The historian J. Rufus Fears noted that great leaders – from Pericles to Lincoln to Churchill – share four characteristics. They are anchored in principles, guided by a moral compass, posses a vision, and have the ability to build consensus to achieve their vision. These are the qualities that differentiate them as statesmen rather than mere politicians.

Unfortunately, the current leadership in Israel is the epitome of mere politicians. Prime-Minister Olmert, for example, is a drunken captain at the helm of a ship headed for an iceberg. An uninspiring power-hungry man mired in corruption and lacking vision, he is leading his country into disaster.

The truth is that people matter. For good or ill, individuals can change the course of history. Recently, the United States has seen what remarkable change the right person can achieve. A tall African-American man did what most thought impossible. No, I am not talking about Barack Obama, but Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett.

The NBA star turned around a team that had been in the basement of the league forStatesmen:: Pericles, Lincoln, Livni, and KG years, whose uniformly awful under-performances of its talent led some fans to believe the team was cursed. But in just one season, Garnett led the Celtics to a championship via the biggest turnaround in league history. How did he do it? With skills, passion, tenacity, determination, and teamwork. In short, he was a true leader, the sort of individual whose rarity underscores their potential to overcome obstacles that had been thought insuperable.

As strange as it may sound, Kevin Garnett gives me hope that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved. But the question is, who is going to be our Kevin Garnett? As things stands today, my money is on Tzipi Livni.

While Livni and I are far from ideological soul mates, her tremendous potential is obvious. A woman who embodies the characteristics of the type of leadership that Israel needs, she is honest, sharp as whip, empathic towards her enemies, has a clear vision for Israel’s future, and has shown the ability to build a consensus to achieve her vision. (For example, in 2005 it was Livni who managed to persuade the divided Israeli parliament to ratify Ariel Sharon's controversial plan to withdraw Israel's settlements from Gaza.)

But Livni's most impressive quality is that she is willing to learn and evolve. Not in the selfish service of staying in power, but in the selfless service of her vision of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. And to that end, she has the courage to do what she thinks is right even if it means alienating those who are close to her.

Remember, this is a woman who came from a hardcore right-wing family – her father, former member of Irgun and leader in the Likkud Party, has the map of greater Israel engraved on his tombstone – and who now after realizing the futility and danger of annexing historic Israel has dedicated her political career to creating Jewish and Palestinian states.

The former "Herut princess" undoubtedly has set her father spinning in his grave. But that is exactly what we need. Leaders who have the courage to spin the dead for the sake of the living. Even if it means going against the ones they love most. Like Abraham of old, Livni has smashed the idols of her father's home.

Some people have second-guessed Livni’s political prowess -- especially after, in light of the Winograd report, she called on Olmert to resign but refused to leave her post in protest. Others have cast doubt on Livni as Prime Minister material due to her lack of known security credentials (it is hard to turn classified service in the Mossad into political advantage).

Much of the criticism leveled at her has a clear sexist overtone, effectively boiling down to: "Livni lacks the testicular fortitude to lead a country like Israel. With threats from Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran we simply cannot leave it all to a woman. Tough times call for manly men (i.e. Netanyahu/Mofaz/Barak). Yes there was Golda but she didn't really count. After all, as Ben-Gurion once remarked, Golda was the only man in his cabinet."

In a similar vein, talking about Livni, a friend of mine once said that Israel can never elect or accept a leader that blinks. I hope he is wrong, because again, that is exactly what we need. Not the My Pet Goat type of blinking, but the type that breaks the reflexive and destructive pattern of unthinking stimulus-response that has characterized Israeli leadership. We need a leader that blinks twice, ten times, a hundred times, before sending off children to kill and die in a war. A leader that in between those blinks thinks about the long-term consequence of their actions – for us and for our enemies.

As I said, Kevin Garnett's leadership of the Celtics gives me hope that the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved. I didn't mean it glibly. He didn't, and couldn't have brought about his team's epic turnaround single-handedly; rather, he did it by making those around him better. He did it by taking to heart the African concept of Ubuntu, which illustrates how our individual success is bound up with the success of those around us. (Literally: 'Ubuntu' was the 2008 Celtics motto.) Perhaps in the end the ability to inspire excellence from others is the true mark of a great leader.

The challenges of the state Livni is likely to soon assume control of, unlike the challenges of Garnett's league, are anything but a game. The lives of millions of people, present and future, depend on Israel's next premier being a statesperson rather than a mere politician. Given the opportunity to lead, Livni would have to inspire excellence not only from her fellow Knesset members, but also from her Palestinian interlocutors. Which is not a low bar to clear, to say the least.

Abraham Lincoln said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." To what degree Livni can rise to the challenge remains to be seen, but she is a talent more prodigious than any her country has been blessed with in a long time, and she turned up at just the time her country needed such a talent.

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem recently released a video of an Israeli solider shooting a rubber bullet into an Israeli protester at short range. The incident took place during a demonstration against the separation wall in the Palestinian village of Bil'in. The army has said that it is investigating the incident, yet added that since Bil'in has experienced past clashes between protesters and the IDF, "security forces were ordered to employ crowd dispersal means on the demonstrators."

Occupation At What Price To Israeli Decency? The injured activist, Eran Cohen, an 18 year-old from Tel-Aviv, has stated that he was there to protest the incarceration of a friend. In the video, Cohen is seen wearing a backpack and screaming in the direction of the soldiers in Hebrew. According to Cohen: "I yelled 'enough with the violence' at them, and then a soldier turned around and fired a rubber bullet into my leg. I was evacuated to Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, where I was examined and operated on to extract the bullet. I was given pain killers and released home." Cohen says he plans on returning and continuing to protest what he sees as the injustice suffered by the Palestinians in Bil'in. "The village’s residents suffer more bullet hits than I have. Compared to what they are going through, my case is nothing."

While it is unknown whether the solider was following orders when he discharged a bullet into Cohen's body, the video captures a very transparent violation of official army regulations. According to the IDF's code of conduct, military action can only be taken against military targets, the use of force must be proportional, and when appropriate, soldiers must provide the wounded with medical care. Moreover, IDF regulations state that rubber bullets must be fired from a distance no closer than 40 meters. As the video shows, Cohen, who did not in any way pose a threat to the soldiers, was standing at a distance of no more than ten meters from the solider who shot him.

Being a solider in the territories is an extremely stressful experience, one you can never fully understand until you lace up those boots . But the response of the solider and his platoon seems inexcusable to me. It is not only that the solider shot the protestor -- notice that there is no verbal or gunfire warning (at least not on the recording) -- but also the way he did it: with the same ease that one swats away a pesky mosquito.

Moreover, his platoon seems to be totally uninterested. They just keep on walking without even turning their heads. (Eventually Cohen was helped by other protesters). Such indifference is a telling and alarming sign of what soldiers in the occupied territories have become accustomed to. One is left to wonder: If Israeli protesters have it this bad, what do their Palestinian counterpart have to deal with?

People have often argued that if only the Palestinians were to use the method of Gandhi and King, then this whole crises would be over and done with. Paul Wolfowitz, for example, said, "If the Palestinians adopt the ways of Gandhi, they could, in fact, make an enormous change very quickly. I believe the power of individuals demonstrating peacefully is enormous." While I sympathize with the idea of non-violent resistance, when applied to Palestine such thinking tends to ignore or minimize the historical record and the reality on the ground.

Mubarak Awad: The Palestinian Gandhi deferred? The historical record of non-violence in Palestine is discouraging to say the least. The closest that the Palestinians have come to a Gandhi has been Mubarak Awad, the charismatic leader who stressed non-violent non-cooperation with the Israeli occupation. Israel's response to Awad was to expel him from the country in 1988 -- a decision that in hindsight was a tragic mistake. The first Intifada, which had the very real potential of being a non-violent uprising, lacked the leadership necessary to mobilize large-scale civil disobedience. After that, the script has pretty much remained the same, with no one of note seriously considering relinquishing the sanctity and logic of armed conflict for the alternative of non-violent resistance. Understandingly, many people have come to the conclusion that it is not in the DNA of either people to respond to conflict in a non-violent manner

When you see videos like Cohen's, videos that are in accord with the testimony of many eyewitness on the ground, you began to wonder if the likes of Gandhi or King would have stood a chance in the occupied territories in the first place. As the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh once said, if Gandhi was resisting the French instead of the British he would have given up non-violence within a week – presumably because he would be dead. Surely if the IDF’s de facto position (in contrast to its de jure regulations) is to shoot peaceful protestors, Gandhi and King would have had a very tough time getting their movements off the ground. Moreover, a serious Palestinian effort at civil disobedience will most certainly experience vigorous and violent opposition among Palestinians as well. No members of Hamas and other militant groups will allow their power to be challenged without a fight. And as we have seen in the past, Hamas and their ilk has no difficulty gunning down and eliminating opposition.

Finally, the "Gandhi in Palestine" theory also ignores the reality that the Israeli heart, like an egg in boiling water, has become hardened. It's not that the Israeli people are lacking in compassion. It's just that the situation has created more than one wall dividing us from the Palestinians. The only reason we pay attention to this video is because it captures an Israeli solider shooting a fellow Israeli. Were this a Palestinian, we would not have cared. Indeed, it would take a great deal of exposure to lucid raw injustice to weaken our Dershowitzian Super-Egos -- those voices inside our heads that have been fine-tuned to explain away and assuage our guilt.

Civil disobedience can only function against a semi-civilized opposition, an opposition that is governed by rule of law, decency, and proportional restraint. Israel needs to figure out if that description represents her.

In order to do so, Israelis must answer a number questions: As long as we occupy, what kind of occupiers are we? Are we an occupation that talks like the British but acts like the French? Or should we aspire to treat those under our control the way we would want to be treated if the situation was reversed? Oh wait, if we did that, would we even be there in the first place?

Israel's beauty shines brightest in its diversity. The country possesses one of the most culturally and physically diverse societies on the planet. No matter the kind of Jew, from Yemenite to Ethiopian to Polish, from Orthodox to Reform to secular, there is a place for you under the Mediterranean sun. Yet there is at least one group of Jews who is excluded from the Zionist mosaic. They are the Messianic Jews --- a religious community that follows a Torah inspired life-style while believing in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Messianics view themselves as returning to the roots of early Christianity as aMessianic Jews Rally For Israel: Israel doesn't return the favor Jewish sect. According to Paul Liberman, author of The Fig Tree Blossoms, a messianic Jew is "a person who was born Jewish or converted to Judaism, who is a 'genuine believer' in Yeshua [Jesus], and who acknowledges his Jewishness." Practicing bi-spiritually, as it were, the Messianics stand outside the theological and historic spheres of normative Judaism and Christianity. Yet according to their own beliefs, they are engaged in an authentic expression of Judaism. In fact, they consider themselves "complete Jews."

Around the world the Messianic Jewish community number roughly 350,000. In Israel they stand at 15,000 and have over 120 different congregations. Not surprisingly, from their inception the Messianics have managed to rouse the ire of the ultra-Orthodox and (to a lesser extent) secular communities in Israel. That anger has frequently turned into aggressive physical and verbal confrontations precipitated by religious radicals (Jews and Arabs) who oppose the presence of what in their view are dangerous missionizing Christians (in contrast to the fact that not a single Messianic Jew has ever stood trial for illegal missionary activity --- e.g. forced conversion, or conversion of minors). Most recently, in the settlement of Ariel, a bomb planted under a Purim gift-basket left a 15 year-old boy belonging to a prominent family of Messianic Jews in critical condition.

In addition to being targets of persecution at the hand of religious radicals, theIsraeli Messianic Jews Dedicate A Cemetary Messianics have also faced state-sanctioned discrimination. The Ministry of the Interior, with the backing of the Supreme Court, has rejected the appeals of Messianics for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. The argument being that since Messianics believe in Jesus, they either belong to another faith, or in the case of Jewish-born Messianics, have willingly converted into another faith, and therefore have forfeited their right to make Aliyah as Jews. In addition, the government has also discriminated against Messianic Jews who have migrated to Israel by refusing to renew their passports, register their newborns, firing them from government posts, and in some cases revoking their citizenship.

While historically some Messianics have been gentile "philo-Semites" who have used the cover of Judaism as a Trojan horse to enter Israel with the purpose of turning it into a Christian nation, for the most part the Messianic community in Israel is made of upstanding citizens (most of whom were born Jewish) who go into the army (unlike most of their haredi antagonists), pay their taxes, vote, are peaceful, and lead a quite Jewish lifestyle. Their situation forces us to ask the uncomfortable question: Should people who have chosen to practice and interpret their Judaism differently from the majority (which itself was never hegemonic or monolithic), live in a (Jewish) state of fear and persecution?

It seems that the unholy alliance between state and the ultra-Orthodox establishmentIsrael Defense Forces: Messianic Jews serve in the IDF, but do not have the same rights as Haredim who do not has created the absurd reality of inverse crypto-Judaism: Where in the medieval era Jews who had converted to Christianity kept their Judaism in secret, today many Messianics feel compelled to hide their beliefs from the rest of Israeli society. The price of disclosure may not be a visit to the Israeli equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, yet social ostracism, harassment, bullying, and state-sanctioned discrimination is enough to keep many (though not all) living secret lives.

From its beginnings the twin purpose of Zionism has been the creation of a safe haven for Jewish people(s) and culture(s). Likewise, the Declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel promises to "open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew," and guarantees freedom of religion to all. Yet when organs of the state and its citizens discriminate against certain Jews for their beliefs, they are betraying the very core of the ground on which they stand on.

Take for example Law of Return as it applies to Jewish-born Messianics. The notion that a Jew who accepts Jesus as the Jewish Messiah loses his/her right to make Aliyah is in complete contradiction with the purpose and logic of the law. It is bad enough to deny citizenship to a Jew who willfully converts to another religion (as the 1970 amendment to the law stipulates). It is something else all together to deny it to a Jew whose self-identity remains Jewish. Surely, antisemites do not care wither or not a Jew believes Jesus was the Messiah, or whether he/she is a Jew who converted to another faith. And from the perspective of the Law of Return, shouldn't the ubiquitous gaze of the antisemite be the deciding factor of whether or not someone is Jewish?

Of course Israel can define for itself who counts as a Jew, but it should be consistent. Yes, the Messianics stand in two worlds. But so do many Israeli Jews. If you can be a Jew and an atheist, a Jew and a Buddhist - why can't you also be you a Jew who believes that Jesus was the Jewish messiah? If we are going to accept Jews whose self-identity does not snugly fit into one mold, then we need to make room for the Messianics as well. If we are going to say that Hitler and not Halacha determines who is a Jew, then we need to make room for Jews who also believe in Jesus --- as Hitler would have done.

In the end, the existence of Messianic Jews is good for Israel. It forces us to stretch the boundaries and re-think the definition of an Israeli Jew. The sad truth is that anyone who has a bone to pick with the Orthodox/state monopoly (the list is long) does not want to make cause with the Messianics. To align with them is to commit political suicide. But make no mistake: today it is the Messianics, and tomorrow it will be you.

For the last seven years musicians Gabriel Meyer and peace activist Elias Jabbour have been doing what politicians have repeatedly failed to do: bringing Jews and Arabs together in the spirit of reconciliation and peace. They do this through the Sulha Peace Project --- a coexistence endeavor based on the indigenous Middle Eastern tradition of mediation and conflict resolution, Sulha.

The Sulha Peace Project consists in a large annual gathering that features three days of dialogue, shared meals, traditional art, music, and inter-faith rituals. Beginning with 150 people in the troubled days of the second intifadah, the event has grown to host over 5000 participants at a time. In addition to the annual occasion, the Sulha Peace Project also provides Israeli and Palestinian youth a rare opportunity to gather together, exchange narratives and ideas, and prepare to be tomorrow’s peacemakers.

Gabriel MeyerThe Sulha initiative has been lauded by the likes of the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu as a significant and fundamental contribution to peace in the Middle East. Based on the idea that true peace must be built from the ground up, through the people and traditions that make up the landscape of the conflict, the Sulha Peace Project is paving the way for a new reality in the Middle East.

Recently, I had a chance to talk to Gabriel Meyer (son of the late prominent Conservative Rabbi Marshall Meyer) about the organization he co-founded, the difficulties inherent in the making peace, and the role of religion in peacemaking.

What is the goal of the Sulha Project?

The main goal of the Sulha Peace Project is to build trust between Palestinians and Israelis, prepare the two people for peace, and complement the diplomatic efforts, beyond a specific political agenda, stereotypes, cynicism and despair. We are a grassroots effort for peace and one of our purposes is healing, to make the Middle East and the Holy Land of the Prophets, reach its full potential of hospitality, justice, compassion, beauty and creativity.

What is the process by which forgiveness and peace between enemies takes place?

The first condition is trust. Without trust, there can’t be reconciliation. The main thing is to create an atmosphere where people can listen to the claims, pains, and hopes of each other. If you can realize that the other is a human being, then there is a big field of trust that is created and anything can be achieved. There are so many stereotypes that need to be overcome, not least of which is the reality generated by the media. We are trying to manifest and create a new type of reality. An alternative reality that goes beyond all that is put out by the media and daily news.

What is most challenging about the process of reconciliation?

Most challenging is that we are being bombarded by the media with bad news all the time. The media is painting a situation of constant war and suffering. Little attention is given to more positive efforts at coexistence created by people who are exhausted with war. This leads to large-scale despair, cynicism, and fatigue. So I would say that overcoming the negative impact of the media on people’s consciousness, not taking responsibility and handing over the perception of reality to media and politicians represents one of the biggest challenges to reconciliation.

Does the Sulha project champion any political formula to end the conflict? For example, one-state, two-state, or no-state solution?

That is not our job. We complement the diplomatic effort. We do not try to come up with a political blue print for a solution. We are working on creating trust. There are enough people who are creating solutions. They have the plans. Our work is to prepare the people so that when someone does sign a successful treaty there will be people to support it.

Music plays a really important role in the Sulha project. Can you speak to role of music in peace making?

I am a musician originally. I use music constantly as a tool to create sacred space from which to build trust between people. Music and the arts in general are a great means of transformation and healing. Music can reach the ears, minds, and hearts of people in a way that words often fail to do. Whenever you come to a place and hear music that is familiar, music that you heard your grandmother sing, you feel different. When that music is being played by people who are supposed to be your enemy, then it is even more profound. This is how I met many Palestinians and Arabs. I started singing songs from their culture, not mine. It was a real shock which broke the distrust --- all of sudden I am singing La illah illa la (There is no God but God in Arabic), and my Muslims partner breaks and thinks to himself “he can’t be so bad.”

Many people see religion as an inflexible force that perpetuates the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, yet at the Sulha Peace Project religion is harnessed as a force for peace and unity. Can you speak to the use of religion as an instrument for peace?

There a saying in Hebrew: hadinim nimtakim beshorsham, which means “stern Acoustic Guitar For Peace: artist's conceptionjudgment is sweetened from the root.” I believe that religion is at the root of both the conflict and the solution. At our gatherings, we have all kinds of people – religious & secular - but we do use the gems of religion as possibilities for healing. I think that one of the problems with the Oslo peace process for example was that the religious were kept out of the discussion. There was zero mention of the root of peace in the Koran and Torah, for example. Something was missing. For most of the people who are involved in this conflict, religion matters. If you touch the positive part of religion, it has highly medicinal power.

On your website, you say that the goal of the Sulha Peace project is to heal and reconcile the children of Abraham. Why the emphasis on Abraham?

Abraham is our common father. Likewise, Sarah and Hagar are our mothers. We all come from the same family, the same tribe.

I am sure that such recognition goes a long way --- but isn't Abraham also the father who is willing to sacrifice his children in the name of God? Isn't Abraham’s relationship with his children also an apt metaphor for the willingness of authority figures in this conflict to blindly sacrifice their children on the altar of some religious or secular ideology?

I personally think Abraham is an archetype. I realize that he is a very complex figure. We can go into a discussion about the binding of Isaac/Ishmael, or how he let Hagar and Ishmael go out into the desert (though he made a point to visit them there), but I see him as a figure of compassion and humanity. He opened his tent to the four directions, and provided hospitality to strangers. Legend goes he would wash the feet of pilgrims and feed them. He defended the innocent at Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Kabbalah he’s related to unconditional loving-kindness, as the creator of the morning prayers, as flowing water.

Some people see what you are doing and say, “This is all very nice. People eating, dancing, singing, praying, and talking together. But how is that going to solve anything? The occupation continues. The terrorism continues. People go back to their homes and they are faced with the same reality. Are you really making any difference?”

The people who come to our gatherings are also crying the pain of their lost ones. There are a lot of people who have suffered. We have settlers and Palestinian ex-militia men. We are not outside of the reality here; we are just choosing to manifest it in a different way. We do not want to perpetuate the same negative feelings. Everyone knows that the problems are out there. We do not give more energy to them. We have CNN, BBC, and al Jazeera; they are doing a good enough job portraying the sickness. We want to portray the medicine.

Are we making a difference? Well, we started with 150 people in 2001, and now, in 2008, we are over 5000 strong. We also have partnered with an organization in the West Bank that teach non-violence resistance in the way of Martin Luther King. Now in our seventh year, we also have youth gatherings --- the Sulhita Youth Project which gathers one hundred Palestinian and Israeli kids for a five-day leadership and reconciliation retreat. So I think that we in fact are making a difference.

To date, what has been the greatest failure and greatest success of the project?

The failure is that it is not attracting 100,000 in both sides yet. People in Israel and Palestine are still skeptical and still cynical. But the biggest failure is that people still believe there would be more security without peace. The blindness of people who still think that security will come with war. They don’t understand that for one to be happy the other has to be happy as well. There’s also a lack of justice that needs to be resolved, but it will not be resolved through violence, we have tried throughout history and it has never worked.

The biggest success is that here the Sulhita Youth is fully happening and it is growing. This year we have three youth and three family gatherings. And we found a partner in the Palestinian side that we believe in. We have the explicit support of elders of the stature of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (link to youtube vid) and Archbishop Desmond Tutu among others and also a strong intuition that the framework and way of the Sulha Peace Project is making its mark on society at large.

What can expect from you this year?

Next week we are holding our fifth sulhita gathering with a hundred Palestinian and Israeli kids. In August, we are having our annual Sulha gathering that should once again take place at the Latrun monastery (about 15 kilometers west of Jerusalem and 14 kilometers southeast of Ramla). All are invited.

By mid-October, I will be arriving with my band Amen. Which is also composed of musicians like Amir Paiss from the Israeli band Sheva. In addition to the playing Sulha inspired music we will be screening the new Sulha movie. If you want to support Sulha you can come in August to Israel, or email us to book US tour dates at amen.sulha@gmail.com.

Finally, what message do you have for those Jewcy readers (Jews and non-Jews) whose heart have been broken by the conflict and who have given up on the hope for peace?

Never give up hope. You need hope to be Jewcy. If I did not have hope, I wouldn’t live here. There are still some beautiful beings in Israel and Palestine who are trying to make this place a Holy Land. A broken heart is a full human heart, but you can’t let that lead you to despair. We can’t lose hope. We can't live without hope. As long as you can breathe, there is still hope. Before we die we need to shine our special light. That’s what we are here for.

In an effort to boost the quality and quantity of Israel's sex life, Tel-Aviv recently hosted the country's first ever sex festival. The 'Sextival', as it is called, was co-sponsored by Playboy and organized by ex-model Nitzan Kirshenboim. The event featured an array of stalls, workshops, toy sales, erotic shows, Playboy bunnies, and art exhibitions.

The highlight of the Sextival was a contest crowning the best stripper in Israel (broadcast live on Israel's digital cable channel Ego) and a raffle with a trip for two to Hugh Hefner's legendary Playboy mansion. Although the event brought out a few protesters, for the most part the three-day affair went without any problems.

Of course no major event in Israel is without political significance. A sex festival, much like the gay pride parades, is a unique phenomenon in the region. You will not find one in Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, or Iran. As Nitzan Kirshenboim, the woman behind the festival jokingly pointed out: "Tel-Aviv can now brag about a new record. We have the largest number of vibrating dildos in all of the Middle East."

Continue reading...

The Pope: An ancient prayer is causing modern controversy A few years ago he pissed off Muslims around the world when he suggested that Islam was a religion of the sword. Today, Pope Benedict XVI has enraged the rest of the monotheistic family.

In a move that must have given both Ann Coulter and Mel Gibson hard-ons, the Pope has re-sanctioned an ancient Good Friday prayer which calls on God to illuminate the hearts of the Jews that they might recognize their savior Jesus Christ. To his credit, the Pope did choose to remove passages from the ancient Latin rite which referred to Jewish "blindness" and the need to "remove the veil from their hearts."

To the surprise of nobody, Jewish groups have got their knickers in a twist. The Italian Rabbinical Assembly has suspended its decades-long dialogue with the Church. And the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement which read:

"While we appreciate that some of the deprecatory language has been removed ... we are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact."

Walter Kasper, the Cardinal in charge of the Catholic Church's relations with Jews, has vigorously defended the Pope's decision. Kasper (who happens to be German) is perplexed by Jewish touchiness:

"I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers. We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like."

To those of us less naive about Jewish sensitivities, it is obvious that reintroducing this prayer into the liturgy would reopen old wounds. It harkens us back to a time when Christians looked at Jews the way Tom Cruise looks at a car accident.

Continue reading...

Army logic: CabelIsraelis are abuzz over a proposed law which would equalize its military conscription, provide the option of national service (Sherut Leumi), and punish those who refuse to serve.

Labor Minister Eitan Cabel, with the backing of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, recently proposed the law in an effort to shrink the growing rift in Israel between those who serve and those who do not.

It is estimated that 25% of all Israelis do not serve in the army—a percentage which includes Arab-Israelis, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, conscientious objectors, married and religious women, and individuals with physical and psychological disorders.

This phenomenon has created a serious problem. In a society where militarily service and citizenship are interlinked, those who sacrifice their time and talents to serve end up resenting and socially marginalizing those who are exempts. A popular bumper sticker in Israel actually reads "Army dodgers are not Israelis."

 To solve this problem, Cabel’s law would require any Israeli who won’t serve in the army to devote equal time to Sherut Leumi work in hospitals, special education, disadvantaged communities, immigrant assistance, environmentalism, etc.

Cabel also proposed that those who refuse to join the army or national service will be punished. Examples of potential punishment include losing the right to vote, study and practice one’s chosen profession (e.g. medicine or psychology), and drive a car.

The proposed law has many supporters, despite the fact that it is illegal in Israel to discriminate against people who do not serve in the army.

 I think the law is well-intentioned but misguided. Giving people multiple ways to actively participate in the welfare of the state is indeed a step in the right direction – a trajectory leading to a society in which sizable minorities (like Arabs and Orthodox Jews) are not disconnected and alienated from the whole.

But this cannot be done with a sword hanging over people's heads. Part of the problem in Israel is that we suffer from an excess of army logic: Stick before carrot. Perhaps this law is a reflection of a society in flux—one that recognizes that the army is not for everyone but still uses draconian measures to carry that insight forward.

Soldier boy, tell 'em: The cover of Life after the Six-Day WarPeople behind this law explain that the punishment is simply a preventative means. Yet it seems to me that what we have here is an old style herem (excommunication), aimed at appealing to the large segment of Israeli society that resents and wants to punish those who do not go to the army. It is the labor party's way of saying: "We are just as tough, pro-army, and patriotic as Likkud."

If you are going to disregard people's fundamental rights, why stop at taking away their right to vote, choose a profession, or drive a car? Let’s go for the gold – why not chemically castrate or make infertile those who refuse to play nice with the state? That way they won’t produce any rebellious children.

It is clear that this law, in its suggested form, is a half-baked and dangerous. I am not calling for a society in which there are only rights without obligations. Nor am I calling for laws to be enacted without some type of enforcement mechanism. But to punish folks in such a disproportionate fashion for refusing to serve the state in such a manner is harsh and cruel.

Lets open up the options of national service (which I am for) without the threat of this stupid herem. This is our duty to our country as well. Inspire people to serve their country; reward them with incentives; don't threaten them into being patriotic.

Bush is in Israel, the one country that actually likes him. The President is in the region to carry forward the momentum of the Annapolis peace summit. Traffic stops, and speeches begin.

And what of the speeches? Sycophantic praises and hollow pledges.

If I have to hear one more time about how Israel and the US have an unshakable and eternal bond, I am going to toss my cookies.

Seriously though, when people in a relationship keep on publicly stressing how great and wonderful their bond is, you do not have to be Freud to know something is amiss. Who are they trying to convince? Just imagine if your significant other began obsessively reiterating how in love they are with you — cause for concern indeed.

People have opined that Bush's visit to the region is "historic" (another vomit word). He is after all, only the fourth American president to have visited the holy land (Richard Nixon in 1974, Jimmy Carter in 1979 and Bill Clinton in 1998 were his predecessors). But I believe that Bush’s visit is historic for another reason all together: Bush will be the last American president to support the Jewish state in such a lopsided manner.

I know, it seems quite far fetched—naïve even. But the writing is on the wall, and not just on the one dividing up Palestine. In the last few years it has become possible and even fashionable for all kinds of folks—politicians, intellectuals, academics, journalists, and students—to call into question the benefits of America’s relationship with Israel.

As a result, the climate of public opinion has begun to turn against the status quo. The current buzzword in the US presidential race is “change”, and if you think that Israel is not part of that equation then in the immortal words of Rob Halford, “You got another thing coming.”

But before you reach for that kleenex, ask yourself: What fruits has this relationship really produced? Would we not all be better off with an "honest broker" that was actually honest? Could Israel and Palestine not benefit from some Dr. Phil-like love?

The winds of change are blowing for American-Israeli relations. I, for one, am ready for a change.

Not a Supporter of Adolph Hitler: Cinema's Will SmithRecently, Will Smith caused great controversy when he stated that all human beings, including the likes of Hitler, seek to do good in the world.

In an interview for the Scottish paper The Daily Record, Smith said:

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.”

Not surprisingly, these comments have enraged many people who believe that Smith had trivialized the actions of Hitler and the Nazis. The Jewish Defense League, to take an extreme example, issued the following statement in response:

"Smith's comments are ignorant, detestable and offensive. They spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis. His disgusting words stick a knife in the backs of every veteran who fought so valiantly to save the world from those aspirations of Adolph Hitler. Smith's comments also cast the perpetrators of the Holocaust as misguided fellows rather than the repulsive villains of history they truly were."

The JDL ended their statement by calling on movie theaters and their patrons to boycott Smith's new movie I Am Legend; challenging Barack Obama (a friend of Smith's) to repudiate the comments made by the actor; and threatening to confront Smith if ever the chance occurs.

In response to such outrage, Smith issued a perfunctory statement explaining that he was misquoted and that he really believes that Hitler was “a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet.”

It seems to me that the controversy surrounding Smith’s original comments revolves around a basic misunderstanding of the actor’s words. Smith did not say that Hitler was good, or that his actions were good, rather he said that Hitler thought he was doing good. As the old saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Don’t believe Smith, then take Hitler’s own words for it: In a speech to the Reichstag given 1936 Hitler said, “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.” A person who believes that he is fulfilling God’s will is indeed a person who believes that his actions are ultimately good.

Note to the JDL - Will Smith is no Mel Gibson. The man was simply making a correct if mundane statement about the man who led his country to infamy. There was nothing anti-Semitic about the actor’s observation: I am sure that Smith would have said the same of Bin-Laden, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Ganges Kahn.

As far as I am concerned, the only off component to Smith’s comment is his assertion that Hitler just needed “reprogramming”. Unlike computer programs, people’s values and believes are not something that can be easily changed. Furthermore, there something very cult-like (Scientology anyone?) about the notion that people can and ought to be programmed in the first place. Perhaps Smith has acted in one too many sci-fi movies. Other than that, I have no qualms with the man.

This week it came to light that the International and Serious Crimes Unit (ISCU) of the Israeli police have been interrogating three Israeli journalists for travelling to enemy states.

The journalists, whose names are Ron Ben-Yishai, Tsur Shezaf, and Lisa Goldman, had travelled to either Lebanon or Syria to report on stories in the region. They did so using foreign passports (Israel allows dual citizenship), and without the permission of the Ministry of the Interior.

The police unit investigating the journalists issued a statement in which they announced that the journalists violated Israel's Infiltration Prevention Law (IPL), which prohibits Israeli citizens from travelling into enemy territory without permission of the Ministry of the Interior.

The police further stated that,

"The police take a grave view of Israeli citizens travelling to enemy countries, even if this is done on foreign passports they hold. Besides endangering their own lives, travelling to enemy countries also poses a danger to national security."

If charged and convicted, the journalists could spend up to four years in jail.

While there is not much doubt that the three journalist violated the law, there is a great deal of concern about the selective application and overall wisdom of the IPL.

For starters, it needs to be stated that these journalists were not the first Israelis to violate this law. For years, Israelis with dual citizenship have been travelling to enemy states in their thousands, often with the full knowledge of the authorities. Within the past six months alone, over a dozen Israeli journalist have travelled to enemy states.

Of course saying that other people break the law is not an argument for anyone's innocence. But why is it that the authorities feel it necessary to prosecute these three journalists and not the rest? Some have suggested that the move to prosecute is an effort by the state toward even-handedness with regards to Arab-Israeli citizens charged with the same crime (including MK's). Others are not convinced that the motives are so noble. To them this whole episode reeks of government efforts to control the press by intimidation.

The motivation behind the prosecution aside, the real issue here is the wisdom, utility, and justness of this law. The IPL was passed by the Knesset in 1954 in order to prohibit Palestinians refugees from returning to their homes. Some years later, an amendment was added to the law which forbids Israelis from travelling to enemy states without permission of the government (permission that is rarely given).

Most people believe the law serves the public good by protecting both the individual and national security. The fear is that by entering enemy territory Israelis run the risk of being abducted and used as bargaining tools for political prisoners.

