Page 1,043«..1020..1,0421,0431,0441,045..1,0501,060..»

Viber cuts business ties with Facebook – United News of Bangladesh

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Rakuten Viber, one of the worlds leading messaging apps for free and secure communication, has cut all business ties with social mediagiantFacebook aiming to protect its one billion users.

The messaging app will remove Facebook Connect, Facebook SDK, and GIPHY, as well as cease all advertisement spending on the social networking platform, said a press release.

Amid the protests that broke out all over the US over the past few weeks, a group of six organisations, including the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP, called on Facebook advertisers to pause their spending on the social networking site during the month of July over the companys inability to protect users from hate speech.

On top of numerous instances of data misconduct, including the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal in which the political consulting firm improperly harvested data of up to 87 million Facebook users, Viber sees Facebooks hate-speech stumble as the last straw.

The messaging app is taking the #StopHateForProfit movement a step further, cutting all business ties with Facebook.

Also read:Facebook acknowledges a bug that blocked coronavirus news

Djamel Agaoua, CEO, Viber, said, From Facebooks mishandling of data and lack of privacy in its apps to its outrageous stand of avoiding the steps necessary to protect the public from violent and dangerous rhetoric, Facebook has gone too far. We are not the arbiters of truth, but the truth is some people are suffering from the proliferation of violent content, and companies must take a clear stand.

The actions to remove the relevant Facebook touchpoints from the Viber app are expected to be completed by the beginning of July while Ad spending on Facebook will cease effective immediately.

Also read:Facebook to follow digital security rules, share info with law enforcers

Excerpt from:
Viber cuts business ties with Facebook - United News of Bangladesh

Unorthodox could use some Hasidic sex lessons and a few interior decorating tips too – Forward

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Where does one start with Unorthodox? With the fake shtreimels which would hardly satisfy a 9-year old Hasidic boy dressing up for Purim? With the grating accents one would struggle to place west of the Vistula, if not the Volga? The home furnishings that may have been the deal during the Weimar years or Eisenhowers first term at the latest? Or maybe the dim light bulbs, or no light bulbs?

The title of the series is as good a place as any to begin. Not only is it what one first encounters but it is also the shows main problem. As the protagonist Esty shows, becoming Unorthodox is not quite as easy as it sounds. You can stop practicing, you can hop into a car on Shabbos, run away to the other end of the world, swap your thick hosiery for figure-hugging jeans, discard your wig, flaunt your shaven head but still the Un wont stick to the orthodox. Esty cant stop telling whoever cares to listen how she was not educated and how she was prevented from studying music, but even when she does finally win an audition for which she is ill-suited, she cannot but help herself sing her chupah tune. For try as you may to cut yourself free from your orthodox roots, all too often you are left dangling like the snipped eruv cord that opens the series.

But this too is secondary. With a title like Unorthodox, we would have to assume that Esty was born or married into a more-or-less typical orthodox community and household. And, if we are to believe the series, that orthodoxy from which Esty uns (my coinage) herself, is one where the Holocaust is still widely mourned, where a bevy of sisters-in-law are constantly prying into your sex life, where your mother-in-law gives you a visual pregnancy test each time she sets her eyes on you, where Hasidic Rebbes convene and chair family crisis meetings and where a Rebbe of this type, for whom survival is second nature, is tactless enough to ask a husband to unload about his vanished wife in front of the entire family.

Of the above, the visual pregnancy test might cut closest to the bone, but it still ignores that Orthodoxy spreads much wider than Hasidim and Hasidim are also far more varied than just Satmar, where Estys family evidently belongs. This, however, is not something the series troubles itself to explore or even acknowledge.

This is not merely a question of artistic license, nor is it a question of nit-picking about this particular Rebbes (misplaced) white socks or the wrong prayer said over negel vasser (the bedside hand-rinsing ritual immediately upon awakening). It is also not to offer apologetics for the faults of these communities which can often be claustrophobic enough, nor is it a plea to present the positive side which is not a filmmakers job.

However, if you are going to show someone becoming unorthodox then it is important to tell or show what makes the community she has decided to leave tick. And if you are going to call a series Unorthodox and claim it to be the first show ever to accurately portray the Hasidic community, then we are entitled to hold it to that supposed accuracy, and we may expect a portrayal that at least chimes with the truth.

So where is the buzz and tumult of Hasidic communities and the frenetic activity that never ends? Be it Shabbos or Yom Tov and their preparations, in airports and on planes to simches and pilgrimages to the ever-growing list of far-flung rabbinical graves, the never-ending life-cycle events, the food that goes with it all, the industry with the many small and not-so-small businesses which feed and finance these large communities, not to mention the interminable squabbling that from time to time erupts into a conflagration. In real life, If the eruv was cut, you can bet one faction would have deliberately snipped it to spite their rivals. Yet in the series we never even see anyone in a shul, which is at the epicenter of Hasidic life and, as the current pandemic has shown, is almost impossible to keep Hasidim away from.

If the series is to be believed, all Hasidim have going for them is a phobia of daylight and bright bulbs and an obsession with little else but babies. This enforced drabness visible in the clothing, the home dcor, the wedding though the atmosphere miraculously brightens up the moment Hasidim are out of sight is all the more surprising as there is little of it in Deborah Feldmans book, Unorthodox, on which the series is based. There, the protagonist receives a sleek black handbag and Italian shoes as soon as she reaches marriageable age, no expense is spared for her trousseau and her groom is gifted a Baum et Mercier watch for his engagement.

By contrast, in the series Esty is made to look like a rabbis daughter from pre-war Transcarpathia and is certainly never seen in Burberry tweeds which are all the rage in Williamsburg. They give us the kids slumped during the after-midnight wedding mitzvah-tantz all too real at weddings which regularly end closer to dawn than to midnight. But where were the elaborate floral arrangements on the bridal chair? Instead Esty is seated, more like plonked, on a plain unadorned chair, at a wedding that would embarrass even mechutonim for whom communal funds had been raised.

In the book the grandmother has a subversive streak smuggling secular books into the home and hiding them from her zealous husband and also spends much time in her steamed-up kitchen producing mouth-watering rugelach. Here, she has been reduced to an overweight, badly-dressed woman devoid of character with the accent of a Russian migr.

It is no secret that there is plenty of poverty around, caused in large part by poor education and large families, though there is also plenty of visible wealth and even more so an aspirational and thriving middle-class who are as much at home in the virtual world as in the real world notwithstanding the educational handicap. No picture of the Hasidic world is complete without showing this ostentatious wealth and mass consumption rubbing along shoulder to shoulder with the grinding poverty.

Yet these communities retain most of their youth despite the poverty and also despite their, admittedly constrained, exposure to the wider world. These are not people stuck in a time warp oblivious to the world around them as the series would have us believe. This is a community that lives in visible distance of the worlds most pulsating city and breathing its air while maintaining an unwavering fealty to dynastic rabbinical overlords with names, attires and customs that originated in Eastern Europe of centuries ago and still remains relevant to large and growing communities in 2020. But you would not obtain any insight from the series as to why and how this is done.And then there is the sex. Oy vey the sex.

