them seated on the floor, are now part of the legend of tales that are told about this phenomenal rescue mission.  The truth was, however, tough to confront.  Not only had most of these Ethiopians never seen an aeroplane before, they had no idea what a toilet was or how to operate any electrical appliance.  They were literally lifted from one existence to something completely alien to them.  This culture shock upon landing in Israel led to a huge change in their natural, nomadic, male-dominated lifestyle.  In many instances, the patriarchal head of the family was no longer able to fulfil this role and to provide for the family.  The role of the women in the family was elevated as many of them went out to work to earn the basic necessities.  Social breakdown in the society followed quickly, accompanied with domestic violence, substance abuse and petty crime.  Family murders within the Ethiopian community continue to be common due to the upheaval that family life has been forced to endure.  All of this is despite the fact that the community has now been housed within its Israeli culture for more than 20 years.  The process of adjusting to a culture and existence totally alien to theirs has exacted a very high price on the Ethiopian community.

Due to the criminal activities that have become commonplace amongst Ethiopians, they have become well-known to the police authorities.  In turn, the police have placed the most common offenders, and the community as a whole, under close supervision.  The relationship between the Ethiopian community and the police has become strained.  The repetitive nature of the unlawful behaviour on the part of the Ethiopians has frustrated the police.  The police have been charged with unacceptable behaviour towards the Ethiopian community.  Many of these charges are justified.  Even if they are frustrated, there can be no doubt that the police are always expected to adhere to the highest standards.  In this regard, they have failed.

Israel is a country where those who scream loudest get the most.  This unfortunate cultural trait has deep historical roots, and can be traced back to the difficulties that Jews experienced when living as second class citizens during the Holocaust in Europe, or during their persecution in Middle Eastern countries.  All of a sudden, Jews found a voice for themselves after having been denied this right in other countries for so long.  This voice continues to be used extremely loudly, and in competition to many others who are also trying to get their voice heard at the same time.  Visitors and more recent immigrants to Israel find this cultural trait to be rude and intolerable, despite the fact that it is not intended in a rude way at all.  For the Ethiopian community, the loud voice was even more extreme when compared to their upbringing and background.  The Ethiopians have a very gentle and withdrawn nature, that is at complete odds with the aggressive style of the rest of Israeli society.  Any sign of standard Israeli screaming and shouting results in the Ethiopians withdrawing in surprise.  As a result, they are less likely to get what they want and what they need.  Those who are more aggressive and shout louder are given higher priority at their expense.  This situation has led to immense frustration within the Ethiopian community, and an overall feeling of disadvantage on their part.  The fact that their leaders do not shout loudly means that their community gets a lower share of the budget allocations than they deserve to receive, and they get less attention than is deserved.

The change that has happened recently is that the new generation of Ethiopians has finally come of age.  The young adults in the Ethiopian community have either been born in Israel, or have grown up for most of their formative years in Israel.  As such, they are more versed and more comfortable with the Israeli culture than are their parents and grandparents who remain in some type of culture shock.  Despite the fact that the new generation is growing up with the influence of their elders who still carry with them the old timid Ethiopian culture, the new kids have learnt the tricks of surviving in their Israeli reality.  These are the kids who are comfortable with raising their voices to make them heard, and with mounting demonstrations in order to express their disgust and disdain at the bad treatment that their community has received.  We are now seeing the effects of this new generation who look like Ethiopians, but speak good Hebrew and have Israeli culture and chutzpah.  They are finally standing up for what their parents and grandparents have been denied over the years.

While the demonstrations look like a story of racism in their imagery, this is not a story about racism.  Israelis are not inherently racist, but are people who know how to fight for their rights and what is due to them.  For too many years, Jews were denied these as they survived amongst the nations.  Now, they have found the voices and will fight for their rights in the most determined way.  This also means that the quieter and more timid amongst others, whether they are Ethiopians or other cultures, get drowned out.  But our Ethiopian brethren have discovered their role in Israeli society.  We are immensely proud of how a community, which started from such a different and unsophisticated beginning point, is finding its place in our society. I feel immense pride when seeing Ethiopian soldiers in IDF uniforms, Ethiopian students at our universities, and Ethiopians who are members of Knesset, TV presenters, doctors, lawyers and those who fill many other roles in society.   I like the fact that the Ethiopian Jewish festival of Sigd has widespread recognition in Israel along with Pesach and Mimouna.  I am delighted that the Ethiopian community religious leaders, the Kessim, have recognition and respect alongside our Ashkenazi and Sephardi Rabbis and scholars.