While it is granted that living democracies must find a balance between the need for security and the need for freedom, the existence and implementation of this law goes beyond the pale. It is simply not the place of the Israeli government to say where on earth (literally!) its citizen can and cannot travel. Warning, yes. Restrictions, no.

The truth of the matter is that Israelis abroad run a risk of being kidnapped no matter where they go—from Dubai and India to London and Argentina. Indeed, the most famous case of an Israeli civilian being abducted, the kidnapping of Elhanan Tennenbaum by Hezbollah in 2000, took place in Dubai—a country not considered enemy territory by Israel. Should Israelis therefore be barred from travelling anywhere on the globe they could potentially be harmed? Bottom line: the government, as an editorial in Haaretz put it, "is not the nanny of its citizens."

Israelis, especially professional journalists, must be free to put themselves in harm's way with the full knowledge that their country may not rescue them. It needs to be remembered that when Gaza was opened to Israeli journalists, this was indeed the policy of the Israeli government. Every Israeli journalist was required to sign a waiver which stated that the government was not responsible for his or her safety. This, of course, is significantly different from a solider (e.g. Gilad Shalit) who is put in harms way by the government he is serving. In that case, it is the responsibility of the government to do what is necessary to bring him/her to safety.

Curtailing the freedoms of the press, speech, and movement is a price that is too high to justify the existence of the amendment to the Infiltration Prevention Law. A democracy should not cage its citizens for the sake of potential threats. One may expect such laws in countries like Iran, Egypt, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, but not from a country that proudly proclaims it is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Moreover, it is not clear to me that much public good is served by this law. In a healthy and vital democracy the role of the press is to keep the government accountable by giving the people reliable and independent information about their world. When the government bars its journalist from investigating for themselves the reality of their neighbours, it weakens its democratic character.

Almost all the news that Israelis get about the Arab world comes from second-hand sources (Arab and international media). These reports are not always reliable and do not account for Israeli needs and sensitivities. When an Israeli journalist goes into the field, he/she has the "nose" for what Israeli audiences find important. The value of this difference cannot overstated.

Finally, there is something to be said for talking to one's enemy face to face. The Internet has already created a space where, at the click of a button, an Israeli Jew and an Arab can engage each other in dialogue. It is high time for the Israeli judiciary to follow suit. Whether to know one's enemy, or recognize that one's enemy is really a deformed friend, it is essential and vital that Israel grants its press absolute freedom of movement and expression.

The journalists in question, these border-crossers, are doing Israel a great service for which they deserve to be celebrated—not interrogated. They are courageously speaking truth to power, and for that their place in society ought to be the public square and not the jail cell.

NEXT

* Lisa Goldman responds, below.
* Ha'aretz knows that Israel "is not the nanny of its citizens."

...

Continue reading...

In just a few weeks, statesmen from around the world will convene at an international peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conference will coincide with the sixtieth anniversary of the UN's historic decision to partition Palestine into two states. Yet after six decades of diplomatic failures and fruitless peace plans, the attendees look set to consider only warmed-over versions of the same stale and unimaginative "two-state solution."

It's time to consider daring new ideas and radical new solutions. To that end, I present to you the five strangest proposals to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. Olmert and Abbas, please take note.

Peace of Mind

According to the International Meditation Society of Israel, peace between Israel and her neighbors can be achieved without protracted negotiations or conferences. The key is transcendental meditation (TM). Practitioners of TM—including, famously, the Beatles—believe that by turning inward, one is able to unite with "the Source of all Being" and spread kindness all around. If enough people in a society practice TM, hatred and violence will dissipate.

Alex Kutai, a leader of the TM movement in Israel, has done the math. Kutai has determined that bringing peace to the entire Middle East will require that the square root of one percent of the region's population undertake transcendental meditation.

During Israel's 2006 war with Hizbullah, Kutai dispatched a "squadron" of 65 TM practitioners into the war zone to create a spiritual force shield of invincibility around the north of Israel. Kutai has challenged the government of Israel to demonstrate its commitment to peace by assemble 265 TM practitioners around the country. Two-hundred sixty-five is the square root of one percent of seven million, and thus should be sufficient to bring peace to Israel/Palestine. The government of Israel has yet to finance even a single practitioner of TM.

The No-State Solution

Forget the two-state vs. one-state debate. It is time to consider the anarchist-inspired no-state solution. Conflict between Israel and her neighbors is a result of the divisive and coercive influence of state power, the reasoning goes. Peace will come only when the the people of Israel/Palestine assemble into a non-authoritarian cooperative community of free individuals.

In Israel, political groups like Anarchists Against the Wall, Israeli National Traitor Anarchists, and Amoria have been at the forefront in advocating for this solution. According to Amoria, "AMORIA is the intentional community that we wish to create in Kna'an, the land that is called Israel by some and Palestine by others. We are anarchists, so we are opposed to the state system that oppresses all peoples on the planet and the planet itself. We sidestep this semantic political conflict by advocating not a one-state solution, or two-state solution, but a NO-state solution in the Land of Canaan."

Weed for Peace

Continue reading...