This summary provides the key points from the document in 3 sentences: The document discusses several topics related to Israel including the upcoming Gaza flotilla, the potential Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood, and the views of German politicians on these issues. It also summarizes an article about the different priorities of "security Jews" versus "democracy Jews" when it comes to Israel. Throughout, the document analyzes how these events and perspectives could impact Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the peace process.

1. GERMANY EDITION
JUNE 30, 2011
Dear Friends:
There is deep concern in the American Jewish community about both the upcoming
Gaza flotilla due to leave this week and the implications of the planned Palestinian
unilateral declaration of statehood. Neither will succeed to the degree that the
people behind them hope for. Some feel that Israel will suffer diplomatically but I
think that will pale when contrasted to the real disaster that awaits the Palestinian
people in the West Bank and Gaza. Both items are addressed below.
Summer has arrived in New York with sun, warmth and, perhaps, a little bit too much
humidity. New York State has just approved same-sex marriage – another great step
toward equality. The more conservative elements in the Jewish community were
opposed. We are a disputatious people.
Our national politicians are battling over fiscal responsibility and the national debt. I
guess there is some chance that the U.S. might default if the national debt limit is not
increased. You may find us on line behind the Greeks looking for a bailout.
(Editor’s Personal Note: My colleague, Lena Altman, a native German, who has
worked for AJC in New York for 8 years, is returning to Berlin to be part of Deidre
Berger’s AJC staff there. She, her husband and small child are looking for a 4 room
apartment to rent. Does anybody out there know of a vacancy? If so, please write to
Lena directly at altmanl@ajc.org . Any help will be appreciated. Thanks!)
Let’s get on with the news…
IN THIS EDITION
GAZA FLOTILLA No. 2 – Does disaster await? For whom?
UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF STATEHOOD – The real question is, “Who
loses?”
JERUSALEM – What about the people who live there?
WESTERWELLE & NIEBEL – The German stance on statehood.
DEMOCRACRY & SECURITY – A different (and interesting) way to look at the way
Jews see these issues.
JEWS & THE TEA PARTY – Is conservatism becoming appealing?
1

2. ISOLATIONISM – Is it growing in the Republican Party?
WHAT DO ISRAELI JEWS THINK? – An interesting poll.
GAZA FLOTILLA No. 2
It appears that in spite of it being warned against by the U.S., the UN Secy. General,
Turkey and Greece, the organizers of the Gaza Flotilla No. 2 are determined to go
ahead with their attempt to reach Gaza. (Y-Net News) Even “Germany’s Left Party
(Ed. Note: Not known for being pro-Israel) passed a resolution earlier this month
barring the party’s parliamentary representatives and employees from participating
in the upcoming flotilla to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, which
remains under the control of the terrorist organization Hamas.”
Since Israel has liberalized what is allowed to reach Gaza through its own borders
and that of Egypt (also there are many illegal tunnels) there is no medical or food
“emergency”. So, one must conclude (with even a scintilla of objectivity) that the
purpose of the mission is purely political and has nothing to do with relief.
If, indeed, that is the case, on whose behalf is this confrontation being carried out?
The citizens of Gaza are not without political leadership. The “government” of
Hamas rules and, therefore, it seems to me that the ultimate goal of the flotilla is to
support what is considered by both the U.S. and the EU as a terrorist organization.
Is this what the “do-gooders” making the voyage want to do? Are they being
deceived by Hamas propaganda? They will not be the first group of (perhaps) well
meaning people to fall for a false political line. Many in Europe during the rise of
communism became communists themselves thinking that they were joining a noble
cause. It didn’t turn out to be so noble and what Hamas preaches, quite frankly, is
even more toxic.
I am sure that not all the flotilla participants are those only dedicated to good deeds.
I have a strong suspicion that many harbor anti-Semitic feelings to go along with
their outward manifestations of anti-Israelism. To my way of thinking it’s O.K. to be
opposed to the Israeli policy as long as one checks with his/her own conscience.
However, to be supportive of a terrorist organization that in its charter dedicates
itself to the destruction of Israel goes beyond the bounds of acceptance.
To read about Gaza’s current state of being click here
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/world/middleeast/26gaza.html?_r=1&hp
David Harris, AJC’s Executive Director has written about this matter. Click here to
read it. http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?
c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=6178309&ct=10882177&notoc=1
2

3. Maybe common sense will prevail and the flotilla will be cancelled. However, zealots
are not normally sensible so I imagine it will sail and be confronted. Let’s hope no
one gets hurt.
UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF STATEHOOD
Unless there is some dramatic change wherein the Palestinians and the Israelis can
find their way back to the bargaining table, the Palestinians are going to go to the
UN General Assembly for a unilateral declaration of statehood in September. It will
pass in the GA but since UN official statehood requires Security Council approval
they will not become a fully recognized nation. This scenario is based on the
expectation that Fatah and Hamas can stick to their unifying agreement which is not
a given at this moment. If they can’t, all bets are off and the outcome is anyone’s
guess.
Let’s assume that they will be able to somehow stay with their agreement.
I am not a fortune teller or a prognosticator but I have been trying to think through
what will happen next. Certainly, Israel will declare the “peace process” null and void
and that will put the possibility of any further negotiations off the table for a very long
time to come.
Daniel Schwammenthal wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “Israel isn't going to simply
pack up and accept a one-sided imposition of borders or principles that ignore the
country's legitimate security concerns. The Palestinians will gain real sovereignty
only through peace talks with Israel where both sides will have to make painful
compromises.
And that is the fatal flaw inherent in the U.N. vote: Any parameters and borders
endorsed in September, however vague, would automatically become non-
negotiable positions for the Palestinians. No Palestinian Authority leader could ever
afford to be "less Palestinian" than the U.N. So if some EU members insist on
backing a U.N. vote, they'll only help make a temporary stalemate permanent.
What about the Oslo Agreements? (Schwammenthal again) Any such violation of
past agreements could easily turn bloody. Palestinians who are led to believe that a
U.N. vote will bring about immediate independence will be terribly disappointed in
September. Similar instances of disappointment in the past have often reignited
violence, and not only in the region itself. Over the past several years, trouble in the
Middle East has routinely fueled attacks on Jewish communities in Europe. EU
leaders need to be careful not to inadvertently fan the flames of a conflict that might
play itself out in their own streets. “
You don’t have to be a fortune teller to figure out that a unilateral declaration will not
benefit the Palestinian people. After a veto in the Security Council, Pres. Obama will
3

4. be under tremendous pressure to cut off all funding for the Palestinian Authority.
Other sources may also dry up especially if violence breaks out. The two pieces of
the Palestinian territory are totally dependant on outside funding. There is barely any
industry or marketable exports. What little there is will dwindle further. I believe the
living standard will severely drop and the Palestinian people will be the real losers.
Let’s hope that negotiations can back on track. No one needs more in the way of
disasters and I fear that may be the order of the day with a unilateral declaration.
JERUSALEM
In the Arab – Israeli dispute one of the main issues that always comes up and has to
be decided is the fate of Jerusalem. Will it remain all Israeli? Will it be split into dual
Israeli and Palestinian capitals, etc. etc. etc.
Rarely does anyone actually talk about the people who live there, what their lives
look like and what their current status is. Whatever the political situation dictates it is
their well being that be affected most directly.
Rabbi Ed Rettig, AJC’s Acting Israel Director has addressed that in a recent article
entitled “Jerusalem Prognosis”. In it he notes, “…in our passionate discussion of the
cause of Jerusalem we tend to lose sight of the people who live there. As we ponder
the city’s political future we do well to consider the Jerusalemites, those most
directly engaged in that future. Jerusalem is home to about three quarters of a
million people, most with large families, low incomes, and, unless things change
drastically, relatively poor economic prospects.
The invaluable Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS) released its 2011
Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem providing facts and figures. While the raw
statistics are two years old (the usual delay in scholarly JIIS analytic studies), they
illuminate long-term trends. The city is home to 773,000 people, three times the
1967 population of 266,300. Its ethnic makeup has shifted somewhat. In 1967 the
city was about one quarter Arab, while in 2009 Arabs constituted over a third of the
population. On the Jewish side, the growth in population has been overwhelmingly
Haredi (ultra-Orthodox). In 2009 Haredim made up 29% of the population while
those self-defined as “secular” were down to about 20%. As 62% of Jewish children
in Jerusalem study in Haredi schools, this trend on the Jewish side is likely to
continue.
Jerusalemites have many children. The birthrate for both Muslim Arabs (3.9 births
per woman) and Jews (4.1 births per woman) is much higher than in the rest of the
country, although the Muslim Arab birthrate is slowly coming down. (Christian Arabs,
who account for only a small portion of the population of the city have a very low
birthrate.)
Politically, the much proclaimed “unity” of the city is a fiction for one major structural
4

5. reason. Over the years, the Palestinians have boycotted Jerusalem’s municipal
elections as a way of demonstrating their long-term non-acquiescence in the
unification of the city. But this comes at the high price of shortchanging themselves
in the allocation of resources.
Municipal politicians work in much the same way all over the world, seeking to
further the interests of constituencies that elect them. Their successes (and
reelection chances) are often a function of how aggressively they pursue those
interests, often at the expense of broader policy issues. Critics of Israel charge it
with discriminatory policies against Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, but the real
reason those neighborhoods get fewer resources lies elsewhere. Palestinians do not
sit on the Municipal Council as a result of their election boycott, and thus have no
representatives at the table when the political game is played and resources
allocated. An example of the opposite strategy can be seen in the Haredi
communities, which participate in elections and whose representatives are skilled at
the art of leveraging that participation and receiving municipal resources far in
excess of what their community produces in tax revenues.
There’s more. Click here to read it. http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?
c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2818289&ct=10875921&notoc=1
After reading Ed’s article I felt a deep sense that in talking about political situations
from afar we do not sufficiently take into account those that have to have to bear the
burden of war and disruption. For instance, I feel sorry for the poor Syrian people
who have had to give up their homes and have had to face the death of loved ones
for no reason other than they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time;
Let’s hope it doesn’t happen in Jerusalem.
WESTERWELLE & NIEBEL
Foreign Minister Westerwelle, while visiting in Jerusalem came out strongly against
the move in the UN that the Palestinians are planning for a unilateral declaration of
statehood.
On June 13 D-W World.de reported, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle
and Development Minister Dirk Niebel are visiting Israel and the Palestinian
territories on Monday and Tuesday, where they will try to convince Palestinians to
drop their plan to gain UN recognition for an independent state outside the
framework of the stalled peace process.
"We must convince the Palestinians that a unilateral declaration of independence is
the wrong way to go," Niebel said in an interview with the news magazine Der
Spiegel.
5

6. Niebel said he would advise the Palestinians to present instead a resolution calling
for a two-state solution based on the border before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, as
proposed by US President Barack Obama.
"We believe that any standstill in the Middle East peace process at the present time
represents a setback, given the changes in the Arab world," Foreign Minister
Westerwelle's spokesman Andreas Peschke said in Berlin.
France and other European countries have indicated that they would recognize a
Palestinian state while German Chancellor Angela Merkel says Palestinian
independence must be negotiated within the framework of talks with Israel.
The most interesting part of the story is not the position that Westerwelle has taken.
It is consistent with the Chancellor’s position and, I guess, is in lockstep with the
Coalition’s agreed upon position. The more interesting point is the suggestion that a
non-State resolution be introduced. Of course, the 1967 border proposal is a non-
starter as far as Israel is concerned but the idea of a substitute resolution seems (at
least to me) novel. A substitute could be some sort of a face saver for Abbas and
allow him to get back to negotiations instead of going down a road that would kill off
negotiations for a long time to come. Germany’s diplomatic touch may have some
chance of success. However, if it puts blame on Israel it will lead to another blind
alley and a likely end to negotiations.
DEMOCRACRY & SECURITY
In most issues of DuBow Digest I try to point out where American Jews stand on the
important matters that confront them. Of course, there is a wide spectrum of opinion
on almost all issues and I find it hard sometimes to identify the major underlying
motivating forces that individual Jews have particularly on those issues surrounding
Israel’s security and its future.
In a recent The Jerusalem Post article by Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, the President of the
Union for Reform Judaism Rabbi Yoffie said, “When it comes to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, we generally divide Jews into hawks and doves or right-wingers
and left-wingers. But a more accurate division might be “security Jews” vs.
“democracy Jews.”
“Security Jews” are those whose greatest concern is Israel’s vulnerability to military
attack. They emphasize Israel’s fragility as a small state in a bad
neighborhood. They call for defensible borders, and for strategic depth that did not
exist prior to 1967. They talk of a military presence along the Jordan River that will
enable Israel to repel a possible invasion from current or future enemies.
“Democracy Jews” are those whose focus is on retaining Israel’s character as a
Jewish and democratic state. They worry about Israeli control of Palestinians in the
6

7. territories. They insist that “Jewish and democratic” cannot be a cliché or an empty
slogan, but must mean a state that has a secure Jewish majority and is democratic
in the commonly accepted meaning of that term. They focus less on the specifics of
what a peace arrangement might look like and more on the political outcomes that
such an arrangement must assure.
Most “security Jews,” of course, voice support for a democratic State of Israel and
most “democracy Jews” voice support for a militarily secure State of Israel. But in
both their internal thought processes and public advocacy, each group is primarily
focused on the value that they see as most important at this moment.
There is more to the article and you will have to click on the following link to see
where Rabbi Yoffie himself comes out on the issue. Click here.
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/security-jews-vs-democracy-jews
I believe that the template that Rabbi Yoffie provides us with is, in many ways more
important than his own position which, indeed, you might find interesting. It is a great
help in understanding the two issues that most Jews grapple with when thinking
about the future of the Jewish State.
There are, of course, people on the extremes of each position but they are not
extremists. They are only convinced that one position is better than the one at the
opposite end of the spectrum. I believe that most Jews (in the U.S. and elsewhere)
find themselves somewhere further toward the middle and the numbers slide
depending on the situation of the day. There is no question that with the Palestinian
attempts to delegitimize Israel and move away from direct negotiations have moved
the current slide toward security.
JEWS & THE TEA PARTY
The Tea Party, which represents some of the most extreme right wing elements in
the Republican Party, does not seem to be the kind of political home for American
Jews, who have been, by and large liberal and closely connected to the Democratic
Party.
However, the Jewish daily Forward reported, “…one researcher thinks the
community is warming up to the movement.
“Historically, we’ve seen the community as being liberal, but now a counter voice is
emerging,” said Steven Windmueller of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute
of Religion.
A recent Internet survey of Jews, conducted by Windmueller, found that about 42%
thought the Tea Party movement was “refreshing” versus an equal percentage that
7

8. found it “alarming.” More support for the Tea Party idea came from Republicans,
Orthodox Jews and males, and less from Democrats, Reform Jews and females.
Even Windmueller cautioned that his study “does not permit one to make any
defining conclusions.” Among other things, its 2,300 or so participants were
recruited via publicity on the websites of Jewish newspapers and Jewish
organizations — an outreach method bound to exclude the large percentage of
Jews who are relatively less affiliated. The replies that respondents gave to various
questions in the poll indicated that the sample obtained through this outreach skews
to the right compared with that of a scientifically selected random sample.
Nevertheless, Windmueller argues that his study shows “a distinctive Jewish
conservative voice emerging on Israel-related matters and an array of domestic
social issues” among “highly engaged Jews.”
Others disagree. Political scientist Kenneth Wald, of the University of Florida,
argued that Jewish support for Tea Party ideas or candidates is still marginal. “There
may be some Jews who are fiscally conservative, but it is a far cry from actually
supporting the Tea Party,” he said.
…the question of support for Israel was never the key concern Jewish voters had
with the Tea Party.
From the outset, conventional wisdom had it that Tea Partiers, with their program of
radically cutting government budgets and decreasing government’s role in daily life,
would have a difficult time wooing Jewish voters. This was an agenda seen as
running counter to the Jewish community’s historically broad support for
government-funded social programs.
Jewish activists also took issue with statements coming from Tea Party members
that seemed to indicate a certain lack of sensitivity to the issue of church and state
separation.
“Some of the Tea Party’s prominent candidates in 2010 made a very bad impression
on the Jewish community,” Wald said. “Jews have an allergic reaction to talk about a
divine role in the political world.” A public opinion report published in February by the
Pew Research Center found strong support for the Tea Party movement among
those who agree with the views of the conservative Christian movement.
But it was this same report, based on combined surveys taken between November
2010 and February that also found that Jews were not altogether alienated from the
Tea Party phenomena. According to that report, 15% of Jewish respondents agreed
with the Tea Party, while 49% disagreed and 35% had no opinion. While these
figures showed a Jewish community far from supportive of the movement, they also
indicated a potential for Jewish votes. Perhaps more important for some Tea Party
8

9. figures gearing up for presidential runs, they may also suggest a potential donor
pool within a community known for political giving.
“Jews are experiencing the same things other Americans are: a combination of fear,
anger and uncertainty about their own future,” Windmueller said.
I think Steve Windmueller’s last sentence tells a lot about where American Jews are
these days. Fear, anger & uncertainty are taking their toll. Add to that these same
concerns about Israel and you have a pretty good picture of where the great middle
of Jewish American now finds itself.
ISOLATIONISM
I don’t want to dwell too long on the Tea Party. However, while they are a relatively
small group at the right end of the political spectrum they are not a distinct political
party. They are what I would term “a movement”. However, they have influence and
that influence is strong in the Republican Party (GOP). Some see the seeds of
isolationism beginning to emerge from a number of their positions.
Senator John McCain, the GOP’s last presidential candidate who believes in a
robust American foreign policy is beginning to worry about the isolationist trend in his
own party. The Jerusalem Post notes, “Discussing the (Republican primary) race on
ABC News earlier in the week, he made no bones about being “concerned about
what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said.”
He explained, “This is isolationism. There’s always been an isolationist strain in the
Republican Party, the Pat Buchanan wing of our party.
But now it seems to have moved more center-stage, so to speak.”
How foreign policy issues play out in the campaign for the Republican nomination
has yet to be seen, and many analysts don’t consider the views expressed to add up
to outright isolationism, but rather a trend away from the expansive action favored
by neoconservatives.
How foreign policy issues play out in the campaign for the Republican nomination
has yet to be seen, and many analysts don’t consider the views expressed to add up
to outright isolationism, but rather a trend away from the expansive action favored
by neoconservatives.
It’s also not clear whether such a Republican stance would push President Barack
Obama further toward disengagement as well, as his party’s left flank has long
called for a smaller American footprint overseas, or whether he’d tack toward the
center and more interventionist policies as a line of attack against his opponents.
Either way, the debate could have profound implications for American involvement
9

10. in the Middle East, and thus for Israel.
Democratic defenders of Israel see in the Republican posturing an opening to attack
the opposition and warn Jewish voters of dire consequences should the GOP
prevail.
“You’re seeing in this election a real isolationist trend from the Republican party,
especially the Tea Party wing of the party, which is [worrying] for all of us who
believe in a robust and engaged US foreign policy,” said Matt Dorf, who did Jewish
outreach for the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 campaign.
If this movement toward isolationism is real (it’s too early to tell) then there are, of
course, profound implications for U.S. – European relations. Needless to say, the
affect on Israel and the entire Middle East would also be important.
I do not as yet see a “trend’, however, it something that should be watched and I will
do the best I can to do so for you.
WHAT DO ISRAELI JEWS THINK?
I thought you might be interested in a recent poll taken by B’nai Brith International
(as reported in The Jerusalem Post) regarding the current feelings and attitudes of
Israeli Jews especially in relation to those of us who live in the U.S.
71 percent of the Israeli-Jewish respondents said Israel should always be ready to
meet and maintain contact with Jewish organizations – including those that question
its decisions – while only 20 percent opposed.
Organizations such as J Street, which are frequently criticized by both the Israeli
government and some American Jewish organizations for it’s “peace’ attitude,
interestingly, fare better on the “Israeli street” than here.
”This poll underscores what we have always said, which is that even if an Israeli
government disagrees with the criticism or alternative policies put forward by Jews
living abroad, it still must engage with them, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J
Street.
“This failure, coupled with ad hominem attacks, is a distraction from the real
challenges we all face, which is how we protect the existence of a democratic and
Jewish Israel.”
“The results of the survey were significant and really demonstrate the close
connection between Israelis and Diaspora Jewry,” Alan Schneider, the director for
B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem, said. “For the first time, we were able to
establish not just strong support and identification of Israelis with the Diaspora that
10

11. has been demonstrated in our earlier surveys, but to show the extent of actual family
connections. This shows us that Diaspora Jewry is a part of most Israelis’ daily life
and concerns.”
The survey also asked how they feel about receiving support from non-Jews. Over
the past decades, the Christian- Zionist community in America has been an ardent
supporter of the Jewish State, donating millions through groups, like the
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, and lobbying lawmakers in the US
to back Jerusalem politically. Half of those polled supported the continued
development of the relationship. (Ed. Note – Half didn’t!)
In my opinion the survey doesn’t break much new ground except in noting the
greater tolerance Israelis have for J Street type American Jewish organizations than,
perhaps, their American counterparts have.
In addition, though not really explained, Israelis seem to have a strong connection to
Jews in the Diaspora. It sort of flies in the face of those that claim that the world’s
two major Jewish communities are drifting away from one another. I’ve always been
suspicious of that point of view. Family is family and if Jews feel nothing else
strongly it is a sense of responsibility we have for one another. Tribal? I’d say an
emphatic “yes”.
See you again in July.
DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be contacted by
clicking here
Both the American and Germany editions are posted at
www.dubowdigest.typepad.com
Click here to connect
11

12. 12