If anything, this is a sign that our society ultimately presents equal opportunities for all its members, and I feel sure that the Ethiopians will continue to take their place in society over time.  This includes being on the front lines of demonstrations to secure the rights richly deserved by members of their community who are less comfortable to assert themselves.  This is the reason why I support their demonstration, and I feel extremely comfortable with the fact that they are causing disruption in the streets of Israeli towns and cities.

Converting the Missionaries

It may come as a surprise to some that missionary groups are alive and very active in Israel.  Groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses have been operating in Israel for some time, as they have operated all around the world for many years.  It is their belief that they should make every effort to convert as many people to their way of thinking as possible.  And their reason for being in Israel is entirely understandable.  When seeking out potential converts, it is known that the Jehovah's Witnesses consider the conversion of Jews is of much greater value than converting anyone else.  Now that Israel houses the largest community of Jews in the world, Israel is an obvious target for them.

The issue has become very public over the past few weeks, with the Jehovah's Witnesses trying to hire a hall in the city of Ra'anana for their meeting.  Some have labelled the meeting as an annual conference or convention, and others have described it as a baptism for some of their recent converts.  The Municipality of Ra'anana initially declined the request for a municipal hall to be hired to them, and then acceded to their request.  Their agreement to rent out the hall was challenged in a district court by those opposed to the municipality allowing such a group to hold a meeting in its hall.  The court decided that Israeli democracy is the primary issue at stake here, and that the Jehovah's Witnesses are as entitled as anybody else to rent a municipal facility, and have their right to freedom of speech, religion and expression.  An appeal lodged with the Supreme Court of Israel upheld this decision, and the event was allowed to go ahead.

Many hundreds of Orthodox Jews turned out to protest against the event, and held prayers outside the hall in which the meeting took place.  There were even sporadic outbreaks of violence against the Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters when they arrived at the hall.  While such an event being held in the midst of a Jewish city certainly represents a provocation to those living within the proximity of the event and in the city of Ra'anana, the Supreme Court of Israel has made its decision regarding the important issue of democracy and how this ought to be applied in our country.  It is, of course, the democratic right of all those who oppose this, to voice their opposition.  This should, however, be undertaken within the confines of what the law allows.  If that was not enough, members of the religious community in the city have turned on each other to make scapegoats out of those who are held responsible for allowing such an event to take place.

For me, the question was not about the work that the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing to try to convert Jews to their belief system, or about the municipality for allowing their meeting to take place here.  They are fully within their rights to do this, even though many are affronted by their efforts.  The greater question is why so many Jews feel that they are forced to find their spiritual fulfilment with the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Nobody observed any Jews being forced against their will to convert to the Jehovah's Witness belief system.  This indicates that these Jews are doing so out of their own choice.  It also indicates that they have rejected the possibility of finding their spiritual home within Judaism.  Instead of protesting against the work that the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing to convert Jews, the religious community should be asking themselves why Orthodox Judaism does not provide this home to its own people?

It seemed to me not to be coincidental that these events took place in the same week as the United Torah Judaism Party signed a coalition with the Likud to enter the new government.  This coalition agreement is sprinkled with concessions that the new government will make to give religious Jews certain rights that other citizens of Israel do not have.  There are also agreements that will ensure that government funding is allocated to religious groups and institutions at the expense of others.  When considering that Israel is currently experience a period of austerity when the government does not have funding available for additional requirements, and when considering the relatively small amount that Haredi Jews contribute to government coffers, this agreement is highly controversial amongst many Israelis.  To make matters worse, the agreement requires the reversal of legislation that was recently passed in the Knesset in an attempt to bring the treatment of ultra-Orthodox Israelis in line with everybody else.  It seems little wonder that there is such a large stigma attached to the notion of secular Israelis reconnecting with their religious roots when seeking spiritual fulfilment.  The behaviour of those who are the public face of these religious roots is so unattractive and opposite to anything that good, law-abiding people consider to be acceptable, that they would not wish to be associated with anything that these people represent.