Though before we get there we do need some lessons, dont we? So let us join the grandmother on the couch and listen in on the kallah classes (bridal lessons) as the teacher introduces our Esty to her hole.

Yes, you read that correctly and Im afraid it is just downhill from there. Because if we are to believe the series, this is how Hasidic sex lessons are taught. A woman turns up at a grandmas house to talk to a clueless girl who knows so little of her body that she must be sent to the WC mid-lesson (I kid you not) to check out her orifices. And we the viewers follow her into the toilet as she carries out her homework assignment. Sorry if that counts as a spoiler, but if anyone is spoiling anything it aint me.

Yet this supposedly clueless know-nothing is knowledgeable enough to ask about the abstinence during the menstruating days. And for that, the teacher has a ready-made pert answer pulled straight out of her elaborate headgear that virtually all the women don: absence makes the heart grow fonder. Oi Mamele.

It is not that such modern-day fanciful explanations are not given to ancient rules and customs, because they are. Rather, it is the manner that the series has chosen to present it which is as authentic as the bone-china cup and saucer the teacher is unlikely to be sipping from. So let me teach them a lesson. Kallah classes are held at the teachers home; no grandmother, or anyone else for that matter, gets to sit in; and any drink sipped by the teacher is more than likely to be from a polystyrene cup which is the receptacle of choice in many a Hasidic home.

Well, now with the lesson over, and Esty presumably having found what she was sent to discover, we can get down to the nitty gritty. And this is where things get complicated. Hardly to its credit, the film resists the hoary hole-in-a-sheet line so beloved of depictions of Hasidic sex of yesteryear, though Yankys ankle-long shirt which he never removes and which remains buttoned-up throughout is only marginally more satisfying. Far worse, however, is the lack of any intimacy between the couple in private. Not on the first night and not at any time later. No foreplay, no smooching and not even the slightest embrace.

For writing this piece, I consulted someone with knowledge of Hasidic marital tutoring and he conceded that, sex during daytime aside, the sex scenes are in fact not entirely uncommon. They also accord with the criticism voiced internally on the manner in which boys and girls are prepared for their big night. Whoever teaches these couples should be flogged and the filmmakers cannot be blamed for telling the story.

The overwhelming majority of Hasidic brides and grooms are teenagers who have had no previous romantic or sexual encounter whatsoever. Never mind a stolen kiss behind the proverbial bike shed, these kids have spent their entire childhood and teens in complete segregation; in very many cases they have never seen their parents embrace let alone kiss. They are persistently told how anything to do with their nether regions is filth and that even any thought of it is sinful. Yet on their marriage night they are expected to go all the way with a practical stranger to whom they have chatted for perhaps a total of two hours, with one hour of that often about a year earlier.

After such an upbringing, it is little wonder that when her turn comes around, Esty finds intercourse painful. What however is unforgivable and awful to watch is when they do finally manage a painful for her consummation, he then gets to revel in post-coital bliss while she writhes in agony. But then what is one to expect after such preparation?Here is a teenager or someone in his early twenties who has acquired a full time cook who rushes home from her job to prepare his meal, and a waitress who serves him loyally at the table, so why should he not also expect a personal procreator? And if a kitchen comes with kitchen hazards, the bedroom comes with bedroom hazards, and who is to tell these overgrown kids the qualitative difference between the two?

The Hasidic attitude towards sex can be garnered from the standard Hasidic euphemism for sex the mitzvah. Sometimes the mitzvah is to consume large quantities of indigestible hand-baked matzos, at other times it requires you to shake a lulav, and occasionally it is to thrust your partner. Some matzos are tastier than others and similarly some mitzvahs are more desirable. However, from an objective point of view they are all one and the same, which is how we get to where we are. Because what these lessons, which resemble bar and bat mitzvah classes, do not account for, is that sex is driven by human impulses and is part of a loving relationship, and that human feelings are not as readily produced as Hanukkah candles.

To explain this procreational rather than recreational sex, the musty interiors and the apparent rear-facing viewpoint in a forward-looking world presented by the series, we are given the pat answer of the Holocaust. Where the old are still mourning their losses and the young are busy replenishing what was lost.

And for a counterpoint to that, we do not have a Hasidic voice, because, as the series would have us believe, such voices do not exist. Instead the voice is provided by Yael, an Israeli, in Berlin no less, who mocks Esty while ingratiating herself with a metrosexual clique of music school hipsters. It is she who must tell Esty that it is no big deal that her grandparent lost their parents in the Holocaust because so did half of Israel. She is also the one who bullyingly tells Esty that her piano playing is crap, which indeed it is.

So heres some news for the producers. Probably four-fifths of New Yorks Hasidic population also lost parents and grandparents, or survived, the Holocaust. But unlike Israel they do not bang on about it endlessly, do not even have a Holocaust memorial day, do not go on annual March-of-the-Living parades waving Israeli flags, and do not on the whole send their youths on death-camp tours. They also do not propose selfies at a Berlin memorial to murdered Jews, as the annoying Yael does. Nor do they lie back and think of Auschwitz.

But it gets worse. I have always thought that, as bad as it is, the worst thing about The Merchant of Venice is not the stereotype of an avaricious Shylock. The real offense lies in the plays resolution. The play ends on a happy note when the characters find love with one another, including Shylocks daughter Jessica. For her, happiness means converting to Christianity so she can walk off with her lover. Only Shylock departs alone having lost his child and his fortune.

This message that salvation is to be found only on the outside beats at the heart of the series. Bright, white apartments are only for the music teacher and Estys outcast lesbian mother, a beauty set against the mostly dowdy Williamsburg matrons. Music is taught either by a non-Jewish Brooklynite or in Berlin. The humanity of that Brooklyn music teacher is contrasted with Estys father harassing her for her rent. And while the Hasidic father takes his underage daughter along for his avaricious exploits, the music teacher responds with compassion by offering the young girl music lessons.

In Berlin, strangers are welcomed while in Williamsburg those who will not conform are cast out. You run away from Hasidim to Germans who give you refuge; their passport provides an entry ticket to the world. For Yanky , a trip to Europe is for grave hopping; for Esty Europe is where you discover yourself. Hasidim endow you with stifling hosiery and outdated clothes from which you strip not for sex but for ritual purity, while in Berlin you shed your clothes for a swim and you also shed your wig. In Williamsburg you clam up for sex while in Berlin the juices keep flowing.

And to cap it all, in a most offensive Jessica-like gesture, at the end Yanky snips off his peyos, his most prominent and visual religious and cultural symbol - and in Berlin of all places as a desperate attempt to win Estys love. Because as far as the series is concerned, for the Unorthodox, only Berlin beckons.

David Herskovic is a lawyer living in Stamford Hill, London, Europes largest Hasidic community.

See the original post:

Unorthodox could use some Hasidic sex lessons and a few interior decorating tips too - Forward

Torah Is the Air We Breathe | Gil Student – First Things

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Throughout the pandemic, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has singled out the Jewish community for violating stay-at-home orders. Now, although Jews still face severe restrictions on religious gatherings after months without access to synagogues, he has permitted protesters to gather in the thousands and break social distancing guidelines. Why do political protests deserve special dispensation but religious services do not? Some have accused de Blasio of anti-Semitism, but he has always shown himself to be a trusted ally of the Jewish community. I believe the reason for his inconsistency is in some ways more insidious: Secular society sees religionand public worship in particularas little more than a cultural expression or a lifestyle choice.

After a leading Hasidic rabbi passed away from coronavirus in late April, his followers attempted to hold a socially distanced funeral procession through the streets of Williamsburg. In Jewish tradition, you show respect by walking with the deceased as he is taken to burial. After agreeing to allow mourners to walk six feet apart in the streets while activists handed out masks, police retracted their permission at the last minute and pushed mourners onto sidewalks, where crowding was inevitable. After seeing pictures of the crowds on social media, de Blasio tweeted his disapproval, calling out Orthodox Jews as unique transgressors of social distancing rules: My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups.

Under de Blasio's watch, New York has seen a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents. This ill-advised comment stirred an already boiling pot of hatred. During the pandemic, police have targeted the Jewish community by closing the few operating synagogues and yeshivas, shutting down Jewish businesses deemed non-essential, and issuing summonses in Jewish neighborhoods to people walking without masks.

I support the decision to close houses of worship to save lives during this health crisis. I have attended too many Zoom funerals to underestimate the force of this pandemic. And yet I am surprised by the vehemence against the Jewish community. Why have other violations of social distancing rules drawn less indignation than religious services and funeral processions?

When asked about this contradiction, de Blasio said, When you see a nation, an entire nation, simultaneously grappling with an extraordinary crisis seeded in 400 years of American racism, Im sorry, that is not the same question as the understandably aggrieved store owner or the devout religious person who wants to go back to services. Aside from the bizarre spectacle of touting 400 years of oppression to members of a community suffering from two millennia of oppression, the response raises other questions that point to the primary spiritual malady of our time.

Jews do not see religion as secular society sees it. Jews believe that prayer and Torah study are not merely religious rituals, but foundations of a religious life. A Jewish man must pray three times a day and study Torah at least once during the day and night. Jews pack into synagogues every day. These activities are not mere obligations; prayer and Torah study are the air we breathe. The rabbis of the Talmud teach that the world is sustained by three things: Torah study, prayer, and acts of kindness.

But our spiritually impoverished society views religious practices as merely cultural expressions. It views religious services as equivalent to yoga classes and book club meetings. It does not see religion as essential, and therefore cannot understand that Jews dont serve God as part of our lives; rather, we live to serve God.

Neither yoga classes nor book clubs are explicitly protected in the Constitution because they, unlike religion, are lifestyle accoutrements. Religion is something for which we fight to the death, for which pilgrims flee their continent to a new world. We do not undergo martyrdom for a book club. I look at religion and see an essential service. I believe our lives are impoverished when we must close the doors of holiness. But many look at houses of worship closed for months and shrug. So you miss a few services, do it by Zoom. Whats the difference?

Yes, we can pray alone and study Torah on Zoom. And people can protest injustice at home and on Zoom. But private activity differs qualitatively from public communion. During the second-century Hadrianic persecutions, Rabbi Akiva defied the government by gathering students to study Torah publicly. They were risking much, and were ultimately martyred. When a colleague asked Rabbi Akiva why he risked so much for public Torah study, he explained that Jews are like fish, and that Torah is the water without which we cannot survive. Public Torah study is something for which Jews have suffered martyrdom.

If de Blasio and those who represent the secular consensus see protests as more essential than prayer and Torah study, it is not because they value protesting too much. It is because they see religion as nothing more than a personal lifestyle decision. Even as we, please God, recover from this pandemic, the deep fissure it has revealed will not heal on its own. We need to articulate more clearly that religion is the essence of life, the reason the world was created. We must counter the desacralizing attitude in the public square as well as in ourselves and our communities.

Rabbi Gil Student is the editor of TorahMusings.com and Director of the Halacha Commission of the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

Read more from the original source:

Torah Is the Air We Breathe | Gil Student - First Things

Zionism is the Jewish Black Lives Matter – Forward

Posted By on June 26, 2020

There is a particular irony when I hear those in the mainstream Jewish community touting the specious All Lives Matter slogan. No, this isnt just about a betrayal of our ethical tradition demanding that we uplift the oppressed. Rather it is an irony that cuts so deep that this slogan actually undermines a belief shared by the vast majority of the Jewish community the right for Israel to exist as a Jewish state and the importance of its existence.

Throughout history Jews have tried the all lives matter argument. We brought the idea of ethical monotheism to the world under the foundational beliefs that all humans are created in the image of God. In a world dominated by social hierarchies, the early Israelites and prophets railed against this unjust caste system, starting a long process of moral progression. We practically invented the idea of all lives matter.

According to Jewish tradition, we then tried teaching this to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans - yet their hostility towards others, specifically us, went unstopped. We engaged in medieval debates with the Christain hegemony, making the argument that all humans are inherently valuable and godly. Yet the libels, pogroms and scapegoating never ceased.

Finally, we thought after the Enlightenment that anti-Semitism would soon be over. Finally the world recognized that all lives matter that people have fundamental and unalienable rights that need not depend on color or creeds. Yet we all know how that worked out.

Theodere Herzl was a young secular Jew born in Hungary. Like many Jewish intellectuals at that time, he wanted Judaism to simply assimilate into the broader and better European culture so they could thrust off their shameful Jewish characteristics and stop anti-Semitism. The superior Western European culture, Herzl preached, was proclaiming a message of equality and acceptance for everyone. They were singing all lives matter.

Yet it is never that easy. Thousands of years of anti-Semtiism cannot be erased by a few changed laws and edicts. Hatred of Jews and systemic anti-Semitism was still ubiquitous throughout all facets of society. Herzl came to this realization during the Dreyfus affair as he heard angry mobs shouting death to the Jews. Soon the vast majority of worldwide Jewry would come to the same conclusion as they witnessed the horrors that took place during the Holocaust.

So much for all lives matter, Herzl thought. A continent with a history and foundation of anti-Semitism can never be a safehaven or home to Jews unless there is a miraculous change. And we are done waiting for miracles.

The all lives matter song of Jewish history slowly stopped and was replaced by Jewish lives matter. A state for the Jews, in our historic and indigenous homeland, where we can govern and protect ourselves, cultivate our tradition and keep it alive, and be a refuge for any Jew in trouble. Yes Zionis mis the ultimate claim that Jewish lives matter.

Jews have come to the difficult but important realization that we need to occasionally thrust aside universalism in favor of particularism. We understand that while we need to be constantly dedicated to global and universal issues, Jewish-specific education and protection is paramount to our well-being. We have no issue proudly advocating for the fact that Jewish lives matter.

Because of this, we dont just have a moral imperative to support Black Lives Matter. We have a personal one. The same history and values that inspire me to be an outspoken Zionist underpin my support for Black Lives Matter.

Our prophets teach that in Messianic times the entire world will come together in a monolithic utopia where there is no more strife or war. Until then, we need to be on the frontlines of racial justice and yes, that means rejecting broken and ineffective claims such as All Lives Matter.

_Moshe Daniel Levine is the Senior Jewish Educator at OC Hillel and a Rabbinic fellow at Temple Beth Tikvah. You can read more of his writing on his website. He can be reached at dlevine21@gmail.com.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Go here to see the original:
Zionism is the Jewish Black Lives Matter - Forward

B’nai Brith Canada Calls on York University to Discipline Professor for Comparing Zionism to White Supremacy – Jewish Journal

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Bnai Brith Canada launched a petition on June 24 calling on York University in Toronto to take action against a professor for equating Zionism with white supremacy.

According to a press release from Bnai Brith Canada, York University Osgoode Hall Law Professor Faisal Bhabha said during a June 10 panel that Zionism is just Jewish supremacy. He later doubled down, saying, I am equating Zionism with white supremacy. Bhabha also said it was possible that Israel is exaggerating the Holocaust.

The notion that Zionism, which merely calls for Jewish statehood in the Jewish homeland no different than most other national movements is a uniquely evil form of supremacy, is a false and dangerous allegation, the petition stated. Mr. Bhabhas twisting of Zionism rhetorically transforms hundreds of thousands of Canadian Jews into Jewish supremacists.

Additionally, Bhabhas Holocaust comment is likely to sow hatred and division when no basis for it exists.

The petition concluded with a call for York University to remove Bhabha from teaching any human rights courses.

Any version of human rights that does not include a firm rejection of anti-Semitism is ethically and morally bankrupt, the petition stated. Students at York University and Osgoode Hall Law School deserve better.

Bnai Brith Canada CEO Michael Mostyn said in a statement, Now is the time for York to show that its commitment to fighting anti-Semitism includes concrete actions, not just words. In our opinion, someone who believes that the vast majority of Canadian Jews subscribe to Jewish supremacy and that the Jewish State might plausibly have exaggerated the Holocaust is clearly unfit to teach anyone about human rights.

The university did not respond to the Journals request for comment.

On June 2, York University President and Vice Chancellor Rhonda Lenton announced that the university would be taking measures to address anti-Semitism on campus after violence broke out during protests against a pro-Israel speaking event in November. The measures included adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and making it clear when protests stop being peaceful.

York is not immune from anti-Semitism, nor are we unique in grappling with its manifestations within our community, Lenton said. The University has been clear: we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms, just as we condemn Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Indigenous racism, and any discrimination and hate based on national origin, race, religion, creed, ability, gender, or sexual orientation.

She added: We cannot police the beliefs of our community members, but we can strengthen our policies and procedures to protect our community from abhorrent views and actions. We also have an important role to play in addressing discrimination through research and education.

See the article here:
B'nai Brith Canada Calls on York University to Discipline Professor for Comparing Zionism to White Supremacy - Jewish Journal

Elazar Stern to ‘Post’: I am disappointed in the relgious-Zionist MKs – The Jerusalem Post

Posted By on June 26, 2020

In a recent party meeting, a member of Knesset made the following comment: Our experience with religious-Zionist MKs hasnt been much of a success. He said this with a touch of humorist sarcasm, but then I began to rack my brain, trying to think which MKs from Yesh Atid and Telem were from the National-Religious camp. And truth be told, I couldnt think of even one we could be proud of. I could think of a few who used to appear on these lists, but who had defected to other parties at some point. In the most recent election campaign, theyd sat with us as part of the national-religious sector team that mainly discussed Jewish-Zionist-democratic dogma that we bring to Israel, which to a certain extent is the reason why religious-Zionist political parties were created in the first place.Other members of Knesset who proudly represent even still today the national-religious sector along with me include MKs Yoaz Hendel, Michal Cotler-Wunsh, Tehila Friedman and Pnina Tamano-Shata. We have formulated messages, and gone to parlor house meetings (sometimes together), most of which were held to discuss issues from the viewpoint of religious Zionism, such as the Gavison-Medan Covenant and recognizing Shabbat as an official day of rest, conversion in the spirit of the IDF Nativ course, halachic conversion led by the late Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch, Rabbi Yaakov Medan and Rabbi David Stav, alternative kashrut supervision through organizations such as Tzohar and including women in the Chief Rabbinate Council body. We thought we were bringing an old/new dogma.Our previous platform promised: Honest concern for the Jewish-democratic image of the State of Israel, which requires public discussion of issues relating to religion and state. We must open the status quo to joint public discussion, from a feeling of partnership, not conflict. But all of this has been carried away with the wind. My fellow national-religious sector team members have all defected from their parties. Who will believe them in the next election campaign? Who will believe them when they claim theres still reason to hope? Everyone based their actions on different ideologies, be it sovereignty, Zionism or hatred of the Arabs. But the truth is, everyone secured for themselves seats through their so-called ideological desertion.Hendel and Tamano-Shata were promised ministries, while Friedman and Cotler-Wunsh were promised seats in the Knesset. To this list we must, of course, add Rafi Peretz, who also deserted his party of course for ideological reasons in favor of a seat in one of the many chairs at the governmental table whose new monstrous size presents a challenge no architect or carpenter has yet overcome.These members of Knesset who defected from their parties already knew at the time of their defection that the Jewish identity of the State of Israel depended on or more accurately was being forfeited by them, and certainly with their support of a haredi (ultra-Orthodox) worldview. The agreement they have now committed to backing reads, The status quo will be maintained on the issues of religion and state, as it has been for decades in Israel. In the case that a change that would adversely affect the status quo were to be suggested, the prime minister would work together in mutual commitment with the Likud bloc to fix the violation, in order to maintain the status quo.This means that, with regard to any bill I propose regarding the status of women; conversion; Shabbat or kashrut, they need to either oppose during a plenum session, or to invent a doctors appointment in order to not be present when it comes time for voting. According to the agreement they have signed, if the Supreme Court decides to intervene on issues regarding religion and state they are obligated to support legislation that circumvents Supreme Court rulings. I would like to remind all the people who disparage the Supreme Courts meddling in these issues that there are TV broadcasts on Shabbat and kashrut certification from Tzohar thanks to the intervention of the High Court of Justice.I also wanted a unity government. I know that when you form a coalition everyone is forced to make concessions, some of which are painful. If everyone had the same platform, we would not have needed this partnership in the first place. Compromise is necessary. But in this case, there was no compromise. With respect to the issues of religion and state, a bulldozer razed all ideas of progressive Judaism that brings us all together regarding the State of Israels Jewish Zionist identity, and all of this is the result and due to the support of all those defecting members of Knesset.In other words, a bulldozer has razed all our hopes that are delineated in Blue and Whites platform: We will promote widespread reform in the kashrut industry in an effort to make it more transparent, accessible, open and more advanced. We will work to ensure that women receive proper representation in all state institutions, including the religious and rabbinical institutions. We will work to arrange prayer areas in the courtyard area of the Western Wall. We will work towards establishing a conversion authority that is fair, enlightened and relevant to the modern times, while still adhering to halachic rules.It would not be a surprise to my fellow members of Knesset in Blue and White and Yesh Atid if I were to say that I would be willing to make compromises in order to be part of an government, and certainly a unity government. And yet, anyone who knows me certainly knows I would never be willing to be a member in a Knesset that does not promote fair conversion, that would endorse assimilation and distancing from Judaism, that would sanctify the status quo and, even more specifically, pushes people away instead of bringing them closer. These individuals didnt just defect from their parties, they defected from an entire worldview.Why do any of us get involved in politics in the first place? For the honor and to snag a seat or in order to fulfill our ideological yearnings? To my greatest dismay, it hurts me to admit that representatives of the religious-Zionist camp, which was and still is an ideological movement that really and truly puts values before personal advancement, have succeeded in politics mostly due to an incomprehensible number of defections, and by putting personal status before ideology, even at the expense of the State of Israels Jewish identity.The writer is a member of Knesset from the Yesh Atid Party.

Read the rest here:
Elazar Stern to 'Post': I am disappointed in the relgious-Zionist MKs - The Jerusalem Post

The true story behind this iconic photo that became a symbol of gender equality in the Zionist movement – Haaretz

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Among the handful of surviving photographs depicting female pioneers during the pre-state British Mandate period, one of the best known is a picture of Aviva Alef.

She was photographed in the summer of 1941 next to an open rail-cart full of rocks at a quarry at Kibbutz Ein Harod. The man who took the image was Zoltan Kluger, one of the greatest photographers in the country at the time, and who documented the Jewish state in the making for various Zionist organizations.

Over the years, the iconic photo became a symbol of groundbreaking female equality in the Zionist movement. Just this week, however, 79 years after it was taken, Aviva Alefs granddaughter decided to reveal the true story behind the picture, which is now in the official photography collection of the State of Israel.

My grandmother became a symbol of female pioneers against her will, her granddaughter, Yael Avrahami, told Haaretz.

Avrahami called the photograph propaganda.

In contemporary Israel, every year when the weather warms up, a controversy resurfaces in the countrys schools over the appropriate length of female students shorts. Someone recalled the picture and retrieved it from the archives, noted Avrahami, a biblical studies lecturer at the Oranim Academic College of Education in Kiryat Tivon, northern Israel.

The photo became part of an effort to demonstrate how things had been different here at one time, how women went around freely in short-shorts. It turned Avrahamis grandmother into a symbol to be emulated.

Rebellious girl

Let me tell you the real story about that picture, Avrahami wrote Monday on Facebook, recounting how her grandmother, born Lotte Perschak, fled Czechoslovakia at age 17 after the outbreak of World War II. She immigrated to Mandatory Palestine with Youth Aliyah, a Zionist organization that at the time rescued young Jews from Europe and brought them to the Holy Land.

Here she was arbitrarily given the name Aviva. She settled at Kibbutz Beit Hashita in the Harod Valley and thought she was coming to an agricultural dorm and that she would return home at the end of the war. A very innocent young girl, Avrahami wrote.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

But she also quickly discovered less pleasant aspects of the pioneering enterprise that had saved her life at a time when her family was sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp.

In Youth Aliyah, you werent allowed to speak your native language. Everyone had to speak Hebrew, the granddaughter recounted. Aviva was caught speaking Czech with her friend one day, and as a punishment was exiled to work in the rock quarry next to the adjacent kibbutz, Ein Harod as was befitting for a rebellious girl.

The punishment was meted out, Avrahami said, by two adults in charge: Tikva Sarig, a kindergarten teacher, childrens author and the wife of Nahum Sarig (who later became the commander of the Negev Brigade of the pre-state Palmach elite strike force); and Aryeh Ben-Gurion, the nephew of Israels first prime minister.

But unlike male pioneers, and contrary to what the famous photograph suggests, she didnt drive rail carts with rocks and didnt blast rocks. She cooked and did laundry for the male pioneers, her granddaughter disclosed.

On the day Kluger arrived to take pictures of the pioneers, girls legs suited him for the picture, as Avrahami put it meaning that the iconic photo was staged.

Men are less sexy and my grandmothers legs were legendary, Avrahami said. My grandfather once said she had the prettiest legs in the valley.

At age 20, Aviva gave birth to a son. That sons daughter is Yael Avrahami.

My grandmother was saved from the horrors of the world war by the pioneering that was forced upon her. But its hard to look nostalgically upon the shorts in the picture and think that anything was perfect at the time, the granddaughter wrote, that the world saw her for what she was and not for her beautiful legs.

The shorts are not the be-all and end-all, Avrahami added.

Avivas parents didnt survive the Holocaust. Her brother survived Auschwitz and married a Catholic nurse who had taken care of him, but he died relatively young behind the Iron Curtain.

Aviva married journalist Yitzhak Avrahami at Beit Hashita and had a son. The couple divorced and Aviva made her way to Kibbutz Ayelet Hashahar, where she married Haim Alef and took his surname. She would work in various jobs at the kibbutz, including being in charge of purchasing at the grocery. She also worked for many years in the sewing workshop, Avrahami recounted.

Aviva Alef died 18 years ago. One of the stories she told her granddaughter has bothered Yael Avrahami to this day.

She once told me that they needed to guard the watchtowers in the valley. The immigrant girls, who were afraid to do guard duty alone, were forced to kiss male pioneers who would come along to stand guard with them at night. Kissing is all she told me. I hope it wasnt more than that, Avrahami said.

Read more:
The true story behind this iconic photo that became a symbol of gender equality in the Zionist movement - Haaretz

Albert Memmi: Contradictions of the colonial condition Mondoweiss – Mondoweiss

Posted By on June 26, 2020

It is a commonplace of literary theory that neither the intention nor the biography of the writer have any final authority over the interpretation of the work. The work stands apart from either, however they may contribute to its initiation and structure. Least of all can the subsequent life or opinions of the writer determine the fate of the work or revise its meaning. What is true for the literary work is surely all the more true for the work of critical sociology: its value lies in its continuing analytical pertinence, its capacity to explain social or cultural phenomena and to account for, and even predict, the unfolding of their tendencies. The later development or revisions of its author have no power to invalidate the theoretical insights or explanatory power of the work even over situations never envisaged at the time of writing. This is especially true of works that emerge from the felt contradictions of authors, irresolvable contradictions that may even become the object of and not just the impetus to critical reflection. The interplay of blindness and insight haunts theoretical reflection even as it generates its conditions.

There are few writers to whom such reflections are more relevant than the recently deceased Albert Memmi (1920-2020), author of that indispensable analysis of the colonial psyche, The Colonizer and the Colonized (1957), and dedicated adherent of that impossible conjunction left-wing Zionism. [1] How can one reconcile Memmis commitment to the legitimation and defense of Israel with the fact that The Colonizer and the Colonized, a work based primarily on the experience of French colonialism in North Africa, continues to have exceptional explanatory power for our understanding of the nature and evolution of the Zionist settler colonial state? Certain Zionist writers have drawn on Memmis authority as one of the great theorists of anti-colonialism to deny the colonial formation of that state and to cast its history of settlement and annexation of Palestine as part of the more general problem of oppressed peoples. They then represent Zionism as neither more nor less than the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. [2] No matter that such an assertion would have surprised early Zionists, who openly understood Zionism to be a colonizing project at a time when colonization was an honorable trade among the European powers whose support they sought. As Edward Said long ago pointed out, It is important to remember that in joining the general Western enthusiasm for overseas territorial acquisition, Zionism never spoke of itself unambiguously as a Jewish liberation movement, but rather as a Jewish movement for colonial settlement in the Orient. [3] Early Zionists, indeed, despite the claim to have located a land without people for a people without land, were far more willing to admit the colonial dimension of Zionism and correspondingly the actual existence of the Palestinian people than are Israels contemporary defenders. And far from effecting the transformation of Zionism into a liberation movement, an attentive reading of The Colonizer and the Colonized with the fate of Palestine and the Palestinian people in mind indicates how prescientif unwittinglyMemmis work turns out to be with regard to the conformity of Israels practices to what are now widely understood as quite typical settler colonial models.

Herzl had envisaged that a Jewish state, populated by settlers predominantly from Europe, would form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. [4] Precisely as Memmi recognized in his classic portrait of the colonizer, settler colonialism initially seeks to legitimate its conquest by the invocation of civilizing ideals and a commitment to development or improvement of the colonized and their lands. But the fate of such ideals, sincere or opportunistic as the case may be, is finally determinedas Memmi showedby the hardening of the siege mentality that equally typifies setter colonial societies from the start and is determined by the persistent presence of the indigenous population. Surrounded by the settlers as it may be, the indigenous people appears to them as a threatening surround that, to their frustration, they cannot eliminate. The settler remains perpetually on guard, poised for real and imaginary resistance behind an iron wall whose institutionalization preserves the mentality of the embattled colonizer within the very structures of the state.

Thus, rather than gaining confidence and therefore openness to the potential for change and accommodation as it gains power and security, the settler society undergoes a gradual hardening of its defensive psychic and institutional structures over time. Rather than expanding democratic freedoms and inclusivity, the more the state appropriates in the name of security and development, the more deeply it becomes militarized, and the more it shapes draconian laws and restrictions on the rights of the colonized. Every colonial nation carries the seeds of fascist temptation in its bosom, Memmi noted [62]. His terse, ironic and profoundly objective laying out of the contradictions of colonialism offers a trenchant and explanatory account of Israels steady right-wing turn and abandonment of the progressive veneer with which it once disavowed its colonial project, from its renewing of the Palestinians throughout historic Palestine as a demographic time-bomb to the recent Nationality law that consolidates its apartheid regime, and the announcement of its intent to annex the West Bank. Memmis theoretical relevance only grows in pertinence, laying bare with great lucidity the constitutive contradiction of Israels claim to being a Jewish and democratic state, a claim that Zionism itself has made a laughable oxymoron.

Such contradictions, Memmi continues, produce in the colonizer who accepts the reaction of rage, a loathing, always ready to be loosed on the colonized, the innocent yet inevitable reason for his drama [66]. Faced with the persistencethe sumudof the indigenous population, who refuse to disappear, the settlers rage manifests in what Ilan Papp has termed the righteous fury that is a constant phenomenon in the Israeli, and before that Zionist, dispossession of Palestine. We have witnessed all too often how such rage issues in turn in the barbarically disproportionate military incursions that Israel periodically directs against the besieged and trapped inhabitants of Gaza. For Memmis colonizer who refuses, the psychic response in no less vexed, for even if he is in no way guilty as an individual he suspects that he shares a collective responsibility by the fact of membership in a national oppressor group. [38] In this dilemma, s/he wants to be sympathetic, or at least in dialogue (the interminable dialogue industry of the so-called peace process), but remains unable to relinquish either the privileges granted by a colonial status or the overall project of the settler colonial state in whose supposedly civilized values s/he grounds the moral values that lead to the rejection of its excesses. In the end, as Memmi ironically observes, however benevolent or understanding s/he wishes to be, the leftist colonizer is part of the oppressing group and will be forced to share its destiny, as he shared its good fortune. [38]

Meanwhile, whether in rage or in guilty pathos, in vituperation or in extenuation, the settler faces an impossible historical situation, one in which colonial relations [] like any institution, determine a priori his place and that of the colonized and, in the final analysis, their true relationship. [38-9] Willy-nilly, the historical contradictions of the settler colonial society grind steadily on in the gradual regression of that society into a less and less flexible state, both for the colonizer and for the colonized on whom those contradictions are played out. No better description of the evolution of Israeli society, down to the most recent capture of its political institutions by the most right-wing ideologues, could be imagined than the one Memmis analysis so presciently offers us.

Memmi himself was no more immune than any of us to the inhabitation of contradiction. An Arab Jew who denied the possibility of such an identity, blaming on Muslim hostility an erasure that has also been a crucial element of Zionist policy; a brilliant anti-colonial theorist who defended Israels settler colony to the last; a left Zionist who acknowledged that Israels occupation was politically and morally wrong, even as his own writings imply the inevitability of its logic; a French colonial subject who declared that his true homeland was not the country itself, but the French language, he would describe his work as an attempt atreconciliation between the different parts of myself. In the end, he inhabited what he so well identified as an impossible historical situation, and if that culminated in his own rightward turn, as a colonizer who accepted, we may find the logic of that trajectory in his own unsurpassed analysis of settler colonial relations. That he should fall victim himself to the contradictions of the colonial condition that he so clearly grasped takes nothing from the continuing relevance of that work to the actuality of the state to which he eventually lent his allegiance.

This article will be shared in Arabic and French by the Tunisian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in Tunisia, the country of origin of Albert Memmi, on the occasion of the 40th day of mourning his death on May 22, 2020.

1. Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized, intro. Jean-Paul Sartre, trans, Howard Greenfeld (Boston: Beacon Books, 1967).

2. Susie Linfield, The Lions Den: Zionism and the Left from Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), pp. 176 and 179.

3. Edward W. Said, Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims, Social Text , 1 (1979), p. 23.

4. On the attitudes to the Palestinians and the colonial project, from Chaim Weizman and Zeev Jabotinsky to David Ben Gurion, see Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (New York: Norton, 2000), pp. 7-19.

Read the rest here:
Albert Memmi: Contradictions of the colonial condition Mondoweiss - Mondoweiss

Korah and Moses: Not All Views and Histories Are Worth Venerating – Algemeiner

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Moses Breaking the Tables of the Law (1659), by Rembrandt. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Judging historical figures along with the movements or ideals they launched and promoted is not an easy task. Decades, even centuries, may pass before there is the clarity of perspective. And even then there is always the chance of a complete revision.

