Soon after the creation of the state, Rav Soloveitchik wrote an essay called Kol Dodi Dofek.  The title means “The voice of my lover knocks”.  The Rav is referring to the beloved of Shir HaShirim, the Song of Songs.  The beloved is lying alone in bed and the lover knocks on the door, waking her up.  The Rav wants us to understand that history is knocking at the door and that we are in the presence of miracles.  Anyone who fails to see the miracle of the restoration of the Jewish people in the land is in danger of missing out on the encounter between the two lovers.

But there’s responsibility and danger too:  living in the Land is more complicated than living in exile, just as living in a couple is more complicated than living alone.  It’s not a coincidence that the masechet of Kiddushin, which deals with marriage, draws perpetual parallels between marital relationships and the relationship between Israel and the Land.

Tzaarat would infect the walls of houses (Shown: mildew).

For example, the ‘tzara’at’ of the house, a mysterious infection described in the parasha of Metzora, only occurs within the Land of Israel.  Apparently the Land of Israel has a special quality and demands special behavior.  Furthermore, the tzaraat only occurs on a house that an individual owns.  Communal property is immune.  The Torah does not explain why but the Gemara in Yoma (11b) suggests a possible reason: it gives the example of an owner who has refused to lend out vessels or objects that he owns when he’s asked.  He won’t share his possessions.  For this he is punished:  first by having to take his possessions out of his house and put them in the street; then by demolishing part of his house; eventually, by demolishing the whole of his house.  Implicitly the Torah is telling us that ownership, if carried too far, especially in the land of Israel, destroys itself.  Just as in a marriage, if we hold onto ownership too tightly then we lose it.

We see the same idea in the halachot of shmita, the seventh year.  Shmita, like the tzar’at of the house, is another mitzvah that only applies in the land of Israel.  Many of us think of shmita as to do with not eating.  We don’t eat fruit from Israel in the 7^th year.  But this is wrong.  Shmita is not about eating: if we wander into an orchard and pick, we may eat as much as we like in the 7^th year.  The prohibition is on buying, selling and owning.  We may not trade 7^th year produce; we are forbidden to own it; if we own land in Israel, we are forbidden to exercise our rights as the owner and to prevent others from walking in and eating.  The land is communal property, not personal property, in the seventh year.  And the Torah is clear about the fact that if we break this law, if we pretend to ourselves that we really own the land, then we lose it and go into exile.

I feel intense awareness of this complexity, this danger, because of the history of my own family.  My grandfather was someone who heard the knock on the door.  He gave his life’s work to build the state.  To this day, if you study Aristotle or Plato or John Locke or any of the other classic philosophers at the Hebrew University, then you’ll use a Hebrew translation of the classic texts that was made by him or by his students.  I learned this year that he not only translated the classics but also paid for their publication:  the university press had no money.  In other words, he created intellectual property and then made his property available to the community, just like the farmer in the 7^th year.

But then my father, as a soldier in the Hagana in 1948, was among those who encouraged local villagers to leave their homes, putting them on buses and sending them away to Jordan.  Who pushed the boundary of ownership too far.  So I grew up with two stories – the miracle of the return to the Land and also the danger, the responsibility, the price of taking ownership too far.

Most of us have trouble holding onto two ideas at the same time.  We deal with conflict by suppressing our sympathy with one side or another.  So those who feel the tragedy of the villagers driving away on the buses often deny the Jewish attachment to the land.  And those who celebrate the joy of the return often deny or minimise the tragedy of the other side.

Feeling sympathy with conflicting stories is hard.  But perhaps the right thing to do, rather than suppressing one or suppressing the other, is to try to deal with them together.  In order to suggest how we might do this, I turn to Rav Avraham Yitzhak Kook, the first chief rabbi of mandatory Palestine, before the establishment of the state.

Rav Kook

Rav Kook was famous for not cutting himself off from those who disagreed with him.  More than that, he celebrated opposites: opposite opinions, divergent opinions, conflicting opinions.  For Rav Kook, the opposites formed important parts of a larger truth.  Let me give an example from his book Orot HaRe’aya, which comments on the famous gemara in Eruvin about Beyt Shammai and Bey Hillel.  They argued for three years until a voice from heaven announced, “These and these are the words of the living God, but the halacha is according the Beyt Hillel.”  This gemara is hard to understand.  If the two opinions contradict, how can “these and these both be the words of the living God”.  Doesn’t God know who is right?