It would appear as though the success of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Israel has little to do with the authorities permitting them to operate here, or decisions made by the Supreme Court.  If there was no public need or desire to listen to the alternatives that they offer, they would have left these shores a long time ago.  The fact that they continue to be successful in Israel says more about the religious alternatives that Judaism offers, than it says about those public officials who allow them to hold meetings in our municipal facilities.

Judaism certainly offers attractive alternatives to those who wish to seek it out.  In order to attract people to seek this out, people need to be attracted to those who practise this Judaism as much as they are attracted to the Judaism itself.  It is extremely unfortunate that the lie of the religious land in Israel favours the ultra-Orthodox community at the expense of the secular and modern Orthodox Jews.  And as much as Jewry offers many different strands for those who are interested to choose from, the headlines that are attracted by the negative activities of the ultra-Orthodox serve to drown out the good aspects that Judaism can offer.  The storm created by the Jehovah's Witness event is an easy scapegoat for the failure of Judaism to make itself attractive to its own people.  This is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  of proselytising has raised its head again in Israel following attempts by a group known as

Iran and Obama

What is it that is driving US President Barack Obama to seemingly single-mindedly pursue an agreement with Iran?  From the outset, he has appeared determined to reach this agreement, almost at any price.  This is despite strong opposition and warnings from the US's key allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Although the agreement that is being sought with Iran comes under the auspices of the United Notions and the European Union together with a group of countries that includes Germany, France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia, there is no doubt that it is the US and Obama that are making all the running in trying to achieve this agreement.  On the face of it, there seems no obvious reason why Obama would wish to do this.  In the absence of clear publicly-visible reasons to reach such an understanding with Iran, the situation inevitably gives rise to conspiracy theories about what may be happening behind the scenes, that is driving Obama to act in the way that he is.

The US broke off diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980, soon after the Shah was deposed and around the time of the Iran hostage crisis.  The US gave strong support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, even if this meant providing support to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.  All of this was done in the interests of opposing Iran.  The current threat that the Iranian regime represents in the world order is clearly not new to the US administration.  The question remains as to what has happened over the past few years that gives the urgency for Obama to reach this agreement with Iran, where his predecessors followed policies towards Iran that were exactly the opposite?

Some have put forward the theory that Obama is pursuing a policy of engagement with Iran.  The theory on engagement says that it is better to have a relationship with Iran to allow visibility and supervision of its nuclear program, rather than allow it to proceed with its nuclear activities in an unsupervised and secretive way.  There are certainly cases where a policy of engagement has proven itself to be successful, and reach positive results.  There are also glaring examples of the failure of engagement, where even more damage was done as a result of the belief that all parties are pursuing a common objective.  Possibly the most obvious failure of engagement was when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain pursued his policy of appeasement in relation to the Nazi regime during the late 1930s.  His triumphant declaration of securing "peace for our time" after concluding the Munich Pact in 1938 could not have been a greater misjudgement of the facts.  The Second World War broke out less than a year later.  A policy of engagement has a place, but only under very specific circumstances and conditions.  The moment there is any doubt about what may be driving the other party to wish to pursue engagement, it is a policy that can do much more harm than good.  This certainly seems to be the case with Iran.

Iran has two clear objectives from the talks with the P5+1 group.  The first and primary objective is to lift the crippling sanctions that have been applied to it over the past few years by western countries.  There can be no doubt that these sanctions have had a devastating effect on Iran's economy.  Iran has a heavy burden in funding daily economic activities, funding its nuclear development and also funding a large number of proxies conducting terror activities around the world.  This is tough for any economy, and even more so for an economy where its primary economic activity is suffering severe constraints due to international sanctions.  Iran's second clear objective is to gain an international stamp of approval for its nuclear activities.  These activities have been conducted in secrecy until now, despite the international community being aware of the fact that this has been pursued behind closed doors.  The opportunity has now been offered for Iran to get international approval for its nuclear development program, and Iran would certainly wish to accept this chance with both hands.

By giving such great compromises to Iran, President Obama is allowing a golden opportunity to slip through his hands and is breaking the cardinal rules of international diplomacy.  The fact that Iran has been brought to its knees by the effects of the sanctions, should present the chance that Obama needs to force Iran to kill off its nuclear program once and for all.  The "concessions" that Obama triumphantly announced that he had received from Iran sounded more like Chamberlain's misguided announcement of "peace for our time".  After Iran admitted to having lied about the fact that its nuclear facilities were not being used to produce a nuclear weapon, Obama still felt comfortable about accepting Iranian promises about how it would conduct its nuclear activities going forward.  Why do Iran's past lies not count for anything when moving into this brave new world?  Why would anybody believe that Iran has suddenly decided to reveal all details of its nuclear program moving forward, when it has never done so in the past?   As president of the Supreme National Security Council for 16 years, Iran's President Rouhani frequently boasted of how he succeeded in using talks with western countries to buy time to advance Iran's nuclear program.  It seems as though nothing much has changed.  According to some interpretations of the framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Iran will be formally free to pursue a nuclear weapon as soon as 10 years from now.  It is a frightening thought that Obama has officially signed this off.

In his announcement of the successful conclusion of the framework deal, Obama clearly showed the weakness of the agreement and the betrayal of his Middle Eastern allies.  He acknowledged that Iran is engaged in sponsoring terror activities and groups around the world.  The fact that Iran continues to publicly call into question Israel's right to exist and advocates her annihilation is undisputed.  The terror activities and ongoing threatening behaviour is all being funded out of Iran's economy.  Despite Obama trying his best to separate between Iran the terrorist and Iran the nuclear power, and to emphasise that the new deal does not change the US policy towards Iran's terror activities, it doesn't require an advanced knowledge of politics and diplomacy to understand that all of these things are linked and intertwined.  Lifting sanctions against Iran will immediately channel more money into terror activities, and channel money into building further nuclear activities and nuclear weapons away from the prying eyes of the international community.  Despite Israel's constant requests, there was no requirement on Iran to cease its anti-Semitic and discriminatory activities against the state of Israel.  In agreeing to lift restrictions on Iran while refusing to demand that Iran stop its activities of terror around the world and stop its discrimination against Israel, Obama has effectively becomes a party to them.  Not only has he let down Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other countries in the Middle East who are threatened by Iran on a daily basis, he has placed the entire free world at risk.

The question still remains as to why Obama would find it fit to pursue this policy, that has so much risk attached to it?  Does he honestly believe that the greater visibility that he believes he has achieved will really place a limit on Iran's nuclear activity?  I would like to think that the president of the US is smarter than being duped into such a misconception.  Perhaps it has to do with the need to show some success in an otherwise dismal record in the pursuit of its policies in the Middle East, or to have a legacy of some sort before leaving office.  This legacy promises to dog him to his dying day and beyond, in the same way that appeasement continues to cloud the legacy that Chamberlain left.

It took less than two weeks for the effects of the Lausanne agreement with Iran to be felt.  Russia, one of the P5+1 countries, announced that it would be selling its sophisticated S-300 anti-missile system to Iran.  This is a sale that has been on hold for many years, delayed as a result of the sanctions regime against Iran.  Now that the US and the P5+1 group have found it acceptable to reach a formal international agreement with Iran, it opens the floodgates for international trade with Iran to resume, even before sanctions have been lifted.  Iran is already benefiting from the policy of engagement, even before it has lifted a finger to implement any of the terms that it has undertaken to implement under the terms of the agreement.

Iran is unashamed in its sponsor of terror and pursuit of conflict, death and destruction against Sunni Muslims, Jews and western countries.  Any person or country that enters into an agreement with Iran effectively becomes part of these activities.  Obama has entered into the agreement with Iran in full knowledge of this situation.  History will judge him accordingly.

