This Says It All, I Think... 

Nefesh B'Nefesh and the Jewish Agency

Several years ago, a young rabbi whose parents live in Israel had a bright idea: since, it seemed, the main obstacles to American aliyah (immigration to Israel) were lack of money and the Israeli bureaucracy, he'd get private donors to create a fund, and find ways to help new olim (immigrants) get through the government offices without irreparable trauma.

It may seem odd to assume that US Jews don't come to Israel in greater numbers because of a lack of money, but in a lot of cases, that's true. A former radio show host who was sent on shlichut (worked as an emissary for the aliyah branch of the Jewish Agency) wrote, upon his return to Israel, an article in the Jerusalem Post, apologizing for his preconceptions of American Jewish life. He had always known that American electrical appliances didn't work on Israeli current, but he'd never realized the degree to which Americans live on credit, and once they repay the mortgage, and the car financing, student loans, and all the other debts, the average young Zionist family is left with very little cash in hand with which to begin a new life in Israel. But it's also true that very few American Jews want to live in Israel at a standard much below that which they enjoyed in the States--and that takes money. There is also simple ignorance of the lifestyle here--only about 15% of American Jews ever visit Israel (although those who do, usually visit more than once), and a lot of prospective immigrants have erroneous ideas of what they need here and rather exaggerated ideas of what they'll accomplish here as well.

So, Nefesh B'Nefesh (a free translation is "Jewish Souls United") was founded. Initially, Rabbi Fass wasn't loath to take money from evangelical Christian groups who believe that Jesus' Second Coming will only happen when all the Jews in the world are in Israel (not to mention being converted to Christianity) and are happy to help. After considerable criticism, he sought, and found more Jewish donors. During the initial promotional period, rumors swirled around about the grant amounts--the only condition placed on the grant recipient is that the money must be paid back if the recipient returns to America before three years pass--and most of the rumors were wildly exaggerated. NBN also promised to find work for its immigrants, and to shepherd them through the bureaucracy.

Aliyah from North America has never been huge, but since the intifada began in 2000, it slumped badly. With great fanfare, NBN brought its first planeload of olim in the summer of 2002. It prefers to declare that it brought 150 people rather than 70-80 families (it certainly sounds better), and it did get the Interior Ministry to put a clerk on the plane so all the necessary paperwork for the necessary documents for the olim could be started immediately. From that time on, NBN has been reluctant in the extreme to give any information on how its members have fared in Israel. Potential NBN olim are encouraged to communicate with those already here via an internet list, but non-NBN Israelis--veteran North American olim with vastly more experience--aren't allowed to participate, for fear they'll be too "negative". Certain interests are actively promoted: the various groups involved in yishuvim over the Green Line, for instance, have access to the list, and so do certain importers and merchants.

In the summer of 2003, NBN brought two planeloads of olim--as closely as can be guessed, about 2/3 of them are children, who are, of course, potentially productive Israelis but for the time being, are recipients of lots of State aid--and the preponderance are "Modern Orthodox" (which has been the trend in American aliyah for quite a while, BTW). This year, it has been announced, three planeloads will arrive. The net effect has, actually, to return the annual number of olim to the pre-intifada levels, so claims of encouraging mass aliyah are somewhat exaggerated.

Given that all olim get a variety of subsidies, perks, and discounts during their first year (and in decreasing amounts, during their second and third years, too), and the grants (recipients are told not to disclose what they get. It seems to be between $5-15k per family) and the new "absorption basket" (sal klita) gives them cash, it might be thought that the new arrivals are having an easy time acclimating themselves to Israel. The truth is, no one knows. Israel is in a deep depression right now. A great many of the olim from North America in the past few years are either medical or legal professionals, or in hi-tech. Some want to start their own businesses, or become entrepreneurs. All well and good, but the Russian aliyah brought scads of medically trained professionals and paraprofessionals to Israel; lawyers, no matter how experienced in the US, have to undergo an apprenticeship because the legal system here is radically different from America, and it takes quite a while to begin making money; the hi-tech situation is...well, you all know what state that's in, and it's not easy to start your own business when you know nothing about the business environment or legal/tax situation here (not to mention the market).

NBN's high profile aliyah, with the "fact" that its olim are coming with bulging wallets, has created some juicy pickings. Rents on apartments in Jerusalem and the center of the country are through the roof. The Israeli government has been trying to phase out the Absorption Centers for some time--the maximum one can stay in one is now only 2 months, so even someone planning to buy a home is forced to find a rented flat for at least the short term. And Israelis who own an extra flat have learned that Americans are so used to high rents they'll pay almost anything. The export shops in New York and other American cities are doing a roaring business, as they convince ignorant olim that Israel is an appliance wasteland (quite the reverse, for the past decade)and they'd better buy everything they need for the next 30 years, right down to hair-dryers and toasters, before they leave the US. When the Israeli government announced it was removing the giant tax break on car purchases by immigrants, there was something approaching mass panic by those who hadn't yet sent their shipments--a frequent question is whether it pays to ship their American car (it doesn't).

But that's not the right question. The right question is, can I afford to HAVE a car in Israel? When the perks and discounts vanish, when I'm living on an Israeli, not an American, salary (which is between a third to a half less, in dollar terms), will I be able to make ends meet? If approximately 70% of Israelis have overdrafts at the bank, doesn't that say something about the cost of living in Israel? It's not just a choice between buying, say, Taster's Choice imported instant coffee or the locally produced Elite (which some would say is more like a coffee-flavored beverage than the real thing), but whether I can drink coffee at all? It looks great on paper that I get a 90% discount on property taxes and don't pay income tax the first year I'm in Israel, but for six months of that first year I'll be studying Hebrew in an ulpan and most probably not even find a job until that year is up...

Getting here is the easy part. Staying here is a lot harder. There are no statistics on how many American olim return to America after 1/3/5/10 years. Very few admit to it. I've seen numbers of anywhere between 25% and 70%, depending on (mostly) completely unproveable speculation. But it's a lot. An internet message board for the Jerusalem area carries announcements of "moving sales" which, when they consist of entire house contents, are obviously "leaving sales". If asked, almost everyone who is intending to go back to America, is only going back for "a brief period". There are, of course, real family situations that require returning to the US. There are also some who find they just don't like the country. But by far the biggest number who return to America do so because they couldn't manage economically--whether relatively (couldn't make enough money to have the lifestyle they want) or absolutely (are in danger of starving). It would be immensely difficult (and expensive) to try to do some real research, to find out exactly how many do leave Israel permanently, and why they did. But, because of the way it's set up, Nefesh B'Nefesh is an almost perfect laboratory. It's completely inexplicable to me why they seem to feel everything about themselves is a State secret. I fail to see why more transparency wouldn't actually help them. Olim want to know what they're up against.

Over the years, one of the biggest culprits has been the Israeli government and governmental agency--the Jewish Agency or Sochnut--itself. Israelis are themselves very ambivalent about aliyah from "rich" countries. There is some jealousy and resentment of the fact that the Israeli taxpayer foots (at least some of) the bill to bring people here who can afford to have a higher standard of living than the Israelis themselves. (This is, IMHO, a rather dated view.) On the other hand, aliyah which is entirely voluntary, and ideological, rather than born of necessity by persecution in the former homeland, is far more "encouraging" and vindicates the Zionist ideal much more. So the Jewish Agency, which in itself is a considerable bureaucracy which has a parasitic relationship with olim (no olim, no jobs for all those clerks!) has chosen to avoid reality whenever possible. "Accentuate the positive" at all costs! The main cost, of course, being the oleh's ability to adjust, physically, emotionally, and economically to his new situation. He becomes a statistic in a high stakes game. I was once told by someone who worked for the American immigrants' organization, the AACI, not to tell olim what life was really like here: "The important thing is to get them here; then they'll HAVE to cope".

And now, the Jewish Agency, which has so mismanaged North American aliyah over the 5 decades of Israel's existence, is trying to link up with Nefesh B'Nefesh. Dare I say, attempt to hijack it, as they've done with other immigrant organizations (the AACI gets a large part of its budget from the Sochnut)? This appeared in Haaretz's weekend edition (Anglo File):

"The Jewish Agency gives Nefesh B'Nefesh a lot of credit for increasing aliyah [from North America] between 2002 and 2003," said Jewish Agency spokesman Michael Jankelowitz. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating. They proved that the way they work increases aliyah from North America, so the next step is a strategic partnership with them."
Jankelowitz explained that the Jewish Agency will allocate funds and services toward the administrative costs of Nefesh B'Nefesh "so that they can do more of what they have been doing, and help more and more immigrants."

If I were Nefesh B'Nefesh I'd feel a lot like Little Red Riding Hood confronted by the wolf right now. And if I were about to be a grant recipient from NBN, I'd take the money and run. But most of all, I'd keep in mind that there's never any free lunch.

Yigal Amir and Jonathan Pollard

Right now there is an ugly situation building up in Israel, regarding the murderer of Yitzhak Rabin. And let there be no doubt that I regard Yigal Amir as a murderer. I do not, however, think that Amir's crime is especially heinous because Rabin was the Prime Minister. A friend of mine argues that, in killing Rabin, Yigal Amir was attacking Israel itself, and to that I say, phooey.

Amir wants to marry. He wants to have conjugal visits with his wife. Those elements in Israeli society which want to make his punishment as dire as possible short of executing him (which would have been his fate if they could have arranged it), don't want him to have the possibility of having an heir. His brother, currently in the army, has been repeatedly interrogated as to his politics and is under constant surveillance, without any reason whatsoever. The vendetta by the Left is unrelenting.

Pollard, an American citizen who sold American secrets to a foreign power, was also sentenced to life in prison. I happen to think that the sentence might be excessive, but not undeserved. He's not an Israeli, and so he did betray his country. But the US government has allowed him to marry and he does meet with his wife, because the Constitution does not allow "cruel and inhuman punishment". If memory serves, at the time of JFK's assassination, if Lee Harvey Oswald had not been shot, he would not have been in danger of execution as the Supreme Court at that time did not allow capital punishment. (I could be wrong about this).

Israel is a country without a written constitution (although it has a quasi-constitution in the "Basic Law"). Its laws are a mixture of Ottoman, British, and Jewish. There is no trial by jury. There is no writ of Habeas Corpus. Laws can be, and are, passed ex post facto. Bail is often denied in lesser offences than murder (in the US, bail must be granted in all such cases, but of course the amount can be so high as to assure the defendant remains in jail until the trial); it is highly arbitrary. There is no automatic presumption of innocence. In the European manner, the defendant must prove his innocence.

I'm not sure Amir is being entirely ingenuous about his wanting to marry and sire children. He may indeed be testing the system to see just how far he can go. But in this case, as the article shows, he is entitled some room to move.

If American Jews support moves to get Pollard released, in spite of his crime as an American against their country, then Israelis ought to support Amir's petition, in my (not very) humble opinion.

Preserving the rights of the most contemptible

By Moshe Gorali (Haaretz)

The court record suggests the justices of the Supreme Court might disagree with the judge who this week denied conjugal visits to assassin Yigal Amir.

Just as Israeli democracy had difficulty dealing with the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, so too it is finding it difficult to deal with the challenge now being presented by Amir himself.

Three years ago, the Knesset passed a special law that was designed to prevent him from ever being released from prison.

The law was not presented for constitutional review, which it is doubtful it would have withstood as it was designated for a specific person; because it creates cruel and unusual punishment; and because the Knesset's job is to set norms for the future and not punishments after the fact.

Judge David Bar-Ophir ruled at the beginning of the week that Amir was forbidden from having conjugal visits with his fiancee, which aroused no little criticism among legal scholars, who doubted the ruling would pass the test of the Supreme Court.

"It's a primitive decision," says a retired senior judge. Prof. Daphne Barak-Erez said after the ruling that "the real test of a democratic country that is strict about human rights, is in the preservation of the rights of the most contemptible, the most abominable and the most dangerous."

Regarding the ruling itself, Barak-Erez says: "The judge's decision to define conjugal visits as a privilege is problematic, and affects the outcome."

It is quite probable, in fact, that the Supreme Court, should the issue be brought up before it, will promote conjugal visits from the low status of "a privilege" to the status of "a basic right."

In 1987, when the Supreme Court was dealing with the right of prisoners to conjugal visits, Justice Menachem Alon wrote in a decision:

"The right to sexual relations and to conjugal visits with a partner is a basic, natural and humane right for any person, and the punishment of denial of freedom does not automatically include the denial of this basic right."

Like every right, this right too can be restricted. But whereas a privilege can be given and denied perfunctorily, the restriction of a basic right requires very weighty reasons.

Judge Bar-Ophir adopted the view of the Israel Prisons Service (IPS) and the Shin Bet security service, which claimed in the state's reply to Amir's request that "the rule is that a security prisoner shall not be given the possibility of receiving conjugal visits, unless the General Security Service [Shin Bet] has expressly stated that it has no objection to them. In the above case, the security factors ... have positively expressed their opinion against allowing conjugal visits, for reasons of state security."

That is the position of the Shin Bet, which is based on classified material that was submitted to the judge, as well as on the following reasons: Amir did not express regret for his crimes; there is a fear that he will not hesitate to use his partner for the purpose of undermining public security and order; as well as the fact that he is "an object of admiration and a model for emulation for others," as the attorneys wrote. "For this reason as well, there is room to insist on preventing his unsupervised contact with the outside."

The state, responding to the appeal, noted there are 3,300 security prisoners in Israel, and only a few have been allowed conjugal visits. One of them is Ami Popper, who murdered seven Arabs.

"It's not clear why there should be different procedures for security prisoners," says Barak-Erez. "The classification, for the purpose of denying rights, must be the degree of danger presented by the prisoner, and not his categorization as a security prisoner or a criminal. I also find it surprising at the massive reliance on classified information, which constitutes the center of gravity of the ruling."

The danger presented by Amir, which can be the basis for denying his right to conjugal visits, is supposed to be real, not theoretical, and not a matter of hindsight. It should be backed by evidence, and the near certainty of its being realized must be proven. For example, we must be convinced that Amir will exploit the conjugal visits in order to transfer messages of incitement via his fiancee, or perhaps instructions to his followers to murder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon because of Sharon's insistence on the disengagement plan.

In view of what is known about the man's character and his past, the Shin Bet is apparently not taking any chances, and is presenting such a theory, or a similar one. It succeeded in convincing Judge Bar-Ophir. The question is whether the Supreme Court will also "buy" the theory about the real danger presented by Amir.

The Supreme Court has a rich tradition of improving the lives of prisoners, both in word and in deed. "Prison walls do not separate the prisoner from human dignity," said Justice Aharon Barak in 1980, a statement that has been often cited since then.

Barak said that in the famous ruling in which the Supreme Court (in an particularly strong panel: Moshe Landau, Haim Cohn and Barak), forbade the IPS to carry out an enema on prisoners to reveal drugs hidden inside their bodies. The Supreme Court rejected the enema on the basis of damage to human dignity, and preferred this value even at the expense of learning the truth, and perhaps even if it meant letting a criminal go free.

This logic guided Barak, about 20 years later, in a ruling that forbade the Shin Bet from using torture in dealing with Palestinian prisoners; at that time Barak enriched Israeli legal decisions with another statement: "Democracy often fights with one hand tied behind its back."

Right to vote

In 1959, an appeal by prisoners to participate in the Knesset elections was rejected, because of the expense involved in order to make that possible. In 1981 there was a sign of change, when the Supreme Court ruled that "this is one of the basic rights of the citizen ... a right that was not denied by law to a person serving a prison sentence."

And in fact, three years later, during the 1984 elections, the judges forced the Knesset to amend the Knesset Elections Law to enable prisoners and detainees to participate in the elections.

In another case, in 1974, the court rejected the decision of the prison director not to allow prisoner Rami Livneh to bring the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao into the prison, for fear that bringing in the books would arouse political arguments among the prisoners. Justice Haim Cohn wrote in the decision at the time:

"We praise the director of the prison for always having before him the maintenance of quiet between the prison walls, but we haven't heard that in the name of `maintaining quiet' he can prevent arguments among the prisoners, including political arguments. As long as discipline and order are maintained in the prison, the prisoners are allowed to argue among themselves about any subject they choose; and if discipline and order are disturbed, those who cause the disturbance will be held to account for their behavior, but they will not be held to account for the subject of their argument."

The unique status of security prisoners is discussed in a ruling from 1996 that dealt with the appeal of terrorist Samir Kuntar to expand his right to telephone calls.

Justice Yitzhak Zamir wrote at the time that "the main interests that must be considered in determining an arrangement regarding the communication of security prisoners with the outside world, alongside the right of the prisoner, are order and security, not only in the prison itself, but outside the prison as well. That means that the security of the state is an interest that must be considered in this matter. Because a person is confined in jail not only as a punishment for a crime, but in order to protect society from him."

In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression is a constitutional right even for prisoners. At the time, prisoner Avi Golan wanted to write a column for a local Netanya newspaper, and the IPS prohibited it. District Judge Arye Even-Ari adopted the view of the IPS, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling by a majority of two, Eliahu Mazza and Dalia Dorner, versus Mishael Cheshin.

The debate among the justices also touched indirectly on the issue of conjugal visits. Mazza and Dorner ruled that freedom of expression is part of human dignity, and therefore it is a right even for prisoners, and Cheshin differed with them. In his opinion, freedom of expression is not part of human dignity. He feels that other rights derive from human dignity: the right to sleep in a bed, for example, and the right to conjugal visits.

If the clear stance of Menachem Alon in 1987 is joined to the remark by Justice Cheshin, there is no doubt that Judge Bar-Ophir erred in his classification of conjugal visits - they are a basic right, rather than a privilege.

Bunnies, but not of the Playboy variety

The third Gay Parade to take place in the capital Thursday afternoon has already drawn fire, even before it has begun. Rabbi David Batzri, a famous Jerusalem mystic, said that the punishment of homosexuals would come in their next reincarnation – as rabbits and bunnies.
Jerusalem Post

Why rabbits? Apart from being non-kosher, rabbits seem to be best known for their fecundity, and if it's one thing homosexuals aren't, it's fecund. Beside, rabbits are popular pets here in Israel, much loved and cuddled (since they can't be eaten and don't bite). Doesn't seem like much of a punishment to be reincarnated as one. Maybe it would be a more fitting fate to be reincarnated as (choose any or all which are appropriate:gasp!, groan!, snort!, giggle!)as HETEROSEXUALS?

What Goes Around, Comes Around

Jordan appeals for world's help to save Dead Sea

Jordan appealed Tuesday for international assistance to help save the ecosystem of the Dead Sea, whose water level is dropping.

The surface level of the sea - the saltiest water in the world and the lowest point on earth - has fallen 1 meter (3.3 feet) a year for at least the past 20 years because of evaporation and the diversion of rivers by Syria and Israel.

Experts warn the Dead Sea will disappear in 50 years if current trends persist.

One solution would be for Jordan and Israel to draw water from the Red Sea, which lies at the end of the long valley in which the Dead Sea lies. The two countries have agreed on the plan, but they are waiting for funding approval from the World Bank and other donor countries.

"We appeal to water experts attending this conference to help us explain the crisis of the Dead Sea at international forums," Jordanian Water and Irrigation Minister Hazem al-Nasser said Tuesday. He was speaking on the sidelines of a five-day meeting on water held at the Dead Sea resort of Southern Shuneh, 45 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of the capital, Amman.

"The Dead Sea is a unique international treasure, and it's the world's responsibility to take decisive action immediately to save this treasure," al-Nasser said.

He said the receding of the sea will have negative consequences, such as the formation of sink holes, 20 meters (66 feet) in depth.

The conference brought together some 1,500 experts and officials from 30 countries to discuss the management of water.

Al-Nasser said Israel had presented Jordan with a draft plan that envisages drawing water from the Red Sea through a canal to be built along the Jordanian-Israeli border.

The project, which is expected to cost more than US$1 billion, would exploit the 400-meter (1,320-foot) difference in altitude between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea.
Associated Press Jun. 1, 2004

About 20 years ago there was the proposed "Med-Dead" Canal, which would have replenished the Dead Sea, and because of the difference in height between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, would have generated lots and lots of electricity for Israel by way of strategically placed dams in the Negev. There was also some talk of desalinating water en route, to be used for irrigation. Quite a bit of money was raised, as I remember, before it was abandoned as impractical. Israelis were urged by the government to invest in the scheme, as well as trying to find wealthy overseas investors. Now we're going to import the Red Sea into the Dead Sea? Frankly, I liked the original idea better. The only thing going for this revised plan to save the Dead Sea is that Israel might not have to pay for it. But don't bet on it. (Don't bet on it actually happening, either)

Florence, Where Are You When We Need You?

Yahalom slams nursing plan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich Jun. 1, 2004 (Jerusalem Post)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charging the Health Ministry with aiming to "destroy schools of nursing" through a plan that is "liable to be catastrophic to the health system," Knesset Labor, Social Affairs, and Health Committee chairman Shaul Yahalom has demanded the ministry "immediately halt" its plan to allow training only for academic graduates.

Yahalom (NRP) demanded that the ministry wait until the plan is reassessed and presented in an organized and clear way.

Ministry nursing administration head Dr. Shosh Reba presented the plan, which includes the closing of nursing schools and and transferring students to universities and colleges, at a meeting of the committee on Monday.

Under the plan, non-academic registered nurses and practical nurses will not be trained, but only academically trained nurses.

Opponents of the plan said it will produce "an army of senior officers without soldiers." The US, England, and Australia, which had adopted such a program, are now suffering from a severe shortage of nurses and reopening nursing schools that offer various levels of training.

There are even cases of importing foreign nurses, they said. The opponents said that even though the plan has not been formally approved, registration for nursing schools attached to hospitals has declined to half, and that the fate of new classes in September is in doubt.

The ministry responded by saying that "there is no danger at all to the training of nurses."
A conference to discuss the plan is to be held on Thursday, and the program will be brought to Health Minister Dan Naveh for approval.

The ministry has promised that the plan will not be implemented until it is presented to MK Ilana Cohen, who is also chairman of the Israel Nurses Union, and members of the Knesset committee.

"Without any connection to the plan, the ministry has been asked following a cabinet decision to reach an agreement with the universities on finding a solution for academic training of nurses. They would study for an academic degree and get clinical experience in the hospitals like other medical professionals," a ministry spokesman said.

"In addition, the ministry and the Council for Higher Education are working toward a solution in which students at hospital nursing schools without an academic framework will be able to get academic training in the universities."

Oh, just how stupid we can be. Israel's nurse/patient ratio is already appalling and the pay and job conditions are discouraging to anyone of intelligence, and now the Ministry of Health wants all nurses to be academic degree holders, in the way America has gone. At least 90% of Israel's 10,000 hospital nurses are RNs without degrees--there has just been a massive struggle to upgrade all Practical Nurses to Registered Nurse status (and it was a struggle since almost all nurses in Israel are married women with children who had neither the time to study nor could afford the loss in salary while reducing their working hours to accomodate the time the courses took.)

This is a country where electric beds are virtually unknown: "if you can't lift it, drag it" is the motto; one nurse can be responsible for as many as 30 patients on some wards with completely inadequate supplies of linen and basic equipment like thermometers (but there are three CT scanners and three facilities with an MRI in Jerusalem alone) , the work week is six days long, and the gross pay for a nurse working full time, all shifts in the same week and at least two Shabbatot is less than $2000 per month. And now, they think the situation will get better by requiring women who've just done two years in the army and are already 21-22, to invest in a further four years, at great expense (you might be able to get a BA in Literature and wait on tables at night at the same time, but I want to see a nursing student put in a 40-hour week in class and on the wards and then hold down a second job). And if, as is most likely in this very family-oriented country, she's married and a mother before 25...the mind boggles.

Moreover, I have strong doubts--had them over a quarter of a century ago in the States--about the actual value of an academic degree in nursing. The first degree graduates began working when I did--and they lacked all practical experience. We studied and worked simultaneously, so that the classroom lessons were given immediate reinforcement. A senior nursing student could function quite well as a head nurse if need be. When I was being interviewed in the UK as a prospective student midwife, the Director of Nurses in one hospital said to me, "I have a difficulty with American nurses--they know everything there is to know about the theories of pillow placement, but they're incapable of adjusting the pillows so the patient's comfortable". It was a point well taken.

And they want to bring it here? Oy!