Now available

Now available
The Murder of Yasser Arafat: "Powerful" - The Times of London

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Speech by Israel's President Ruvi Rivlin to conference on minorities in Israel

President Ruvi Rivlin "We must ask ourselves seriously, what is the point of the proposed law – Israel: The National State of the Jewish People? Does promoting this law, not in fact, question the success of the Zionist enterprise in which we are fortunate to live?"

President Reuven Rivlin, this evening (Tuesday, 25 November 2014) addressed the annual gathering of the State Prosecution, in Eilat.  
Honored friends, at the height of the tensions between the Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel, and amidst a wave of murderous terrorism, you have bravely chosen to dedicate this year’s conference to the issue of the relationship between minorities and the majority in our land.

Moreover, the headline of the conference, ‘To be a minority in our country’, alludes strongly to the idea, (as stated in the national anthem), ‘To be a free people in our land’, juxtaposed with ‘to be of a minority in our land.’ The title of the conference, demands of us to take the bull by the horns and not to avoid the question – is there really a contradiction?  Does being a part of a minority in the State of Israel, mean that one is not a free citizen of the state? 

Firstly, allow me to offer a critique of the conference’s title.  Not because I think the question posed is inappropriate, but because for the simple reason that the Arab community of Israel, is not a minority, at least not in the conventional sense.  In the same way as the Ultra-Orthodox community is not a minority. When close to quarter of the children in first grade are Arab, and close to a fifth are Ultra-Orthodox, the usage of the term ‘minority’ in relation to these communities is false and flawed.

Indeed this level of preciseness is not merely a matter of linguistics, nor of semantics, but strikes at the core of the matter.  Because, when we raise the issue of the relationship between Israel’s Arab and Jewish communities, we must understand that we are seeking to clarify the matrix of the relationship between the State of Israel, and over one-fifth of its citizens.  Citizens who are part and parcel of this country, and for whom this land is their homeland.  Citizens for whom the discussion about their rights and obligations, does not only address their equality as individuals in the State of Israel, but as a population with a collective and cohesive cultural and religious identity.


The severe discrimination of the Arab community as far as resources (in education, infrastructure, building and development,) is inconsistent with the democratic nature of the state, as it is inconsistent with the Jewish nature of the state.


And now, we return to the question with which we opened.  That being, is there a contradiction between the vision of Jewish independence and sovereignty in the State of Israel, and the freedoms of non-Jewish groups within it?

It occurs to me that this question is nothing but another way of asking; can the Jewish State, be a democratic state?  Against a background of a range of efforts to enact a ‘national law’, attempting to set in law the Jewish character of the Jewish State, it seems that this question has become more relevant than ever.

Friends, the Declaration of Independence – accepted as a basic charter, and meriting of declarative constitutional status by a Supreme Court ruling – emphatically states the Jewish and democratic nature of the State of Israel.

The formulators of the Declaration of Independence, with much wisdom, insisted that, the Arab communities in Israel, as well as other groups, should not feel as the Jews had felt in exile.

Therefore, the declaration not only determines the complete equality of social rights for all its citizens, but religious, language, educational and cultural rights.  The founding fathers of the State of Israel, envisioned a state whose Jewish nature and democratic nature, were as one.

Moreover, ‘social and political equality’ was for them in keeping with the vision of the Prophets of Israel.  For them, it was an obvious outcome of the Jewish vision rooted in the values of freedom, peace and justice.

In the seventh decade of our independence, Jewish citizens of the state enjoy a strong and wonderful national home.  We must always remember what has for our young men and women, already become taken for granted.  Citizens of Israel speak Hebrew, and are creating a rich and diverse in their own language.  Israel’s holidays are celebrated publically.  The Israeli public education provides a rich, Jewish and nationalist education.  The flag and national anthem of Israel are seen and heard at sports competitions across the world.  The symbol of the state, the Jewish Menorah is emblazoned on the pages of the Israeli passport, with which Israeli citizens can enter 144 countries without a visa.  The State of Israel is the national state of the Jewish people, ‘a free people in our land’.

A hierarchical approach, which places Jewishness before democracy, misses the great significance of the Declaration of Independence, which combined the two elements together – without separating them

A small, abhorred minority, undermine this fact, both from within our own and from outside, and so, we must ask ourselves seriously, what is the point of the proposed law – Israel: The National State of the Jewish People.

Does the promotion of this law, not in fact, question the success of the Zionist enterprise in which we are fortunate to live?

Does this proposal, not in fact encourage us to seek contradiction between the Jewish and democratic characters of the state?

Does this bill not in fact play into the hands of those who seek to slander us?  Into the very hands of those who wish to show, that even within us, there are those who see contradiction between our being a free people in our land, and the freedoms of the non-Jewish communities amongst us?

Friends, I remember like yesterday, the unparalleled pride we felt, my friends and I, on November 10th, 1975, when we saw the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, who of course later became President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, when from the podium at the United Nations, he tore up the resolution equating Zionism with racism.  Herzog ripped up an improper and distorted decision, which sought to attribute to the Zionist enterprise the very injustices which Zionism itself had righted.

And yet, even then, as Chaim Herzog was speaking out against those who dared to question the moral basis for our right to self-determination, the leaders of Israel did not see fit to respond to the authors of the shameful UN resolution with attempts to pass laws regarding the superiority of the Jewish nature of the state.  The thought did not even cross their minds, specifically, because Israel’s being the national home of the Jewish people was self-evident.

With a heavy heart, while still Speaker in the Knesset, I read the opinion of the Knesset's legal advisor, regarding the original proposal of the Basic Law of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish People.

“This proposal seeks to establish a new and different hierarchy, between the State of Israel being the national state of the Jewish People, and between being a democratic state.”  He continued, “No longer would there be a horizontal balance between the two parts, but instead a disconnect between the two, and the creation of a vertical balance, so that following the acceptance of this proposal, at the top of the constitutional hierarchy would be placed the principle of the State of Israel as a the nation state of the Jewish People, and only beneath it on the constitutional hierarchy would be placed the principle of a democratic state.”

Ladies and gentlemen, such a hierarchical approach, which places Jewishness before democracy, misses the great significance of the Declaration of Independence, which combined the two elements together – without separating them.

Judaism and democracy, democracy and Judaism, said as one utterance, are combined, and continue to be so.  These are not merely words.  This is the beating heart of the State of Israel.  A state established on two solid foundations; nationhood on the one hand, and democracy on the other. The removal of one will bring the whole building down.

Even if another law would eventually pass through the current Knesset, I am afraid that the atmosphere which led to the formation and proposal of this law will not quickly pass through either the Knesset of the Israeli public.

When considering the possibility of changing the constitutional foundations of the State of Israel, it would be fitting to hold a full and comprehensive referendum, to consider the ramifications.  Such a deliberation must be undertaken with the necessary level of seriousness, and with long term considerations.

We must understand the deep connection between the Jewish and democratic components is not artificial. Those who see the proposal of a Basic Law which cements Israel as a Jewish state, to be a counterweight to the Basic Law on 'Human Dignity and Liberty' are simply mistaken.

Moreover, one who thinks that the Basic Law on 'Human Dignity and Liberty' in some way contradicts the Jewishness of the state, not only does not understand what a democratic state is, but fails to understand what a Jewish state is.

Indeed, I ask you, is there a more 'Jewish law' than the Basic Law on 'Human Dignity and Liberty'?

In each and every legal text, this is the law that states most clearly the greatest assertion that the Jewish perspective brought to the world; 'Beloved is man, for he is made in God's image'.  And so I fear that the original text of the law, whilst trying to avoid a conflict between Judaism and democracy, ended up stuck in a conflict a between the Jewish State and Judaism.

Every law which weakens the greatest of Jewish laws - that of human dignity - not only weakens the Jewish character of the State of Israel, but at the end of the day, will also weaken our national home.

I call on all Members of Knesset, on all citizens of Israel, Jews and non-Jews.  Our combined efforts must be invested not in drawing differences between Judaism and democracy, but in the mutual development and empowerment to be found where they meet.

Friends. Amongst those who promote this law in its hierarchical version, there are those who state that the aim of this law is to force the Supreme Court to preference in its rulings Jewish considerations over democratic ones.

It must be stated clearly, the relationship between the courts on one hand and the legislature on the other, has yet to reach a desired balance.  For twenty years, the Supreme Court and the Knesset have been on a chronic collision course, whereby judicial activism has sought to cause the Knesset's activities to spill over into the realm of the courts.

I supported in the past, and I continue to support the vital need for a 'Basic Law on Legislation.'  A law, that even without a constitution, will at least codify the rules of the game between the different authorities.  A law which, for the first time, will regulate the status of the Basic Laws, and legislate for a judicial review.  A law which will allow for a limited period, the renewal of laws which did not pass such a judicial review, with a special majority of 65 MKs.

I thought then as I do now, that the citizens of Israel are the sovereigns of the state, and thus, the Knesset as their representatives holds the last word.  Is there anyone in the Knesset that fears the Supreme Court would suddenly annul the 'Law of Return'?  Or that it would suddenly find legal issue with the settlement of Jews in the Galilee or the Negev?  If so, they should support and respect a Basic Law on legislation.

Passing such a law would not require harming the Jewish or democratic essence of the State of Israel, by showing preference to one component over the other.  Make no mistake – a sovereign and independent Knesset in no way makes for a more Jewish and less democratic Israel. 

In any event, the issues with which we begun have brought into focus – that our ambition to live as a free people in our land, in our national home, requires the empowerment and reinforcement of the strong, democratic foundations upon which the State of Israel was established.

The strengthening of these democratic foundations will of course not be realized by handing over power of attorney to the Supreme Court, nor by the weakening of the Knesset, the representative of sovereignty.

Furthermore, the strengthening of the Knesset not only safeguards the freedom for which we waited generation upon generation, but distinctly preserves the magnificent Jewish heritage, in whose name we established the State of Israel.

And so, my friends, what does it mean to be a free, non-Jewish, citizen in our land?

If we are dealing with the freedom of the Arab public, and their equal rights in the State of Israel, then we must address, and correct the ongoing discrimination which they endure.

And when we are dealing with Judaism and democracy, we must state clearly.  The severe discrimination of the Arab community as far as resources (in education, infrastructure, building and development,) is inconsistent with the democratic nature of the state, as it is inconsistent with the Jewish nature of the state.

And yet, even if we succeed to narrow these inequalities, and to eradicate this discrimination from within us – we will yet to have realized the vision, and we will yet to have fulfilled the promises of the Declaration of Independence, if we still seek to cement into law the Jewish nature of the state, in a way that places it above the democratic nature of the state.


Specifically, during these days, when brutal and murderous terrorism seeks to drive us apart, we must reiterate to ourselves, (here, in the Knesset, in schools, in academia and in the halls of Torah study,) that Jewish is democratic and democracy is Jewish.  Only thus can we know that this external, brutal terrorism, will not only not break us physically, but neither will it break our spirit.

Monday, 24 November 2014

Netanyahu's "Jewish State" Bill - Full text

BASIC LAW: ISRAEL - THE NATIONAL STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE
(Decision of the Israeli Cabinet, November 23, 2014)


