Open Letter to Maria

Dear Maria,

I have read what you wrote to Amnon when he sought to be your guest via airbnb.  I think that you have really lost a great opportunity to expand your knowledge and understanding of the issues that currently exist between Israel and the Palestinians.  I am sure that hosting Amnon would have been an eye-opener for you.  I wish to take the liberty to explain here what Amnon may have told you if you had been open-minded enough to have him as your guest.

Having followed the activities of the BDS movement over a number of years, I wonder whether the movement’s supporters like yourself really understand what BDS is about.  People like you appear to support BDS in the belief that isolating Israel will promote a peaceful solution between Israel and the Palestinians.  Even though your objective is honourable, you are bound to be disappointed by the achievements of BDS.  The BDS movement and its activities are first and foremost directed towards hurting and destroying Israel.  The BDS idea was originally to protest Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) by exposing and boycotting Israeli products produced in these areas.  Instead, the organisation has been hijacked by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic individuals, who try to convince people like you that BDS is an honourable cause that promotes peace.  And this can be achieved by behaving in an anti-Semitic way, just like you did on airbnb.  But all that they are really doing is trying to promote anti-Semitism and hate towards Israel in a politically acceptable manner.

If you are prepared to examine the issue in greater depth, you will discover that the main obstacle to peace is the unwillingness of the Palestinians to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.  This is demonstrated by their refusal to remove from their charter, the objective to destroy the Jewish state. So, if BDS was really an organisation that promoted the idea of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it would protest against the Palestinians’ stated objective, and against their continued attempts to destroy Jews and the Jewish state.

If you are looking for activists working towards a peaceful solution, you will find that the majority of Jews in Israel are activists working towards a peaceful solution.  There are few Israelis who do not yearn for a more peaceful environment to raise their children, and to find a peaceful way to co-exist with our neighbours.  Don’t forget that Israelis are happy to welcome Arabs, even so-called Palestinian Arabs, into their towns and cities to sit alongside them in coffee shops and restaurants.  As long as they come in peace.  You will find Arabs in every Israeli town and city, in malls up and down the country and working in Israeli businesses.  The same cannot be said for finding Jews in the Palestinian Authority area.  Their areas are “Judenfrei”.  And it is this type of behaviour that the international community and BDS reward by criticising and castigating Israel at every opportunity.  If you are indeed ready to make an exception for activists working for a peaceful solution, Amnon is probably the person that you should make your exception for.  Or any other Israeli who wishes to be your guest.  We all dream about peace, and are prepared to give a great deal to achieve it.

Don’t forget, however, that Israelis are not prepared to seek out peace at any price.  They are not prepared to do it in a way that ultimately ends up destroying the Jewish state.  After all, this is hardly peace.  If the Palestinians were prepared to recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, they will find willing partners in Israelis to shake their hands and to find ways to co-exist in peace.  If not, Israelis are unafraid to fight for their rights and for their survival.  We are a tough bunch of people who never give up.

It is unfortunate that BDS has managed to convince people like you that it is fighting for peace, and to cause you to become anti-Semitic in your actions.  The people who are really fighting for peace are not the Palestinians, and not the BDS activists.  They are the Israelis.  If you give them a chance to prove it, you will never be disappointed.  I am sure that you will have the chance to discover this first-hand if you host Amnon as your guest.  And even though you may have been influenced by BDS and by the media in your thoughts and actions, you do need to take some responsibility for the way in which you have treated Amnon.  It is anti-Semitic, bigoted and unacceptable.

Regards
Anthony

The Unfortunate Olympic Legacy

The Israeli Olympic team has returned from Rio with two bronze medals, both for judo.  This almost equals Israel's best medal haul in any Olympic Games to date.  Twice before Israel has earned two medals although, on the previous occasions, one medal was either a silver or gold.  Unfortunately, however, the most talked-about story in Israel relating to the games has nothing to do with the medals that were brought home.  Instead, the legacy of the Rio Olympics in Israel will always be the handshake that never was.

