Unveiling Falcon Invoice Discounting: Leading the Way as India's Premier Bill...
New Israel Fund Op-Eds 2010
1. Democracy in the Balance – Forward.com http://www.forward.com/articles/125428/
Opinion
By Naomi Chazan
Published February 10, 2010, issue of February 19, 2010.
The New Israel Fund is only the latest target in a series of outrageous assaults on Israel’s democratic foundations.
The apparently coordinated attempt this past year to intimidate, de-fund and possibly shut down Israel’s human rights
community, culminating in this latest direct attack on NIF — and on me personally, as its president — is an alarming
symptom of a deeply troubled society that is lurching toward authoritarianism and the undermining of basic civil
freedoms.
Last month, Israeli police took action against the leaders of two of Israel’s most prominent civil rights groups: The
head of the Israel Religious Action Center was questioned and fingerprinted for her work in asserting women’s prayer
rights at the Western Wall, and the executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel was arrested during
a peaceful demonstration. Meanwhile, we have seen a series of attempts to compromise the Israeli Supreme Court’s
independence and its status as the last line of defense for Israeli civil rights.
These developments are very worrisome indeed. Today we see efforts to deny Israelis their basic democratic rights,
including freedom of speech, association and dissent.
For many people, what took the campaign against NIF beyond the realm of legitimate debate was the decision by its
organizers to vilify the NIF by targeting me, personally. A widely distributed poster and ad with a rather unflattering
caricature of me reached new lows by portraying me with a horn on my head — a play on the Hebrew word keren,
which means both “fund” and “horn.” (I wonder if these nasty caricatures would ever be used against a man.) I was
dubbed “Naomi Goldstone-Chazan.” A demonstration was held outside my home, billboards appeared throughout the
country, and banners were posted on major Israeli Internet news sites.
Although I was in New York for NIF’s board meeting when the campaign debuted, the outrage of my family, my
friends and my former colleagues in the Knesset — even people who disagree with my politics — overloaded my
e-mail and cell phone from across the Atlantic.
As a former deputy speaker of the Knesset and a lifelong activist for peace, women’s rights and human rights, it
takes a lot to upset me. And the personalized attack didn’t upset me, exactly. It did make me feel that Israel’s right
wing would stoop to anything to discredit anyone, including the New Israel Fund and its affiliated organizations, for
daring to voice a dissenting opinion — an elementary right in any democratic society. And it is worth pondering why
that is.
The original attack on NIF stemmed from a new group, Im Tirtzu, which is funded by the same sources supporting
Jewish extremists, including the ministry of American evangelical leader John Hagee. Im Tirtzu had conducted a
“study” of the Goldstone Report, and concluded that the Israeli human rights groups that NIF supports were chiefly
responsible for that report’s negative conclusions about the actions of the Israel Defense Forces during the Gaza
war. The Im Tirtzu report is a series of vicious distortions of the record of the New Israel Fund and its allied
organizations. The report represents the antithesis of the values of Zionism that Im Tirtzu claims to espouse.
The human rights groups whose reports are cited in the Goldstone Report are the canary in the coal mine of Israeli
democracy. These organizations did their job, recording and reporting, and their findings were used primarily as
background material; the most significant quotes used in the Goldstone Report came from military personnel and
political leaders. NIF took no position on Goldstone, nor do we on other political matters. The human rights
organizations we support are also not monolithic and have differing views regarding Goldstone’s conclusions.
1 of 2 2/17/2010 1:43 PM
3. The Real Anti-NIF Agenda
by Daniel Sokatch
Special To The Jewish Week
In recent weeks, some very angry — and wildly inaccurate — accusations have been leveled
against the New Israel Fund, the philanthropic partnership largely responsible for the
establishment of Israel’s progressive civil society. Not only have we been accused of enabling
the hated Goldstone report, but the NIF’s president, former Knesset Deputy Speaker Naomi
Chazan, has been grossly defamed and publicly caricatured in an incendiary and disgusting
publicity campaign.
False arguments and dangerous demonization must not be allowed to stand, and the NIF has
already acted to refute both. Israelis and the Jewish community worldwide remember how easily
delegitimization led to political violence when Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated, and it
must be rejected quickly, in all its forms.
But it’s also true that in engaging in this battle, we risk missing a larger point: The existence of a
robust civil society that wrestles honestly with vital social matters is a crucial element of any
healthy democracy. As an organization committed to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, it is
this vision that NIF has worked to fulfill since 1979.
For 30 years, we have supported hundreds of organizations and thousands of activists struggling
for human and civil rights, religious pluralism, and social and economic justice. Our funding
standards are high and rigorous, and we constantly review the work of each grantee and insist on
accountability and accomplishment on the ground. We support organizations that have
accomplished Israel’s most significant victories for equality and justice, from High Court
decisions to local endeavors by grassroots activists.
All NIF grantees are registered NGOs meeting the legal requirements of the Israeli government.
Our organizations must respect and support the democratic nature of the state of Israel. They
must refrain from partisan political activity. Organizations cannot advocate violence or the
destruction of the state of Israel, or use racist or derogatory designations about any group.
With more than 100 grantees at any given time, the NIF family comprises a broad range of
organizations and viewpoints, and we value our own spirited debate on Israel’s most
controversial issues. We do not demand that every grantee march in lockstep with NIF on every
issue of concern to Israeli society. Since Israel’s strength depends as much on its commitment to
democratic principles as on its military security, this means that while we don’t always support
everything these organizations say, we support their right to say it.
1
4. This is where our detractors disagree, in particular regarding the citation of several NIF grantees
in the Goldstone report examining last year’s war in Gaza. Less than 14 percent of the report’s
citations were attributed to groups funded by NIF, and the vast majority of Goldstone’s most
controversial conclusions originated in official statements by the Israeli military and political
leadership. And our funding for these organizations comprises less than 10 percent of our overall
grant making. But because these human rights groups work on the most complicated and
sensitive issues in Israel, they attract more than their share of controversy.
The New Israel Fund does support Israel’s most reputable and internationally respected human
rights groups. These groups fulfilled their mission by carefully monitoring and reporting on the
Gaza operation, and providing reports then used by the IDF, the Goldstone Commission, and
others. In turn, it is the task of an independent inquiry to assess these reports and put them in
context. Indeed, these human rights groups were also among the first to declare the need for an
independent Israeli inquiry into the events of Gaza, an inquiry that has not yet taken place and
which would have properly contextualized the eyewitness accounts relied on by the human rights
groups.
We think that the accusations about NIF relating to Goldstone, incendiary and overstated as they
are, are a red herring. For all the hue and cry surrounding our grantees, our procedures, and the
intent of those who criticize the IDF, it’s become increasingly clear that is not what this battle is
really about. Rather, it is all a part of a broader effort to stifle the voices of dissent and criticism
within Israel.
Leaders of Israel’s largest and most respected civil rights organizations, such as the Reform
Movement’s Israel Religious Action Center and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, have
been detained or arrested over the past year. The issue of the independence of the High Court,
under attack for years, has taken a frightening turn with two recent violent attacks on Israeli
judges. The delegitimizing of those who criticize Israel, and lumping them with those who truly
hate Israel — and unfortunately there are enough of the latter — fills the pundit pages of Israeli
newspapers. While Israel’s defenders refer to it as the only democracy in the Middle East, some
right-wing extremists are jeopardizing the very accomplishments and institutions that make this
so.
This is the heart of the matter, and the NIF believes that such anti-democratic activity is
countenanced only at great peril to Israel’s future, and with utter disregard for the vision that
guided Israel’s founders.
It is never easy to defend the civil liberties that undergird democracy, most particularly when the
democracy in question is struggling against external threats. Yet the loss of those liberties is
itself a threat. A strong civil society not only ties individuals to their fellow citizens, it also
serves to create an electorate that will act to keep government representative and accountable.
That Israel has always guarded its citizens’ freedom of expression is one of the most important
ways in which it has guarded its own nature — and one of the greatest differences between it and
the authoritarian governments that characterize its neighbors.
Politically motivated smear campaigns against activists struggling to advance Israeli democracy
do not serve or befit the Jewish state. The American Jewish community, intimately involved in
2
5. the defense of that state, is now called upon to defend the bedrock ideals upon which it was
founded. If we want to see Israel continue to thrive as a strong democratic and Jewish state, we
must defend the rights of a vital civil society within its borders — even when it’s difficult to
hear.
Daniel Sokatch is CEO of the New Israel Fund.
3
6.
7. PressDisplay.com - The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition - 12... http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/services/OnlinePrintHandler....
1 of 1 3/15/2010 10:19 AM
8. Published on The Jewish Week (BETA) (http://www.thejewishweek.com)
Home > Needed: Nuance and Balance in Gaza Flotilla Debate
Needed: Nuance and Balance in Gaza Flotilla
Debate
Friday, June 4, 2010
Daniel Sokatch
Special to the Jewish Week
When the New Israel Fund sent an action alert to protest gender-segregated buses in Israel, we
got an enthusiastic response.
When we and the human rights groups we fund were attacked in Israel, viciously and
dishonestly, we asked for signatures to a petition to Prime Minister Netanyahu in support of
democratic dissent, and we got a very enthusiastic response.
But the immediate reaction we got to a brief, carefully-balanced letter we sent about the...well,
let's call it the disastrous incident of the Gaza flotilla... now that was a response.
"I think that Daniel's letter is the best statement that I've read about the flotilla."
"Why should the Israeli government conduct an inquiry when its own continuing policies of
unmitigated aggression and human rights abuses caused the attack and deaths in the first place?"
"Were you not 'shocked and dismayed' by the deliberate and provocative effort by anti-Israel
activists - and ships sponsored by a recognized terrorist organization - to defy a legitimate naval
blockade, despite Israel's offer to transfer the aid directly to Gaza?"
"Living up to our ideals is the best answer to these unfortunate events. Thank you for keeping up
the hope for a better future through dialogue. The extremes thrive only on silence."
"Daniel: You are out of your mind."
Let me make one thing clear from the outset. We are neither foreign policy nor military
specialists, nor are we a "peace group." Our letter was written to express our fundamental
concern for Israel. We are a proudly progressive organization that has built and supported Israeli
civil society -- the human rights, social justice and religious pluralism organizations that are so
much of the reason Israel considers itself a vibrant democracy. As the leading supporter of
1
9. cutting-edge causes that advance Israeli democracy, we are used to controversy and to diverse
views within our own big tent, both in the U.S. and in Israel.
But as accustomed as we are to argument, the nerve touched by the flotilla letter seems to us to
be raw, and frightening, and possibly predictive of some very hard times ahead for American
Jews who love and are connected to Israel.
We do empathize with the passions aroused by the flotilla action and the larger issues at stake
here. Whether they called the flotilla participants armed militants or peaceful activists, our
respondents care about Israel. Whether our respondents faulted the IDF or Turkey, the
Netanyahu government or Hamas, defended Israel's action to the hilt or attacked it vociferously,
our supporters reflect a connection to Israel that was once assumed to be one of the strongest ties
binding the American Jewish community together.
But those ties are fraying. More and more, we who work day in and out for Israel, whether from
the left or right, know that every program we fund, every project we sponsor, is a potential target
for ideological attack. The community events that should reflect the diverse opinions of
American Jews about Israel too frequently deteriorate into controversy about this film or that
speaker -- the argument being that those with whom one disagrees do not deserve the attention of
a thoughtful audience. Some American Jewish organizations apparently wait for their talking
points from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, while others jump to criminalize Israel's actions in utter
isolation from the existential threats it has endured since its founding.
If we as a community leap to defend every action and policy of the Israeli government, we are
outsourcing our consciences, our values and our own responsibility. If we likewise forget that
Israelis live next door to enemies who have sworn to eradicate them, we are transposing our own
American comfort and security to a place that knows neither. And if we shrug our shoulders at
Israel's lost ideals, silently thank our own American forbearers for settling here rather than there,
and give up, we have abandoned what must remain the fulfillment of the collective dream of the
Jewish people.
Having worked for Jewish organizations my entire career, I am alarmed and saddened. Not just
by the outcome of the Gaza flotilla, but by the black-and-white character of too much of the
communal response. A people who created the Talmud should not be so deaf to nuance, to
balance, to contextualizing a rational argument. A people who knew suffering for millennia
should not be indifferent to the suffering of others, and a people who were defenseless for almost
2000 years should not be dismissive of the security concerns of its homeland.
Six boats in the Mediterranean are sailing through the holes in the fabric of the Jewish
community. We need to be careful to ensure that our community's conversation is open, honest
and respectful of criticism and self-examination. We can and will disagree about what happened
last week and about what it means for Israeli policy and Israel itself.
But we must do so with some sense of connection and mutual care, for each other and for Israel.
Daniel Sokatch is the CEO of the New Israel Fund.
2
10. Haaretz.Com http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/now-is-not-the-time-to-s...
Home Print Edition News
Published 12:48 18.06.10 Latest update 12:48 18.06.10
Now is not the time to scapegoat Israelis who are critical of Israel
It is perhaps understandable that many seek a person or organization on whom blame can be placed, so that they
may be sent into the political wilderness, cast out of the community, no longer allowed to contribute to the
conversation. Understandable, perhaps, but woefully mistaken.
By Daniel Sokatch and Rachel Liel
In the aftermath of the flotilla incident off Gaza, Israelis and supporters of Israel are even more anxious and apprehensive than
usual - worried about the implications of those events, and searching for the best way forward.
Some of Israel's leading lights - politicians, former military brass, intellectuals - have questioned the wisdom of Israel's raid on the
MV Marmara, and are struggling publicly with love for their country, and fears for its future. Others chose to immediately close
ranks and throw up defenses.
It is perhaps understandable that many seek a person or organization on whom blame can be placed, so that they may be sent into
the political wilderness, cast out of the community, no longer allowed to contribute to the conversation.
Understandable, perhaps, but woefully mistaken.
As easy as it may be to attempt to scapegoat those who voice opposition to official Israeli policy, it is neither helpful nor wise. The
former members of Knesset who have decried the loss of life; the Israeli naval reserve commanders who wrote to Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to urge an
independent inquiry; the Israeli novelists and commentary writers and professors and nonprofits and ordinary people who have
questioned the Gaza blockade itself - all have Israel's best interests at heart.
All seek a solution that will leave Israel stronger and safer. Their efforts are not to undermine Israel, but to build a better Israel.
This in stark contrast to some on the world stage who would, indeed, delegitimize Israel and wish it removed from history. We do
not question that there are nations, international NGOs and demagogues who wish to see Israel disappear. On one hand, we have
those who would see Israel strengthened; on the other, those would happily see it destroyed. Never, perhaps, has it been more
important to see the difference between the two. This is the real red line, the line between the loyal opposition and Israel's real
enemies.
As the new leaders of the New Israel Fund, we have the tremendous good fortune to work with many Israeli organizations that act
on the promise in Israel's Declaration of Independence to "uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without
distinction of race, creed or sex." Some of these nonprofits advocate for new immigrants; some work with the poor of the periphery,
others focus on civil rights.
We have seen these organizations buoyed by success, and watched them face down angry opposition.
Advocating for social justice in Israel, we watch the ebb and flow of political discourse and have, at times, worried for the State of
Israel's democracy. In a country that so often lives in fear, the
temptation to simply shut down those with whom we disagree is particularly powerful.
Yet for all our experience in Israel and in the Jewish world at large, we have never seen the impulse to muzzle the opposition
expressed as bluntly as it is today. We can't help but be reminded of the backlash, which led, ultimately, to the assassination of a
prime minister.
Scapegoating the loyal opposition, smearing the good names of people dedicated to advancing Israel's democracy, and demonizing
those who seek genuine pluralism is not what Israel needs right now. Pushing away those who love Israel enough to engage
honestly with its mistakes will not
make Israel stronger, but will in fact delegitimize its standing as a democracy in the eyes of the world.
In our positions with the New Israel Fund, we often come into contact with individuals or organizations with whom we do not
entirely agree. Love of Israel and dedication to its survival, we've found, takes many and varied forms, and democracy works best
when all are given a chance to speak. A word here or a phrase there may make some uncomfortable, but what is most important is
to look at the body of an organization's work, rather than don blinders and focus narrowly on any disagreements we
might have.
There are limits, of course, in any democracy, and we're not required to open the conversation to include those who would see the
democratic state of Israel destroyed. But neither are we served by shrinking Israel's democracy to include only those who support
governmental policies at all costs. Indeed, that's not democracy by anyone's definition, not at all.
Now is not the time to shut down discourse and seek scapegoats from among those Israelis and supporters of Israel who take issue
with some of the policies of the Netanyahu government. Now is the time to listen closely to all the voices that Israel's democracy
offers, and work together to find real solutions that will lead to equality for all, a lasting peace, and true security.
1 of 1 6/18/2010 12:23 PM
11. Jpost | Print Article http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=179603
June 28, 110 Monday 24 Tammuz 3870 10:07 IST
By DANIEL SOKATCH AND RACHEL LIEL
26/06/2010
Rather than ‘delegitimizing’ Israel, hundreds of groups supported by New Israel
Fund emphatically legitimize Israel’s claim to its place among Western liberal
democracies
On Sunday, the board of directors of the New Israel Fund will gather in Tel Aviv to chart the course for an
increasingly visible organization that has worked to advance equality and justice for every Israeli for almost
32 years.
NIF’s core mission is to strengthen Israel’s democracy. A vibrant democracy demands openness, not just in
dialogue, but also in practices and policies. A strong Israel, an Israel with the security to withstand external
enemies and internal divisions, also requires a civil society sector that advances the interests of those
whose voices are not often heard in the corridors of power.
RELATED:
A code of conduct for the New Israel Fund
AS THE founder and first funder of dozens of Israel’s most internationally respected organizations, the New
Israel Fund is accustomed to controversy. Many causes that were cutting-edge when we first took them on
are now supported by the mainstream, from the first battles for women’s rights to the passage of legislation
protecting the disabled from discrimination and exclusion. Our support for organizations advancing human
rights, and for those advancing civil rights for the Israeli Arab sector, has been a particular lightening rod. It
has always provoked attacks from those who perpetrate the increasingly hollow myths that Israel can do no
wrong, and that almost any criticism, however loving, of Israeli policy or actions is somehow disloyal.
In a democracy, of course, one is free to express any opinion, and the latest publicity stunt from NGO
Monitor is just that, an opinion – and a partisan one at that.
Those familiar with NGO Monitor know it as a mouthpiece for a right-wing ideology, a “monitor” that never
monitors settler, haredi or ultra-nationalist groups but only those with progressive values. And, of course,
NGO Monitor is itself entirely unmonitored. It does not appear to meet accepted standards for transparency
or accountability, and provides little information on its governance or funding.
NIF, by contrast, is a responsible funder that regularly reviews its principles, policies and funding decisions
and receives excellent ratings for transparency from Guidestar and other philanthropic oversight
organizations. Our donors understand and support a vision of Israel in which ideas and ideologies contend in
an open space. Rather than “delegitimizing” Israel, as the current buzzword has it, the hundreds of groups
and thousands of activists NIF supports emphatically legitimize Israel’s claim to its place among Western,
liberal democracies.
But that claim is fraying. As much as NIF must focus on its own strategies and the increasing demands on
its resources, we are even more concerned with the diminishing tolerance of dissent in Israeli society. The
recent survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University showing that more
than half of Jewish Israelis think there is “too much freedom of speech” is only the tip of the iceberg. As
1 of 2 6/28/2010 10:07 AM
13. The battle for Israel | Opinion | Jewish Journal http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/print/the_battle_for_israel_2010...
August 31, 2010
The battle for Israel
BY DANIEL SOKATCH
http://www.jewishjournal.com/ opinion/article/the_battle_for_israel_20100831/
As experts rush to predict the outcome of the upcoming round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, all
the familiar issues are resurfacing for discussion. Borders, right-of-return, Jerusalem, settlements. The world waits, and
hopes, that this time the outcome will be different.
But while all eyesare on the peace pro-cess, another, little-known process is unfolding within Israel, where a debate
rages over the nature and definition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. It is, in other words, a battle for the
soul of Israel, and its outcome is no less crucial to the future of the State of Israel than the results of the negotiations
in Washington.
At present, there are no fewer than 14 bills pending in the Knesset that would de-fund or penalize civil society, curtail
freedom of speech or dissent, or in some way diminish democratic freedom. Extremist settlers, with the tacit assent of
the government, are taking over East Jerusalem’s historic Palestinian neighborhoods, based on land claims that
pre-date 1948. So-called “student groups” with millions of dollars in opaque funding are attacking the universities, the
media and my own organization, the New Israel Fund (NIF), and the many human rights and social justice groups we
fund, as anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and treasonous.
Americans may remember a similar atmosphere in our own country after 9/11. But what is happening in Israel is
different and more ominous. Not even the most enthusiastic backers of the Patriot Act suggested closing down the
ACLU, requiring loyalty oaths from all Americans or forbidding Native Americans, African Americans or Japanese
Americans from commemorating their historic tragedies in this country — but parallel demands are escalating in Israel.
When L.A.’s Progressive Jewish Alliance, which I used to lead, opposed the war in Iraq and came to the defense of
moderate Muslim leaders, many argued with us but no one suggested shutting us down.
The drift toward authoritarianism and McCarthyism in some sectors of Israeli society actually doesn’t have much to do
with physical security. The number of terrorist incidents is way down, and despitethe looming threat from Iran, the
borders are quiet.
But Israelis do not feel secure. The memory of the horrific suicide bombings earlier in the decade is still sharp. And the
buzzword of this year, the great fear among Israelis, is the “delegitimization” of Israel. Some on the Israeli right — and
their supporters abroad — have cynically labeled every critic and every criticism of Israeli policy or actions, no matter
how valid the criticism or how loving the critic, as delegitimization. In the international reaction to the flotilla, to the
Goldstone Report and to the Gaza action, many Israelis see uncompromising hostility to the Jewish state itself, not to
its actions or policies.
Israel has real adversaries who deny its right to exist. But while it may be understandable, the indiscriminate rejection
of all criticism is creating the very zero-sum game that many Israelis fear. If Israelis believe that every gain for
Palestinians — whether in peace talks or in civil rights for Arab citizens inside Israel — is a loss for Jewish Israelis, there
will be no progress. If progressive organizations report on human-rights violations, the widening gap between rich and
poor and the ever-growing power of the ultra-Orthodox hierarchy, and the reaction of Israeli leadership is to shoot the
messenger, the message of a deteriorating democracy will not be lost on the international community. And if the forces
of ultra-nationalist reaction gain even more traction, the caricature of Israel drawn by its real enemies will, tragically,
come closer to reality.
But there is good news. Those who cherish the Israel envisioned by its founders are fighting back. The Israel Defense
Forces has changed its operational protocol to better protect civilian lives and infrastructure, and actually credited
human rights groups’ reports on the Gaza war for their information and observations. Attorney General Yehuda
Weinstein refused to “investigate” NIF and the human rights community, citing the duties of civil society in a
democracy. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin decried the divisiveness of pending anti-democratic legislation, and scores
of Israeli leaders defended academic freedom against extremist attacks.
Israel needs this kind of courage to confront both itself and its adversaries, because securing a vibrant and functioning
Israeli democracy is as critical for Israel’s future as is securing peace with its neighbors. The factions resisting a
settlement freeze and real progress toward peace are the same ones attempting to dismantle freedom of speech and
conscience, restrict minority rights and reverse equality for women. The more they intimidate and bamboozle their
countrymen with the canard that only they are the guardians of Zionism, the more likely it becomes that the Jewish-
1 of 2 9/1/2010 11:20 AM
15. Naomi Chazan: Owning Our Identity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-chazan/owning-our-identity_b_76...
October 14, 2010
This is the print preview: Back to normal view »
Naomi Chazan
Fmr. Deputy Speaker, Israeli Knesset; President, New Israel Fund
Posted: October 14, 2010 10:12 AM
As the future of the newest round of peace talks hangs in the balance, Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu has reiterated what seemed to some to be a logical demand. Recognize Israel as the
Jewish state, he said to the Palestinians, as a condition for extending the moratorium on settlement
expansion and thus keeping the Palestinians at the table. The notion that the legitimacy of Israel's
Jewish character somehow hinges on others' recognition has become a convenient and often used
political billy club for the Prime Minister. Just last week, he announced his support for what
amounts to a loyalty oath, an amendment to the Citizenship Act, which would require new Israeli
citizens to pledge loyalty to a "Jewish, democratic state." The proposal was passed by his cabinet
on Sunday.
The Prime Minister's demands, simple and straightforward as they may seem, are the long fuse
to a tinderbox of complex issues involving our identity as Israelis and as Jews, the nature of Israel's
democracy, and the rights of minorities not just in Israel but in an eventual Palestinian state.
Instituting a loyalty oath and demanding external recognition of a "Jewish state" is the next
dangerous step in allowing the ruling coalition of ultra-nationalists and ultra-Orthodox to define
who is Jewish, who is Israeli, and who is "loyal."
As a political scientist by training and as the president of the New Israel Fund, I am all too
aware that a word or phrase can touch off a new set of controversies on issues where many seem
willfully determined to misunderstand each other. Careful analysis and historical sensitivity, on the
other hand, can defuse seemingly intransigent demands and irreconcilable narratives, and provide
the insight we so badly need in order to go forward.
Let's start with that simple phrase, "the Jewish state." It is a phrase no longer used by most
progressive Israelis, and for good reason: Using "Jewish" as modifier for a state means defining
"Jewish" to at least the satisfaction of a majority of Jews. And as any Jew in Israel or abroad
knows, that's a centuries'-old conundrum.
1 of 3 10/14/2010 10:58 AM
16. Naomi Chazan: Owning Our Identity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-chazan/owning-our-identity_b_76...
Define Jews as a people -- which we are -- and you are immediately entangled in the extra-
national definition of people related by blood and heritage, across national boundaries. Is Israel the
state of American or Australian Jews, for example? Clearly not, although they have a continued
stake in its well-being. Define Jews as a religion -- which we are -- and you relinquish self-definition
to theocracy and, in Israel's case, to the harshest and most exclusionary ultra-Orthodox strictures
on who is a Jew. Define Jews as a nation and you have a tautology, whereby Israel is the national
expression of a nation - explaining and defining nothing.
Past the intricacies of Jewish self-definition is the problematic concept of a state that uses its
majority population as the defining element of its political system. Although Jewish
self-determination is the raison d'etre for Israel, in a democracy the state itself must be the neutral
arbiter of its people's interests. And in Israel, more than twenty percent of the population are not
Jewish; they are Palestinian Muslims and Christians, Bedouins, Armenians, Druze and others who,
often for centuries, have inhabited the land. Additionally, more than 300,000 immigrants from the
former Soviet Union are not considered legally Jewish by the state because of their exclusion by
the rabbinical establishment. The fact that Israel has no straightforward route to citizenship for
non-Jews and no viable immigration policy mirrors the contradictions and inequities of a "Jewish
state," in which the machinery of government is geared to the well-being primarily of the majority
population.
The internal contradictions of the identity of "the Jewish state" are, of course, rooted in its
tangled history. The land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river is the homeland for two
peoples, Jewish and Palestinian. The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 acknowledged that
reality, and is the legal foundation for Israel's existence and for the demand for Palestinian
statehood. Indeed, war, occupation and the wrongheaded policies of two sets of leaders for too
many years have prevented Israel's natural neighbor and geopolitical partner, Palestine, from
attaining its own national self-determination.
Peoples, in the universal language of human rights, deserve the right to self-determination, and
in most cases insist on sovereign control over their own destiny. In Israel and in what will someday
be the independent state of Palestine, the correct description for these democracies should be the
sovereign expression of the right of self-determination of the Jewish -- or Palestinian -- people. This
definition diminishes the danger inherent in an ethnocentric definition of the state, and mandates
an Israel that is responsible for the equality of all its citizens, as promised by its Declaration of
Independence.
A sovereign expression of the right of self-determination is also the description that is consistent
with a multicultural and diverse democracy, which is the real nature of Israeli society. Within that
framework is the possibility -- and I would argue the necessity -- of recognizing the collective rights
of national minorities. An Israel with a substantial indigenous minority can and should acknowledge
the freedom of its Palestinian citizens to determine their education, culture and other aspects of
their communal life. In a parallel manner, a Palestinian state could and should reserve collective
rights and protections for a Jewish minority, if some of the settlers now living on the West Bank
choose to remain in what will become an independent Palestine. These reciprocal sets of rights
and responsibilities can provide self-determination for two peoples within geographically
segmented homelands, while mutually guaranteeing the rights of each other's minority cohort.
But there are other requirements as well. Most Israelis, and I am one, accept that a negotiated
version of the 1967 borders should represent the boundary between Israel and Palestine. But that
does not absolve us of the responsibility to confront an earlier outcome -- that of 1948. This does
not mean questioning the legitimacy of Israel, as some on the right fear. It simply means
acknowledging that our independence came at the price of what Palestinians call the nakba
(catastrophe). Understanding two narratives, even when they appear to be mutually exclusive,
2 of 3 10/14/2010 10:58 AM
17. Naomi Chazan: Owning Our Identity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-chazan/owning-our-identity_b_76...
means that the victors acknowledge some responsibility for the refugee issue that has been a
major impediment to peace for many years.
Seventeen years ago, the PLO acknowledged Israel's right to exist in peace and security,
without even exacting Israel's recognition of its natural concomitant, a Palestinian state. Now, Prime
Minister Netanyahu asks Palestinians, as well as all those who would become Israeli, to recognize
a Jewish state as if that would somehow confer legitimacy or provide an answer to the conflict,
ignoring the complexities that make such recognition both useless and impossible. Even if the
Palestinian Authority were willing to make this absurd concession, it has no right to deny the rights
of Israel's Palestinian and other non-Jewish citizens, and it has no responsibility to define what
Israel is.
That responsibility belongs to us, to Israelis. We must bring the right of self-determination of
Jews to a balancing point with Israel's absolute obligation to remain an open, egalitarian and just
democracy. Asking others to define us by our Jewishness will not make us more Jewish or more
secure. It will not give us more legitimacy. Only we can decide who we are as a people. Only we
can determine the nature of our multicultural and diverse society. Only we can mold our state, and
our democracy.
Naomi Chazan is the former Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, and currently the Dean of the
School of Government and Society at the Academic College of Tel-Aviv-Yaffo and the President of
the New Israel Fund.
3 of 3 10/14/2010 10:58 AM
18. Don't Divest; Invest
x Email
x Print
x Share
By Naomi Paiss
Editor’s Note: This article was written for Zeek in response to an essay by Jewish Voice for
Peace advocating that Jews join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. The two
essays appeared on Zeek’s website simultaneously, and benefit from being read together. Please
comment on either piece, keeping in mind Zeek’s comment policy: all comments should address
ideas in the articles. Comments that feature ad hominem attacks, or that use racist, sexist,
homophobic, or language that attacks a religion or people qua religion or people (i.e. anti-
Semitic, anti-Christian or anti-Islamic language), will be deleted at the editor’s discretion.
Since 1979, the New Israel Fund has dedicated itself to a vision of Israel that lives up to its
founders’ vision, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, of a Jewish homeland and a
shared society that is at peace with itself and its neighbors. Now, the New Israel Fund is the
leading organization committed to equality and democracy for all Israelis. NIF strengthens
organizations and leaders that work to achieve equality for all the citizens of the state; realize the
civil and human rights of all, including Palestinian citizens of Israel; recognize and reinforce the
essential pluralism of Israeli society; and empower groups on the economic margins of Israeli
society.
We are not a “peace” group and are not directly involved with negotiations. We don’t lobby the
American government and we don’t opine on eventual borders or other final status issues. We
do, however, oppose the occupation and the post-1967 settlement enterprise. We only support
organizations registered with the Israeli government as non-profits in the state of Israel, and that
includes Israeli organizations working for human and civil rights on both sides of the Green
Line.
At a time when the atmosphere in Israel is rapidly polarizing, it can be challenging to be pro-
Israel, pro-peace and pro-democracy. The international anti-Israel forces on both the hard left
and right are doing their best to make that characterization an oxymoron. But we are not going to
relinquish the character of Israel to the extremists. We will not condemn Israel for its lifelong
struggle for legitimacy and security in a neighborhood that often denies it both. Nor will we give
up on the objective of a two-state solution – the solution we believe is the only viable answer to
the need for two homelands for two peoples.
1
19. Facts on the Ground
Those who only see Israel through the lens of the conflict are missing too much about a vibrant,
argumentative and intensely emotional society, one in which civil society organizations – the
organizations NIF seed-funded or founded - are playing a key role in preserving and expanding
progressive values.
Having survived direct, vicious and dishonest attacks for much of the past year, NIF well
understands the serious challenges to Israel’s democratic character. The recent Cabinet passage
of the “loyalty oath” is only the latest in a series of outrageous attempts by ultra-nationalists to
stifle dissent and ensure that Israel’s Palestinian minority is permanently relegated to second-
class citizenship. Our family of organizations has been falsely attacked for complicity with the
Goldstone report, assailed for our support of civil rights and freedom of conscience for the
Palestinian community, and even labeled treasonous for our support of an increase in royalty
payments to the government for new natural gas discoveries. Even the Likud Finance Minister
supports that last one!
In such an atmosphere, it would be easy to give up on Israel’s ability to reform itself from within
and re-assert the values of liberal democracy. But we are not giving up, and that is precisely why
we object to the tactics of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
The BDS Message
Those who assert that boycotts, divestment and sanctions are the only remaining route towards
influencing a recalcitrant Israeli government misunderstand much about the effect of these
tactics. For some time now, some Israeli leaders have described any criticism of Israeli
government policy as part of a plot to “delegitimize” Israel. Obviously, we couldn’t disagree
more, and we think healthy debate over every aspect of Israel’s society, and the existence of a
free and vocal civil society, does more to legitimize Israel than any amount of cynical hasbara
can accomplish.
But it’s important to understand what lies behind that ‘delegitimizing’ message. Many if not
most Israelis favor a two-state solution and a withdrawal to some negotiated version of the 1967
lines. Most oppose the settlement enterprise. But most also feel besieged and singled out by
those outside Israel who hold it to a standard not applied to truly authoritarian and repressive
regimes, from Russia to China to Sudan. From the equation of Zionism with racism more than
forty years ago, to the current contortions of some international institutions that single out Israel
for pariah status, many Israelis see uncompromising hostility to the entire endeavor of a Jewish
homeland, not only to its actions or policies.
We see global BDS as a tactic that embodies the message that Israel cannot and will not change
itself, and for that reason, we think it is inflammatory and counter-productive. We see proposals
that would ban Israeli academics, no matter what their personal and political views may be, from
participation in the free exchange of ideas in international conferences. We see artists and
musicians, who often come bearing badly-needed messages of peace and tolerance, being urged
2
20. to take Israel off their tour itineraries. We see a message that says that Israel is beyond hope of
redemption, that it must be held behind a cordon sanitaire of contempt and disengagement.
And we disagree. The way to change Israel is not to divest, but to invest in Israelis and
Palestinians who are struggling every day to change the status quo. From J Street and Americans
for Peace Now in the U.S., to NIF and the hundreds of organizations we fund in Israel, to new
NGOs working to build civil society in the occupied territories, there are hundreds of
organizations and thousands of people who deserve financial support and a megaphone for their
ideas and causes.
For example, NIF supports a successful weaving micro-enterprise for Bedouin women in the
Negev. We seed-funded a program that allows underprivileged immigrant women to turn their
cooking talents into catering businesses. After the Second Lebanon War, we funded an artists’
co-operative in the North - in a former kibbutz chicken house! – to better publicize their work
and products. Our action arm SHATIL is working with an innovative program to train
underemployed Palestinian Israelis for work in the high-tech sector. These are just a few
programs that provide support for tangible products and employment by Israelis who desperately
need economic empowerment – the list of organizations successfully engendering social change
in every sector is diverse and long.
Anyone who is truly interested in a peaceful, multicultural and just Israel should realize that
global BDS condemns these Israelis, and millions like them, to isolation and vilification. In a
small and interconnected society like Israel, the blunt force of global BDS penalizes the innocent
along with the guilty, pushes moderates towards right-wing nationalism, and spurs rejection of
progressive and humanist values.
And the key issue here is this: Israel has a history of self-correction. The reaction to the Sabra
and Shatila massacres, the eventual support even on the center-right for a Palestinian state, the
many High Court decisions expanding rights for Arabs, women, the LGBT community and other
marginalized Israelis – these are not the mark of a society that does not question itself or evolve.
Israel is not an ‘apartheid state’; that is a historically inaccurate and inflammatory term that
serves only to demonize Israel and alienate a majority of Jews around the world, including those
who care deeply about issues of democracy, human rights, social justice and peace. Israel is not
South Africa; it is a country where thousands upon thousands of activists are busy with actions
aimed at making their lives - and those of their fellow citizens - better. They have not capitulated
to despair and to the abandonment of the goal of a just and egalitarian society. They will not
forgive us if we do.
The Exception to the Rule
As is our way, we look for a more nuanced approach to the BDS issue.
It is clear to us that products and services that come from the settlements are in a different
category. It is also clear that Israelis who boycott the settlements, as did the artists who refused
to perform in Ariel, are expressing their heartfelt opposition to Israel’s most misguided and
damaging policy. As Israelis and Palestinians begin to organize themselves into non-violent
3
21. protest of the settlements, including holding those settlements economically accountable, it is
critically important to find ways to support those efforts productively and pro-actively.
The settlements are not in Israel. They represent not “just” a blot on Israel as a just and decent
nation, and a terrible danger to its survival, but also the waste of billions of shekels for security,
expensive bypass roads, government-subsidized construction and mortgages, and more. Those
are shekels that could be used to build a more prosperous and socially just Israel. Refusing
products and services made in the settlements, and opposing government expenditures there, is
well within the rights of every organization and individual who intends to influence the Israeli
government to finally abandon the quixotic and immoral settlement enterprise.
Not a Dead Armadillo
Recently, an NIF board member was invited to speak at a panel in a community whose food co-
op was considering a boycott of all Israeli products. Literally positioned between Stand With Us
and Code Pink, she described our work and the alternatives to global BDS offered by the New
Israel Fund and other pro-Israel, progressive organizations. At the end of the night, she was
literally embraced by several audience members, who were urgently looking for ways to live
their progressive values without shunning Israel as a pariah state, beyond redemption.
A Texas populist once said the only things found in the middle of the road were yellow stripes
and dead armadillos. Nope. Where Israel is concerned, there are too many on both the left and
right whose intransigent insistence on a narrow and self-righteous narrative is hampering efforts
to build a better and more open society. We at the New Israel Fund will continue to look for
positive solutions to desperately difficult issues. We’ll continue to debate our friends and
adversaries on these complicated issues, and listen to other points of view. And we’ll continue to
ensure that there are means for engagement with Israel that really contribute to the long and
arduous search for equality, justice and peace.
Naomi Paiss is the Director of Communications of the New Israel Fund.
4
22. Op-Ed: Fire’s devastation can lead to positive change | Israel's Carmel Fire... http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/print/op-ed_fires_devastation_can...
December 7, 2010
Fire's devastation can lead to positive change
BY RACHEL LIEL AND DANIEL SOKATCH
http://www.jewishjournal.com/ israels_carmel_fire/article
/op-ed_fires_devastation_can_lead_to_positive_change_20101207/
Op-Ed: Fire’s devastation can lead to positive change
By Rachel Liel and Daniel Sokatch
SAN FRANCISCO (JTA)—It is hard to explain just how devastated Israelis are by the Carmel fire. But it is easier to explain
how that devastation can become a positive force for positive change, right now, in Israel.
The fire consumed at least 42 lives, thousands of forested acres and millions of shekels in property. With the assistance of
a dozen foreign nations, the beleaguered firefighters finally got the resources they needed to battle a blaze that consumed
more than its obvious victims. What may have perished in the fire is Israel’s sense of self-reliance, and the confidence of
ordinary people that they can rely on their government and society to meet their needs.
Just as the Second Lebanon War provoked questions about Israel’s readiness to withstand a bombing campaign, the
Carmel fire illuminates issues that have been too readily subsumed in the endless attention to the conflict. We at the New
Israel Fund are painfully aware that Israel is often seen two-dimensionally, even by its own government. It is of course a
priority for Israel to pursue peace and security, but an exclusive focus on these issues skews attention and resources away
from an equally critical task.
We, the organization that founded and funded Israel’s civil society and that works every day on intractable social issues,
know what that task is. It is building a society founded on equity and social justice, where every person has the
opportunity to live a decent life, and building the infrastructure and the institutions that provide this opportunity to all. It
is security, yes, but in a sense that extends far beyond fighter planes and a separation fence. What Israel discovered last
week is that while it prides itself on its strength, it is in some ways far, far too weak.
There wasn’t the proper equipment for fighting fires, and the supply of fire-retardant chemicals was exhausted even
before the Carmel ignited. Just a few weeks ago, when the 40-story Shalom Tower in Tel Aviv was burning, it turned out
that the Tel Aviv Fire Department does not have a hook-and-ladder truck that extends beyond 10 stories. Israel sits on an
earthquake fault and has done little to plan for that eventuality, while in a drought-stricken region water and development
policies are enmeshed in money interests and politics, not in sustainable growth.
For too long, under successive governments, Israeli society has polarized between the center and the periphery, the Jews
and the Arabs, the religious and the secular, the haves and the have-nots. The current government, paying attention to
the demands of its political coalition, is channeling even more money into stipends for non-working yeshiva students and
radical settler incursions into Palestinian neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem. But every government has been held
hostage to the demands of specific constituencies, the inequalities persist, and now poverty in Israel is more widespread
than in any of the 30 European Union nations. Income inequality in Israel is second only to the United States among
developed nations, and Israeli schools, public lands and infrastructure are deteriorating quickly.
This situation can and must change. The Carmel fire may have been Israel’s Katrina, but we and many people like us will
insist on a faster recovery than New Orleans experienced. We know the real strength of Israel is not only in its military but
in its people—the thousands of ordinary people we work with every day.
The day the fire started, grass-roots organizations of the North began mobilizing. A day after it ended, our Haifa office was
already gearing up with our grantees and partners for the huge tasks of long-term recovery. We will work to ensure that
there is compensation for the victims and the homeless, and that it is distributed fairly. Environmental groups are too
infrequently consulted in Israel; we will make sure they are at the table when the future of the Carmel Forest is
considered.
The fire re-ignited anti-Arab invective in some segments of society; our longstanding leadership of Arab and Jewish
groups in the North will substantiate efforts to eradicate racism and build a truly shared society.
Israel’s beautiful Carmel Forest is burnt and black. Its people’s faith in their government is shaken. But Israel does have a
civil society, which means that there is a force that enables ordinary people to change their circumstances, even if they
are not wealthy or politically connected. Civil society empowers and ennobles and, yes, sometimes enrages the powers-
that-be.
1 of 2 12/8/2010 9:59 AM
24. C O U N T E R I N G R E S I S TA N C E
NEW ISRAEL FUND attacks on NIF for what they were, not being shy in
asking our friends to speak out for us, and doing the
A liberal funder analysis necessary to understand the charges levelled
at us and the way our own words and actions had been
misrepresented. It also meant working closely with our
under attack Daniel Sokatch
and Rachel Liel
Last winter, a so-called Israeli ‘student group’ launched an attack
more controversial grantees to present a united front
that still allowed institutional autonomy for all of us.
Finally, it meant accelerating a process already un-
on the New Israel Fund (NIF). Despite NIF’s 32-year track record der way, of better defining NIF and our goals. NIF has
of building and sustaining progressive civil society, we found long been a ‘big tent’ – the first funder of civil soci-
ourselves in the fight of our lives to protect our organization, in ety groups representing women and gays, Russians
Israel and worldwide. and Ethiopians, single mothers and the disabled, and
Israel’s most marginalized minority, its Palestinian
The attack was triggered by NIF’s human rights grant- citizens. But we are associated with the left. Our val-
ees providing eyewitness accounts of Israeli Defence ues are progressive. We are not a neutral funder, and
Force (IDF) misbehaviour during the 2009 Gaza war we have specific positions, including opposing the
to the investigating UN commission, some of which occupation and the settlement enterprise.
found their way into the controversial Goldstone As we are the leading organization advancing Israeli
report. The ‘student group’ produced a well-funded democracy, our self-examination needed to exemplify
report attacking us for disloyalty. Their report was the kind of society we ourselves would like to see in
eventually debunked, but other groups associated Israel. We started a process of dialogue that included
with the hard right continued the assault. They at- our staff, board, friends, grantees and clients, and even
tempted to associate NIF with global BDS (boycott, some of our critics. We clarified and codified principles
sanctions and divestment), universal jurisdiction cas- that we believe characterize our values and work, but
es against Israeli officials, and rejection of the Jewish which in a highly charged atmosphere involved care-
character of Israel. The accusations were dishonest: we ful thinking through intent and language. We applied
Daniel Sokatch is
the CEO of NIF and
oppose all of these positions. But, at a time when the those principles to the creation of more specific fund-
Rachel Liel is its Israeli public is highly sensitive to what is termed the ing guidelines, institutionalized a policy mechanism,
Executive Director in
Israel. Email info@
‘de-legitimization’ of Israel, they were still damaging. and more clearly defined NIF to our stakeholders and
nif.org
Almost immediately, the many supporters of NIF to the public at large.
worldwide recognized these attacks as part of a cal- The outcome of the attacks on NIF, and on progressive
culated assault on the principles of Israeli democracy.civil society in Israel, is still in doubt. On the posi-
(More than a dozen bills have now been introduced in tive side, the Attorney General of Israel has found no
the Knesset, threatening to defund, penalize or even grounds to investigate NIF. The IDF has changed the
criminalize civil society or otherwise restrict demo- way it operates, crediting the reports of human rights
cratic freedoms.) We were symbolic of everything that groups for information it needed to improve itself.
Chanukah outrages the ultra-nationalist Israeli right. When our ‘student group’ attackers went after academ-
candle-lighting
event at the With our entire Israeli board and staff leadership in ic freedom at a leading Israeli university, hundreds of
Western Wall
protesting gender
New York for our winter board meeting, our initial Israeli leaders and academics protested and the group
segregation. response was, to put it plainly, improvised. Our in- lost its largest source of funding.
vestment in communications and marketing, both in We are continuing to expand our advocacy efforts,
Israel and in the US, Canada and the UK, has always understanding that it is now as important a line of
been small. But our senior staff, our board leadership work for NIF as grantmaking or capacity-building.
and we ourselves had many years’ experience of ad- Thousands of new supporters have joined us in Israel
vocacy and we learned, under fire, to become better and worldwide. Our notoriety has made us a better,
advocates for ourselves. That meant reaffirming our stronger and more visible organization. Certainly not
commitment to our values, to our mission and to the what our attackers planned.
conviction that what we do is valuable and necessary.
But we’ll take it.
In practical terms, it meant creating a crisis commu-
nications team in both Israel and the US, exposing the For more information www.nif.org
Alliance Volume 15 Number 4 December 2010 www.alliancemagazine.org
