Mitt Romney's Ass Logo

This is Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign logo:

 

Now take a closer look at the R:

Am I the only one who thinks this looks like a human bottom?

Here's an idea for a new slogan, instead of "Believe in America": Mitt Romney - he won't leave you behind.

The Future of the Blockade

In today's Haaretz, Shlomo Avineri says Israel should be happy that Egypt opened up the Rafah crossing, and he thinks this should mean the end of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. We'd no longer have any responsibilty toward Gaza, since we would no longer control all its borders, its airspace and its waters. We will close our border with the Strip, but passage of people and goods in and out of the territory via the Egypt-Gaza border, the sea and air would be unhindered. Israel's relations with Gaza would be like its relations with Lebanon: nobody passes the Israeli-Lebanese border, but Lebanon isn't under blockade.

This would not be a threat to Israel, he says. Weapons and terrorists have been streaming in through the tunnels anyway, so the situation would not be any worse. He even thinks it would be better politically. Any new Free Gaza Flotillas won't be able to complain about a blockade that has been lifted, and if they just reach Gaza without a problem, they would barely get any attention.

Avineri's claims are worth considering. He has some very good points, but I still have a few concerns about this scenario. First of all, while it is true that weapons flow into Gaza right now, I fear that without the blockade, the volume of arms smuggling would increase, and larger, more sophisticated weapons which can't be brought in through tunnels would now become available to the Hamas.

Second of all, if we don't control Gaza's airspace, we might be opening the door to 9/11 style terrorism. Major Israeli cities are very close to Gaza, and planes can enter Israel and crash into buildings before fighter jets could be launched to intercept them. Airplanes would be much more lethal than the Gazans' current arsenal of rockets.

Unless security experts tell me my fears are unfounded, I'd rather we alleviate the blockade by allowing the free flow into Gaza of people and goods, under our inspection at our own border checkpoints and out at sea (in other words, board flotillas, inspect them and then allow them to reach Gaza as long as there are no weapons on board). Yes, we'll still look like the bad guys, but I'd rather live with bad PR than die with a public opinion triumph.

Philip Weiss's Delusions About Jeffrey Goldberg

Jewish Anti-Zionist blogger Phil Weiss is so delusional and so sure of his position, that he is certain that his anti-Zionist views are winning over the Jewish world, as well as the non-Jewish world. Now he thinks Jeffrey Goldberg is about to leave Zionism, just because of Goldberg's frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu. Well, Phil, haven't you learned that Zionism does not equal Benjamin Netanyahu? He's afraid Netanyahu's policies may kill the two-state solution and bring about a one-state solution. That means he sees the one-state solution as bad, not as something he's about to start supporting.

Goldberg can't win. He's a moderate-left Zionist like me, which means the left will hate him for not being pro-Palestinian enough, and the right will hate him for not being pro-Israel enough. Indeed, that very post of Weiss's blog has a rebuttal of the "Goldberg to become Anti-Zionist" view from someone who sees Goldberg's anti-Netanyahu posts as a Zionist conspiracy meant to maintain US support for Israel. Can't it just be that he really doesn't like Netanyahu for the very reasons he writes explicitly?

I never understood why some people think Jeffrey Goldberg is a neocon. Neither can I understand how anybody in their right mind would think he might be joining the Mondoweiss blogging staff any time soon.

Do Israeli Arabs Support Shooting Palestinian Refugees?

I went to the monthly Peace Index, looking for details about Israelis' opinions about different elements of Netanyahu's speeches. I ended up finding something completely different. Something odd and curious. In the May Peace Index (Hebrew/English), the following question appears:



Did the army commander on the Golan Heights who gave an order to refrain from firing potentially lethal shots [at Palestinian protesters entering from Syria] act properly, or should everything have been done to prevent the infiltration into Israel, including the firing of potentially lethal fire?

	General Public	Jews	Arabs
1.       He acted properly in giving the order	57.1	62.2	27.8
2.       Everything should have been done, including the firing of potentially lethal fire	34.2	30.7	54.4
3.       Don’t know/ Refuse to answer	8.7	7.2	17.8

I read it and couldn't believe it. A vast majority of Jews supported restraint while a majority of Arabs supported a "by any means necessary" approach. That Jews supported restraint didn't really surprise me. However, I would have expected Palestinians with Israeli citizenship to be less willing to shoot the Palestinians who don't have citizenship. Maybe it's a mistake and they switched the data around? No, the "general public" numbers fit, considering that the general public is split about 80%-20% between Jews and Arabs.

I have no idea what to make of this statistic. Could it be that Palestinian Israelis feel even more threatened by an influx of refugees into Israel than Jewish Israelis? Do they want Israel to shoot Palestinians to gain sympathy for their brothers? Or maybe they themselves don't believe in non-violence?

Israelis Love Netanyahu

Today's New York Times has an article titled "Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure". Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of the truth. The media is indeed unhappy with Netanyahu, as are members of the Knesset opposition. While journalists and MKs are the article's focus, it only briefly mentions what really matters - that polls show a bump in Netanyahu's popularity.

In Ha'aretz's poll, 51% were satisfied with Netanyahu's performance as prime minister (not only regarding his US visit), while 36% were not. That's almost the reverse of his numbers just five weeks ago, when 53% were unhappy with him.

Contrary to the Times article's title, nearly half of Israelis saw Bibi's trip as a diplomatic success, while only 10% saw it as a failure. Nearly half also felt pride at seeing Bibi's address to Congress, and only 5% saw it as a missed opportunity.

Sometimes I think my fellow Israelis don't live in the Holy Land, but rather in La La Land.

Netanyahu's Statement of Principles

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to address a joint meeting of Congress today. On the one hand, he claims the speech will surprise the world. On the other, I can't imagine him going much beyond the principles he already articulated in an address to the Knesset last week. Let's take a closer look at those principles and see what he might elaborate on:

1. Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people: This demand is clear, and American politicians, including President Obama, have already embraced it. I think it is an unnecessary demand, since we don't need the Palestinians' approval for being the Jewish state. We just need them to agree that Palestine cannot interfere in the internal affairs of Israel, including by attempting in any way to end its Jewish character.

2. A non-militarized Palestine with Israeli control of the Jordan River bank: I agree with the first part, I don't agree with the second. I don't trust the Palestinians with a military, especially considering the fact that a poll from November showed 60% of Palestinians support the two-state solution just as a step toward a one state solution (a poll I'd mention to Congress if I were Netanyahu).

As for the border with Jordan, while I do trust King Abdullah to secure it, if his regime would fall, the river would become a serious threat to Israel's security. I wouldn't want IDF troops there, though. If they'd stay on a narrow strip along the border, they'd be isolated and endangered. Instead, there should be an international force there. Not an inept UN force, but a NATO force which would also include IDF representation. The same force should also patrol the Gaza-Egypt border.

Netanyahu will probably elaborate on what he meant when he said there would be troops along the Jordan River. Is he giving up the Jordan Valley and its settlements, as he should? If he addresses his vision of the new borders, more details about this area will definitely be included.

3. The refugees will not return to Israel: Indeed, no Israeli leader in his right mind would be willing to recognize the right of return. I would, however, like him to propose an alternative solution to the refugee problem, including a declaration of willingness to pay reparations without accepting responsibility for the Nakba or stating an exact amount the refugees would receive.


4. The settlement blocs will remain a part of Israel: Here Netanyahu may elaborate more on what his definition of the blocs is and whether or not he is open to the idea of swaps, even if they aren't by a ratio of 1:1. This is where he would really define the border between Israel and Palestine, though I'm sure he wouldn't present a map of the exact border. I have a bad feeling his definition of the settlement blocs is much more expansive than my own, and if he is open to swaps, it means he's going to sacrifice more of pre-1967 Israel - a sacrifice I'd rather keep to a minimum.

5. A united Jerursalem shall remain Israel's capital: With this position, we can say goodbye to peace. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, perhaps minus the Jewish quarter of the Old City. Netanyahu won't give an inch of the old city, but maybe he'll surprise the world by declaring today that he doesn't see the Arab villages that were annexed to Jerusalem in 1967 as a real part of the city and that he's willing to give them up. I doubt that's going to happen, though.

6. Palestine will only be established as part of an agreement: Netanyahu should attack a possible UN vote as a vote for violence, saying that recognition of Palestine without an agreement with Israel would encourage a third Intifada. He should point out that a state had already been offered to the Palestinians several times, most recently by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, yet they rejected the proposal without even negotiating its terms. The world should not award such behavior, and must make it clear to the Palestinians that a peace deal is the only way to independence.

7. The peace treaty would constitute an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an end to all claims: Netanyahu should emphasize this principle, which actually overlaps with all the others. Once we reach an agreement establishing a Palestinian State, they can no longer try to alter the Jewish character of Israel, demand more territory, call for a right of return for the Palestinian diaspora, etc. Of course, this goes both ways. Israel will not be able to claim territories in Palestine as its own, claim a right for Jews to return to the West Bank and Gaza, etc.

An agreement that leaves any issues unresolved is a blueprint for disaster. If the Palestinians have a state and a legitimacy to make more demands, they will also feel more confident that they may use force to achieve what they seek.

Brothers & Sisters Blood Type Goof

Here's one of those rare posts where I write about something completely unimportant. In this case, the silly television show "Brothers & Sisters". If you are willing to read some nitpicking, and have watched Episode 14 of the fifth and final season, or don't mind seeing spoilers about it, go on reading.

UN Recognition and Hamas

Other than the issue of refugees, which I addressed in my previous post, I have another major problem with the idea of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State at the United Nations. Mahmoud Abbas totally ignores the issue of Hamas control of Gaza in his NY Times op-ed.

Fatah and Hamas have recently reached a tentative agreement to share power. However, there is no guarantee it will ever be implemented, nor is it clear who would recognize or be willing to deal with a Palestinian government which includes Hamas. Hamas's militiamen would retake Gaza the second Fatah did something they didn't like, or if they lost an election, which they would immediately claim was rigged.

Who knows, maybe reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah before the September vote at the UN is good for Israel. I hope less countries would be willing to create a new independent state with terrorists in its government.

Abbas Puts Refugees Front and Center

In his op-ed in the New York Times, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority calls upon the United Nations to unilaterally recognize the State of Palestine. What struck me was how central the Palestinian refugees and the right of return were to his argument. He starts the article with his own story of expulsion from Safed, and calls the right of return a "most basic of human rights". He also says that a core issue the new state will negotiate with Israel would be "a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194". In other words, their return.

I do not expect Abbas to drop the right of return before there is an agreement in place. However, Israel will never be able to agree to a mass repatriation of Palestinians into its own territory. This is the main reason why Israel and its allies must not allow the establishment of a Palestinian State, or a UN recognition thereof, without a signed final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Recognition of a state can only come in a treaty where Palestinians will simultaneously recognize that mass return into Israel cannot be implemented and where an alternative solution is reached.

If the State of Palestine is already recognized by the world community, Palestinians will have less incentive to reach a compromise, even if they are still under Israeli military control. They will bet that now that IDF presence will become an illegal occupation of a whole foreign nation (as opposed to the situation now, where settlements are illegal, but the occupation itself is not) other countries will be more willing to do the Palestinians' work for them and force Israel to give in to all or most of their demands.

Nakba Day at the Borders

Several Palestinians were shot while trying to enter Israel on three different borders today: Gaza, Lebanon and Syria (the last one being a border with the Israel-occupied Golan Heights). In Tel-Aviv, a Palestinian citizen of Israel ran over crowds in an apparent terrorist attack. Officials expected a lot of violence, but it seems like they were mostly surprised by where the events took place. Nobody foresaw the Palestinian mini-invasion into the Golan.

I hope all those who entered Israel will be captured and brought back to Syria, including those who claim they seek political asylum. We should do our best to avoid giving Bashar Assad a much needed distraction from his own people's demonstations against him. I also hope the worst of this day is behind us.

Benjamin Netanyahu's Sense of Humor

Or maybe it's Chutzpah (in its original negative meaning)?

Netanyahu said to outgoing Mideast envoy George Mitchell that he is sorry the Palestinians made Mitchell's job harder. Well, the Palestinians did make his job harder, that is true. I doubt Netanyahu is sorry about it, though.

And does our beloved PM think that he himself was Mitchell's one lone spot of light in the dark bottomless pit that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Ahead of Nakba Day

Demonstrations commemorating the Palestinian Nakba of 1948 started in Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank yesterday, and are supposed to spread to Israel itself tomorrow. One Palestinian teenager has been killed, and that will add to what has already been predicted to be an especially angry and violent Nakba Day.

The police says it will allow peaceful protests, and I hope it will stand by its word. However, it should not allow protesters within Israel to take over and block highways and main roads. If anything like that is attempted, or if demonstrations turn into violent riots, the police should use non-lethal means to disperse the demonstations. Live ammo must not be used unless the lives of civilians and police officers are in danger. We don't want October 2000 all over again, but neither do we want an internal Israeli-Arab Intifadah to start.

Osama Dead, Not Everyone Happy

It's a great day. Osama Bin Laden is dead, and that makes me happy. I don't believe in hell, but for his sake, I hope I'm wrong.

Of course, some people aren't thrilled about this, probably because they fear Osama's fate will be their own one day. Hamas, for instance. How we'll be able to talk to a Palestinian government that includes them, I have no idea.

Goldstone Retracts Part of His Own Report

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, South African Judge Richard Goldstone says the commission he headed came to the wrong conclusion regarding the intentionality of Israel's attacks on Gazan civilians during Operation Cast Lead two years ago. Based on information he now has, including from IDF internal investigations, he now says there was no policy of targeting civilians. Civilian deaths were mostly unintentional, perhaps with a few exceptions, where a commander on the ground was to blame.

Goldstone claims that had Israel cooperated with his commission, its conclusions would have been starkly different. That might be true, and if it is, it means any report the commission would have produced, with or without Israeli cooperation, would have been problematic. If they base their conclusions mainly on the two sides' official accounts, and don't do much independent investigating of their own, the report isn't worth much. It would have been much cheaper for the UN to post the official accounts on-line, side by side, and let the general public decide. But the public doesn't have the tools to find out which claims are true and which are false, you say? Well, apparently, the Goldstone Commission didn't either!

Dictators and Rebels Share Hatred of Israel and Jews

Syrian President Bashar Assad addressed his citizens today, accusing the United States and Israel of fomenting the revolution against him. In Libya, Muammar Qaddafi and his supporters spread the blame between a diverse group ranging from Al-Qaeda to Israel. Libyan rebels have said Qaddafi's parents were born in Israel and that he's actually Jewish.

It's always heartwarming to see that even in the heat of battle, the two sides still have some common ground. You want to kill each other? Okay, but always remember you want to kill the Zionists even more!

Cast Lead 2

Will the recent violence on the Gaza border escalate even further than it has? Perhaps. Islamic Jihad has had the audacity to fire rockets not only on towns in the close vicinity of Gaza, but also on Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be'er-Sheva. When that happens, I tend to think it is time to teach the terrorists a lesson, so that these major cities will not become areas where rocket fire is routine.

The question is whether or not the "routinization" of Grad rockets falling on Be'er Sheva and Ashdod can be avoided in another way. It might be. We should try to have a cease fire, giving Hamas the responsibily of enforcing it in Gaza. If that doesn't work, and after three or four days rockets are still falling on the Israeli side of the border, bomb the shit out of them.

Israel's Criminal Sentencing Standards

In the next few minutes, Moshe Katsav, the convicted rapist and former president of Israel, will receive a much easier sentence than he deserves. The maximum sentence he can get is sixteen years. There is no minimum, since the law requiring at least four years for rape was passed after Katsav committed his crimes. Israel's sentencing standards for violent crimes, especially rape, are ridiculously low. On average, rapists get 4-8 years in prison, and that's before one third is knocked off for good behavior.

Members of the Knesset would do Israel a great service if they worked on new minimum and maximum sentencing laws instead of dealing in racist or esoteric issues. A rapist should get at least fifteen years. If it were up to me, the maximum would be a life sentence, but I'd be happy with 25 years as well.

Sarah Palin, Republican Candidates and Israel

Potential Republican presidential candidate and supplier-in-chief of late-night comedians' material Sarah Palin is arriving in Israel today for a short visit. Is she trying to gain more of the Jewish vote by coming here? I doubt it. I don't think she's very popular among Jews, even the Republican ones. This trip is probably more about being able to say that not only does she understand Eastern Europe because she can see Russia from her house, she can understand the Middle East because she spent two days in Israel.

Palin will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday evening for dinner. I bet she won't pressure him on construction in the settlements - a policy she'd continue as president. Of course, there's absolutely no chance in hell she'd actually ever become president.

It is more important to look into the Middle East policies of Republicans with better chances of winning the nomination. I don't think anybody has done that yet - and it is way too early for me to start doing candidate-by-candidate profiles. I can say this: It seems like there are roughly two categories of Republicans who both support Israel strongly (Ron Paul being the exception to the rule), but members of one group would, as president, continue supporting whatever Israel's right wing government does, and the others would seem to be more willing to pressure Israel after the election. I'd put Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich in the first category and Mitt Romney in the second. There are a bunch of other Republicans whose Middle East policy is unknown to me, but I'm sure it will become clearer as time goes by.

I must say I prefer the latter, "friendly but nudging towards negotiations and peace" policy over the hawkish one.

New Feature: Follow By E-Mail

All my followers (yes, both of you) can now get updates about my posts in their inbox. Just enter your e-mail address in the box on the left. At the rate at which I write new stuff, I can guarantee I won't be clogging your e-mail!

Remember: Marwan Barghouti Is a Terrorist

Amos Oz just sent Palestinian prisoner and former Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti a copy of his novel "A Tale of Love and Darkness" in Arabic. The author personally dedicated the book to Barghouti, and called for his release. Oz is just one of many well-meaning peaceniks who, for some reason, have high hopes for this vile terrorist. Retiring Meretz leader Haim Oron is perhaps the most prominent Marwanite Chearleader.

Leaders on the left see Barghouti's popularity as an asset, and would like Israel to release him so he'll be able to win elections against Hamas. What they don't think about is the fact that he's no less of a terrorist than Hamas, and is just a secular version of the Jihadists. He needs to rot in prison, both for the crimes he has already committed, and also to prevent the crimes he'd commit if released. Keeping him under lock and key also increases the slim chances of a peace deal ever being reached.

Learn from history - Barghouti's personal history, that is. In the early days of the Second Intifida, he turned against peace negotiations in a heartbeat and lead a group within Fatah determined to execute acts of terror againt Israeli civilians. The man who once believed in talks, now believed in shedding the blood of innocents. Now that he's in prison, he's back to the more peaceful tone, but I have no doubt in my mind that he wouldn't think twice about returning to violence.

My fellow leftists, you need to support leaders like Sari Nusseibeh, not Marwan Barghouti.

Ask Netanyahu Questions

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will appear on YouTube's World View program on March 23. Internet users from Israel and around the world can send in their questions via video, text or Twitter by March 21. If I understand correctly, internet users are also the ones who choose what will be asked by voting for questions they like.

Ask away.

Vicious Attack in Itamar

Terrorists broke into a house in the West Bank settlement of Itamar last night, killing five people: two parents and three of their children, aged 11, 3 and a baby. Three other children managed to escape.

I hope the terrorists who carried out this attack will be found and killed. They do not deserve to ever be released in a future prisoner swap. Killing children in the name of resistance is the most vile form of so-called "freedom fighting". Kids, and civilians in general, should be off limits, even if they are settlers. Only negotiations will remove the settlements from the West Bank, not violence.

Now I'm worried about Jewish terrorism. Some of the more radical elements in the settler movement may want to exact revenge on innocent Palestinian civilians. The IDF should do everything in its power to make sure that doesn't happen.

Netanyahu's Regression

Haaretz reported yesterday that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to change course on the peace process. He'll deliver a big speech, perhaps before the United States Congress, in which he will declare that he now wishes to reach another interim agreement with the Palestinians. This is probably the big move, the grand initiative, which he promised German Chancellor Angela Merkel he'd make.

Until recently, Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had one basic thing in common. They both expressed a desire to reach a final peace deal and opposed more interim steps. They were far from agreeing on what would be in that final deal, and one or both of them may not have been very serious about reaching it, but at least at the declaratory level, they agreed on a basic goal.

Now, under the guise of a grand gesture that will bring peace closer, Netanyahu is actually regressing. He's doing something I thought was impossible at this low point: he has widened the gulf between Israel and the Palestinians even more. He has adopted Avigdor Lieberman's idea of a Palestinian State with temporary borders, encompassing 60% of the West Bank, which the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected. They understandably fear that the temporary will become permanent.

Netanyahu needs to come up with a real grand gesture. He needs to think of something new that has some chance of winning Palestinian and international support. He can't regurgitate old ideas that the Palestinians have consistently opposed.

Autism Doc on Israeli TV

"This Is My Child", a documentary about five families with autistic children, aired last night on Channel 2. Aviv Horowitz, whose son has autism, made the film after the drama series "Yellow Peppers" got good ratings, and decided to take advantage of the momentum to spread awareness of the subject. He seems to have been successful. The ratings were excellent - 21.6%, which is quite high for the 11 PM time slot. The movie itself was also very good.

The children in the film range from classic low-functioning autism, to high-functioning PDD-NOS. The kid who seems to be functioning best was even seen singing with Aviv Geffen, one of Israel's best known singers, and he explained that most kids have a book in their heads that tells them how to make friends and interact socially, and kids like himself also have that book, but it's closed. I found that to be an apt description.

The mother with the lowest functioning child expressed anger at the PDD's, as if they won something. I can understand her. I guess I'd be envious of those kids if my own nephew was like her son.

Good doc. I hear more articles on the subject are upcoming in the media. I'm glad. The more awareness to the subject, the better services will be available for autistics. Maybe.

Farewell to the Brotherly Leader of Libya

The ruthless ruler of Libya, His Insane Highness Muammar al-Gadhafi,  the African King of Kings, is sticking to his guns, quite literally. In this situation, where the Libyan people and much of the security apparatus have turned against him, I don't see how this does not end with Gadhafi's death. He is a crazy son of a bitch who will fight to the bitter end.

Now, the big question is not so much whether he'll be killed by his opponents, but whether or not we'll see him die on television. There's a vindictive side of me that wants to see the life come out of him on a live broadcast. I have a feeling that won't be the case. His body might be shown after the fact, but his life will end chaotically, in a situation where cameras cannot be brought in easily. He will not undergo a trial, like Saddam Hussein. Rather, he'll be lynched or shot the moment his opponents get the opportunity. Perhaps one of his guards will decide the unrest is bad for Libya, and will decide to take him out herself (Gaddafi has an all-female bodyguard unit).

Unlike the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the end of Gadhafi's rule can only be a good thing. Even if the Islamists take over Libya, they can't be worse than Col. Crazy. Sure, oil prices may slightly rise and Libya's cooperation in stopping African refugees from reaching Europe's shores might end, but those are risks worth taking.

McCarthyist Initiative Tanks in Israel

Two investigative Knesset committees intended to look into the funding and conduct of certain Israeli left wing organizations are now very unlikely to see the light of day. The Likud reversed course and decided to allow its Knesset members to vote as they wish in the final stage needed to approve the establishment of the committees. Yisrael Beitenu decided to indefinitely postpone the roll-call scheduled for next Monday, since Avigdor Lieberman now knows that the proposal has more opponents in the Knesset than supporters.

This is probably the worst Knesset we've ever had, with a long list of horrible bills and resolutions. Fortunately, most of those don't become law in the end. Unfortunately, people abroad tend to hear about the negative initiatives, and not about their ultimate failure.

Zochrot at Gaza-Sderot

A controversial 4-day  conference took place last week at Sapir College in Sderot, the often bombarded town near the border with Gaza. The theme was "moving from crisis to sustainability", from war to peace, which is a general concept most people would agree on. The question is how to reach it. That's where the controversy starts. Right wing groups tried to call off the conference, and tried to persuade different people to boycott it, criticizing the fact that groups they see as anti-Israel, such as Zochrot, UNRWA and Doctors for Human Rights, were participating. The mayor of Sderot was the only official who boycotted the conference.

Perhaps the most controversial participant was Zochrot, whose representatives spoke about implementing the right of return. Unfortunately, I could not attend, but I've heard from people who attended their panel. There's a saying in Hebrew - "they convinced the convinced". In other words, people didn't change their minds after hearing them.

The people of Zochrot did not answer the difficult questions about ethnic strife and avoided the question of how many people would return by claiming that is a racist question. Apparently, anything but the full right of return would not be enough, with any agreement capping the number of returnees being a joke. Also, they contradicted themselves. They said the return of refugees would not require Israelis to leave their homes, but who owns houses that existed before 1948 would have to be worked out.

The panel wasn't one-sided, though. The panel chair said she wasn't sure about the right of return, and another lecturer, who spoke about effective dialogue, said that she is threatened by all the points on the map where Arab villages once existed and to which refugees want to return. She said it is important for patriotic Zionist Israelis to speak with Palestinians. I think she meant the Zionist left should not leave Jewish-Palestinian interaction to Anti-Zionists.

If I had been there, I would have asked the Zochrot people a question inspired by the events in Egypt: You claim Israel should be a democracy, with complete equal rights for all, but how can you guarantee that a post-return Israel would be at least as much a liberal democracy as it is now? Most of the refugees don't live in democratic and/or liberal countries. Why would they care to make sure the rights of their former enemies (which some may see as current enemies) are not taken away?

Zochrot's participation is not a "boycottable" offense. In fact, it is better for them to be heard in the general public, so they can be confronted with the difficult questions they tend to avoid when they only meet with like-minded people, and so people who hear them can see that they don't have good answers to the agruments that don't fit their agenda.

Israel's Egypt Policy: Does It Really Matter?

Thomas Friedman is sick and tired of the Netanyahu government. He believes that Israel should have sided with the pro-democracy protesters, and that such a stance would have created a better relationship with the Egyptian people, the leaders of what Friedman calls "the new dynamic popular trend". In hindsight, it is true that Israel sided with a dead horse (Mubarak), but it isn't at all clear that it really matters.

First of all, events are still unfolding. We have no idea what kind of regime Egypt will now have. Will it be a liberal democracy, a flawed "illiberal democracy", a theocracy or a military dictatorship? Other than the unlikely first option, the three latter options are all equally possible. The protesters have won the battle, but not yet the war. If the military retains power, the fact that Israel stuck by the regime will be a positive thing in the eyes of the new leaders.

If democracy or theocracy await Egypt, anything Israel would have done regarding Mubarak would not help the relationship with the new regime. Egyptians hate us. Despite the cold peace between the two countries, Egyptian civil society boycotts Israel. Egyptian individuals who travel to Israel get punished by their professional associations. If Israel called on Mubarak to resign, Egyptians would see it as too little too late, and might even think of it as Zionist meddling.

As Friedman said, the Egyptian revolution had nothing to do with Israel. Similarly, Egyptian hatred of Israel has little to do with Israel's policy towards Egypt. The main problem is that they still see the Jewish State as a foreign colony in the Arab Middle East, as well as their anger at the way Israel treats Palestinians.

The only way for Israel to look more favorable in the eyes of Egyptians, and Arabs in general, is to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. Even then, many would continue to hate us, but less.

Teaching Arabic in Texas

My Arabic is horrible. I studied literary Arabic from seventh to tenth grade, as do most Israelis, and I was always bad at it. I felt that I didn't need to know the language. Boy, was I wrong. I took a spoken Arabic class in college and improved my language skills a bit, but lost most of what I learned because I didn't practice enough.

Arabic usually isn't taught in American schools. A school district in Texas has made the wise decision to change that and teach Texans Arabic. Parents are angry, saying that Arabic is equal to teaching Islam. That's just stupid and ignorant. First of all, teaching about Islam along with the Arabic language would not be a bad idea at all, and would not amount to proselytization, ifdone right. Secondly, this specific program focuses only on language and culture, not religion. This is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world, and the more Americans know Arabic, the more the United States can engage the Arab world in the civil and public sphere.

Other than English, the three most important languages in the world are Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. People need to start learning them at as early an age as possible.

More Celebrities Searching For Roots

An now, for the occasional non-political post on an unimportant (but interesting) subject:

I've seen three versions of the genealogy documentary series "Who Do You Think You Are": I've seen all the episodes of the Israeli version, the first season of the American version, and just one episode of the original BBC series. That one episode of the British show was about Kim Cattrall and her search for her long-lost grandfather, who had abandoned his family when her mother was a young child.

A few days ago, the American version returned to NBC for an 8-episode second season. Interestingly, Kim Cattrall is one of the subjects of this season, and according to Executive Producer Lisa Kudrow's description of Cattrall's story, it looks like they're just re-airing the two-year old episode from the BBC. My guess is that they're going to do some editing, like replacing the British narrator with an American one, and making a slightly more emotional, commercial version than the drier, more strictly documentary-like British origin.

It seems odd to me that the show is recycling an episode from the British version and claiming it as an episode of the new version. Why not announce: "And here, between seasons of the NBC show, let's show you a few episodes from the original BBC series of interest for Americans."

How Egypt Affects Gaza

Barbara Lubin, co-founder of the Middle East Children's Alliance told the New York Times that she hopes that replacing the Mubarak regime by a new one would make Israel's policies toward Gaza "more lax". Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

Whether or not it would be the correct reaction, Israel would definitely go the exact opposite direction of what Lubin hopes. Israel would be very suspicious of a new Egyptian regime, even if it won't be an Islamist government. Netanyahu would fear that Egypt would now cooperate with Hamas, and so, he'd tighten the noose around Gaza. He might even go as far as invading Gaza to retake the Philadelphi Route, along the Gaza-Egypt border.

Hosni Mubarak said yesterday that President Obama doesn't understand Egyptian culture. Barbara Lubin doesn't understand Israeli culture, or the Israeli mindset.

The Devil We Know

In the New York Times, Ross Douthat writes that we actually don't really know what will be next in Egypt, or what would be in America's (or Israel's) best interest. I rarely agree with the conservative Douthat, but I do this time.

One of the things he is right about is that it is quite possible that Mubarak's regime radicalized members of the Muslim Brotherhood who moved on to Al-Qaeda, like Ayman Al-Zawahiri. The big question now, though, is whether or not the people who remain in the Muslim Brotherhood are the ones who didn't become radicalized.

Fear of an Egyptian Islamic Revolution

Hosni Mubarak is a dictator. He is not good for his people. As a liberal, I should be delighted at the prospect of his overthrow, but I'm not. Who will replace him if the mass riots bring his downfall? Probably not the mild-mannered Muhammad El-Baradei, former chief of the International Atomic Energy Ageny. He isn't very popular in Egypt, despite the fact that he's the opposition leader who is most prominent in Western media. The most popular movement in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, the undemocratic fanatically Islamist older brother (or father) of Hamas.

Having Hamas ruling Gaza is bad enough. Having a Hamas-like movement ruling all of Egypt, together with the prospect of Hezbollah ruling Lebanon, is quite a scary idea for us Israelis. But in a way, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would be worse for Israelis than Hezbollah in Lebanon. We don't have a peace agreement with our northern neighbors anyway. With Egypt, there is a risk of this important Arab country rejoining the ranks of our enemies, and actively arming Hamas against us.

Egyptians, if you get rid of Mubarak, please don't replace him with religious zealots!

Ian McEwan's Response to Boycotters

From the Guardian's letter section (Jan. 26):

I write in response to the letter you published from the British Writers in Support of Palestine (BWISP), which I have read with care (Letters, 24 January). I have my own concerns about Israel and the situation of the Palestinians, which is worse than ever. The recently published leaks to al-Jazeera/the Guardian are depressing, the present outlook for negotiations is bleak. Many Israeli writers feel this way too. But BWISP and I disagree on what one should do. I'm for finding out for myself, and for dialogue, engagement, and looking for ways in which literature, especially fiction, with its impulse to enter other minds, can reach across political divides. There are ways in which art can have a longer reach than politics, and for me the emblem in this respect is Daniel Barenboim's West-Eastern Divan Orchestra – surely a beam of hope in a dark landscape, though denigrated by the Israeli religious right and Hamas. If BWISP is against this particular project, then clearly we have nothing more to say to each other.

As for the Jerusalem prize itself, its list of previous recipients is eloquent enough. Bertrand Russell, Milan Kundera, Susan Sontag, Arthur Miller, Simone de Beauvoir – I hope BWISP will have the humility to accept that these writers had at least as much concern for freedom and human dignity as they do themselves. Their "line" is not the only one. Courtesy obliges them to respect my decision to go to Jerusalem, as I would theirs to stay away.

Ian McEwan

London

The Report on the Flotilla Fiasco

The Turkel Commission published the first part of its findings today. In summary: Israel did everything by the book, and its actions in stopping the IHH-led "Free Gaza" flotilla in May 2010 were justified. There were problems in the intelligence-gathering and planning stages, but those will be the focus of the second part of the report, due to be published in about a month.

Although I completely agree with the findings, I'm still uncomfortable. The absolute affirmation of Israel's right to enforce a blockade on Gaza and of its claim of self-defense seems rooted in the facts at hand, but I doubt it will be accepted by the world. Perhaps, if the commission had not been a government commission, but rather the highest form - a national commission (or, if the term "ve'ada mamlachtit" is translated directly - a royal commission) whose members are appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, it would be taken more seriously internationally.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey has already said he doesn't believe the report, because an internal inquiry isn't worth anything. Funny, since Turkey had its own internal inquiry into the Mavi Marmara incident and reached opposite conclusions, as did a commission appointed by the dictatorship-dominated UN Human Rights Council.

I look forward to Part B of the Turkel Report, and to a report being prepared by Micha Lindenstrauss, Israel's State Comptroller. Lindenstrauss will supposedly be more critical of the IDF and the government, though he'll focus on bad preparation and probably won't find anything illegal.

Israel needs to learn from its mistakes so another fiasco like this won't return. An international investigation is a waste of time.

Temporary Borders: Foolish and Dangerous

According to Ha'aretz, Avigdor Lieberman is preparing an Israeli offer to recognize a Palestinian state immediately. This state would have temporary borders, and would be made up of just half of the West Bank, would not include East Jerusalem, and its establishment would not require any evacuation of settlements, though it would require a military withdrawal. The permanent borders of the state would be determined in the future final agreement.

This proposal sounds great, except that it isn't really new, and won't be accepted. Proposals for a state with permanent borders have been made, unofficially, in the past. Palestinians rejected them, fearing that in the Middle East, the temporary tends to become permanent. They have also refused the idea of more interim agreements, insisting that what must come next must be the final status treaty. I can understand them. Having just half the West Bank would put them in a kind of limbo, where some Palestinians are independent, while others are still under occupation.

There's also another reason I don't support Lieberman's plan. In a way, I'm more suspicious than the Foreign Minister: If the Palestinians have a state before agreeing in writing that they don't have any more demands from Israel (and in fact, in Lieberman's scheme, Israel agrees that it might give more to Palestine eventually), the world may find it legitimate for the new state to launch a war against Israel if its demands aren't met. For the first time in its military battles against the Palestinians, Israel would be dealing with a sovereign nation, and so would be bound by very different rules. What would we do in such a scenario?

The Skeptical Left

Einat Wilf, one of the four Knesset Members who left Labor with Ehud Barak, said that their new Independence Party is to the left of Likud and to the right of Kadima. It's a party for the people on the skeptical left who would like to see peace but aren't so sure it is possible, and do not blame Israel as the sole party responsible for the lack of of progress in peace negotiations.

First of all, it's interesting that Independence is to the right of Kadima. Is the party of Ariel Sharon and Tzippi Livni a leftist party? And a "blame Israel first party" (BIFP)? Of course it isn't. Is what remains of Labor a BIFP? Not in the slightest.

Second of all, as a member of the skeptical left, it would seem I should be a supporter of Barak. I think the Palestinians have their share of responsibility for the failure of negotiations. I am not at all convinced they've completely given up the idea of fighting for a one-state solution even after the Palestinian State is established. However, I'm not blind to our responsibilities, and I don't think we should be providing excuses for the Palestinians. Settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem and the West Bank should not be taking place - most of all, because they're wrong, but also because they are excellent excuses for the Palestinians to refuse to talk to us.

The government needs to do something that would test the Palestinians' will to negotiate. Freeze settlements, give them more control over greater areas. If after big gestures like these they'll still be unwilling to negotiate, the egg will be on Mahmoud Abbas's face, not Netanyahu's.

Barak, Wilf and the other three Independence munchkins aren't pushing the government towards the bare minimum required to shift responsibility to the Palestinians. In fact, they're allowing it to go ever more rightward, toward Lieberman's abyss of racism and paranoia.

Barak Improves Labor By Leaving It

Ladies and gentlemen, the Labor party no longer has a measly 13 seats in the Knesset. No, it has an even measlier 8, after Defense Minister Ehud Barak and four loyal MKs split from Labor and created a new faction, with the pathos-filled name "Independence". The quality of the Labor MKs just rose, though, because the best ones stayed. I'm mainly referring to Avishay Braverman, the outgoing Minister of Minority Affairs, and Shelly Yechimovich.

Barak is pulling an Ariel Sharon -  a major cabinet member (prime minister or defense minister) who leaves the party of which he is the chairman with a bit more than one third of the delegation in order to create a new party that would allow him to carry out his policies. Barak's direction, however, is the opposite of Sharon's. Sharon left the Likud in order to be freed of right-wing extremists. Barak is creating a new party, which would basically be a subsidiary of Likud, in order to be freed of supporters of the two-state solution who believe Barak and Labor shouldn't serve as the right-wing extremist government's fig leaf.

Former Meretz chairman Yossi Sarid predicts the Independence Party will merge with Likud. He might be right. I doubt they'll be able to muster enough votes to get into the Knesset in the next elections.

Netanyahu and the Negev

Ari Shavit, who is considered close to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, has this to say in today's Haaretz (Hebrew/English):

"[Netanyahu] will not give up sovereignty in settlement blocs in the West Bank, he will not compromise on Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and he will try to spare the settlers. On the other hand, as far as land exchange goes, he will display readiness to go far."

This can only mean one thing. Settlers in the West Bank are much more important to him than the citizens in Israel proper, those living in areas that have been recognized as legitimate Israeli territory since 1948. He will give up a lot of Israeli land, possibly uprooting non-settlers, to keep West Bank lands and appease settlers.

He is most likely to give up lands in the Negev. Instead of telling the colonizers of the West Bank to move to Israel's southern region, he will betray the northeastern Negev. Southerners must understand this and advocate for themselves immediately. Make it clear to Netanyahu - if we must choose between Ariel and Ein Gedi, we'll choose Ein Gedi.

Of course, he might not be thinking of the Negev, but rather of Arab-populated towns on the Western side of the green line. That's Lieberman's wet dream - getting as much of the Arab-Israeli population to live in Palestine. The Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians and the international community will never agree to this, and I doubt Netanyahu would even dare bring it up.

More Guns? Less Guns?

Following the mass murder in Tuscon, each side on the debate about gun control saw the event as proving its point, just like the response to previous shooting sprees. Second Amendment zealots say that the more people have guns, the better, since crazies and terrorists can be subdued more quickly by armed law-abiding citizens. Proponents of gun control, on the other hand, say that less guns are the answer - or more precisely, making it harder to obtain them.

I side with the second group, the gun control advocates. However, in places where gun laws are not restrictive enough, it would be better for more law-abiding citizens to have guns. I mean that in places like Arizona, where every crazy son of a bitch can get assault weapons, more normal people should have guns for self-defense. On the other hand, where it is difficult for the wrong people to get guns, the "right" people don't need them as much, anyway, because there are many less armed and dangerous people to worry about.

Why Boycotting Ariel Isn't the Answer

Here's an opinion piece from today's Haaretz, which I agree with. Boycotting Ariel College will not help anybody, and will not promote peace, just like BDS against Israel proper won't, either.

The voice of despair (Hebrew here)

By Avirama Golan

Academics from many fields, mainly from the exact sciences, signed a declaration last week to the effect that they are unwilling to take part in any academic activity taking place at the college in Ariel, known as the Ariel University Center of Samaria. The reason: Ariel is an illegal settlement in occupied territory, which is flourishing alongside Palestinian communities that are suffering intolerable living conditions and are denied basic human rights.

It's true that the college in Ariel was conceived and born in sin. Like the entire settlement enterprise, it bypassed the law, and in its case the Council for Higher Education, which opposed its establishment for clear academic reasons - it was done at the expense of shrinking the academic pie. With the help of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a unique status was invented for it: "a university center."

The right rushed to label the signers of the declaration with the usual epithets: delusionary, alienated, extremist. However, a perusal of the list reveals that although some of them do sit in the scientific ivory tower and deal with abstract theories (not something to be condemned, of course ), most of them are familiar with Israeli society from up close - and work within it out of profound involvement and commitment.

Still, the declaration arouses unease. Unlike the actors, who were forced by the theaters to perform in Ariel, nobody forces these academics, who are among the most respected scientists and intellectuals in Israel, to teach there. Those who are forced to do so are doctoral students, researchers and assistants; in the absence of job slots at Bar-Ilan University they go to Ariel, as did others who desperately needed a job and were given attractive offers.

These junior academics are like the young couples who moved to the "non-ideological" settlements, because only there one could find apartments and convenient mortgages, plus better and cheaper services than those disintegrating within the Green Line. They are victims of Israel's policy. We can understand that they are unable to sign the declaration.

For that reason, this is a verbal declaration without a price tag, and therein lies its weakness. And this weakness stems from another, which is more regrettable. The signatories are also those who are more exposed than others to the threats of a boycott against Israeli academics by their colleagues abroad. Their declaration seems directed less at the Israeli public and more abroad, at the boycotters, as if to say: We have nothing to do with the settlements. In other words, we are the "good guys," not the "bad guys."

That's a shame. They of all people are very familiar with the nature of the boycott from meeting at international conferences the BDS activists - those urging boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. For the boycotters, the very existence of Israel on what they see as Palestinian territory is illegitimate, and therefore the "university center" in Ariel is a petty matter, which is no different from the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, just as there's no difference between the colonialism of the late 19th century and the occupation of 1948 and that of 1967.

On the other side of the coin, the settlers are, in effect, making the same claim: Ariel is the "spearhead" of Zionism, like the wall and stockade of the hastily built kibbutzim under the British Mandate, and anyone who claims that the settlers are not legitimate is necessarily including Hanita and Ramat Aviv as well. This dangerous obfuscation, which has turned into government policy, is one of the main causes for the rejection of Israel in recent years.

It is doubtful whether most of the signatories to the declaration are interested in the fact that it pulls the ground from under the feet of Israel in general, including themselves and their work. But the voice that calls from their declaration is the voice of bitter despair - of those who no longer believe that Israel can recover and change, and are turning outward, to the world. That is the source of the unease aroused by the declaration. We can and must expect of these academics, of all people, who are genuinely anxious about the fate and image of Israel, not to despair; not to stop channeling efforts inward, to the society in which they live. Despite the very gloomy present, change, if and when it occurs, can come only from within this society and with their help.

Israel's McCarthy Committee

Last week, the Knesset took the first step toward creating an investigative committee that would look into the sources of human rights groups' funds. Faina Kirschenbaum of Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu Party and Danny Dannon of Likud, the two people behind the initiative to create such a committee and who are both vying for its chairmanship, claim they're only looking into groups that are targeting the IDF and promoting the prosecution of Israeli soldiers abroad.

Lieberman said today that this isn't persecution of the left, since they aren't looking into organisations like Peace Now. Peace Now is legitimate, he said, while the others are not. Odd, since even Peace Now technically fits the bill of organisations that publish unfavorable information about the IDF, such as how settlements continue to grow under the watchful eye of the army, which is legally the sovereign in the West Bank.

Anyway, I hope this committee will not be created. There are still two more votes left where this horrible idea can fail - in the Knesset Committee and in the final vote before the whole Knesset. In the original vote, only 41 Knesset members voted in favor of a committee, but because very few opponents were present that was enough. Now that both Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin of Likud and Opposition Leader Tzippi Livni have denounced the decision, I am much more hopeful that maybe there will be more "no" votes than "yes" votes when the final roll call comes up.

We Deserve a President in Jail

Yossi Beilin, the former head of the left-wing Meretz Party, says ex-president Moshe Katsav should receive a pardon from President Shimon Peres. He's no fan of Katsav. As a liberal defender of human rights, he doesn't believe Katsav's actions are excusable. The only reason he thinks there should be a pardon is because he's our former president, and "Israel doesn't deserve a president in jail".

Well, Dr. Beilin, Israel does deserve a president in jail, both as a punishment and as a reward. Israel deserves to be punished for having a political system in which rapists can be elected to the highest office for political reasons. In 2000, when he was elected president, politicians knew Katsav was a sexual predator, a man prone to sexual harassment at the very least. Haaretz reported this week that when Katsav was still just a member of the Knesset, Ariel Sharon warned a young female journalist not to go to Katsav for a report on politicians courting the Russian vote. The guy is too dangerous for a woman to visit, but he can be elected president?

Israel also deserves to be rewarded for eventually bringing the truth to light, despite Katsav being the head of state and the national embarrassment that came with the revelations. Israel needs to show itself, as well as the world, that nobody is above the law.

More important than all this, though, is the fact that Moshe Katsav himself needs to be punished. Some claim that his public service should be taken into consideration, leading to a reduced sentence. It is the exact opposite. Katsav abused his public offices through the years, and thus should be punished more severely.

PressTV: Unbelievable (Literally)

Some serious people in the West take the Iranian news organization PressTV as a reliable source of information about the Middle East. Though it is funded by the Iranian government, they claim it is totally editorially independent. Is it?

Would any serious organization blame Israel's Mossad spy agency for the attack on a Coptic Christian church in Cairo, Egypt? Would any serious organization publish an article where the main argument supporting this claim would be that Muslims never attack Christians, that "it goes without saying that no Muslim, whatever their political leanings may be, will ever commit such an inhumane act"? This is an obvious falsehood, with plenty of evidence of previous Muslim violence against Christians and other groups.


The claim that Mossad did this, because it can't be Muslims who did it, is what PressTV is running with. The same article pretty much blames Israel and the United States for every internal problem in the Middle East, from Sudan to Lebanon. There's a disclaimer that this opinion piece is not the opinion of PressTV, but what kind of organization publishes crazy conspiracy theories in its opinion section? Publishing this may not be a full endorsement, but it reflects the thought that it is a valid view.

Utopia 2010: A Look Back

In January of last year I wrote a post titled "Utopia 2010", with four things I hoped would happen during that year. None of them did, unfortunately:

1. Avigdor Lieberman has not been indicted yet. The police and State Attorney have recommended an indictment, but it's taking Attorney General Yehudah Weinstein ages to decide whether or not he agrees. Hopefully, the indictment will come in 2011, destabilizing the awfully stable coalition.
2. There were some protests in Iran recently, but they didn't amount to anything. I notice I've become more modest in my aspirations: Last year I hoped a new democratic form of government will be instituted in Iran, replacing the Islamic Republic. For 2011, a more moderate president under the current form of government would be enough.
3. I had no doubt that this one will not come true: A peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. We have a government in Israel that is incapable of this. Also, Hamas would never agree to recognize Israel.
4. I'm still trying to figure out how to reach where I want to be professionally in the future.

2011: Year in Preview

Happy new year!

Let's hope that this year will be better than the last, though I'm not very optimistic. Here are a few things I hope (but don't necessarily believe) will happen by January 1, 2012:

• The Labor Party will finally understand the Netanyahu government is a bad one and will withdraw from the coalition. A disargreement between the ultra-Orthodox Shas and the secular Israel Beitenu will lead to the breakup of the rest of the government and new elections. Avishay Braverman will be elected chairman of the Labor Party, and he'll make gains in the elections, ultimately becoming Prime Minister Tzippi Livni's main coalition partner.
• Prime Minister Livni will reach a settlement with Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, creating a Palestinian state. 
• Israel and Syria will reach a peace deal. Syria will cut its ties with Hizbullah.
• Following an increase is gas prices, a new revolution will sweep through Iran, bringing a new moderate government to the country, which will also cut its ties with Hizbullah.
• Cut off from all funding and support from Iran and Syria, Hizbullah will no longer be the all-powerful terrorist militia that it is and will be forced to disarm. Hizbullah will resist at first, but a newly empowered Lebanese Army will squash any resistance. Hassan Nassrallah will be executed for treason against Lebanon.

That's what I hope will happen. Here's what I think will happen:

• The Labor Party will indeed withdraw from the coalition, but the government won't fall. Shas and Avigdor Lieberman may have opposite views on some core religious issues but their mutual right-wing views and their love of their government positions are more important to them than anything else. 
• Despite attempts to hold leadership elections in the Labor Party, Ehud Barak will manage to delay a vote.
• The Netanyahu government will not reach any kind of agreement with the Palestinians. There may be another war with Hamas.
• New peace negotiations might start with Syria, but Netanyahu's unwillingness to give up the Golan Heights, as well as Assad's unwillingness to give up his ties with Iran and Hizbullah, will lead to failed talks.
• The Ayatollahs may get rid of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad because he's a horrible president, but the new government won't be much friendlier towards the United States, Israel or the West, and it definitly will not stop aiding Hizbullah.
• Hizbullah's stranglehold on Lebanon will only increase this year.

Moshe Katsav Guilty

Former Israeli President Moshe Katsav was convicted today of all charges, including two counts of rape. This is a good day for justice. There's also something very sad about the whole affair. The conviction itself is not the sad part. The fact that we had a president who merited such a conviction is extremely disturbing.

We need to ask ourselves how we got here. How could we have a rapist as head of state? Sure, we didn't know he was a rapist when he was first elected, but a lot of politicians and journalists had heard rumors of his sexual misconduct. I don't know whether they thought it was consensual, like Bill Clinton's womanizing, or knew that there was a violent dimension to it.

But there's also a positive side here. Katsav was convicted, despite having been president. Even the most powerful people are not immune and cannot get away with crimes. Katsav will sit in prison just like any other convicted rapist.

The former president's sentence will be handed down at a later date. I hope he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Pollard Isn't Going Anywhere

Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised Jonathan Pollard's wife that he will write an official letter to President Obama asking for the spy's release. I doubt the prime minister will hurry to write the letter, and when it is finally sent, it will probably be the only action he takes. There's nothing to gain from Pollard's release. Nothing to gain for anybody, except for Pollard himself and his family.

I don't think most Israelis really care about Jonathan Pollard. They wouldn't oppose his release, but they wouldn't be dancing in the streets. We'll be elated if Gilad Shalit is released. With Pollard, most would only say "oh, that's nice", and move on. The Pollard issue has no electoral power. Nobody will decide to vote for Netanyahu because he got our American spy out of prison. Neither will anyone decide not to vote for him because he failed to do so.

Jonathan Pollard's release isn't in Barack Obama's best interest, either. Even the staunchest American friends of Israel don't want to see the guy released, and freeing him would be seen as pandering to Israel, especially at a time when its government hasn't done anything deserving of rewards. Obama actually might lose votes over Pollard, with a release probably costing him more than it would benefit him.

Maybe this analysis is skewed by the fact that I don't want Jonathan Pollard released. He's a traitor to his country who may have spied for cash rather than ideology. I'm fine with him spending the rest of his life in prison.

Yellow Peppers: A New Israeli Drama About Autism

"Yellow Peppers" is a new series about a family of farmers in the Arava Desert in southeastern Israel. In the debut episode, which aired yesterday, the family is confronted with the possibility that something might be wrong with their five year old child, Omri. The boy's uncle returns from Tel-Aviv to the farm with his wife Yael, a doctor who had cheated on him. When she talks to Omri, she sees something wrong and tells her husband, who accuses her of saying this only to feel important. It is then revealed that the kid was taken to a specialist two years earlier, at Yael's suggestion, and the specialist didn't see anything wrong.

Also, when Ayelet, Omri's mother, asks his kindergarten teacher point blank whether he needs to be checked out, the teacher says yes, "but don't worry, he's adorable". Ayelet asks why she never said anything, and the teacher says that she did, she had previously said he's "special", "not like everybody else", which Ayelet had taken as compliments. Like in many cases in real life, the teacher only had the guts to speak in code, not to outright tell a parent there might be something wrong.

It is a very realistic series, based on the experiences of the show's writer as a mother of an autistic son. A lot of things reminded me of what happened in my own family when we first thought my nephew might be autistic. In the show, the grandfather gets yelled at for taking his grandson to a child development specialist without asking his daughter and son-in-law. My mother got her head bitten off when she first suggested to my sister that my nephew should be checked out.

"He's a very confusing child," says Yael when she calls a colleague to ask for the name of a specialist. That's what we've always said about my nephew. He always seemed like a genius, another word attributed repeatedly to Omri. As a two year-old he didn't speak, but he could repeat very complicated words, could spin dreidels masterfully and was fascinated by spinning things. That's also why he was obsessed with CDs. On the show, Omri is also obsessed with CDs, but for a different reason - he sings different adult songs, knows exactly what their name is, who performed them, and which album and year they're from. Most of the songs are inappropriate for his age, like a song about suicide. Despite knowing all this stuff, he doesn't seem able to hold a simple conversation.

I look forward to seeing the rest of this show. I hope it continues to be as good as its first episode, and that it gets good ratings, and Israelis will realize that autistics aren't the head-banging, screaming stereotypical menaces many believe them to be.

Mark Zuckerberg is Time's Person of the Year

Okay, so I was wrong about the person Time Magazine would pick. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't on my radar. This choice seems kind of Hollywood-y to me. Yes, Zuckerberg has had an impact on the world, but was this really a more significant year for Facebook than, say, 2009, 2008 or 2007? I don't think so. The main Facebook-related event this year doesn't have much to do with anything that happened on Facebook or in the company during 2010. Would Mark Zuckerberg still be person of the year if "The Social Network" hadn't been made? My guess is probably not.

I did much better with the runner-ups. The Chilean Miners were indeed chosen, as I predicted. Julian Assange, who I thought would be POY, instead took a consolation prize. I also chose Sarah Palin, who wasn't picked by name, but she is a leader of the Tea Party, Time's first runner-up. My other two guesses were left out: John Boehner (a Republican conservative, but not quite a Tea Partier) and David Cameron.

Time's Person of the Year 2010: My Prediction

Time Magazine will announce its person of the year this Wednesday, December 15. That means it's time to guess who is going to be chosen. My top bet is Julian Assange. He has repeatedly embarrassed the United States through WikiLeaks, first with a video of a massacre in Iraq, then with the release of classified military documents, and most recently, the diplomatic cables. His activity has not just made headlines in the closing weeks of 2010 but throughout the year. The only thing working against him is the fact that Time had a cover story about him very recently. Would they want to write about him extensively in two issues just a couple of weeks apart?

If it won't be Assange, I guess it will be one of the following four (I'm sure at least one or two of these will be named as runners-up):

1. John Boehner: The next Speaker of the House of Representatives has dealt President Obama and the Democrats quite a blow when he successfully lead the Republicans to significant victories in the mid-term elections. The question is how much he is responsible for this and how much was just the result of dissatisfaction with Obama.

2. Sarah Palin: She seems to be everywhere, despite not holding any office. Along with Fox News's Glenn Beck, she brought thousands to the National Mall in Washington, DC. Her daughter was a Dancing With the Stars finalist, her books are bestsellers, and she has quite a Twitter following. One thing working against her is the same thing that's working against Assange: Palin has a cover story in Time this week, so the chances that she's Person of the Year are slim.

3. David Cameron: The new British prime minister has formed the first coalition government in the UK in decades and has already started implementing reforms. Some have them resulted in riots. But has he impacted the world so much? Probably not more than other world leaders.

4. The Chilean Miners: Did they change the world? No, but Time Magazine likes heartwarming stories, and the miners definitely provided the world with nail-biting real-life drama with a happy ending.

Fire the Racist Municipal Rabbis

Fifty Israeli rabbis, most of them chief rabbis of different municipalities, have signed a letter in which they say Jews should not sell or rent houses to non-Jews, and that those who dare to sell or rent to Goyim should be ostracised. President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Minority Affairs Avishai Braverman have all condemned this declaration. However, this is not enough. At the very least, the municipal rabbis - state employees - should be fired immediatly. They should also be investigated for incitement of violence and racial hatred.

One of the most perverse aspects of this declaration is the use of economic reasoning: selling to non-Jews (meaning, of course, Arabs) devalues the price of houses in the neighborhood, and so, it hurts the (Jewish) neighbors when they try to rent or sell their own houses. It's sad that Arab neighbors probably really do devalue houses, since many Jews don't want to live near them. There's something infuriating about how these rabbis present the devaluation itself as the main problem, and not the anti-Arab bias that causes it. Also, they're using the language of the free market to justify racism. Jews' economic rights are more important to them than the Arabs' human rights.

If God really existed, He wouldn't tolerate rabbis like these.

A Glimmer of Hope Amid the Fire

Israel is battling its worst ecological and non-conflict related disaster. A huge forest fire on Mount Carmel near Haifa in northern Israel is raging, with no end in sight. 41 people were killed yesterday. They were mostly prison service officer trainees on their way to evacuating a prison when their bus was engulfed in flames.

There is one glimmer of hope from all of this. Israel has asked for assistance and has received it, not only from countries like the UK and France, but also from our neighbors Jordan and Egypt. Even Turkey, with whom we've had strained relations lately, sent help (unsolicited, since Netanyahu foolishly decided not to ask the Turks for it). This is a sign of normalcy, a normalcy we can have with other Arab and Muslim countries, including the future State of Palestine.

Kings, Queens, Princes and Peers

The engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton, the "commoner", reminded me of how weird the United Kingdom is. On the one hand, it is the home of some of the greatest liberal thinkers in modern times. On the other, it has two of the most archaic institutions in the world - the monarchy and the peerage. As a citizen of two republics, I don't understand why Brits have no problem with their head of state being a hereditary position, rather than someone elected every few years by the people or by its representatives in parliament. I mean, Prince William will definitely be king, unless he dies before his father, even though he doesn't have too many accomplishments under his belt (I'm the same age as he is, and I dare to say I've accomplished more in my life than he has) - and he would've been king even with less.

Let's say the Brits are keeping the monarchy for old times' sake. Why the hell are they keeping the peerage? Most of Europe's remaining constitutional monarchies have done away with aristocracy a long time ago. Why are the people of the United Kingdom putting up with the fact that some men and women are born with the prefix "the honourable", rather than having to earn the honor? Even worse, how are they not bothered by the fact that they have one house of parliament, the House of Lords, that the general population has no say in its composition? Sure, it isn't as powerful as it used to be and can't veto legislation by the House of Commons, but they're still an unelected bunch of people with considerable legislative power.

Why the hell do I care? I'm not a citizen of the United Kingdom. Or should I say, "not Her Majesty's subject"?

60% of Palestinians Support 2-States as a Step Toward 1-State

Here's a poll every Israeli should see, most importantly on the left. Every international negotiator trying to help Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace deal should see it, too. According to the poll, reported in Haaretz (English or Hebrew, the Hebrew being more detailed), 60% of Palestinians support a two-state solution as a temporary solution until one state in all of Palestine is created. Only 30% support a permanent two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine existing side by side forever without merging into one entity.

Right wingers may see this as a reason never to end the occupation. That's the wrong conclusion.

I think this poll means we must be extra-vigilant about making sure that any agreement creating a Palestinian State would include an end to all claims and security provisions that would make it impossible for Palestine to try to create a unified state by force. It's also a sign that anything unilateral would be a disaster. If we decide to pull out of the West Bank, or parts of it, without an agreement, we'll keep ourselves open to the threat of more demands. Also, if we allow things to get to a point where the Palestinians unilaterally declare independence and the United Nations recognizes them, we'll be facing a hostile entity on our borders with more demands it never had to renounce.

In other words, make peace and follow the two-state solution, but don't be naive about who we're dealing with.

Arutz Sheva Admits Mistake: Wrong Religious Freedom Report

As I wrote here in my previous post, Arutz Sheva, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Jerusalem Post, which ran with the JTA's story, all mistakenly reported about the United States State Department's 2009 religious freedom report as if it was the 2010 edition released last Wednesday. They claimed Israel was lumped in with countries like China and Iran in the category of most serious violators, which had indeed happened a year ago, but not in the 2010 report.

The JTA still has a prominent link to this false story on its main page, and I coouldn't find a retraction on the Jerusalem Post's website. Arutz Sheva is surprisingly the most responisble of the media outlets involved in this screw-up. Today it published a correction, stating that Israel has been removed for this category. It has some analysis of the report that I don't entirely agree with (like the claim that the Emanuel Hasidic school affair was not really a racist issue, which is just bullshit), but at least they're dealing with the correct report this time!

Bad Journalism: Jerusalm Post Claims Year-Old Religious Freedom Report as New

The Jerusalem Post, a usually respectable newspaper, has published an article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) about a new international religious freedom report released by the United States State Department yesterday which, the Post says, puts Israel in the same category as such horrible violators of religious freedom as Sudan, China and Afghanistan. The less respectable settler media outlet Arutz Sheva says the same thing.

Yes, the State Department has placed Israel in the same category as rights violators in one of its reports, and yes, it published a new report yesterday. The problem is, that contrary to the claims of Arutz Sheva and the JTA, the former and the latter are two different reports. They claim yesterday's report is about 2009, but they both link to the document released in October 2009 which covers July 2008 to June 2009, not the one released in November 2010 and covering July 2009 to June 2010.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that today's Arutz Sheva article links to its own report from last year. So two years in a row Arutz Sheva discusses the same document (the 2009 report), the only difference being that last year they only looked at the section about Israel, rather than the executive summary, so they missed the awful category Israel was put in. This year, though, we aren't in that category anymore (and rightfully so). It is kind of odd to bash a year-old report for something that has already been corrected in the newest edition.

I think someone was sloppy. A JTA reporter looked for yesterday's report and found the one from last year, and without double-checking, reported it as new. Then the Jerusalem Post printed the article, and Arutz Sheva copied it as well (either that, or this idiotic mistake happened twice). Now the blogosphere is full of enraged posts about the so-called new report about how Israel is being likened to Iran and Afghanistan. Chill out, fellow bloggers, we're not in the Heinous Violators category anymore!

The Obama-Netanyahu $3 Billion Deal

What the hell is President Barack Obama thinking? Yes, it is very important that Israel freeze construction in West Bank settlements, but Obama's way of getting this done is just foolish. His administration offered Israel a package worth $3 billion, which includes 20 state of the art fighter jets in exchange for an additional 3-month freeze. Why just three months? Because during this time, according to Obama's expectations, Israel and the Palestinians will reach an agreement about final borders, which would mean that it would be clear where Israel can build and where it can't.

Has Obama not seen how negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have gone over the last decade or two? Has he not seen that Netanyahu (and Abbas, to some extent) isn't very serious about moving forward? It will be a surprise if, at the end of three months, any progress will be made at all, let alone an agreement on borders. So, if the situation won't be as rose-colored as Obama expects, when settlement construction resumes a new crisis will arise. More accurately, the current crisis will be resumed after some postponement.

My main problem here isn't just the fact that the freeze is too short, but that the price the United States is paying for it is too high, especially at a time of a recession and when the US is dealing with a huge federal deficit. Sure, $3B is tiny compared to the deficit's hundreds of trillions of dollars, but still, spending such an amount just for a temporary solution that probably isn't going to bring results?

In effect, Obama is rewarding Netanyahu for being stubborn, instead of actually rewarding him for achieving real milestones. It's kind of like his own Nobel Prize in 2009 - awarded for nothing but false hope. This is moronic and sophmoric, and is just one little part of President Obama's horrible foreign policy.

What Democrats Should Do

I was very disappointed by last week's congressional elections in the United States. I hoped both houses would remain Democratic. Alas, the House swung to the Republicans and the Senate's Democratic majority has been reduced.

Despite expectations to the contrary, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced she'd run for minority leader, and the rest of the Democratic House leadership seems to want to stay put as well. They should be booted. Don't get me wrong - they've done some excellent things over the last four years, but politics consists of 50% results and 50% perception. These leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Hary Reid, are not very popular, mainly because they were horrible at marketing their successes. Democrats need great communicators, great spokespeople. They need their own version of the likes of Republican  House Majority Leader-designate Eric Cantor, who has been doing an excellent job in recent television interviews.

Yes, it is sad that accomplishments are not enough, but that's reality. Find people who can get things done and sell their policies and deeds to the public.

At the End of the Rally

Watching the Rally to Restore Sanity on Comedy Central's website, the connection was very slow so I refreshed the page. Apparently, that made me miss about half an hour, because it changed from Kidd Rock's song to Jon Stewart's too serious, unfunny speech at the end.

On the New York Times's Rally post Charles Homans of Foreign Policy is quoted as saying: "I'm so far back in this crowd I can't even see Jon Stewart jump the shark." That isn't fair. This rally isn't a sign that the people of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are out of good ideas. It just shows that they should stick to doing what they do best - writing a late-night satirical show on television, not producing mass fake political rallies. After all, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who bombed badly today, are both still excellent on their shows.

Take a look at my previous impressions of the rally here.

The Rally So Far

Okay, we're about two-thirds into the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Any one of the news organizations that just got Stephen Colbert's Medal of Fear for not allowing their employees to participate in the rally were wrong to be worried that it would be political. There hasn't been any politics in here, really. Sadly, though, there haven't been many laughs either. They're really trying to be funny and mostly falling flat. I found only two things amusing so far: Sam Waterson's reading of Stephen Colbert's "Greatest Poem Ever Written" and the way Colbert came up to the stage like a Chilean miner.

This rally is too heavy on music (40 minutes of the Roots, really?). And that thing with Cat Stevens and Ozzy Osbourne was just not funny. Besides, is Stevens, now known as Youssef, really a symbol of sanity? He's quite a controversial figure. And the religious roll call with the fake Father Guido Sarduci? He didn't have anything funny to say about those religions other than the fact that both Muslims and Jews aren't allowed to eat pork. It was just a time filler.

Update: My final impressions about the rally are here.