The Cabinet discussed three versions of draft Basic Law: Israel – the National State of the Jewish People, that of MK Zeev Elkin, of MK Ayelet Shaked and MK Yariv Levin, and of MK Robert Ilatov.
The Cabinet decided to support Prime Minister Netanyahu's draft principles (see attached annex below).
The Cabinet decided to support, in preliminary Knesset discussion, the aforementioned three draft versions on condition that their sponsoring MKs agree that their draft versions would be attached to the Government version to be presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu, which will be formulated on the basis of the principles detailed in the annex below, and will be adapted to it. The Government draft will be formulated in coordination with Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.
Annex of Principles
I. Objective
Defining the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and anchoring the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the spirit of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
II. Basic principles
The Land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish People and the place of the establishment of the State of Israel.
The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish People in which the Jewish People realizes its right to self-determination in accordance with its cultural and historic heritage.
The right to realize national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.
The State of Israel is democratic, based on the foundations of freedom, justice and peace in light of the visions of the prophets of Israel, and upholds the individual rights of all its citizens according to law.
III. Symbols of the State
The national anthem is Hatikvah.
The national flag is white with two sky-blue stripes close to the margins and a sky-blue Star of David in the center.
The national emblem is a seven-branched menorah with two olive branches at its sides and the word 'Israel' below.
IV. Return
All Jews are eligible to immigrate to the country and receive citizenship of the state according to law.
V. Ingathering of the Exiles and Strengthening Links with the Jewish People in the Diaspora
The State will act to gather the exiles of the Jewish People and strengthen links between Israel and Jewish communities in the Diaspora.
VI. Assistance to Jews in Distress
The State will act to assist Jews in distress and in captivity due to their being Jews.
VII. Heritage
The State will act to preserve the historical and cultural heritage and tradition of the Jewish People and to enshrine and cultivate it in the country and in the Diaspora.
All educational institutions that serve the Jewish public in the country will teach the history, heritage and tradition of the Jewish People.
The State will act to enable all residents of Israel, regardless of religion, race or nationality, to preserve their culture, heritage, language and identity.
VIII. Official Calendar
The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the State.
IX. Independence Day and Remembrance Day
Independence Day is the national holiday of the State.
Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars and Holocaust Heroes and Martyrs Remembrance Day are the official remembrance days of the State.
X. Public holidays
The regular public holidays of the State of Israel are the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays on which no worker shall be employed except under conditions to be defined by law; members of recognized faiths shall be entitled to rest on their Sabbaths and holidays.
XI. Jewish Law
Jewish law shall serve as a source of inspiration for the Knesset
If a court shall consider a legal question that requires a decision and not find an answer in legislation, precedent or clear inference, it shall render a decision in light of the principles of freedom, justice, fairness and peace of the heritage of Israel.
XII. Maintaining the Holy Places
The Holy Places shall be guarded against desecration, any other damage and against anything that is liable to infringe on freedom of access by worshippers to the places that are holy to them or on their feelings toward those places.
XIII. Infringement of rights
There shall be no infringement of rights according to the basic laws except by law that befits the values of the State of Israel, that is designed for a worthy purpose and which does not exceed that which is required.
XIV. Amendment
The basic law shall not be amended except by a basic law that is approved by a majority of MKs. 

(Approved for support in the Knesset by the Israeli Cabinet, November 23, 2014)

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Israel Govt Press Office warns foreign press over "incitement" and "misleading information"


GPO Summons Anadolu Agency Bureau Chief over Tweet Describing Jerusalem Terrorist as "Palestinian man shot dead by Israeli police"
(Communicated by the GPO)
Government Press Office Director Nitzan Chen has summoned – for tomorrow morning (Thursday, 6 November 2014) – the Israel bureau chief of the Turkish Anadolu Agency in the wake of a Tweet in which the terrorist responsible for today's deadly attack in Jerusalem was described as a "Palestinian man shot dead by the Israeli police."
Journalists who engage in incitement and who disseminate misleading information which is liable to put lives at risk are liable to have their GPO cards revoked.

PLO warns international reporters not to use the term "Temple Mount"

State of Palestine
Palestine Liberation Organization
Negotiations Affairs Department

MEDIA ADVISORY
For Immediate Release
5 November 2014

Concern over the use of the inaccurate term “Temple Mount” to refer to Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound in Jerusalem
Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, sometimes referred to as the Noble Sanctuary (“Haram al-Sharif” in Arabic), is the compound that contains Al Aqsa building itself, ablution fountains, open spaces for prayer, monuments and the Dome of the Rock building. This entire area enclosed by the walls which spans 144 dunums (almost 36 acres), forms the Mosque.
Sacred to approximately 1.6 billion Muslims around the world, and a symbol for all Palestinians, the Mosque has been under exclusive Muslim sovereignty and control since the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 692 CE. As such, any entrance to the Al Aqsa Mosque must be agreed and coordinated by the Muslim Waqf.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is located in East-Jerusalem, an internationally recognized part of the Occupied State of Palestine
Since Israel’s military occupation of East Jerusalem in the June 1967 War, several plots by Settler organizations and other Zionist extremists to blow up the Mosque were uncovered by the Israeli authorities. In 1980, Israel adopted the “Basic Law” on Jerusalem, which ratified the annexation of Occupied East Jerusalem to Israel. The international community does not recognize this annexation, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 478. This Resolution rejected the Israeli measure as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and determined that: 
“all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void.”
Today, many settler leaders, with the support of the Israeli government, continue to incite against this sacred site, and consequently provoke Palestinian fears and anger.  Israel, the occupying power, has failed at stopping settler extremists from entering the Mosque and this constitutes a violation of the Waqf’s custodianship and its obligation as an occupying power to maintain public order and civil life in the occupied territory.
All international media representatives are advised to adhere to international law and correct any other existing terminology used. The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void.

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Empathy in action

"I will not be a bystander"
Prof Mohammed Dajani Daoudi responds to critics who denounced his decision to take a group of Palestinian students to Auschwitz-Birkenau

I will not be a bystander
Al-Quds University issued a statement to distance itself from the tour.
In a statement, Al-Quds University announced that it had nothing to do with the Auschwitz-Birkenau visit. The university said that this was a private visit by Professor Dajani and the students. "They do not represent the university," the statement said. "Professor Dajani is on leave and was not entrusted by the university [to arrange the visit]." Bir Zeit University issued a statement saying no students from the university participated in the trip.
A scathing attack on me and students filled the social media.
"I don't understand how the [Palestinian] students accept normalization [with Israel]," wrote a Palestinian journalist from Ramallah on his Facebook page. "This professor is the king of kings of normalization."
The leading Palestinian daily, Al-Quds, which reported about the visit, triggered a heated debate among readers about the visit.
The paper later had to delete some reader responses that accused me of treason and collaboration. When the inciting comments reached a peak the newspaper withdrew the article with all its comments. I received emails warning me not to go to Ramallah or the university. I was accused of of trying to change the Palestinians' mentality "by brainwashing generations and teaching them big lies and fabrications such as the Holocaust and the suffering of Jews so that they would accept the theft of their land."
Palestinian columnist Abdullah Dweikat expressed regret over the visit and called on Palestinian academics to stop the "pilgrimage" to Nazi death camps. "I felt pain over the visit by Palestinian university students to Auschwitz-Birkenau," he wrote. "Yes we are human beings who reject genocide. But our humanity rejects any attempt to bypass the suffering of our people, who are being slaughtered every day at the hands of the occupiers. Wouldn't it have been better had our professors and students visited Yarmouk refugee camp [in Syria] or refugee camps in Lebanon to see the real suffering?" Others said this is not freedom of expression but treason.
My response to all this tirade is that my duty as a teacher is to teach, to have my students explore the unexplored, to open new horizons for my students, to guide my students out of the cave of perceptions and misperceptions to see the facts and the reality on the ground, to break the walls of silence, to demolish the fences of taboos, to swim against the tide in search of truth, in sum, to advance the knowledge and learning of my students in adhering to the verse in the Holy Quran, "{And say My God increase my knowledge.}.. If there are those who do not see or do not like that, it is their problem not mine. I will go to Ramallah, I will go to the university, I will put my photos of the visit on facebook, and I do not regret for one second what I did. As a matter of fact, I will do it again if given the opportunity. I will not hide, I will not deny. I will not be silent. I will not remain a bystander even if the victims of the suffering I show empathy for are my perpetrators and my occupiers. And this is my final statement on this issue..
(From the Hearts of Flesh - Not Stone Facebook page)