This of course relates to the judo bout between Israel's Ori Sasson and Egyptian judoka Islam El Shehaby.  The incident began long before the bout when, we are advised, El Shehaby indicated that he was not willing to fight an Israeli opponent.  He had been encouraged by fans on social media not to fight the Israeli in this bout.  Some reports suggest that the Egyptian authorities forced El Shehaby to partake in the bout, against his will.  This all seems somewhat strange for an athlete at the peak of his career.  It is assumed that the opportuntity to participate in, and excel at the Olympic Games is almost unrivaled as an ambition of any athlete.  The story published in some media says that El Shehaby decided to  retaliate against being forced to participate, and this came in the form of a refusal to shake hands with Ori at the end of the match.  Sasson had been warned of this situation beforehand, but still approached his vanquished opponent at the end of the fight for a handshake that was rejected by the Egyptian.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) intervened and  found that the Egyptian athlete had acted contrary to the rules of fair play and against the spirit of friendship embodied in the Olympic Values.  They issued the athlete with a reprimand.  The Egyptian Olympic Committee punished the athlete by sending him home from the games.  This incident followed the "scolding" issued to the head of the Lebanese Olympic delegation in Rio, after he refused to allow the Israeli team onto their bus that they were due to have shared on the way to the opening ceremony.  And also came after the incident involving the Saudi Arabian judoka who withdrew from a bout, when it became clear that the winner of her bout would have to fight against an Israeli in the next round.

Even though these incidents, particularly the rejection of Ori Sasson's handshake, made news around the world especially on social media, none of them come as a huge surprise to Israelis.  Despite the ideals of the Olympic Movement to promote peace and cooperation between peoples around the world, Israelis have always known that these ideals do not necessarily extend in equal measure to them.  The terror attack at the Munich Olympic Games, in 1972 in which 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team and a German police officer were killed, is clear evidence of that.  It is not so much about the terror attack itself - it is well known that terror groups around the world will use every possible way of getting to Israelis to sow fear amongst them.  It is rather about the response by the IOC to this incident.  It is inconceivable that it took until 2016 for the IOC to finally agree to officially honour the slain members of the Israeli Olympic team at a games in any way.  Why would it take 44 years to do this?  Who would have opposed the request made many years ago by the Israeli delegation to officially honour those who were killed?  And why?

It is notable that the most prominent anti-Israel incident at the Rio Games, the incident with El Shehaby, came from an athlete representing a country with whom Israel does have diplomatic relations.  Despite the concept and tradition of the "Olympic Truce" which calls for athletes to be allowed right of safe travel to and from the Games, Israel will expect representatives of countries like Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, with whom there are no diplomatic relations, not to agree to travel on the bus with her athletes.  This is clearly in direct contravention of the Olympic ideals.  But it is more surprising when the greatest protest comes from a so-called friendly country.  While it is noted that the country's Olympic Committee and other official bodies came out against the actions of the individual athlete, it seems as though El Shehaby received a huge amount of unofficial support for his actions from fellow Egyptians.  

Israel and Egypt signed their peace treaty 37 years ago.  More than a generation has elapsed since then, and yet their athletes still refuse to shake hands with Israel's athletes at the Olympic Games.  It is true that the peace has not been a truly warm peace, and there have been awkward times when the peace agreement looked like it was in grave danger.  It is nevertheless a peace treaty between countries that are neighbours, and comes with full diplomatic relations.  Was this refusal from an athlete who was born after the peace treaty was signed, a product of the education that he received?  I cannot imagine one Israeli athlete who would refuse to shake the hand of any opponent, no matter which country they come from.  Even from those countries that are insistent on wanting to destroy Israel.

It is ironic that the Israeli athletes travelling to the opening ceremony were willing to travel with the Lebanese delegation in the way that the organisers had intended.  After all, Lebanon is a country that has been at constant war with Israel for the past 68 years, and has tried to destroy Israel on numerous occasions.  It is even more ironic that the Israeli team had to refuse to be split up and reallocated onto a number of other buses due to security concerns associated with  the team being split up.  With the ramifications of Munich still resonating in their ears, the Israeli team was ordered by their security team to remain together until the organisers laid on an alternative bus in which the entire team could travel together along with their required security escort.  Perhaps the greatest irony of all, is the fact that the security of the entire Olympic Games in Rio was left to a group of 36 Israeli companies to take care of.

With anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment rife around the world, Israeli athletes went to the Olympic Games in Rio to find a relative safe haven from the turmoil.  If everybody adhered to the ideals of the Olympic Movement, this is what they would have found in Rio.  But this was not the case at all.  They found in Rio the same anti-Semitic behaviour that has become openly acceptable in football stadiums in Europe, and in the General Assembly of the United Nations.  And this from  countries with whom Israel has diplomatic relations.  This puts the achievement of our athletes in earning two bronze medals into the proper context.  Kol hakavod!

The Historical Entitlement Argument Does Not Work

Image from worldcometomyhome.blogspot.co.il

The link between the Jews and the land of Israel is undeniable.  The extent to which Jewish history has played itself out in this land makes it inconceivable that a Jewish state could exist anywhere else in the world.  We feel this link every day as we pray to be in Zion and the rebuilt city of Jerusalem, and we experience it every week in our readings of the Torah that mention places that still carry the same names to this very day.  The festivals that we celebrate are frequently associated with particular places in this land, and the graves of our revered forefathers and mothers are within our borders.  Perhaps, most of all, the site of the holy Temple, destroyed almost 2,000 years ago in the city of Jerusalem, remains the holiest site in our religion and culture.  Despite offers to create a Jewish homeland in other parts of the world, Jews through the generations could never have accepted a  Jewish state anywhere other than in the land of Israel.

