Haaretz
Tevet 12, 5765
An initiative to establish a new international
body, a sort of world Jewish parliament, is beginning to materialize. It
would include the most prominent Jewish leaders and public figures and
would devise policy (albeit solely in an advisory capacity, without
decision-making or enforcement authority) on the most pressing Jewish
issues - the struggle against anti-Semitism, assimilation and Jewish
education, relations between the Jewish people and other cultures and
religions, etc.
But Diaspora Jewish leaders fear being charged
with dual loyalties, and Israeli-Arabs worry the state's Jewish character
will be strengthened at the expense of its civil identity.
The idea
of a global Jewish parliament has been in the public domain for decades.
Ten years ago Yossi Beilin, along with his proposal to dismantle the
Jewish Agency, recommended the establishment of an alternate body of a
world Jewish parliament, which he called the "House of Israel." However,
neither Beilin's nor any similar proposal has seen much in the way of
practical steps.
Now President Moshe Katsav is being enlisted in
the effort. In his speech two years ago at the opening of the 16th
Knesset, Katsav spoke about the establishment of "a sort of Second House
that would operate alongside the Knesset, would represent the Jewish
people and speak for it, and would have the right to express an advisory
opinion on matters related to the future of the Jewish people."
Two months ago, Katsav's office released a document of principles
for the new body, which emphasized that "the Second House would have
solely advisory status, would not harm the status or rights of minorities
in Israel, and would not discuss subjects directly related to Israel's
national interests such as peace, security and the economy (to prevent a
situation in which Diaspora Jews might seek to influence decisions on
internal Israeli issues - Y.S.)." Last week, the president held a special
session of the Knesset's Committee on Immigration, Absorption and the
Diaspora at his official residence on the "Second House" initiative and
ways to promote it.
What is behind the sudden promotion? The
president's adviser on Diaspora affairs, Akiva Tor, says that the
initiative seeks to contend with two main challenges: "The main problem is
the crisis of the Jewish people - assimilation, the high cost of Jewish
education in the Diaspora and the low number of recipients of Jewish
education. The president feels that despite the proliferation of Jewish
organizations, there is no centralized, systematic strategic effort. In
addition, there is a strong sense of a weakening connection between Israel
and the Diaspora. Not at the level of leaders, where the connection is
strong, but in the field, between the Israeli public at large and the
Jewish public at large."
The chairman of the Knesset's Diaspora
committee, MK Colette Avital (Labor), is even more blunt in emphasizing
the need to formulate an alternative, or at least a supplement to the
existing Jewish establishment: "The Jewish establishment, at least in the
United States, is composed of a nice layer of wealthy Jews, but not
necessarily the most prominent or profound ones. Below this level are the
professional managers, who make a career - and also hefty salaries - from
their work. Only 20 percent of the Jewish public at large has ever visited
Israel."
Tibi perturbed
Is strengthening the
Jewish-Zionist character of the state, in the face of "a state of all its
citizens" trends, behind the new initiative? Tor does not deny it. "The
initiative is certainly partially based on a desire to strengthen the
Jewish component in the character of the state," says Tor, although he
emphasizes that the non-Jewish public in Israel has no need to fear the
new initiative. "This is not a case of an Israeli body that ignores the
non-Jews, but of a global Jewish body. On the contrary, we are interested
in this body tightening the bonds between Jews of the Diaspora and the
non-Jewish citizens of Israel, and enlisting Jewish support for non-Jewish
settlements in Israel, as well."
MK Ahmed Tibi (Hadash-Ta'al) is
nevertheless perturbed. "We feel that the state is already too Jewish and
not democratic enough. Therefore, there is no justification for even
further enhancing the Jewish character of the state, even if symbolically,
through a Second House, when the integration of non-Jews in the 'First
House,' including the Knesset, has not yet been resolved. It will only
intensify the sense of alienation of Arab Israelis from the state and its
symbols."
Before the panel met at the President's Residence, a
practical proposal for the new body was submitted by the strategic forum
of the Zionist Council (an arm of the World Zionist Organization, which
aims to promote Zionist values in Israel). The proposal says the new body
should not be called the Second House in order not to complicate it with
questions of links to the Knesset, and in any event there is a need for
representation of all citizens of Israel, as the director-general of the
Zionist Council, Moshe Ben Attar explains. He says it should be called the
People's Council. It would be composed of 120 members, half from Israel
and half from the Diaspora.
The body would convene twice a year,
once in Israel and once abroad. In spite of its solely advisory nature, it
is assumed that the patronage of the president's office, in addition to
the presence of noteworthy figures in the Jewish world, would give it a
status of that would be difficult to ignore.
An interesting issue
is the selection of members of the body. The Zionist Council's proposal
essentially invokes the old model of the organizing committee, partly
because the body would not be representative, and because it would be
difficult to hold elections among "citizens of the Jewish people." The
intention is that a public committee would recommend the initial
membership, which would in turn choose the other members, with the entire
membership being replaced through a similar process every five
years.
Despite the presence of a formulated proposal on the table,
the Immigration and Diaspora Committee disregarded the Zionist Council
document at the President's Residence last week, and decided to assign the
task of formulating a proposal to the Jewish People Policy-Planning
Institute.
"The fact that a close deadline was given for completing
the work - only three months - is indicative of the seriousness of the
president, the committee and the Policy Planning Institute," says a source
close to the initiative.
The Zionist Council document was rejected,
says the source, because "they don't have organizational or professional
tools to formulate a proposal on such a sensitive issue - for example, on
the legal issues of dual loyalties. They didn't even consult with Diaspora
representatives before formulating their proposal."
There seems to
be a preference for the establishment of a body that would develop
strategy for the entire Jewish world, which is why it would also have
Israeli representatives. Nevertheless, it is clear that Israeli Arabs
would not be the only group to express its reservations about the
initiative. Existing Jewish organizations are also expressing more
qualifications and questions than enthusiasm. In principle, all are
expressing support - how could Jewish organizations oppose the formation
of another super-organization - but nevertheless, one of the biggest
questions that arose in initial discussions with the president's office
was concern at accusations of dual loyalty as members of a
quasi-parliamentary body linked to Israel.
Foxman
cautions
Abraham Foxman, executive director of the
Anti-Defamation League, says it explicitly: "The idea of a pan-Jewish body
is wonderful, but its realization raises various problems. For instance,
although I am not one of those who are constantly afraid of 'What will
they say?' nor do I want to furnish the excuse for those who talk about
the Jews' 'dual loyalties.' In this context, the fact that the initiative
came from the president can only complicate matters, because he is
nevertheless a sovereign Israeli factor. Nor is it clear how such a body
would be elected, or what its agenda would be."
Another Jewish
leader, who prefers to speak off the record, raised concerns that the
membership of such a body would comprise "famous Jews, who have nothing to
do with Jewish community affairs and in any event cannot contribute a
thing to discussion of these matters."
A third leader, after
expressing support in principle for the idea, suggests that instead of a
rapid implementation of the idea, the subject ought to be weighed in a
series of long-range (10-12 years) discussions and documents, "similar to
the Federalist Papers that preceded the formulation of the U.S.
Constitution."
In response, one of the Israelis involved in the
initiative says, "Evidently, lurking behind the questions on matters of
principle raised by the Jewish leaders, some of which are fully justified,
is the simple fear of loss of the status and power they now
enjoy."
President Katsav made it clear in last week's Knesset
committee session that he is not insisting on the Second House title that
he suggested, particularly if this might create a sense that said body
bears a representative parliamentary character that would generate
problems of alleged dual loyalties and negatively affect the attitude of
Israeli Arabs.
In this context, the sensitivity exhibited for the
status of the Jewish Agency is noteworthy. Beilin had originally proposed
a "Jewish parliament" as a replacement for the Jewish Agency
(incidentally, at last week's committee meeting, Beilin was careful not to
use the term "parliament," opting instead for "assembly"), and the Jewish
Agency is now the main body that links Israel and Diaspora Jewry. This
explains why Tor, the president's adviser, took pains to clarify that "the
president does not favor dismantling the Jewish Agency; nor does he have
any intention of setting up a new executive body or new mechanism. We are
talking about a body that would constitute a central hub for ideas, of
moderate scope and with modest resources, with executive powers remaining
in the hands of the Jewish Agency."
"If the new body enjoys high
prestige," adds Ben-Attar, "this will reflect on the importance of the
subject of the Jewish People, and most certainly also on the prestige of
the Jewish Agency."
Nevertheless, among those involved in the
initiative, some note that "there is a problem that the Jewish Agency's
Board of Governors represents activists in organizations, and not the
Jewish people at large, and it is doubtful if it is an effective body in
addressing the dimensions of the crisis faced by the Jewish
people."
At this stage, Jewish Agency officials have chosen not to
comment on the new initiative, and Agency spokesman Yarden Vatikai made do
with, "We are studying the subject."
MK Tibi is convinced that in
this matter, the Jewish Agency will be his ally: "We trust the Jewish
Agency will see to it that the idea is torpedoed," he says.