The People of Israel Have Spoken

The ballots have been counted in Israel's election 2015, and people have recovered from the surprise of a result which has deviated substantially from the opinion polls and exit polls.  I believe that the surprise comes, not from the result itself, but because of the extent to which people's expectations were inaccurately set by the polls in the media.  The people of Israel have spoken, and they have spoken loud and clear.
 
It is possible to draw a number of conclusions from the comprehensive and unexpected manner in which Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud party have been returned to power.

1.  Security issues are at the top of the national agenda.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's election platform was based upon security issues, and the nature of the threat that exists against the State of Israel.  Some have called it scare-mongering people to believe that Israel is under an existential threat, in order to convince people to vote for him.  He even appeared in front of the American Congress during the latter stages of the election campaign,  in an attempt to reinforce this point for the Israeli public, the American public and the world at large.  With the strength of anti-Israel feeling evident within the international community, within the United Nations and evident from individuals around the world, it hardly comes as a surprise that the Israeli people believe him when he is says that Israel is under threat.  And when considering the rhetoric coming from countries like Iran and countries along Israel's borders, it is easy to understand why this feeling is so great.  When adding the growing levels of anti-Semitism, much of it dressed up as anti-Israel views, I don't believe that this threat arises from paranoia.  It is true to say that Israel is not on the verge of being wiped out, as was the case a few times in the past.  The Israeli army is certainly strong enough to stand up to any physical threat to our country.  This does not, however, diminish the threat and the desires of Israel's enemies to destroy her.  The majority of the Israeli electorate believe that Israel is under a substantial international threat, and have good reason to believe this.

2.  Peace with the Palestinians is not a priority.
It is noticeable that the issue of peace with the Palestinians played no role in the election campaigns of any of the parties.  The left-wing parties did not seek election on the strength of promises to bring compromises in the interests of reaching peace with the Palestinians, and the right-wing parties did not seek election on the basis that they would not be prepared to enter into peace with the Palestinians.  It would appear as though the Israeli public has understood that peace is unattainable with people who are not prepared to recognise that Israel is a Jewish country.  This is despite the fact that it is a most basic Israeli aspiration to seek a just and equitable peace.  The realisation that the Palestinians are not willing or ready to agree upon the compromises that are necessary to reach a peace, has not been easy to understand.  It is tough to accept that the Palestinian leadership has no intention of entering into a peace agreement at all.  It is unfortunate that the international community continues to try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, and to insist that now is the time to force the parties to negotiate to reach a peace agreement.  It is even more unfortunate that the international community places the blame on Israel for the lack of progress towards peace.

3.  Tzipi Livni is unelectable.
Isaac Herzog sought out Tzipi Livni to join him at the head of the Zionist Union list.  The combined list was regarded as greater than the sum of its component parts, and this was borne out by the election result.  It seems unlikely that Labour and Hatnua could have secured 24 seats if they had run as separate lists.  When agreeing to form the Zionist Union list, Herzog and Livni also agreed to rotate the position of prime minister between the two of them in the event that their list should win the election.  There were many in the Labour Party and across the country who wondered why Herzog had agreed to conceed such a strong position to Livni, when her power to bring support to the Zionist Union was questionable.  Only one day before the election, Tzipi Livni announced that she was giving up on her right to be prime minister in the rotation agreement.  This was widely interpreted as the Zionist Union acknowledging that more people would be inclined to vote for them if they knew that Livni would not be prime minister.  The act was also seen as an immense act of weakness on the part of the tough lady.  It was also the final word in confirming that Tzipi Livni is unelectable as prime minister.  She lost credibility while she migrated from the Likud, across Kadima and Hatnua to ultimately team up with Labour at the opposite end of the political spectrum.  She was unable to form a government in 2009, despite her Kadima party won the highest number of seats in the general election.  This act of her giving up her right to be prime minister is the final nail in her prime ministerial ambitions.  It also opens a broad debate about whether Isaac Herzog is electable as prime minster.

4.  Toughness by Israel's leaders on the international stage is desirable and respected.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has always been a master at presenting Israel's case on the international stage, and showing toughness and being unashamed and uncompromising in doing so.  He is the new type of Jew that Jabotinsky could only dream of during the years of the pogroms in Eastern Europe.  Despite the fact that a number of generations have come and gone since Jabotinsky's time when he dreamed of this Jew, it seems as though Israelis continue to like, respect and desire this quality that Netanyahu possesses.  At a time when attacks on Israel in the international community  are at an unprecedented high and when anti-Semitism around the world is rising to levels that are unknown since the Shoah, there is something appealing to Israeli eyes and ears in a leader who is prepared to confront and beat these attacks by facing them head-on.  The sight of him addressing the US Congress just before the election will have confirmed Netanyahu's ability and willingness to do this for any Israeli who doubted it.

5.  Bias in the media counts for nothing.
There can be no doubt that the Israeli media waged a campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to remove him from the prime minister's residence.  He tried calling out the Yediot Haachronot and its online version Ynet during the course of the election campaign, by accusing the editor Noni Moses of publishing untruths in an attempt to discredit him.  Israel's media, and its lack of independence and editorial integrity, has come under scrutiny in recent months.  It is not only the anti-Netanyahu camp that stands accused, but equally Sheldon Adelson's Yisrael Hayom, and its unashamed support for Netanyahu.  The Israeli people have shown that, despite the vicious and overwhelming anti-Netanyahu sentiments published in many Israel printed and online newspapers, they have been able to make up their minds independently about who they wish to lead the country over the next 4 years.  Even the opinion polls, that did not even get close to the election result at any point, could not influence the electorate.  Since the election result has been made known, the anti-Netanyahu lobby has not given up and continues to castigate Israelis for making the wrong choice in the election.  They make an even greater laughing stock of themselves by doing this.

6.  Even Obama cannot unseat Netanyahu.
US President Barack Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his recent trip to address the US Congress in Washington.  The reason given for him not meeting with Netanyahu was that he did not wish to influence Israel's election result in any way.  When looking at Obama's actions in the period leading up to the election, and particularly his response to the election result, it seems that nothing could be further from the truth.  There is no secret that Obama has no time or patience for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  There is no secret that Obama would have been much happier if somebody else, anybody, would have been elected as the prime minister in the election.  There were strong rumours that Obama was somehow behind funding the V15 group that rose up in Israel prior to the election in attempt to unseat Netanyahu almost at any price.  The slogan of this group, and also much of the rhetoric behind the Zionist Union's election campaign, was anti-Netanyahu.  They were encouraging people to vote against Netanyahu, as opposed to enticing people to make a positive choice and to vote for something that they do want.  My interpretation of Obama's decision not to meet Netanyahu prior to the election, was a real attempt to influence people to vote against him, and not to stay neutral as he was trying to get us to believe.  Perhaps he was concerned that a meeting may have helped to convince people to vote for a man that he would like to see consigned to the dustbin of history.  The Israeli people have shown that even the most powerful politician in the world cannot influence their choice.  This is not a happy moment for Obama, and his concerted campaign against Netanyahu and Israel since the election has demonstrated that he is a very sore loser.   It seems inconceivable that US foreign policy in the Middle East can suddenly change as a result of an election result and a few statements from Netanyahu.  Obama's message that "this is not personal" has shown to be completely false.  Ultimately, the vote of the Israeli people is stronger, even than Obama.

Israelis are notoriously independent in their views and actions, and have a reputation for being steadfast and stubborn.  This has come through very loudly in the 2015 election.  And all of this with a turnout of voters in excess of 70%, the highest number since 1999.  Even the number of Arab voters was more than 60%, the highest number in history.  Despite numerous attempts to influence against the re-election of Prime Minister Netanyahu, he has returned to power with a stronger mandate than before.  He is on the verge of becoming Israel's longest-serving prime minister in history.  Israel is held up as the only real democracy in the Middle East, and the democratic process has spoken.  The time has come for those who preferred a different result, and who would have liked to see Herzog as prime minster, to rally around and accept the result that Israeli democracy has selected.  Continuing to fight against it does not serve a purpose.  This is not to say that those who justifiably oppose Netanyahu's policies should be silent and not express their views.  There is, however, a democratic way of doing this.  This does not include intervention from the US president, or unjustified attacks from the media.  Democracy is alive and well in Israel, and the people have spoken.