Is the enduring success of a message or legacy proof that someone or something is right? What happens if history has written them off as an aberration? Are we to assume that this judgment is correct? More importantly, what if someone or something is profoundly wrong, but contemporary thinking embraces them?

Last month, Professor Shaul Magid wrote a superb article in Tablet regarding the anti-Zionism of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the charismatic rabbinic leader of the Satmar Jewish community before the Second World War, who went on to become the fiery beacon of ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionism in the post-war world.

He suggests that Rabbi Teitelbaums views are not just worth reading, but extremely important to read if you want to get a rounded perspective on the theological backdrop to the Jews post-exile return to their Promised Land. He is broadly correct, although I must respectfully disagree with the subheading of his article, which proclaims that few Jews today agree with the late Satmar rebbes attacks on Zionism.

June 26, 2020 10:12 am

Although the tens of thousands who make up the current Satmar community along with the many smaller Hasidic groups aligned with them may lack the theological sophistication of their founding father, they more than make up for their superficiality with the depth and vehemence of their determined anti-Zionism. The harsh mantras and outright dismissals of Israels theological significance that gained currency during the life of Rabbi Teitelbaum still echo loudly and consistently in the yeshiva classrooms and synagogues of his spiritual heirs.

The interesting aspect of the Satmar Rebbes fierce antipathy toward Zionism was not that it was unprecedented; as Magid points out: [Rabbi] Teitelbaums ideological commitments against Zionism [were] not new, but part of a much longer trajectory of traditional anti-Zionism that stems back to the early 20th century in the work of [Rabbi] Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz (1868-1937), the Old Settlement Jews in Palestine, and, later, Neturei Karta in Israel. This anti-Zionism was also shared by much of the prewar ultra-Orthodox world, from Lithuanian rabbinic giant [Rabbi] Elhanan Wasserman (1874-1941) to [Rabbi] Yitzhok Zev Soloveitchik (1886-1959); and much of the Soloveitchik dynasty; and the Lubavitcher Rebbes Shalom Dov Schneershon (1860-1920) and Yosef Yizhak Schneershon (1880-1950), among many others.

Indeed, what makes the Satmar Rebbes ideological stance so unique was that it flourished and even escalated after the State of Israel was created in 1948. At that point Israel, if not Zionism, had taken firm root as a central feature of Jewish life even among non-Zionist orthodox Jews, whose initial grudging acceptance of this new reality shifted over time to full-throated commitment to its safety and success, even though many of them still steadfastly refuse to openly embrace Zionist symbols and slogans.

What the Satmar Rebbe urgently wished to convey was that no one should mistakenly conclude that the success of Zionism and the State of Israel somehow correlated to Gods will. In fact, he said, the opposite was true, in as much as that Israel represented the final dramatic theological showdown before the Messianic era.

Using multiple complex Talmudic and rabbinic sources to argue his point of view, he declared that all those who failed this ultimate test and fell into the trap of Zionism whether by giving their enthusiastic support to Israel, or even as neutral or skeptical collaborators would be swept aside during Messianic redemption. Only those who reject Zionism in theory and practice would benefit from the redemption when it arrives.

Magid quotes the Jewish historian Amos Funkenstein, who puts it very well: according to Rabbi Teitelbaum [a] catastrophe is imminent, after which only a few, the remnants of Israel, will survive to witness the true redemption.

Magid proposes that Rabbi Teitelbaums startling view is not too dissimilar to the false messiah Antichrist theology that exists in Christianity, which has plenty of corresponding parallels in traditional Jewish sources. Although, Magid notably fails to mention that the remnants of Israel idea also has a Christian counterpart, contained in the eschatological rapture prediction that has only true believers taking part in the Christian version of messianic redemption, with the rest of humanity doomed to horrific turmoil, a consequence of their refusal to accept Jesus as the true messiah. This is perhaps best summed up in this quote from Romans (9:27): Even though the number of the people of Israel will be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved, a quote that could quite easily have emerged out of a Neturei Karta pamphlet.

What is so troubling about all this is that although Magid studiously avoids labeling the Satmar Rebbe a tzadik, a fact he is at pains to point out towards the end of his detailed response to the rather specious critique of his article penned by James Diamond and Menachem Kellner, frankly, I have no such compunction.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Satmar Rebbe was a true tzadik his life represents the absolute paradigm of devoted, deep, unfailing, and meaningful commitment to God and the Jewish people, without any compromises surely the dictionary definition of a tzadik.

In their attempt to discredit Magid, Diamond and Kellner misguidedly attempt to impugn the Satmar Rebbe, and although there are certainly aspects of the Satmar Rebbes life one might puzzle over, not least his decision to be a passenger on the Zionist-organized Kastner rescue train that delivered him from Nazi-overrun Hungary into neutral Switzerland, the idea that he wasnt a tzadik is patently ridiculous.

But if the Satmar Rebbe was indeed a tzadik, it presents us with a new problem, as it seriously calls into question those who utterly reject his anti-Zionist philosophy and I include myself among them. It is not enough to say that there are a host of other great tzadikim who took the opposite view to the one proposed by the Satmar Rebbe. This may be true, but it does not help us understand why such a holy man of faith proposed a version of Judaism that flies in the face of an unfolding reality that is the polar opposite of his position, and which has convincing theological backing in both scripture and traditional Jewish sources.

But perhaps I can offer the following suggestion to help us unlock this enigma. This week I stumbled across a typically iconoclastic piece in Mei Hashiloach, the magnum opus of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica, one of the nineteenth centurys most enigmatic Hasidic masters. In it he refers to the rather strange Midrash which has Korah asking Moses if a tallit (four-cornered garment) that is entirely techeilet (dyed blue using the blood of the hilazon) needs tzitzit, which have just one blue thread, on each corner. If, as the Talmud teaches, techeilet represents the awe of God, surely an entire garment frees us of any obligation for the display of a single thread. Moses responded that it would need tzitzit.

This curious Midrash is assumed by all the commentaries to represent a deeper debate between Korah and Moses than this rather flippant halachic inquiry and the response by Moses would initially indicate. But while there are quite a number of interesting interpretations, the Mei Hashiloach takes this Midrash to whole new level.

Korah, he says, was a deeply spiritual man, but at the same time he was a committed absolutist, for whom God was everything and everywhere; for him the world was a tallit that was totally techeilet, so why the need for a mere hint as represented by a single thread on the corner tassels? Why bother with imperfections, if we can have perfection?

But in the final analysis, absolutism is just another word for elitism it is a form of theological certainty that has no room for shades of grey. Perfection may be in the reach of some, but it is not in the reach of most. What about them? Do we write them off?

Crucially, the Korah approach was the opposite of the Moses approach. Rather than allow for the nation to be sacrificed in favor of himself and his family a small remnant after each breach of faith by the nation as a whole Moses prayed for the salvation of each and every Jew, even those on the fringes who had far less consciousness of Gods immanence than the spiritually lofty Korah and his followers.

