Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on February 17, 2020

In retrospect, David Ben-Gurion made two fateful decisions in 1948: to declare statehood, and to establish the states central authority over the instruments of armed force. In his latest essay in Mosaic, Martin Kramer duly focuses on the May 12, 1948 meeting of ten members of the Peoples Administration, Israels cabinet-in-waiting, under Ben-Gurions chairmanship.

Many historians have seen this meeting as crucial for the first decision: whether, on the one hand, to heed the U.S. proposal for a three-month ceasefire in the already ongoing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and the Haganah, the pre-independence militia of the yishuv, or, on the other hand, to press forward with the plan to declare statehood two days later.

Debunking this received version, which portrays the debate at the May 12 meeting as a close call, was one of Kramers aims in a previous essay in Mosaic. There he showed how, propelled by Ben-Gurions determined leadership, a consensus formed to reject the American proposal and declare independence immediately. Indeed, given the various political factors at work, and the high expectations and demands being voiced by, in Kramers words, the Jewish public and the Hebrew press, that conclusion was all but foregone: there was nothing to decide.

Its worth pausing here to ponder one extraordinary fact that, surprisingly, drew no comment from Kramer in that prior essay. As early as World War II, Ben-Gurion had been urging the Jewish Agency, the operational arm of the World Zionist Organization, to adopt a pro-American rather than a pro-British orientation for the state-in-formation. Yet, on May 12, 1948, with the embryonic state in a weak and vulnerable position, he did not hesitate to go against Washingtons strongly urged proposal for a three-month delay.

That is another mark of Ben-Gurions historical stature. Great leaders take great gambles. In 1948, despite military inferiority and despite the wishes of a superpower, Ben-Gurion had the courage, the confidence, and the tenacity to lead the Jewish people to independence after a hiatus of 2,000 years. Later on, as the prime minister of the state of Israel, Ben-Gurion was again, by and large, quite sensitive to American requestsyet, again, unwilling to bow to American desires on all issues. The best-known example is the decision to resist the Kennedy administrations pressure to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty and instead to build up Israels nuclear infrastructure.

To return to the new essay: here, instead of dwelling on the bold decision to press forward with the declaration despite the Americans (and despite doubts within the Zionist leadership), Kramer begins by drawing our attention to the moment in the May 12 meeting when Ben-Gurion brought in his two senior military experts, Yigael Yadin and Yisrael Galili, to evaluate the odds in a looming military confrontation of a different and greatly more menacing kindno longer with the Palestinian Arabs, who by then had been largely defeated, but with the armies of five Arab states already gathered on the borders of the prospective new state and prepared to invade en masse.

The report of the two military experts, to the effect that the odds in Israels favor stood at no more than fifty-fifty, gave the assembled members quite a fright. But this, Kramer proceeds to argue, was exactly the response that Ben-Gurion wished to elicit.

Why? In Kramers reading, Ben-Gurion, convinced that the Haganah wasnt up to the next, greatly expanded phase of the war, aimed to redress the situation by ensuring three things: total civilian control over the conduct of the war; full unification of the various military forces at the nascent states disposalincluding not only the various militia-type units of the Haganah but also the Palma, its elite strike force, and the smaller right-wing Irguninto a disciplined professional army. Additionally, he aimed to secure for himself the defense portfolio in the new government. At the May 12 meeting, having prepared the ground by dislodging anyones expectations of a quick or easy victory, Ben-Gurion threatened resignation if his conditions were not met.

As is well known, he would shortly become both prime minister and defense minister of the state of Israel, and the decree establishing the IDF (May 26, 1948) would conform with his tenets and conditions. But, practically speaking, it was no easy task to exert control over the paramilitary forces that were to be integrated into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In one instance, involving the Irgun ship Altalena, subordination could be assured only through force and live fire. In another, Ben-Gurions grip on the IDF had to be secured through the disbandment of the high command of the Palma.

In the end, Israel won the war.

Beyond successfully conferring on a central authority the ability to conduct effective operations during the 1948-49and forever afterBen-Gurions adamant insistence on centralized command had ramifications that Kramer doesnt go into but with which we can conclude.

Max Weber famously defined the key attribute of a state, any state, in these words: a state is a human community that [successfully] claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory (emphasis in the original). Although we have no similar statement by Ben-Gurion, it seems that, at least intuitively, he understood the challenge and responsibilities of statehood itself in similar terms. The fact that other leaders of national liberation movements have not always adopted such a perspectiveYasir Arafat being one salient case in pointadds still greater luster to Ben-Gurions stature as founder and statesman.

Then, too, there is the tacit social contract that lends legitimacy to states, based on a trade-off in which individuals and small groups give up the right to bear arms and defend themselves in exchange for the states commitment to provide for their security. Indeed, monopoly over the use of force is at the heart of the modern state. The absence of such a monopoly undermines the foundations of the social contract and leads to failed statesas is once again abundantly shown by political reality in much if not most of the Middle East till this day.

Jewish history itself, with which Ben-Gurion was well acquainted, also provides tragic examples of what can happen in the absence of central military command. The fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE might be attributed in part to the presence of multiple Zealot militias fighting the Romans in an uncoordinated way.

Finally, Ben-Gurion used the IDF as an instrument for nation-building. Only a unified army, subordinate to central authority, could perform that task. The IDF was where Jews of different national origins and social classes mingled and became Israelis. In time, it also adopted additional roles in the areas of education, agriculture, immigrant absorption, and emergency response, and became the most respected institution in Israel. And, within its own ranks, it allowed for and facilitated upward social mobility; Ben-Gurion frequently expressed the wish to see a Yemenite Jew serving as chief of staff.

Using the bricks at his disposal, Ben-Gurion built the IDF into a highly effective military force that simultaneously became the ultimate melting pot for Jews returning to their homeland from all corners of the earth. Historians can debate the role played in the ultimate realization of that vision by a single meeting on May 12, 1948. What is beyond debate is that, at its creation, Israel was extraordinarily lucky to have David Ben-Gurion at the forefront of its leadership.

Original post:
How Ben-Gurion Ensured a Government Monopoly on the Use of Force - Mosaic

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on How Ben-Gurion Ensured a Government Monopoly on the Use of Force – Mosaic
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2020

Photo Credit: Facebook

{Reposted from the authors website}

In his address to the Zionist Congress in London on August 2, 1900, Theodor Herzl said:

Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform, which we drew up three years ago, is unchangeable. It must have responded to a very deep necessity, a very old longing of our people, otherwise its effects would be inexplicable. There is no need of my enumerating these effects at the present day. Everyone knows them, everyone sees and hears them. Four years ago in speaking of a Jewish nation one ran the risk of being thought ridiculous. Today he makes himself ridiculous who denies the existence of a Jewish nation. A glance at this hall, where our people is represented by delegates from all over the world, suffices to prove this.

The Zionist enterprise has evolved over the past 120 years but has always been predicated on the reestablishment of Jewish statehood in the ancestral homeland. The collective memory of Jewish statelessness and powerless was vivid during the early decades of the Jewish State. Left, right or center, the founding fathers of Zionism were all motivated by the imperative of Jewish statehood as both a manifestation of the Jewish Peoples right to national self-determination and a means of lessening Jewish vulnerability and increasing the likelihood of Jewish survival.

This foundational axiom was also widely understood by American Jews, particularly in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Statehood was seen as the necessary extension of the shared sense of Jewish nationhood that had existed for millennia, a sense of unity and even destiny that went beyond culture or even religion.

Today, however, among an increasing number of American Jews, the idea of a Jewish state is no longer a building block but rather a wedge issue.

The very idea of nations and nation states may be suspect in the 21st century, but no other national movement evokes so uniquely visceral a reaction as does Zionism. No other term for a national movement has been infamously defined by the UN as a form of racism and racial discriminationan epithet assigned to it by a bigoted coalition led by the Soviet Union. And no other definition has caused so much anxiety among a movements putative supporters and rendered them so unwilling to stand up for their cause. Too many American Jewish supporters of Israel live in fear of being declared racist by enemies of Zionism, or by those who purport to be so enlightened that they can see through the faade of Israeli democracy.

Those individuals take it upon themselves to distinguish between the good and the bad parts of Israel and avail themselves freely of the all-purpose evil of the occupation. Todays left and progressive circles use the 1967 Green Line as a red herring in their representation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the American Jewish community. Journalist Peter Beinart, one of the driving forces behind this trend, claims the American Jewish establishment and the Zionist establishment [render themselves] morally corrupt by defending the indefensible, for defending an occupation that holds millions of people occupied.

Beinart, J Street head Jeremy Ben Ami, and others believe a Zionist BDS directed only against Israeli West Bank neighborhoods (or settlements) is fair game. Like many post-Zionists and revisionists, they propound a false reality that puts the entire onus for the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel. This distorted narrative maintains that Israel is almost exclusively to blame for the collapse of the Oslo peace process and the failure to revive it, rather than Arab rejectionism or Yasser Arafats web of lies to his people, Israel, and the US.

Cognitive dissonancethe discomfort caused by carrying conflicting beliefs or values simultaneouslyapplies to many aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is an especially apt description of the emotions produced by the difference between historical fact and the Palestinians view of their national narrative.

The notion of occupation has become the defining lens through which everything about the Palestinians self-conception is explained and justified. This is exactly the myopic view taken by Beinart and his colleagues. The only difference is that unlike overtly anti-Zionist bashers like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, and others, Beinart claims to be a lover of Zionjust one who is having a difficult time grappling with the harsh Israeli reality.

American Jewish intellectuals have placed other Jews in the class of people who cannot be debated or remain unpunished for where they live or for their views. Moreover, a strict double standard applies: Jewish organizations like Hillel must include anti-Israel voices or be deemed intolerant or racist, but Palestinians and their supporters should never be expected to reciprocate. Jewish intellectuals must engage in dialogue with BDS representatives or other Palestinian advocates who demand the ethnic cleansing of Israel lest they be called cowards or worse. Leading American Jewish intellectuals have themselves adopted the rhetoric and methods of BDS, to be applied to Jews only.

This strategy has been mostly local up to this point, but individuals like Beinart and Ben-Ami now feel empowered to attempt to hijack the World Zionist Congress and steer funding away from anything related to the settlements. The legislative authority of the 120-year-old World Zionist Organization helps determine the fate of $1 billion in spending on Jewish causes. Beinart contends that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are institutionalized expressions of bigotry. The American and Israeli politicians who legitimize them are the moral equivalent of those politicians who legitimized Jim Crow because Jewish settlements are Jewish-only settlements. J Street has announced a new campaign to pressure 2020 Democratic candidates into opposing Israels presence in the West Bank, with the goal of getting the party to include a formal opposition to the occupation in its official platform.

There are countless unresolved questions regarding the territories and settlements, all of which should be decided by Israelis and Palestinians. American Jews imposing their conceptions, based on a palpable lack of understanding and sympathy for their Israeli cousins, is patronizing and foolish. Hijacking Zionisms most important institution to demand that Israelis follow the dictates of Americans is far from what Herzl and his successors intended.asaf r

Follow this link:
If You Will It, It Is No Dream But Only On OUR Terms - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on If You Will It, It Is No Dream But Only On OUR Terms – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2020

In March the World Council of Churches (WCC), an ecumenical group that includes most mainline Protestant churches as well as many Eastern ones, will hold elections for its new general secretary; one of the two candidates for the position, a member of the South African United Presbyterian Church, is a longstanding advocate for boycotting the Jewish statea stance that has become all too common in the organization, as Melanie Phillips writes:

The WCC has played a key role in turning much of the world against Israel. Through its liberation theology, it has for decades infused liberal churches with neo-Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-Western attitudesthus placing a virtual halo over the anti-Semitism of the left. In Britain, the Church of England and other liberal denominations are institutionally hostile to Israel. Such churches, along with immensely influential Christian NGOs such as . . . Christ at the Checkpoint, disseminate boiler-plate distortions and falsehoods that demonize Israel and sanitize Palestinian-Arab aggression.

While many Christians who subscribe to such views are just going with the flow of the prevalent (and unchallenged) narrative about the Middle East, that narratives roots lie in a toxic combination of Marxism, Palestinianism, and theological Christian anti-Semitism. The deepest root of the churchs hostility toward Israel lies in the resurrection of the previously discredited doctrine of replacement theology, also known as supersessionism. This doctrine, which holds that because the Jews denied the divinity of Jesus they were stripped of Gods favor so that Christians became the new Israel while the Jews were damned, was the source of centuries of murderous Jew-hatred until the Holocaust drove it underground.

It was given new life by Palestinian Christian liberation theology, which states falsely that the Palestinian Arabs were the original possessors of the land of Israel. It thus gives the Palestinian claim to the land the status of supposedly holy Christian writ, turning Israel into an ungodly interloper and its defenders into the enemies of God.

Yet, on [the] worldwide persecution of Christians, the liberal churches are all but silent[although] Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christians are safe.

Read more at Melanie Phillips

More about: Anti-Semitism, BDS, Jewish-Christian relations, Middle East Christianity, World Council of Churches

Continued here:
The Growing Influence on Liberal Christian Denominations of Anti-Israel Propaganda - Mosaic

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The Growing Influence on Liberal Christian Denominations of Anti-Israel Propaganda – Mosaic
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2020

Bernie Sanders is now the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary. He won the popular vote in the Iowa Caucus less than two weeks ago and the New Hampshire primary earlier this past week. He is leading the polls nationally and is the favorite in a number of important, upcoming states.

Even if he does not win the nomination not say anything of the presidency, though he beats Donald Trump nationally in some polls, too he will end his campaign as the most successful Jewish politician in modern U.S. history. And yet, the American Jewish establishment is not supporting Sanderss historic campaign. On the contrary: theyre actively working to stop it.

In an article published on Friday by The Intercept, journalists Ryan Grim and Akela Lacy reported that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, is helping to fund the Democratic Majority for Israel to run attack ads against Sanders to be aired on TV in Nevada, which will hold its presidential caucuses next Saturday. DMFI is led by Mark Mellman, a veteran AIPAC strategist who has also worked for Yesh Atid and Blue and White in the previous rounds of Israeli elections.

Although DMFI claims to be independent, 11 of its 14 board members have direct ties to AIPAC either as volunteers, donors, or speakers, as Alex Kane reported in The Nation. Furthermore, AIPAC is reportedly allowing contributions to DMFI to count as donations to AIPAC. Prior to its Nevada ad push, DMFI spent $800,000 on TV ads attacking Sanders ahead of the Iowa Caucuses.

Alongside the paid advertising campaigns, the American Jewish press has, since Sanders first presidential campaign in 2016, run relentlessly negative coverage of the leading candidate. He has been accused not really being a Jew, of being the wrong kind of Jew, of being ashamed to be Jewish, and even of being an anti-Semite. In an article for Tablet Magazine, Jamie Kirchick accused Sanders of downplaying his Jewishness as a source of awkward embarrassment, and argued that Sanders was only using his Jewish background as a way to denounce Israel and other Jews.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) speaks at the 2019 J Street National Conference, October 28, 2019. (Gili Getz)

An article published in the right-wing site Algemeiner accused Sanders of being a Jew of shame for his willingness to criticize Israeli policy. In an article for Commentary, Seth Mandel charged that Sanders showed discomfort with his own Jewish roots, which could only be explained by his socialist politics and ideological distaste for the Jewish state. In an op-ed for the Times of Israel, writer Yossi Klein Halevi wrote: Bernie Sanders is not an enemy of the Jewish people. He simply doesnt care enough about Jewish concerns to be considered a friend. These are only a few of the numerous articles put out by Jewish publications attacking Sanders and his Jewishness.

And yet there is nothing radical about Sanderss views on Israel. To the contrary, Sanders whose fathers family was wiped out during the Holocaust in Poland describes himself as 100-percent-pro-Israel and as proudly Jewish. He is more or less a conventional liberal Zionist: strongly critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, whom government he has called a racist; opposed to the occupation, still committed to a two-state solution, and willing to use U.S. government pressure told Israel accountable for its actions. He even spent time living and working on kibbutz Shaar Haamkim in the 1960s. Most American Jews hold views similar to Sanders: the majority feel positively connected to Israel, disagree with its right-wing governments policies, and believe the U.S. should exert pressure on Israel.

What makes Sanders different from other American politicians when it comes to Israel-Palestine and one of the reasons he has come under such ferocious attack from the organized Jewish community is that he openly supports Palestinian freedom and independence, as he wrote earlier this year in Jewish Currents. And unlike most other self-described two-state proponents, Sanders has actually called for measures that would put pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction and its human rights abuses in Gaza. $3.8 billion is a lot of money. We cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government, Sanders told an audience at J Streets 2019 conference last fall. We have the right to demand respect for human rights and democracy.

But more than Sanderss own views, it is the views of some of Sanders prominent supporters that have drawn the ire of the American Jewish establishment. Sanders has been accused of tolerating, or worse, encouraging anti-Semitism by accepting the endorsements of Palestinian Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar, as well as progressive Palestinian-American community organizer Linda Sarsour.

Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour takes part in a discussion on Islam and Islamophobia at the Festival of Faiths, Louisville, Kentucky, May 19, 2016. (Festival of Faiths/CC BY 2.0)

All three young Muslim women face enormous amounts of criticism and online abuse (in December, the Guardian reported that Tlaib and Omar were the targets of an international, Islamophobic fake-news operation based in Israel). All three are outspoken supporters of BDS and strong opponents of the occupation (Tlaib and Omar were denied entry to Israel last August for this reason). Last March, Omar was accused of making anti-Semitic comments and forced to apologize after she implied that AIPAC uses its significant financial resources to shutdown criticism of Israeli policies. The irony, of course, is that AIPACs funding of attacks against Bernie Sanders proves what nearly everyone knew but did not want to admit: that she was right.

The American Jewish establishment, with the help of Israels Ministry of Strategic Affairs, has invested significant money and energy in fighting the BDS movement, from pushing laws in state legislatures that make it illegal to boycott Israel to an executive order that codifies anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism and designates certain criticisms of Israel potential violations of Jewish students civil rights. Although there is a long history of anti-Zionism in Jewish communities around the world, for groups like the Anti-Defamation League, there is no difference between it and actual forms of Jew hatred. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt has even claimed that those who deny that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism are contributing to the problem of anti-Semitic violence.

In this warped and backwards reasoning, Sanders is, absurdly, guilty of fomenting anti-Semitism because he has supporters who believe that all people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea should have equal rights.

All this is a sign of just how far to the right the American Jewish establishment has lurched in during the Netanyahu era. Had he remained in Israel on the kibbutz, Sanders would likely be just another septuagenarian supporter of the left-wing Zionist Meretz party. But in many Jewish communities in the United States, even views like those of Meretz have long been considered beyond the pale.

