Good thing I served in the IDF. Otherwise, according to a new bill proposed by Labor MK Eitan Cabel, I could lose the right to vote and my driver's license. Other potential penalties would be for me to be denied the right to study medicine or psychology.
Since I did indeed serve in the IDF and happen to be a member of the Labor Party, even if the bill passes I'll have the pleasure of voting against Mr. Cabel next time he runs for a place on the party's Knesset list. This is an extremely undemocratic bill, and I am ashamed it was authored by one of my party's representatives.
In Israel, every adult citizen has the right to vote. Unlike the United States, even felons are not denied the vote. Murderers, rapists, traitors and spies can vote from prison if they are Israelis. So Nahoum Manbar, who is in prison for selling weapons to Iran, and Yigal Amir, who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, will be able to vote, but people who did not devote two or three years of their lives to the state will be denied a voice?
I do think that people who do not serve in the military or any national civilian service without a good reason should be punished, but the punishment needs to be proportionate. It needs to last a limited time period, not their entire lives.
Civilian life in Israel should not be determined by military service (or even non-military national service). A person's life should not be destroyed only because he refuses to serve the state. Somebody needs to remind Eitan Cabel that the state exists for its citizens and not the citizens for the state.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Michigan Dems, Vote Ron Paul
Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos wants Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary next Tuesday. Since the DNC stripped the state of delegates, making the Democratic primary meaningless (Clinton is the only one on the ballot anyway) and anyone can vote in the Republican primary, Democrats can use the primary to their advantage. Kos says that if Romney wins, the Republicans will fight amongst themselves, wasting their time and money on the primary, leading to a Democratic victory in November.
If you want to screw with the Republicans I have a better target: vote Ron Paul. Wouldn't everybody go crazy if he won the primary? Maybe he'd even get a boost ahead of the next primaries, thus winning more delegates to the Republican convention, which would lead to a nuttier libertarian platform.
I'm not sure that trying to screw up the Republican nomination process is so smart. Since any Republican nominee will have a chance of actually winning the presidency, maybe Michigan Democrats should vote for the Republican who would do the least damage as president. It seems to me that John McCain fits this description. On the other hand, voting for the best Republican would make the general election tougher for the eventual Democratic nominee.
If you want to screw with the Republicans I have a better target: vote Ron Paul. Wouldn't everybody go crazy if he won the primary? Maybe he'd even get a boost ahead of the next primaries, thus winning more delegates to the Republican convention, which would lead to a nuttier libertarian platform.
I'm not sure that trying to screw up the Republican nomination process is so smart. Since any Republican nominee will have a chance of actually winning the presidency, maybe Michigan Democrats should vote for the Republican who would do the least damage as president. It seems to me that John McCain fits this description. On the other hand, voting for the best Republican would make the general election tougher for the eventual Democratic nominee.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Bush's Biggest Fan
The George W. Bush Fan Club has very few members, but it looks like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is applying for the job of chairman of its Israeli chapter. All the praise the Israeli chief executive lavished upon his American counterpart was way overboard and very embarrassing.
When Bush first landed in Israel, he told President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Olmert something like "this is a very nice ceremony. It's more than I deserve". That's certainly true about Olmert's Bushophilic superlatives.
Bush and Olmert have something in common: they are two horrible leaders whose commitment to pushing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, as opposed to just going through the motions, is still in question. Maybe that's why Olmert loves Bush so much - they're two of a kind.
When Bush first landed in Israel, he told President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Olmert something like "this is a very nice ceremony. It's more than I deserve". That's certainly true about Olmert's Bushophilic superlatives.
Bush and Olmert have something in common: they are two horrible leaders whose commitment to pushing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, as opposed to just going through the motions, is still in question. Maybe that's why Olmert loves Bush so much - they're two of a kind.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Quit
It seems probable that Barack Obama is going to win the New Hampshire primary by a large margin. As a Clinton supporter, I hope she won't drop out of the race after such an outcome. Citizens in the other states have a right to make their own choices. Just because Democrats in two states prefer Obama doesn't mean Democrats in the whole United States prefer him, too.
John Edwards shouldn't quit either. I don't like him and don't want him to be president, yet I still think voters should have the chance to decide whether to vote for him or not. The same applies to the main candidates on the Republican side as well.
Other than candidates with absolutely no chance of winning, like Dennis Kucinich among the Democrats and Duncan Hunter among the Republicans, candidates should not drop out of the race until the delegate count makes it impossible for them to win.
John Edwards shouldn't quit either. I don't like him and don't want him to be president, yet I still think voters should have the chance to decide whether to vote for him or not. The same applies to the main candidates on the Republican side as well.
Other than candidates with absolutely no chance of winning, like Dennis Kucinich among the Democrats and Duncan Hunter among the Republicans, candidates should not drop out of the race until the delegate count makes it impossible for them to win.
Friday, January 04, 2008
3 Notes: Obambee and Iowa
The first one tenth of one percent of Americans have spoken. Hopefully, the other 99.9% will make different choices than Iowa voters have made. Senator Barack Obama is not the best candidate among Democrats, while former Gov. Mike Huckabee seems like one of the only candidates on either side who just might turn out to be even worse than President Bush. Both Obama and Huckabee share the same flaw - inexperience. For Obama it's his greatest weakness. For ultraconservative Huckabee it's just the tip of the iceberg.
I actually like some aspects of the caucuses. I like the idea of a public debate between ordinary citizens trying to convince each other why their candidate is better. Nobody should be forced into such a debate, though, and neither should people who cannot attend the caucus be denied a vote. That's why I think some kind of primary/caucus combo might be a good solution. Some people will attend a caucus, while others, possibly the majority, will vote behind a curtain or via absentee ballots. Sure, the secret ballot option might kill the caucus, but allowing more people to vote is worth it.
Other than that, Iowa shouldn't be the first to vote, at least not every presidential election. In 2005, a panel lead by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker suggested a system of four regional primaries, where each region would hold primaries and caucuses at monthly intervals, with their order rotating every election year. That's a great idea. The panel also recommended that Iowa and New Hampshire remain the first two states to vote, because they test the candidates in door-to-door campaigning. I disagree with this. Candidates can be scrutinized in the same way in other states, too. One or two states could be selected randomly every presidential election to be the first to vote.
P.S. What do you think about Obambee as a word for the Obama-Huckabee duo? I like it more than Huckobama or Huckabama. Oh, the silliness.
I actually like some aspects of the caucuses. I like the idea of a public debate between ordinary citizens trying to convince each other why their candidate is better. Nobody should be forced into such a debate, though, and neither should people who cannot attend the caucus be denied a vote. That's why I think some kind of primary/caucus combo might be a good solution. Some people will attend a caucus, while others, possibly the majority, will vote behind a curtain or via absentee ballots. Sure, the secret ballot option might kill the caucus, but allowing more people to vote is worth it.
Other than that, Iowa shouldn't be the first to vote, at least not every presidential election. In 2005, a panel lead by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker suggested a system of four regional primaries, where each region would hold primaries and caucuses at monthly intervals, with their order rotating every election year. That's a great idea. The panel also recommended that Iowa and New Hampshire remain the first two states to vote, because they test the candidates in door-to-door campaigning. I disagree with this. Candidates can be scrutinized in the same way in other states, too. One or two states could be selected randomly every presidential election to be the first to vote.
P.S. What do you think about Obambee as a word for the Obama-Huckabee duo? I like it more than Huckobama or Huckabama. Oh, the silliness.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Office Pool, 2008
It's two hours after midnight here in Israel, which means it's already 2008 here. What better way is there to start the year than by making baseless predictions? I'll use William Safire's office pool op-ed in today's (or rather yesterday's) New York Times to predict the future.
1. The business headline of the year will be: (a) Big Bounce to 15,000 Dow After Soft Landing (economics and the markets ain't my turf, so this is a wild guess).
2. The Academy Award for Best Picture will go to: (a) “There Will Be Blood” (The truth is I haven't seen any of the movies Safire "nominated", and I'd actually bet on another film I haven't seen that isn't on Safire's list - "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - the Academy sure loves movies about handicaps).
3. The Roberts Supreme Court will decide that:
(a) gun rights belong to the individual, but the Second Amendment’s key limitation is that gun possession should be “well-regulated”
(b) states can require voter ID to prevent fraud even if it reduces access
(c) lethal injection is not cruel or unusual punishment if it isn’t painful
(d) the “ancient right” of habeas corpus applies to Guantánamo detainees no matter what law Congress passes (I think all four will happen).
4. The fiction sleeper best seller will be: (b) “Shadow and Light,” by Jonathan Rabb, set in prewar Germany (just a wild guess).
5. The nonfiction success will be: (c) “Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History” by Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy’s alter ego (anything JFK-related has good chances of success).
6. The media world will be rocked as: (c) Google challenges telecommunications giants by taking steps to provide both telephone and video on the Internet (seems like the next logical step towards World Domination).
7. In United States foreign policy debates: (b) failure in Iraq will sink stay-the-course Republicans (the surge has improved the situation from dire to just plain old very bad, so Americans will still want to get the hell out of there).
8. The de facto dictator truly leaving the political scene this year will be: (d) Fidel Castro (he just might die during 2008. Chavez, Putin and Mugabe ain't goin' nowhere. One de facto dictator that might leave the political scene who isn't on Safire's list is Musharraf, but this will only happen by force, most likely deadly force).
9. By year’s end, American diplomats will be negotiating openly with: (c) Iran (none of the above is more likely, but if I had to pick one, it makes more sense that the US would start talks with Iran, if it complies with international demands for inspections. Diplomats might also talk to the Taliban and Hamas covertly).
10. The two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute appears when: (b) an Ehud Barak-Benjamin Netanyahu rematch results in a majoritarian, rightist coalition victory (Does Safire mean that the two-state solution will come to fruition? If he does, than I'd say that's not happening in 2008. But if the question is which option will become a reality, the division of Jerusalem into two capitals and Palestinian unity sound like wishful thinking at this point. Unfortunately, a Netanyahu victory is very probable).
11. Assuming the Iowa caucuses to be meaningless pollster-media hype, the January primary state with the biggest influence on the outcome of both parties’ nominations will be: (d) Florida (assuming nobody wins decisively in New Hampshire, Florida, the last state to hold its primaries before Super Tuesday, will be most influential, being the freshest in the minds of Super Tuesday voters' minds).
12. The American troop level in Iraq at year’s end will be: (a) the present 152,000 (even if a Democrat wins in November, Bush is in office till January 20, 2009, so I don't think troop levels will be reduced).
13. The issue most affecting the vote on Election Day will be: (c) health plans: incentivize or socialize (that and Iraq, which doesn't really fit Safire's fourth option, "diplomacy: accommodating realism or extending freedom").
14. The presidential election will hinge primarily on: (b) success or failure in Iraq (unless something unexpected happens, and in politics, expect the unexpected).
15. The Democratic ticket will be: (c) Clinton-Bill Richardson (I expect Clinton to win the nomination, and she needs an experienced running mate).
16. The Republican ticket will be: (a) Rudolph Giuliani-Mike Huckabee (since Safire's other options, Romney-Petraeus and McCain-Bloomberg, are both wildly far-fetched. Regardless of Safire's options, my prediction is that it will end up being Romney-Huckabee).
17. The winning theme in November will be: (c) experience counts (that would definitely be a good theme for a Clinton-Richardson ticket running against a Romney-Huckabee ticket, or for a McCain campaign).
18. The election will be decided on: (a) charisma, (b) experience, (e) money and (f) issues (I think experience and issues should be enough, but the American people think otherwise. I do believe, though, that character won't play much of a role this time around).
19. As 2009 dawns, Americans will face: (a) a leftward march, with the Clintons in the White House and a Democratic Congress (minus the rest of the sentence, where Safire says Congress will be "feeling no tax, entitlement or earmark restraint").
1. The business headline of the year will be: (a) Big Bounce to 15,000 Dow After Soft Landing (economics and the markets ain't my turf, so this is a wild guess).
2. The Academy Award for Best Picture will go to: (a) “There Will Be Blood” (The truth is I haven't seen any of the movies Safire "nominated", and I'd actually bet on another film I haven't seen that isn't on Safire's list - "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - the Academy sure loves movies about handicaps).
3. The Roberts Supreme Court will decide that:
(a) gun rights belong to the individual, but the Second Amendment’s key limitation is that gun possession should be “well-regulated”
(b) states can require voter ID to prevent fraud even if it reduces access
(c) lethal injection is not cruel or unusual punishment if it isn’t painful
(d) the “ancient right” of habeas corpus applies to Guantánamo detainees no matter what law Congress passes (I think all four will happen).
4. The fiction sleeper best seller will be: (b) “Shadow and Light,” by Jonathan Rabb, set in prewar Germany (just a wild guess).
5. The nonfiction success will be: (c) “Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History” by Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy’s alter ego (anything JFK-related has good chances of success).
6. The media world will be rocked as: (c) Google challenges telecommunications giants by taking steps to provide both telephone and video on the Internet (seems like the next logical step towards World Domination).
7. In United States foreign policy debates: (b) failure in Iraq will sink stay-the-course Republicans (the surge has improved the situation from dire to just plain old very bad, so Americans will still want to get the hell out of there).
8. The de facto dictator truly leaving the political scene this year will be: (d) Fidel Castro (he just might die during 2008. Chavez, Putin and Mugabe ain't goin' nowhere. One de facto dictator that might leave the political scene who isn't on Safire's list is Musharraf, but this will only happen by force, most likely deadly force).
9. By year’s end, American diplomats will be negotiating openly with: (c) Iran (none of the above is more likely, but if I had to pick one, it makes more sense that the US would start talks with Iran, if it complies with international demands for inspections. Diplomats might also talk to the Taliban and Hamas covertly).
10. The two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute appears when: (b) an Ehud Barak-Benjamin Netanyahu rematch results in a majoritarian, rightist coalition victory (Does Safire mean that the two-state solution will come to fruition? If he does, than I'd say that's not happening in 2008. But if the question is which option will become a reality, the division of Jerusalem into two capitals and Palestinian unity sound like wishful thinking at this point. Unfortunately, a Netanyahu victory is very probable).
11. Assuming the Iowa caucuses to be meaningless pollster-media hype, the January primary state with the biggest influence on the outcome of both parties’ nominations will be: (d) Florida (assuming nobody wins decisively in New Hampshire, Florida, the last state to hold its primaries before Super Tuesday, will be most influential, being the freshest in the minds of Super Tuesday voters' minds).
12. The American troop level in Iraq at year’s end will be: (a) the present 152,000 (even if a Democrat wins in November, Bush is in office till January 20, 2009, so I don't think troop levels will be reduced).
13. The issue most affecting the vote on Election Day will be: (c) health plans: incentivize or socialize (that and Iraq, which doesn't really fit Safire's fourth option, "diplomacy: accommodating realism or extending freedom").
14. The presidential election will hinge primarily on: (b) success or failure in Iraq (unless something unexpected happens, and in politics, expect the unexpected).
15. The Democratic ticket will be: (c) Clinton-Bill Richardson (I expect Clinton to win the nomination, and she needs an experienced running mate).
16. The Republican ticket will be: (a) Rudolph Giuliani-Mike Huckabee (since Safire's other options, Romney-Petraeus and McCain-Bloomberg, are both wildly far-fetched. Regardless of Safire's options, my prediction is that it will end up being Romney-Huckabee).
17. The winning theme in November will be: (c) experience counts (that would definitely be a good theme for a Clinton-Richardson ticket running against a Romney-Huckabee ticket, or for a McCain campaign).
18. The election will be decided on: (a) charisma, (b) experience, (e) money and (f) issues (I think experience and issues should be enough, but the American people think otherwise. I do believe, though, that character won't play much of a role this time around).
19. As 2009 dawns, Americans will face: (a) a leftward march, with the Clintons in the White House and a Democratic Congress (minus the rest of the sentence, where Safire says Congress will be "feeling no tax, entitlement or earmark restraint").
Monday, December 31, 2007
10 Things That Hopefully Will Not Happen In 2008
Five serious ones:
- Mike Bloomberg, New York City's billionaire mayor, should not run for president as an independent, not even with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as his running mate. He wouldn't win, and would only spoil it for the Democrats.
- Iran shouldn't be attacked as long as we don't have enough information about the state of their nuclear program, but neither should Iran's word be trusted without meticulous inspections.
- Ehud Olmert shouldn't stick around as Israel's prime minister, but neither should early elections be held, which would only result in Benjamin Netanyahu returning to office.
- The Israeli Knesset should not continue the current trend of introducing bills mainly according to what events are in the news.
- Meretz should not forget to return to its liberal roots and fill in the gap left by Shinui.
Five silly ones:
- Britney Spears should not have any more babies.
- The media should stop talking so much about Britney, her sister and their babies. The same applies to all other celebrities (yes, Israeli media, that includes Ninette Tayeb).
- Hopefully, no Republican candidate will offer to send illegal immigrants to Iraq and Afghanistan, thus solving two problems at once.
- After he'll drop out of the race for president, hopefully Joe Biden will not become too verbose again.
- On Israel's 60th birthday this spring nobody should call it an old hag.
Top 10 Things That Didn't Happen in 2007
Just like Time's Person of the Year, this list comes with a "for better or for worse" attached to it. You can decide for yourselves which is for better and which is for worse. Here it is, in no particular order:
- Vice President Cheney did not invoke martial law.
- Former Vice President Al Gore did not enter the race for the presidency.
- A final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, establishing a democratic, moderate, non-hostile State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, was not reached.
- Former President George H. W. Bush did not apologize to Americans and the whole world for how his son and namesake turned out.
- "I screwed up the war and pretty much everything else I've done since, therefore I step down", said not Ehud Olmert (nor did George W. Bush).
- Hugo Chavez did not win his bid to change Venezuela's constitution so he could remain in office all his life.
- The Israeli Knesset didn't do its job - which is to supervise the government and pass laws that make Israelis' lives better.
- Joe Biden did not talk too much.
- Iran was not attacked.
- Israel has not been nuked, nor has any other country.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Vladimir Vladimirovitch, 2007 Person of the Year
For some reason I thought Time Magazine would announce its choice for Person of the Year only on Friday, so I planned to write a post today about who I'd pick for the title. Vladimir Putin was my choice, but since Time already named him as POY today, you'll have to believe me that I really did think of him before the announcement.
Putin is as close as you can get to a natural choice. He has made more of an impact than just about anyone this year, flexing his international muscle on various issues: Iran, missile defense, Kosovo, etc., as well as fortifying his position in the Kremlin even as he prepares to leave the presidency. His heir presumptive, Dmitry Medvedev, will appoint him as Russia's next prime minister.
Time named four runners up: Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Hu Jintao and Gen. David Petraeus. Of all of these, Hu Jintao is the only one I'd also pick as a runner up. The Chinese leader is changing his very important country. The others, on the other hand, have not had a great impact this year.
Al Gore was the rightful winner of the Nobel Prize, but most of what he did was in 2006. Thanks to him, most of the presidential candidates have addressed environmental issues, but again - this is the result of what he did last year.
J. K. Rowling wrote a series of books that got young people to read again. Her main impact came when she published the first books, not when she wrote the final novel or outed Dumbledore.
Gen. Petraeus has a tough job, but the war in Iraq is still a quagmire and he hasn't created such a sea change.
There are three others I would have chosen as runners-up, if I were a Time editor: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been a positive and influential leader at the national, European and International levels; Nikolas Sarkozy, the new French president who seems very different from anything we've seen in that country and who was able to stand up to striking workers protesting his plan to roll back some of their wasteful privileges; and Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, who has been able to drive the world crazy. Hugo Chavez would have made it into my list too, had his constitutional amendments been approved by Venezuelan voters.
Putin is as close as you can get to a natural choice. He has made more of an impact than just about anyone this year, flexing his international muscle on various issues: Iran, missile defense, Kosovo, etc., as well as fortifying his position in the Kremlin even as he prepares to leave the presidency. His heir presumptive, Dmitry Medvedev, will appoint him as Russia's next prime minister.
Time named four runners up: Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Hu Jintao and Gen. David Petraeus. Of all of these, Hu Jintao is the only one I'd also pick as a runner up. The Chinese leader is changing his very important country. The others, on the other hand, have not had a great impact this year.
Al Gore was the rightful winner of the Nobel Prize, but most of what he did was in 2006. Thanks to him, most of the presidential candidates have addressed environmental issues, but again - this is the result of what he did last year.
J. K. Rowling wrote a series of books that got young people to read again. Her main impact came when she published the first books, not when she wrote the final novel or outed Dumbledore.
Gen. Petraeus has a tough job, but the war in Iraq is still a quagmire and he hasn't created such a sea change.
There are three others I would have chosen as runners-up, if I were a Time editor: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been a positive and influential leader at the national, European and International levels; Nikolas Sarkozy, the new French president who seems very different from anything we've seen in that country and who was able to stand up to striking workers protesting his plan to roll back some of their wasteful privileges; and Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, who has been able to drive the world crazy. Hugo Chavez would have made it into my list too, had his constitutional amendments been approved by Venezuelan voters.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
200,000 Dead Terrorists
The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the AP photo above of 200,000 Gazans at a rally to mark Hamas's 20th anniversary was "why the hell didn't we bomb that rally?!?". That's just a gut reaction. Doing such a thing would have terrible consequences. While thousands of dead Hamasniks is never a bad thing in and of itself, it would bring about a new intifada and a bombardment of international condemnations for attacking a civilian rally (though, in reality, it's a terrorist rally).This little fantasy of mine about 200,000 dead terrorists in Gaza brings me to something less fantastical and closer to reality. It seems we are preparing for a big military operation in Gaza, to be carried out in case anyone in Sderot or the nearby area gets killed by Kassam rockets. The reason for such an operation? You would expect the goal to be stopping the Kassams, or at least drastically reducing their numbers, but that isn't it. The army isn't sure going into Gaza would actually be very effective in stopping the rockets from firing at Israeli towns in the Western Negev. The real goal is to raise Israeli public morale. Minister of Defense Ehud Barak wants citizens to feel that something is being done.
If the Gaza incursion won't be effective, it should not take place. Why risk the lives of our soldiers and of Palestinian civilians if the number of Kassam rockets hitting our people will be the same before, during and after the operation?
The job of the government and the army is not to create a false sense of security. Their duty is to create a reality of security. If the latter is impossible, they should not turn their attention to the former.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Long Lost High School Friends
I lost touch with my high school friends not long after graduating. Recently I ran into one of them and it turns out that most of them have not only kept in touch but get together on a regular basis and go on trips together.
On the one hand, since then I have made new friends that I keep in touch with and who are much better friends than my high school friends ever were. I always felt that the people who were my friends in high school weren't my type of people, but they were the best I could find among my peers.
On the other hand, I do feel I might have missed out by not keeping in touch with these guys. From the stories the friend I met told me, it sounds like they're still great friends and have a lot of fun together. But then again, if they're incompatible with me, maybe I wouldn't have enjoyed my time with them even if I kept hanging out with "the old crowd".
Perhaps I'd just like to have old high school friends like there are in American movies and TV shows - best friends for life. Maybe it usually doesn't happen that way. My father's best friend has been his best friend since high school, but other than that one person, his oldest friends are from college. My mother is no longer in touch with any of her high school friends, except for one who works with her.
Anyway, no reason to be sorry. What is gone is gone. I've been pretty good about keeping in touch with a few of my friends from the army and college. I should remember to keep in touch with them and with the friends I currently study with, so 10 years from now I won't write a blog post about missing out on these other old friends.
On the one hand, since then I have made new friends that I keep in touch with and who are much better friends than my high school friends ever were. I always felt that the people who were my friends in high school weren't my type of people, but they were the best I could find among my peers.
On the other hand, I do feel I might have missed out by not keeping in touch with these guys. From the stories the friend I met told me, it sounds like they're still great friends and have a lot of fun together. But then again, if they're incompatible with me, maybe I wouldn't have enjoyed my time with them even if I kept hanging out with "the old crowd".
Perhaps I'd just like to have old high school friends like there are in American movies and TV shows - best friends for life. Maybe it usually doesn't happen that way. My father's best friend has been his best friend since high school, but other than that one person, his oldest friends are from college. My mother is no longer in touch with any of her high school friends, except for one who works with her.
Anyway, no reason to be sorry. What is gone is gone. I've been pretty good about keeping in touch with a few of my friends from the army and college. I should remember to keep in touch with them and with the friends I currently study with, so 10 years from now I won't write a blog post about missing out on these other old friends.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
So Iran Ain't Going Nuclear?!?
Bombing Iran is off the table. With the latest National Intelligence Estimate saying there is no evidence that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, I don't see President Bush or anyone else going to war against Iran anytime soon. The world should still keep an eye on it and demand inspections, but it shouldn't go to war.
It seems to me that the West doesn't really know what's going on in Iran. Going after the country without any real evidence isn't only morally wrong, it is also just stupid and ineffective. If we don't know if they have a nuclear program at all, then if they do have one, we can't be sure we know where the hell all the facilities are.
Knowing what we know now (or rather, knowing what we don't know), I think the risks of attacking Iran are greater than the risks of not doing so.
It seems to me that the West doesn't really know what's going on in Iran. Going after the country without any real evidence isn't only morally wrong, it is also just stupid and ineffective. If we don't know if they have a nuclear program at all, then if they do have one, we can't be sure we know where the hell all the facilities are.
Knowing what we know now (or rather, knowing what we don't know), I think the risks of attacking Iran are greater than the risks of not doing so.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Fox, HuffPo and the Wrong Crazy Person
In my previous post I chastised Fox News's premature identification of the wrong man as the hostage taker in the Clinton campaign office in New Hampshire. I mentioned the Huffington Post as one news source that declared that Leland Eisenberg is the suspect rather than Troy Stanley before Fox News did. As Doug Fisher at the Common Sense Journalism blog points out, the HuffPo was actually just as bad as Fox News.
Read his post here.
Read his post here.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Fox News Botches Hostage Coverage
Earlier today Fox News was quick to declare that the person who took hostages at the Clinton campaign office in New Hampshire is Troy Stanley. They detailed his history of mental illness and problems with police. Even after the Huffington Post reported Stanley isn't the suspect, and after police confirmed the suspect's name as Lee Eisenberg, Fox News kept saying something about Troy Stanley and Leeland Eisenberg possibly being the same man. "He may have several aliases", said one anchor.
This is a major journalistic screw-up. I only noticed Fox News reporting the wrong name, but of course other news outlets might have made the same unprofessional mistake. Even during live coverage there is certain information you must confirm before you report it.
This is a major journalistic screw-up. I only noticed Fox News reporting the wrong name, but of course other news outlets might have made the same unprofessional mistake. Even during live coverage there is certain information you must confirm before you report it.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
60th Anniversary of Partition
Today is a happy anniversary for us Israelis. The United Nations General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to establish two states in mandatory Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab state. This was the vote that brought about the creation of Israel, and the day after the vote a civil war broke out which would become the first part of Israel's War of Independence. Palestinians see it as a tragic anniversary. Even the U.N. sees it as a sad day, marking the plight of Palestinian refugees on this day each year. Israelis and Palestinians can't agree on whether this is a day to celebrate or to mourn, but they don't have to agree. Israelis should recognize that it is a painful day for Palestinians without being sad about it themselves, while Palestinians should recognize it is a happy day for Israelis without being happy themselves or demanding that the other side mourn.
Now, after Annapolis, I am cautiously optimistic that the idea of partition is on its way to fruition (good thing that along the 1967 borders and not the partition plan of 1947, though). I doubt there will be a Palestinian state by the time George W. Bush leaves office, but I do believe there can be significant progress in that direction.
The main flaw in Annapolis was that despite the presence of Arab leaders from countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and others, no real dialogue started between Israel and these countries. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni complained that the Arabs treated her as if she was a leper. Too bad.
Now, after Annapolis, I am cautiously optimistic that the idea of partition is on its way to fruition (good thing that along the 1967 borders and not the partition plan of 1947, though). I doubt there will be a Palestinian state by the time George W. Bush leaves office, but I do believe there can be significant progress in that direction.
The main flaw in Annapolis was that despite the presence of Arab leaders from countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and others, no real dialogue started between Israel and these countries. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni complained that the Arabs treated her as if she was a leper. Too bad.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Blog Readability Test
Just saw this test on The Atheist Jew Blog and decided to check it out. Turns out you have to be a genius to understand my blog. If my site is not beyond your comprehension, you should be flattered. I wonder how the readability is determined. It probably only checks the blog's first page and not previous posts, so this rating probably changes over time.
Something For Everybody in IAEA Report
The latest report by the IAEA regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions is a bit confusing. On the one hand, the agency now knows less than it ever did about the Iranian nuclear program. On the other hand, Iran is now increasingly cooperating with the IAEA. Each side of the debate over whether to do anything against Iran, economically or militarily, can use this ambiguous report to bolster its arguments. Just pick one part of the report and ignore the other.
Now here's the big question: if Iran is cooperating more than before, how come Mohamed ElBaradei's crack team of experts knows less than in the past? Either the cooperation is still very partial, even if better than before, or the IAEA is just incompetent. Which one is it?
Now here's the big question: if Iran is cooperating more than before, how come Mohamed ElBaradei's crack team of experts knows less than in the past? Either the cooperation is still very partial, even if better than before, or the IAEA is just incompetent. Which one is it?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
A Hard Line On Palestininian Refugees
Israel sees danger in PA negotiations unit stance
By Barak Ravid, Ha'aretz
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians are powered by a great many people behind the scenes. However, while the Israeli team is relatively new and just beginning to coalesce, the Palestinians have a well-oiled organization that has been at this task for nearly 10 years: the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU).
The NSU was founded in 1998 following a Palestinian request to the U.K. for assistance in the final-status talks with the Israelis. Britain, Sweden, Norway, Demark and Holland agreed to contribute to the new body, appointing the London-based Adam Smith Institute to head the project. Since 1998, the NSU has received tens of millions of euros from European countries.
THe offices of the NSU are located not far from the Palestinian Authority's government center, the Muqata, in Ramallah. Some 20 legal experts are at work there on the issues of the final-status agreement - Jerusalem, the settlements, water, the refugees, borders and security.
The NSU also deals with other issues involving Israel in the realms of economics, agriculture, transportation, communications and archaeology. A good many of the NSU staff are not Palestinians born and raised in the West Bank or Gaza, but rather in the U.S. or Europe, and others are Israeli Arabs. The head of the NSU is a British citizen.
The Israeli diplomatic and security establishment is said to have a high regard for the NSU staff as experts in international law who wield no small influence on PA policy, both as expressed to the media and in the talks.
However, senior Israeli officials say the NSU is increasingly becoming an obstacle with regard to progress after the Annapolis conference.
Sources in Israel say the NSU has taken an extreme position over the years about the right of return for the Palestinians, saying the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PA do not have a mandate to make concessions on this issue. "We talk about compromise and they speak of justice," a senior official said. [The Hebrew version of this paragraph also calls NSU members "one-staters in a two-state environment" - see here].
"We can see how the papers they write are leading to more extreme positions. Their problem is that they hold the opinions of Palestinians from outside the territories, and they care much more about ideology and justice than finding a solution that will meet the needs of the Palestinian population," he said.
The NSU attitude completely ignores the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the weakness of the PA in the West Bank and has raised more than a few eyebrows in Israel. "They talk about establishment of a Palestinian state within six months as if there is no reality on the ground," a diplomatic official said, refering to the NSU document published in Haaretz last Thursday. "Instead of trying to reach a common denominator and agreements, they turn the talks all along the way into a debating society, waving their rights around, and that doesn't lead anywhere."
The NSU has a representative on the negotiating team, but an Israeli official says, "despite all their talent, it's not certain they will be able to make an impact."
By Barak Ravid, Ha'aretz
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians are powered by a great many people behind the scenes. However, while the Israeli team is relatively new and just beginning to coalesce, the Palestinians have a well-oiled organization that has been at this task for nearly 10 years: the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU).
The NSU was founded in 1998 following a Palestinian request to the U.K. for assistance in the final-status talks with the Israelis. Britain, Sweden, Norway, Demark and Holland agreed to contribute to the new body, appointing the London-based Adam Smith Institute to head the project. Since 1998, the NSU has received tens of millions of euros from European countries.
THe offices of the NSU are located not far from the Palestinian Authority's government center, the Muqata, in Ramallah. Some 20 legal experts are at work there on the issues of the final-status agreement - Jerusalem, the settlements, water, the refugees, borders and security.
The NSU also deals with other issues involving Israel in the realms of economics, agriculture, transportation, communications and archaeology. A good many of the NSU staff are not Palestinians born and raised in the West Bank or Gaza, but rather in the U.S. or Europe, and others are Israeli Arabs. The head of the NSU is a British citizen.
The Israeli diplomatic and security establishment is said to have a high regard for the NSU staff as experts in international law who wield no small influence on PA policy, both as expressed to the media and in the talks.
However, senior Israeli officials say the NSU is increasingly becoming an obstacle with regard to progress after the Annapolis conference.
Sources in Israel say the NSU has taken an extreme position over the years about the right of return for the Palestinians, saying the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PA do not have a mandate to make concessions on this issue. "We talk about compromise and they speak of justice," a senior official said. [The Hebrew version of this paragraph also calls NSU members "one-staters in a two-state environment" - see here].
"We can see how the papers they write are leading to more extreme positions. Their problem is that they hold the opinions of Palestinians from outside the territories, and they care much more about ideology and justice than finding a solution that will meet the needs of the Palestinian population," he said.
The NSU attitude completely ignores the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the weakness of the PA in the West Bank and has raised more than a few eyebrows in Israel. "They talk about establishment of a Palestinian state within six months as if there is no reality on the ground," a diplomatic official said, refering to the NSU document published in Haaretz last Thursday. "Instead of trying to reach a common denominator and agreements, they turn the talks all along the way into a debating society, waving their rights around, and that doesn't lead anywhere."
The NSU has a representative on the negotiating team, but an Israeli official says, "despite all their talent, it's not certain they will be able to make an impact."
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Bill Maher On Universal Healthcare
Some "new rules" by Bill Maher, followed by his views on healthcare (a tip of the hat to The Political Realm, found via BlogRush):
Maher mentions Rudy Giuliani's stance on healthcare. For more on that, take a look at Gert's post on the matter.
Maher mentions Rudy Giuliani's stance on healthcare. For more on that, take a look at Gert's post on the matter.
The October Peace Index
Here are a few interesting findings from the latest Peace Index conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research:
- 51% of Israeli Jews don't think the Annapolis summit will advance the chances of a peace settlement. I'm surprised the skepticism of the last 7 years doesn't make the number of pessimists even higher.
- 65% of Israeli Jews think that most Palestinians haven't accepted the existence of Israel and would destroy it if they could. I believe this, too. The only reason Palestinians are willing to negotiate with us is because they grudgingly see Israel is here to stay. That's fine. Whether they make peace with us for practical or ideological reasons is not very important.
- 71% support collective punishment against Gaza while 12% oppose it. I'm in the opposition here. Collective punishment is counterproductive.
- 63% said Israeli society is in better shape than Palestinian society. Like, duh! Of course we're in better shape. Whether you're a hawk or a dove you can see our quality of life is much higher than that of the Palestinians.
You can read the article by the researchers in Ha'aretz (Hebrew version available here), or read the report from the Steinmetz Center's website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
