|
Larry Garber
Larry Garber is the CEO/Executive Director of the New Israel Fund (NIF), an organization whose main goal is to "strengthen Israel's democracy by supporting programs that safeguard civil and human rights, bridge social and economic gaps, foster tolerance for all inhabitants, and enable different forms of religious practice to thrive." NIF distributes more than $15 million annually in grants to Israeli organizations.
Garber served as a senior policymaker with United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from 1993-99 and as Director of USAID's West Bank and Gaza Mission from 1999-2004 (full bio here).
We will mostly discuss issues related to civil rights, the gaps between haves/have nots in Israel, and the Israel-Diaspora relationships pertaining to these topics. Readers are welcomed to send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.
Dear Larry
I'll ask the last question for this week and dialog, and as most readers wanted to ask mainly about your involvement with Arab Israelis, I want to go back to the more general question of prioritizing the different competing causes that the NIF work for. How do you make the decision of what's more important, and more specifically, what do you think are the most 3-4 urgent issues on which you'd like NIF to have an impact in the coming years.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Best
Rosner
Shmuel,
I appreciate your asking this more general question. Too many people assume that the New Israel Fund works only in the Arab sector. While we are proud of our efforts to combat discrimination against the Arab minority, NIF work in the Arab sector constitutes only 30 percent of our total program resources. The remaining 70 percent of NIF programs address problems faced by other marginalized groups (e.g., new immigrants, the disabled, gays and lesbians, etc.) and, more generally, Israeli society (e.g., environmental degradation and non-recognition of Conservative and Reform movements)
Five years ago, we undertook a comprehensive strategic planning process and identified the following major problems facing Israeli society: the widening gaps between rich and poor; and the lack of civic equality towards minority groups and towards those whose practices differed from religious orthodoxy. These problems remain and pose subtle but real challenges to Israel?s security and democratic character. For example, we read with surprise and concern that Israel, among developed countries, now has the largest gap between rich and poor and the highest percentage of children who live in households that are classified as falling below the poverty level, as defined by Israel?s National Insurance Institute. This must change.
We maintain the areas of focus identified five years ago ? civil rights, social justice and religious pluralism ? even as we adapt our programs in response to specific developments. Thus, last year we undertook a special campaign to ensure that the disengagement process was implemented in a manner that did not undermine Israel?s core democratic values. And, we responded to this summer?s war with initiatives that addressed the psycho-social traumas inflicted upon segments of the population that were unable to leave their homes in the North and the economic hardships suffered by micro entrepreneurs, particularly women. We also are now implementing new programs dealing with the problems of youth-at-risk in the Russian and Ethiopian communities and the mentally disabled.
We are also concerned with the Israel-Diaspora relationship. We track polls that show a growing disaffection with Israel among young Jews. And, the vibrancy of the contemporary Jewish Diaspora experience is rarely appreciated by most Israelis. We believe that the type of Israel-Diaspora partnership that NIF represents, and the type of civil rights and social justice issues that we address in Israel, provide opportunities to engage young Israeli and Diaspora Jews, who are determined to change the world or, in our language, to engage in Tikkun Olam.
Let me close this dialogue with a personal note. At the end of the day, I believe that Israel will prosper over the long-term only if a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is attained. And, having worked for five years with Palestinians, I am convinced that a majority of the Palestinians have reached a similar conclusion regarding what they need to achieve their aspirations. However, unlike many of my friends, I do not believe that the starting point for achieving such a resolution is a new American diplomatic initiative, or even a dramatic change in policy by Israeli or Palestinian leaders. Rather, attitudinal changes are required within both societies. These changes will not come about merely through dialogues between Palestinians and Israelis, however worthy such efforts may be. Instead, within each society a culture of tolerance and respect toward fellow citizens must be established, and an appreciation of what is required to sustain a democratic and prosperous society must be internalized. These objectives motivated my work with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and they do likewise for my current efforts with the New Israel Fund.
Shabbat Shalom and Happy last day of Hanukkah!
Larry
Dear Larry,
You imply in your response to the previous reader that Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is not equal. If that's the case, why do people jump all over the fact that former president Jimmy Carter called Israel an apartheid state?
Nora Hassan,
OH
Dear Nora,
I have not yet read Carter's latest book, so I will not comment on the content, or involve myself in the debate regarding Carter's motives, analysis or recommendations. However, although Carter is apparently careful not to describe Israel as an apartheid state, his use of such a loaded term in the title, even if the reference is only to Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza, inevitably serves to provoke, rather than enlighten.
Lest we forget, apartheid was a pernicious system of state-sponsored physical separation and constitutionally prescribed discrimination based on an overtly racist ideology. Israel, with a problematic history of unequal treatment toward its Arab citizens, is in no way comparable to the apartheid regime in South Africa.
When I speak of Israel's unequal treatment towards its Arab citizens, my reference point is the contemporary U.S. experience with race. While the post-civil war amendments to the US constitution, theoretically, eliminated legal forms of racial discrimination, the reality was that, in much of the country, blacks could not purchase property in certain neighborhoods, send their children to quality schools, and participate in the political process.
However, during the past 50 years, through a combination of political activism, civil rights legislation and precedent-setting court decisions, the situation has improved dramatically, although we are not free, nor may we ever be, of the legacy of our problematic history.
The realities in Israel are also changing. In 1999, the Israeli High Court voided a practice that prevented an Israeli Arab couple from purchasing a home in the town of Katzir. And several months ago, the High Court voided a government policy that identified towns and villages as national preference zones because the policy was being implemented in a manner that discriminated against Israel's Arab minority.
There are limits, however, to what can be accomplished through a litigation strategy. As is true today in the United States, the legacy of discrimination in Israel contributes to the lack of economic opportunities available to Israel's Arab citizens and to the poor physical and social infrastructures that affect their quality of life.
We hope this will change. With the money that has been committed by the government and other resources that have been raised abroad, the government has a unique opportunity to address the wide economic and social gaps that exist between Jews and Arabs, and also among different segments of Israel's Jewish community.
To monitor government commitments and to advocate for just reconstruction of the North during the post-war period SHATIL, NIF's technical assistance arm, has formed the North Star Forum, which comprises a conglomerate of diverse social change organizations. Already, the North Star Forum has convened a series of public hearings and organized demonstrations to ensure that the government's actions correspond with its rhetoric.
Larry
Dear Mr. Garber,
I think the NIF got all mixed up. You think that by helping the Arabs (Arab Israelis and Arab Palestinians) you're helping the Jews. But it is not so. If you want to help the Jewish people - and the Jewish State - you should help, well, Jews, not Arabs. And so as to have a question at the end of my remarks let me ask this: Why do you invest so much of your money and effort in helping Arabs? Let the 22 Arab States contribute money for them.
Thank you,
Michael J. Nissenbaum
Dear Michael,
As I stated in a previous posting, NIF is committed to supporting Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Both Jewish tradition and democratic practice require that Israel treat all citizens in a non-discriminatory and just fashion. Unfortunately, as described in detail in the Orr Commission report, which was prepared following the events of October 2000 when 12 Israeli Arabs were killed by the police, Israeli governments have too often failed to respect these norms as they apply to the Arab minority. The result is that Israel?s Arab citizens, taken as a whole, rank at the bottom of virtually all socio-economic indicators and feel alienated from the state.
In these circumstances, NIF is quite proud of the fact that for 27 years we have been a leader in funding organizations that advocate for equal treatment for all Israeli citizens, including the Arab minority. And, we are proud that some progress has been made, most notably as a result of a series of decisions by Israel?s High Court during the past decade that have proscribed the most egregious discriminatory practices affecting the Arab minority. Still, there is much work that needs to be done.
While I am comfortable relying on a values based argument, I am also are convinced that Israeli security requires the fair treatment of all citizens. Looking around the world, we see too many instances where the discriminatory treatment of an ethnic, religious or national minority leads to the minority?s rejection of the state's authority and the bloody consequences of an internal conflict. Certainly, the more effective and less costly approach is to address legitimate grievances forthrightly by changing laws, practices and attitudes.
NIF's promotion of equal rights for all Israelis was once viewed as a fringe position within the Diaspora Jewish community, but fortunately opinions are changing. The current head of the Jewish Agency, Zeev Bielski, has stated explicitly that his mandate covers the well-being of all Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs. His view has now received the endorsement of the United Jewish Communities. And, an Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arabs has now been operating for two years with a steering committee that includes the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the American Joint Distribution Committee, and the New Israel Fund.
Lastly, I would ask what those who critique my position want Israel to do. Establish two sets of laws governing the Jewish and Arab population, and overtly discriminate against the latter? Prevent the Arab population from taking advantage of living in a democracy by denying them the right to organize or to express themselves freely? I doubt such an approach would be tolerated by a majority of the Israeli population, and even Israel's friends in the international community would have a hard time defending such policies.
Larry
Dear Larry,
My second question will be fairly abstract, but it is very important. I want you to try and draw for the readers the boundaries of Jewish-American intervention in Israel's affairs. And what do I mean: You (and the organization you work for) have many goals, some fairly consensual, some more controversial. However, your funding of social-justice activities in Israel can't be merely described as "social work," but rather as an ideological quest to change the nature of Israel. You try to promote certain Israeli policies and legislation; you recently called on the Prime Minister to reject a party or a person (namely, Avigdor Lieberman) from his cabinet. And other possible examples are endless.
What is it that gives the New Israel Fund the right to meddle in internal Israeli affairs? Is it the fact that you have some Israelis as partners? Is it the money allocations? Is it the stake that every Jew has in Israel? And what will you consider an issue on which NIF can't take a position that's contrary to Israel's official policy?
Best,
Rosner
Shmuel,
Your question is abstract in the context of talking about American-Jewish organizations, in general. As I constantly discover, there are many types of Jewish organizations and they would offer a range of answers to your question. So, let me speak only as the Executive Director of the New Israel Fund.
NIF was formed in 1979 as a partnership between Israelis and Diaspora Jews. We have a single Board and a unified management structure. Our program staff are all Israeli citizens; they live in Israel and they work directly with Israeli counterparts. Our grants committee, which determines the organizations that receive NIF support, is overwhelmingly Israeli. Likewise, our SHATIL committee, which is responsible for supervising our technical assistance arm and implementing targeted projects. Thus, when we take a position on a specific policy issue, we do so from the perspective of being part of the Israeli polity, and not as an external actor.
More generally, NIF draws inspiration from both the prophetic tradition in Judaism and the Israeli Declaration of Independence. When we seek to promote social change in Israel, these sources provide the intellectual basis for the policies and organizations that we support. At the same time, the Diaspora experience also may influence our substantive discourse and the approaches we use for achieving our social change objectives.
As an organization, NIF is firmly committed to Israel?s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Our specific emphasis, for the past several years, has been on promoting civil rights and non-discrimination, social justice, and religious pluralism and tolerance for all Israelis. These objectives reflect our collective ? Diaspora Jew and Israeli ? understanding of both what is required to create a just and secure Israel.
The Avigdor Lieberman case provides an excellent example of how our processes work. When Prime Minister Olmert announced his intention to invite Lieberman into the government, we joined with a broad coalition of Israeli nongovernmental organizations to protest the decision and published an ad in the media explaining our concerns. Ten days later, NIF President Peter Edelman and I published an op-ed in Newsday further articulating why including someone with Lieberman?s public views about Israel?s Arab citizens in the government coalition is so antithetical to Israel?s democratic values.
We believe that, in a democratic society, the government should not be immune from criticism on any issue, even those that require a balancing of security considerations with human rights and other difficult issues. Thus, we are thankful that Israel has competitive political parties, vibrant media outlets, active civil society organizations and a very independent judiciary. In this democratic environment, NIF?s role is to support, consistent with our commitment to Israel?s special character and our agreed upon specific objectives, those nongovernmental organizations who seek to influence government policy, litigate before the high court or educate the Israeli public regarding particular matters.
Larry
Dear Larry,
We will be discussing other issues this week, but I will start with the topic that now tops of the agenda around the world. As former director of USAID's West Bank and Gaza Mission (1999-2004), there aren't many Americans who can claim greater knowledge of Palestinian society than you. Does this help you to make an assessment of the recent moves by Abbas and Hamas? Are we on the way to the dreaded civil war?
Best,
Rosner
Shmuel,
Happy Hanukkah!
As you can imagine, I have been watching the situation in the West Bank and Gaza deteriorate with considerable consternation.
Having spent five years as the Director of the USAID's West Bank and Gaza mission, I have many friends and former colleagues living in the Palestinian Territories. Their description of security and humanitarian conditions are depressing, and their expectations of a better future are growing increasingly faint.
Tensions between Hamas and Fatah, at the political level and between their respective security forces, are real and escalating. Consequently, the likelihood of a civil war is a contingency that deserves attention by policymakers in Ramallah, Jerusalem and Washington.
I am always cautious, however, in predicting the immediate on-set of civil war. Several times during my tenure as USAID Director, and certainly in the year following Hamas' parliamentary electoral victory, the prospects of a civil war among Palestinians seemed imminent. Indeed, many in the international community and in Israel view such an outcome as a potentially positive development.
The argument is that the Palestinians need an "Altalena" like event, whereby a single authority is recognized, and all independent militias dismantled by force or suasion. Certainly, present circumstances are more dismal than ever before.
The political rift between Fatah and Hamas is exacerbated by the fact that the various Palestinian security forces, many of which are dominated by Fatah loyalists, have not been paid their full salaries for months.
At the same time, Hamas has been developing a security force to complement their existing militia. So far, we have only seen minor skirmishes, but the firepower is readily available for a much more sustained and bloody internal conflict.
That said, I do not think a civil war is inevitable nor do I think a civil war would necessarily serve Israeli or U.S. interests. Palestinians are accustomed to moving toward the brink of civil war, and then pulling back at the last moment. I suspect this may happen again.
President Abbas' announcement on Saturday that he will seek early presidential and parliamentary elections may be a ploy to force Hamas to bargain more seriously about the formation of a National Unity government, which would obtain international legitimacy and facilitate the flow of aid from the international community and the withheld tax revenues from Israel.
At the end of the day, Palestinian society, like Israeli society, is subject to many domestic political pressures and constraints. The party that instigates a civil war would lose significant public backing. And the reality of a Palestinian civil war is that Israel would be drawn more directly into the firing line and the restraints that have minimized the impact of what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza on the daily lives of most Israelis (i.e., excluding those in Sderot and the nearby kibbutzim) would be lifted.
My last comment is that those who care about Israeli security should not look callously at the on-going suffering in the Palestinian Territories. Through my years as Mission Director, I became convinced that only when Palestinians (and Israelis) see positive improvements in their daily lives would the ground be fertile for the far-reaching concessions necessary for a permanent peace. We are continuing in the wrong direction; the further we slip into the abyss the harder it will be to reverse course.
Larry
|
