When he flew to London to meet Johnson, the British Prime Minister publicly stressed his support for the two-state solution, which Netanyahu opposes; when Netanyahu flew to Sochi to meet Putin, he was left by the Russian President in the waiting for three hours and did not return to Israel with policy achievements; even Trump refrained from giving Netanyahu a pre-election “gift” as he did last time, and only indicated vague willingness to discuss an Israel-US defense treaty after the elections; and King Abdullah of Jordan reportedly rejected Netanyahu’s request for a meeting, much like other Arab leaders did earlier in the year. Moreover, the crisis facing Israel’s Foreign Ministry, which was deliberately weakened by Netanyahu, deepened further in the lead up to the elections.

Following the elections results, the responsibility for managing Israel’s foreign relations will likely change hands, with Yair Lapid being a major candidate to serve as foreign minister. The next government will need to lead a fix in Israel’s foreign policy. It should advance peace with the Palestinians; highlight Israel’s commitment to liberal-democratic values; engage with – rather than delegitimize – international critics; restore bipartisan support for Israel in the US; stop EU-bashing and improve ties with Brussels; fulfill opportunities to reshape ties with Arab countries; mend the crisis with world Jewry; legitimize the involvement of Israel’s Arab citizens in foreign affairs, and the list goes on.

The Israeli elections did not produce an ideological shift from right to left, and this will limit the extent of foreign policy change we can expect, but they did open up a path for leadership change, block far-right parties, and empower Palestinian citizens of Israel. Given Israel’s difficult political reality, these are important first steps towards change.

Dr. Nimrod Goren is Head of the Mitvim Institute.

(originally published in The Jewish News UK)

הפוסט Israeli Election Analysis: Netanyahu’s Dominant Grip is Coming to an End הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

Some elements of the crisis are deeply rooted, while others have been exacerbated significantly in recent years. The Israeli establishment has always taken an instrumental and unilateral approach toward Diaspora Jewry, expecting it to serve as a pro-Israel lobby, a cash machine for unconditional funding, and a potential immigrant pool. However, since Diaspora Jews do not have voting rights in Israel, their needs and preferences do not enjoy political advocacy or representation.

Had Israel adopted a constitution, it should have stipulated that the President of the State or, alternatively, the Supreme Court, wield the authority to strike down Knesset legislation deemed as damaging to the State of Israel’s designation in the Declaration of Independence as the Jewish nation state. Absent a constitution, the commitment to Jewish “peoplehood” should have been enshrined in the 2018 Nation-State Law, along with a promise of equality for non-Jewish citizens, given that both elements constitute the pillars of the democratic Jewish nation state.

The crisis also lies in the Israeli establishment’s attitude toward the non-Orthodox streams of Judaism that constitute a large majority of the Jewish people. Jewish peoplehood, which essentially means one extended family, cannot be forged when we treat members of Judaism’s liberal streams as second-class Jews. Israeli legislators have no incentive to deal with this issue, either, since there are many more Orthodox Jews in Israel than there are Conservative or Reform. This requires an organization with a broad vision of “Jewish peoplehood” to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government do not adopt myopic, harmful decisions (such as the ones reneging on promises of pluralistic prayer at the Western Wall and a draft law on Jewish conversions).

In the context of political instrumentality, those who regard Israel as their state cannot be expected to express only political views in tune with those of the government. The approach that views the political views of world Jewry as a litmus test of their allegiance turns Israel into a divisive element rather than a unifying force. We must be open to criticism and embrace those among the Jewish people who disagree with our government’s positions.

As for the funding issue, with Israel having one of the strongest economies in the world, Diaspora Jews can no longer be expected to finance us as they did in years past. Israel no longer needs donations, but it does desperately need a strong connection with Diaspora Jews; relationships between people and not between bank transfers. Funds from both sides of the ocean should be directed toward greatly needed youth exchange programs and joint projects with civil society organizations.

As for the expectation of Jewish Aliya – we are happy with every new immigrant to Israel, but we have to accept the legitimacy of life in the Diaspora and avoid judgment of, or arrogance toward, Jews living abroad as if there were only one way to be a Zionist.

On top of these longstanding structural flaws, successive Israeli governments have distanced themselves from the liberal values enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, shared by a large majority of American Jews, further exacerbating the crisis. The situation deteriorated further when Israeli diplomacy abandoned the guiding principle that support for Israel must be a bipartisan issue in US politics, rather than one identified mostly with the Republicans. Many Jews also perceive Israel as forging alliances with populist, racist regimes that have replaced anti-Semitism with a hatred of Muslims and have thus found Israel a like-minded state.

Resolving the crisis requires a change of all Israel-Diaspora relationship paradigms, basing them on actions that connect people, especially those on the liberal side of the spectrum, through joint work on Tikun Olam (loosely translated – building model societies) projects. This ancient Jewish ideal speaks to all Jews in their relationships with each other and with the rest of the world, and could be attractive for the younger generation. A self-confident, globally integrated Judaism, rather than an isolationist one, is far more of a draw for younger Jews. Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation (MASHAV) under the Foreign Ministry should be transformed into a project involving the entire Jewish people, training young Jews and sending them to confront need wherever it arises, not just, where narrow interests dictate. Obviously, we must make sure that these Tikun Olam projects reflect a desire for compassion and connection, and not arrogance toward aid recipients.

We must also create a “reverse Birthright project”, enabling every Israeli high school student to join a Jewish community abroad for a week or two to experience direct contact with its members. Despite the importance of the annual visits by Israeli high school students to concentration camps in Poland in order to understand our national trauma, meeting living Jews is no less important. For the sake of our joint future, the living are no less important than the legacy of the dead.

Restoring bipartisan support for Israel, especially in the US, is vital. It must replace the controversial issue Israel has become. Israel must realize that 79 percent of US Jews voted for Democrats in the November 2018 mid-term elections and most despise President Trump, although he enjoys great popularity in Israel. Israel must adopt a forward-looking foreign policy that does not limit Israeli interests to the current government in Israel and to a specific US administration. Rather than an isolationist, victimized narrative, Israel must conduct a constructive discourse with the US and the liberal nations of Europe, even those critical of its ongoing occupation and settlement policies.

To sum up, resolution of the crisis with world Jewry and promotion of “Jewish peoplehood” must become a central item on Israel’s public agenda if we are to be true to the definition of the State of Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people. Ahead of the upcoming elections, we should all demand that candidates adopt a serious attitude toward the crisis and commit themselves to its resolution.

(originally published in the Jerusalem Post)

הפוסט Resolving the Crisis with Diaspora Jewry הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

For Zionism, a state was a pre-requisite to safeguarding the Jewish people. Israel exists to provide for the wellbeing of all its citizens, Jews and non-Jews, but it is also an existential point of reference, and if necessary a refuge, for every Jew on earth. Still today, Israel is an exemplar of a functioning democracy amongst authoritarian regimes, a true multicultural society respecting, albeit not perfectly, the rights of minorities. Still today, the majority of Israelis would prefer to live in a country abiding by the high moral tenets that the first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion and his like, have upheld.

The frequent failure of present-day Israel to be fully accepted in the family of nations and to find favor in world public opinion should not in itself be of particular concern to us, Israelis. The critical importance of safeguarding the country’s borders and its citizens against those still seeking its elimination, justifies even the price of certain seclusion. Nevertheless, straying from the high moral standards upon which Israel was established, and breaching the moral boundaries the state founders have set for us, could become a real threat to the existence and wellbeing of Israel as we know it, and of world Jewry.

The visit to Jerusalem this week by Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán [18-20 July] symbolizes such moral failure. The recent agreement reached by the Israeli and Polish governments, exonerating Poland of some of its notorious actions during the World War II, is another example of boundaries that Israelis should not cross.

In her unconventional book on the banality of evil, reporting from the trial of Nazi criminal Eichmann, German Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, “evil can be banal and redefined as a civil norm.” She added that, “most people will comply but some people will not […] The Final Solution […] ‘could happen’ in most places but it did not happen everywhere.” While Orbán and his like across Europe cannot be compared to Nazi criminal Eichmann, reactions today in parts of Europe to immigration from the east serves as a brutal reminder of how quickly and seamlessly moral standards can deteriorate, also and even presently in Europe.

Hosting illiberal leaders in Jerusalem whose raison d’être is elimination of immigration, and by that legitimizing their policies, is an absurdity and an outcry. The reasons pushing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to try to court Poland, Hungary and others, in an effort to split and weaken the EU toll in the region is understandable. He and his government often face automatic and even perfunctory criticism from the EU conglomerate, so trying to draw a wedge inside Europe is basic realpolitik. The EU has some responsibility, too, when others are more inclined to accept forces wishing to destroy the principles on which it stands.

Nevertheless, short-term political gains from realigning with Europe’s extreme right might prove very costly for Israel. Endorsing Orbán works against the Jewish state’s core values and interests. For Israeli leadership, national interest should go far beyond immediate political gains and their responsibility extends to world Jewry. The implications of their actions and statements ought to be in good faith for the Jewish people and for Zionism-at-large.

The litmus test for Israel’s leaders in that regard should be whether the Jewish community in the discussed country supports the leadership in question. Are the country’s Jews as a minority feeling welcome, safe and protected? In the case of Hungary, the answer is no. Orbán’s anti-Semitic undertones and policies threaten Hungary’s Jews. That should be sufficient to disinvite him and several others who are in a similar position.

Beyond the immediate political gains, the EU and Israel should act more responsibly in order to serve the long term interests and wellbeing of their people. Brussels and Jerusalem must reestablish trust and increase practical exchange within the wide spectrum of center-right and center-left in both entities. They should work together, within the many existing joint frameworks, to create more unity between moderate forces, and together reject radicalism. Israel has valued expertise it can share with the EU in the field of absorbing immigrants and making refugees feel at home. Europe’s greatest challenge today is one Israel has dealt with throughout its existence, being a true immigrant society. In proportional terms, Israel taking in one million Russian immigrants when it had less than six, some three decades ago, can be compared to Germany taking in over ten million immigrants today. Albeit not similar, specifically on the background of religious affinity between Jews which is absent in Europe, many challenges are the same.

Israel will stand to gain from opposing Europe’s extremists and sticking to the noble values upon which it was established. World Jewry will be proud once again to be affiliated with their second homeland, Israel. And Europe will have an ally with unprecedented credibility in fighting xenophobia, a calming element to a most volatile region at its footsteps, to defend the values upon which the European Union was created, on the rubbles of World War II.

Raanan Eliaz founded and led for a decade the European Leadership Network (ELNET) and its Forum of Strategic Dialogue (FSD), two organizations dedicated to strengthening relations between Europe and Israel. He is a member of the Mitvim Institute’s task-team on Israel-EU relations.

(originally published by EurActiv)

הפוסט Orban in Jerusalem: Challenging Days for Europe-Israel Relations הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.