Category Archives: Jewish-Islamic Relations

Ask your rabbis and cantors to sign this letter opposing David Friedman as the US Ambassador to Israel

26 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice

≈ Leave a comment

I have signed this letter sponsored Ameinu and J Street opposing the nomination of David Friedman to be US Ambassador to Israel and posted this two or three weeks ago. I am repeating the post because of the urgency of this matter.

Please forward the following letter to your rabbis and cantors and ask them to sign on as well (see below for link).

We are writing today as rabbis and cantors asking President Trump to withdraw the nomination of David Friedman to be the United States Ambassador to the state of Israel. Failing that, we implore the US Senate not to confirm him.

In this letter, we will address concerns around his denigration of American Jews who believe differently from him and his policy positions that we believe run contrary to the interests of the United States and Israel.

The Rabbis of the Talmud are adamant that we are to speak to and about other people — particularly those with whom we disagree — with love and respect. We are taught that shaming a person is tantamount to shedding their blood (Baba Metzia 58b).

Yet Mr. Friedman seems to have no qualms about insulting people with whom he disagrees.

Mr. Friedman has repeatedly compared members of the Jewish community whose views on Israel differ from his own to “kapos,” who were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust. He called members of J Street, a pro-Israel organization that wants to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians, “worse than kapos.” He has even questioned whether its more than 180,000 supporters are really Jews — as if he has the right to decide such a weighty matter.

This is the very antithesis of the diplomatic behavior Americans expect from their ambassadors.

An ambassador is charged with representing our entire nation. It is historically perverse and wildly insulting to characterize Jewish advocates for peace, including many of the signers of this letter, as no better than Nazi collaborators plotting to destroy the Jewish people.

If Mr. Friedman cannot responsibly understand history, he cannot responsibly shape the future.

The situation in and around Israel is volatile. Mr. Friedman’s inflammatory comments about Jews, Palestinians and Muslims and the peace process itself are precisely the type of comments that can ignite further conflict and drive deeper wedges between parties.

While we believe the above should be enough to disqualify Mr. Friedman, we have grave policy concerns as well. Mr. Friedman vocally supports the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which American presidents since Johnson have seen as an obstacle to peace.

Moreover, Mr. Friedman opposes the two-state solution, which has been a policy cornerstone for Republican and Democratic administrations for the past quarter century. We are very concerned that rather than try to represent the US as an advocate for peace, Mr. Friedman will seek to mold American policy in line with his extreme ideology.

We yearn for an Israel that is secure, democratic and the national homeland of the Jewish people. Mr. Friedman’s pro-settler positions and opposition to the two-state solution are in conflict with our views and the majority of American Jews who see settlement expansion as an obstacle to peace and who strongly support a two-state solution. Mr. Friedman’s favored policies would weaken Israel’s security, democracy, and status as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

Mr. Friedman’s apparent inability to speak respectfully about and to people with whom he disagrees and his advocacy of extreme policies which threaten the future of Israel and run contrary to American interests are both sufficient reasons to disqualify Mr. Friedman’s nomination. He is the wrong choice to serve as our nation’s Ambassador to Israel.

http://act.jstreet.org/sign/american-jewish-clergy-reject-david-friedman/?akid=5470.277601.aAUIoK&dm_i=1QES%2C3MVII%2C9Z4S37%2CHQR8K%2C1&rd=1&t=2&utm_campaign=6106122_Rabbi%27s+Friedman+Letter+1%2F25%2F17&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Ameinu

Note: I am speaking only for myself and not on behalf of my synagogue or any Jewish organization.

The Torah is Political – Rabbis, Jews and Synagogues ought to be too

19 Thursday Jan 2017

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Christian Relations, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice, Women's Rights

≈ 4 Comments

Given the contentious nature of public debate in this election year and in light of the inauguration of Donald Trump as the nation’s 45th President, my own synagogue and the American Reform Jewish movement have been challenged about the nature of our speech and activism.

What ought we to be saying and when should we be saying it? Should we as a synagogue community speak collectively about the great challenges confronting our nation in the area of health care, economic justice, criminal justice reform, the poor, women’s and LGBTQ rights, racism, immigration, religious minorities, civil rights, climate change, war, and peace?

Or should we refrain, as some have argued in my own community, and concentrate purely upon “spiritual,” religious and ritual matters? What, if any, limitations should rabbis and synagogue communities impose upon themselves?

Before I offer the principles that have guided me over many years, it is important to understand what we mean by “politics.” Here is a good operative definition from Wikipedia:

“Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, “of, for, or relating to citizens”), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to behavior within civil governments. … It consists of “social relations involving authority or power” and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.”

The fundamental question before us is this: Should rabbis and synagogue communities be “political” in the sense of this definition?

I believe we should, and that we have an obligation to speak and act according to the above meaning.

There ought to be, of course, limitations.

First: When we speak our words ought to be based upon Jewish religious, ethical and moral principles, and our goals ought to promote justice, equality, compassion, humility, decency, freedom, and peace not only for Jews but for all people.

Second: We need to remember that we Jews hold multiple visions and positions on the myriad issues that face our community and society. Rav Shmuel (3rd century C.E. Babylonia) said “Eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayim – These and those are the words of the living God” meaning that there are many authentic Jewish values even when they conflict with each other.

The American Jewish community holds no unanimous political point of view, though since WWII between 60% and 90% of the American Jewish community has supported moderate and liberal policies and candidates for political office locally, at the state and national levels. We are by and large a liberal community, but there is a substantial conservative minority among us as well.

The Reform movement (represented by the Religious Action Center in Washington, D.C., the social justice arm of the Union for Reform Judaism) has for decades consistently taken moral, ethical, and religious positions on public policy issues that come before our government and in our society as a whole, though the RAC does not endorse candidates nor take positions on nominees for high government positions unless specifically determined conditions are met. The RAC’s positions on policies are taken based on the Reform movement’s understanding of the Jewish mission “L’aken ha-olam b’malchut Shaddai – To restore the world in the image of the dominion of God,” which means that we are called upon to adhere to high ethical standards of justice, compassion, and peace.

The following guide me whenever I speak and write:

1. I do not publicly endorse candidates for high political office and have never done so in my 38 years as a congregational rabbi, except once – this year when it was clear to me that statements, tweets, and policy positions of the Republican candidate for President have proven to be contrary to fundamental liberal Jewish ethical principles;

2. When I offer divrei Torah, sermons, blog and Facebook posts, I do so always from the perspective of what I believe are Jewish moral, ethical and religious principles. Necessarily, there are times when my statements are indeed “political” but they are not “partisan,” and that is a big difference;

3. We as individuals or as a community ought never claim to possess the absolute Truth about anything. There are many truths that often conflict with one another. Respect for opposing views is a fundamental Jewish value and the synagogue ought to be a place where honest civil and respectful debate can always occur;

4. When I speak and write in the media, I have an obligation to clearly state that I am speaking as an individual and not on behalf of our synagogue community or any other Jewish organization.

The Mishnah (2nd century CE) teaches that  “Talmud Torah k’neged kulam – the study of Torah leads to all the other mitzvot.” (Talmud, Shabbat 127a) The Talmud emphasizes as well that action must proceed from learning.

Plato warned that passivity and withdrawal from the political realm carry terrible risks: “The penalty that good [people] pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by [people] worse than themselves.”

Rabbi Joachim Prinz, the President of the American Jewish Congress, who spoke in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 963 immediately before Dr. Martin Luther King delivered this “I have a dream speech, said:

“When I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime, I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned under those tragic circumstances was that bigotry and hatred are not ‘the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence.

A great people which had created a great civilization had become a nation of silent onlookers. They remained silent in the face of hate, in the face of brutality and in the face of mass murder.

America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silent. … It must speak up and act, from the President down to the humblest of us, … for the sake of the … idea and the aspiration of America itself.”

Last week at Temple Israel, Dr. Susannah Heschel, the daughter of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, told my community that her father believed that the civil rights movement of the 1960s (of which he was an active and intimate partner with Dr. King), enabled the American Jewish community to affirm and reclaim its moral voice.

Perhaps this new administration and government offers the liberal American Jewish community yet again an opportunity to make our voices heard

Rabbi Prinz ended his speech at the Lincoln memorial that day by saying:

“The time, I believe, has come to work together – for it is not enough to hope together, and it is not enough to pray together, to work together that [pledge of allegiance said every morning by children in their schools] from Maine to California, from North to South, may become a glorious, unshakeable reality in a morally renewed and united America.”

The Venue is all wrong – but it isn’t anti-Israel

28 Wednesday Dec 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Christian Relations, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice

≈ 1 Comment

I offer five important documents and statement that I believe every member of the Jewish community ought to read relative to the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2334, as well as statements from the State of Israel and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, etc. relative to UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

Three of the following come from liberal and progressive pro-Israel American Zionist Organizations. The other two include the full text of UNSC Resolution 2334 and a review of the history of US abstentions and vetoes in the UN on resolutions critical of Israeli policies and of the State of Israel.

[1] Full Text of UN Security Council Condemnation of Israel, Resolution … http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/full-text-of-un-security-council-condemnation-of-israel-resolution-2334/2016/12/24/

[2] ARZA’s statement on UNSC Resolution 2334
http://www.arza.org/blog/post/arza-response-to-un-security-council-resolution-2334

The Association of Reform Zionists of America is the Zionist organization of America’s 1.5 million Reform Jews. (Note: I serve as ARZA national chair)

[3] T’ruah Statement on UN Security Council Resolution – truah.org/…/805-t-ruah-statement-on-un-security-council-resolution.html

T’ruah – The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights includes American rabbis from across the religious streams.

[4] J Street Welcomes US Abstention on UNSC Resolution – J Street: The … jstreet.org/press-releases/j-street-welcomes-us-abstention-unsc-resolution/

J Street is a pro-Israel pro-peace political and educational organization in Washington, D.C. and is the largest pro-Israel PAC in America. It has a large and growing university contingent called J Street U which is recognized by the Jewish Federations of America and the State of Israel as one of the most effective voices on college campuses against the Boycott, Divestiture, and Sanctions Movement (BDS).

[5] “Abstaining from history – Here’s all the UN Resolutions on Israel the United States Abstained on” – by Seth J. Frantzman

Abstaining from history: Here’s all the UN RESOLUTIONS on Israel the US abstained on

 

ARZA’s Response to UN Security Council Resolution 2334

26 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Christian Relations, Jewish-Islamic Relations

≈ 1 Comment

Note: I serve as the National Chair of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA), representing 1.5 million American Reform Jews. See http://www.arza.org – blogs

To AZRA’s friends and supporters:

Many organizations have expressed their feelings and thoughts since the UN Security Council resolution 2334 was passed last Friday, with the extension of the United States.

Many – most especially Prime Minister Netanyahu – are furious with the US for not vetoing the resolution and thus enabling it to pass. On the other hand, numerous friends of Israel support of the resolution’s rejection of settlements and identified with its message.

We are emphatic that the UN, with its well-established anti-Israel bias, should not be the venue for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and that gives the resolution of veneer of hollowness and hypocrisy. It is a grave concern that the resolution will become means for unjustly prosecuting Israel in the international arena.

ARZA is issuing this statement to clarify some of the issues, express our opinion and concern, and provide helpful language to use in ensuing discussions. As Rabbi Eric Yoffie has written, there is a general agreement that the US was an error, yet there is little consensus about the broader meaning of these events and what to expect in the weeks ahead. Our statement’s purpose is to provide clarity as to how we want to proceed.