But Rav Kook reads the gemara with the emphasis on the “and”.  These and these.  Both opinions are required in order to complete the “words of the living God”.  Peace comes from integration of the opposites, from recognising that each opinion has its place and value, not from compromise between them.  Peace comes from holding onto both opinions in their fullness.

Rav Kook expresses this most beautifully in his famous poem, ‘Shir Meruba’ .  ‘Shir Meruba’ means four-sided song, or square song, or perhaps four-fold song.  The title is almost impossible to translate into poetic English but it refers, clearly, to multiple facets, multiple angles.  And, in ‘Shir Meruba’, he speaks of the relationship between the love that we feel for our ourselves, and for our own people and the love that we feel for the others in the world.   The relation, we might say, between nationalism and universalism.  Between Pesach and Sukkot.  Between Rabbi Akiva, who says “ v’ahavta l’reecha camocha” – “you shall love your neighbour” and Ben Azai, who says “zeh sefer toldot ha’adam” . . . . “all mankind is created equal”.

Let me read you his poem.  I am translating, and shortening too.

There is one who sings the song of his own soul, and in himself he finds everything . . . . .

There is another who sings the song of the nation.  He leaves the circle of his own self, because he finds it without breadth, without ideals. He aspires toward the heights, and he attaches himself with a gentle love to the whole community of Israel.  Together with her he sings her songs.  He feels sorrow in her sorrows and he delights in her hopes.  He contemplates noble and pure thoughts about her past and her future; he probes with love and wisdom her inner spirit.

Then there is another, whose soul extends beyond the bounds of Israel to sing the song of mankind.  His spirit extends over the broad vistas of the majesty of man.  He aspires to man’s perfection and, from this source of life, he draws the subjects of his meditation and study, his aspirations and his visions.

Then there is one who rises towards still wider horizons, until he links himself with all creation, with all God’s creatures, with all the worlds, and he sings his song with all of them.  By tradition, whoever sings a portion of this song every day is assured of a share in the world to come.

And then there is one who brings all these songs into one harmony, so that they all give voice together. Together they sing their songs with beauty; each lends vitality and life to the other.  They make sounds of joy and gladness – kol sasson v’kol simchah – sounds of jubilation and celebration, sounds of ecstasy and holiness.

In this person, the song of the self, the song of the nation, the song of mankind, the song of creation, the four songs, all merge together, at all times, in every hour.

And this complete, perfect whole rises up to become the song of holiness, the song of God, the song of Israel, in its full strength and beauty, in its full authenticity and greatness.  The name “Israel” is an anagram of “Shir El”, the song of God.  It is a single song, a twofold song, a threefold song and a fourfold song.  It is the Song of Songs of Solomon, Shlomo, whose name means peace or wholeness.  It is the song of the King to whom all peace belongs . . . .

What is Rav Kook saying?  He is suggesting that we aren’t commanded to compromise, nor to walk half-way, between ownership and generosity, between nationalism and universalism, between the song of the nation and the song of the world. Instead, we’re commanded to choose both, to feel both sides, to live to both ideals together.

We’re commanded to sing both songs.  In fact, to sing all four songs.  That, according to Rav Kook, is the special song of Israel, our unique quality. The capacity to sing a song that combines all four together: concern for the self, love for the nation, concern for mankind and for the whole world.  To combine them into one supreme song in which all the voices are heard together.

If this was an important message in the time of Rav Kook, how much more so today.

Benedict Roth is an occasional Talmud student and popular teacher who has studied at Oxford and at Machon Pardes.

David Lehmann reviews the recently released award-winning film “The Gatekeepers”

By the time ‘The Gatekeepers’ (Dror Moreh, 2012) reaches London it will already have been seen in Israel, for months, and in the US, where its Director was nominated for the best documentary feature at the Oscars. It has also of course created much fuss. That means that a reviewer has to stand on the shoulders, or in the shadow, of many reviews which have preceded it. The reviews have mostly just expressed their astonishment at the frankness of former heads of Israel’s intelligence and security apparatus who, with Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of Mossad, have become the psychological leaders of Israel’s opposition. 

