The
Islamic Movement Radicalizes Israeli Arabs
Raphael Israeli
The Islamic
movement in Israel, whose history dates from the 1980s, has come to public
attention lately due to two major events: The Islamist takeover of the
Nazareth city council, which has provided backing to the illicit intrusion
of the Muslims in Nazareth into the plaza of the Church of Annunciation,
and their attempt to erect a large mosque on the plaza; and the two car
bombs that exploded in September 1999 in Tiberias and Haifa, which were
found to have been perpetrated by members of the Islamic movement of
Israel. These two events seem to be related inasmuch as the ideological
underpinnings of the Islamic movement to a great extent delegitimize
Israel and teach contempt of Jews. In consequence, the Islamic movement
has created enclaves of its own in Israel where it can enforce its Islamic
laws. In the past three years, the split between the activists, who
wanted everything now, and the more moderates who have advised against
boycotting the state institutions, has found its expression in a schism:
the northern Islamic movement, which continues to breed violence against
Israel, and the southern branch, which advertises more moderation.
What will
happen next depends in no small measure upon what the Israeli government
does in its attempt to check the growth of the Islamic movement.
back to
top
The Religious-Secular Conflict with Particular Reference to Israel (I)
Ervin Birnbaum
This study is based on the
recognition that Israel has been increasingly turning into an arena of
conflict between those terming themselves “religious” and those referring
to themselves as “secular”. Since the religious-secular conflict in
Israel could be very dangerous to the very survival of the Jewish State,
it needs to be minimized. On the premise that the world is interactive it
can be assumed that:
a. Israel could not isolate
itself and escape the waves of similar conflicts in other parts of the
globe, and
b. Israel could possibly
benefit from the lessons of religious-secular conflicts in other countries
and apply them for a better understanding and amelioration of its own
situation.
The above premises set the
framework of this study. After a brief introduction about the role of
religion in Western society, we turn our attention to the practical impact
of religion in its conflict with the State, and an all too brief review of
the types of models of Church-State relationships that evolved from that
conflict, beginning with the French Revolution. The first three models -
France, Germany and Italy - are chronological. Then we turn out attention
to an efficient model of separation of Church and State, the United States
of America, followed by an efficient model of non-separation, England.
Brief remarks are added about a scattering of other interesting models.
All of them are of democratic countries. Hence, from the Middle East only
Turkey is touched upon.
The next part deals with
possible lessons Israel could derive from the models presented, in the
light of its own unique situation. Focus is placed on the value of the
“status quo”, the need of unconditional acceptance of the State, and on
the advantages of depoliticizing religion - a process for which four
channels are examined, though not necessarily recommended:
1. Possible dissolution of
religious political parties,
2. Stopping political
blackmail in the Knesset in return for religious support,
3. Changing attitudes and
expectations, and
4. Separation of religion and
state.
The final part deals with
perspectives of the “religious” vs. “secular” dispute.
The study of human thought
makes it abundantly clear that religions cover an extremely wide spectrum
- from the belief in One God to many gods, or from an intimately personal
and personalized God to an absolutely depersonalized abstract Power, or
from the acceptance of a strict doctrine that regulates every step in life
to subordination to certain principles intended to serve as a moral and
ethical guide in life. The author makes a valiant attempt not to sit in
judgment over any aspect of religion, be it fundamentalist or secular. If
he failed at any point, the reader can rest assured, it is purely
unintentional and will find it easier to forgive by remembering: the sole
intention is to enlighten, not to upset.
back to
top
Why the Separation of State and Religion is Inappropriate for Israel
Shlomo Sharan
Elections to the 15th
Knesset in May 1999 once again brought to the forefront of Israel’s
political life the problem of the relationship between state and
religion. The ultra-Orthodox Shas party became the 3rd largest
political party in Israel, and the newly formed Shinui party, elected on
the basis of a narrow and exclusively anti-religious political platform,
acquired 6 seats in the Knesset. Shinui, the Left-wing Meretz party and
other extra-parliamentary groups, seek the adoption of a constitution that
would formerly separate Judaism as a religion from the State of Israel as
a secular nation. Such separation, claim the pro-secularist groups, would
prevent the concentration of political power in the hands of the
ultra-Orthodox parties (Haredim), as well as rectifying conditions created
by what the secularists perceive to be coercive and anti-democratic
legislation.
There are many reasons why
separation of state and religion is inappropriate for Israel. Among these
are:
-
The Jewish
cultural-religious-historical heritage consists of the unfolding of
Jewry’s creativity over a period of 3,400 years. It is not identified
solely with the Talmud and Midrash. The latter possess enormous breadth
and depth, having evolved over an 800-year period (200 B.C.E. to 600
C.E.), but Judaism as the Jewish historical heritage continued to evolve
to this very day. This entire heritage, including Zionism, forms the
basis of the State of Israel as a Jewish nation. Consequently,
separation of Judaism from the State is tantamount to undermining the
foundations of Israel.
-
The social cohesion of
Israeli society, reconstituted as a body politic after 19 centuries of
exile by Jews from all over the globe, depends upon Jewry’s identity as
a distinct historical-religious-ethnic-national entity. Removal of any
of these elements by shortsighted legislation could destroy the internal
fabric of Israeli society and seriously weaken its ties to Diaspora
Jewry.
-
Separation of state and
religion would not eradicate the antagonism between the two militant
poles, secularist and Haredi, of Israeli society. That conflict can be
alleviated only through a long process of political compromise and
visionary leadership.
-
Israel is only one of many
ethnic democracies (such as Finland, Norway, Korea, etc. etc), that have
one ethnic majority and one or several minorities that do not share
ownership of the national territory. Israel’s identity as a Jewish
nation is no less democratic than any other of these countries. Almost
all of the ethnic democracies also have an official state religion, just
as Judaism is the official national religion of Israel. An official
state religion, along with a dominant ethnic majority, are fundamental
features of many democratic nations.
Finally, Israel Jewry is
urged to undertake a profound reconstruction of its cultural-religious
life. The goals are to promote a higher level of awareness regarding
Jewry’s historical-religious heritage among Israel’s Jewish citizens, and
to make it possible for all major Jewish subgroups, that are devoted to
promoting Jewish historical continuity, to identify with the State of
Israel.
back to
top
Israeli Society in Light of the 1999 General Election:
The Establishment of a Confederation of Sectors
Yaacov J. Katz
The Israeli population is
composed of heterogeneous cultural and ethnic groupings that typically
characterize immigrant societies. This heterogeneity has, over the years,
led to the formation of a society made up by a number of unique sectorial
units, each of which has an ideological, religious, political, cultural or
ethnic agenda.
The significant number of
sectorial units has led to increased fragmentation and splintering of
Israeli society and, as a result, to increased inter-sectorial tensions
within society. The Ben-Gurionian vision of an integrated and homogeneous
society has become an almost impossible dream and inter-sectorial
tolerance is perhaps the best that can be hoped for in the attempt to find
issues that are common to the different sectors in Israeli society.
The 1999 election results
indicate that sectorialism in Israeli society is on the rise. The Knesset
now has 120 members who belong to fifteen political parties, many of which
have a sectorial platform (Shas, Yahadut Hatorah, Shiniu, Yisrael B'Aliya,
Yisrael Beiteinu, Am Echad). The only semblance of unity that can
feasibly work is one based on the acceptance of a tolerated small number
of central principles such as parliamentary democracy, rule of law, need
for a national security force on the one hand, while on the other each
sectorial entity is given autonomy to promote its own legitimate
interests.
back to
top
The
Teheran-Damascus-Hizbullah Axis
Daniel Leshem
Hizbullah leaders, Syria and
Iran, like to portray Hizbullah as a liberation or “resistance” movement
fighting Israeli occupation in South Lebanon, but nothing can be further
from the truth. A Saudi cell of the Lebanon-based Hizbullah helped by
Iran and possibly Osama bin Laden as well, probably carried out the 1996
bombing of the US Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran and the 1995 bombing
of the US military training center in Riadh. Syria seems to have allowed
or a least chose to ignore senior Iranian intelligence and Revolutionary
Guards officers (like Brigadier Ahmed Sherifi) and the Hizbullah using
Damascus and Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa as recruiting, training,
logistic and operational centers for subversive and terrorist activities
in Saudi Arabia. It is quite possible that Syrian military intelligence
may have had foreknowledge of the bombing in Dhahran. Hizbullah has also
helped Iran in its terrorist and subversive activities in Bahrain.
A thorough examination of
the often contradictory statements and declarations made by Hizbullah
leaders in recent years provides ample proof that this terrorist
organization posing as a group of “freedom fighters” is devoted to the
“cause” of the destruction of Israel rather than the “resistance” to
Israeli occupation in South Lebanon. The organization’s dangerous but so
far unsuccessful attempts to carry out bombing attacks inside Israel, its
recently reported increased efforts to recruit Europeans for the “job” and
its recent bombing of targets along the security fence on Israel’s
northern international border make a mockery of its declared goal to
“liberate” Lebanese territory from Israeli occupation. The belief shared
by some Israelis, mainly supporters of a unilateral IDF withdrawal from
the security zone, that Hizbullah would stop attacking Israeli targets as
soon as the IDF pulled out of Lebanon can best be described as naive.
back to
top
Can
Israel Survive its Judicial System? A Political Assessment
Paul Eidelberg
Israel’s Supreme Court
adjudicates thousands of cases a year affecting the political, social,
economic, ethnic, and religious character of the State. It does so with
only occasional reference to laws and moral principles drawn from the
heritage of the Jewish people. This raises a momentous question: Can
Israel endure as a Jewish state when its judicial system, which subtly
influences every aspect of daily life, is primarily based on non-Jewish
law?
The author shows how Supreme
Court President Aaron Barak ignores the Foundations of Law Act, which
should have made Jewish law Primus Inter Pares (“first among
equals”) among the diverse legal systems used in Israel. By forsaking the
legal heritage of their country, the Court assault the emotions and
expectations of the older population while rendering young people rootless
and aimless, placing all at the mercy of whim, chance, and accident.
Although the Court acknowledges
Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, judge Barak invariably champions
democratic rights in almost total disregard of Jewish
rights. He thereby belittles the convictions and customs of a
large majority of Israel’s Jewish population. In fact, Barak baldly
admits that he represents Israel’s “enlightened population”, i.e., its
diminishing minority of alienated intellectual elites or “post-Zionists”.
This suggests that Barak’s emphasis on democratic rights is a facade for
elitism. To perpetuate this elitism, the Court has adopted the
anti-traditional or indiscriminate egalitarianism and libertarianism of
American jurisprudence.
Since the Court employs
non-Jewish jurisprudence to diminish the Jewish character of the State,
the author presents prima facie evidence showing that Jewish law is more
rational and ethical than other legal systems. Accordingly, he proposes
practical measures by which to facilitate the incorporation of Jewish
civil law into Israel’s legal system. In the process, he shows how to
prevent the Supreme Court from pursuing its ultra-secular agenda.
back to
top
Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” and its Bearing on Israel’s Security
Christopher Barder
This is not an analysis of the
virtues or vices of Professor Huntington’s work but is rather using it as
a tool. The concept of “civilization” is shown to be a very useful one for
assessing the true position of Israel in relation to her security needs
vis a vis her Arab neighbors. If it is not at all easy for the
constituent elements which make up a civilization to change and these
penetrate deeply into matters of religion and inter-personal
relationships, then the prospects for reform of any far reaching nature in
the essentials of Islam must need to be explored.
What the arguments and
insights of Professor Huntington alert his audience to is the possibility
of assessing the nature of civilizations beyond the solely theoretical and
conceptual. In so doing the means for looking closely at the way Islam
affects its adherents’ attitudes become more vital and perhaps available.
Understanding of “Islamic civilization” becomes a truly essential task in
the light of its unchanging teaching and values and also historical
record. These in turn suggest the degree of viability and sense behind
the “Oslo peace processes”. If, in analysis of the outlook and beliefs of
the Islamic civilization to which Israel’s neighbors claim they belong, in
speeches, books, cartoons and the media, there cannot be found any serious
revision of overt and covert hostility to Israel, then the Huntington
clashes of civilizations ideas for furthering understanding of
international relations and strategic realities serve Israeli analysts
well (and not only those in Israel): the so-called peace process has no
chance of bringing peace but instead must be viewed as a means of further
weakening Israel’s capacity to resist destruction at the hands of Muslim
Arab enemies.
back to
top
The Israeli-Nigerian Relationship Following Nigeria's Democratization
Moshe Gilboa
Reality had mocked again at
many politicians, commentators and analysts who hastened to express
disbelief and skepticism following the statement of the newly appointed
Military Ruler of the most populated country in Africa and one of the
biggest oil-exporters of the world that he intended to give up power,
return the helm of government to the people and democratize Nigeria.
Contrary to the totally
negative and critical attitude voiced, rightly, against his predecessor,
General Soni Abach, by Nigerians and the International community because
of the latter's harsh and repressive policies - the new ruler, General
Abdulsalami Abubakar was described as a "highly professional soldier",
modest and sincere, who had not shown serious ambition to stick to power.
However, the overwhelming view expressed by politicians and the
international media alike was that General Abubakar would not keep his
promise.
Fortunately, this pessimistic
observation proved wrong, because it did not take into account the
uncompromising determination and steadfast quest of the Nigerian people
for Democratic Rule. Indeed this was crystal clear proved during the
three consecutive general elections in which tens of millions of Nigerians
participated, held on the date promised months before by General Abubakar,
for the Nigerian Parliament and Senate, Local Governors and Municipalities
and the highest elected post - the Presidency.
Southerners, Northerners,
Moslems and Christians as well as the population representing the three
dominating tribes - the Hamsa, the Yourba and the Ibo took an active part
in the election campaigns. After 15 years of military rule, the road was
paved for a new era in Nigeria which brought it back to the family of the
Democratic Nations.
The choice of the Nigerians for
the Presidency, illustrated overwhelmingly their decision to elect for the
helm of government a leader who had proved before his loyalty for and
devotion to Decmocracy - the long-retired General Olusegun Obasanjo, a
Christian of the Yourba, who gained the respect and trust of his
fellow-Moslems.
Israel had played a unique and
"significant" role in the development of Nigeria since the early days of
its pre-independence period - and after its achievement in 1960.
Following the requests of two out of the three federal states, the
Southeastern IBO and the Southwest Yourba, which were dominantly
Christian, and the enthusiastic positive response of Prime Minister Golda
Meir - hundreds of Israeli experts and volunteers were sent to Nigeria to
help in the development and modernization of its agriculture, educational
network, medical institutions and technological training programs.
Hundreds of Nigerian farmers, experts, educators, academicians, students,
doctors, community workers and engineers were trained in Israel. Top
level ministerial meetings of both countries were held and friendly
relations, beneficial to both peoples developed.
This practical,
multidimensional, fruitful cooperation, which predominated
Nigerian-Israeli relations, was so appreciated and important in Nigeria
that it survived and even overcame the long rupture of diplomatic
relations between the two countries which was compelled on Nigeria by the
decision of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) following the Yom
Kippur War and which lasted 19 years.
This meaningful and useful
cooperation gained new impetus when diplomatic relations were restored.
Israel's Embassy resumed its functions in September 1992 - and a Nigerian
Embassy was opened in Israel for the first time in April 1993.
Israel can, if requested,
cooperate and assist in this sensitive and transitional period of
democratization of Nigeria as it did in the past. She is capable of
acting in many spheres; mainly agriculture, which was neglected and has
deteriorated during the "oil rush" in Nigeria, in technologizing Nigeria's
economy, which is a key to its development, bring highly qualified
high-tech experience and assist in improving social services, medical
care, education and telecommunication.
back to
top