This Mei Hashiloach helps us understand why there is a Torah portion called after Korah, which would be puzzling if he was a villain. Its because he was actually a tzadik.

The Midrash elsewhere tells us that Korah was in fact a great man so great, that he had been tasked to carry the Ark of the Covenant. The flaw seems to have been that while he claimed to speak for every Jew, his version of Judaism would have set us on a path toward doom and oblivion, and while his motivations may have been both pure and spiritually aspirational, in a world where we are not all at the level of Korah, we must rely on the fringes to keep us where we need to be, and also make sure that they are firmly affixed to the tallit that is completely techeilet.

View original post here:
Korah and Moses: Not All Views and Histories Are Worth Venerating - Algemeiner

Netanyahu’s annexation plan is a sham. Apartheid has been decades in the making – Middle East Eye

Posted By on June 26, 2020

Annexation is a sham.

Dont get me wrong: this doesnt mean that Israels proposed annexation of the Jordan Valley wont further dispossess Palestinians. Israel will be stealing 30 percent of the land set aside for a Palestinian state under previous, failed peace proposals, causing further suffering to Palestinians.

But this particular annexation proposal, to which the new Israeli government agreed in its coalition deal, is a red herring - a distraction from the systemic nature of Israels dispossession of Palestinians. It permits liberal Zionists and the international community to focus their attention on undoing this particular evil, relieving them of responsibility for the entire apartheid system Israel has developed, both inside and outside the green line.

Statements from British Jewish leaders, US Congress members, European Union officials and human rights experts have warned of the consequences of annexation. They have targeted the soft, moderate underbelly of the governing coalition, Blue and White MKs, telling them how badly the world would look upon Israel if this proposal was enacted.

But all of this liberal whining avoids a far greater evil: a Judeo-supremacist regime built on religious intolerance and ethnic cleansing.

The present Israeli regime has as much, or more, in common with Iran's Islamic republic, Saudi Arabia's Islamic protectorate, or the Afghan Taliban than it does with western democracy

The problem with the Israeli state is not one particular policy, no matter how odious. It goes back to the very foundations of the state and the thinking of its founders, foremost among them David Ben-Gurion. While there were some voices among early Zionist leaders who sought integration, or at least peaceful coexistence with their Palestinian neighbours, Ben-Gurion was a maximalist who espoused ethnic cleansing in his diaries and letters well before he founded the state.

The sine qua non of statehood for him was a Jewish majority and Jewish superiority. Arabs might remain inside the new nations borders, but only if they acquiesced to their diminished status.

Even then, Ben-Gurion feared the Palestinian presence so much that he and the Palmach militia organised and conducted Plan Dalet, which resulted in the Nakba - the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in conjunction with the 1948 founding of Israel.

Palestinian communities that survived the war remained under martial law for two decades, though they posed no security threat.

As an American Jew, I was raised on liberal Zionism. I was taught from an early age that Israel was a Jewish and democratic state. I was taught to be proud of the mutual coexistence of those two terms. But the religious component of Israeli identity, as it has come to be defined, precludes democracy; they cannot coexist. It took me decades to realise this.

While it would be ill-advised to attempt to eliminate or suppress religion in a truly democratic state of Israel-Palestine, religion must be separated from the political realm if this state is ever to become normalised.

The religions of Israels Jewish and Palestinian citizens will remain critical to them and their identities. If practised appropriately, they will enrich the fabric of the state without prejudicing one religious or ethnic group over another. But the present Israeli regime has as much, or more, in common with Irans Islamic republic, Saudi Arabias Islamic protectorate, or the Afghan Taliban than it does with western democracy.

One of the clever elements of Zionist expansionism is to pursue its goals gradually, rather than all at once. The poor frog doesnt realise that hes being boiled in the pot until its too late, because the flame raises the temperature gradually and almost imperceptibly.

Thus, Netanyahu has already backed off his original proposal of annexing the entire Jordan Valley. He is now entertaining annexation-lite, absorbing the major settlement enclaves of Ariel, Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, while leaving the remaining territory unannexed. This hides the fact that once these blocs become part of Israel, the surrounding territory is Palestinian in name only; whatever is left will be hemmed in by Israeli fences, roads and infrastructure. And Israel could, at a later date, annex the rest.

In a recent Middle East Eye webinar, Professor Rashid Khalidi described annexation as largely a red herring, noting that it has been ongoing since 1967 in various ways, with Israeli law already applying throughout the occupied territories.

We have to be thinking in broader terms than the narrow diplomatic language thats been used. Israel has been annexing and creating a one-state reality since 1967. This [current annexation plan] is just a tiny step in the process, Khalidi said, noting that Netanyahus more limited proposal regarding the three settlement enclaves amounts to a charade.

World must fight back against Israeli annexation - whether formal or not

We should be talking in much more fundamental terms about the systemic structural problems that are going to have to be addressed if this problem is to be resolved on a just and equitable basis, he said.

If there is any silver lining in the annexation plan, it is that liberal Zionists, who once denounced the boycott movement and anyone labeling Israel as an apartheid state, have been forced to reckon with the failure of their vision.

South African anti-apartheid campaigner Benjamin Pogrund, who has spent decades fighting the notion that Israel is an apartheid state, recently said in an interview: If we annex the Jordan Valley and the settlement areas, we are apartheid. Full stop. Theres no question about it.

South Africas bantustans were simply a more refined form of apartheid to mask what it really was, Pogrund added, noting that the consequences of Israels planned annexation will obviously be extremely grave. Friends of ours in the world will not be able to defend us.

Similarly, the pro-Israel German party Die Linke has also called for sanctioning Israel if it goes forward with this plan. Should the Israeli government resolve to carry out the annexation, Die Linke will advocate for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, it said in a statement.

This EU protocol is important not only because it offers Israel tariff-free trade and privileges of member states, but also because of the status it confers on Israel, both in Europe and around the world. To lose these privileges would be an economic and political blow.

As we've seen in the past, just as tectonic plates can crack and divide, geological forces can drive them back together again

The partys statement, as noted by journalist Ali Abunimah, comes close to abandoning a two-state solution, which is at the very heart of the liberal Zionism Die Linke upholds: In the face of the Israeli governments seeming rejection of a just two-state solution, in which citizens from both sides would live with equal rights, Die Linke calls for equal civil rights for Palestinians and Israelis, the party stated.

For Die Linke, the following principle holds everywhere and at all times: all inhabitants of every country should enjoy equal rights - irrespective of their religion, language or ethnic group.

Its important not to exaggerate the significance of these changes. They certainly mark a shift in the ranks of Israels liberal advocates. There is also no doubt about thetectonic shifts in US politics on Israel/Palestine, which have considerably widened discourse. But as weve seen in the past, just as tectonic plates can crack and divide, geological forces can drive them back together again.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Visit link:
Netanyahu's annexation plan is a sham. Apartheid has been decades in the making - Middle East Eye


Page 1,043«..1020..1,0421,0431,0441,045..1,0501,060..»

matomo tracker