This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Get Our Weekly Newsletter

See original here:
Why are American Jews so afraid of one of their own? - +972 Magazine

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Why are American Jews so afraid of one of their own? – +972 Magazine
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2020

The election commercials of the 29 parties running for Knesset began late Monday night, delivering their share of gimmicks, mudslinging and even surprises.

The ads began with a woman speaking with a Russian accent. But it was not a commercial for Yisrael Beytenu.

"I am voting for United Torah Judaism because of Liberman," she said.

UTJ was also the first of many parties to feature US President Donald Trump.

"Torah came before Trump," UTJ's ad reminded voters.

Trump's speeches praising Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were featured in the Likud's ads. The US president was the second most-featured politician in Likud ads, followed by Blue and White's Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid, Yael German and Ofer Shelah, but no one else in Likud.

"Tell them you're too busy with your trial and will get back to them?" the Blue and White ads asked cynically.

Likud and Blue and White's attack ads on each other portrayed Netanyahu and Gantz as incapable of making decisions, Netanyahu due to his probes and Gantz, because he is secretly "hiding" left-wing views.

Yamina also made fun of Blue and White, for trying to woo religious Zionist voters with herring rogelach, kreplach and David Ben-Gurion wearing a crocheted kippa. The Yamina commercial went through the success of the religious Zionist sector in rising quickly from having no minister in the security cabinet to having a defense minister.

Yisrael Beytenu's commercial focused on matters of religion and state as well as health, asking the public whether they wanted their health minister to be a rabbi or a doctor.

Labor-Gesher-Tzomet's ads with leaders Amir Peretz, Nitzan Horowitz and Orly Levy-Abecassis were dizzying, using a camera that spun around between the list candidates.

Otzma Yehudit's commercial revealed that besides stopping territorial concessions, the reason its leader Itamar Ben-Gvir is in politics is "to stop the torturing of divorced fathers."

The smaller parties did their best to grab attention. The women's party Kol Hanashim did so by having the party's candidates talk about the need to listen to Sara.

At first it seemed that the women were talking about Sara Netanyahu. But they were really talking about Sara, Abraham's wife, the first matriarch of the Jewish people.

Read the original post:
Election commercials begin with gimmicks, mudslinging and surprises - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Election commercials begin with gimmicks, mudslinging and surprises – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2020

We give a warning to Israelis to care about their acts of mischief. They are far littler than the Americans, much smaller and much more impotent by our calculations, General Salami said in an interview with Al Mayadeen television channel.

The whole positions occupied by the Israeli regime are within the range of the IRGCs fire, the commander added, noting that the source of such fire is not confined to Iran alone.

Today, the Israeli regime is hearing the voice of Muslim people from different countries next to the borders of the occupied territories, he stated, saying Muslims from Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and other countries are too close to the occupied territories.

Strong capacities have been shaped for the decline of the Zionist regime, but the conditions are not still prepared for the final downfall, General Salami explained, saying Israel itself is preparing the ground for its demise by continuing the acts of mischief.

They (Israelis) must consider the fact that they are surrounded inside a strip. These concrete barriers or electronic walls or those soldiers who are tired of war and afraid of death, all of which make up a major part of the nature of Zionists, could not save them, the IRGC chief warned.

He also advised the Zionist regime not to rely upon the US, because nobody has gained results from trusting Americans.

We are fully prepared to take counteraction against them (Israelis). We have both the determination and the capability to do so. Thus, both the Americans and the Israelis must know that Iran is the land of harsh and calculated responses to whatever invader on whatever scale, the general added.

Salami also pointed to a missile attack the IRGC launched against the Ain al-Assad airbase in retaliation for the US assassination of top Iranian commander Lt. General Qassem Soleimani, saying although the response was limited, it revealed that the Islamic Republic has reached such high level of power that it can take direct action against the US military bases.

He further warned that Irans responses to the US will go on, but in different shapes.

The main response will be given when General Soleimanis goals are fulfilled and his path is continued, and these goals generally revolve around the collapse and decline of the Zionist regime as well as ending the US presence in the region and the complete defeat of the US policies, he underlined.

The commander finally noted that the IRGC had prepared hundreds of other missiles at the time of the attack on Ain al-Assad to launch them simultaneously on the other American bases and other locations.

If the Americans had continued (to retaliate), we would have definitely extended the range of the attacks, as Ain al-Assad was only the starting point, he concluded.

See original here:
All Israeli Positions Within Range of IRGC Fire: Top Commander - Iran Front Page - IFP News

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on All Israeli Positions Within Range of IRGC Fire: Top Commander – Iran Front Page – IFP News
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 16, 2020

Vered Noam of Tel Aviv University has been awarded the Israel Prize in Talmudic Studies the first time that a woman has received the award.

Noam, current chair of the universitys Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies and Archaeology and a full professor in the Department of Jewish Philosophy and Talmud, is recognised internationally for her research.