Jews in Israel and around the world are justified in questioning the motives of the United Nations due to its historic antipathy to the State of Israel. To date, 223 UN resolutions have been submitted against Israel, far more than against any other nation in the world including those with abysmal human rights records. Only six resolutions have been passed against the murderous Assad regime in Syria that is responsible for the death of 500,000 men, women, and children. On the same morning that UNSC Resolution 2334 came to a vote, the UNSC could not agree to stem the flow of arms to the murderous South Sudanese regime. And UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has acknowledged that the UN has passed a disproportionately high number of resolutions against Israel.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 has released a firestorm of criticism by the Israeli government and leaders in the American Jewish community against the United Nations and the Obama Administration for its abstention in the vote. This is the first time in recent years that the United States has not vetoed a UNSC resolution against Israeli policies, primarily because nothing in the resolution conflicts with long-standing American policy held by successive administrations.

The resolution condemns Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal as defined by UN Resolution 242. Following the vote, American UN Ambassador Samantha Powers noted that part of the rationale for the US abstention was Israel’s continuing commitment to what the international community regards as illegal settlement expansion:

“Israel has advanced plans for more than 2,600 new settlement units. Yet rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution’s sponsors to bring it before the Council.”

However, the resolution does not distinguish between settlements inside the West Bank, in the large settlement blocks, in the Jerusalem neighborhoods, and in the Old City, all of which were taken in Israel’s war of self-defense in 1967.

A distinction in these different areas must be the subject for negotiation between the parties and not in the context of UN and other international resolutions.

As time has passed without a resolution of the conflict, ARZA has become increasingly concerned that the two sides’ polarization, hostility and lack of trust will diminish the possibility of a two-state solution.

Whereas Palestinians charge that the settlement enterprise is the principal obstacle in the way of establishing a Palestinian State alongside Israel in the West Bank, Israelis suspect that the Palestinians will never be willing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state nor live peacefully alongside Israel.

Palestinian suspicions and lack of trust towards Israel are buttressed by statements made by a number of Ministers in the Netanyahu government who have called for continual settlement expansion, annexation of the West Bank, legalization of heretofore illegal settlement outposts, and opposition to a two-state solution.

Israelis suspect Palestinian intentions because the Palestinians have refused all past efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel and now refuse to sit down without conditions with Israel to negotiate an end-of-conflict agreement.

ARZA worries further that the Obama administration’s abstention in this vote will encourage intensified partisan posturing over American support for Israel, rather than the continued bipartisan support for Israel among Democrats and Republicans alike.

And ARZA is deeply concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s and his allies’ negative and hostile reactions against the UN Resolution, the Obama Administration, and other countries that supported it is diverting attention from the root issue. In light of the incoming US Administration’s promise to initiate epic moves in the Middle East, ill-considered policies and actions can light the region on fire.

ARZA continues to insist that a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is the only option that can assure Israel’s democratic and Jewish nature, and the only way that Palestinians will achieve a state of their own.

 

 

 

 

Why Creating a Shared Society is in Israel’s Best Interests – Mohammad Darawshe

19 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by in Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice, Women's Rights

≈ 3 Comments

The difference between creating a “Shared Society” in Israel and aspiring to “Coexistence” between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is substantial, and most people have no idea why creating a “shared society” is critically important for Israel’s democracy, stability, and sustainability.

A shared society does not mean that Zionism and the Jewish character of the state are sacrificed. Nor does it mean that Arab citizens will lose their identity or their narrative. It does mean that Arab Israeli citizens will share a stake in Israel as first-class citizens and thereby assure their loyalty to the state they share with Jews.

Since the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1948, following an invitation that promised social, economic and political equality to all citizens, including Arabs, the promise has not as yet been fulfilled. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert confessed in 2007 that Israel’s Arab citizens are decidedly 2nd class citizens.

The intent of the founders of Israel that it be Jewish and democratic (though not explicitly calling it a democracy) is not the agenda of many right-wing political parties in Israel today because they intend Israel to provide equal rights only to Jews and not to the 20% of the population that is Arab.

It is my view that Israel today faces three primary existential threats; the Orthodox-Secular divide, the second class citizen status of her Arab population, and the lack of a two-states for two people’s resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This past week, my congregation welcomed Mohammad Darawshe, the Director of Planning, Equality and Shared Society at Givat Haviva, Israel. Givat Haviva was founded in 1949 by Jewish and Arab Israelis in order to create a “shared society” of Jews and Arabs in the new State of Israel. Mohammad is a 27th generation Muslim Arab Israeli. He holds masters degrees in Peace & Conflict Management and Public Administration, as well as Bachelor’s Degrees in English and Political Science, and in Multi-Disciplinary Political science. He has an unparalleled understanding of Jewish-Arab relations and has served in the Knesset out of the Prime Minister’s office in a number of capacities.

I am quoting from Mohammad’s writings based on what he shared with us not only because he was so clear, but also because my congregants and I felt optimistic about Israel’s future based on Givat Haviva’s vision.

An apology – This blog is longer than what I normally post, but the message is so important for the future of Israel that I decided to forgo my normal word  limit and share Mohammad’s message more fully. I have retained the British spelling of Mohammad’s original texts.

“The development of a joint vision for a shared society for Jews and Arabs in the State of Israel is not an easy task. The term “shared society” indicates the maturing of approaches that have become obsolete. The common term used to be “coexistence,” which involved an inherent inequality. MK Ahmad Tibi used the analogy of the horse and the rider. Sadly, this does not reflect a beautiful synergy and coexistence between the two. The problem is that at the end of the ride, the horse is led to the stable to eat hay, and the horseman goes into his castle and dines on steak… That is what coexistence encounters looked like for many years, during which the Jewish master was kind enough to “dismount,” touch the discriminated Arab [citizen], caress him and even say some conciliatory words, and then return to the separate and unequal reality.

Over time, the Jewish-Arab relationship has matured, and we moved on to a discourse of partnership and common interests, and a dialogue on socio-economic equality in the unequal political reality.

… It should be emphasized that in a shared society, all citizens must be considered legitimate, not only regarding their right to live in this land, but also regarding their rights for power sharing and decision making.

What is important is to begin the conversation on a joint vision. It may take us several years before we reach the formula that would win the voices of the majority of Jewish citizens and the majority of Arab citizens in this country. We have to get started.

Mutual trust between the parties has to be constructed at the beginning of the process.  It will be followed by providing tools for supporting the effort of building a shared society: Civics education, bi-lingual education, teaching narratives, negotiation and conflict-resolution skills so that we do not stumble and fall along the path.

We then must arrive at a civil consensus that will turn Israel into a normal state, which recognizes all of its civil elements. Then we would need the kind of leadership that has enough courage to start implementing a joint vision, and yield success stories.

We have already started implementing some of these ideas. … We must build trust among citizens, as all Jewish and Arab citizens and children are entitled to positive experiences, which will shape their positive opinions of the other. The future leadership will grow among these children.  However, we cannot place all the responsibility on their young shoulders. The responsibility is on our generation. The leadership that will shape the future must start with us.

Together with my colleagues who are active in the field of shared society, we have initiated dozens of projects that prove that this can work. But all the organizations combined barely reach five percent of the population. We only touch five percent of our target audience – and that is not enough.

Hummus Coexistence

Givat Haviva was the first organisation to start trying to address the negative effects of the [equality] gaps [between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs]. It founded the Jewish-Arab Center for Peace in 1963. Givat Haviva’s Center for Shared Society and the Shared Society Initiative are focused on both youth and adult audiences and the purpose of the initiative is to humanise the other side; to communicate that Jews have no horns and Arabs have no tails – these are basic principles we need to work on because the security and political context contributes to the dehumanisation of the other.

Givat Haviva applies three theories in its work.

Firstly, we operate with what we call the ‘soft contact theory,’ working mainly between elementary school kids up to sixth grade. The goal is to humanise the other through positive engagements between Arab and Jewish youths and to have multiple encounters during the elementary school period. In 99 per cent of cases this is the first time a Jewish child has met an Arab child and vice versa. We focus on sports, arts, environmental issues, and music; things that children can enjoy together and can say ‘I met an Arab and he wasn’t so bad,’ ‘I met a Jew and he wasn’t so bad,’ ‘we ate from the same hummus plate.’ Sometimes I call it the hummus coexistence!

Professor Ephraim Ya’ar of Tel Aviv University conducts a poll every year called the Racism Index. He asks Jewish and Arab children if they are willing to live in the same apartment building as an Arab or Jewish family. In his most recent poll, 68 per cent of Jewish kids and 52 per cent of Arab kids said no. Much can be blamed on the school system in Israel: the wrong decision was made in 1948 to have separate schooling for Arabs and Jews. We are paying the price for that decision.

However, if you take the same questions and put them to kids who have come through some of our programmes, the racism rate drops to below 10 per cent. Why? When they think of an Arab or Jewish family, they think of their Arab or Jewish teacher; 90 per cent are able to relate to an Arab family through Arabs that they have personally met. This tells us that the problem of racism is mostly the result of either fear or ignorance. It also proves that the ‘soft contact theory’ works – that giving people the experience of human interaction with the other actually works to reduce stereotypes and reduce racism.

The second theory we work on is ‘skills acquisition’. No one is born a good citizen – you need to acquire the skills to live in a shared society. Those skills cover four areas.

First, bilingualism/biculturalism: to understand the culture and the language of your fellow citizen. In my previous position at the Abraham Fund I was involved in setting up a programme called Ya Salam, which taught Arabic to Jewish children. We asked one of the fifth graders on the programme why it was important that he studies Arabic. He explained that when he got on the bus and would hear Arabic he would dial 100, (the number for the police) and have his hand on the call button. He was afraid. But, now he understands Arabic, he can understand what they are saying. Knowing the language of your fellow citizens reduces fear and creates engagement.

We [Jews and Arabs] also explore historical narratives. We see history differently – for example 1948. We see what happened in Gaza differently. We are not looking to create a joint narrative; we are looking to understand the different narratives –what does the other side think?

The same thing goes for identity, the third part of skills acquisition. What is Arab identity and what is Jewish identity? For example, it is important for Arabs to know that Jews see their Judaism as part of a national identity; not just as a religious one, and for Jews to recognise that the Palestinian national identity is not the same as the Arab national identity.

The fourth skill that we focus on is civics. Civics is the rules of the game: What is the State of Israel we live in? What are its laws? What’s the shared space that we have together? It’s learning the five Basic Laws together, learning the Declaration of Independence together, trying to examine the different interpretations of those laws and the rights given to individuals and learning how to live in a shared society according to the law.

The third theory we look at is ‘confrontation theory.’ We have a programme called ‘Face to Face,’ which we usually only bring to high school kids. It allows them to get into serious debate about narrative or topics like identity; to have an honest discussion in a contained environment. Usually it is a three-day workshop that ends with: ‘Okay now that we have fought it out, we blamed you enough, we pointed our finger at you enough, you heard how angry and upset I am; now let’s talk about what we do next. How do we continue to live in a shared society despite our differences?’ We do not seek to convince each side of the other’s perspective, just to allow the space to bring about a new maturity in their perception of the other side – to allow them to engage in friendship despite their perceived differences.

A Shared Community

We also bring these three theories (soft contact theory, skill acquisition and confrontation theory) to the adult population. One of our flagship projects in this field is called Shared Community, where we bring communities together, not to talk about the Jewish-Arab issue, but to engage in joint action which allows people to normalise relations with each other.

A second layer of our Shared Community project focuses on shared interests. At the moment we have six towns: three Arab and three Jewish, and we aim to create forms of cooperation between them. One form of cooperation is a tourism board: we have 42 businesses from the six communities; meeting once a week to develop joint strategies for marketing and for making money. We are trying to create a regional identity, not just a narrow Jewish or Arab town identity. We have also created a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) forum. We organise an education programme: NGO management, public relations, media relations, fundraising and managing volunteers. Our aim is to increase the value each NGO has for their respective towns and to facilitate the NGOs to coordinate among themselves. For example, …a Jewish NGO that works with Ethiopian newcomers decided to take them to the Israel Museum. Their bus was only half full, so they turned to an Arab NGO for elderly people from Kfar Kanna and asked if they would like to send 20 people on the same bus. In the end, Ethiopian Jews and elderly Arabs ended up going to the Israel Museum for a day out and both sides saved half of the costs of a bus; this gives them an incentive to cooperate. We created a space for them to coordinate and to work with each other: by saving money on a bus we have also created a joint Arab and Jewish activity. It’s as simple as that. It’s looking for the shared interests and mutual interests that sometimes could be just a saving of £200 from the cost of a day out. There really doesn’t have to be too much ideology.

The third layer of our programme is oriented to policy. It brings the key figures in the communities: the mayors, heads of the education department, town planners, and key business leaders to engage in monthly meetings. The idea is to solve disputes or to create plans which are sustainable for both sides. We discuss issues such as transportation, zoning of industrial areas and use of land in-between the communities. In these discussions, we try to identify how we can make the region more beneficial for both communities. Our aim is to expand the programme from the six towns we already have to the 73 Arab towns inside Israel.

The broader regional context also has to be resolved because it continues to impact negatively on Jewish-Arab relations. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict negates any effort to build a shared and cohesive society in Israel and that’s why we often engage in efforts to relieve Israeli-Palestinian tension. For example, we created a joint radio station called All for Peace. It was founded 10 years ago and it now broadcasts radio shows in Arabic and in Hebrew on the internet.

Fulfilling the Values of the State

[Former] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that institutional and intentional discrimination has to end because it is in the national interest. I see ‘national interest’ as the fulfilment of the moral and democratic values of the state. Many other Israelis would argue that security is in the national interest. However, almost all former Shin Bet and Mossad directors have made statements in support of a shared and equal society in Israel.[As has the President of the State, Reuven Rivlin]

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has suggested in its three most recent reports that Israel can never be a stable economy as long as it continues to disenfranchise its Arab citizens. It is in the Israeli national economic interest to engage Arab citizens as equal contributors. Unemployment rates for Arab citizens are three times the national average and 56 per cent of Arab citizens live below the poverty line. These results of government policies and of a failure to attend to the problems the state has created.

‘If you apply solutions you will get results’

…Ten years ago the Arab population of [The Technion] university was three per cent. Many argued that there was ‘not enough intellect in the Arab community’ or that ‘the school system is lousy’, and even that ‘the Arab community could not compete in a challenging educational institution such as the Technion.’

Two specific programmes were put in place. An Arab child receives only 65 per cent of what a Jewish child receives in the government educational system in Israel, so the Technion implemented a foundation year to close these gaps in knowledge.

The second programme involved Jewish students mentoring new Arab students, helping them with Hebrew and getting to know the place. Now, 10 years later, Arabs make up 22 per cent of the student population of the Technion [greater than the Arab proportion of the entire population 20%]. This tells you that if you want to solve a problem, you have to apply the solutions, then you will get results.

No one can possibly argue any longer that there is not enough intellect in the Arab community or that there is a mentality problem when it comes to the sciences. It’s about creating opportunities and implementing the right policies to close the gaps. Arab students are examined with the same tests as Jewish kids and last month 50 per cent of the graduates from the Technion Medical School were Arab students.

As long as the cycle of violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues, as long as the terrible occupation continues to destroy Israel, the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel will continue to be torn between their country and their people.

We [address this problem] …by creating a perennial, multi-aged educational process that can overcome the almost total separation between Arab and Jewish children in Israel. We do this through programs that build the basis for equality and integration, and we do this through teaching the Hebrew language to Arabs and the Arabic language to Jews.”

The most dangerous Jew in the world?

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Christian Relations, Jewish-Islamic Relations

≈ 2 Comments

The newest member of the Israeli Knesset since May 2016 is Yehuda Glick (Likud), an American-born 51 year-old who moved to Israel as a child and has been called by some “the most dangerous Jew in the world.” He assumed his position when MK Moshe Yaalon resigned from the Knesset. A father of eight, he lives in the West Bank settlement of Atniel.

I was assigned as a member of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) last week to lobby MK Glick about three important issues of concern to the Jewish Agency; religious pluralism, support for the anti-BDS movement, and greater support for aliyah – all of which we were in agreement.

Our 120-member Board lobbied 26 MKs that day followed by a larger meeting with PM Netanyahu, Speaker of the Knesset Yuli Edelstein, Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union), and Chairman of the Executive of JAFI Natan Sharansky.

In October 2014, Glick was shot four times in the chest in an assassination attempt by an Arab terrorist  who apologized before shooting him saying; “I am sorry – but you are an enemy of Al Aqsa!” His assailant was eventually found and killed by Israeli security forces. Though wounded very seriously, Yehuda spent three months recovering in the hospital.

When we met, I told him that I was happy he was alive. He knew that I am the Chair of the Association of Reform Zionists of America and was a co-chair of the national Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street, both liberal Zionist organizations supporting a two-states for two peoples resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He joked, “Given your background I’m surprised you’re glad I’m alive.”

MK Glick shared with me his passionate vision of a united Jerusalem and a city of peace, his strong belief in human rights for all peoples, and his support for religious pluralism in the state of Israel. As an Orthodox Jew and strong supporter of the settler movement, I was surprised that he voted for the  right of Reform and Conservative converts to use state mikvaot and for the government’s plan to build a new egalitarian prayer space in the southern Kotel plaza beneath Robinson’s Arch.

“What difference does it make to me that women want to wear t’filin, that you want to pray at the Kotel according to your practice, and that Reform and Conservative Jews and Women of the Wall want equal rights in Israel – they should have equal rights and be able to pray at the Kotel any way you like in a new prayer space!” he said.

Glick spoke movingly that Jerusalem should be an example of co-existence and mutual respect, that it should be a light to the nations of the world, where the three great faith traditions live peacefully and respectfully side by side, willing to share space.

“It works in the cave of the Machpelah in Hebron,” he reasoned. “Jews pray at certain times and Muslims pray at other times. If we can do that there why not in Jerusalem?”

Before coming to the Knesset this past summer, he had worked for years for the Jewish right to pray on the Temple Mount (Har Habayit) as the head of the Temple Mount Institute. That organization is focused on the belief of Jewish ownership of all the land of Israel and the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, which has been forbidden by the Israeli government since 1967 in accord with the Muslim Wafq that controls the mount Muslims call Haram al Sharif.

I said; “Yehuda – You realize, of course, that yours is not only a utopian vision, but that if Jews tried to erect a synagogue on the Temple Mount the Muslim world would rise up in revolt and World War III would result?”

He understood the argument, but said that this vision will one day be fulfilled anyway. “It’s a process,” he said, “and it will take time.”

We spoke also of the 2-state solution. He believes that the time has passed for two states, as do most of the Palestinians he knows. He is for one-state, a Jewish state, in which all people, Arabs and Jews, would be equal citizens. All citizens would enjoy equal rights, equal privileges, equal government services, equal resources for education and their communities, and equal access to business opportunities and modern living.

He confessed, however, that Gaza does not fit into his plan. He claims that 90% of Palestinians would want to live in a Jewish state as opposed to a Palestinian state, though its political leaders in the Palestinian Authority, who he calls “gangsters”, say otherwise.

He isn’t worried about Palestinians having more votes than Jews in national elections. Palestinians living in the West Bank and Israel today represent only 35-40% of the total population of Israel, and he doesn’t see a time when the state will no longer be governed by Jews as the majority people. He said that there ought to be more Arab ministers in the Israeli government.

Yehuda believes in a Jewish right of return but not a Palestinian right of return because, after all, Israel is a “Jewish state.” Jews should have this privilege and the right of return should never be given to Palestinians.

“And what about the Palestinians who fled or who were forced to leave in 1948 and 1967,” I asked. “Should they not have the right of return to Palestinian territory? And what about their right to national self-determination? Should that too be denied?”

“No and yes to your questions,” he said categorically.

I don’t agree with Yehuda on these two issues, the one state solution, the lack of compensation of some kind to the Palestinians and their right to return to a Palestinian state, or the risks that Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount would present. However, I was stunned by how thoughtful, pluralistic, non-violent, civil, and compassionate a man Yehuda Glick is.

When I returned to our delegation, our Israeli Reform leaders asked me what I thought of him. I told them my impressions, and they agreed that he is a remarkably unpredictable and openhearted man, extreme in his vision for Jerusalem, and though probably not the most dangerous Jew in Israel, one who creates tumult and provokes  unreasonable risk.

My parting question to Yehuda was what he thought of J Street. He smiled and said:

“J Street people are left-wing Zionists – and are impractical.”

As opposed to many in the American Jewish community and the Israeli government, Yehuda understands that J Street is a pro-Israel American Zionist organization. When he called J Street impractical, I was amused. He is, without doubt, the pot calling the kettle black!

After the larger meeting with Netanyahu and company, Yehuda made a special effort to find me and wish me well. He is proof positive that there is no country like Israel where people of opposite positions can actually at times civilly talk to each other, and no country in the world with as much diversity in its government as the Jewish state.

See Wikipedia for Yehuda’s full biography – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Glick

“Theater of the absurd!” Another UNESCO assault on history and decency

26 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by in Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish-Islamic Relations

≈ 1 Comment

The article below from The Times of Israel published today tells a story that every Jew should read and know.

The international organization that is designed to be a strong advocate for education, science and culture (UNESCO) around the world instead has succumbed to political pressure from anti-Israel and anti-Semitic forces that have made a virtue of ignorance, denial and cultural myopia.

This Times of Israel piece reports on a new resolution passed by UNESCO that yet again ignores the historic Jewish and Christian connections to the Temple Mount (known to Jews for 2000 years as Har Ha-Bayit) on which the ancient Jerusalem Temples once stood.

Prime Minister Netanyahu rightly observed that UNESCO is presiding over a “theater of the absurd!”

Despite this denial of history and of the Jewish people’s origins, I believe it is important that Israel and the United States stay engaged with UNESCO so as to act as an obstacle in the way of further efforts to delegitimize Jewish claims to the land of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Some have argued that American refusal to pay dues to UNESCO since 2011 for similar aberrations of its raison d’etre as an international organization have enabled UNESCO to be unduly influenced by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic elements in the organization.

See –

http://www.timesofisrael.com/unesco-adopts-another-resolution-erasing-jewish-link-to-temple-mount/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=69fccd2321-2016_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-69fccd2321-54740573

Stolen Jewish property in Egypt – Resentment remains 60 years later

18 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Islamic Relations, Social Justice, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

As my friend Maurice and I strolled towards the Jaffa Gate to enter the Old City of Jerusalem several years ago, he told me the story of his family. He was  a young teen in Egypt when the 1956 Suez War broke out between Egypt against the United States, France and Israel. After fighting ceased the remaining Jews who had not left for Israel after the 1948 War of Independence were forced out.

In 1948, 800,000 Jews fled their homes in Arab countries when their governments persecuted them as retaliation for Israel’s victory. Their property and wealth were either stolen or nationalized. They arrived in Israel penniless and to this day have not retrieved their lost property nor been compensated.

The same fate happened to Maurice and his family in 1956. Because they spoke French and Arabic they fled to Montreal leaving everything behind.

Last week an article appeared in 972+ Magazine called “No more lip service: How to retrieve lost Jewish property in Arab countries” (by Uri Zaki) (http://972mag.com/no-more-lip-service-how-to-retrieve-lost-jewish-property-in-arab-countries/121310/). Knowing Maurice’s story, I sent him the article’s link and asked for his reaction. He granted me permission to reproduce his letter:

Hi John: Thanks for thinking of me. It is so nice to have a friend that knows and understands my history. You probably also know that this topic touches a sensitive nerve so please take what follows with those feelings in mind.

It is a very important topic for the Jewish people as a whole and one to me and my family….

Egypt was home to a vibrant and rich Jewish community for centuries. Jewish and general scholarship … was tremendous and to this day sits as one of the Jewish people’s most important assets … Egypt was more than a comfortable home for us….

In the years leading up to the mid-1950’s, we endured increasing racism and harassment. Eventually, the substantial assets that we had earned over the years were seized and stolen from us. We were mercilessly (and pennilessly) expelled from our home, country, and community. We left behind not just our property but our way of life…

Although I was just in my teens, I remember well the struggle that my family and parents faced without country and any financial strength.

…We left, rebuilt and regained the position of strength (financially, Judaicly, culturally, and intellectually) that we always occupied. We didn’t do it with the help of the UN or foreign governments….we did it on our own.

The truth is that after the Egyptian King was deposed, the country went through a period of violent nationalism and home-grown radicalism. Years before we were expelled, I remember that my father was nearly stoned to death in the street for the simple crime of being a Jew.

Our plight … had to do with anti-Semitism and the use of xenophobia by the Egyptian leaders to stir the public.

Jews [in 1956] were …not persecuted because we represented any credible threat….[it was] Xenophobia and racism plain and simple….

I believe that we Jews have always been the canary in the mine!

It is a stark contrast to the Palestinian approach. … my story isn’t any better than the Palestinian….arguably much worse. Yet no Jew has sat in a refugee camp for nearly 70 years. Israel quickly absorbed its people (sometimes with bumps, but ultimately successfully) and the displaced and abused Jewish communities of the Middle East quickly reestablished themselves and are thriving.

With much love
Maurice

Maurice rightly notes the distinctions between the plight of Jewish and Palestinian refugees (note: 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced to leave their homes in 1948, a number equivalent with Jewish refugees leaving Arab lands that same year). Both stories are deeply troubling, to say the least, and both peoples deserve and require restitution. The 972+ article offers insight into the Jewish struggle. The Palestinian struggle is of a different order altogether.

Two points:

[1] All neighboring Arab nations (except Jordan) refused to absorb Palestinians into their populations;

[2] The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) was created in 1949 to assist Palestinian refugees. It is the only organization in the world devoted to only one refugee community and has sustained Palestinians as refugees for more than six decades thus enabling so many of them to continue living in poverty and statelessness.

Sadly, despite the Palestinian people’s legitimate rights to a state of their own beside Israel in what must eventually (sooner rather than later) become a two states for two peoples resolution of the conflict, the Palestinians have been used cynically as pawns by both the UN and  Arab nations for their own political purposes, and by their own leaders who have time and again refused to accept a two-state solution and the rights of the Jewish people to a nation state of our own.

In conclusion, Zaki wrote:

Recent trends in international law place the emphasis on “satisfaction,” which derives from publicly addressing the past, issuing apologies and taking responsibility for creating injustices. These, alongside reparations and restitution of lost property, are essential in conflict resolution. … Only thus could mutual recognition of the injustice inflicted upon millions of people and their descendants, on both sides of the divide, emerge. In addition, it could create a buzz in the relevant countries as well as internationally, paving the way for actual reparation and restitution as well as satisfaction.

Maurice’s story is one among millions. In his case, his family has done well though they were exiled from their home. Not so for so many others.

“Palestinian terrorism and Muslim hypocrisy: An open letter from a Muslim woman”

07 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Jewish-Islamic Relations

≈ Leave a comment

Following the murder of 13-year-old Hillel Yaffe Ariel in her Kiryat Arba home on June 30, the following blog was written by an American Muslim interfaith activist and  appeared in the Times of Israel. Nadiya Al-Noor’s words are a must read and, hopefully, can restore a measure of faith and hope shattered by this cruel and incomprehensible act of violence on a child.

Palestinian terrorism and Muslim hypocrisy: An open letter from a Muslim woman – July 1, 2016, 6:40 am – Times of Israel Blog

Blogger Nadiya Al-Noor is a young Muslim interfaith activist with a focus on Jewish and Muslim communities, and she actively supports peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Nadiya is a graduate student at Binghamton University in New York, studying Public Administration.

“I am a Muslim, and I know that when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, too many Muslims are hypocrites. I have seen firsthand the casual, destructive anti-Semitism that plagues the Muslim community. I have heard it from the mouths of our religious leaders, from our politicians, and even from our otherwise peaceful, liberal Muslim activists. I have witnessed in horror the desperate attempts to justify Palestinian terrorism from people who I once respected. Why? Why do we decry all other types of terrorism, but bend over backwards to legitimize violence against Israeli Jews?”

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-terrorism-and-muslim-hypocrisy-an-open-letter-from-a-muslim-woman/

Why Bernie Avishai winces at the term “radical Islam”

21 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Israel and Palestine, Jewish-Islamic Relations

≈ 1 Comment

I take seriously just about everything Bernard Avishai says and writes.

Bernie is an Adjunct Professor of Business at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has taught at Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Dartmouth College, and was director of the Zell Entrepreneurship Program at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel. A Guggenheim Fellow, Bernie holds a doctorate in political economy from the University of Toronto. Before turning to management, he covered the Middle East as a journalist. He has written many articles and commentaries for The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, Harvard Business Review, Harper’s Magazine and other publications. He is the author of three books on Israel, including the widely read The Tragedy of Zionism, and the 2008 The Hebrew Republic. He lives in both Jerusalem and the United States.

Bernie doesn’t shoot from the hip. He knows what he is talking about, is honest, articulate, and wise. I am printing in its entirety his most recent article below because it is so important for us American Jews and so many Israelis to appreciate and understand, especially in this political season when fear-mongers and haters extrapolate awful events (i.e. the Orlando massacre) and judge the corrupted character of 1.5 billion Muslims.

Bernie explains why he winces when he hears the term “radical Islam.” Hopefully, the rest of us will wince along with him.

What Republicans Don’t Know About Islam

Posted: 20 Jun 2016 10:50 AM PDT

This is the week to say the things that go without saying. Mainstream Republicans—not just their Gorgeous George nominee, shock-radio echo-chamber, and Bibi cheerleaders—are mocking President Obama for speaking of terror and not “radical Islam.” The inference to be drawn is that Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, are predisposed to intolerance and violence, as if the Muslim religion is a subtle ideological toxin that can be managed in homeopathic doses, but is fatal full force. If we said “radical Islam,” presumably, then we’d be acknowledging the real danger, now suffered for the sake of political correctness.

For Muslims—so the argument goes—non-Muslims are infidels who must be either converted or killed. For Muslims, heaven beckons with sexuality (which is creepy back on earth), and the only law that counts is deadly, or maiming, and God-given. Terrorist acts, killing non-Muslims (or weak Muslims) at random, are, in this view, just Muslims at their most honest. The inference for action: strength, intimidation. We should carpet bomb ISIS, or send in the 101st Airborne, or leave Israeli settlers alone, or ban Muslim immigration “until we know what the hell is going on.” (Our side’s Bill Maher won’t go this far, but seems to suppose that, as long as mankind is ditching religion anyway, we should probably start with Islam.)

Now, the President has answered this claim about as well as it needs to be answered. The sociopaths want us to presume that they are cadres of the true Islam, much like Klan members in the sixties saw themselves as Christian crusaders, and, for that matter, the Red Brigades in the seventies saw themselves as “objectively” proletarian. Every religion has chilling texts, commandments, and supremacist claims that its adherents ordinarily ignore, suppress, or interpret into oblivion. The phrase “radical Islam” should offend us much like “Jewish extremist” applied to likes of, say, Yishai Schlissel, the maniac, a professed ultra-Orthodox, who stabbed six at a gay pride parade in Jerusalem last summer—and might have done much worse had he had access to an AR-15. Not every Jew has a little Schlissel struggling to come out. Omar Mateen was not a Muslim in the extreme.

But let’s assume that speaking of a religious culture is not just silly—you know, that we can extrapolate from the norms and practices of a religion to the expected political culture of a religious community. I have lived for much of my adult life in a city, Jerusalem, that is a one-third Muslim. I have spent months of days (going East to West) in Jordan, Egypt, Libya, and Morocco—let’s just say I have known a great many Arab Muslims. And when I hear Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and others, insist on the phrase “radical Islam,” I wince, but also feel slightly bemused, sort of the way you’d feel around someone who speaks knowingly while getting things almost exactly backwards.

The Muslims I’ve have known, day-in, day-out, have a very abstract yet immanent sense of the divine, which leads them, not to any kind of fanaticism, but to an instinctive humility and acceptance of their fate. God is everywhere and nowhere, embedded in family love. Indeed, the family, and extended family, is an unrivaled preoccupation. Sexual mores mirror what Americans mean by “family values” (my oldest Arab friend in Jerusalem sent his daughter to a Mormon university in Utah); and the mosque takes over where fathers (and mothers) leave off. My Jerusalem Arab friends, reporting on some recent frustration, typically end their complaints with alhamdulillāh, praise be to God, and an embrace. A hope, or just the plan for a meeting, is accompanied by in’shallah, God willing.

This is a sense of family loyalty that is not necessarily extended to national claims. (I am reminded of nothing so much as my immigrant Jewish Montreal home, when I would visit my grandmother. There were few adult sentences that weren’t also prayers of a kind. Surrounding me were uncles, aunts and cousins. Every happiness was reported with Gott tzedank, “Thank God,” every plan or prediction with im yirtze ha’shem, “God willing.”) If anything, the practice of prayer in Muslim families, the visits and feasts of yearly festivals—all of these—breed in the bone a sense of obedience, propriety. They make commitment to honor and order, even political quiescence, far more likely than violence. As long as the home is safe, and family property is respected, there isn’t much debate about the specific public policies political leaders pursue. There is more concern for whether or not leaders are corrupt.

“That’s why, ironically, Arab Muslims have been so patient with authoritarian regimes and long periods of colonial rule,” my friend Bruce Lawrence, the veteran Duke University historian of the Arab world told me. “They may be enraged by insecurity to their families, disorder, or anything that undermines their honor, but they are less animated by transformative political ideologies. Inequalities are tolerated, but not humiliations.”

Like Lawrence, I sometimes marvel at the rugged patience and generosity my Arab friends exhibit, not their volatility. They admire Israel’s social safety net, as if a work of charity. On a personal level, generosity is the norm, even from total strangers. Once I was driving in Beit Jalla and saw a weathered old man carrying a basket full of succulent apricots. I stopped my car and pointed at his basket, asking where he got them. He opened my back door and poured half the basket’s contents onto the back seat. In Tripoli, a colleague invited me to his home, and his six-year-old daughter, seeing me for the first time, greeted me with a kiss. A few months ago, I brought my car early to the garage and found it empty, but for an Arab watchman. I turned to him officiously and asked when the mechanics would show up. “Why do you not first say, ‘Good morning?’” he scolded me gently.

I lost a step-sister and cousin to the terror of Abu-Nidal. Please don’t lecture me about the things warped people do; Arabs are members of the human race, which is about the worst thing you can say about them. Last year, there was a knife attack ten-minutes from our home, in the German Colony. A block away is the former Café Hillel, which was bombed in September, 2003. The main street, Emeq Refaim (The Valley of the Ghosts), is another café, Caffit, where two suicide bombers were foiled on two separate occasions. At the summit of the gentle hill overlooking the valley, near Terra Sancta, in the Rehavia quarter, another café, Moment, was bombed in 2002. Walk another ten minutes, into the city center, and you come to a pizzeria that was bombed twice. The nearby Ben-Yehuda Street mall was bombed. When I draw an imaginary circle of a couple of miles around our neighborhood, it encompasses the sites of five bus bombings.

None of these atrocities cancel the thousands of heartfelt encounters I’ve had with Muslim Arab neighbors, friends, and tradesmen. When I hear the phrase “radical Islam,” I remember to say “Good morning.”

This has just been published at Talking Points Memo