|
The former deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset told the audience of some 250 her fear is that Israel, in an attempt to protect its Jewish identity, is marginalizing others, particularly Israeli Arabs. “Democracy is measured by how [the people] treat their minorities,” she said, speaking with an obvious sadness in her voice as she explained examples such as the difference in the level of funding for Israeli-Arab schools compared to primarily Jewish ones. She also fights for gender equality, she said, explaining that in some areas of the country, women must enter buses from the back while men sit in the front. “If it’s wrong, it’s got to be stopped,” she said, describing herself as the mother of civil society in Israel. About 15 protesters stood outside the entrance to the synagogue before the talk, distributing information on the NIF. Most of them were from the Jewish Defence League (JDL), a group that describes its goal as protecting Jews from anti-Semitism. Meir Weinstein, JDL Canada’s national director, told The CJN the goal of the protest was to make sure people understand what the NIF is about. One issue, he said, is its funding of groups who describe the Israel Defence Forces as war criminals. “Jews have to be united, and for Jews to start criticizing Israel, going as far as calling the IDF a war criminal organization is certainly not helpful to the cause of Israel,” he said. Chazan joked that she felt at home as soon as she saw the demonstrators, though she insisted that she strongly supports their right to protest, particularly because it shows they care. In the past months, Chazan’s views have come under fire, particularly those regarding Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s offensive in Gaza December 2008 to January 2009. Much of this criticism is related to the Goldstone report, a UN investigation into alleged Israeli human rights violations during the war in Gaza. In the report, several NIF grantees criticized Israel’s actions. However, Chazan stressed that the NIF has nothing to do with the Goldstone report. Earlier this year, her opponents distributed and posted large signs and billboards depicting Chazan with a horn coming from her forehead, which she explained as playing on the fact that the Hebrew words for horn and fund are homonyms. Many of her opponents also used protests to show their discontent with the NIF’s actions. Her admission that during the offensive she had signed a petition calling the operation a “slaughter” of Palestinians sparked the most obvious disagreement in the audience, with people booing at her words. In general, however, the audience seemed attentive, sometimes applauding but mostly listening silently, though some people could be heard uttering disagreements under their breath. Rabbi Eva Goldfinger of the Oraynu Congregation for Humanistic Judaism said in an interview after the talk that she has been supporting the NIF since its conception. She said she supports about 80 per cent of its views, disagreeing mostly with its granting funds to what she called violent Palestinian groups. They should support pro-Palestinian groups, she said, but must draw the line when the groups begin to promote violence. She described Chazan as very warm, with a “listening voice,” despite sometimes avoiding fully answering the questions, such as when one man asked for an explanation as to why the NIF supports certain groups. However, Rabbi Goldfinger said this seemed to come from an effort to maintain a peaceful environment. Despite disagreeing with some of the grantees, she said she supports the right to present varying opinions. “It’s because we don’t listen to each other that we are angry,” she said. Chazan also stressed the importance of listening to opinions that may be contrary to public opinion. She said a recent study showed that 79 per cent of the books on the reading lists for political science courses at Israeli universities criticize Israel. While some people deem this inappropriate, she argued this critical thinking is the purpose of universities. One audience member was a woman from Syria who thanked Chazan for her actions, stressing that it is her type of views that are key to creating peace. Chazan responded that she dreams of one day being able to drive from her home in Israel to have lunch in Syria. However, she emphasized that in order for peace to come, Israel must treat democracy as a garden with a need for constant care. “Anybody who is concerned about Israel’s existence must first and foremost protect Israel’s democracy,” she said to an applauding audience, describing this as the heart of her lecture. “If we lose our democratic character, we will not survive.” Assertions were recently made in The CJN that the New Israel Fund funds violent groups (“Criticism key to democracy, New Israel Fund president says,” May 13; “New Israel Fund’s grants,” letters, May 21). This is utterly false. The NIF does not fund any groups that have engaged in or espouse violence. Period. It never has, and it never will. Nor has the NIF funded any groups that question Israel’s right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people. In the article “Criticism key to democracy, New Israel Fund president says” (May 13), it is stated that I have been supporting the NIF since its inception and support about 80 per cent of its views, and in The CJN writer’s words, “disagreeing mostly with its granting funds to what she called violent Palestinian groups.” Then, in the letter to the editor “New Israel Fund’s grants” (May 21), the letter writer erroneously picked up the words from The CJN article, as if they were what I had said. Please note, “about 80 per cent” is not a statistic. It is an indication that I mostly support NIF views and actions. I do not need to approve 100 per cent of their choices, but I would draw the line at support of violent Palestinian groups. I continue to support NIF because they, in fact, do not support violent Palestinian groups, of which they have been wrongfully accused. As Jews and as humans, we are rightfully outraged when propaganda is fabricated against Israel by those who do not agree with its views and actions, in order to vilify and delegitimize it. We should be equally outraged when the same is done to a respectable organization such as NIF by those who wish to delegitimize its human rights work. Accusers are responsible to bring proof, and no proof has been brought to support the lies about NIF. |