The film consists of material from lengthy interviews with six former heads of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security apparatus mainly charged with preventing terrorist attacks. That in itself is remarkable in a country where security is exceeded only by falafel in the hierarchy of obsessions. More remarkable still is the extent to which the interviews give solace to what is broadly called ‘the left’ in Israel – ‘left’ denoting a vast range of attitudes which are more or less in favour of the ‘two-state solution’ and peace negotiations with Palestinian representatives. (Even George W. Bush would count.) One after another the interviewees say that their experience as heads of what they readily admit is a ruthless and cold-blooded organization leads them to believe that ‘it cannot go on like this’, that ‘one must speak to everyone’ and – in two cases at least – that the Occupation and the settlement movement are eroding, or have already irreversibly damaged, Israel’s democratic ethos. Ami Ayalon (head of Shin Bet 1996-2000), not only wore the most ‘lived-in’, the craggiest and most pained long-suffering expression – he also was the most biting, while right at the end Yuval Diskin said he agreed with Israel’s modern Jeremiah, Yeshayahu Leibowitz,who wrote already in 1968 of the ‘curse of dominating another people’ which would turn Israel into a police state, “with all that this implies for education, freedom of speech and thought, and democracy’. Leibowitz  is also known for having used the terrible N-word to describe where Israel was heading (and I do not mean ‘nuclear’).

It has been remarked, hopefully, that the film is good for Israel because it shows that the country permits open debate – more open in fact than takes place in the USA on the subject of Israel. Some of the things said by these men would be regarded as totally unacceptable on the floor of the US Congress, for example, leading to ostracism, boycott and – heaven forfend! – a black mark from AIPAC, not to speak of our own Zionist Federation. Israel’s Minister of Culture, Limor Livnat, stayed away from the events surrounding the Oscar which featured the film and its Director, and said that although she is against censorship she would like Israeli filmmakers to practice self-censorship. Bibi Netanyhau said he has no intention of seeing the film, though surely that just means that for him once was enough.

The question for conspiracy theorists is why the Israeli authorities allowed it to be made and shown. There is no question that the Israeli government censor would have been able to censor or even prohibit it, or that these men would not have participated in it without some sort of green light – but although it contains many uncomfortable opinions, it does not reveal any sensitive information. Maybe a bright spark thought indeed that the film would do Israel’s reputation good and encouraged it – and the many sponsors do include the ‘Yehoshua Rabinovich Foundation’s Cinema Project’ which is ‘independently funded and supported by the Cultural Administration at the Israeli Ministry of Culture and Sport, and the Israeli Council for Cinema’. I think that if that bright spark exists, she was right, but I also hope that it is more than a public relations stunt.

One question which the film wants the rest of us to ask, of course, is why don’t the politicians stop kicking the (dynamite-filled) can down the road and stop their country’s slow but sure transformation into a state of which all Jews, indeed all people, should be ashamed (labels and epithets suppressed)? Another is how can these people speak in cold blood of their own part in torture and at the same time say that negotiation and peace are absolutely essential – and I do not doubt their sincerity. How can they present themselves as absolutely rational individuals who have ordered killings and assassinations, but also as individuals with a conscience (the word ‘ethical’ pops up a lot) whose job just happens to be the prevention of terrorism or rather, the interruption or disruption of real or suspected terrorist plots? Their complaint, indeed their evident anger, is a reaction to the politicians who leave them carrying this other can (or, better, poisoned chalice). The poison is in the pseudo-technical language used to describe counter-terrorism, as if it was a surgical activity and of course as if targeting individuals is a replacement for politics. At one point Ami Ayalon quotes Clausewitz, the early 19th century theorist of war whom every strategic guru has to quote, saying that ‘Clausewitz , who was very intelligent, though he was not Jewish – or at least no one has yet claimed him as Jewish – said that war ends up by creating a new political reality’ – but it is still a political reality, not a desert, or a sea or a bubble or a theatre. But this war is going nowhere politically.

The palpable resentment of these cerebral killers is understandable. So long as they can keep the terrorists at bay the political class does not have to lay out, let alone make, any choices about the country’s relationship with Arabs, with Palestinians, with Europe, and of course, perhaps above all, with itself. The longstanding jargon refers sloppily to ‘difficult and painful choices and sacrifices’ but rarely spells them out. Which is not surprising because the lightly pronounced phrase ‘dismantle the settlements’ could mean, at the extreme, expelling 350,000 people from their homes. Why? Because the settler movement has been allowed, again in the words of one of these men, to dictate the politics of the country, irrespective of the party in power. Carmi Gillon (1994-96) recalls the plot to blow up the Dome of the Rock – a plot which was more advanced and had better prospects of achieving its goal than most would like to think: the culprits were imprisoned, but later released after an overwhelming Knesset vote. (A friend reminds me that this was in the context of the release of a large number of Palestinians in one of those prisoner exchanges which happen from time to time.) Had it succeeded, every Muslim country in the world from Morocco to Indonesia would have gone to war against Israel.

The interface, or grey area, between bureaucracy and politics is a recurrent theme. You may not recall an attack on a house in Gaza which almost killed the entire Hamas leadership. Well, the then head of Shin Bet Avi Dichter tells that he had gone to Sharon and said that they would be meeting in a two-storey house: with a ten-ton bomb he could kill them all – and this was an absolutely exceptional opportunity because they always avoided being together in the same place. But a ten-ton bomb risked causing a lot of collateral damage while a five ton bomb would only succeed in the objective if they met on the upper floor. After much haggling Sharon said ‘OK – a five ton bomb’: but the meeting was on the lower floor and they all ran out of the house very fast when it was hit – it was said even Sheikh Yassin was seen running. But the underlying question, which Dichter does not mention explicitly, surely is: would the assassination of the entire Hamas leadership have improved Israel’s long-term security – let alone the chances of peace?

One terrible incident was the case of Bus 300. This bus was hi-jacked in 1990 and the hi-jackers were photographed being taken away in handcuffs. Shortly afterwards they were killed. According to The Gatekeepers website Avi Shalom, who had been part of the team who kidnapped Eichmann in 1960, authorized the killing and received the ex post backing of then Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir and of Shimon Peres. The interview itself did not seem so clear on that point, but it was a shocking event which eventually led to Shalom’s resignation.

Again and again we return to the core message: the undoubted efficacy of Shin Bet in executing its narrowly defined task has enabled the settler movement to gain ascendancy over political decision-making, while the political class, out of fear or shame, do not say what they really think – if indeed they know what they think. Only those who take a delight in provoking everyone else, and the whole of Europe as well, say what they think. The bureaucracy is left to do the dirty work, thus bolstering the settler movement and the anti-peace camp by default. And this is their resentment: that in the end they are playing a political role within the country, whether they like it or not.

But Dan Ephron, in his review in the Daily Beast alluded to another, sobering, view,that ’the film is somehow the parting shot of an old secular elite in Israel, which is steadily being supplanted by another group, this one more religious and less prone to compromise. (The current Shin Bet head is religious.)’

So, although fans of Yachad might want to take heart from the film, they might also ask themselves if it could not have been called “Yesterday’s Men”.

“The Gatekeepers” is currently showing in cinemas across London.

Yaakov Peri, former head of the Shin Bet from Yachad on Vimeo.

Hannah Weisfeld on the future of pro-Israel from Yachad on Vimeo.

His visit, just weeks after the Israeli election, presents an historic opportunity for the international community to put the peace-process right at the top of the agenda.

In the spirit of this, we have put together a special edition of our blog from supporters of Yachad discussing their thoughts on Barack Obama’s visit and Israel-Palestine issues. In this edition:

Samuel Lebens – On settlements, Obama has to pick his battles with more foresight

Aaron Cohen-Gold – The settlements have not created peace and they have not created security for Israel.

Hayden Cohen – “This is Apartheid”: the reality is NOT that simple

Jessica Weiss - Israel hasn’t fulfilled its founding charter

David Ranan – Pressure on Israel – A Zionist Act?

Sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to tell President Obama the views of British Jews on Israel and our support for a negotiated peace. You can tweet using the hashtag #obamatoisrael.

We have produced an infographic combining statistics about the opinions of British Jewry and Israel, and supportive quotes from prominent Israeli politicians and security figures.

Sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to tell President Obama the views of British Jews on Israel and our support for a negotiated peace.

At the beginning of Barack Obama’s first term of office, he made the Middle East a key foreign policy priority. He was determined to play the long-sought after role of the even handed arbiter between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In order to redress the concern that America was somehow in Israel’s back-pocket, he was willing to come down hard, and publicly, on Israeli settlement expansion. Four years have gone by, and now, Obama is about to make his first presidential visit to the State of Israel. Things seem to have changed. No longer hoping to set any regional agendas, Obama says that he is coming, merely ‘to listen.’ For the Israeli peace-camp, this new presidential mood doesn’t bode well.

In seeking to become an impartial arbiter, in his first four years, Obama chose all the wrong battles with Israel. It’s true that Israel was (and is) expanding the settlement of Gilo. But Gilo, in Southern Jerusalem, has two qualities that Obama should have thought about before coming down so hard on Netanyahu. First of all, Gilo (even as it extends) lies well within the parameters of the ‘mutually agreed land-swaps’ that are likely to occur as part of any tenable agreement. Secondly, Gilo isn’t considered a settlement by most of Israel’s population, including the Israeli peace camp. It is, in the Israeli consciousness, not a settlement, but a Jewish suburb of Jerusalem. The first point means that Obama’s staying quiet about Gilo wouldn’t have posed a danger for the prospects of a meaningful peace. The second point means that by raising his voice, Obama was going to alienate not just the Israeli right-wing, who were never going to like him anyway; but, he also stood to alienate the Israeli peace camp, who Obama needs on his side. ‘What?’ I heard voices ask at the time, ‘Obama wants us to give back Gilo? Not even the Palestinians demand us to give back Gilo.’ Eventually, Obama quieted down over Gilo; the construction went ahead. And, in the eyes of the Arab world, he must have looked more cowardly than he had done before he raised the issue at all.

The problems continued when Obama raised public concern with the settlement expansion of Ramat Shlomo. The Israeli announcement of this expansion seemed calculated to embarrass the Americans, as Joe Biden was in the country at the time. But, again, was this the right battle to choose? Ramat Shlomo is a Jewish suburb of Jerusalem that is highly likely to stay in Israeli hands. Its planned expansion doesn’t cut further into Palestinian territory but rather looks to fill in the gap between Ramat Shlomo and Israel proper. Ramat Shlomo is near the bottom of the list in terms of being a provocative settlement. Again, Obama raised his voice. Again, in the fullness of time, he was ignored. And again, he came off looking weak.

I heard Mahmoud Abbas interviewed on Israeli radio, a few years ago. He was asked why he was refusing to negotiate with the Israelis until they froze all settlement building. It was pointed out to him that he and his predecessor had never made this a pre-requisite for negotiations before. In fact, every prime minister that they had ever negotiated with until now had continued to expand certain settlements. Why the change of heart? Abbas responded (I paraphrase): President Obama has made the settlement freeze a big political issue; I cannot be seen to be less demanding on this issue than the president of the USA.

So, not only did Obama set out to look like he could play tough with the Israelis before ending up looking like a lost sheep of whom Israel couldn’t care less; he also succeeded in hardening the negotiating stance of the Palestinians, who he was hoping to coax towards negotiation. It is no wonder that Obama is now coming to the country seemingly lost for ideas; looking to listen; no longer seeking to set the agenda.

These words sound like a thorough condemnation of the policies of Barack Obama. But despite these reservations, and others, I am a huge fan of his. If all goes to plan, by the end of his second term, he will be the American President to have reformed two of the most embarrassing facets of life in the US@ their health provision and their gun controls. He is a politician who is deeply and self-consciously in tune with Jewish values of tzedaka, of social justice, and is captivated by the Jewish journey from slavery to freedom – a journey that he has the custom of retelling with his Jewish staffers every Pesach. Bill Clinton was called the first black president. In many ways, and despite the conspiracy theories of Jewish Republicans and Christian Zionists, Obama may well be the first Jewish president.

So what would I like to see from his trip to Israel? I don’t want this president to come to listen. I don’t want him to come to listen to our new government; a government who has handed all of the levers of power for planning and construction in the West Bank over to hardline expansionists; a government who will likely instigate many much needed internal reforms at the expense of progress in negotiations with the Palestinians; and, at the expense of Israel’s international standing. Obama is a true friend of Israel, and, unlike Netanyahu, he can see the writing on the wall: he can see the grey clouds on the horizon. A good friend shouldn’t be silent at times like these.

So there are two things that I want to see. The first is this: Obama does need to come down hard on the Israelis, but he has to pick his battles with more foresight. Instead of picking on Gilo and Ramat Shlomo, why not pick Israel up on the dozens of illegal settlements that pepper the West Bank against even Israeli law? Obama should demand their demolition, and if not that, then their security and utilities provisions. Picking Israel up on breaking its own laws is not going to alienate any of Obama’s friends in Israel. They’ll all be on his side. And, it’s not a battle that he will lose; indeed, he can leverage some serious pressure against the Israeli government on such an issue; winning important credibility points with the Palestinians, without losing the support of the Israeli centre.

Secondly, Obama needs to take a page out of Netanyahu’s book. Laudably, Obama is a politician who talks about hope. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is a politician who speaks about fear. He encourages people to vote for him out of fear. At the moment, it seems to me that most settlers, from the moderate to the extreme, are not afraid. I should know, because I am a settler. I live here. People here don’t seem to believe that Israel will become a pariah state if the status-quo continues. They seem to see no need for urgency in pursuing the two-state solution. Perhaps they are motivated by a profound trust in God. But, they should be afraid.

If we negotiate now, and strengthen Fatah’s hand, we could reach a meaningful peace that saves many, if not most, of the settlement blocks. But, if we wait until Fatah has run out of political capital, we will one day have no one to negotiate with other than Hamas. When that time comes, there will be no hope for any of the settlers to stay in their homes. If the newly emboldened political class of the settlers could only be lead to realize that their homes are really at stake; if they could only learn to have some reasonable fear for the future; if only Obama could deliver a powerful, and friendly, message of fear, then he could really give the region and the whole world, reason to hope.

Dr Samuel Lebens is studying towards rabbinical ordination at Yeshivat Har Etzion. Born in England, Sam made aliya with his wife and son in 2009, and has since been blessed with a daughter.

This article is part of a series addressing President Barack Obama’s 2013 visit to Israel. You can read the others here, or sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to represent the views of British Jews on Israel to President Obama.

When President Obama embarks on his upcoming tour of the Middle East to Israel, the West Bank and Jordan, he will land in a region that continues to undergo massive social and political change. The President will have to engage with many issues – from the evolving nature of the Arab Spring, to the continuation of the Civil War in Syria, to the Iranian Nuclear Programme. Yet, as a self-proclaimed friend of Israel, and as a President who began his first term by extending his hand of peace to the Muslim world, one issue alone should be of paramount importance: reviving the Israeli- Palestinian peace process; for this is Obama’s greatest challenge.

Yet, this is a challenge for us all, particularly when it comes to addressing the policy of Israeli settlement building. I do not believe that settlements are the cause of the conflict. I see them as a symptom of it – but every symptom breeds its own problems, and this one makes the likelihood of peace for both people increasingly impossible. The question remains though, will Obama make this point to Netanyahu – (and whoever the remainder of the next Israeli government may be)? He has done so in the past. In December 2012, Obama’s state department declared Netanyahu’s authorisation to build new settlements in East Jerusalem as “provocative”, saying that it ran “counter to the cause of peace”. One might assume that, following such assertive language from a President who granted record high levels of defence programmes for Israeli security forces in the previous year, the Israeli government would rethink their position. Yet, in responding, Israel
authorised an additional 3,500 settlement homes in areas that are internationally recognised as being part of a future Palestinian state – way beyond the blurry boundaries of the ‘Green Line’.

Obama has used the carrot of defence spending to no avail, and the stick of rhetorical condemnation has landed on deaf ears. Yet, when he visits Ramallah, Mahmoud Abbas will be equally unwavering. He may not have secured recognised statehood for his people at the UN, but when we combine the overwhelming international support for his attempts to do so, along with the galvanising effects of Settlement building and the last Gaza war, he remains a popular leader – and, therefore, one that Israel would be foolish to ignore. His position on negotiation is unchanged: halt settlement building and we will talk. It seems a reasonable enough position, yet Netanyahu has done exactly this in the past. At the start of his last term, he froze settlement construction for 8 months, and negotiations failed to materialise. Once again, Netanyahu will espouse his usual rhetoric: “Plan B is not Plan A repeated”. However, when Obama said in his famous Cairo address that “it is time for these settlements to stop”, he was making the point that the settlements themselves embody a failed plan. The settlements have not created peace and they have not created security for Israel. This failed plan has only managed to radicalise extreme religious groups, increase tensions with the Palestinians, stall the peace process further, isolate Israel internationally and, tragically, added legitimacy to the BDS campaign. The short-sightedness of Netanyahu’s logic is something that Obama would do well to understand, though quite how it can be overcome remains a problem that the world, not just Israel and the Palestinians, must try to solve.

As a Zionist, it saddens me that Israel will not be the ‘bigger person’; it is the power in this conflict, and how it uses this power (for settlement construction or negotiation) will be pivotal for determining the outcome of the conflict. I recognise that the onus should thus, perhaps, be on Israel. But I seek peace, not technicalities – and so I suggest a different approach.

It would be wrong to ignore the other causes and symptoms of this conflict that need to be addressed. Netanyahu, like all Israeli leaders, has justifiably said that the Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state before a real peace can emerge. The same short-sightedness that plagues Netanyahu clearly plagues the Palestinian Authority, for they refuse to do exactly that, whilst their partners in government – Hamas – continue to promote the destruction of the State of Israel. Netanyahu has pointed to his gesture as a failed example of why the status quo should remain – perhaps then, the best chance to end this impasse would be for Obama to push for a Palestinian gesture of equal worth, through at least indicating they would be willing to recognise the Jewish country in return for a negotiated settlement freeze and more meaningful dialogue.

Yet, how negotiations emerge is not what is important, it is what comes of them that interests their people. And for the outcome to be worth anything, it is time for both leaders to put their people before their war, their future before their past, and take the opportunity for peace when it arrives. The leader of the free world is coming to town, and for either side to be taken seriously, both must show a willingness to engage with him and his vision if they really believe that peace is possible. For Obama, this really is his greatest challenge.

Aaron Cohen-Gold is a regular writer for the Yachad blog.

This article is part of a series addressing President Barack Obama’s 2013 visit to Israel. You can read the others here, or sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to represent the views of British Jews on Israel to President Obama.

Over the weekend, a far left leaning Facebook friend of mine posted a link about a ‘Jews only’ Street in Hebron with the subheading ‘This is APARTHEID.’ He has regularly posted similar articles, but not wanting to cause unnecessary conflict, I avoided engaging online. For whatever reason, this time I changed my mind.

It frustrates me when these type of articles are shared, not because it’s some sort of ‘inconvenient truth,’ but because it’s incredibly unhelpful; both to the Israelis and the Palestinians. It seeks to further increase the divide and suffering for both parties.

I suggested that maybe he should be part of the solution and not the problem and actually advocate for a two state solution and be constructive, but this of course did not work. That was not the point.

The point was to show his Facebook friends that not everyone agrees with him. That using the term ‘Apartheid’ is highly offensive not because it ‘sounds bad’ but because it’s factually incorrect. Arab Israelis can mostly go where they want in Israel, serve in the army and freely enter politics. Any allusion to ethnic cleansing by Israel is to undermine all Jewish suffering and to delegitimise the state of Israel.

Some may argue that there was precisely no point in engaging with someone who has no intention of changing their mind in the near future. However we all must challenge behaviours in a constructive way especially regarding misinformation of the Middle East.

If we see anything that is unhelpful due to its promotion of division either by saying how exclusively good or bad one particular side is, we must challenge it, for the reality is NOT that simple.

Hayden Cohen is a performer, writer and educator from Leeds. He is involved in many parts of Jewish life and wants to change the mainstream Jewish dialogue to one of sensible engagement.

http://www.haydencohen.co.uk
@haydencohen

This article is part of a series addressing President Barack Obama’s 2013 visit to Israel. You can read the others here, or sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to represent the views of British Jews on Israel to President Obama.

I have now made the switch from the bustling Arab city of Nazareth to the provincial but  prominent Kibbutz Mishmar HaEmek. Shocker! My inability to eavesdrop on conversations has forced me into an Ulpan because, even though I endured about 9 years of Hebrew school every Sunday, my Hebrew is still rubbish.

The kibbutz movement is an unique and important part of the genetic make-up of this small but complicated country. During the pioneer days of the 1930s and 40s, groups of Eastern European youth movements laid the foundations of Israel through the development of agriculture and industry.  Mishmar HaEmek is no exception. Founded in 1922 by a group of Hashomer Hatzair youth movement members, this Kibbutz has served Israel in every way, from being a training ground for volunteers of the British Army during World War II, to acting as a key battlefield between the Jordanian forces of the Arab Liberation Army and Kibbutz and Palmach members. More recently,  Mishmar HaEmek is is becoming a significant contributor to the Israeli economy with their globally renowned plastics company Tama.

These accomplishments alone would make anyone incredibly proud and it was all started by a bunch of idealistic teenagers, like me and my fellow Ulpanists. All 30 of us are pretty much the same age as many of the founding kibbutz members. Would we have had the same amount of courage, moral fiber and motivation to create the legacy they did?  It’s hard enough to get up in the morning for class.

During my A-levels one my teachers commented on my high standards for myself.  He asked me if I really thought  I could get three AAAs and have a social life, keeping up with my hobbies while having chill time. I said yes. I got an ABB. I learnt a very valuable lesson: it’s all very good to set goals, but be realistic about them. In the same way, perhaps the founding members of Mishmar HaEmek and Israel weren’t so realistic and perhaps would be disappointed with the current state.