Education Minister Rafi Peretz, making the announcement on Monday evening, called Noam a source of inspiration for a whole generation of women studying Torah.

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

Her work, her research, and her efforts to make Talmud studies accessible to many populations have been a breakthrough, he said.

In an interview Tuesday with the Kan public broadcaster, Noam said that women still have a way to go before they have equality in the study of Torah and Talmud.

A religious woman experiences freedom of choice and broad educational freedom in the everyday part of life, while a proper Torah education, especially around the Talmudic and Talmudic studies, is not yet open to her, Noam said.

She added: In our world Jewish women have a right and a duty to be part of the multi-generational conversation of the Jewish people and to belong to study and Torah.

The Israel Prize will be presented on April 29, Israel Independence Day.

More here:

Tel Aviv professor is first woman to receive Israel Prize in Talmudic Studies - Jewish News

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on Tel Aviv professor is first woman to receive Israel Prize in Talmudic Studies – Jewish News
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 16, 2020

Photo Credit: TPS

Professor Vered Noam, a Talmudic studies lecturer at Tel Aviv University, was announced on Monday the recipient of the 2020 Israel Prize for Talmudic Studies, the first woman in history to receive the prestigious award.

Noams focus is on Rabbinic literature, Second Temple literature, and early Halakha.

The committee that chose Noam stated she is being recognized for her many achievements, demonstrating, first and foremost, impressive research excellence expressed in first-class publications.

The committee underscored the breadth of her academic field that covers diverse areas from Second Temple literature to Talmud literature, through ancient traditions rooted in the Sages literature, to the Talmudic versions expressed in its commentaries.

The committee further noted that Noam is an internationally renowned researcher and is very much recognized for the importance of her research.

Finally, she is an exemplary figure in her contribution to the general scientific and public community, making the rabbinic literature and Talmud accessible to the entire Israeli public.

Noam will receive the accolade on Israels 72ndIndependence Day in April.

View original post here:

First Woman Awarded the Israel Prize for Talmudic Studies - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on First Woman Awarded the Israel Prize for Talmudic Studies – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 16, 2020

