Four Mothers

In 1997, following a helicopter crash which killed 74 soldiers on their way to Lebanon, a new organization was formed to pressure the Israeli government to leave Lebanon as quickly as possible. It was called Arba Imahot, Four Mothers in Hebrew, the term used for the four matriarchs of Judaism: Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah. Their pressure worked. In 1999, Prime Minister Ehud Barak promised to leave Lebanon within a year of the formation of his new government. He delivered on May 25, 2000.

Six years later, as Israel is once again at war in Lebanon, Haaretz Magazine asks four of the former leaders of Four Mothers what they think about the current situation and whether they were right to demand a unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon:

This war is different by Ari Shavit

The absent mother by Esti Ahronovitz

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, Ehud Barak

What would count as success

From Haaretz:

By Avner Cohen Both from a moral perspective and from the perspective of the decision-making process, this campaign is far from being the model for a just and moral war, or for a no-choice war. The massive use of air power that nightly churns up the Shi'ite slums of south Beirut seems a lot more like venting feelings of fury and vengeance against Hezbollah's supporters than real fighting against the organization's military infrastructure. The use of air power against the civilian quarters in which Hezbollah leaders were living blatantly violates the requirements for proportion and discerning use of military might that a just war poses. Nor do such bombings contribute much to the military or even political eradication of Hezbollah. The organization's leaders hide and survive, whereas the hard-working residents of the Shi'ite quarters lose what little they had. Anyone with the slightest human sensitivity cannot but feel uncomfortable at the sight of the tremendous destruction this war is wreaking in Lebanon. It is also clear the initial decision by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - with the backing of the defense minister and the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff - to respond immediately and belligerently to Hezbollah's provocation was made impulsively, without a rigorous consideration of alternatives, military and diplomatic. That decision certainly did not reflect a situation of lack of choice. It is not clear to what extent Olmert was even aware of the limitations of air power and the military difficulty of defeating Hezbollah, or to what degree the government understood that its immediate decisions would lead Israel into a war in every sense, whose political and military results are far from being certain. Olmert could have maintained the path of restraint taken by Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon and deal with Hezbollah in a manner that would not require going to war. But these shadows cannot alter the realization that Olmert's instinctively belligerent decision to strike Hezbollah was correct, and first and foremost for reasons having to do with Iran's place in this battle. I do not mean only the significance of its tremendous involvement in Hezbollah's actions that led to the outbreak of war, but rather, and especially, what could have occured in the not-distant future had Iran continued to operate Hezbollah according to its own needs. In all Western capitals there is consensus that the timing of the abduction of IDF soldiers was intended to serve Iranian strategic goals. The kidnapping took place exactly on the eve of the summit of industrialized nations in St. Petersburg, and right before the debate on the Iranian nuclear issue was supposed to be refered back to the Security Council. The abduction of the soldiers was meant to hijack the world order, which was inconvenient for Iran, create another focus for world attention and thereby give the Iranian nuclear program more time. Still more troubling is the thought of what might have happened in the future were Hezbollah's military strength to remain as it was. As far as Iran and Hezbollah's leaders are concerned, the organization's missile power is an integral part of the Iranian deterrence system, one of whose main goals is to protect Iran's nuclear program. Hezbollah's missile arsenal, designed to cover all of Israel, was supposed to lend credibility to the Iranian message of deterrence, according to which any military strike on its nuclear program, no matter by whom, will automatically elicit a painful response against Israel. Hezbollah's massive missile presence expressed the fact that Iran poses a tangible and direct strategic threat to Israel, that it can deal a substantial blow to Israel and perhaps even cause it lengthy economic paralysis - without even having to launch missiles from its own soil. Under certain conditions it might even be possible to equip Hezbollah's long-range missiles with unconventional warheads. If at the end of the war Hezbollah can no longer serve as a switch that Iranians can flip as they please, it will be possible to view it as an Israeli strategic success. This is a minimal realistic goal and it must be achieved at any cost. The writer is the author of the books "Israel and the Bomb" and "Israel's Last Taboo."

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, Iran

A Smarter War

The war against Hizbullah is an important one. The organization's capability to attack Israel must be diminished significantly, if not completely. On the other hand, the killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians is unacceptable, unless it is proven that the vast majority of them were helping Hizbullah or living in buildings that housed weapons. It seems to me the IDF is more concentrated on showing that it is acting than actually bringing in real results.

I'm not calling for an immediate ceasefire. One that comes too soon and without the proper arrangements to protect Israel can be disastrous. I'm just saying the army needs to pick its targets more wisely.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East

Murderous Children? Hardly...

The blogosphere is going crazy over pictures taken by AP photographer Sebastian Scheiner, which show little Israeli girls writing on missiles about to be launched across the border. Bloggers have been quick to say these pictures show that Israeli children are being taught to hate Arabs and compare the pictures to photos of the Hitler Youth in 1930's Germany.

It turns out the bloggers were too quick to draw conclusions, ignorant of, or ignoring, the context. Lisa Goldman puts things in perspective: those are girls from Kiryat Shmona, an Israeli border town, who came out of their shelters for the first time in days. Their parents are the ones who wrote messages on the missiles, none addressed to the Lebanese people but rather to Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah and the Hizbullah. The girls later added drawings of things like Israeli flags.

I think letting kids write on rockets is wrong for a lot of reasons. For one thing, I expect parents to keep their children as far away from live ammo as possible. But besides the safety issue, we shouldn't glorify weaponry in the eyes of little children.

Having said that, it is still a far cry from the hysterical "Zionist killing machine" reaction from bloggers. If any WWII analogy is appropriate here, it isn't the Hitler Youth one, but a hypothetical picture of British children signing bombs meant for Nazi air bases during the Blitzkrieg.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East

Cool Off the World War Rhetoric

A lot of people are saying the war against Hezbollah is the beginning of World War III. Newt Gingrich is one of them. It isn't. Though it is a part of the general worldwide battle against Islamo-Fascist fundamentalism, this struggle is far from being anything like a world war. Every terrorist hotspot has a different kind of solution, though there are similarities between the different solutions. The current crisis can be resolved fairly quickly.

In other words: don't be so hysterical!

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, World War

No Shit

George W. Bush has been caught using an expletive, though I wouldn't regard "shit" as really being a curse word. "See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over," the president said to Tony Blair.

Focusing on the four letter word is silly. What is important is what he actually said: he says Syria should order Hezbollah to stop the rockets. Enough pressure on Assad can achieve that, but that isn't what Israel will accept. We need Hezbollah not only to stop now and stay in a position to start firing again when they want, but to leave the south, as Condoleezza Rice has said. We need Syria to tell them to go north, but that will never happen. Disarming them would be best, but that may be beyond our current abilities.

Tony Blair and Kofi Annan have suggested sending an international peacekeeping force to Southern Lebanon. For this idea to work, this force needs to have the authority to fight Hizbollah. Otherwise it will be as useless as the current UN force is Lebanon, UNIFIL.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, George Bush, Tony Blair, Kofi Annan, United Nations

Yes to Ceasefire

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has offered to deploy the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon in exchange for a ceasefire. According to Israeli news sites, Ehud Olmert is rejecting the offer, claiming two other objectives must be achieved: the disarmament of Hezbollah and the return of the two kidnapped soldiers. Saying no is just plain stupid. If Lebanon's army takes over, Hezbollah's power will diminish at least in part. Instead of trying to disarm them we should use a new, more focused tactic. Whenever a Hezbollah post is detected near the border, or even a certain distance, it should be destroyed.

We shouldn't continue the current military campaign just for the sake of releasing the soldiers either. Two soldiers aren't worth making millions of people's lives miserable in Israel and Lebanon.

So Olmert, say yes to Siniora's offer. But if the Lebanese army doesn't come down to the border within a few days, forget about the ceasefire.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East

Oleh Girl: Awake and On Edge

I couldn't have said it better:

Awake and On Edge But is anyone asleep in this region? Night-time is definitely the worst, not least because this is when the biggest things seem to happen. Those hours as the night creeps toward dawn and everyone's mind and body are at their weakest seem to be prime time for actions. Ours. Theirs. The other Theirs. The Other Other Theirs... Watching the news of course and thinking about our innocent citizens in the North crowded into bomb shelters and pacing the floors of their homes. I'm thinking of innocent people in Lebanon wondering what the hell might hit them. I'm thinking of the innocent people in Gaza who, no doubt, want to corner Meshal and Nasralla and beat them into a pulp. I'm thinking of our young soldiers, boys and girls, Jews, Arab-Israelis, Bedouins, and Druze; of our reservists pulled away from their studies, their wives, their children. I'm thinking of children in three countries who will endure lasting trauma. I'm thinking of all of those who lost innocent loved ones. I'm thinking of all these and my heart aches and feels like a stone is tied around it. I'm thinking of Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria and Iran and I'm gnashing my teeth and filled with rage. I'm thinking of 8 Palestinians who have died on the Egyptian border and nearly 3,000 more stranded there with inadequate food, water and shelter because their own government will not allow them to cross back into their territory for needed medical care. We, Israel, have been offering to let them cross, to escort them or allow the Red Cross to do so via either of two different crossings since they began arriving at the border but their government will not allow it. I'm thinking of the leaflets and flyers our forces have been dropping into the populated areas that we plan to attack --since this fiasco began -- warning civilians to please leave the area because an attack will be coming. We do this to try to avoid killing innocent civilians. We do this despite the fact that it alerts many of the terrorists we would like to target so that they also can leave beforehand. We do this despite the fact that it endangers our own troops by giving the militants a clear signal of where we will be striking and where they can thus strike our forces. I cannot think of any other country that has ever ever taken such steps to warn an opposing civilian population. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the five million smaller terrorist groups certainly don't return the favour. No, they actively target our civilians. I am thinking of what Hamas, led by Meshal, and Hezbollah, led by Nasrallah, and both backed by Syria and Iran have done, what suffering they have caused and are causing to Israelis, yes, but to Palestinians and Lebanese too --in theory to their own people--and I am really beyond words. They do not have the interest of their people in mind. They have power and power of a very personal nature in mind. They should be very glad that we are acting with restraint. They should be very glad that we take more precautions on behalf of "their" people than they would ever deign to. I'm awake, pacing the floor and thinking. I'm watching the news.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East

The Common Enemy

I truly believe Israel and Lebanon have a common enemy: Hezbullah. Make that a plural - and add Syria and Iran to the mix. I don't expect to see the Lebanese act against those two countries, but I do think they can, somehow, rein in Hezbollah.

Here is what some Lebanese bloggers are saying (compiled by Tao of Defiance).

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East

Anti-Israel Jews

Other than Israelis of the far-left who always blame Israel for everything that's wrong with the Middle East, I find anti-Israel, anti-Zionist non-Israeli Jews the most irritating. It drives me absolutely nuts. They have every right to their opinions. They have every right to express those opinions anywhere they want. Just because they are Jews doesn't mean they have to support Israel. But it still angers me, though I have no right to be angry.

I'm not talking about dovish Jews who criticize the government. I do that too. The Jews who see Israel as some kind of Satan are the ones who piss me off, especially the ones who think Israel has no right to exist (though that pisses me off almost as much coming from non-Jews).

Tags: Jews, Judaism, Israel, Zionism, Middle East

Too Little Information

What is going on in Southern Lebanon and in Northern Israel? All I know is that Israel and Hezbollah are bombarding each other and civilians are getting killed. Yesterday, Israeli television was focused all day on the events, with a lot of info about where rockets hit in Israel, but I still don't know enough about the targets in Lebanon. I've heard names of places, I know about the airport - but I don't really know what's going on there. Is it a Hezbollah stronghold or not? CNN, BBC and other foreign news sources haven't given me enough information either.

I do not have the ability to say whether or not my government is acting wisely. On the face of it, it looks like Israel is going over the top, bombing civilian infrastructure. Officials are saying we are only targeting Hezbollah. I hope that's the case. We have to hit the terrorist organization hard, but not harm the Lebanese factions who are sick and tired of them and their de facto sovereignty over the southern portion of Lebanon.

Hezbollah presence along the border must be crippled, if not totally destroyed. The Fouad Siniora government must not.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East

Nonviolence Does Not Beget Nonviolence

We are now paying for unilateralism. The fact that we are no longer in Gaza and Southern Lebanon (or, at least, that we haven't been there until recently) is very positive. But our unilateral withdrawals were big mistakes. They empowered terrorist organizations, instead of moderate governments with whom we could have tried to negotiate.

Unilateralism isn't the only mistake that got us into the current quagmire. One mistake was allowing Hezbollah to take over Southern Lebanon and not demanding that the Lebanese army take charge. We shouldn't have put up with Hezbollah outposts right at our borders.

The prisoner swap two years ago, in which Israel released 400 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in exchange for one corrupt businessman and the bodies of three dead soldiers was a terrible mistake. It showed Hezbollah that attacking and kidnapping Israeli soldiers from within Israel would not only go unpunished, but would be rewarded.

One may argue that the attack on a tank near the Gaza border is legitimate resistance against the occupation of Gaza. I don't quite agree, but I can understand the logic of such an argument. On the other hand, the attack on the Israeli-Lebanese border is completely and utterly illegitimate. We are no longer in Lebanon, and are not in an active conflict with that country.

So what are we to do now? I really don't know. Bombing the hell out of Lebanon is the gut reaction, but will it do any good? Sitting still won't help either. After all, though violence usually begets violence, when it comes to terrorists, nonviolence does not beget nonviolence. Attacking Hezbollah's outposts while avoiding civilian targets and calling for international action against Lebanon, Syria and Iran if the soldiers are not returned may be the best solution, though international pressure is unlikely to change Sheikh Nassrallah's mind.

Tags: Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, Terrorism

Viva Italia!

Yay! I've been on Italy's side from this tournament's start. I'm not a big football fan, and I know nothing about how good the teams are. If I like the country, I like the team. Israel wasn't in the world cup, and the United States sure as hell wasn't going to get too far. So I decided to temporarily become an Italy fan.

I must admit that I found today's game pretty boring. The semi-final between Italy and Germany was the only game I found interesting. The final's most interesting moment, other than the penalty shots, was Zinadine Zidane's head meeting the Italian player's chest. The guy is 34 years old! You'd expect him to know to keep his cool. But I guess you can't expect too much from a football player...

Tags: World Cup, FIFA, Zidane, Zinadine Zidane, Football, Soccer, Italy, France

Announcing the Blurb Contest!

Have you ever wondered whether the critics' blurbs on book covers and film ads were taken out of context? Maybe you've seen a play because your favorite theater critic was quoted as saying it was "Absolutely wonderful!", only to discover later that the actual review said the play was "so absolutely horrible that someone screaming "fire!" in the crowded theater would have been wonderful".

Inspired by the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest and a piece in the NY Times about "the blurb wars", I have decided to create the Blurb Contest and dedicate a whole new blog to it, separate from my main blog.

There are four categories:

1. Total Fiction: Make up a product (book, movie, hair spray, anything), make up a line or two of a bad review and write the blurb. For example - The "Absolutely wonderful" blurb above.

2. Semi Fiction: Take an actual product (let's say "Superman Returns" or that play Julia Roberts was in), make up a bad review and write the blurb.

3. Critical Fiction: Take an actual bad review and make up a positive blurb based on it.

4. Real Fiction: The least creative category. Just find real blurbs that are distorting bad reviews.

Tags: Reviews, Entertainment, Contest, Writing Contest

I Told You So

Following the return to Gaza and former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon's claim that Ariel Sharon orchestrated the disengagement plan only to deflect the spotlight from criminal investigations, I searched my blog for my posts on the Gaza pullout. It's frustrating that our leadership (and world leaders) could not predict what I, just a humble blogger, saw coming almost two years ago. Allow me to quote myself:

Disengagement a Very Bad Plan (October 15, 2004):

After thinking it over for months, I have come to the conclusion that it is a disastrous plan. Pulling out without an agreement just makes things worse, and it will convince the Palestinians that violence works, just like the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 may have encouraged the Intifada that started a few months later.

The far-right settlers oppose the disengagement plan because they want Israel to keep control over Gaza and the West Bank. I oppose the disengagement plan for the exact opposite reason - because I want to leave the territories, but in a safe and secure manner. If we leave unilaterally, Hamas will take over. Nobody will be able to stop their terrorist activities and we'll end up having to send our military there.

Lose-Lose Situation (March 31, 2005):

The sane voices who are against disengagement for practical reasons are not being heard. The fanatics who, mostly for religious reasons more than nationalistic reasons, oppose ever giving any land to the Palestinians have completely hijacked the whole anti-unilateral pullout discourse. People like me, who believe that we should give up lands for the future State of Palestine but only through negotiation, are silent. We don't want to align ourselves with the "Complete Land of Israel" folks in any way. We're cowards.

Yes, I was a coward. What did I do against the disastrous disengagement plan? Nothing. I only wrote about it in a blog with a very limited readership (and that's an understatement).

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Disengagement, Gaza

Terror in the Knesset

A bill going through the Knesset, Israel's parliament, would allow the Knesset to expel from its ranks Knesset members who express support for terror or terrorist organizations. According to the bill, any such expulsion would require the consent of the Supreme Court. Though any law threatening to ban politicians for expressing themselves is problematic, I think this bill is a step in the right direction. Some Arab MK's have crossed the line. These are people like Ahmed Tibi, who was once Arafat's advisor, and Azmi Bishara, who has expressed support for Hezbollah and armed resistance (and attended the same rally as arch-terrorist and Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nassralla). They do not belong in the Knesset.

However, the current bill still isn't good enough. Though it gives the Supreme Court a final say on whether or not a member will be expelled from the Knesset, the decision to start the impeachment process is in the hands of his fellow politicians. I think it should be in the hands of the courts. MKs are legally required to resign when they are convicted of a crime. Expression of support for terrorism by an MK should be treated the same way and prosecuted by professional state's attorneys, not politicians.

Tags: Israel, Knesset, Israeli Politics, Terrorism

An Independent Democrat?

Senator Joe Lieberman has been criticized for announcing he would run for the Senate as an "independent Democrat" if he loses the Democratic nomination. Some people say it shows disloyalty to the Democratic party. Well, okay, that's true, but why is that bad? A politician should be loyal to the citizens and to his principals. The party is a device used to get elected. It isn't something to be loyal to.

Another claim is that running independently shows disregard for the democratic process. This reasoning says that whatever voters decide in the primary must be adhered to. I don't think that Lieberman running against his opponent, Ned Lamont, in the general election is undemocratic. If he loses the primary yet still becomes the Democratic nominee, without Lamont in the running - that would be undemocratic. But since only part of the electorate participate in primaries, and in the general elections all citizens would be free to choose between Lieberman, Lamont and other candidates, and are again free to vote against Lieberman, democracy isn't hurt one bit.

Joe Lieberman is too conservative in my taste. I don't know enough about Lamont to say which is the lesser of two evils. I'm not a Connecticut voter, so I don't have to pick between them. Makes my life just a little easier :) .

Tags: Joe Lieberman, Democratic Party, Democrats, Senate, Senate Races, Ned Lamont, Elections 2006, Politics

Gay Pride in Jerusalem

At first, when I heard a gay pride parade would take place in Jerusalem I thought it's just a senseless provocation. Though I totally support gay rights and am not religious, I could understand why religious Jews, Christians and Muslims would be offended by homosexuals marching through the streets of Jerusalem, a city they consider holy. But then I changed my mind. Jerusalem isn't just a holy city, it is Israel's capital. As such, every citizen has a right to march in it for his rights. The parade should stay away from holy sites to avoid unnecessary provocation and religious insult, but just as religious people's rights and feelings should be protected, gay people's rights and feelings should be equally protected.

Israel should be proud that its capital will host the World Pride Parade next month, only the second to take place (the first one was in Rome in 2000 - another holy city/capital). I'd say our leaders should attend, though I know they won't. But then again, maybe Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Lesbian daughter will talk him into it...

Tags: Homosexuality, Gay Pride, Jerusalem, Religion, Israel

The Gaza Mess

Israeli forces are in Gaza again. If making Gazans' lives a living hell will convince Corporal Gilad Shalit's captors to give him back to Israel alive and well, then it is the right thing to do. The problem is that it only makes the Palestinians angrier and more steadfast in their unreasonable demands. However, going into Gaza to stop the Kassam rockets was long overdue. The F-16's over Syrian President Bashar Assad's head was pure foolishness. The only good move Israel has done has been the arrest of Hamas leaders on terrorism charges. That's even greater pressure than taking out Gaza's electricity (and if it doesn't get the soldier back - they're in prison, which is good in itself).

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Palestinians, Hamas, Terrorism

Satan's Blog

Today is the third anniversary of this blog. It falls on the day "Devil Merchandising Inc." is cashing in on. Does that make my blog satanic? Do I have to sell my soul for more visitors? Or maybe I am Satan himself. I wish I were Satan. He has so much fun (well, if you like S&M).

Disclaimer: Satan©, The Devil© and 666™ and all related indicia are the property of God & Associates, Ltd.


Tags: Blogging, 666

America - a Burden on Israel?

There's an interesting op-ed piece by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz today. He basically says that the current relationship between the United States and Israel hurts both countries. I agree. The combination of the wrongheaded policies of George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon (and now Olmert) is a recipe for disaster:

Is America a strategic liability?
By Akiva Eldar

Generations of academics and commentators have made a living from dealing with the question of whether Israel represents a strategic asset or a burden to the United States. However, the question of whether the superpower is a strategic asset or burden to Israel seems almost fantastical. The Bush administration's wholesale support for Ariel Sharon's government and the warm welcome given to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert by the Congress prove that Israel can count on the White House and the Capitol. The president's road map will continue to protect us from the threat of negotiating with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, while the law that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pushed through Congress guarantees that PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh will not be a partner - even when it comes to cooperating to combat avian flu.

Fortunately, on the issue that is considered critical to Israel's existence - Iran's nuclear capabilities - the United States is likely to be an asset to Israel, but that is an exception, one in which the Americans refuse to be drawn into making another strategic mistake. It is an exception that does not prove the rule.

Dr. Haggai Ram of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, author of "Reading Iran in Israel: The Self and the Other, Religion and Modernity," notes that during the presidency of Mohammed Khatami, there were increasing calls in Iran for a "just" and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Ram, after 9/11, and particularly after the invasion of Afghanistan, there was a "window of opportunity" for a rapprochement between the United States and Iran. Ram attributes the failure of contacts toward this end to Israeli efforts to present Iran as a dominant factor in the conflict and to internationalize the conflict in order to present it as an integral part of the "war against terror."

Flint Leverett, formerly a senior figure in the U.S. National Security Council and the State Department, disclosed to the Council on Foreign Relations - the director of which is appointed by the president - that in May 2003, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, the Swiss ambassador in Tehran passed along an Iranian offer to negotiate with the United States on the nuclear issue. In addition, the document expressed Iran's willingness to adopt the Arab League's resolution to recognize Israel and stop supporting Palestinian terror organizations operating outside of the territories.

Leverett claims that the Bush administration ignored the latter offer, too, keeping instead to its policy of destroying the "axis of evil" and bringing about the "democratization of the Middle East." The end is well known: The "democratization," which conceals American economic interests and messianic tendencies, continues to undermine stability in the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood challenges moderate Arab regimes, and Iraq has brought the ills of Afghanistan into the heart of the Sunni world. Al-Qaida is making itself felt in Egypt, Jordan and Palestine. Iran has become a regional power that threatens the entire area, from the Persian Gulf to the western Mediterranean. And the United States, Israel's patron, is losing its powers of deterrence.

Even the conservative Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, whose appointment to the U.S. Institute of Peace was forced by Bush on Congress, wrote in The New York Sun that the administration's policy in Iraq "makes it easier for the regime's enemies to garner support for their insurgency."

Natan Sharansky, whom Bush has called his "soul mate," argues that it was inappropriate for the United States to pressure the Palestinians into holding elections. In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Sharansky wrote that Bush's misreading of the democratization process paved the way for the creation of a Hamas-run entity next to Israel.

When Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres, "the architect of the Oslo agreement," was asked why he was supporting the policy of Ariel Sharon, he shrugged his shoulders and responded: "How can I object to a policy that the president of the United States supports?" That "policy" of "there's no partner for peace" is what gave rise to the unilateralism that continues to chip away at what is left of the pragmatic Palestinian camp and to continue to reduce the chances of ending the occupation.

Yesterday was the 39th anniversary of that strategic burden. If our older brother was truly a strategic asset, he would have gotten us out of there long ago.

Tags: Israel, United States, George Bush, Iran, Politics, International Relations

Presidential Race 2007 (Israel)

President Moshe Katsav's 7-year term will end in the summer of 2007. At that time, the 120-member Knesset will elect his successor. Talk of who that will be has already started. Three names have come up so far and I oppose all of them. One is former Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin. I oppose him on account of him being a pure jackass. Another candidate, who says he will not run, is Shimon Peres. I think he's too old.

The third is Meir Israel Lau, former Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel. As a secular Israeli I think he was a great Chief Rabbi. He never made any covert political messages wrapped in theological coating and never had any scandals - unlike the two current chief rabbies (the Ashkenazi one is suspected of receiving bribes from a hotel; the Sephardic one's son kidnapped and tortured a guy who was courting his sister). After all, the office of chief rabbi is mainly for the ultra-orthodox, so I don't expect much of the office holders.

But I can't see him as the ceremonial head of Israel. He doesn't represent me. He has a very strict orthodox view on who is Jewish and on the question of state and religion. He opposes civil marriages and non-orthodox currents of Judaism (i.e. Reform and Conservative Judaism - or in other words, most of world Jewry). He does not recognize the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers as Jews, even if they were raised Jewish all their lives. He also sees homosexuality as a perversion, and thinks Jews should be more religious. The Sephardic Chief Rabbi during Lau's term, Bakshi Doron, is much more liberal than him.

So who should it be? I'd be happy to see someone like Eli Amir or Amos Oz as president. An author from the center-right, like Eyal Meged, would be good too. Avishay Braverman would be great for the job as well, but I'd rather see him as prime minister.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics

Amir Peretz's Iron Grip

Amir Peretz is purging the Labor Party and Labor-controlled ministries of non-loyalists. He has just gotten the party's legal counsel, Barak supporter Eldad Yaniv, booted from his post. The deed was done during a meeting of the Secretariat, attended by 3 of its 5 members, without any prior notice that the issue would even be brought up for debate.

Last week, a Laborite ally of Peretz, Shmuel Abuab was appointed general director of the Education ministry, instead of Acting GD Amira Haim. I've heard unofficial reports that minister of Education Yuli Tamir, another ally of Peretz, actually wanted to keep Haim on as director, but Peretz shoved Abuab down her throat.

Tags: Amir Peretz, Labor Party, Israel, Israeli Politics

The Palestinian Right of Return

Laila El-Haddad, a Palestinian blogger, wrote a post last week titled "Either return..or return", where she basically says there's no other option other than the return of Palestinian refugees. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most Palestinians agree with her. An overwhelming majority of Israelis, myself included, would never let the refugees back into Israel, thus turning Israel into Palestine.

Yes, Israel has some responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem, but so do Arab countries. Over the last six decades, they have made sure the Palestinians would live in the worst conditions in refugee camps, and not be absorbed and given citizenship in the countries in which they currently reside. These countries wish to get rid of the Palestinians, but at the same time they want to still be able to use them to deflect criticism from themselves to the Evil Zionist Entity.

Israel can't recognize the right of return, not even a symbolic one. But as compromise, it can admit partial responsibility for the plight of refugees. It can compensate them and help resettle them in the Palestinian state, and those who decide to stay in their current countries should also be resettled and receive citizenship there (though the Arab states may not agree to that).

But the refugees cannot return to Israel proper. The Palestinians have been educated for the last 58 years to hate the "colonizing Jews". We can coexist wonderfully with the Palestinians who have been citizens of Israel since its establishment, but not with returning refugees. It would be like Kosovo here.

Would the Palestinians ever agree to compensation? I hope so, but I also doubt it. If they don't, this ain't gonna end soon.

Tags: Palestinians, Palestine, Israel, Middle East, Refugees

Brooklyn's Racial Race

An interesting Democratic primary will take place in New York City this September. Representative major R. Owens is retiring after 22 years in Congress and five Democrats are vying for his seat. Since the district is something like 90% Democratic - whoever wins the primary is expected to win in November.

Currently, four African-Americans are running for the seat: Chris Owens, the incumbent's son, State Sen. Carl Andrews, City Councilwoman Yvette Clark and State Assemblyman Nick Perry. The fifth candidate is white City Councilman David Yassky. Rep. Owens, who supports his son's bid, has attacked Yassky for even running in a voting rights district, which, as he sees it, should be represented by a black congressman. Many share this view.

Now I wonder whether the following scenario is possible: Yassky wins the primary by a small margin, and another party, maybe the Working Families Party, nominates one of the black candidates (maybe Carl Andrews). And then the 11th congressional district will have its first competitive November election in decades. It's purely hypothetical, though. It just might be legally impossible.

Tags: New York, New York City, NYC, Brooklyn, Politics, Democrats, Elections

5.5 in 1,000 Children Autistic

A new nationwide study in the United States shows that 1 in 182 children is autistic, if my calculation is correct. That isn't that far from the disputed 1 in 166 statistic from a study in California a few years ago. What does it mean? I have no idea. It doesn't necessarily show a rise in autism cases, it may just show a rise in diagnosis. I have a feeling the Mercury poisoning theory might get a boost by these new numbers, though they are far from being any proof of the theory's validity.

Tags: Autism, mercury, Thimerosal

Ethnic Cleansing in the Knesset

Knesset Member Avigdor Lieberman of the right-wing Israel Beytenu (Israel Our Home) party called yesterday for the execution of Arab Knesset members who met with Hamas leaders. "The Second World War ended with the Nuremberg trials and the execution of the Nazi leadership. Not only them, but also those who collaborated with them. I hope that will also be the fate of the collaborators in this house [the Knesset]", he said.

Though I see meeting and expressing support for Hamas leaders as disloyalty to Israel, calling for the MKs' deaths is dangerous incitement and way beyond legitimate parliamentary debate.

Maybe the Arab MKs who met Hamas leaders should be kicked out of the Knesset, but so should Lieberman for criminal incitement.

Tags: Israel, Knesset, Politics, Israeli Politics, Hamas

Is Israel the Only Place for Jews?

Israeli author A. B. Yehoshua caused quite a stir at the American Jewish Committee's Centennial symposium, when he argued that the only way to be a Jew is to live in Israel. Yehoshua was very blunt. He said Jews outside Israel are playing with their identity, "Plug & Play Jews". He even went as far as to say American Jews would leave the States and move to China if it surpassed the US economically. Now that's anti-Semitic - the greedy disloyal Jews looking for the best place to make money.

This is an old, classical Zionist position, which was once necessary for the State of Israel back when it relied on immigration for its demographic survival as a Jewish state. I think his views are shared by a majority of Israelis, who truly don't understand how any Jew can stay in the diaspora. This is a narrowminded, provincial view. These people haven't seen thriving Jewish communities abroad. They don't know that non-Israeli Jews can have great lives, without having to constantly worry about antisemitism.

I think the Hebrew word for diaspora, Gola (from Galut, exile), should be thrown out the window. The Gola is very small now - since, as I see it, it is a place outside Israel where the local Jews feel they are in exile. Happy American, Canadian, British and other Jews who feel at home in their countries are not in the Gola. They are not in exile. Of course, this is a secular interpretation of the word. That isn't to say Israel should stop trying to bring new Jewish Olim to Israel, but it should do that by making Israel a better place to live in, not by rebuking those who stay abroad.

Tags: Israel, Zionism, Judaism, Jewish Diaspora

Happy Birthday Israel

Yom Atzmaut Sameach! Happy Independence Day, Israel!

For one day, forget about all the crap in this country. Focus on the positive. We're a strong country whose existence is not threatened anymore. We are a state with some of the best minds the world has ever seen in the fields of economics and technology (less so in the field of politics and diplomacy). We have some of the world's best authors - Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua, David Grossman and Eli Amir, just to name a few. Despite being a small country, we have lots of different landscapes - from the desert in the south to the green fields of the north. The people may not have British manners, but they're extremely friendly, always (well, usually) willing to help out a stranger on the street.

There's more good stuff, but I don't want to overdose on the patriotism.

Tags: Israel

Who Will Remember?

It is Holocaust Remembrance Day today. As I see the old survivors speaking at ceremonies and in documentaries, I can't help but think that in a few years there will be no more holocaust survivors. Who will act as witnesses at ceremonies and public discussions? As the people who remember the horrible experiences fade away, will the "public memory" fade as well?

We will never forget the holocaust, but it may become something more of a historical fact than an actual scar on humanity. Young Germans, Austrians, Poles and others already see it as distant history rather than something that has anything to do with them. I can't blame them. They aren't responsible for what their parents and grandparents did.

On the other hand, for most young Jews (at least in Israel), the holocaust is still a part of life. It isn't something that's always present, like an obsession, but it is part of their background. Our parents' and grandparents' lives were changed by it. We know survivors, we know people who have lost relatives. Unlike those who only hear tales of survival through documentaries, we have heard thousands of stories from people near and dear to us - an aunt who survived the camps, a neighbor raised by nuns until his mother could return to take him, those who fled in time but lost entire families, and many more. So we remember, but will our children? Will the next generations be interested in the stories retold by those who did not experience them?

But maybe we've already forgotten one of the most important lessons of the holocaust. The eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day (27 of Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar) coincides this year with Genocide Remembrance Day in Armenia (March 24). I find it symbolic: we should remember that genocide is global. The Holocaust was not the first attempt at ethnic cleansing, nor was it the last. It is happening right now in Darfur. Unfortunately, just like in the 1940's, nobody cares. Nobody will do a thing against it, including Israel.

President Moshe Katzav and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert used the memorial ceremony to warn the world against Iran's dreams of nuclear genocide. They should have called for intervention in Sudan.

Tags: Holocaust, Genocide, Darfur

Labor Down to 19 Knesset Members

Israel's central elections committee announced a correction today to the election results. Labor has 19 seats, not 20, while Ra'am-Ta'al, an Arab party, has 4 instead of 3. It's weird, but I'm happy Labor lost a seat even though I voted for them. The whole "social emergency Peretz government" concept pisses me off.

The original error was due to the fact that in one Arab town poll workers mistakenly listed hundreds of votes as being for Herut, a party advocating the "transfer for compensation" of Arabs, instead of Ra'am-Ta'al, which was right next to it on the voting tally form.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Labor Party

Prime Minister Amir Peretz?

After the 2003 elections, it took me about a year and a half until I was sorry I voted for Shinui. This time around, I'm feeling sorry about voting for Labor already. Amir Peretz is trying to get the right wing parties to support and join a government led by himself. There are so many reasons why this would be a disaster.

For one thing, all these parties have nothing in common other than the desire to keep Kadima out of government. Their views on just about every issue are so very different, which would make this a stalemate coalition. It will break up quickly, once its left-wing parties try something its right-wing parties oppose. That will either cause very early elections or the formation of a Kadima-led government after a few months of being stuck in the mud.

Also, though Kadima's election result was mediocre, winning 29 seats after earlier polls had shown them at the 30's and 40's. But it's still the largest party in parliament, almost doubling the number of members it had in the previous Knesset (the former Likud and Labor MKs who formed Kadima). On the other hand, Labor got just one more seat than they did in 2003. And back then, Amir Peretz ran with his small party Am Echad and got 3 seats, which later joined Labor with a combined 22 seats. So actually Labor lost 2 seats on March 28.

Another reason this is not a good idea is Amir Peretz himself. He is not a national leader, but a labor union leader. He would be a bad prime minister. Also, polls show very few people want him at the helm.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Labor Party, Kadima

Confessions of a Former Bibi Admirer

I was a little kid when I first saw him. He was on CNN, being interviewed as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. He had such perfect American English. Bibi Netanyahu became one of my favorite TV personalities. Yes, that's what he was to me back then - a TV personality. With perfect English. To this day, I have a soft spot for Israelis with perfect American English and Americans with perfect Hebrew.

I had no ideas what his political views were at the time. I doubt I really had any of my own back then. But as I became politically aware, and Bibi became head of Likud and later prime minister, even the perfect English could not compensate for his politics and horrible leadership. I really dislike him now as a politician. I even dislike him as a TV personality.

That, by the way, is his biggest failure, since he always was more of a TV star than a leader.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Likud, Benjamin Netanyahu

Heads Will Roll

It's now time for the losing parties of the Israeli 2006 elections to consider getting rid of their leaders:

• The Labor Party should get rid of Amir Peretz and put Avishai Braverman at its helm. If that happens, I'll definitely vote for them again next time, except I'll pick them for their leader, nor despite of him.
• The Likud should get rid of Netanyahu. I think Silvan Shalom would be the best person to replace him. As a moderate, he can rebuild the party as a center-right, rather than radical-right, party. Still, no chance of them getting my vote next time.
• Meretz should get rid of Yossi Beilin. He's been a disaster and nobody likes him. Knesset Members Zehava Galon and Ran Cohen have announced they'll run against him. I don't like Galon, and I doubt she'd attract voters. Cohen is the better choice here.
• Kadima didn't lose, which means Olmert won't be replaced. Too bad. I'd rather see Tzipi Livni at the helm.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Labor Party, Kadima, Likud, Meretz

Pollard's Mossad Handler, Castro's Business Partner

US-Israeli relations may become awkward soon. The newest party in the Knesset, the Pensioners Party, is about to join Ehud Olmert's coalition. Rafi Eitan, their 79-year old leader, will become a cabinet minister. That will be a problem for the United States, where he's probably a persona-non-grata, for two reasons: he recruited Jonathan Pollard, who spied on the Pentagon for Israel, and he's gained quite a fortune from doing business in Cuba (Israel doesn't have an embargo on Cuba, just like most of the world other than the US).

When the United States is upset with Israel, it knows how to express its feelings. Last year, Amos Yaron left his post as general director of Israel's Defense Ministry after the United States refused to have any contact with him, cancelled a few deals with Israel and delayed others. The Pentagon held him responsible for selling American military technology to China. Eitan, Pollard's boss and Castro's friend, may get the same treatment.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Cuba, Jonathan Pollard

Exit Polls: Pensioners' Party Wins Big, Likud Crashes

Four exit polls from Israel's three main channels and Ynet are indicating a big surprise: Gill, the pension party that seemed to be hovering around the 2% threshold, got 6-8 seats. Now it's a mid-sized party, stronger than the well established Meretz. That's amazing. It seems to me that it's a form of protest vote.

Also: Likud is down to fourth place, below Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Our Home, and possibly maybe even fifth place, after Shas. Now Likud is almost a marginal party, Netanyahu is probably about to lose his leadership post, and Lieberman will become the new leader of the right wing.

I'm not surprised by numbers Labor and Kadima got in the exit poll. It's more or less what I expected. It's a bit of a disappointment for Kadima, but Labor is probably more or less content.

The most important thing is that the right wing cannot block a center-left government.

Meretz got 5 seats according to all exit polls. That means Zvia Greenfeld is not in the Knesset. I hope the real results will get her into parliament.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Labor Party, Kadima, Likud, Meretz

I Voted for Labor

That's it. The indecision is over. I chose the Labor Party. The polling place was fairly empty. I had to wait for one person who was ahead of me, but there was nobody in line behind me. As of 2 PM, only 31% of voters came to the polls, compared with 35%-36% at the same hour in 2003 and 2001. It's the lowest turnout ever, so far.

Israelis, wake up and go vote!

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Labor Party

Country Counter

I just added a country counter to see where visitors are coming from. I wouldn't count on the numbers exactly since they may count the same visitor a few times, but the country distribution should be interesting.

Tag: blogging


Update (May 2, 2006): My free trial period is over. The counter is no more.

A Few Election Notes

1. I will probably vote for Labor, though I'm very unhappy with Amir Peretz. I'll vote for Laborites Braverman, Pines, Malchior, Vilnai and Tamir, despite their leader.

2. I also considered voting for the retirement/pensioners party, Gill. All of the last polls show Gill will get into the Knesset, but I don't trust the polls. I'm worried my vote may be wasted if I put their name in the envelope.

3. After tomorrow's exit polls, we'll be free of election polls for a while. However, we aren't done with this headache just yet. Now there will be at least one month of speculation in the media regarding what kind of coalition will be formed, including polls asking which coalition partners the public wants.

4. Hopefully, someone in the next Knesset will have enough brains to sponsor a bill to undo the ban on propaganda on TV and radio, outside of the specific time given to campaign ads. It's stupid that interviewers have to keep asking politicians to refrain from campaign messages, which is exactly what they are there for. The ban's intent is a good one - to give equal time to the smaller parties. But it doesn't work. Also, the one-hour concentration of campaign ads should be cancelled. Campaign ads should run during regular commercial breaks, with the same time limits on each party as exist today.

5. Goodbye, 16th Knesset. You were the worst one we've ever seen. The 17th Knesset, however flawed in may turn out to be, will certainly be of much better quality than the current one. 16th, you will not be missed!

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, Labor Party

The Election Results Game

Many gambling websites have gamblers guessing how the 17th Knesset will be made up. I'm not a gambler, but just for the heck of it, I'm betting my virtual bucks on the following results:

Kadima - 31
Labor - 21
National Union-National Religious Party - 15
Likud - 13
Shas (ultra-orthodox Sephardim) - 12
Israel Our Home (the "Arab towns for Jewish settlements" party) - 10
United Torah Judaism (ultra-orthodox Ashkenazis) - 5
Meretz (left wing) - 5
Hadash (Communist Arab party) - 3
Ra'am-Ta'al (Islamic Arab party) - 3
Balad (Nationalist Arab party) - 2

The exact numbers aren't important. What is important is that I see a troubling trend coming. Kadima will not have more than 60 coalition members if it takes Labor and Meretz, and won't want to rely on the Arab parties so as not to be seen as a leftist party. The right wing and the religious parties will have a powerful bloc. Kadima may end up in a coalition with the right, or it may go with Labor and Likud as a unity government.

I also predict Likud will be down to fourth place, after the National Union-NRP list. Who knows, maybe Israel Our Home may even end up getting more votes than Likud, pushing it down to fifth. And maybe, just maybe, Shas will push it down to sixth. But that's a long-shot.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections

Out of Touch

Public opinion polls keep surprising me. One such poll showed Israelis are extremely racist towards Arabs: two thirds refuse to live in the same building as Arabs; 40% support encouraging Arabs to leave Israel; 46% would not let an Arab into their house.

One respected commentator, Yaron London, even went as far as to say that a poll in Germany in the early 1930's regarding the Jews would be less racist. I wouldn't go that far, but I'm certainly worried. I knew racism was a problem here in Israel, but I had no idea it was this bad.

Other polls show that a lot of Israelis find these elections boring, are uninterested in politics and don't plan on voting. This is also troubling. It will strengthen the racist parties, since although it turns out most Israelis have racist views, they usually don't vote for racists. There's a big difference between wishing the Arabs were gone and actually doing something to make that happen.

Why am I so surprised? The circles I socialize with are educated liberal types. These are the kind of people who are very involved politically and abhor racism. Sure, I have a few hawkish friends, a few politically ignorant ones, and even one racist - but they are in the minority. I'm in a bubble, an ivory tower. I must say I like it there. The Israel outside it seems much worse than the one inside it.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections, racism, Israeli Arabs

How I Learned to Love Irshad Manji

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times titled "How I Learned to Love the Wall", Irshad Manji says that despite its problems, the separation barrier between Israel and the West Bank is a positive thing.

In her own words:

"After all, this barrier, although built by [Ariel] Sharon, was birthed by "shaheeds," suicide bombers whom Palestinian leaders have glorified as martyrs. Qassam missiles can kill two or three people at a time. Suicide bombers lay waste to many more. Since the barrier went up, suicide attacks have plunged, which means innocent Arab lives have been spared along with Jewish ones. Does a concrete effort to save civilian lives justify the hardship posed by this structure? The humanitarian in me bristles, but ultimately answers yes."

"Like all Muslims, I look forward to the day when neither the jeep nor the wall is in Abu Dis. So will we tell the self-appointed martyrs of Islam that the people — not just Arabs, but Arabs and Jews — "are one"? That before the barrier, there was the bomber? And that the barrier can be dismantled, but the bomber's victims are gone forever?"

Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Middle East, terrorism

My Potential Choices: Pros and Cons

These are the parties I might vote for on March 28:

Labor

Pros:

1. They have some excellent people on their list, including a few people I wouldn't mind seeing in the prime minister's office one day (Avishai Braverman and Ophir Pines-Paz).
2. Their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the closest to my own: we need an agreed settlement, not more unilateral steps.
3. I support their stance on education.

Cons:

1. Amir Peretz is too much of a socialist. As head of the Histadrut, the big labor union, he did a lot to stop economic progress in Israel. He didn't take care of workers rights, but made sure certain strong unions retain their extra privileges. It is also said that he used the Histadrut to force employees to join his previous party and then Labor, winning the primary election that way.
2. Labor does not promise to work for greater separation of religion and state. There is nothing in their platform about civic marriages.

Meretz

Pros:

1. They support civil marriage and greater separation of church and state.
2. Number 6 on the Meretz list, Dr. Zvia Greenfield, an ultra-orthodox woman who supports a secular state, is very impressive. She won't be in the next Knesset if the party doesn't get at least 6 seats, and the polls show them at between 4 to 6 seats right now.

Cons:

1. They are too left-wing on both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and economically. They support high taxes and are pretty gullible when it comes to negotiations.
2. I dislike Meretz's chairman, Yossi Beilin.
3. They say they won't support a civil marriage bill that would not include same-sex marriages. Though I support gay marriage, I don't think the "all or nothing" approach would do any good. Leaping from a backwards state of only religious weddings to a liberal state of same-sex marriages may be impossible now. For now, the focus should be on allowing a man and woman to get married any way they choose, while protecting the rights of same sex couples.

Hetz (ultra-secular, majority of Shinui's Knesset members)

Pros

1. Someone needs to protect the secular majority - though Meretz is secular it isn't its top priority, but it is Hetz's.

Cons

1. More than they are liberal, they are anti-religious. Actually, they are not quite liberal in that sense.
2. They got 15 seats last time (under the Shinui banner), and were in the government, but achieved very little.
3. They probably won't pass the 2 percent threshold, thus voting for them would be a waste of a ballot.

The Retired Pensioners (Ha'Gimlaim)

Pros:

1. We all want to reach retirement age some day.
2. I support their stance regarding protecting pensions.

Cons:

1. The 2% threshold thing again.
2. They're a one-issue party.
3. I'm more than 40 years away from retirement myself.
4. My main interest in them would be as a protest vote, but who'll notice the protest?

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections

Young Secular Israelis - Vote!

According to a recent poll published in Haaretz, 45% of 18 to 32 year-olds do not plan on voting in the March 28 elections, while only 44% think they will vote. That age group is one third of eligible voters! Another troubling statistic: two thirds of young secular Israelis will not vote. This seems horrible to me. I'm pissed, too. Those who don't participate in elections are playing into the hands of radical parties - whether radically hawkish, socialist or religious.

I'm frustrated. None of the parties are good choices. Since I take voting seriously, I'm agonizing over which party would take care of my best interests, as well as the whole country's interests. One day I think I'll vote labor, then I think I won't. Then I think of Meretz and Hetz (the two main secular parties), even the Retired Pensioners party. Kadima, Likud and all parties to their right are out of the question. Maybe I should just do a pros and cons list of my potential choices.


Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections

Autistic vs. Education Experts: Success Is Punished

My sister is getting ready to put her son in first grade next year. That means she's fighting the city and education department again. My nephew is doing so well, the so-called experts are recommending that he'll get less special assistance next year, if he'll get any at all. The problem is that he definitely needs as much help as possible. He is a wonderful, cute, brilliant kid, but he'll regress if he is put into a new environment without proper help.

The good thing is that my sister has good lawyers from non-profit organizations helping her. One is from Alut, an organization for autistic people, and the other is from Bizchut, an organization fighting for the rights of people with disabilities. Hopefully, my nephew's success won't be punished and he'll keep getting the help he deserves.

Tags: autism, education

Just Blame It On the Jews

I haven't said anything about the cartoon riots yet. I guess it's about time. I see it as two hypocritical sides clashing with one another. Both sides are a little bit right and very much wrong. Yes, I see both sides negatively, pretty much. More on that later. First, how we Jews get screwed from all this.

We aren't part of this, but somehow we still get hurt. The Danes have cancelled a soccer match in Israel because of the riots. The idiots don't know that with our tight security they'd be safer here than they are in Denmark. Also, the Muslims are firing back at the anti-Muslim cartoon with anti-Jewish cartoons. These are coming from Iran, the Arab European League and others. How about anti-Christian cartoons? Or anti-liberal cartoons? After all, the original cartoonist and his main supporters are those.

Now back to the Muhammad cartoons themselves: The Europeans are a bit right because freedom of speech is important. The Muslims are right because religious tolerance is no less important.

The Europeans are very wrong because those cartoons didn't criticize anything in particular. They had no purpose other than insulting Islam. Freedom of speech has its limits - limits that should not be regulated (or forced by violence), but a kind of moral self-control. You can mock public figures in your cartoons, but you shouldn't use stereotypes or mock a whole religion.

Now, the Muslims are very wrong too. The riots are outrageous, of course. What kind of message do you send out if you violently protest against your portrayal as a violent religion? But even the more moderate Muslims who aren't rioting don't protest when Arab cartoonists portray the Jews and the Israelis as Nazi vampires. It is okay to attack the Jews and not the Muslims?

Above: Haaretz Cartoon by Amos Biderman, Feb. 6, 2006.

Tags: Islam, Mohammed Cartoon, Muslim cartoon, Israel, Denmark, Freedom of Speech

The Nuclear Differences Between Israel and Iran

Avner Cohen, whose research into Israeli nuclear weapons created quite an uproar and controversy in Israel a few years ago, has an interesting op-ed in Haaretz today. The piece, titled "Why Israel can and Iran Can't" in the Hebrew version, answers all those who claim the attitude towards Israeli and Iranian nukes represents a double standard. He also says Israel should let go of its nuclear ambiguity, so it can answer its critics. I'm not that sure about that part. Ambiguity has its pros and cons.

Here's the English version:

Time to come clean on the bomb
By Avner Cohen

Every time the subject of the Iranian nuclear issue comes up in international forums - as happened over the weekend when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decided to transfer the issue to the United Nations Security Council - there is someone who raises the issue of the exceptional Israeli nuclear issue. Every time Iran suffers condemnation for its nuclear conduct, its spokesmen accuse the Western world of a double standard: How is it that the West, according to them, turns a blind eye and permits Israel to develop nuclear weaponry whereas Iran - a country that only wants to realize its legitimate right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes - is not left alone?

Among the Arab states as well, including those that truly do oppose and are afraid of the Iranian atom, this double standard argument also comes up. Why is the West dealing only with the Iranian atom and ignoring the Israeli atom, ask the Egyptians. Softer versions of this line of thinking are also common in Europe, where many argue that only anti-nuclear norms that apply to the entire region, including Israel, will prevent a nuclearized Middle East.

Even in the United States there are those who argue that only if Israel is brought into the Iranian equation in some way is there a chance of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And indeed, the United States has made possible the introduction of a connection in this spirit, though softer and diluted, into the IAEA decision of this weekend, which also included a mention of the commitment to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

The attempt to put Israel and Iran on the same level, or even to create a concrete political connection between them, is ignorant, unfair and biased. First of all, from the point of view of international law: whereas Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is committed to comply with it, Israel, like India and Pakistan, is not a signatory to the treaty and therefore is not beholden to a formal commitment. Whereas Iran has been caught in flagrant breach of its international commitments, Israel has not broken such commitments. In other words, like the seven other nuclear states in the world, and in stark contrast to Iran, Israel has never relinquished the right to develop nuclear weaponry.

However, beyond the formal plane there is a profound historical difference between Israel and Iran. Israel began its nuclear program in a world in which there were not yet explicit international norms against the possession of atomic weapons. When - according to foreign publications - Israel completed the first phase of the research and development of its nuclear activity around 1966, the NPT had not yet been completed. Had Israel decided at that time to realize its nuclear potential, and not to elect a policy of ambiguity, its nuclear status would be no different today from the status of the five other recognized nuclear states.

Beyond these differences there is also a profound difference between the two countries at the existential level. According to foreign reports, Israel began to develop its Samson option in the 1950s, while it was establishing a state for a people still in the shadow of conflagration, in a hostile geopolitical environment that was opposed to its very existence. It found itself committed to the creation of an insurance policy within the pre-1967 borders, without external guarantees for its existence. In the political climate of that time, a decade after the Holocaust, Israel had perhaps the strongest strategic and moral justification for turning to the nuclear option, certainly no less than France or China, which also began the atomic journey at that time.

Not only is Iran not under existential threat - its nuclear aspirations are an issue that puts it on a collision course with the world. Even the leaders of North Korea are not daring to declare their aspirations to wipe countries off the map, as the president of Iran has declared with respect to Israel.

From the Israeli perspective, it is essential not to leave the charge of double standard unanswered, but official Israel finds it difficult to answer the Iranian argument that it is permitted what Iran is forbidden. Official Israel finds it difficult to tell the world that its right to the atom is no less than that of France or India. The reason for this difficulty lies in the constraints of the policy of ambiguity that it has created of its own volition, a policy that traps it into not being able to clean up its nuclear position. Ambiguity is perceived in the world, with a certain amount of justice, as international deviation, as something sinful.

Israel's prime ministers have always refused to reopen the question of the exceptional nature of Israel's nuclear policy. The bureaucratic and diplomatic convenience of the ambiguity and the vast consensus behind its success have afforded Israeli prime ministers the luxury of not entering the atomic paradise. But the price of this exceptionalism is that the issue remains taboo, not arranged in an orderly manner, at home and abroad.

The need to deal with the Iranian nuclear capability strengthens the notion that the time has come for the state of Israel to find intelligent ways to clean up its nuclear status, at home and abroad.

Israel's nuclear policy was created as part of a chain of improvisations in the 1960s and the 1970s. But over the years the ambiguity has become a deviant anachronism, a kind of Israeli wink. Perhaps a fresh prime minister, who is open to innovative thinking, will be able to deal with the complex challenge of formulating a more transparent and democratic Israeli nuclear policy appropriate to the 21st century.

The writer, author of Israel and the Bomb and The Last Taboo, is a senior researcher at the University of Maryland.

Tags: Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons, WMD, Foreign Policy, International Affairs

Pro-Pollard Group Has Mock Kadima Site

I wanted to check out Kadima's list of Knesset candidates on their website. I should have typed in http://kadimasharon.org.il but I made a mistake. I typed in http://kadimaparty.org.il and found this:


It's a website that attacks Kadima, claiming it abandoned Jonathan Pollard, the American who spied for Israel and is now serving a life sentence in the United States. It says "the Kadima Party is letting Pollard rot in jail", and "Kadima - you want our vote? We want Pollard!". The website calls for people to send e-mails to Ehud Olmert to ask why Olmert hasn't fulfilled the Knesset decision from November 22, according to which he must officially ask the president of the United States to release Pollard. In the background, Kadima's logo is shown with the slogan "Kadima (forward) without Pollard".

It's quite a smart move on the Free Pollard organization's part. A lot of people may type in this address by mistake.


Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Kadima, Jonathan Pollard

The Lesser of Evils

The good thing about a multi-party system, as opposed to a two-party system, is that you have a wide range of choices. The bad thing is that sometimes all those choices are bad. That's the situation in Israel during these elections. We have dozens of parties, none of which have platforms I can full heartedly endorse or a list of Knesset candidates worthy of parliament. We have three candidates for Prime Minister, none of them have the capabilities needed for the job.

So once again, I have to choose the lesser of evils. But in Israel, that isn't that simple. Which lesser evil - the best prime minister or best party? You vote for a party list, not for prime minister, though the number of seats each party gets determines who will be the prime minister.

If I make my decision according to who I support for the premiership I have to vote for either the three lists with PM candidates, or for a party who declares it will support a certain candidate. In that case, I'd vote for Kadima, since Ehud Olmert is the lesser of evils for the premiership. Sure, he was a horrible mayor of Jerusalem. He'll be a bad PM, too. But he'll be better than Benjamin Netanyahu who already proved to be a colossal failure, and Amir Peretz who is too much of a socialist and inept.

But I won't vote for Kadima. They aren't really a party. Its new Knesset candidates are mostly unknown, and those who are known have very different views from each other on every topic other than the mutual wish to be in power. I won't vote for Likud either - because they're too right wing. I won't vote for Meretz either. That party's stupid campaign is to flaunt their left-wing extremism, meaning they see themselves as in a contest with the communist and Arab parties, not with the more mainstream Labor. Most parties are either too far left or too far right or have inept members. The Labor party so far seems like the lesser of evils list-wise. They have some good people in there like Avishay Braverman, Ami Ayalon and Ofir Pines, though they have a very bad leader and a few extreme Knesset candidates such as Shelly Yechimovich.

So I guess I'll be voting Labor. I haven't made a final decision yet. One thing is certain, whichever party I vote for, I'll feel sick to my stomach when I cast my ballot.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Likud, Kadima, Labor Party, Politics

Use Bullets Next Time

While the unilateral disengagement last summer was foolish, the evacuation of unauthorized settlements is essential. It isn't an issue between us and the Palestinians, but rather totally internal. The importance of the rule of law demands that settlements built without permission be destroyed.

On Wednesday in Amona, an illegal settlement even in the eyes of Israeli law, the whole battle was over the destruction of nine unoccupied buildings. The rebel settlers attacked the policemen sent to enforce the law with bricks and stones. This was a Jewish Intifadah in which all red lines were crossed. The police reacted violently and aggressively. Good for them. They need to teach the rebels a lesson - in Israel (and Israeli controlled areas of the West Bank) the three branches of government are the boss, not God and not the rabbis who claim to speak for him. The laws of the state govern here, not the Halachah, the laws of the religion.

Now politicians are looking for political gains from this. There's a call for a special commission to investigate police brutality towards the settlers. Though the right wing embraced this idea, they weren't the ones who came up with it. It was Yuli Tamir of the Labor Party, formerly of Peace Now. Is she just a bleeding heart or looking for votes by claiming Olmert didn't handle this as well as Sharon handled the disengagement? A little bit of both, I guess, but more of the latter than the former.

Police aggressiveness and violence is not the problem. The rebels should be happy policemen didn't use rubber bullets (or worse, regular ones) on the settlers who attacked them with deadly weapons like bricks.

Here are some hard questions that need to be answered, and not by a special commission which would be completely unnecessary:

1. Why didn't the police block the area days before the evacuation? Destroying those nine measly houses would have been a lot easier without all those "visiting rebels".
2. Most of the rebels were children. Where were their parents? Where were their teachers? Those who are supposed to be responsible adults need to tell these kids that they can't go, they can't miss school, and most importantly, can't brutally attack law enforcers. Maybe these parents and teachers who did not do all they could to keep the children from going to Amona should be arrested for a form of child abuse?
3. Everybody is asking why the settler leadership hasn't done enough to prevent violence. Some of the leaders, including members of the Knesset, were in Amona and even wounded, reportedly after they refused to listen to the police. My question is this - why are these parliamentarians allowed to be active in a rebellion without being indicted like Israeli Arab parliamentarians who visit enemy states?

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Disengagement

The Stripes on Israel's Flag

I'm not going to analyze the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections or guess what the future holds. I'd rather talk about the flag of the State of Israel. According to Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar, the two blue stripes above and below the Star of David represent two rivers: the Nile in Egypt and the Euphrates in Iraq. He says this represents Israel's ambition to control all the land in between those rivers. Taking the stripes off the flag is a prerequisite to negotiations.

Funny. I always thought the blue stripes represent the Tallit, the Jewish prayer shawl, which traditionally has blue, purple or black stripes on each side. It's a religious symbol, just like the Star of David, not a sign of Israeli imperial ambitions. If you really think of it, the Star of David is the militaristic part of the flag. It was said to have been the symbol on David's shield when he made his first kill - when he killed the Philistine Goliath. Why don't the Hamas claim it's a symbol of the desire to kill Palestinians? It's a ridiculous claim, but so is the Nile and Euphrates interpretation.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Hamas

The Social Dangers of Not Vaccinating Kids

Judith Warner, a guest columnist/blogger for the New York Times' website, has an entry about childhood vaccinations. Since it's part of TimesSelect and you have to pay for it, I'll quote two paragraphs:

"Over and over again, the link between mercury — in the form of thimerosal, a preservative once routinely used in vaccines — and autism has been disproved. Or, better put, (who knows what the future will bring?) it has not been confirmed. (The Times had an excellent history of the autism/vaccine controversy last year.)

Meanwhile, formerly all-but-eradicated deadly childhood diseases are making a comeback, as Sanghavi acknowledges: In Britain, where vaccination is optional and immunization rates in recent years for the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine have fallen to as low as 62 percent in parts of London, measles is on the rise. Ditto in Japan, where parental choice on the matter of vaccinations has resulted in a yearly rate now of more than 100,000 cases of measles, leading to an estimated 50 to 100 deaths."

Tags: autism, mercury, thimerosal, health

Israelis Ignore Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson said Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine retribution for the disengagement from Gaza. Well, Pat, Israelis don't give a shit about you. Israeli websites have reported the comment, but it has so far been ignored on mainstream television and in the newspapers. It should be noted though, that when Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, it was widely reported here.

These evangelical "friends" of Israel are actually its foes. They support Armageddon, the End Times prophesies. They do not care about what is best for Israel. If I remember correctly, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has certain ties with them. He should sever these ties now.

Tags: Ariel Sharon, Israel, Israeli Politics, Pat Robertson

Die, Sharon, For Your Own Sake

It is now clear that Ariel Sharon has suffered massive brain damage. If he survives, he will be severely crippled, quite possibly mentally no less than physically. If this is the case, he would be better off dead. Being in a vegetative state, or something close to it, would be horrible for him.

If there's a chance for him to live a fairly good life, albeit somewhat crippled, I'd wish him that. But the chances are dim.


Ariel Sharon, Israel, Israeli Politics

The Prime Minister's Brain

Unlike Ariel Sharon's previous stroke on December 18th, this time it's serious. The prime minister is in grave condition. He probably has extensive brain damage, and even if he survives, his days as prime minister are over. I must say I'm not much concerned about the man himself - I wish him health, but I'm not as worried as if it were a family member, a friend, or someone I admired.

I'm worried about the country. I don't think too highly of Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, though he'd be better than Benjamin Netanyahu. I fear that in the next elections Netanyahu might now win. Ironically, Kadima, nicknamed "Sharon's one-man party", may get my vote now that Sharon isn't in it. If Justice Minister Tzipi Livni will be the party's candidate for PM, I'll definitely vote for them.

I've read comparisons of last night to the night of the Rabin assassination. I don't see the similarities at all. For one thing, a natural ailment is incomparable to murder; and I think Rabin was a much greater man than Sharon (and definitely not corrupt, while Sharon is).

Ariel Sharon, Israel, Israeli Politics