Many fled a life of  persecution and corruption where religious and civil freedom was restricted and open violence against them accepted.
Their creation  ranks 39^th in a league table of most corrupt countries in the world with high levels of social inequality such as the latest reports of segregation on buses,  the lack of confidence in the government from the Arab community (83% of Israeli-Arabs have little to no faith in their own government, as fact which isn’t going improve with the new government), with Jewish women are being arrested at their holy site because of their religious beliefs. The hypocritical  treatment of African refugees last summer was just the icing on the large Social Wrong cake which would have disgusted the founding members all the more.

Go and look at the Declaration of Independence. At its core, the text talks of the social justice for  all, regardless of gender, religion or ethnicity. In the same way that my failing to learn Hebrew appears to mean nine years of Hebrew school was a waste, I think that the founding fathers would have been upset to see  that their Israel is a Jewish state at the expense and exclusion of its Arab, non-religious, gay and secular inhabits. Israel hasn’t fulfilled its founding charter.

But then again, Israel’s forebears didn’t know what trials their legacy would face, in the same way I didn’t realise what kind of torture A-levels were going to be. Or how hard learning Hebrew is in such an intense environment. I couldn’t have known that. Neither could Israel’s forebears.

Even though Israel isn’t the social Utopia I was brought up to believe it is,  it has the potential to become one. The social protests of  2011 and the fact the that Tizpi said she wanted a “divorce” in the form of a two state solution, are all one more step in the right direction. Like my teacher, perhaps Obama’s upcoming visit and with his public encouragement and private threatening will force Israel’s new government to start making realistic goals with some real potential to achieve them.

Israel’s not living up to the ideals which inspired its creation. But with some painful reflection, guidance  and compromises, it could be.

Jessica Weiss is a former intern for Yachad.

This article is part of a series addressing President Barack Obama’s 2013 visit to Israel. You can read the others here, or sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to represent the views of British Jews on Israel to President Obama.

“When I was in Hebron, I was sure no one knew what was going on there. If the mothers knew what their children are doing – so I thought – we’d leave Hebron immediately. But I discovered that wasn’t how it was, because a lot of people don’t think that way. A lot of people, when you tell it to their faces, they just don’t give a shit. … I think international pressure is good. I’m happy about any kind of international pressure. If we are not capable of making the change, then let them lay on the pressure, let Obama lay on the pressure, let all the countries lay on the pressure. Let soldiers who go through stuff talk about it, expose it to Israelis and to the world. Unfortunately it’s of more interest to the world than to Israelis.”

These words of 22-year-old Roee, just out of the army, which appear as monologues together with voices of other young Israelis in A Land to Die For? *, seem not to have reached President Obama. Unless the White House is running a successful disinformation campaign and if we are to believe what various analysts and journalists are telling us, President Obama is coming to Israel without serious intention to sort out the current standstill in the Middle East.

Sentiments such as Roee’s and hopes in the Israeli left that Israel could be “saved” from itself through external pressure are not something new. Often, such voices are criticised by the right wing that sometimes even considers the call for external pressure to be tantamount to treason. Indeed, this has habitually also been the attitude of Diaspora Jews: It does not matter what you think and say at home – you should not criticise Israel or it’s government in public.

Yet, if holding on to the Occupied Territories is in fact bad for Israel – a view that has recently been made quite clear in the Oscar nominated documentary, The Gatekeepers, and which is shared by many senior members and former members of the Israeli security establishment – then those Diaspora Jews who attempt to stifle any criticism of Israel may have instead of helping Israel actually harmed
her.

An amazingly effective AIPAC, a generally strong pro-Israel public opinion in the United States together with the decline in the power of Arab oil means that those who have been hoping for Obama to put real pressure on Israel are likely to be disappointed. Will Europe deliver where the US is failing? It does not have the same leverage over Israel as Israel’s main financial, military and political supporter, the USA. Yet, public opinion in many European countries has in the last years turned anti-Israel. At some point European governments may decide
to take notice of what their voters are saying. Europe may yet save Israel from the extreme right road it has been taking for too many years.

Diaspora Jews should ask themselves whether they should continue to automatically toe the Israeli government line rather than listen to what others such as Roee and some of his friends are saying. Pressuring Israel back to sanity may be the most pro-Israel act Jews in the Diaspora could undertake.

Dr David Ranan is the author of  “A Land to Die For? Soldier Talk and Moral Considerations of Young Israelis” published by Theo Press, 2013. See his blog here.

This article is part of a series addressing President Barack Obama’s 2013 visit to Israel. You can read the others here, or sign our letter to David Cameron asking him to represent the views of British Jews on Israel to President Obama.