The Wrecking Season

It's been hard to avoid seeing, if not following, the recent debate over pop singer and actress Miley Cyrus and her media antics. Citing Sinead O'Connor as an influence dragged the Irish singer, who enjoyed her own 15-minutes of controversial fame in the past, into the fray. O'Connor publicly warned Ms. Cyrus that she was simply being exploited by a misogynistic music industry that cares not for the rights and well-being of artists. That exchange has set off a flurry of debate on female sexuality. For example, Sociologist Dr Lisa Wade, on her blog, shares her 'two cents' on the issue, saying Cyrus and O'Connor are "both right, but only half right."

Wades conciliatory contention is interesting, but I think ultimately wrong. Her entire thesis hinges on one line, one postulation: "Is Miley Cyrus a pawn of industry patriarchs?" Wade says no. But, she offers no evidence that Cyrus has not been manipulated, either overtly or subconsciously. Indeed, based on everything we've seen, she lacks the maturity and depth to be making the sort of long-term decisions that would infer that her behaviour is a valid of expression of feminist power and privilege in the 21st century. What she appears to be doing is selling her body for money. As Occam's Razor suggests, sometimes the simplest answer is the truth.

More important, in my opinion, is the disturbing lack of debate on the infantilism of sexuality. We've accepted as a norm that forty year-old women wish to look twenty-five, as an affirmation of beauty and fertility. Now, we're seeing 20 year-old women looking - right down to the Brazilian wax - and dressing like 12 year-olds, in order to be, in their minds, arousing. But are they?

Cyrus's appearance in her music video 'Wrecking Ball' is not remotely sexy. What she presents is a puerile caricature of sexiness: there's nothing provocative or enchanting; no sense of feminine mystique or sensuality. Cyrus comes across as a little girl play-acting, not a mature woman seducing. The fact that so many men, and more importantly, women buy into this reduction of sexuality to children's theatre is, frankly, very disconcerting.

There's been a sense that feminism, as a movement and ideology, has taken (at least) two steps backward the past few years; whether true or not, this is an issue worth open discussion. I suppose we can at least thank Cyrus for invigorating a debate on feminism and female sexuality that has needed to enter the mainstream for a long time.

The Music Man

The new Star Trek film wasn't great but it did at least include a very brief cameo of one of my favourite people: Leonard Nimoy.

Although greatly admired as an actor and director, the role of his Jewish background in his work isn't always appreciated. In the book “Stars of David” by Abigail Pogrebin, Nimoy talks about his experiences dealing with anti-Semitism growing up in Boston. “Jews were always to keep a low profile,” he explains, “so as not to become targets.”

Fortunately, Nimoy learned to incorporate his Jewishness into his career. One of his first parts was in a play that featured a Jewish family. “I was seventeen years old...playing this Jewish kid in this Jewish family just like mine; it was amazing.” That role led to several performances in Yiddish-language theatre. Yes, Nimoy was fluent at a young age because his grandmother only spoke Yiddish. 

His portrayal of Spock, an alien, has always moved me because of the depth with which he played the part. To a large degree, he used his background as a Jewish-American to create a character that both wants to fit in and retain its own cultural identity.

As an adult, he’s continued to explore his Judaism and the Jewish-American experience.  After a discussion with a rabbi cousin of his on the feminine presence of G-d, he decided to explore the subject in pictures.  In October 2002, Nimoy published “Shekhina”, a photographic study of women, which provoked some controversy because of his use of nude models wearing traditionally male Jewish garments. 

Recently, he’s joined forces with the Milken Archive, (which I mentioned in a previous post) as the host of American Jewish Music from the Milken Archive with Leonard Nimoy.  The online series covers a wide-range of Jewish music from religious works to songs of Yiddish stage and film. Information on streaming the series is available here.

Incidentally, the Milken Archive website contains all sorts of current and never-before-released content and information on Jewish music and culture in America. It’s well worth checking out.

We Can Be Heroes

Time and again, as I've studied various aspects of the Holocaust  and its callous and most permanent effects on my family in Eastern Europe, I've been struck by small astonishing stories of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances.

The Holocaust wasn't simply some unexpected event, like a freak hailstorm. It was the desired result of cynical actions by real people against other people, in many cases neighbours and colleagues. Which is why it's so vital to seek out and reflect upon individual stories rather than view the Holocaust in terms of numbers and dates.

There are no shortage of tragic stories, tales of horror and sad, heart-rending cruelty. There are far fewer tales of heroism, but there were heroes; undoubtedly  many met the same fate as the Holocaust's primary victims. But make no mistake about it, the Holocaust's engineers understood that they could beat populations into submission, just as they reduced other populations to ashes. Who among us would risk our lives for strangers? Who would risk the welfare of their own family for nameless children?

Heroes come in many forms. I recently stumbled on a book about one such story. "Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project", tells the story of Polish gentile Irena Sendler who smuggled around 2500 Jewish children single-handed from the Warsaw Ghetto. She was recognized in 1965 by Yad Vashem as one of the Polish Righteous among the Nations but her story largely forgotten for decades.

But as I've said, heroes come in many forms. The book describes the efforts of three grade 9 girls, Megan Stewart, Elizabeth Cambers, and Jessica Shelton, and an 11th grade girl, Sabrina Coons, who discovered the story of  Irena Sendler and made it their mission to learn more about this remarkable woman and, more importantly, share it with as many people as possible.

Irena Sendler died in 2008. The girls had an opportunity to meet her in 2001. Since then they've continued to tell the story, presenting a performance on Sendler before hundreds of audiences. The project is now being supported by the Lowell Milken Center, a sponsor of similar projects on the power of "unsung heroes."

While the heroics of Sendler's amazing feat goes without saying, it's also worth recognizing the merit of schoolchildren who saw a story that must be told, and ensured that it was.

Magic Carpet Ride

Although most Israeli sources say “Operation Magic Carpet” began in June 1949, in fact, the first phase began during the early months of 1948 War of Independence. The plan was launched by the Jewish Distribution Committee (“The Joint”), which chartered aircraft to rescue 4500 Jews from Yemen’s capital Aden, the site of a bloody pogrom in 1947 in which 82 Jews were murdered and synagogues, homes and shops destroyed.

JDC, and the Jewish Agency, which facilitated resettlement for the Yemenites in Israel, revealed the operation 64 years ago this week. The operation would continue throughout 1949 until over 40,000 Yemenite Jews had been brought to Israel. 

Incidentally, one of the most active airlines during this phase was Alaska Airlines. Read all about it here.                                                                        

And listen to a rare interview with James Wooten, who was President of Alaska Airlines (and a pilot) back in 1949. 

Fifty

Turning fifty gives a person a new perspective on life, a deeper insight, I think. I’m willing now to concede, for example, that both versions of “Our Lips are Sealed” are just fine, even if the Go-Go’s was a cover. And although it’s true that you shouldn’t judge a wine by the bottle, you can tell a lot about a man by his Facebook friends. And his shoes. I’m also convinced empathy is overrated. The world is filled with people who feel bad for the suffering of others. I blame Oprah’s Book Club. Now get off your ass and do something about it, even if all you can do is write a few cheques. Those $5 donations add up when a million people send them.

As for regrets, of course I have a few. But being an adult means sometimes living with remorse and shame, not spilling your guts on a talk show or fessing up for something you did 25 years ago that can only possibly make someone else feel like crap just so you can assuage your guilt a little. Grow up. I should add, if I have any admirable qualities at all, they’re due to the women in my life, especially my Grandmother, my Mother and my Wife. My faults are my own. I blame television for nothing!

 And forget all this nonsense about living each day like it’s your last; that sort of morose, fatalistic thinking is liable to make you do something stupid and reckless. Rather, live each day like it’s your first, full of joy and wonder at the revelation of ordinary things, praising yourself for every accomplishment, great and small, remembering that the simple fact you’re around at all, is a miracle in itself. Thanks Mom. I’m sorry I don’t say that often enough.

Morey

They Who Dig Pits

[The following article was written for The Jerusalem Report a few months ago but not published.]

On February 22, 2010, archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, working under the aegis of Hebrew University, announced the discovery of a massive stone wall that she attributes to King Solomon. The wall, approximately 70 meters (220 feet) long and six meters (20 feet) high, is located on the eastern side of an area called the Ophel, a Biblical term meaning “tower” which came to be associated with an area of Jerusalem between the southern wall of the Temple Mount and the City of David (Ir David).

According to the official press release from Hebrew University, Mazar asserts that the 10th c. BCE structure she has uncovered is part of "an inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city,a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse, and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron valley."

The implication of the claim is that a strong central government having the resources to build such a substantial fortification, as described in Hebrew Scriptures, existed in Jerusalem during the era of King Solomon. Mazar cites, as an example, the Books of Kings (I Kings 3:1) which says Solomon "finished building his house, and the house of Hashem, and the wall of Jerusalem all around." But her interpretations of the wall’s function and age immediately renewed longstanding disputes with some leading members of the archaeological world who claim she is subverting science in the service of an ideological agenda that seeks to substantiate the Biblical narrative for nationalist purposes. "Dr. Eilat Mazar is at it again– running to the press before properly submitting her finds to serious archaeological scrutiny,” writes Neal Asher Silberman, an historian and archaeologist with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Since the announcement, Silberman and others of Mazar's peers have been critical in their reviews.

Israel Finkelstein, a Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University is no stranger to controversy himself. His book, "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts," co-authored with Silberman, which all but reduces Hebrew Scriptures to ancient ideological propaganda, set off a firestorm of its own when it was released in 2002.

"The biblical story of David and Solomon was put into writing not before the late 8th century BCE; much of it was written in the late 7th century," Finkelstein tells The Report. "The texts are layered, and depict the realities and ideology of the time of the authors. As such, even if they have an ancient memory here and there, they cannot be read as a guide to 10th century BCE Jerusalem."

Eilat Mazar readily concedes the use of Scripture as a guide but acknowledges the limitations of the Bible as an historical document. "The fact is all historical documents are biased because they are written by people."

But she’s also critical of those who too readily dismiss the use of the Bible as a reference tool. "You don’t want to go the other extreme and ignore a document that’s potentially helpful. Information at hand, whether we’re talking about the Bible or historical documents, may direct us a certain way, but the minute you start excavating, you are obliged by very high scientific standards," she maintains. "We can use the Bible as a starting point, just as archaeologists working in the Near East have always done," she tells The Report. "People investigated what they knew, and they knew the Bible."

Nevertheless, Finkelstein’s concerns go beyond the validity of Scripture. "It is not clear whether the wall was an outer wall or an inner wall within the city," he tells The Report. "And in any event, no 10th century BCE city-wall has ever been found in Jerusalem."

The dating of the structure is a particularly contentious issue. In 2006, Mazar wrote that "based on the finds sealed below the floors of Buildings C and D, the construction of the fortification complex in the Ophel should be dated to the 10th century BCE. This date corresponds to the biblical passage announcing that King Solomon built a defensive wall around Jerusalem. There is no reason to assume that someone other than Solomon constructed or reconstructed the Ophel fortification line at some time during the 10th-9th centuries BCE." (Mazar, Eilat, "The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem." Pp. 775-786 in "I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times, 2006)

In response to her claims, an article in Tel Aviv journal by Archaeologists Finkelstein, Lily Singer-Avitz, Ze'ev Herzog, and David Ussishkin, was particularly brutal. "Beyond archaeology, one wonders about the interpretation of the finds," they wrote. "The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar’s literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence. This is an excellent example of the weakness of the traditional, highly literal, biblical archaeology — a discipline that dominated research until the 1960s, that was weakened and almost disappeared from the scene in the later years of the 20th century, and that reemerged with all its attributes in the City of David in 2005."

Some have even accused Mazar and other archaeologists of allowing themselves to be funded by religiously or ideologically conservative groups. For her part, Mazar doesn’t deny this possibility but claims to have little involvement in the solicitation of private donations which goes through Hebrew University. While recent work has been conducted with private funding, provided by Jewish-American philanthropists Daniel Mintz and Meredith Berkman, the Ophel dig is actually a project of Hebrew University, in cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, although volunteers at the dig did include students at Herbert W. Armstrong College, an Evangelical Christian school in the US.

Within the world of Biblical Archaeology, these are old debates. As the label suggests, Biblical archaeologists attempt to shed light on people and events of the Near East which are depicted in Biblical texts. Differences in opinion as to the accuracy of these texts have generated opposing schools of thought. ‘Minimalists’ apply strict scientific methodology, not allowing themselves to be influenced by the religious record. They find little evidence of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon and believe 10^th C BCE Jerusalem was nothing but a small, hilltop village. ‘Maximalists,’ on the other hand, tend to approach their work from a religious perspective, adopting an acceptance of Biblical "truth." They regard David and Solomon as historical figures and their empires as fact. Most Biblical archaeologists put themselves in the middle of the dispute.

Jerusalem has been a significant attraction for Biblical archaeologists since the mid-19th century. Following a brief interlude of Egyptian rule (1831-1839) under Muhammed Ali, the Ottomans reasserted control over Palestine and the area underwent a welcome period of reform at the insistence of Western nations. By 1860, a number of European consulates had been established, and the country was being visited by missionaries, Biblical scholars and adventurers.

Motivated by Palestine’s religious and historical importance, the British established the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) in 1865, whose members included British Royal Engineers Major-General Sir Charles Wilson and General Sir Charles Warren. They engaged in survey work of Jerusalem as well as digs despite protestations from local Muslim clerics and the Pasha of Jerusalem, Nazif Pasha. It was Charles Warren who first discovered a large wall in Ophel, and an ancient gate along the Western Wall Tunnel which is still referred to as "Warren's Gate." [Interestingly, Warren went on to further fame as the head of the London Metropolitan Police, from 1886 to 1888, during the Jack the Ripper murders.]

A number of other archaeologists expanded upon their work over the next few decades, but it wasn’t until Kathleen Kenyon in the early 1960’s that more modern methodology was introduced. After the reunification of the city in 1967, Israeli archaeologists assumed authority over Jerusalem excavations. A number of digs were initiated in and around the Old City, including Benjamin Mazar’s work at the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. Benjamin Mazar (1906-1995) was a Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology of Palestine at Hebrew University from 1951 to 1977, and served as president of the university between 1953 and 1961. He was also Eilat Mazar’s grandfather.

Looking the part in Israeli canvas hiking boots, Eilat Mazar speaks with obvious affection when she describes her grandfather. As a young girl, Eilat accompanied Benjamin Mazar, whom she remembers as "charismatic and hard-working," to digs and began to take an interest in ancient history. After the Six-Day War, Israeli archaeologists had access to the walls of the Temple Mount for the first time, and Eilat, still a teenager, began to participate in her grandfather’s excavations in the Ophel area. After army service, she was eager to attend university and follow in her grandfather’s footsteps.


In 1986 and 1987, she joined him on an excavation, continuing work which he had begun in 1970. It was at this time that many of the basic discoveries first came to light. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1993) describes what they found: "The quality of the construction is impressive, featuring thick walls founded on bedrock, sometimes preserved to a height of some 4m. The first stages of these buildings date to the ninth century BCE, at the earliest... The various building units combined to form a dense complex whose outer walls created a continuous line of fortifications along the eastern side of the Ophel, overlooking the Kidron Valley. The gate may be associated with the large tower."

The most recent announcement, then, seems to be a reiteration of previous declarations, with a few new pieces of supporting evidence revealed; in particular several LMLK pottery handles which have never been published before. LMLK (In Hebrew - Lamed-Mem-Lamed-Kaf - L'melech , meaning ‘to the King’) refers to royal seal impressions typically found on pottery fragments in and around Jerusalem.

However, Neal Asher Silberman suggests even these new finds don't mean much. "This is not careful, systematic archaeology, yielding a more sophisticated understanding of Iron Age Jerusalem," he writes on his blog. "It is secular shrine building and idolatrous historical idol worship– consciously or unwittingly serving contemporary religious and political agendas and helping to sabotage any hope of future compromise in Jerusalem."

It is precisely because of the weighty relationship between history, identity formation and politics that these ostensibly esoteric debates seem to take on a life of their own beyond scientific circles.

Regardless of intent, Mazar’s findings have been employed to substantiate a Jewish narrative that asserts a 3,000 year connection to Jerusalem. Jewish newspapers and magazines have emphasized nationalistic aspects of the story. Jonathan Tobin, Executive Editor of Commentary Magazine, for example, wrote that, "these new discoveries, along with those of a previous dig in a different area of the city of David, contradict contrary Palestinian claims that the Jews have no claim to the area. They also debunk the assertions of some Israeli archaeologists who have sought to portray the kingdom of David and Solomon as an insignificant tribal group and not the regional empire that the Bible speaks about."

Interestingly, the story immediately initiated a flurry of activity in the Christian Zionist world. Evangelical blogs and websites quickly seized on the Solomon story as "evidence that Bible prophecy will be fulfilled."

It's worth noting that the February 2010 announcement came just days after the Israeli government's own declaration of a "Heritage Plan" to invest millions of shekels in upgrading historical and archaeological sites. Not surprisingly, condemnation of the project was swift. Hamas big gun, Ismail Haniyeh, for example, denounced the Heritage plan as a scheme, "to erase our identity, alter our Islamic monuments and steal our history."

Palestinian writers and their supporters have been equally critical of allegedly religiously-motivated archaeology in Jerusalem and throughout the country. "Israel has used archaeology as an effective weapon not only to appropriate the land, but also to create a historical justification for the appropriation," writes Palestinian archaeologist Ghada Ziadeh, in an essay entitled "An Archaeology of Palestine: Mourning a Dream." (Selective Remembrances: Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts, chapter 11, 2008).

Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj was particularly accusatory in her controversial 2001 book, "Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society," in which she disparaged the "colonial-national historical imagination...of the so-called ‘new Hebrew’ nation." (Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground, pp. 2, 4.)

That's not say there's no meeting ground between the narratives. Palestinian archaeologists, because of their condemnation of Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem, will not request excavation licenses from Israel and will therefore not excavate in Jerusalem, neither alone nor in collaboration with their Israeli peers. But, at least one Israeli archaeologist, who declined to be identified, told the Report, "I have many contacts with Palestinian archaeologists. We talk about things, and there are beginnings of educational work in Palestinian communities in Jerusalem."

But Aren Maeir, a professor of Archaeology at Bar Ilan University, suggests it's still too early for true collaboration. "I know there have been a few attempts for Israeli/Palestinian cooperation in archaeology, but most have not gotten far," he tells the Report. "In fact, nowadays, based on my experience and that of several colleagues, Palestinian researchers are not interested in research collaborations with Israelis, since these are defined as ‘collaborating with the enemy’ in Palestinian eyes."

Maeir also acknowledges, "Politics get involved in just about every dig in Jerusalem, although there are those that get it more, particularly in the City of David, whether because they are in more politically contentious zones, or, because some of the excavators come out with rather bombastic statements."

Beyond the ideological criticism, Eilat Mazar actually spends much of her time dealing with Israeli bureaucracy. "Every day, I deal with paperwork. There are so many levels of government, the Antiquities Authority, various permissions which must be obtained. Everyone has something to say. I know that the politics and bureaucracy have driven some excellent scholars out of Jerusalem." But despite the challenges and ongoing battles, Eilat Mazar continues to be fascinated by the work, her youthful enthusiasm belying the fact that she's now a grandmother herself. "Archaeology is really about people, how they lived, their needs and abilities, and their visions."

As for her critics, she mischievously suggests there's still more to come. "Archaeology never stops surprising. And I have I secret...actually a few."

My thanks to Dr. Eilat Mazar, Prof. Aren Maeir, Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Neal Asher Silberman

The Flame in the Ashes

I presented this dvar Torah at Congregation Shaarey Tefilah in Vancouver few years ago:

This week we read Parsha Tzav from Leviticus. This parsha is in many ways a continuation of Vayyikra, which we read last week; and these parshot plus the next two form a kind of "Everything you Always wanted to know about sacrifices but were afraid to ask." And I mean everything! I must admit, like many of you, I find this section of the Torah the most difficult. It's relatively easy to find relevance in the lives of the Patriarchs, but here, it feels a little like looking for the meaning of life in the instruction manual for your DVD player.

I should mention here that it's particularly apt that I should be speaking on this subject at this time. My grandfather, z'l, whom I'm named after was born on Purim, and was called Mordechai. I've always enjoyed this tradition of naming our children after our ancestors. It's a wonderful way of keeping the past alive, and revering our traditions. The opening of this week's Parsha, alludes to this idea.

TZAV details the laws of the Karbanot, the sacrificial offerings brought both in the Mishkan, the portable Tabernacle, and later in the Beit HaMikdash, the Holy Temple in Yerushalayim. Incidentally, the word TZAV comes from the same root as MITZVAH, which means commandment.

Tzav opens with God's instructions to Aaron and his sons on the commandments of the burnt offerings. As a result of these offerings, ash collects on the altar. The priests are given very explicit and detailed instructions on the removal of the ash, including a change of clothing. We're all very lucky we don't have to go to this much trouble every time we take out the garbage.

What is most significant to me here is the reason for this care in removal of the old ashes: the fire must be kept burning continually. In fact, if you look carefully you'll see that this commandment is given twice (Vayyikra VI, Lines 5 and 6.) The message is clear: in order for the fire to burn well, the old ashes must be removed. And they must be done by a Priest with care and reverence. What is interesting is that not all of the ash is removed. The Priest collects only a shovelful. It is the ritual that is important. In doing so, each day begins with the completion of the sacrifices of the preceding day.

In many ways, we are like the altar, as both a community and individuals. As the Jewish nation, we have been shouldered with a responsibility to make sacrifices, in the both the colloquial sense, that is, to give something up, and in the Jewish sense, to draw nearer to God. Both definitions apply to the term sacrifice. Although we are no longer able to offer up the sacrifices as prescribed by the Torah, we find ourselves continually making sacrifices in order to live as Jews in the modern world.

It could also be said that throughout history, it has been the Jews that have been offered up as a sacrifice, not voluntarily, like the burnt offerings, and not for OUR sins, but for the sins of the other nations. It still shocks me to think that less than 20 years before I was born, Jews were being reduced to ash, not metaphorically, not allegorically, but all too literally. Without care and most certainly, without reverence. This year, we mark the 66th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, and recently, the new Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust museum opened. In the next few years, we will be faced with a new challenge. How do we, as a people, continue to mark the Holocaust, without letting it weigh us down. We are all covered with the ashes of history. We all carry with us ashes of anger, guilt, denial, horror and vengeance. As long as OUR altars are covered with ash, we cannot burn brightly. This week, we remembered a near Holocaust of the Jewish people of Persia. We could continue to be be angry and bitter at these enemies. Instead, we have found a way, though music and prayer, to remove these dark ashes from ourselves, and have succeeded in making Purim a bright light in the Jewish calendar.

My Grandfather, Mordechai, managed to live up to his name. He was a steamship agent in Ottawa for many years. As the situation for European Jews worsened before the war, he (and others) lobbied Steamship lines and members of Parliament until a system was established so Canadians could buy tickets for European relatives to escape Europe. Before this change, money had to wired to Europe, and as you can imagine, it did not always make it.

Each year, when I mark Yom Ha'Shoah, I think not only of family lost, but also a bright light that overcame a challenge and made a difference.

Each of us is a fire on an altar. Our own lives can become heavy with soot and remains of pain and hurt. From the loss of a job, to the death of a parent or child. Through acts of tradition - like being named after my Grandfather - we find ways of removing remnants of sadness and loss, to keep a family healthy and vibrant. It's important to remember that we are not expected to live in the past; tradition should never be a burden. We can manage our pasts with care and reverence, like the ashes of the altar, but we live in the here and now and must be ready to fulfil our lives to the fullest.

TZAV reminds us of the importance of taking some time each day to reflect on our lives and Jewish history so that we remember to remove these ashes that can smother us and prevent us from burning as brightly as possible.

Shabbat Shalom.

Minority Report

Is it just me, or is this ongoing EU disparagement of Israel's sovereign rights looking increasingly like the film Minority Report? Let me be blunt: there is no Palestinian state. It does not yet exist. It may never exist. We don't arrest people for murders they haven't committed. Yet, the EU continues to charge Israel with an occupation of Palestinian land. By this logic, we must also charge Spain with occupation of Basque land and declare Pamplona the capital of a Basque state.

As I've written before, no part of Jerusalem was ever designated to belong to an Arab state. The 1947 Partition Plan clearly recommends that Jerusalem's residents make this decision for themselves. If east Jerusalem is ceded through negotiations to a future Palestinian state, it will for the PA to decide the location of a capital; just as it's Israel's decision where to place her capital city, a fact that the international community also spitefully disregards. At the very least, Israelis might take this sort of nonsense more seriously if the EU also started to move European embassies to west Jerusalem. Until that happens, Israel should ignore the ignorant rantings of EU officials who only make themselves, and international law, look irrelevant.

Update 12/01/2011: I don't have time to go through the EU statement and detail its historical and legalistic errors, but fortunately, Yisrael Medad has done a good job on his blog here.

The Looking Glass War

As Israel begins its own investigation into events surrounding the Free Gaza flotilla interception that resulted in nine deaths, it faces objections from states and organizations that have been demanding an international inquiry.

These objections are based on two fallacies: one is that Israel is incapable of honest self-examination; the other is the belief that Israel will avoid asking the questions the international community wants asked, specifically concerning the legality of the blockade and Israel's means of defending it. Undoubtedly, they also fear that Israel will investigate matters the international community wants avoided, such as Turkey's complicit involvement in the provocative flotilla, and the relationship between so-called humanitarian organizations and groups such as Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH) that have been identified as being linked to known terror groups.

Let's look at these objections. As for self-examination Israel has, in fact, repeatedly initiated investigations that have been both thorough and harsh. The investigation that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur War, for example, (Agranat Commission) was so critical the Prime Minister, Golda Meir, and Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, stepped down.

Just two weeks after news of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre (the story was broken by an Israeli journalist in Lebanon, who incidentally, also covered the flotilla story), Israel announced an internal investigation. While the investigation concluded no "direct responsibility" (which was fair considering the killings were perpetrated by the Christian Phalangists and were committed with no Israelis present), it was still extremely critical of those who bore "indirect responsibility."

"It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged."

The Commission recommended that the Defense Minister resign and that the Director of Military Intelligence and other senior officers be removed from duty.

In 2008 the Olmert government saw its demise, in large part due to the blasting it got from the Winograd committee that investigated the Second Israel-Lebanon war. So critical was the report that even Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah praised it, saying: "It is worthy of respect that an investigative commission appointed by [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert condemns him...When the enemy entity acts honestly and sincerely, you cannot but respect it." Significantly, he added: "Even though they're our enemies, it is worthy of respect that the political forces and the Israeli public act quickly to save their state, entity, army and their existence in the crisis."

That's not to say the government has always initiated independent investigations when it should have; I've argued before that Ben-Gurion opened the door to continuing massacre allegations by not holding open investigations with international participation after the War of Independence.

The second criticism of an Israeli-held inquiry, that Israel will fail to investigate the blockade itself, is wrong-headed. The legality of the blockade is a matter for an international court, not the kangaroo court known as the UN Human Right Council. International law isn't that cut and dry, but in its broadest sense it can be defined as the body of rules that nations recognize as binding upon one another in their mutual relations. I would expect the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea may want to initiate an investigation of its own but that may be dependent on a complaint being filed. Of course, this is unlikely since the most bombastic complaints against Israel come from states whose own behaviour is suspect, especially Turkey, which wouldn't welcome an investigation into its illegal blockade of Armenia.

The real issue isn't whether or not Israel had a right to defend itself with a blockade (of course it does, otherwise the US and NATO would have sent ships directly to Gaza right from the start and that would have been the end of it); it's not even if Israel had the legal right to board the vessels and direct them to a port for inspection. Even the most critical law experts have agreed this is a grey area, and a legal case would be prolonged and complex.

The International community's secondary concern, that an Israeli inquiry must investigate what they deem is Israel's use of disproportionate force, is based on a lack of understanding of the term, and the right of states to defend their sovereignty. Or willful ignorance. As the entity designated responsible for maritime border control under the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994), Israel has every right to inspect ships entering its waters, or in the case of the flotilla, ships that advertise an intent to violate a blockade. Embargo searches can be conducted outside 12-mile territorial waters as long as the vessel isn't in someone else's waters.

As for the use of force, it is appropriate that individual soldiers not be investigated by international commissions; their actions were either the result of orders from commanding officers, who then bear responsibility, or were individual actions of soldiers violating Israel's own Ethical Code of Behavior. These ethical instructions are a part of every soldier's training both during war and peacetime. Soldiers are instructed: "to use his arms and his power to subdue the enemy in the necessary degree, and will restrain himself in order to prevent unnecessary harm to human life, limb, honor and property."

Soldiers are also commanded to respect human life: "The soldier will protect human life to the utmost, out of awareness of its highest importance, and will only place himself or another at risk to the degree required to carry out the mission."

I believe the IDF has a special responsibility to prevent all abuses, report on them immediately, investigate the validity of accusations and most importantly, follow up with arrests and punishments if warranted. To Israel's credit, this often happens, as this week's disclosure that a soldier is about to be charged for murder for the deaths of two women during the Gaza mission proves. Regardless of any international investigation, Israel has, in fact, established three independent investigations into the flotilla incident, not for the sake of the UN, but because Israelis by the thousands have demanded it: the Terkel Committee that was announced this week, an investigation by State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss (who has promised to focus on the legality of the government's decision-making process), and an IDF inquiry headed by Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland.

Israel is actually one of the few countries in the world whose army even has an Ethical Code of Behavior. That's not going to prevent the unnecessary deaths of civilians, but who should be examining the actions of the IDF, and demanding strict adherence to its moral code, more than anyone, are the Israeli people themselves.

And that's exactly what is happening.

Secrets and Lies II

(read Secrets and Lies I)

What of the recently declassified documents themselves? Are they the long sought-after 'smoking gun' that some would believe? The Guardian's Chris McGreal ("Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons") is convinced, but even author Polakow-Suransky doesn't seem to think so. In fact, a more careful reading of these documents (and admitting that only a few of the thousands of documents Polakow-Suransky obtained have been published) suggests a less confident interpretation.

Are P.W. Botha and Shimon Peres discussing Israeli nuclear missiles? Polakow-Suransky suggests that the code 'chalet' refers to the Jericho missile, a short-range (500km) ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload. He interprets the heavily corrected documents to read: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of unit of Chalet provide [sic] the correct payload could be provided, Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice."

But the original documents clearly shows that the word 'provide' had been replaced (probably by Botha and Peres after reviewing a secretary's original version) with the phrase 'subject to.' The South Africans can use a Jericho missile, if they can obtain the desired payload. Peres, in a sentence also crossed out, informs Botha that the payload is available in three sizes; he does not say Israel can provide the payload in one of three sizes. He never identifies any payload as nuclear.

Imagine for a moment how the original sentences might have sounded before being reduced into concise notes:

Botha: Mr. Minister, we might be interested in obtaining a few - we've agreed to use the term Chalet, yes? - We can use Chalet, if we can also acquire from somewhere the correct payload for our needs.

Peres: Yes, of course. It's my understanding that the payload you're speaking of is available in three sizes.

Botha: I appreciate that information. I will obviously need to seek more advice on the subject.

A follow-up memo by South African military chief of staff Lieutenant General R.F. Armstrong, titled "The Jericho Missile System" (not 'The Jericho Nuclear Missile System') corroborates this version of events.

"In considering the merits of a weapon system such as that offered, certain assumptions have been made...that the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in the RSA or acquired elsewhere." [emphasis added]

The inclusion of this caveat seems unnecessary if Israel was providing a nuclear-armed missile. In any event, Armstrong confirms South Africa's own nuclear program.

There's an inherent risk in speculating on past events: they're often verifiable.

• Did Israel supply South Africa with nuclear missiles? No.


• Would South Africa have used nuclear weapons against an internal or external enemy? Nope. The country possessed six atom bombs, never used them, and destroyed them voluntarily.


• Did Israel give nuclear knowledge to a rogue state? Maybe, although it's unlikely South Africa used Israeli assistance in developing its nuclear devices, according to David Albright, who has written extensively on nuclear proliferation and South Africa. In any event, both countries were developing nuclear technology simultaneously. Israel surely knew this when it engaged in arms discussions. Not in dispute is the fact that both Israel and South Africa received nuclear know-how, technology and materials from the US, France, the Uk and West Germany.


• Would Israel use nuclear weapons against a neighbouring state? Well, if Israel possesses nuclear weapons, it failed to use them when 1800 Syrian tanks were pouring over the border into the Golan and tens of thousands of Egyptian soldiers were crossing into the Sinai; nor did Israel use these weapons in response to Iraqi rockets in 1991 or Hezbollah rockets in 2006. It seems evident that Israel's nuclear threat is a deterrent only to the use of WMD's and not conventional weapons. As such, Israel's policy of ambiguity has likely prevented the use of chemical weapons, which several of Israel's neighbours (including Syria, Egypt, Iran ) are known to possess; nuclear ambiguity, then, has added to regional stability, not the other way around, preventing minor disputes from escalating into a regional war.

What is particularly conspicuous is the shamelessly convictive attitude of some journalists: in this case, it is Israel's dealings with the apartheid state (not in question) to imply that the two were 'birds of a feather' with a shared ideology (out of the question).

But nothing was further from the truth; most Israelis were (and are) disturbed, even outraged, by the relationship but recognized the need for investment capital while Israel's debt was skyrocketing after the Arab-instigated 1973 Yom Kippur War. A year later, Israelis were paying the highest per capita taxes in the world. Israeli officials were also concerned with maintaining healthy relations with a state in which 130,000 Jew lived. When Israel had previously funded black liberation movements, the Pretoria government retaliated by blocking contributions to Israel from South Africa's wealthy Jewish population. (Time, 26 April 1976)

Even within South Africa, the relationship was seen as paradoxical. The daily Johannesburg Star described it as "an enigmatic embrace." Said one South African expert: "Politics make strange bedfellows and fear and loneliness even stranger ones." (Time, 26 April 1976)

The reality is that despite voluntary bans, most Western states continued to sell arms and do business with South Africa throughout the 70's. Only Israel, apparently, should be reprimanded for this moral oversight. (And it's worth noting that these same countries also trade with Muslim states that have yet to grant women the right to vote; what's the difference?)

Then there are allegations that Israel is an irresponsible proliferator of nuclear weapons, a charge critics of Israel use as a defence, albeit petty, for Iran's nuclear program. But was Israel flogging nuclear weapons or was South Africa probing about the availability of such weapons? There's a world of difference. Israel never sold nuclear weapons to anyone, and if it exchanged knowledge, so have many others. Again, only Israel should be censured for an act that has yet to be proven.

If these aren't double-standards, what are?


SOURCES
Armament and Disarmament: South Africa's Nuclear Experience, Hannes Steyn, Jan Van Loggerenberg, Richardt Van Der Walt
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1988
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1989
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 1994
Ebony Magazine, August 1976
Israel and Africa: the Problematic Friendship, Joel Peters
The Israeli Connection, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, 1988
Israel's Defense Line, I. L. Kenen, 1981
New Scientist, 12 Dec 1974
Nuclear Disarmament in International Law‎, Haralambos Athanasopulos, 2000
Nuclear non-proliferation and global order By Harald Müller, David Fischer, Wolfgang Kötter, 1994
Nuclear weapons and arms control in the Middle East, Shai Feldman, 1997
Out of (South) Africa: Pretoria's nuclear weapons experience By Roy E. Horton, USAF Institute for National Security Studies, August 1999
Relations between South Africa and France with Special Reference to Military matters, 1960-1990, Victor Moukambi, 2008
South Africa: Time Running Out, The report of the Study Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Southern Africa, 1981
The Samson Option, Seymour Hersh, 1991
Time Magazine, "ISRAEL: Into Africa via The Back Door," 26 April 1976
The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, 2010 (Excerpt can be read online here.)
Yearbook of the United Nations, 1985 By United Nations, Department of Public Information, United Nations Staff

Secrets and Lies I

This week's disclosure of a nuclear tie between Israel and South Africa, as Sacha Polakow-Suransky’s The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, would have it, is nothing new. That hasn't stopped some from called the revelation "ground-breaking" and proclaiming with no uncertainty that Israel's nuclear program has, at long last, been revealed.

Rumours and allegations that Israel assisted South Africa's nuclear program have been floating around since the late 1970's. It was widely believed that a mysterious flash in August 1979 was a joint Israel-South Africa nuclear test. Further flashes were reported near South Africa on September 22, 1979 and December 16, 1980. Yitzchak Rabin, Prime Minister at the time, responded to the allegations then by saying, "There is not a grain of truth in the reports about nuclear cooperation with South Africa."

What is new is several declassified South African documents that Polakow-Suransky provides as proof that nukes were offered. The documents show that Shimon Peres (1923 - ), then Israel's Defense Minister met with P.W. Botha in 1975 to discuss a possible sale of Jericho missiles. Polakow-Suransky claims that the South Africans also believed that Israel would fit the missiles with nuclear warheads.

While not denying that the two men met to discuss conventional weapons, Shimon Peres, now Israel's President, has vehemently denied that nuclear weapons were offered. Former South African President F.W. De Klerk has called the allegations "simply ludicrous." De Klerk has flatly denied the story, saying, "I have no reason to question the information that was consistently conveyed to me by the relevant authorities that South Africa developed nuclear weapons on its own."

But what of the allegations? To really understand the complex rapport between Israel and apartheid South Africa, we need to go back and consider the context of mid-century realpolitik and international relations.


Long before allegations of cooperation began to circulate, South Africa was already pursuing its own nuclear agenda. By 1961 (two years before Israel's Dimona facility was activated) construction of SAFARI (SA Fundamental Atomic Research Installation), a nuclear research facility, had begun in Pelindaba with assistance from the US, France and West Germany. The Americans were also supplying enriched uranium to run the reactor.

Despite protests from some American quarters that Pretoria could utilize the enriched uranium for military purposes, the IAEA permitted a second reactor in Pelindaba, called SAFARI II. South Africa was also able to contract for the construction of two large nuclear power reactors with France (these two facilities didn't become operational until 1984 and 1985).

In 1970 South Africa announced that it had successfully achieved enriched (but not weapons-grade) uranium production on its own, and expressed an interest in "peaceful nuclear explosives" (PNE). According to Al J. Venter, author of How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs (2008), Prime Minister John Vorster, in 1974, "approved the development of a limited nuclear explosive capability and the construction of an underground test site" at Vastrap, north of Upington. In 1975 work began on the two test shafts in the Kalahari Desert. The first nuclear device was completed in 1977.


In July 1977 both the USSR and the US (which according to some sources had been informed beforehand of the test) accused South Africa of preparing to detonate a device in the Kalahari desert. In a letter to President Carter, South Africa President Vorster pledged that "South Africa does not have nor does it intend to develop a nuclear explosive device... there will...not be nuclear testing of any kind in South Africa." The Kalahari test never happened.

But two years later, on 22 September 1979, a mysterious flash, similar to those seen during French and Chinese nuclear tests, was spotted over the south Atlantic Ocean near South Africa by a US VELA reconnaissance satellite. A commission established by President Carter concluded that the flash "was probably not from a nuclear explosion. Although we cannot rule out that this signal was of nuclear origin." But security agencies, in particular the CIA, were convinced that a joint Israel-South Africa nuclear test took place. Former President F.W. De Klerk has confirmed that South Africa had produced six bombs during this period but says they were voluntarily destroyed in the early 1990's.

According to the historical record, then, regardless of a meeting between South African and Israeli representatives, in 1975, when P.W. Botha and Shimon Peres met, South Africa was well on her way to testing an operational nuclear device.

This was also a period in which South Africa was feeling increasingly threatened by her African neighbours. In 1970 the International Court of Justice declared that South Africa's Mandate over Namibia, which it had held since the end of the First World War, was illegal. South Africa was particularly concerned with the influx of tens of thousands of Cuban troops and Soviet advisers into Angola who were intervening on behalf of Angola's Communist Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola - Party of Labour. South Africa, meanwhile, moved troops into Angola (Operation Savannah) to assist the pro-Western National Front for the Liberation of Angola. NFLA was receiving financial support from South Africa, the US and Israel, which also provided training and arms during the 1970's.

Around the same time, The Organization of African Unity (OAU) began to push the international community for sanctions against South Africa, specifically an arms embargo. A voluntary embargo, observed by the US and the United Kingdom, had been in place since the early 1960's. France had seized the opportunity to become South Africa's most important arms supplier; undoubtedly, Charles De Gaulle was also interested in obtaining South African uranium for France's own nuclear program.

In 1970 UN Security Council Resolution 232, a non-binding resolution, called "upon all States to strengthen the arms embargo." The US, France and the UK, all of whom had close economic ties to SA, abstained.

In the face of growing Soviet influence throughout Africa, the US was keen to push South Africa into anti-Communist interventionism. Despite the voluntary arms embargo, in 1975 the US would have likely given a sale of arms to Pretoria its blessing.

However, rising internal strife in South Africa a year later forced major powers to reconsider military and other economic agreements. From June to December 1976, a number of major protests, known as the Soweto riots, erupted in several major centers resulting in hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests. France publicly announced that no new military contracts would be signed with the apartheid state. Several previous contracts were cancelled. West Germany, which had been supplying South Africa with experts and technical know-how also ended nuclear cooperation in 1976 (although production continued). In 1976 the OAU condemned France for its sale of nuclear technology to South Africa.

It was in this atmosphere of increasing conflict both within and outside South Africa, and in light of a tightening international arms embargo, that South Africa and Israel were undeniably pushed toward a closer military relationship. South Africa needed weapons and Israel, just two years after the Yom Kippur War, was desperate for money. A reluctant alliance was struck.

Such a relationship, however, should in no way suggest that Israel condoned Pretoria's racist internal policies, despite suggestions by some critics of Israel that these arrangements represented more than just a marriage of convenience between two ostracized states, that there were ideological similarities between Israel and South Africa. Premier David Ben-Gurion had previously condemned South Africa as a "deplorable regime of racial discrimination." Under Ben-Gurion Israel worked to establish relations with black African states, offering technical and economic assistance. After the 1973 October War, however, most of Israel's African friends broke off relations at the behest of the USSR and the Arab states (29 of the 33 black African countries that once had diplomatic ties with Israel broke them off at the time of the 1973 Middle East war) which consistently equated South Africa's racist policies with Zionism. Nevertheless, "Israel joined in UN resolutions condemning apartheid and voted for sanctions against South Africa." (South Africa: Time Running Out, pg 307)

To his credit, author Polakow-Suransky correctly concedes (in an interview at Middle East Analysis) a wide range of ideological thought by Israel politicians.

"[T]he founding fathers and mothers of the nation who were not just queasy but outright opposed and viciously critical of apartheid. These people spoke out against it, they allied with black African states," says Polakow-Suransky. But others, including Shimon Peres, "were willing to make moral compromises that the previous generation wasn't willing to make. It was strict realpolitik."

A third group, the Revisionists, were even more cynical. He adds, "In certain circles there was an ideological affinity. The correspondence between leading Israelis and their South African counterparts during this period bears this out. [Ariel] Sharon and [General Raphael] Eitan (1929-2004) were writing letters to their counterparts and saying we face a common threat and common enemy." [Note: Polakow-Suransky is not quite right about the political backgrounds of these two warriors; in 1948, both were members of Haganah, not the revisionist Irgun. Sharon was a Labor-Zionist. Eitan formed the Tzomet (Movement for Renewed Zionism) party and served as Agriculture and Environment Minister and also as a Deputy Prime Minister (1998-1999)]

In truth, while celebrated in the military establishment, in 1975, neither Sharon nor Raphael were in any position to influence government policy. After the near-disaster of the October War, a new government was established with Yitchak Rabin, a former Ambassador to the US and Chief of Staff, as the new Prime Minister and Shimon Peres, a former protégé of Ben-Gurion who had held a variety of cabinet positions, the Minister of Defense. Eitan was occupied with reorganizing the army in the North; Sharon had been elected to the Knesset in January 1974, but resigned in December of that year and returned to his farm in the Negev.

Tomorrow: The documents!

Big Story in a Small City

It's Yom Yerushalyim (Jerusalem Day) in Israel. I've written on Jerusalem a number of times on this blog:

On the Destruction of the Hurva Synagogue and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in 1948 here.

On Jerusalem's special status and international law here.

On the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967, which includes links to a radio report by CBS reporter, Michael Elkins on the battle for Jerusalem, and audio of Israel Defense Forces entering the Old City of Jerusalem and reclaiming the Western Wall on June 7, 1967 here .

Jerusalem, one of the oldest cities in the world, has its share of issues. There's also no doubt that Israel inherited a lot of baggage from the British and the Turks.

Before 1918, anyone born in Palestine was a citizen of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the Arabs complained that many Jewish newcomers did not apply for Turkish citizenship but attempted to retain their European passports. This was a fair complaint as it meant Jews could avoid military conscription and other obligations. The British, when they took over the region, did not grant British citizenship to those born in Palestine between 1918 and 1948 even though they were an occupying power. Instead they provided resident status to Arabs, but Palestinian citizenship to Jews, according to the British Mandate given by The Council of the League of Nations:

"ARTICLE 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

In 1948, Palestinian Arabs found themselves scattered between various administrations. All those that remained in Israel were automatically given Israeli citizenship, if they so desired.

Palestinians in the West Bank and east Jerusalem (and the Old City) were given Jordanian citizenship when Jordan illegally annexed this territory on April 4,1950. (I'm actually not sure the status of those under Egyptian rule in Gaza between 1948 and 1967.)

In 1967, as a result of Jordan shelling Jerusalem during the first day of the Six Day War, Israel conquered these territories, and allowed an open border for the first time in decades between the formally divided city (against the wishes of mayor Teddy Kollek, incidentally. It was actually Moshe Dayan that insisted on this.)

Arabs in east Jerusalem were offered full citizenship when Jerusalem was reunified, but most refused at the insistence of the Arab League opting instead for Permanent Residence Status, an accommodation worked out with the Arab residents themselves. Every resident of Jerusalem can apply for citizenship at any time; Arabs who have been residents for years would be granted this almost automatically.

One might ask why Jerusalem's disassociated Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods even continue to exist. In fact, this was a policy inherited and maintained by Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek.

"In 1971, four years after the reuniting of the city of Jerusalem in the Six-Day war, reporter Arnold Forster interviewed Teddy Kollek, then Mayor, for Dateline Israel . Kollek regarded the issues of the development of the newly formed city, which at the time received world attention and was highly controversial." - IsraCast.com

You can listen to the Exclusive Teddy Kollek Audio Interview on IsraCast.

Haiti

For the past few months, I've been writing and editing a new English-language magazine called Essential Ra'anana. Here's a piece from the Purim 2010 issue.



To Haiti With No Hesitation

Moved by the devastation and desperation after the earthquake, a Ra’anana doctor takes action.

By Morey Altman


It was his teenage son Daniel who first asked, “So are you going?”

Watching reports on the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti with his family, Dr. Harvey Belik was moved by what he saw. He had seen the aftermath of the Tsunami in Indonesia when he was there as a volunteer in 2005, and he thought of the long-term rehabilitation that would be necessary in Haiti. While IsraAid and other international groups were concentrating on emergency care, there would be thousands of patients requiring everything from childcare to psychological counselling for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) while shattered Haiti slowly rebuilt.

A well-known family physician in Ra’anana, Dr. Belik served as Medical Director of Maccabi Health Service until two years ago, but now concentrates on his private practice. He and his wife Loretta made aliyah from Australia in 1988.

Belik contacted several groups in Israel and received a positive response from Natan: the Israeli Coalition for International Humanitarian Aid (Natan I-Relief), which was named in memory of legendary Israeli activist Abie Nathan (1927-2008). Within days of the earthquake Natan I-Relief organized a program “to deliver life-saving materials and to launch a monthly humanitarian aid delegation comprising of Israeli volunteers providing medicine, trauma care, child care and social and community rehabilitation.” The first delegation left just three days after the earthquake. The second delegation was scheduled to leave on January 22. That gave Belik only two days to prepare. And he knew the trip would be no picnic. A long flight to the Dominican Republic, an uncertain bus ride from Santa Domingo to Port-au Prince and no idea what conditions they’d be operating in. In retrospect, jokes Belik, “it was pretty gutsy of me.”

The Natan I-Relief delegation was led by social worker Dr. Moshe Farchi, head of trauma at Tel Hai Academic College and consisted of one medical doctor (Belik), Nurse Tamara Dolgin and a psychologist and social worker. They were met in Santo Domingo by Alexander de la Rosa, the Dominican Republic’s Ambassador to Israel, a friendly, Hebrew speaker who happened to be home at the time.

Back row (from left to right) Sister Marie, Dr. Harvey Belik, Magay (interpreter), Dr. Moshe Farchi, Dr. Eitan Shachar, Nurse Tamara Dolgin

The bus ride took 18 hours – the bus broke down twice – before it approached the battered Haitian capital. “It was like a war zone,” says Belik. “As we got nearer, we began to see rubble. One building was up, another down. The smell of death still lingered.”

A charity group hooked them up with a beleaguered Catholic retreat center in the heavily damaged neighbourhood of Sainte Marie. When they arrived at the center they found a 70-year-old German nurse, Sister Marie, working alone in desperate conditions. She would continue to run the show, with the Natan I-Relief team tending to the gathering patients. She introduced them to visitors of the camp as her ‘miracles from Israel, sent by Abraham and Moses.’

They focused on family medicine, treating infections, broken bones and malnutrition while coping with sporadic electricity, water shortages, hungry mosquitoes and the heat. Despite the conditions, the team, which debriefed every night to share experiences and plan ahead, set out to build a model community and address wide-ranging health concerns, especially the prevention of contagious diseases. There was a general awareness that while their stay may be short, it would be possible to promote well-being activities that would continue to serve that Haitians long after the Israelis left.

They also worked to open a school for the neighbourhood children, whose own school had collapsed killing two students. Belik, a strong proponent of Jewish education, and founder and board member of Ra’anana’s Tali and Meitarim Schools, recognized the importance of restoring some normalcy in the lives of the traumatized children. Working with local teachers, the Israeli team helped set up makeshift classrooms, using donated IDF tents, around the center and even in the adjacent cemetery for 400 local kids. They also advised the teachers, many of whom had also suffered in the quake, on strategies to help the children better cope with what they had experienced.

“It was personally very fulfilling,” says Belik. “I had tremendous support from home and really felt like my family was with me the whole time. It was also nice to be able to show a human side of Israel. We were there to help, but I’m happy the positive PR was a by-product.” Dr. Belik, who is also a Major and medical officer in the IDF, says it was “an amazing feeling to see the Israeli group in action.”

He was particularly inspired by the strength and dignity of the Haitians. “They were incredibly resilient,” says Belik. “There were thousands of refugees with next-to-nothing, but they would come to us well-groomed, singing prayers. But culturally, we were very different. Some might ask, ‘Why care about Haiti? We have nothing in common other than being people.’ But that is everything.”

Throughout 2010, the Natan coalition will send eleven more delegations to assist with the multidisciplinary rehabilitation needed in Haiti. Individuals and organizations that are willing to mobilize and help are asked to directly contact Natan's representatives: Nathan.irelief@gmail.com

Cheques can be sent to Brit Olam's offices: P.O.Box 53316, Tel Aviv, 61533

Direct donations can be made to Brit Olam's bank account: Israel Discount Bank Ltd (11), Branch No. 105, Tel Aviv University. Account No. 27470.

Return to Life

Last night, the Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City was rededicated after four years of rebuilding. The synagogue, which was built in 1864, had been destroyed by the Jordanian army in 1948. While the story has had international media coverage, most outlets have been conspicuously vague on the destruction of this important shul. AP wrote that Hurva was destroyed "during Israel's 1948 war of independence", while Reuters simply acknowledged that it was destroyed "during a war in 1948." Neither outlets mentioned the Jordanians or the destruction of the Jewish Quarter.

The battle for the Old City, and subsequent destruction of the Jewish Quarter and its synagogues is an important element in the Hurva story.

Hurva Synagogue, C. 1939

The residents of the Jewish Quarter, almost all of whom were religious Jews who had lived in the city for generations, had ample opportunity to flee while the Old City was still under British jurisdiction. The majority chose to stay until the bitter end. The day before the surrender had been Lag Ba'Omer. The beleaguered Jews prayed for reinforcements. They were almost out of food and water; there was no electricity; the Haganah garrison had expended almost all of its ammunition; 300 soldiers had been killed, most of the others were injured but refused to leave their positions. The Jewish Quarter had endured two weeks of shelling and gunfire.

On Friday, May 28, 1948 the Arab Legion succeeded at controlling the main Jewish street of the Quarter and immediately destroyed the Hurva Synagogue (in anticipation of the arrival of King Abdullah).


The International Red Cross had - to their credit - been trying to convince the Legion, at the request of the Haganah, to permit women and children to leave. The Legion repeatedly refused, demanding that there be a complete surrender of all Jews. All attempts to stop the Legion had failed, and with fighting now raging along a 20-mile front between Latrun and Ramallah, reinforcements were unavailable.

By Friday morning "only Batei Machse, the Sephardi synagogues and Shaar Hashamyim Yeshiva remained in Jewish hands." More civilians were killed, including several women, a shopkeeper and a man helping the soldiers but the garrison refused to give up; and the Jordanians refused to permit civilians, now holed up in the synagogues, to leave unless there was a complete surrender.

With no other possible recourse, Rabbi Reuven Hazan and Rabbi Israel Mintzberg put themselves into the line of fire to negotiate a surrender. They were shot at by a few of the Haganah boys - Haganah leader Moshe Rusnak was afraid their action would lead to a massacre of the residents - and forced back; but, everyone knew the situation was hopeless. After brief discussions, they were back on the streets 30 minutes later with their white flags (only to be shot at by Jordanians). They might have been killed on the spot. The Jordanians were only meters away from the Jewish positions. Instead, their intervention managed to convince both the Haganah and Arab Legion to temporarily stand down while civilians were evacuated, and the captured soldiers and men were returned to Israel in exchange for Jordanian prisoners several months later.

"At 11:00am on Friday, Rabbis Reuven Hazan, 70, and Israel Mintzberg, 83, walked from one of the Jewish positions toward the Arab lines. They carried a white flag made out of a bit of once-festive tablecloth tacked to a stick. Although he was shot and wounded by a sniper, Rabbi Hazan called out in Arabic, 'Good morning. We have come to talk to you, and we want to see your commander.'"

Mitzberg was held hostage while Rabbi Hazan retrieved the Haganah representative to negotiate the surrender. After 13 days of shelling (which killed or injured hundreds of civilians) and hand-to-hand fighting, "the exhausted Jewish garrison in the Old City of Jerusalem accepted the Arab Legion's surrender terms."

On Friday afternoon "290 able-bodied men from 15 to 50 were taken prisoner and 1,200 women, children and aged were passed to the Jewish lines outside the walls with the cooperation of the U.N. representative and the Red Cross....the evacuation of civilians through Zion gate began on Friday evening and lasted until 2 o'clock on Saturday morning." Fifty-one of the captives were injured; three physicians and four nurses volunteered to stay with them.

There are some reports that Jews were, in fact, invited to stay in the Old City if they promised allegiance to King Abdullah. I haven't been able to find out if anyone accepted the offer.

An excellent first-hand account of the surrender can be read in 'Forever My Jerusalem' by Puah Shteiner. Further accounts are now online in archived editions of The Palestine Post.

Photos of the destruction of the Old City and the surrender of the Jewish residents can be seen here.

Emet m'Tsiyon also features an excellent photo essay called "The Hurvah Synagogue before Being Blown up by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, Courtesy of His Britannic Majesty's Generals and Officers" available here.