As 10,000 or more gathered for an Israel-solidarity rally in midtown Manhattan, some speakers voiced joy and surprise as they scanned the unexpectedly massive crowd in front of them.
Surprised? The Jan. 11 event was held on a Sunday, when most Jews are off work and not observing Shabbat. During the past few years, at least three pro-Israel rallies were held in Manhattan on Mondays. Many Jews work on Mondays, and usually their jobs are located beyond a reasonable walking distance from these demonstrations.
With the Israeli invasion of Gaza at its peak, I spotted a newspaper letter in which the writer complained that American Jews should have conducted protests on the first day that a rocket launched from Gaza struck Sderot. A more recent letter in The Los Angeles Jewish Journal urged the Jewish community to become more active in Jewish causes.
I would argue that Israel is winning the public-relations war in the United States and elsewhere in the West. In sports terms, Israel prevailed in the image tussle on points - far short of a knockout punch. My impression has been that most Americans are scared and confused whenever war breaks out in the Middle East. Given recent history, they have little empathy left for the Arabs, though they have a measure of understanding for Israel.
Yet the abrupt bombardment of Gaza on Dec. 27 struck the world’s psyche like a sledgehammer. This perception could have been averted had the Jewish community prepared America for Israel’s actions. A much stronger drive to present Israel’s grievances in the past decade might have cushioned the public response. Maybe a more forceful initiative would have helped prod a political resolution, precluding a military confrontation.
During the past decade, Israelis and their supporters have contended with a range of ordeals while neglecting to sufficiently expose Arab crimes to their international neighbors. Israel offered the Arabs an independent state, and the Arab response was a war which ended in the deaths of 1,100 Israelis and 3,000 Arabs. Israel fully withdrew from Gaza, and extremists there responded by firing rockets into Sderot and other southern Israeli towns.
A mad tyrant, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatens to nuke Israel and supplies weapons to Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. An Israeli soldier who was kidnapped in June 2006 remains in captivity, most likely in Gaza. Even now, a terror spree threatens Jews in Islamic countries, and jeopardizes Jews in Europe and to a lesser extent in South America.
Some of these events, taken together, affords a convincing rationale for the invasion of Gaza even if it meant the deaths of innocent Arabs caught in the crossfire. The Israeli government made certain to brief the news media on much of this backstory, which helped shape public opinion.
America’s Jewish community made a limited effort to lay the groundwork to educate its neighbors. As the results bear out, those initiatives were not good enough. Advocates needed to conduct a sustained, forceful and methodical drive to ensure that these issues were heavily promoted in the public arena.
We cannot go back in time, but the Jewish community can reassess how to confront comparable concerns in the future. First step is to identify legitimate concerns which are not subject to debate. The Jewish community may never reach common ground on settlements, but we should be capable of coalescing around the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the end of rocket attacks and portraying Ahmadinejad as the Darth Vader of the Middle East.
“Doing nothing is not an option,” and “failure is not an option,” to respectively quote President Obama at his first press conference and Ed Harris in Apollo 13. The Jewish community must devise a strategy to tackle issues affecting Israel and the Jewish community elsewhere, including America.
Any strategy must engage the grassroots as well as Jewish leaders and furnish a means of attracting Jews who feel disconnected from the Jewish community. Tactics can incorporate rallies, petition drives, support from political figures, news conferences by Jewish leaders, newspaper advertisements and exposure of inappropriate behavior of advocates for the Arabs.
Such a campaign should be engineered for maximum effect. The use of demonstrations was mismanaged in recent years, especially those in Manhattan. Any gathering in midtown Manhattan can be a magnet for world attention because of its center-of-the-universe status. New York City is accessible via cheap transportation not only from its suburbs but as far as Philadelphia, the Hamptons and New Haven. From Philadelphia, I frequently take advantage of this transportation network.
It makes sense to hold a Manhattan rally on a Sunday at 1 or 2 p.m. for the convenience of those who work outside midtown on weekdays and/or observe Shabbat on Saturdays, and even those who live 100 miles from NYC.
Prior to the most recent war, the midtown rallies were held on Mondays at noon. They reportedly drew a respectable turnout, partly because students from Jewish day schools were bused to the site. Turnout could have been far more abundant if they were held on a Sunday, the later the better.
On Jan. 11, a Sunday, four pro-Israel rallies were held in the New York region - in midtown, Long Island, New Jersey and the northern suburbs, each drawing a healthy turnout. They were covered by daily newspapers in the area, including suburban papers. Rabbi Avi Weiss, spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, led fellow Riverdalians to the Manhattan rally, according to The Riverdale Press.
The only glitch for the Manhattan event was the start time, 11 a.m. I skipped it because of other business, but the 11 a.m. start was too early for me and possibly for many others who might have been willing to attend.
A Philadelphia demonstration was held at lunchtime downtown on a weekday, but another protest was staged on the following Saturday night, Jan. 10, at a suburban synagogue. The center city event happened to work for me since it was held across the street from my office. Florida Jews staged a series of rallies nights and weekends, even after the fighting ended, and many were reported in their local newspapers.
Holding rallies is not the sole instrument, but an organized campaign is key to telling Israel’s side. Such a drive makes people aware of Israel’s challenges and provides public officials with ammunition when they speak in solidarity with Israel. As a bonus, the entire Jewish community has the opportunity to help their fellow Jews elsewhere
.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
ISRAEL'S NEW GOV'T NEEDS DIRECTION
Perhaps Cheltenham High School helped shape Benjamin Netanyahu’s smarts so he gets why many Israelis flocked to the Likud Party, which he leads, and other right-wing parties. They voted for security, not to expand West Bank settlements or force Israeli Arabs to sign loyalty oaths.
If he becomes Israel’s seventh prime minister in 16 years, Netanyahu will preside over a broad coalition government in spirit if not reality. He probably recognizes that any victory he can claim is due to his lesser-evil status. He has already said he wants to form a centrist coalition government. Even if the Labor and Kadima parties rebuff his offer to join a government headed by Netanyahu, he will be crazy if he takes a hard-right stance on most issues.
Figuring out the Feb. 10 election is not easy. A draw? A moral victory? As in war, nobody won. Each candidate lost more than the eventual prime minister, who is expected to be either Netanyahu or Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party. As some news articles quoting Israelis suggest, most voters want none of them. They do want Israel to survive and a leadership that acts sensibly, not in extremes.
Once the smoke from the election clears, the new government must settle into a stable course. It must move in a purposeful direction to build Israel’s future.
Israel has lacked for stable leadership since the Arab uprising in September 2000. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak performed a credible job confronting that conflict, but the following year his immediate successor - Ariel Sharon - employed a heavyhanded approach which contributed to a sharp rise in casualties on both sides.
Gaza and the West Bank afforded the perfect storm for the main battlegrounds as Israeli troops not only fought Arab terrorists but needed to protect the settlers. Sharon initially resisted the construction of the security barrier, which is credited with preventing the bombing attacks in Israel proper.
Credit Sharon’s government for withdrawing from Gaza in August and September 2005. The settlements were too difficult to protect. Perhaps a military presence should have been maintained, but even then the troops would been dragged into fights with Hamas and other terrorist factions. Of course, the upside is that their very presence would have prevented Hamas’s seizure of Gaza.
The war in June 2006 was started by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, after three Israeli soldiers were reportedly seized by terrorists with no provocation whatsoever. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had appointed a defense minister with barely any military experience, and that inexperience showed as Israel initiated an air campaign that could literally be described as overkill. Meanwhile, the army’s ground engagement was delayed too long and reserve troops in particular discovered that the military was poorly prepared for the war.
That war ended with no resolution on the capture of the three soldiers. Of course, we learned later that two soldiers were dead, but the soldier detained by Arabs in Gaza - Cpl. Gilad Shalit - was apparently still in captivity. Israel ended that war and, in fact, the recent war without freeing Shalit.
This means that Israelis first contended with a government that was too harsh and then a government that was in some ways too soft. Can Israel afford to keep swinging from one drifting governing approach to another?
Among the incoming government’s most important first steps will be appointment of the most qualified Defense Minister possible. Retaining Barak as Defense Minister will relieve every citizen of Israel. So far, Barak’s performance seems almost flawless. He smoothly planned and executed the Gaza retaliation that began last Dec. 27 and thoroughly utilized intelligence to impair Hamas’s military capability.
Moreover, he upgraded Israel’s military readiness; at least, I have seen no media reports criticizing the nation’s military preparedness. If Barak’s retention is not in the cards, the new prime minister must appoint a defense minister with ready credentials to build public confidence.
The political parties need to seek common ground, decide on a general direction for Israel’s future and prioritize the issues facing Israel. Many delicate concerns will defy an organized approach, but these factions should work together to reach compromises and perhaps find alternate solutions that never occurred to anyone before.
Judging from the election results, the Israeli people are first worried about survival. Understandably, they are tired of jumping through hoops for the Arabs. After offering the Arabs an independent state and fighting three wars in less than a decade, they want a government that will stand firm, but not a government that will recklessly incite World War III.
The outcome amounts to a split decision. The centrist party, Kadima, won 28 seats - one seat ahead of Likud, yet Likud and the other hardline parties won a collective 65 seats. That leaves 55 seats for Knesset members who do not support a hardline position. In addition, there is no question that the Yisrael Beitenu Party led by Avigdor Lieberman siphoned enough votes (winning 15 seats) from Netanyahu to allow Livni to edge him out.
Netanyahu, who spent part of his childhood in a Philadelphia suburb, is jostling with Livni for leadership of a coalition government. Interestingly, all three principal politicians - Netanyahu, Barak and Livni - possess impressive strengths. Any leader who could combine their qualities - Netanyahu’s natural leadership skills, Livni’s intelligence and sensibility and Barak’s abilities in military management - would make a great prime minister.
Drama will likely dominate the formation of the next government, but let’s hope the politicians keep the internal drama to a minimum once a government is established. The Arabs will give them enough drama.
If he becomes Israel’s seventh prime minister in 16 years, Netanyahu will preside over a broad coalition government in spirit if not reality. He probably recognizes that any victory he can claim is due to his lesser-evil status. He has already said he wants to form a centrist coalition government. Even if the Labor and Kadima parties rebuff his offer to join a government headed by Netanyahu, he will be crazy if he takes a hard-right stance on most issues.
Figuring out the Feb. 10 election is not easy. A draw? A moral victory? As in war, nobody won. Each candidate lost more than the eventual prime minister, who is expected to be either Netanyahu or Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party. As some news articles quoting Israelis suggest, most voters want none of them. They do want Israel to survive and a leadership that acts sensibly, not in extremes.
Once the smoke from the election clears, the new government must settle into a stable course. It must move in a purposeful direction to build Israel’s future.
Israel has lacked for stable leadership since the Arab uprising in September 2000. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak performed a credible job confronting that conflict, but the following year his immediate successor - Ariel Sharon - employed a heavyhanded approach which contributed to a sharp rise in casualties on both sides.
Gaza and the West Bank afforded the perfect storm for the main battlegrounds as Israeli troops not only fought Arab terrorists but needed to protect the settlers. Sharon initially resisted the construction of the security barrier, which is credited with preventing the bombing attacks in Israel proper.
Credit Sharon’s government for withdrawing from Gaza in August and September 2005. The settlements were too difficult to protect. Perhaps a military presence should have been maintained, but even then the troops would been dragged into fights with Hamas and other terrorist factions. Of course, the upside is that their very presence would have prevented Hamas’s seizure of Gaza.
The war in June 2006 was started by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, after three Israeli soldiers were reportedly seized by terrorists with no provocation whatsoever. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had appointed a defense minister with barely any military experience, and that inexperience showed as Israel initiated an air campaign that could literally be described as overkill. Meanwhile, the army’s ground engagement was delayed too long and reserve troops in particular discovered that the military was poorly prepared for the war.
That war ended with no resolution on the capture of the three soldiers. Of course, we learned later that two soldiers were dead, but the soldier detained by Arabs in Gaza - Cpl. Gilad Shalit - was apparently still in captivity. Israel ended that war and, in fact, the recent war without freeing Shalit.
This means that Israelis first contended with a government that was too harsh and then a government that was in some ways too soft. Can Israel afford to keep swinging from one drifting governing approach to another?
Among the incoming government’s most important first steps will be appointment of the most qualified Defense Minister possible. Retaining Barak as Defense Minister will relieve every citizen of Israel. So far, Barak’s performance seems almost flawless. He smoothly planned and executed the Gaza retaliation that began last Dec. 27 and thoroughly utilized intelligence to impair Hamas’s military capability.
Moreover, he upgraded Israel’s military readiness; at least, I have seen no media reports criticizing the nation’s military preparedness. If Barak’s retention is not in the cards, the new prime minister must appoint a defense minister with ready credentials to build public confidence.
The political parties need to seek common ground, decide on a general direction for Israel’s future and prioritize the issues facing Israel. Many delicate concerns will defy an organized approach, but these factions should work together to reach compromises and perhaps find alternate solutions that never occurred to anyone before.
Judging from the election results, the Israeli people are first worried about survival. Understandably, they are tired of jumping through hoops for the Arabs. After offering the Arabs an independent state and fighting three wars in less than a decade, they want a government that will stand firm, but not a government that will recklessly incite World War III.
The outcome amounts to a split decision. The centrist party, Kadima, won 28 seats - one seat ahead of Likud, yet Likud and the other hardline parties won a collective 65 seats. That leaves 55 seats for Knesset members who do not support a hardline position. In addition, there is no question that the Yisrael Beitenu Party led by Avigdor Lieberman siphoned enough votes (winning 15 seats) from Netanyahu to allow Livni to edge him out.
Netanyahu, who spent part of his childhood in a Philadelphia suburb, is jostling with Livni for leadership of a coalition government. Interestingly, all three principal politicians - Netanyahu, Barak and Livni - possess impressive strengths. Any leader who could combine their qualities - Netanyahu’s natural leadership skills, Livni’s intelligence and sensibility and Barak’s abilities in military management - would make a great prime minister.
Drama will likely dominate the formation of the next government, but let’s hope the politicians keep the internal drama to a minimum once a government is established. The Arabs will give them enough drama.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
THE NEW POGROMS OF EUROPE
Love Park failed to live up to its name when 2,500 Philadelphia Jews gathered there last month to support Israel’s invasion of Gaza. From the sidewalk, 50 pro-Arab demonstrators chanted, “We don’t want this racist war!”
Police kept the two factions separate from one another. From my experience, the pro-Arab side in this country can behave unseemly at rallies, not that Israel supporters are faultless. However, advocates for the Gazans are tame compared to those in Europe. Jews across Europe face a pattern of violence that compares to the pogroms which victimized their ancestors through the centuries.
It is a grave issue that must rise close to the top not only of the Jewish communal agenda but of the human agenda. The severity of such concerns becomes evident from a check of reports on Web sites for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Anti-Defamation League. A New York Times article places Paris as Ground Zero for this domestic terror spree.
Jews in France contended with at least 60 offenses during the three weeks since Israel attacked Gaza on Dec. 27. A gang of youths beat up a 15-year-old Jewish teen near Paris on Jan. 7 as they vowed revenge for the people of Gaza. As a rabbi led a class inside a synagogue in Toulouse, a burning car with a Molotov cocktail was rammed into the door of the building. A rabbi in Vincennes, a Paris suburb, received a death threat directed at all Jews.
In the days since the Gaza cease-fire began, I spotted two more JTA reports of such incidents in Europe. The terrorism struck even closer to home - in Venezuela - when a group of thugs on Saturday, Jan. 31, broke into a Caracas synagogue and left Torah scrolls strewn around the floor.
The first shot in the European terror war was fired, literally, by a Dane of Arab descent at two Israelis in a shopping mall in Odense, Denmark. In Norway, 1,000 pro-Arab demonstrators caused injuries to six people when they attacked a pro-Israel rally of 500 people in Oslo on Jan. 9; 31 people were arrested. Vandals sacked the central London office of a pro-Israel advocacy group. Arsonists attempted to burn synagogues in Belgium, Sweden and England, mostly with Molotov cocktails.
Police in Duisburg, West Germany said they were trying to defuse tensions when they broke into an apartment on Jan. 10 and removed Israeli flags from the tenant’s window, which overlooked an anti-Israel demonstration. Police entered the apartment after they saw protestors toss snowballs and other objects at the apartment window, according to JTA.
Duisburg police actually had honorable intentions, but they took the easy way out instead of performing their duties. They should have commanded of the pro-Arab group: Protest, yes, but disturb anyone and we will arrest you and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.
The Duisburg response reflects what might be enabling the violence. In the United States, illegal activity by supporters of the Arabs has been minimal. “They are coming after us in France because they can’t get us in Israel,” an unidentified Jewish woman in Paris told a New York Times reporter.
Exactly. They know they can get away with bullying and harming Jews in European countries. I have witnessed pro-Arab demonstrators push the limits in the past, especially at a rally in Times Square on Jan. 3. New York’s Finest moved on the pro-Arab crowd when a few objects were tossed at a pro-Israel counter-protest. In most American towns, especially big cities, they could not get away with the modern-day pogroms perfected by their brethren in Europe.
Law enforcement in America has been superb for Jews. Anti-Semitic acts will occur, and when they do police move swiftly to investigate and enforce the law. Arabs in America know this because the same system benefits them so well.
Police in Duisburg were downright timid when they acted against the family instead of the activists. If law enforcement in Europe operates like this, it is no wonder that pro-Arab advocates are so bold there. European police could be so lax that offenders never experience a deterrent effect. However, French Jews praised the quick and firm response of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s government, according to The Forward, a Jewish weekly newspaper.
Reticence among European police is understandable. Europe is more vulnerable to terrorism due to proximity to the Middle East and the greater number of Arab residents, and Europeans are concerned about the cost and supply of oil. Jews who live outside the United States will be more vulnerable to anti-Semitic acts so long as their numbers are smaller and their influence is limited. Jews in America, Israel and more tolerant countries must stand in solidarity with European Jews and urge action to minimize harassment and violence. Of course, they should be joined by anyone else, regardless of their Israel views, who believe in civil discourse.
Worse is the attitude in Venezuala. Like Hitler, President Hugo Chavez has whipped up anti-Semitic fervor by consistently attacking Israel and making anti-Semitic comments himself. European leaders cannot be accused of sponsoring criminal activity against Jews while, in an indirect way, Chavez clearly encourages such acts.
Anyone who still doubts the severity of conditions in Europe might wish to consider the words of Enis Chabchoub in the Times: “It’s good that the fighting has stopped, but that doesn’t mean we will forget. This war will be remembered, and not only in Gaza.” His family members are Tunisian immigrants.
Or the rationalizing of M’hammed Henniche, of the Union of Muslim Associations in a Paris suburb: “Yes, there is anger, but it’s not against Jews, it’s against Israel.” So why do these hoods attack Jews who live not in Israel, but Paris, Duisburg, Odense and London?
Police kept the two factions separate from one another. From my experience, the pro-Arab side in this country can behave unseemly at rallies, not that Israel supporters are faultless. However, advocates for the Gazans are tame compared to those in Europe. Jews across Europe face a pattern of violence that compares to the pogroms which victimized their ancestors through the centuries.
It is a grave issue that must rise close to the top not only of the Jewish communal agenda but of the human agenda. The severity of such concerns becomes evident from a check of reports on Web sites for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Anti-Defamation League. A New York Times article places Paris as Ground Zero for this domestic terror spree.
Jews in France contended with at least 60 offenses during the three weeks since Israel attacked Gaza on Dec. 27. A gang of youths beat up a 15-year-old Jewish teen near Paris on Jan. 7 as they vowed revenge for the people of Gaza. As a rabbi led a class inside a synagogue in Toulouse, a burning car with a Molotov cocktail was rammed into the door of the building. A rabbi in Vincennes, a Paris suburb, received a death threat directed at all Jews.
In the days since the Gaza cease-fire began, I spotted two more JTA reports of such incidents in Europe. The terrorism struck even closer to home - in Venezuela - when a group of thugs on Saturday, Jan. 31, broke into a Caracas synagogue and left Torah scrolls strewn around the floor.
The first shot in the European terror war was fired, literally, by a Dane of Arab descent at two Israelis in a shopping mall in Odense, Denmark. In Norway, 1,000 pro-Arab demonstrators caused injuries to six people when they attacked a pro-Israel rally of 500 people in Oslo on Jan. 9; 31 people were arrested. Vandals sacked the central London office of a pro-Israel advocacy group. Arsonists attempted to burn synagogues in Belgium, Sweden and England, mostly with Molotov cocktails.
Police in Duisburg, West Germany said they were trying to defuse tensions when they broke into an apartment on Jan. 10 and removed Israeli flags from the tenant’s window, which overlooked an anti-Israel demonstration. Police entered the apartment after they saw protestors toss snowballs and other objects at the apartment window, according to JTA.
Duisburg police actually had honorable intentions, but they took the easy way out instead of performing their duties. They should have commanded of the pro-Arab group: Protest, yes, but disturb anyone and we will arrest you and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.
The Duisburg response reflects what might be enabling the violence. In the United States, illegal activity by supporters of the Arabs has been minimal. “They are coming after us in France because they can’t get us in Israel,” an unidentified Jewish woman in Paris told a New York Times reporter.
Exactly. They know they can get away with bullying and harming Jews in European countries. I have witnessed pro-Arab demonstrators push the limits in the past, especially at a rally in Times Square on Jan. 3. New York’s Finest moved on the pro-Arab crowd when a few objects were tossed at a pro-Israel counter-protest. In most American towns, especially big cities, they could not get away with the modern-day pogroms perfected by their brethren in Europe.
Law enforcement in America has been superb for Jews. Anti-Semitic acts will occur, and when they do police move swiftly to investigate and enforce the law. Arabs in America know this because the same system benefits them so well.
Police in Duisburg were downright timid when they acted against the family instead of the activists. If law enforcement in Europe operates like this, it is no wonder that pro-Arab advocates are so bold there. European police could be so lax that offenders never experience a deterrent effect. However, French Jews praised the quick and firm response of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s government, according to The Forward, a Jewish weekly newspaper.
Reticence among European police is understandable. Europe is more vulnerable to terrorism due to proximity to the Middle East and the greater number of Arab residents, and Europeans are concerned about the cost and supply of oil. Jews who live outside the United States will be more vulnerable to anti-Semitic acts so long as their numbers are smaller and their influence is limited. Jews in America, Israel and more tolerant countries must stand in solidarity with European Jews and urge action to minimize harassment and violence. Of course, they should be joined by anyone else, regardless of their Israel views, who believe in civil discourse.
Worse is the attitude in Venezuala. Like Hitler, President Hugo Chavez has whipped up anti-Semitic fervor by consistently attacking Israel and making anti-Semitic comments himself. European leaders cannot be accused of sponsoring criminal activity against Jews while, in an indirect way, Chavez clearly encourages such acts.
Anyone who still doubts the severity of conditions in Europe might wish to consider the words of Enis Chabchoub in the Times: “It’s good that the fighting has stopped, but that doesn’t mean we will forget. This war will be remembered, and not only in Gaza.” His family members are Tunisian immigrants.
Or the rationalizing of M’hammed Henniche, of the Union of Muslim Associations in a Paris suburb: “Yes, there is anger, but it’s not against Jews, it’s against Israel.” So why do these hoods attack Jews who live not in Israel, but Paris, Duisburg, Odense and London?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)