In spite of this, the international community continues to question the rights that Jews have to be in the land of Israel, and to have their own homeland there.  This forces Israelis into defending why they have the right to state in the land of Israel.  The main argument that Jews use to justify their right to be there, is on the basis of historical links and entitlement.  Typical justifications include the fact that it is written in the Old Testament about the borders of the Jewish state, or that there has been more then 2,000 years of continuous Jewish presence in the land.  This is true despite numerous attempts over the years to expel the Jews from the land of Israel.  It is my view, however, that the ongoing attempts to prove rights to the land by Jews via these avenues, serve to weaken the claim rather than to strengthen it.  Even the act of trying to justify the rights at all represents a weakness in my eyes.

Israel is the only member of the UN whose right to exist is continuously questioned, and whose future existence is openly threatened.  Other members of the UN have no qualms in calling for Israel's destruction, knowing full well that this comes without any consequences.  Without the support of the members of the international community who should speak up against such atrocious threats and behaviour, Israel is drawn into the vacuum and feels the need to defend herself.  While this is a natural response to such vile threats, the act of going on the defensive only goads the bullies into increasing their attacks.  This creates a vicious circle which has no end to it.

Under UN partition plan in 1947, independent Arab and Jewish states were approved to be established in the former British mandate of Palestine.   This was confirmed by a two-thirds majority of states present and voting at the UN General Assembly.  Despite the fact that 13 countries voted against the plan and a further 10 countries abstained, the will of the 33 countries who voted in favour of the resolution was implemented.  This concluded any questions about who would have the right to live in the land, and to set up their state there.  The fact that the Arabs rejected the plan and refused to establish their state as envisaged does not detract from their right to do so, nor from the right of the Jews to do the same.  This was clearly laid down in resolution 181(II) and passed on 29 November 1947.

The justification for a Jewish state in the land of Israel is embodied solely in the UN resolution that presented this right.  Since the moment that the resolution was passed, the arguments surrounding historical entitlement or continuous presence (or anything else) were effectively set aside and became less significant as points in order to prove entitlement.  Perhaps these matters were considered in the extensive work and report issued by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).  Now that the recommendations of the committee have been accepted, the partition plan approved and the State of Israel established, there is no room to question this any further.  And it is certainly not acceptable to call for the destruction of the State of Israel, a country that was set up by a UN mandate with a two-thirds majority.

By continuing to put forward the argument of historical links and rights to the land, Israelis effectively give detractors justification to ignore the importance of the UN vote.  This negates the vote, and its legal significance.  It also gives  people the opportunity to open all types of debates to negate the historical rights arguments.  Not everybody believes what is written in the Bible, and it is almost impossible to conivince them otherwise.  Similarly, the debate whether or not Jews have really had a continuous presence in the land of Israel.  Facts of history are frequently difficult to prove unequivocally.  This is an argument that can never really be proved or won, in one direction or the other.  It is futile, and shows only that Israelis are happy to reopen this debate that cannot really prove anything in either direction.

The time has come to stop using arguments to justify Jewish presence in the land of Israel, that simply serve to weaken its right.  This is not to say that the historical link is unimportant to the Jewish soul.  On the contrary, this is what drove the Jews to fight so hard for their homeland in this place over so many years.  Now that this homeland is a reality, these arguments are no longer useful as political arguments, and are mostly unhelpful.  Instead, the vote by the international community that legitimised the Jewish homeland in Israel is the one and only relevant argument.  And, while it is true that the map of Israel today is not quite the map that was approved by the UN in 1947, it is equally true to note that the Arab state that was approved in that same UN vote was never accepted.  Instead, the land that was earmarked for the Arab state has simply been used as a springboard to try to destroy the Jewish state.

The Jewish state could never be anywhere else, other than in the historical Jewish homeland.  Now that this has been accepted by the UN and the international community in a legally binding vote, the argument about historical entitlement should be ceased.  It is simply no longer relevant as a political and legal argument, and not helpful to Israel's cause.

The Legacy of Entebbe Lives On

Forty years have passed since the rescue of Jewish hostages was carried out by IDF soldiers at Uganda's Entebbe airport.  A number of events were held recently to mark the occasion, and to remember all that happened in the hijacking of the Air France plane, the separation of the Jewish hostages from the others and the ultimate rescue of the hostages in an astonishing operation by IDF troops.  With a heavy heart, the victims of this hijacking and rescue operation were also remembered and commemorated.  In total, 4 of the hostages were killed as well as the IDF commander of the operation, Lt. Col. Yonni Netanyahu.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose this opportunity to visit Entebbe for the first time, to personally witness the place where his older brother was killed.

Operation Thunderbolt  was renamed Operation Yonatan to commemorate its fallen commander.  With the luxury of hindsight to look back on this operation, the legacy that Operation Yonatan has left for Israel and its security establishment can be assessed.  This rescue mission was undoubtedly one of the most daring and audacious missions of its type during its day, and even since then.  It has been the subject of numerous books, movies and military case studies, such has been the level of interest into the operation.  Besides the audacity and sheer chutzpa involved in pulling off this operation, the tiny details that were taken into consideration and the very short period of time within which all the preparations were made, have served to elevate the mission to legendary status.

The ramifications of this operation in Israel, and in the Jewish world in general, have been profound.  The operation has elevated Israel's secret service, the Mossad, to be afforded greater respect and recognition by lay people and peers in a way that other secret service organisations do not enjoy.  Because much of the work undertaken by secret service organisations, particularly the Mossad, is secret by its nature and is seldom made public, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness and the successes of the organisation.  Operation Yonatan was a visible sign of success, not only for the IDF, but indeed for the Israeli secret service.  It was, after all, the Mossad who were responsible for much of the intelligence-gathering, and who were integrally involved in every step of the operation.  It was one of the few visible successes that the Mossad would be happy to be publicly associated with, and which served to demonstrate its amazing capabilities.  This operation (along with a few others), has given the Mossad the status of a legend in the secret service world.  Israel's enemies know that they should be on their guard to expect the unexpected.  They have learned from this that very little is beyond the Mossad's capabilities.  Not only does the Mossad have the ability to carry out these types of operations, it also has the audacity and fearlessness to do so.  That legend continues to the current day.  Frequently, when crazy and improbable "accidents" occur that impair the work being done by Israel's enemies, the Mossad is the first organisation suspected of involvement.  Despite the automatic suspicion of the Mossad and the close monitoring of its operations, it is extremely seldom that hard evidence can be brought to confirm involvement of Mossad agents in an operation.  Rather than causing the Mossad to operate with impunity or carelessness, it gives the Mossad the impetus to carry out more and greater operations in the protection of the State of Israel and Jews around the world.

The fact that Operation Yonatan rescued both Israeli and non-Israeli Jews has also left its mark.  There is no other country around the world, whose secret service operates to protect the citizens of countries that are not its own.  And yet, this is the hallmark of the Mossad, as borne out by Operation Yonatan, when it comes to the protection of Jews who are not citizens of Israel.  The reason that the hostages were separated in Entebbe as they were, had nothing to do with them being citizens of Israel.  Instead, they were separated on the basis of whether they were Jewish or not.  Exactly as was the case during the Shoah.  Clearly, the Israelis were automatically included in the group of Jews, but they were not alone.  When Operation Yonatan was carried out, it was carried out in the name of all the Jews in the group, whether they were Israeli or not.  This was further evidence from the government of Israel, and from the instruments of the government, that the country stands ready to help Jews from all corners of the earth.  This was cemented into law when the Law of Return was enacted to allow Jews to claim immediate citizenship of the State of Israel, and has been demonstrated in numerous rescue missions of Jews when they were considered to be in danger.  Operation Yonatan was another significant sign of this commitment.

Little has changed over the past 40 years in terms of the threat that confronts Jews, no matter where they happen to be in the world.  We have seen Jews establish a level of comfort in their host countries, only to come under threat again.  The latest wave of violence in Europe, and in France in particular, has certainly been directed against Jews.  It is with pride and confidence that the State of Israel reaches out to these Jews to offer them protection in their homes, but also to offer them a home with greater protection.  And we have seen these Jews take up on this in their droves.  This is, amongst other things, the legend of Operation Yonatan.  Wherever Jews are in the world, the Jewish state will protect them.

Perhaps the greatest legacy left by Operation Yonatan comes in a much more personal form.  The death of Yonni Netanyahu left a scar on his family, and left a profound mark on a 27 year-old MIT student.  This student was Benjamin Netanyahu, younger brother of Yonni.  In his own words, the death of his older brother, "changed my life and steered it to its current course".  It is tough to judge to what extent the death of Yonni really spurred Benjamin to achieve what he has achieved over the years.  It is possible that he would have risen to be prime minister of Israel and one of the most influential leaders on earth, even without the push that he received from Yonni's death.  But we know about what he has managed to do in rising to be one of the best known and most influential people, and the influence that he has exerted over the years.  And we know that much of this has been with Yonni in mind.  The visit to Entebbe by the prime minister was not only in his capacity as prime minister, but was intensely personal as he mourned at the location where  his older brother and hero met his death.  One could not help wondering what Yonni would be thinking as he looked down on the scene from his seat in heaven.

As we look at the events at Entebbe with the benefit of 40 years of hindsight, the legacy is probably stronger now than it was in the euphoric days that followed the operation.  The strong message sent out by the Israeli government regarding its commitment to protect Jews around the world, and the message sent out by the IDF and the Mossad regarding their ability to do so, are louder and clearer than before.  And the personal impact left on one young student who went on to be one of the world's most recognisable personalities is unquestionable.  If the same set of circumstances presented themselves again, I have no doubt that the response would be no different.  This ultimately proves the greatness of the operation.

Goodbye to EU

Image courtesy http://alexedmans.com.

It has come as a surprise to many, especially to me, that the UK has voted to leave the EU.  Apparently, I was not the only one to be surprised.  The UK government has been paralysed by the surprise of this vote.  Even though I knew that the outcome of the referendum was always going to be close, I thought that the undecided voters were more likely to take a conservative view and sway the overall result to opt for the status quo.  In spit of this, the decision to Brexit has been made in an unequivocal manner by a majority of more than a million votes.  The people of the UK have spoken.

Commentators in Israel have been analysing the consequences for Israel of the UK leaving the EU.  The assessments that I have seen have been fairly superficial, and there seems to be no consensus as to whether the UK leaving the EU will be a good or bad thing for Israel.  While the relationship between Israel and the UK is likely to remain unchanged for the foreseeable future, and the same can be said of the relationship between Israel and the EU, I hold the view that the UK's exit from the EU is a very good thing for Israel for a number of reasons.

It is well known and widely acknowledged that the UK and the EU have very different positions on Israel.  While the UK is a friend of Israel's and has done much in the international community to support Israel and encourage understanding towards Israel and the challenges that she faces, the same cannot be said of the EU.  It is somewhat ironic that, while some of Europe's strongest nations hold a supportive view towards Israel. the formal position adopted by the EU as an organisation is so negative.  This position silences the individual countries like the UK who are members of the EU, and whose view is contrary to that adopted by the EU.  As a respected country in the international community, we can expect to hear the UK's voice more loudly in the future.  This is not only on the matter of Israel, but potentially on many other matters as well.  From an Israeli point of view, we very much look forward to hearing an independent UK voice in the international community, rather than the muted and diluted voice that has been drowned out by the EU.

It seems clear to me that the UK vote was substantially influenced by the refugee crisis in Europe last summer, when Europe was overrun with refugees from Syria and north Africa.  While many of the migrants were escaping from war zones and could be classed as true refugees, there was a significant number who were really economic migrants trying to gain access to Europe for a better economic future for them and their families.  And, while this objective is one to be respected and supported wherever possible, it is clear that Europe does not have the ability or economic strength to absorb all of those economic migrants who would like to move there.  The UK has long ago discovered that it is almost impossible to preserve her borders as part of the EU, and to keep unwanted migrants out.  The EU has established EU-wide rules for admission of refugees, and has open borders within the union that allows the free flow of people from one EU member country to another.  What also became blatantly clear last summer, was that the EU rules for admitting refugees have a much greater impact on some member countries than others.  Most of the migrants swarming from Syria and elsewhere into Europe, were determined to make their way to the UK and Germany in particular.  This was not a new phenomenon, as is evidenced by the encampments near Calais in France containing thousands who are waiting for their opportunity to secret their way across the English Channel.  Many EU countries, who carry an equal vote when deciding on matters such as allowing refugees into the union, were not having to bear the consequences of their decision at all.  Instead, the refugees were heading straight to the UK and one or two other countries.  The citizens of the UK found that they had no way of securing their borders against unwanted migrants, while a member of the EU.  The EU was determining this on their behalf.  I see the vote to leave the EU as an exercise of the right to secure borders.  This position will certainly be one that Israel can identify with in the strongest terms.

The decision by the UK to leave the EU seems to be a slippery slope.  Reports suggest that another half a dozen EU members, emboldened by the British vote, are lining up to hold a similar referendum on continued membership of the union.  There can be no doubt that the Brexit decision has weakened the EU as an organisation, and that further referendums and decisions to leave will serve to weaken it even more.  This could perhaps be the beginning of the end of the EU.  If one of the other founding members decides to leave the EU, I predict that this could potentially be a trigger for the EU to disentigrate completely.  Israel will not be heartbroken over such a break-up, if it occurs.  While the EU is a significant trading partner for Israel, the EU has been a political thorn in Israel's side.  Israel would much prefer to allow each EU member to present its views in the international community on an individual basis, rather than have the EU present the view of the majority of members as one single European view.  The larger and more influential European countries are largely supporters of Israel.  Their view is diluted by other smaller and less influential European countries, but whose vote carries equal weight within the EU voting system in determining foreign policy.

Anything that weakens the EU and its standing in the international community, will help Israel's cause.  The EU has been critical of Israel's attempts to protect herself against terorism and attacks against her citizens.  The EU has a strong position within the UN, the Quartet and other international organisations that are active on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but has constantly supported almost anything that the Palestinians say against Israel.  The union has placed significant pressure on Israel to take "confidence-building" steps by giving in to demands being made by the Palestinians.  When these demands are not matched by confidence-building steps by the Palestinians, it feels like Israel is being forced to take unilateral actions that ultimately weaken her position.  The EU has been at the forefront of forcing Israel to take such actions.

The more I think about the result of the Brexit vote, the more surprised I am about it.  And the more convinced I am that this will be good for Israel's situation in the international community.  I admire those UK citizens who made the difficult decision to follow this route, and feel confident that it will ultimately be good for their country, and good for ours.

Staying Unified

Picture from aicvideo

Today is the day in the Jewish calendar that Israelis (and others) celebrate the reunification of the holy city of Jerusalem 49 years ago.  Jerusalem Day is celebrated widely, and nowhere more enthusiastically than in the city itself.

Not only is Jerusalem one of the oldest cities in the world, it is undoubtedly the most controversial city in history.  According to Wikipedia, the city has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.  And these numbers do not include internal strife, intifadas and terror attacks which persist in the city until today.  Although these events have taken place over approximately 5,000 years, it still seems a great deal for any city to endure, and there are many who wonder why it is that one city should be so sought after that people are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to secure control over the city.

For the Jewish people, the answer is quite clear.  The belief is that the creation of the world emanated from the Foundation Stone on Mount Moriah.  This is also the same place that Jacob was ordered to sacrifice Isaac (and then stopped from doing so), and also coincides with the location of of the famous dream of Jacob's ladder.  So it comes as no surprise that King David chose this place to erect his City of David in approximately 1,000 BCE, and that Solomon's Temple was built on Mount Moriah soon after this.  From the moment that Solomon's Temple stood at this site (and possibly even from long before), it took on the undisputed position as the holiest place on earth to all Jews.  The city of Jerusalem is mentioned by name more than 600 times in the Jewish biblical texts, and thousands more times by other names and references.  The centrality of this location and this city to Jews is without rival.  It is highly likely that this centrality is the reason why Jesus, a Jewish boy from Nazareth, found himself in Jerusalem where he was crucified.  This established Jerusalem as a holy city for his followers, later to be known as Christians.  The holiness of Jerusalem to the third monotheistic religion, Islam, stems from an event that took place more than 600 years later.  The Quran tells us that the Prophet Mohammad was taken by Buraq to visit the "furthest mosque" (believed to mean the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem), from where Mohammad was taken to heaven.  This reference is the sole claim that Muslims have to Jerusalem as a holy city (although still not quite as holy as Mecca and Medina), and Jerusalem is not mentioned by name once in the entire Quran.  The scene was set for conflict, disagreement, war, death and destruction surrounding the control of this city, holy to three religions.

Today we celebrate 49 years of freedom of the city of Jerusalem.  This freedom extends not only to Jews and Israelis who have administrative control over the city.  It extends to all from the three religions, and others, who come in peace to worship, learn the history and pay respects to the holy city.  But this was not always the case, and is never taken for granted in this conflict-filled city.  Even as recently as 50 years ago, Jews were prevented from entering the Old City of Jerusalem, and approaching the holy site of the Western Wall.  This fact alone is justification for Israel to continue to exert control over the city and its holy sites.

Over the past few years, Jerusalem has put on an annual festival of light as part of the Jerusalem Day festivities.  It is highly symbolic that the city, with such a dark history, has a festival of light to emphasize all that is positive about the city.  I had the good fortune to participate in the festival this year, and it is an experience that has left an impression that will remain with me for a long time to come.  Not only were each of the exhibits creative and interesting, the atmosphere that could be felt around all parts of the city was electrifying (no pun intended).  Thousands of people formed a human chain following the different coloured tracks around the streets of the Old City, and around the walls.  People were drawn to parts of the Old City that they had never visited, perhaps because they were afraid or perhaps just because they were off the beaten track and unfamiliar.  I could not help noticing that people came from all parts of the country, from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds.  Muslims joined with Christians and Jews in celebrating the light of this intriguing city.  I silently wondered as I walked around the thronging alleyways whether the Muslims were not enjoying more freedom now since the Old City is in Jewish hands, than they did when it was ruled by Jordan.  It could only happen under Jewish leadership that the King of Jordan, the same Jordan that denied Jews the right to access its holiest site for 19 long years years, is now the head of the Waqf religious council that has jurisdiction over Muslim holy sites in the city of Jerusalem.

Despite the conflicts and violence that continue in Jerusalem at the current time, the city of Jerusalem has undergone probably one of its most dramatic reconstruction periods in its history over the past 49 years.  While the integrity and the character of the original city has been preserved, the construction of infrastructure and residential and commercial buildings has been astonishing.  The light rail trundles over ancient cobblestones, and modern buildings are built in the Jerusalem stone in keeping with the rest of the architecture of the city, blending in with the ancient walls of the Old City.

Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem since the 8th century BCE, with the exception of the period between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan brutally forced Jews out.  There were periods when being Jewish in the Jewish Quarter was not easy, but Jews were never willing to give up on this despite any hardship.  The same tenacious spirit is in evidence today.  Jews will not give up on the presence in the Jewish Quarter, and Jews will not give up on the united city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Each time I visit Jerusalem, I wonder what my grandparents and great-grandparents would feel if they saw the ease with which I am able to visit the holiest city in Judaism, and its holiest site, the Western Wall.  I wonder what they would think to see me driving freely around the streets, walking in the market and viewing the Knesset building.  We are indeed a privileged generation to have the immense good fortune to live at this time when we are able to do the things that our forefathers prayed fervently to have the right to do, and who died fighting to do.  When we say Lshana habaa B'Yerushalayim at the end of the Pesach seder, it is not a pipe dream.  It is something that is absolutely achievable.

If the history of Jerusalem is anything to go by, we will be forced to continue to fight to retain Jerusalem as our eternal capital.  It is a fight that most Israelis are prepared to undertake, and a fight that many have already died for.  But this makes us stronger rather than weaker, and our resolve to retain Jerusalem will never diminish.  For now, we bask in the glory of Jerusalem, and we rejoice in our ability to be free as Jews in our holy city.

Rough Justice?

The story of Sgt. Elor Azaria has captured the imagination of many Israelis, and has succeeded in dividing opinions very sharply.  Sgt. Azaria is an IDF soldier in the Kfir brigade, who was on duty near Hebron on a day in February when a terrorist stabbed and wounded another IDF soldier friend of his.  According to the most reliable eye-witness accounts of the story, Sgt. Azaria shot at the terrorist some time after the terrorist had already been neutralised and was under the full control of other IDF soldiers.  The shot fired from Sgt. Azaria's gun resulted in the death of the terrorist.  As a result of this incident, Elor has been court-martialed, and charged with the offense of manslaughter.

The entire episode has played itself out in the public eye.  This is due to the intervention of the human rights organisation Btselem, who miraculously had somebody on the scene to record the events, and decided that it was appropriate to publicly air a video taken of the incident.  The video turns out to have been edited before being publicised, and without full disclosure of that fact.  The act of airing the video in public pushed the matter, and the debate, into the public arena.  The IDF was forced to respond publicly saying that it would investigate the incident, and take actions against the soldier if appropriate.  This, in turn, sparked a great deal of public support for the soldier, explaining that he has been forced to operate in extremely dangerous conditions as a result of the recent wave of terrorist violence in the West Bank and Israel.  It was put forward that his actions should be understood in the context of the situation that has been imposed upon Israel and her soldiers.  Israel's prime minister, minister of defense, chief of general staff and other ministers in government all felt the need to make public statements on the matter in criticising the soldier's actions.  In turn, this drew in the family of the soldier and many others who felt the need to defend him.  The incident degenerated into a classic public free-for-all.

The considerations on each side of the argument are clear, and convincing.  Israel is a country that is constantly under threat from those who wish to destroy her and her people.  This forces all of Israel's citizens to serve in the army as protection against those who desire to reap destruction.  Israel's soldiers are placed in danger's way each and every day.  This is not a normal or acceptable situation, and places enormous stress on young people who serve in the country's military.  Little consideration seems to be given by the international community to this fact.  Instead, Israel's soldiers are constantly under close scrutiny.  Organisations like Btselem ignore the human rights abuses that are inherent in the constant threats to Israel, and they find it only necessary to hold Israel and her soldiers accountable for their reactions in the spur of the moment.  This background forms the basis for the support that Elor has received from the public.  The fact that he was placed in a difficult situation having to protect his country at such a young age, has elicited sympathy and respect for him, and support for his actions.  Elor and his brigade spent many long hours on patrols, knowing that somebody could try to kill them at any moment.  Why should terrorists be afforded human rights, when they have no respect for the human rights of others?  There are many who believe that the fact that this person was trying to kill another individual in an orchestrated terror attack, immediately removes his right to being treated with respect and removes his human rights.  So, for many Israelis, it is inconceivable that a soldier can be tried on charges of killing a terrorist.  This is, after all, the job that soldiers are trained to do.

Despite many indications to the contrary, the IDF has strict disciplinary rules that it enforces.  These rules have been developed to fit with the environment in which its soldiers are forced to operate, and are designed to take advantage of the Israeli culture to extract the most from each conscripted soldier.  The rules are also highly influenced by our Jewish heritage, and the values that come with that.  The IDF's view is that we have the obligation to separate ourselves and our behaviour from those who seek to destroy us, and who behave without compassion or humanity in their quest to achieve this.  Even though the IDF's objective is to protect the people and the State of Israel, this should be achieved in a manner that is true to our cultural and religious teachings.  We should never lose sight of the fact that our soldiers are human beings before they are soldiers.  It is for this reason that the IDF discipline affords human rights not only to soldiers, but also to terrorists and enemies.  When responding to terrorists and enemy fighters, IDF soldiers have strict rules of engagement that are closely policed.  While giving IDF soldiers freedom to do almost anything that is required in the protection of Israeli lives, the rules of engagement strictly forbid shooting anybody unless an order to do so has been given or unless a victim's life is in immediate danger.  Failure to abide by the rules of engagement is taken seriously.  An army that has to counter the threats that the IDF sees daily, is forced to have a zero tolerance policy on operational transgressions.  There is no room for any soldier to have his or her own agenda or ulterior motive while he is in the service of the IDF.  If there is any suspicion that Elor has overstepped the well-kown and highly drilled rules of engagement, the correct action is to investigate the matter and give the soldier the right to defend his or her actions.  If the soldier felt fear or threat at the moment that he fired his shot, or believed that another life was in imminent danger, he will have his opportunity to present this defence.

I feel confident that the court-martial system will allow the charges to be put to the soldier, while also allowing him the opportunity to defend them in a democratic manner.  No external party or member of the public, whether it be Btselem, the minister of defense, the chief of general staff and even the prime minister can, or should pre-empt or interrupt this process.  It is extremely regrettable that this process is being played out in public, and it would be far more effective to allow the IDF to do its job internally in the manner that it is accustomed to doing.  It is clear that the act by Btselem of bringing this into the public domain effectively forced some of our leadership to respond to this in public.  The response, however, to the Btselem accusations was way beyond what was required.  Some believe that this was designed to pander to the international community, rather than considering the impact on the soldier and on the IDF as a whole.  Elor Azaria has become a villain in the eyes of some, while being a hero in the eyes of others.  I regard this act of forcing him into such a high public profile is possibly as stressful as the job that he was doing in the field near Hebron.

There is no doubt that Israel's young soldiers are forced to endure more stress than other young people of their age, and perhaps even more than professional soldiers in the armies of other countries.  Israel is currently the only country in the developed world that is being forced to fight a war within its borders, and the only country whose very existence is constantly questioned and threatened.  In spite of this fact, the international community seems to hold Israel to standards that are far in excess of the standards expected of other countries.  All of this is extremely unreasonable and even discriminatory, but standing up and shouting about it from the rooftops appears futile.  It does not help Israel secure her future, which is the most important task at hand.

It is thanks to the enthusiasm of those like Elor Azaria that Israel is able to protect herself against the constant threats of destruction.  Israel's young soldiers show incredible loyalty and patriotism when serving their country.  This enthusiasm needs to be allowed to show itself within a very stringent framework.  The framework is not only important for the discipline in the IDF, it is important for our soldiers and our country to retain their humanity.  This is the key difference that distinguishes Israel from her enemies, and is something that we would never wish to lose.  We would never wish to sink to the levels of those who seek to destroy Israel.

It is important now to allow the court-martial to conduct its work according to the rules and democratic principles under which it operates.  No external parties should be allowed to influence this process in any way.  No doubt, the verdict of the court-martial will be received with controversy, whatever its outcome.  We are forced to accept the verdict, and understand that this is the way in which our democracy operates.  Whatever the outcome may be, I feel immensely proud that we are able to retain our humanity even under the most extreme conditions.  And I am proud that we demand this humanity of our soldiers, even if the international community does not acknowledge this.