Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had a surprise in store for participants of this week's conference in Jerusalem on the future of the Jewish people. Right at the start of his speech, Olmert declared that he had changed the central focus of his personal identity: If in the past he had instinctively defined himself as an Israeli, in the last few years he has begun to feel that he is "first a Jew."

The participants from the Diaspora no doubt felt pleasure upon hearing this. But to an Israeli ear, Olmert's remarks sounded as if they reflected a significant change in the attitude of Israeli prime ministers to the Israel-Diaspora question: If previously, it had been clear to them that Israel is the center of the Jewish people's life, and if Ariel Sharon even continued to demand that Jews come and live in Israel whenever he met with them - Olmert has introduced a different nuance.

True, he also spoke of the "uniqueness" of Israel within the Jewish fabric, but he related even to this with an apologetic air.

	Advertisement

His entire speech, which he delivered during the three-day conference organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI), sounded as if it were cobbled together according to a recipe that Olmert assumed would reach the hearts of American Jewry. This is generally a winning formula, but this time Olmert had not done his homework, because the participants in the conference had come to Israel to hold a purposeful dialogue about ideas that would advance the Jewish future. His speech did not contribute a thing to this goal, neither practical ideas nor even basic guidelines. There was nevertheless one message in the speech: Olmert opened with an apology to the media, promising that "this speech will be boring" - and he kept his word.

Is this 1938?

If until recently, every conference dealing with the future of the Jewish people focused on the problem of assimilation, the depressing message of this week's conference was that dealing with that issue is today a luxury the Jews cannot allow themselves. The Jewish people is today once again more concerned about the dangers that threaten its very physical existence than it is over its size or its strength. Among the workshops that were asked to present recommendations was one dealing with "identity and demography," but judging by the opening session, the most serious concerns are the Iranian threat to Israel, and the dangers of international terror vis-a-vis Jewish communities around the world.

Part of the discussion focused on the comment made recently by opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, while comparing Iran today to Nazi Germany, that "this is 1938." Irwin Cotler, former justice minister of Canada and one of the heads of JPPPI, claimed that "we are witnessing a gathering storm without parallel or precedent since 1938." Nevertheless, he continued, "2007 is not 1938. There is a Jewish state as an antidote to Jewish vulnerability. There is a Jewish people with unprecedented resources."

Saul Singer, who edits the oped page of The Jerusalem Post, pointed out that "the question is not if we are in 1938, but rather what we should do in order not to be there." In his opinion, the most significant similarity between the two eras - now and then - lies in the Jews' paralysis in the face of danger, which stems from the fear of turning that danger into a "Jewish problem" and looking like warmongers. "But if we do not broadcast an existential threat," said Singer, "why will others take action?"

On the other hand, Eran Lerman, head of the Israeli branch of the American Jewish Committee, tried to focus on the cup being half-full: "We are alarmed by a few Trotskyite organizations in Britain that are demanding a boycott of Israel and forget that we have unusual prestige with the two rising powers, China and India, and that even the Catholic Church, one of the most influential bodies in the world, has declared that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism," he said.

Advantageous globalization

Nevertheless, it is impossible to get through a Jewish conference without at least a little discussion about assimilation. Saul Singer said there is no point in dealing with those who want to leave the religion. On the other hand, Singer proposed focusing on the alternative to assimilation - mass conversion, and not merely in Israel. He believes there are many people in the Western world who are interested in Judaism, and that if the authorities didn't make things so difficult for them, they might also want to convert.

At the time of this writing, it is not clear whether that idea will be accepted as an official recommendation of the conference. If so, it would be a revolutionary innovation in the history of the Jewish people, who, ever since the days they forced conversion onto the Edomites, in the second century B.C.E., not only have not undertaken missionary activity, but tried to make it as difficult as possible for those who wanted to convert.

With regard to the struggle against assimilation, there were speakers who stressed the advantage of globalization. Some of the participants raised the idea that the global era, and in particular the revolution in telecommunications, could further Jewish education via the Internet - and at low cost.

No young people

During the opening session, the complaint was heard that there were no young people at the conference. Some participants reiterated the demand by JPPPI president Prof. Yehezkel Dror that at every Jewish conference, one-third of the participants should be under the age of 35. Abraham Foxman, the perennial chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, was not moved. In his opinion: "We have come here because 40 years ago we were young people who began to deal with the affairs of the Jewish people. That is what will happen with the youth of today, too."

The question of the professional diversity of the participants did not arise during the discussions, but it was certainly relevant. The Israeli delegation included not only the heads of Jewish organizations, but also professors, journalists, people from the economic sphere and government representatives. The delegations from abroad included, for the most part, heads of organizations. Not only were Jewish intellectuals missing, but also those who specifically study the Jewish people (for example Jack Wertheimer, Steven Cohen, Jonathan Sarna and Arnold Eisen).

Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish organizations in the United States, said this situation can be explained by the fact that, because all Jewish activity takes place in the context of the organizations, there are no longer individual Jewish leaders per se. The director of JPPPI, Avinoam Bar-Yosef, explained to Haaretz that people were missing simply because of their busy schedules. Another one of the heads of the institute commented, on condition of anonymity, that various people from abroad were unusually interested in the subject, and hence "the heads of the organizations fight among themselves over the places at the conference, whereas here in Israel the politicians have no interest in the subject and so there are enough places for a more diversified participation."

Rein in the court!

The most interesting headline of the event emerged on a subject the conference had not intended to focus on. Irwin Cotler, one of the foremost jurists in the world and a veteran activist on the issue of human rights, attacked what he called the "legalization of life" in Israel, both in terms of the large number of petitions to the High Court of Justice, and from the standpoint of the fact that every issue seems to be brought up for discussion before that court. Cotler appears to be joining the school of thought of law professor Ruth Gavison and Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, which calls for reining in the juridical empire of the High Court.

In a more detailed conversation, Cotler tried to appear more circumspect and "to put things into context." But what he said places him undoubtedly in the Gavison school. In his opinion, as someone who helped design Canada's constitutional revolution (which in 1982 formulated its charter of human rights), he had supported the important role of the court in the constitutional democracy and its function as a guarantor of human rights. But he saw two striking contrasts between the Israeli model and that of Canada.

First, the Canadian model came to fruition after a prolonged public debate; 22 years had passed since the text of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was first proposed and until it was finally accepted. During those years, hundreds of hearings were held, in which the public was invited to participate, and the final result was very different from the original draft. By contrast, in Israel the public has not in any way been a partner to the formulation of the constitutional revolution.

Cotler added that the second difference concerned the right to bring a case before the court for a hearing and judgment. He said he understands that the court wants to give a broad public the chance of approaching it, but noted that this creates a dynamic of legalization of public policy. This in turn leads to an upset in the checks and balances between the various arms of government, thus affecting the status of the parliament. Since the Knesset is already busy at present formulating a constitution, Cotler suggested that the High Court of Justice should limit the right to bring a case up for discussion until a constitution is in place that defines the rules of the game between the authorities, and determines the prerogatives of the Knesset and of the High Court.