Ever since Benjamin Netanyahus indictment was submitted to the Jerusalem District Court on January 21, Dr. Avishay Ben Haim, who for the last decade has served as a reporter on haredi affairs, first on Channel 10 and now Channel 13, has been full of anger and rage.Ben Haim is especially furious about the headlines in part of the media following the attorney-generals decision to submit the indictment against Netanyahu, immediately after the latter asked to withdraw his previous request from the Knesset to apply his procedural immunity.The headline that enraged Ban Haim was: The State of Israel versus Benjamin Netanyahu, even though he admits that it accurately reflects the actual title of the indictment. His complaint is that it reflects a political attitude: that of the old (Ashkenazi) elites, who wish to see Netanyahu convicted and kicked out of the political arena, and who represent only half of Israel. The other half the so-called second Israel which represents Israels predominantly non-Ashkenazi population in the periphery, adores Bibi.Ben Haim, a mizrahi intellectual with a long ponytail and a small, Bennett-style skullcap on his head, after years of serving (in his own words) the liberal agenda of the Left, has recently turned into an outspoken advocate of the second Israel. According to him, this second Israel still suffers from discrimination, and views the secular, Ashkenazi Netanyahu who despite belonging to the top socioeconomic decile in Israel still perceives himself as a victim as its most authentic representative.Ben Haim did not invent the idea that there is a deep schism between Israels old Ashkenazi elites who support a liberal agenda as to how Israels democracy ought to be run, and large segments of Israels mizrahi population, which is more traditional in the social and religious senses, and estranged from many elements of the liberal being. Nor is he the first to try to explain why this second Israel views Netanyahu as its savior, and why it has not developed any leaders of its own, with the exception of Shass political leader, Arye Deri.In fact, there are numerous impressive mizrahi intellectuals, who express radical positions of various political shades, and who share the basic anger and rage about the continuing discrimination against mizrahim (descendants of local Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa) in Israel, and their allegedly being prevented from reaching the highest positions of power. Strangely enough, they all seem to believe that it is the liberal Ashkenazim who must change their disc, while the mizrahim themselves must simply insist on their right to remain as they are. The problem is that their practical demands from the liberal Ashkenazim are simply not realistic from a psychological or sociological point of view.For example, the Democratic Mizrahi Rainbow demands that the old Ashkenazi elites agree to voluntarily hand over state assets (i.e., lands) of which they allegedly gained control when they still ran the country. Sociology professor Nissim Mizrachi, recently stated in an interview with Haaretz that the left-wing Ashkenazim must give up their aggressive universal liberalism, and connect in a very deep and pragmatic manner to problems that must be resolved in reality, and manifest real respect for the concerns of people out of a position of solidarity: to Jews who are worried about the Jewish identity of the state; Muslims who worry about the Muslim identity of their community none of them are waiting for a feminist salvation or liberalism that will bring redemption into their lives. When asked whether what he was suggesting was that the (Ashkenazi) Left should simply die, his answer was: It is already dead.SUCH TALK together with the habit of many of the members of the Mizrahi Rainbow to use derogatory and insulting language about Ashkenazim, when talking to Ashkenazim is simply not effective. I am not dead, I am not a cow (or whatever), all my assets were legally and honestly earned by my family and myself, and were not bestowed upon me by the state, and I do not believe Israels main problem is the weakness of the Jewish identity of the state, or the Muslim identity of the Muslim community, rather than the deliberate undermining of its democratic institutions by recent Netanyahu-led governments. If certain sections of the mizrahi society disagree with me let it be, but dont ask me to give up my identity and beliefs in order to appease them.Incidentally, I am not denying that a second Israel exists, or that Israels governments in the early days of its existence did not mistreat and discriminate against the immigrants who arrived in Israel from Muslim countries. I dont even reject the narrative presented by many of the mizrahi intellectuals, and I empathize with some of the changes that they advocate, though I certainly do not accept this narrative and the agendas that accompany it lock, stock and barrel.I have already mentioned in the past Dr. Hani Zubidas talk show on the Knesset Channel 99. Zubida, who like Ben Haim and Prof. Mizrachi is in his 50s, is a political science lecturer at the Yezreel Valley College and an active member of the Mizrahi Rainbow. In his talk show he raises issues from the daily news, as well as various issues from the sidelines that have to do with the mizrahi social agenda. Almost all of the participants in his program are mizrahi social activists religious, secular, right, left and center. Anyone who is accustomed to listening to the news or watching talk shows on channels 11, 12, 13 and even 20 will see here totally different faces, and hear totally different voices. It is refreshing, though frequently enervating.Ron Huldai the mayor of the secular, liberal capital, Tel Aviv, is frequently slandered for his alleged lack of sympathy for the problems of the weaker mizrahim. Solomon Tekah, the Ethiopian youth who was killed from an indirect bullet shot by a police officer out of uniform several months ago, is referred to on a regular basis as the boy of us all, even though the complicated background of the incident is never referred to, nor the identity of the shooting police officer, who might or might not have been mizrahi (most of the recent police commissioners, and most of the police force, are mizrahim).I believe Zubida is basically a left-winger, though not a left-winger in the Ashkenazi sense, but if there is a contradiction between left-wing values and mizrahi solidarity, Zubida will invariably opt for the latter. I have never heard Zubida confront mizrahi supporters of Netanyahu or mizrahi members of Shas, and he, like other radical mizrahi intellectuals, has never tried to lead an effective, independent, non-haredi alternative for mizrahi voters, with the goal of winning for those of them who havent made it themselves a more worthy place under the sun. They seem to prefer the role of preachers to that of shepherds, and at the moment they are more inclined to deepen rifts than build bridges.I would say, however, that at the moment they are the least of the worries of secular Ashkenazi liberals, and I believe that after the Netanyahu era, the rifts will have a better chance of healing. With or without them.

Read this article:

The rift between the first and second Israel - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Ashkenazi | Comments Off on The rift between the first and second Israel – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 16, 2020

ANN ARBOR, MI They searched the world for a match.

Bennett Sevack needed a bone marrow transplant. He was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome after treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. But there was no match for the Ann Arbor resident in the international registry.

So, his family started making calls.

Doctors first tried his siblings and cousins. When that didnt work, his sisters, friends and family spent six weeks calling and sharing flyers with synagogues around the world to encourage people to join the bone marrow registry, hoping someone with Sevacks Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish background would be willing to donate.

By fall, a partial match was found in an Italian obstetrics hospital in an umbilical cord blood sample. Soon after, another cord blood match was found in the U.S. It was enough to perform a transplant.

Sevack has gained an intense appreciation for donors.

You can save somebodys life..." he said. Its a blessing to do.

Finding an acceptable bone marrow donor is a challenge in general, but its that much harder for people of color and patients of complex ethnic backgrounds like Sevack, according to health care providers and families whove embarked on far-reaching searches for a match.

A white person has a 77% shot at finding a matching donor, according to Be The Match, a widely used donor registry. A black persons chances are 23%. For people of mixed backgrounds, the search can become more complex.

Part of the issue is the relatively narrow population of donors in the registry. Another part is the science: Certain HLA types, the protein that needs to match in bone marrow transplants, are more unique to specific backgrounds.

A closer look at plans for the new $920M University of Michigan hospital

Sevacks transplant was completed in October 2019 more than three years after his initial diagnosis, and four months after getting news that he would definitely need a transplant.

He spent eight weeks healing from his transplant and two weeks healing from a bout of graft-versus-host disease in the hematology oncology clinic on the seventh floor of Ann Arbors C.S. Mott Childrens Hospital.

On the same floor, a 9-year-old Ann Arbor-area patient undergoing chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia is in the same predicament that Sevack once faced. She may need a bone marrow transplant as well, but a donor match her ethnic background is Cantonese, Hispanic and Caucasian has yet to be found in the registry.

The search

Genetics play a major role in finding a good match, said Mark Vander Lugt, a pediatric bone marrow transplant specialist at C.S. Mott working with the 9-year-old. People get four HLA types from each parent, meaning donors need to match in at least six spots, though sometimes a stronger match is required.

You get combinations that are hard to find in the registry because of that, Vander Lugt said.

Not everyone needs a transplant once theyre diagnosed. Doctors often treat blood cancers and related illnesses with chemotherapy first killing off the bad cells and waiting to see if healthy cells regenerate. If they dont, a transplant replaces the bone marrow, where blood stem cells are made.

Mothers breast cancer pushes Ypsilanti woman to get preventative mastectomy

The registry is so low on certain populations that some began taking matters into their own hands. Athena Asklipiadis founded Mixed Marrow, a nonprofit that conducts outreach to encourage multi-ethnic bone marrow and blood cell donations. She said the misconceptions of donation is one of the largest challenges in getting people registered. She started by reaching out to Facebook groups and college clubs on the West Coast, where she is based. Eventually, families began reaching out to her to help in the donor search.

People use this phrase, When theres a cure for cancer or If theres a cure for cancer, Asklipiadis said. But these are actual blood diseases and cancers that are curable. Theyre curable by the selflessness of a donor and thats the beautiful thing about it.

Sevacks sister Laurel Bernstein was part of the group of relatives and supporters who called synagogues in search of donors. She estimated they called hundreds of people and added more than 1,000 to the donor registry while searching for Sevacks match.

The nine of us all felt so energized by what happened, Bernstein said. "We had not finished calling the list, even though we got the match. We went through to the end of the list to help pay it forward, to help other people, to get that much more DNA into the database.

The transplant

For Sevack, it was umbilical cord blood that saved his life. DNA from the two samples created enough HLA type matches to begin the transplant.

Vander Lugt said the preferred transplant method is still donor transplants, because cord blood units are smaller and in more limited supply than donor cells.

Misconceptions of transplants are another roadblock. A bone marrow harvest in which a donor undergoes surgery to collect marrow from the hip is widely believed to be painful. But experts describe the process as a mild discomfort with a two-to-three day recovery time, instead.

And direct harvest is no longer the only method. Many hospitals also practice apheresis, which collects the peripheral blood that can generate new bone marrow through a process that looks like dialysis. Theres no surgery involved.

Choosing between the two collection processes is based on multiple factors, including the health of the patient undergoing general anesthesia and doctor and donor preference, Vander Lugt said.

The value

Fear of the unknown is what affected Sevack the most going into surgery. He said he had an anxiety breakdown the morning of his transplant, when he realized what was about to happen.

My heart was to the moon, Sevack said. I was fully dressed and every part of me was drenched. In about eight minutes I had gone through this journey of fear because the reality of what was going to come was upon me. (My wife) calmed me down, I changed my clothes and this journey began. Theres been plenty of times when Ive been scared to death.

Finding a transplant match taught his wife Phyllis Sevack the importance of facing each day separately. Fighting cancer was about healing every day making big battles smaller.

The reality of it hits all at once, Phyllis Sevack said. "I wouldnt want anybody to be afraid to go through it because it is every day take it day by day. And as soon as Bennett got over that hes not doing everything on one day, (he got better mentally).

Now at home, Bennett Sevack may take a year to fully heal. He looks forward to small improvements in his quality of life, like an expanded diet and doing his own grocery shopping at Meijer, he said.

Even the routine blood and platelet donations he received in treatment were invaluable to him. They saved his life.

Where to donate blood in Washtenaw County during shortage

Every day, theyd give me sacks of stuff that made me sick to think about it, Sevack said. It was someones donation that was given, that was literally giving me life. People who donate would do an amazing service to someone. You may not know who that is but its somebody.

Potential donors can begin the registration process by filling out a questionnaire about their medical history at bethematch.org. A cheek swab will confirm whether you meet the medical guidelines for donation. You may remain on the registry for years before a match is found. More information is available here.

Wolverines for Life and the Michigan Medicine Bone Marrow Transplant department are hosting a registration drive from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 18 at the Pierpoint Commons lobby, 2101 Bonisteel Blvd., Ann Arbor.

Read this article:

Mixed ethnic backgrounds make it that much harder to find a bone marrow transplant - MLive.com

Category: Ashkenazi | Comments Off on Mixed ethnic backgrounds make it that much harder to find a bone marrow transplant – MLive.com
Tags: