“Schlaglicht Israel” offers an insight into internal Israeli debates and reflects selected, political events that affect daily life in Israel. It appears every two weeks and summarizes articles that appeared in the Israeli daily press.
Main topics covered in this Publication:
- Netanyahu revokes Compromise about Western Wall
- Energy Crisis in the Gaza Strip
- Suspicion against Olmert
- Selection of Articles
(…) The haredim celebrated their victory, rubbing salt into their rivals’ wounds over the fact that “Reform Jews will never gain a foothold” at the Western Wall. The Reform movement decried the critical blow to millions of Diaspora Jews. Both sides lost sight of two things — proportion and the High Court of Justice. (…) the decision to withdraw the plan (…) is by no means final (…) the sides will (…) face off in the High Court, which still hasn’t had the last word. (…) The 736,585 Israeli citizens who voted for Habayit Hayehudi, Shas, and United Torah Judaism, along with a considerable portion of the 984,996 Likud voters, are the ones behind the elected officials who demanded that the Western Wall compromise be revoked. The Reform and Conservative Jews don’t have a party, they don’t have a structured community, and (…) only about 500 of them at most show up to pray at the Western Wall (…). We must not disparage Diaspora Jews (…) but this is how democracy works. Those who live here can vote and decide how they want to live. (…) The Western Wall is not the most important matter to either side. Some rabbis say that one must not approach the Wall at all because of issues of modesty, and Reform Jews are more concerned with mixed marriage and conversion. But with ego and symbols taking precedence over day to day life, the fight is unlikely to end any time soon.
Yehuda Shlezinger, IHY, 26.06.17
A sad Decision that may yet come to haunt Us All
(…) to snub, in practice, the non-Orthodox denominations of the Jewish faith (…) and to advance legislation on conversions that enshrines the monopoly of the Orthodox (…) establishment has serious and potentially tragic consequences. It threatens the unity of the Jewish People, which the political leadership of Israel should treat as a sacred trust. (…) And above all, it poses a long-term threat to one of the foundational pillars of Israeli national security: namely, the willingness and ability of American Jewish organizations to stand by Israel in her hours of need, as they did again and again since 1948. (…) To delegitimize the religious practices of a very large proportion of the Jewish People – certainly a majority of North American Jews – is not only an insult, it violates basic precepts of religious freedom dear to many Americans. It will increasingly make it more difficult for Americans at large to look upon Israeli society and politics as kindred spirits. Moreover, to deliberately and brazenly alienate the non-Orthodox denominations – to force their rank and file to question whether their commitment to Israel and to Israel’s needs has won them any claim to attention amid the rough and tumble of Israeli politics – is to put in jeopardy the prospect of mobilizing their help if and when (…) we shall call on their help on issues central to our very survival. This is literally an act of sawing off the branch on which we sit. (…) our relationship with the North American wing of the Jewish people is not just an issues of values and peoplehood: it speaks to vital national interests that have now been put at risk.
Eran Lerman, JPO, 26.06.17
Is the Western Wall a kind of idolatry after all?
(…) the heart of the Jewish people is pierced, yet again, by a spirit of division. At the heart of this division is (…) the Western Wall. People occasionally comment on (…) the Wall, recalling the words of Prof. Isaiah Leibowitz, describing the Wall as idolatry. I have resisted this for 45 years. It is time to reconsider. (…) The Wall has become a symbol of victory, triumph and national identity. (…) Not only prayers take place here. Here, soldiers are sworn in. Here, major public events take place. (…) in some ways, it has replaced the Temple, especially given political negotiations and the formula that Arabs possess the Temple Mount, while Jews possess the Wall. Joy, celebration and pride in nationhood have replaced the yearning for the exiled Shekhina and the quest for intimacy with God. (…) Idolatry is worship of human power at the expense of God. It is taking pride in human institutions, while losing sight of God as the Author of all. (…) Sadly, the Wall has become an idolatrous reality in this sense. Turning the memory of the departed Divine Presence and the hope for rebuilding the Temple into a national symbol is the first step in the idolizing of the Wall. What we now see are the moral consequences of this move. Power, control, exclusion and disunity are the outcome of using a symbol of God for the aggrandizement of human institutions. (…)
Alon Goshen-Gottstein, TOI, 26.06.17
A state denying its own people
(…) We made a mistake. We wanted to make Jerusalem a matter of consensus again, so that we Jews would finally stop fighting with each other over something that belongs to all of us. But we were deceived. The compromise agreement made us give up the right to pray in an egalitarian manner at the Western Wall that we know. We have been fighting for this for decades, but out of a sense of historical responsibility (…) we (…) unwisely agreed to compromise. (…) The Israeli public clearly supports us: Sixty-two percent of Israelis are in favor of an egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall. (…) The accepted plan was painful for all parties involved, but each found something to lean on to excite its supporters. (…) On Sunday, the Jewish leadership around the world was dumbfounded, and this shock is greater than the insult of being slapped in the face. It may be an ending. There is nothing less Zionist than what the Israeli government did. It proved to its people, and to its enemies, that Israel is no longer the Jewish people’s state. (…)
Yizhar Hess, YED, 26.06.17
The tragedy of the Wall
(…) It was a noble compromise: The liberal denominations accepted with humility a secondary place at the Wall, but that at least recognized their right to be part of Israel’s public space; while the Orthodox seemed to accept an organized non-Orthodox presence at the Wall for the sake of Jewish unity. But then the haredi or ultra-Orthodox parties revolted. And the government cynically withdrew its own compromise. (…) the government’s initial compromise over the Wall was a bold attempt to uphold Jewish unity while still granting Orthodox preeminence. (…) Haredim are willing to risk Jewish unity to uphold what they see as the integrity of the halakhic process. Zionists see maintaining the basic and fragile unity of the Jewish people as their primary commitment (…) Zionism’s definition is peoplehood. The noun is “Jew;” all other identities – religious and secular, Orthodox and Reform, left and right – are adjectives. (…) Judaism is a particularist faith intended for a particular people, unlike the universal faiths of Christianity and Islam, strengthening peoplehood is a religious category, a precondition for the fulfillment of Judaism itself. (…) The haredi community must not be allowed to sabotage the essence of Zionism in our time – which is to uphold the integrity of Jewish peoplehood. (…) in the fiftieth year of the liberation of the Wall, the government of Israel has told a majority of Diaspora Jewry that it has no organized place in our most resonant public space. If unity helped us return to Jerusalem, what does our squabbling over the Wall portend?
Yossi Klein Halevi, TOI, 26.06.17
Whether we like it or not, non-Orthodox Jews are our brethren
The government made two dramatic decisions (…): It cancelled the plan to construct an egalitarian section at the Western Wall and approved the Conversion Bill. These two moves deepen the ultra-Orthodox monopoly over Judaism in Israel and are another layer in the divorce certificate being drawn up by the State of Israel for millions of Jews in the Diaspora. (…) the non-Orthodox Jewish movements (…) may be a small minority in Israel, but there are many of them among the Diaspora Jewry, amounting to millions of Jews around the world. (…) Personally, I see the Halacha and the preservation of tradition as the core of Judaism and as the essence of the Jewish religion. The non-Orthodox outlook is far away from my own. It goes against the depth of my faith and contradicts the basis of my way of life. But whether I like it or not, these are my brethren. They are the brethren.
Rabbi Ilai Ofran, YED, 27.06.17
Now it’s a crisis? Israel lost this American Jew a long time ago
In the context of the violent disagreement over access to and control over overall access to the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa between Israeli and Palestinian factions, the latest internecine Jewish fight over access to and prayer at the Western Wall seems particularly petty and small. (…) For Israel, for the fate of who may or may not pray at the Wall, I feel mostly indifference (…), but I am an American, and if I’m going to get really mad, it’s going to be at my own government, which provides so much cash and so many guns, and at an American Jewish leadership that will not divorce itself and its political influence from the vapid project of pretending we can liberalize a religious state, turn the whole thing into a Mediterranean Upper West Side, dull its sharp edges and remake it as a shared, beautiful dream. (…) American Jews are simply exhausted by the total domination of that country by its most fanatical believers. American Judaism, as a minority religion in a pluralistic society, grew to be widely, if not universally, open, tolerant, flexible, and accepting of change even as it preserved certain core commitments. It believed in social justice (…) in equality, free speech, and civil rights and liberties, which are, if troubled in America, even less in evidence as values in either the religious or governmental authorities of Israel, a distant and very foreign state. (…) There is already a Holy of Holies in every temple and synagogue in Pittsburgh, and at least at the ones I visit from time to time, the women can already sing and pray out loud.
Jacob Bacharach, HAA, 28.06.17
The ultra-Orthodox ignoramuses taking Israel back to the Middle Ages
(…) we call on our women ministers and MKs: Be Wonder Women. Use your powers to prevent women’s exclusion and religious discrimination. (…) We wanted the Kotel to be the place it’s supposed to be. A place for every Jew, man or woman, of any denomination to have a voice, to feel connected to their faith, their history and their spirituality. (…) women Knesset Members (…) stand with Women of the Wall. You have a historic mission, bigger than any party and any agenda, to protect the sacred rights of Jewish women to have their voices heard in prayer at the Kotel and around the world. Be assertive, and powerful, and fearless. Women of the Wall have been fighting this oppression against women by prayer alone, month after month for 28 years. You had to climb up ladders much steeper than the men you serve with at Knesset. We know you’re there, we know you can do it. (…) if women’s voices are banished from the Western Wall, where else in Israel will we ever be safe?
Anat Hoffman, HAA, 25.06.17
Let´s Talk to Each Other
(…) it’s absolutely acceptable to agree or disagree with American Jews (…). But when disagreeing, even vociferously, there can be understanding and respect. Often, and definitely in the past few days, short-term political considerations seem to have trumped any need to even take into consideration the longer-term needs and desires of the rest of the Jewish nation. That’s more than unfortunate – it’s destructive in very concrete ways, as we may very shortly see. Clearly, while we have accomplished so much as a nation, we still have such a long way to go. (…) We will continue to foster dialogue, listening, learning and understanding. Without it, I fear that the next generation of American Jews won’t be pulling away from Israel, they’ll have been pushed away.
J.J. Sussman, JPO, 28.06.17
Not open to interpretation
(…) The egalitarian and photogenic section being funded by the Israeli government is no less than a religious coup. It is not about the Western Wall, it is about recognition. (…) Reform Jews have forsaken the accepted democratic process and are now trying to aggressively bulldoze their way through the courts under the guise of equality. (…) If they succeed in touching the Western Wall stones as a recognized Jewish denomination in Israel, they will push to gain a stake in conversions, rabbis, religious councils, kashrut, marriages and divorces, and all religious services. This would be a shock to the pillars of all the common and delicate elements that were painstakingly built here in the past 70 years. Do not fall for our so-called friends’ wide smiles and deep pockets. The Western Wall interests them about as much as U.S. President Donald Trump’s hairstyle. Those who erase any mention of a return to Zion from their prayer books, who stifle every spark of authentic Judaism through the ridicule of religious symbols and the creation of a false identity, and who are full partners to the boycott movement and the enemies of Israel most certainly do not yearn to pray against the sacred stones. There is a wolf behind the face of this sheep. (…)The Western Wall is and will continue to be open to all Jews, regardless of denomination. It does not belong to the haredim but to the Jewish people. (…) It is in all of our interests that the honor and authentic Jewish standing of the site be preserved. It is our duty — all of ours — not to allow the remnants of the Temple to be turned into a theater of the absurd with women praying with tefillin and violent political struggles. This is the last place we have left on which there is a broad consensus that it is a holy site and the heart of the nation. Let’s keep it that way.
Asher Medina, IHY, 28.06.17
2. Energy Crisis in the Gaza Strip
Being right about Gaza power supply is not enough
(…) it’s kind of difficult to require Israel to fund electricity and concrete for Gaza, when these materials are used for building tunnels and rocket-manufacturing facilities, rather than for welfare and prosperity. (…) Should Israel facilitate jihad? Being right is not enough, however (…). Israel can and should and must, therefore, use this impending crisis to repeat the proposal that has already been raised by the European Union and the international community: An end to the siege, and investments and prosperity in exchange for demilitarization—regardless of the fact that this offer has already been rejected. It must be repeated, as an Israeli initiative, and it must be done dramatically and with a lot of noise. If that doesn’t happen, there will be another round of violence (…). So instead of announcing a power supply cut, Israel must make Hamas a dramatic offer. (…) It will cost Israel much less than the damage that will be caused by the rockets on Ashdod, Ashkelon and perhaps even Tel Aviv. We have nothing to lose. If they say yes, it will be our gain. If they say no, they will lose a lot of points in the global public opinion, where they are expected to win. (…)
Ben-Dror Yemini, YED, 18.06.17
Navigating the Palestinian crisis
(…) there is no reason for the citizens of Israel to shoulder the cost of Gaza’s electricity, which not only serves the population of Gaza but also nourishes and boosts the Hamas leadership, particularly the Hamas military. (…) Unless Hamas finds another source of funding to replace the money paid by the Palestinian Authority, Gazans will only have electricity for two hours each day. (…) Still, the 1.75 million residents of the strip are far better off than tens of millions of others across the Middle East. (…) It turns out that one of the failures of Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza was that Israel failed to disengage itself (…) from its responsibility over what happens in the Gaza Strip. (..) Hamas collects more than $100 million in taxes from the residents of the strip (…). It invested a fortune (…) into the construction of an underground grid of attack tunnels designed to target Israel, and poured a substantial amount into the salaries of Hamas fighters and bureaucrats. The responsibility for the crisis in the strip lies squarely on Hamas’ shoulders. But the question today for Israel is how (…) do we prevent another unnecessary clash that Israel doesn’t want and that will not improve the security situation along the Gaza border? (…) Israel’s policy on Gaza is not ideal, but it has proved itself over recent years. Israel accepts Hamas rule in Gaza as the lesser of the evils, maintaining continuous pressure but stopping short of toppling the leadership as long as it ensures calm along the border. Israel needs to stay out of the conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and wait for an opportune moment, if one should arise, to effect fundamental change in Gaza.
Prof. Eyal Zisser, IHY, 18.06.17
Israel’s plague of darkness for Gazans is an act of terrorism
(…) the prime minister’s security cabinet voted to cut significantly the amount of vital electric power that Israel supplies to the people of the Gaza Strip (…) knowing that the step was liable to spur escalation toward war with Hamas. It did so knowing (…) that reducing the power supply to the Strip any further would likely lead to a humanitarian disaster. (…) It was the worst thing Israel’s done all year. (…) Israel sloughs blame over the cuts onto the Palestinian Authority. (…) Israel made its own choice. It could have said no to the PA. Israel said yes. (…) This government views its own base as callous, hot-blooded racists. And it acts accordingly. It wants us to know that Israel’s finger on the button is the middle one. It sees itself as government of the scum, by the scum, for the scum. (…) As for the Netanyahu government, it can go on blaming the PA for this. Or it can blame Hamas. But we will not be forgiven for this. Nor should we be. Nor should we forgive ourselves. We have brought down on Gaza the plague of darkness. This is a punishment which targets huge numbers of people who have committed no crime. This is an act of terrorism.
Bradley Burston, HAA, 21.06.17
(…) Abbas’s intention might very well be to force Hamas into a war with Israel that could undermine Hamas’s control over Gaza and open the way for his Fatah movement to regain control there. This does not mean that Israel has to play along. (…) If Liberman believes that reducing electricity to Gaza might lead to another war with Hamas, he can decide not to cut the electricity. (…) Clearly there is a moral argument to be made for and against cutting electricity to Gaza. Hamas rules Gaza with a large degree of popular support. Gazans chose for themselves a political movement that prioritizes strengthening its “military” capabilities over and above humanitarian support or economic growth. (…) Gazans stopped using their limited electricity to treat sewage before allowing it to flow into the Mediterranean or into riverbeds in the Strip. There is real concern about an outbreak of infectious disease, especially among babies and children. With electricity available for only two to three hours a day, hospitals are unable to properly care for patients. (…) Untreated sewage released into the Mediterranean pollutes beaches in Ashkelon and Ashdod and Bat Yam and Tel Aviv. Epidemics that break out in Gaza would be contagious and could find their way into Israel. (…) Hamas is willing to sacrifice the lives of Gaza’s civilians in order to win the battle of public opinion. The image of a sick Palestinian baby lying untreated in a darkened Rantisi Pediatric Hospital in Gaza City is a blow to the gut that is impossible to explain away. (…) whether or not Israel decides to renew the full electricity supply to Gaza, our defense minister should make a compelling argument for the action taken instead of playing the victim or hiding behind Abbas.
Editorial, JPO, 22.06.17
No compassion for the cruel
(…) Hamas needs electricity to build the tunnels and produce weapons. (…) There is no strategic or moral reason why Israel should supply free electricity to Gaza. While Israel does not desire an escalation, it has no reason to fear it. Israel is the stronger side. Moreover, the essence of war is to inflict pain on the opponent so as to change patterns of behavior. Pain has a positive value in that it affects the learning curves of the warring sides. (…) Another round of violence — one that exacts a high cost from Hamas and the Gazans — may lead them to more peaceful behavior. (…) Hamas exploits the suffering of Gazans to extract humanitarian aid and sympathy for their cause. But the Gazans cannot be exempted from responsibility for the consequences of Hamas’ actions. (…) Gazans are not good neighbors, and they do not deserve Israel’s sympathy. (…) plans to ease the economic situation in Gaza — either by supplying electricity and water or by building a port — send the wrong signals. They tell the Palestinians that their leadership can make grave mistakes, but outsiders with good intentions will bail them out. They also signal to Hamas that it may as well continue shooting at Israel. Why not? If Israel takes military steps in response, merciful donors will repair the damage yet again. (…) The authoritarian rule of Hamas dooms the Gazans to continuous poverty, ignorance, and protracted war with Israel. (…) Israel has no choice but to reject Hamas demands, even if that refusal brings about another round of violence that will add to the suffering in Gaza. (…) Maybe a bit of darkness will help the Gazans see the light.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, IHY, 21.06.17
3. Suspicion against Olmert
Clamping down as the censor is doing on Olmert’s freedom of speech is the sort of action carried out by autocratic regimes that do not see themselves as committed to democratic ideals. (…) What could have been in Olmert’s manuscript to warrant such draconian measures? (…) we are left with is a feeling there is a witch hunt against a former prime minister (…). It is true that Olmert violated the trust of the Israeli public by engaging in acts of corruption as an elected official. And he should be in prison for them. This sends an important message that even the most powerful leader in Israel is not beyond the reach of the law. Such is the hallmark of Israel’s robust democracy. But now, the state prosecutor is tarnishing Israel’s good name as a democracy that upholds basic freedoms, including respect for privacy and freedom of expression. The attorney-general could have approached Yediot and requested the suspicious material without resorting to the intimidation of a raid. (…)
Editorial, JPO, 19.06.17
Generous with state secrets
The first law of secrets is that you can’t reveal them. The second law is that the first law applies to everyone, including prime ministers. (…)The third law is that the first law doesn’t apply to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is not so as to feel sorry for Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, who fell from the heights of the premiership to the depths of Ma’asiyahu Prison (…). But (…) Olmert (…) can claim discrimination in contrast to Netanyahu. (…) If revealing classified information endangers security, as the Shin Bet, the Defense Ministry department in charge of security and the military censor frequently claim, then Netanyahu is a walking (…) security risk. (…) It was a few weeks after Netanyahu lost to Barak. He kept a document classified “preferred” – more secret than top secret – “in his desk drawer, accessible to his American aide George Birnbaum,” (…) Netanyahu claimed it was all in innocence. When secrets are supposedly passed from Ma’asiyahu to Rishon Letzion or from Tel Aviv to New York, what is important is the identity of the person passing them, and not the essence of what is inside. It turns out that the Shin Bet is more permissive when it comes to Netanyahu than the Israel Prisons Service is with Olmert, and that successive attorney generals will excuse anything Netanyahu does. It’s a shame on Netanyahu and a disgrace for the attorney generals.
Amir Oren, HAA, 17.06.17
Who’s afraid of Ehud Olmert?
The authorities’ tormenting of Ehud Olmert is intolerable, almost inhuman. So is the schadenfreude. (…) in the end he is a human being, a prisoner who is serving out his sentence. (…) it is wrong to cast as an enemy a person who, as prime minister, tried to correct the course of the ship of state; who was willing to face reality head-on and to take unpopular measures in order to create hope for the generations to come. As prime minister, he neither feared nor incited against the media. (…) Is there anyone among his persecutors who can honestly say, free of any hidden interests, that this man is a danger to national security? (…) Who ordered the entire system to kick this man, who is already so far down? Why was the entire system briefed against him so intensely, as if he were a nuclear spy? (…) Who are the people who are so afraid of someone writing about their role as an integral part of the system, even if is in a critical, not especially flattering, way? (…) the crucifixion in the town square of this particular prisoner smells like persecution. (…)
Emilie Moatti, HAA, 22.06.17
It’s not Olmert who should be ashamed
(…) What happened here last week, therefore, is nothing less than a dangerous, despicable precedent in the conduct of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shai Nitzan, who allowed five police investigators to raid the Yedioth Books publishing house. (…) it’s not Olmert who should be ashamed. (…) He may be corrupt, but how can he be called a traitor? The claim that he had put the state’s security at risk was so ridiculous that five investigators were sent to carry out the mission (…) Without addressing a certain operation or another, prime ministers are the ones who approve the different operations and they are the ones who can declare them confidential or non-confidential. Theoretically, if we choose to discuss Olmert, he could have chosen to publish the operations and decisions he made dunring his term, even on his last day in the Prime Minister’s Office. (…) although his political advisors pleaded with him to do so. (…) Olmert refused. (…) Olmert clearly violated his agreement with the Israel Prison Service (IPS), to hand over every single document for their examination. He did it out of the same arrogance we are familiar with, the disregard for procedures, and perhaps even disregard for the prison’s managers. But (…) there is nothing in the pages (…) that has not appeared in books written by former US President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others, and in articles and interviews published over the years. (…) it’s so hypocritical to accuse Olmert of disclosing secret security information, when there is a woman in the current prime minister’s residence who has insisted on sitting in on her husband’s secret meetings with heads of the defense establishment. (…) Olmert is just the symptom. The troubling thing is that the gatekeepers are increasingly becoming the government’s servants. The Miri Regev state is already here. (…) If anyone has any suspicions against Olmert on security issues, they should go to the police once Olmert is an ordinary citizen capable of dealing with the claims. Anything else would be considered personally-motivated persecution.
Sima Kadmon, YED, 28.06.17
Anger at Israel’s academic code of ethics is unjustified
After reading the harsh criticism of Prof. Asa Kasher and the academic code of ethics he composed, it was fascinating (…) to discover that the criticism was unjustified. (…) contrary to what all the detractors say, his proposal guarantees academic freedom from the very first paragraph. (…) while critics say the code aims to silence people and to limit freedom of expression, in fact it’s stated purpose is to “foster a range” of positions in every field of study that is taught. (…) The discussion should be focused on honing the wording of the code and not on ruling it out altogether. (…) Israeli democracy and Israeli academia are both robust, and in fact, questioning their ability to survive whenever some new proposal comes up only reflects insecurity about their robustness and could ultimately weaken them. (…) Not everything is a danger to democracy, and not every ethical code is a danger to academia. (…) contrary to critics who say the code would invite politicians to interfere in academia, the code mandates an internal mechanism in every institution to preserve academic freedom and to avoid the appearance of political identification. (…) instead of attacking the code and its author, the discussion should be about how to improve its formulation.
Boaz Sanjero, HAA, 16.06.17
The Indian PM’s historic visit
(…) India and Israel share high levels of threat perception and a common strategic agenda. Both have waged major conventional wars against their neighbors and have experienced low-intensity conflict and terrorism, and both are involved in protracted conflicts involving complex ethnic and religious components not always well understood by outsiders. Both also face weapons of mass destruction in the hands of their rivals. (…) Arms supply and technology transfer have become important components in the bilateral relationship. (…) Indian links with Israel also have the potential to smooth over some of the remaining difficulties India has in dealing with the United States, given the U.S.-Israel friendship. (…) India and Israel represent two ancient civilizations. (…) For Israel, good relations with India reflect awareness of structural changes in the international system as the center of gravity moves to Asia and the Pacific Rim. India is an extremely important protagonist that requires Israel’s utmost attention.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, IHY, 27.06.17
HAA = Haaretz
JED = YediothAhronoth / Ynetnews
JPO = Jerusalem Post
IHY = Israel HaYom
TOI = Times of Israel
GLO = Globes
Published: July 2017
Dr. Werner Puschra,
Leiter der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel