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

Netanyahu as Head of Likud

Benjamin Netanyahu, who was the worst prime minister Israel has had since Golda Meir, has won the chairmanship of Likud. He'll be the party's prime ministerial candidate, but his chances are slim - polls indicate Likud will win only around 13 seats (compared to 30+ for Kadima and 20+ for Labor). Sharon, despite his minor stroke and old age, will definitely head the next government.

Bibi's victory is not such a bad thing. He now vows he'll clean up the party and get rid of shady, criminal elements. He's no saint himself, but I believe he isn't corrupt, and definitely less corrupt than Ariel Sharon, Zahi Hanegbi and Amir Peretz. If he'll succeed, the 13 or so people who enter the next Knesset from Likud will be of higher quality. I'd rather have more right wing Knesset members than corrupt and stupid ones.

I'm almost certain the next Knesset will be better than the current one, which has an alarmingly high percentage of idiots and corrupt members.

Bibi isn't the right man to lead the country. Hopefully, though, he is the right man to clean up Likud, and thus, to some extent, the Knesset.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Likud

Backwards Kadima

Ariel Sharon's new party, Kadima (Hebrew for "forward"), is turning out to be nothing but the Likud, with minor changes. It's just as corrupt (Sharon and his son Omri, and new recruit Zahi Hanegbi, among others), has the same political, economic and social agenda, and the most opportunistic former members of the Likud. A few opportunists from other parties, as well as very few good people (like Zipi Livni) were also added to the mix to make it look better.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz joined Kadima too, at the height of his bid for chairmanship of Likud (the party's candidate for Prime Minister). Not only was he lagging behind front-runner Bibi Netanyahu, a new poll even showed he was behind the right-wing radical Moshe Feiglin. So he decided he'd better join Sharon, even though he viciously attacked Sharon for leaving Likud . Ironically, some analysts say that the Feiglin data was false, and though he lagged behind Netanyahu in the first round by a huge margin, he had a good chance of defeating Netanyahu in a one-on-one second round. So Mofaz wasn't only opportunistic - he was also stupid.

Polls are showing Kadima will win around 40 of 120 seats in the Knesset. That seems horrible to me. Kadima is the party of corruption and stalemate with the Palestinians. Can't others see that? Why are Israelis so enchanted by Sharon? Hopefully, by March 28 voters will see this new party for what it is. I'm sure Sharon will win re-election and have the largest party in the Knesset, but I hope the margin isn't as huge as it is now. There needs to be a strong counterbalance both within the next coalition and in the opposition.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics

Avishay Braverman for Minister of Anything!

Avishay Braverman, president of Ben-Gurion University and former World Bank economist, has announced he is joining the Labor Party and running for a seat in the Knesset. This is a person I truly admire, and one of the few people I'd be happy to see as prime minister. He has done wonders for his university and is a true centrist. Now that he has entered politics, he'll be a treasury minister or some other top minister if Labor wins the elections, or if it decides to join a coalition with Ariel Sharon's new party, Kadima.

I truly dislike the ultra-socialist leader of the Labor Party, Amir Peretz, and didn't think of voting Labor this time around. But then again, I truly dislike Sharon, Likud, Meretz, Shinui and all other parties, who are either too dovish, socialist, hawkish, corrupt or just failures. As a person who believes the right to vote should be exercised (and a white "abstention" ballot is just as bad as not voting), I was facing the huge dilemma of deciding who is the lesser of several evils. But now I am more inclined towards Labor. If I do decide to vote for them, I won't be voting for Peretz as PM, but rather for Braverman as Minister of Anything.

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics

Disappointed? Just Alito

President Bush's latest worrying Supreme Court nomination is a good excuse for another one of my US-Israel comparisons: the Judicial Appointments Edition. As you know, in the States, the president nominates a candidate, the senate judiciary committee grills him or her in hearings and then the whole Senate decides whether to confirm the nominee's appointment or not. It's all very political.

In Israel, on the other hand, the prime minister's role in the judicial nomination process is very limited. The same is true for the president, who officially appoints and swears in the judges, but isn't the one who picks them. He appoints those that the Judicial Nominations Committee picks. I'm not sure whether he can legally refuse to appoint someone the committee chose, but that has never happened.

So, who are the members of the committee? All three branches of government are represented, as well as one public organization, the Israeli Bar Association. There are five legal professionals (three justices and two representatives of the Bar), and four politicians (two government ministers and two Knesset members). The fact that the politicians are a minority makes for a fairly non-political appointment process (though everything is political to some degree). The only problem is that public debate over nominations is very limited. Though the proceedings are not secret, the committee does not scrutinize the candidates like the Senate Judiciary Committee does, and it doesn't hold public hearing on their nominations.

I think the best way to pick judges would be to fuse together the American and Israeli methods. A non-partisan committee should pick the nominees, but they should be thoroughly scrutinized in televised hearings. This should be done either by the committee itself or by some other body. In my opinion, in Israel's case it would be a good idea if the committee itself held those hearings for candidates they shortlist, inviting members of the Knesset, former judges and other public figures, to pose questions to the candidates, though only the nine committee members would make the final decision.

If a system such as this were in place in the United States, maybe the country would have avoided embarrassments such as Miers and extremists such as Alito seems to be.

PS: Excuse the pun in the title. I just had to say it.

Tags: Supreme Court, Israel, Politics, Samuel Alito

Autistics or People With Autism?

I came across a list of "Ten Things Every Child with Autism Wishes You Knew" by Ellen Notbohm, via Reflections of a mom living an Autistic child. The first item claims the following:

"I am a child with autism. I am not "autistic." My autism is one aspect of my total character. It does not define me as a person. Are you a person with thoughts, feelings and many talents, or are you just fat (overweight), myopic (wear glasses) or klutzy (uncoordinated, not good at sports)?"

I've read others who claim the exact opposite. They say that saying they "have autism" or are "people with autism" is derogatory, since it sounds like a disease. Like "people with cancer" or who "have cerebral palsy". In their opinion, if you are referred to as autistic, it means that it is just part of who you are.

So, who's right? First of all, definitely not Ellen Notbohm. She claims to speak for every child with autism, but most of the autistics on-line have written they consider themselves autistics and not people with autism for the reasons I wrote above. So if you go by self-determination, most autistics (at least the adult ones who participate in the blogosphere) have decided against the "with autism" label. Saying they are autistic doesn't mean they are only autistics. Try comparing it with other minorities - if you're Jewish or African-American, that isn't all you are.

That doesn't mean the "anti-with autism, pro-autistics" are right. I don't think that saying someone has autism is derogatory. If a person has X or is a person with Y - the X and Y won't necessarily be diseases or anything negative.

In other words, I think that both options are acceptable. Autistics are people with autism and vice versa. Neither one is a negative term.


Tag: autism

New Title

"Emmanuel Schiff and the Masters of the University" was a title created when I got to the conclusion that the original title, "Emmanuel Schiff: Fake Name, Real Person", was redundant. The new name was supposed to be a play on one of my favorite childhood TV shows, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. I'm not sure how many people made the connection, so now I'm simplifying things. I'll just be E-man, instead of my full name (which is an alias anyway).

Americans Reject Evolution

I love America and Americans, but sometimes they scare me. I find it very disconcerting that according to a CBS poll only 15% of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution. 30% believe in intelligent design (a creationist version of evolution). But most troubling - a majority of respondents believe in classic creationism.

Again, I turn to a comparison with Israel. There's no uproar about evolution being taught in schools. The creationist version is presented in bible classes, where it belongs. Israel is perceived by many as a religious country, but it's much less religious than the United States. I once saw statistical data that showed that more than 40% of Israelis called themselves secular, while another 30% said they were "not so religious, but traditional", which is quite ambiguous. But I assume a lot of them mean they aren't religious but still celebrate Jewish holidays, like me (though I am secular). I have a feeling an evolution poll would show that a vast majority of Israelis believe in evolution. I googled for such a poll but couldn't find one. It would be interesting to see if I'm right.

Tags: evolution, Israel, religion

Abortion in Israel

A discussion on another post of mine made me think about the difference between the centrality of abortion in American politics and its total marginality in Israeli politics. It's interesting that here in Israel there isn't much of a debate about abortion. It's legal (though you have to go through a medical board, but if you say the right things you'll usually be allowed to get the abortion). Nobody seems to be fighting to illegalize abortions or to liberalize them by getting rid of the medical panel. Sometimes there are reports about religious women giving pregnant women pictures of fetuses at abortion clinics. But that's about it. Most people are content with the present situation.

You'd think that the fact that all of Israel's coalitions (except for one or two very brief periods) included religious parties would have made abortion a hot-button issue like in the States. But I guess that when you're worried about being blown to bits you concentrate on protecting the living rather than worrying about the unborn. Maybe the issue seems less divisive because of the fact that it's regulated by a law legislated by the elected Knesset rather than by a ruling of the unelected Supreme Court justices? Dunno.

Tags: abortion, Israel, Israeli Politics

Random Question

A while back I said I'd change my profile's random question once in a while. Well, it turned out to be a very long while - 15 months. Now I've changed my profile question (and answer), and here is what I had till now.

You're wearing a sweater that stretches down to your feet. What color belt do you put on?
White - to match the looney jacket they'll take me in for dressing like that during the summer.

And a reminder from July 2004, my first random question:

You've got to make contact with the alien leader. How will you tell when the conversation is finished?
When limbs start flying.

Miers for White House Counsel

Harriet Miers is doing a heck of a job as White House Counsel. I don't know whether she's actually doing a good job or if it's a Brownie kind of a heck of a job. Whichever it is, Miers should remain in her current position. I hope the Senate rejects her nomination for the Supreme Court. She's both unqualified and a member of the BCCRWN (Bush Close Circle of Right Wing Nuts).

I find it amusing that some Republicans are worried she may not be conservative enough. I'm sure she's way too conservative, but I hope the Senate conservatives will keep up the worrying and vote against her. On the other hand, the best thing would be if even Republicans voted against her just because she's unqualified, not because of how she'll decide abortion cases. The US Supreme Court is too political. The whole debate over nominations should be focused more on the nominees' professional qualifications than on how they'd decide certain issues (some of which should be decided by Congress, not by the courts).

Tags: Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, Politics

Sky News: Harold Pinter Dead, um, No, He's the Nobel Winner

I was wondering who won the Nobel Prize in literature, and both CNN and BBC were discussing the horrible earthquake in Pakistan. So I reluctantly turned to Sky News. Good thing though. A very confused anchorwoman had this amusing monologue to say (more or less):

"British playwright Harold Pinter is joining us now. [pause]
[in a grim tone]: Harold Pinter has just died. [another pause]
Harold Pinter has won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Sorry about that. More about Pinter later."

Oh, the beauty of live, unedited television!

Tags: Nobel Prize, Sky News, journalism, Live television, news

I, Radical (?!?)

People have a tendency to think that if someone disagrees with them on a hot-button issue, he'll probably disagree with them on most issues and is a radical of the opposing side. That's especially true when the person doing the assumptions is a radical himself, of the side opposite his opponent. At least that's been my experience.

A recent discussion I had here reminded me of this. It seems that since I am not impressed by the IAEA or because I support Israeli nukes, readers thought I'm a radical right-wing Bush-loving Sharon-worshipping kill-all-Arabs fanatic. That's so far from what my real views are that it's almost comical.

When discussing Israeli politics, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bush, Iraq etc with right wingers they tend to brand me as a naive leftist bleeding-heart Palestinian/Muslim-loving extremist. Again, that too is so far from my real views that it's almost comical.

I'm very much a centrist. Maybe you could call me a hawkish dove or a dovish hawk. When people think I'm a right/left-wing fanatic, almost always they are fanatics of the opposite side. The question is whether I tend to take a more extreme stance than I believe in when I argue with fanatics, or maybe I just counter the radical views so I don't get a chance to say anything centrist. Also, the problem could be with the radicals and not with me. I don't know which option it is.

Remember this: just because I don't think the United States, Israel, and the West in general are the source of all evil - it doesn't mean I'm a radical right winger. Also, just because I support the creation of a Palestinian state and think Bush is the worst US president since who-knows-when - it doesn't mean I'm a radical left winger.

Tags: politics, Israel, Middle East, extremism

Economics Nobel Awarded to Israeli

Prof. Robert J. Aumann (or Israel Aumann, his Hebrew name) of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has won the 2005 Nobel award for economics, together with Thomas Schelling of the University of Maryland. The committee said they won "for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis".

This is an Israeli's second Nobel Prize for economics, coming three years after Daniel Kahneman won the award. Just last year two Israelis, Aaron Ciechanover and Avram Hershko, won the Chemistry Nobel. Back then, the winning chemists spoke about the lack of funding for sciences in Israel, and the fact that the government wants to further diminish that funding. I hope Aumann's win this year will help Israeli universities and research institutions fight budget cuts, as well as inspire more private contributions.

Congratulations Prof. Aumann!

In your face, academic boycott proponents!

Tags: Nobel Prize, Israel, economics, research

Nobel Peace Prize 2005

U.N. Nuclear Agency and Its Chief Win Nobel Prize for Peace

I was under the impression that prizes, especially the most prestigious ones, are supposed to reward success and remarkable achievements. I was wrong. As it turns out, inaction and repeated failures may not prevent a person and/or organization from winning.


Tags: Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize