Let Pro-Gaza Activists Through

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has announced that the hundreds of activists on the eight pro-Gaza ships headed towards the Strip will not be allowed to reach their destination. Instead, they will be rerouted to Ashdod, where the activists will be arrested and deported, while the aid itself will be inspected and then sent to Gaza through the UN.

Why do this? The fact that the materials will reach their destination will be drowned out by the pictures of hundreds of international activists being arrested. The activists will have gotten exactly what they wish - to make Israel look bad, which seems to be equally or more important to them than helping the Palestinians (otherwise, they'd take Noam Shalit up on his offer to support them and mediate with the government on their behalf in exchange for them delivering a letter and a package to his son Gilad, as reported by Ha'aretz).

I'd say the Israeli Navy should inspect the ships' cargo out at sea, and as long as there's no weaponry on board, allow the ships and activists to reach Gaza. That way, Israel avoids a PR disaster. Also, not detaining and deporting hundreds of people would save our treasury a fortune.

Umberto Eco Opposes the Boycott of Israel

Italian author Umberto Eco came out against the boycott of Israel in L'espresso. A full Hebrew translation is available here. I couldn't find a full English translation, but parts of it were published in the English edition of Ha'aretz:

"A brochure circulated in Turin by the Italian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel claims that most Israeli universities, academics and intellectuals have supported and are supporting their governments ... and that Israeli universities are used for the most important weapons development research programs, centered on nanotechnology and on technological and psychological means for subjugating and controlling the civilian population," Eco wrote in L'espresso magazine last weekend. "I don't remotely agree with the policy of the Israeli government ... but I find the claim that most Israeli academics are actively supportive of their governments to be deceitful."

"I would understand," Eco continued, "if the physics department at the University of Rome or at Oxford decided not to cooperate with their colleagues in the same departments at universities in Tehran or Pyongyang if it turned out that the latter were involved in developing a nuclear bomb. But I would still find it difficult to understand why these universities should also sever ties with the departments of Korean art history or classical Persian literature."

The Idiocy of the Chomsky Affair

Prof. Noam Chomsky should have been let into the West Bank. Yes, he's a harsh critic of Israel and yes, he has met with terrorists such as Hizbullah head Hassan Nassrallah, but he isn't a terrorist himself. During his visit to Birzeit University, there's no chance he'd do anything to aid Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other violent group.

My main objection to Chomsky's denial of entry is on the grounds of freedom of speech, but those who don't care about silly things like rights should think about this: Not allowing someone into the Palestinian territories only because of the criticism of Israel he'd voice while there is ridiculous, since many of the locals say much worse things about Israel than he does. Not allowing a person into Israel proper (which wasn't the case with Chomsky, who was planning on visiting the West Bank only) is equally as dumb, since we have so many left wing professors saying terrible things about Israel at Israeli universities every day. Another reason that this is dumb is that a person denied entry like this usually gets more attention than a person who goes in.

Sometimes, denying someone entry is alright. Norman Finkelstein, who is much more extreme than Chomsky and seems committed to the destruction of Israel, was barred from entering Israel a few months ago and I think that in that case it was the correct decision. He's quite the rabble-rouser who could have actually incited Palestinians to act violently against Israel (and he's not against violence). Noam Chomsky ain't no rabble-rouser, and probably neither is the Spanish clown, Ivan Prado, who was denied entry at Ben-Gurion Airport last week.

U.S. Judicial Appointments: An Israeli Columnist's Take

Ze'ev Segal, Ha'aretz's legal affairs expert, wrote a column I whole heartedly agree with. Here it is in Hebrew, and here it is in English (see below as well).

Appointing a friend

By Ze'ev Segal, Ha'aretz, May 17, 2010
 

Last Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama appeared before the American people and announced that he was nominating his friend, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, as a supreme court justice. The caveat against "appointing your friends," which applies in Israel regarding the appointment of judges, seems foreign to American ears.

Obama met Kagan in the early 1990s when the two taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He appointed her solicitor general about a year ago. If the Senate confirms her nomination, Kagan, who is 50 years old and Jewish, will join what Richard Nixon called the most powerful institution in America. It was a court ruling in the Watergate case that led to his resignation. Kagan studied law at Harvard Law School, where Obama also got a degree. The two, both outstanding students, were editors at different times of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Editors of the journal have gone on to greatness in American jurisprudence and politics.

Before her appointment as solicitor general, Kagan was for six years dean of Harvard Law School, the first woman in the position. The American press is currently full of profiles of Kagan, which have mentioned her popularity among students at Harvard and how she argued with the rabbi at her bat mitzvah about the nature of the ceremony. (They came to an understanding.)

When Obama presented her to the nation, he spoke about her deep understanding of the law and about how she viewed the law not as an "intellectual exercise" but as a highly influential force in people's lives. In her remarks, Kagan spoke about how the law "protects our most fundamental rights and freedoms" and is "the foundation of our democracy." During the confirmation process in the Senate, her stance on ideological issues will become public, including her views on the right to an abortion, the legitimate means for fighting terrorism, the limits on freedom of expression and freedom of information, and the president's authority vis-a-vis other branches of government.

Kagan has not spoken much on issues the public is divided over, and her academic writings are few. She is known for not having a firm agenda and for being open to a range of views. At the same time, Obama expects that she will tip the balance in favor of democratic values. His stance in advocating limits on corporate contributions to political parties and candidates was rejected by the Supreme Court in January by a vote of five to four. A majority of justices rejected the position taken by the solicitor general, Elena Kagan.

Outsiders observing the way federal judges are appointed in the United States can't help but be both impressed and put off. The process is absolutely political. Translated into the Israeli context, it would involve nomination by the prime minister and confirmation by a majority in the Knesset - this seems inappropriate without any question. In Israel, the suggestion to increase politicians' influence in selecting judges was rejected by a broad consensus. The current system for selecting judges by a committee of two government ministers, two MKs, three supreme court justices and two members of the Israel Bar Association seems attractive compared to the United States.

On the other hand, the American system provides appropriate transparency that reaches a climax with the public questioning of candidates for the bench by the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the hearings, candidates are asked about their views on matters of principle such as judicial activism, balancing fundamental rights and limitations on oversight of the executive branch.

In Israel, the process is hidden from public view. Taking into consideration the fact that the Supreme Court decides controversial questions of principle, it is appropriate at least that members of the selection committee have a deep knowledge of the candidates' stance on fundamental ideological issues, as in the United States. These include the appropriate scope of judicial review over the constitutionality of laws, and judicial discretion in sentencing. One might also more seriously consider a public process before justices are selected for the Israeli Supreme Court, such as providing detailed background about the candidates' lives.

The promise that the Supreme Court will reflect the makeup of Israeli society is essential to strengthen public trust in the court, which despite an erosion of its status, is still at the top of the charts when it comes to faith in government institutions. This must be preserved.

"Lost": Thoughts and Theories About "Across the Sea"

The "Lost" finale is just nine days away. I watched "Across the Sea" last night and I have some spoilery stuff to say about it, so if you haven't seen it, don't read the rest of this post.

The SCOTUS Bat Mitzvah Syndrome

I started writing a post about the differences between the methods used in Israel and the United States to select Supreme Court justices, and how I'd take some elements from each. Then, after I had already written a paragraph, I decided to see if I've ever written about the subject. Turns out I already did, back in 2005 when Justice Alito was confirmed.

Okay, so I have something to add to what I wrote back then. One of the few things that are better in the American confirmation process than in the Israeli method is that the public in the States (at least the part of it that follows politics and/or legal news) knows a lot more about its justices than Israelis do. However, this sometimes goes too far. I call this the SCOTUS Bat Mitzvah Syndrome, named after an article in the New York Times about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's Bat-Mitzvah. Do we really need to know that she was the first girl to ask to have a Bat Mitzvah at her Orthodox synagogue almost 40 years ago?

I like that in the States, people know a lot about the nominees' judicial philosophies and their approach to the law. On the other hand, I don't think I need to know all kinds of personal details like what kind of student she was in second grade or how nice she was to her staff of student reporters when she worked as a college newspaper editor.

The May 2010 War and Peace Index

There are some very interesting results in the latest War and Peace Index poll (Hebrew/English). Israelis see the crisis between Israel and the United States as over, and blame Barack Obama for it ever happening more than they blame Benjamin Netanyahu. Oddly, 56% of those polled said Netanyahu was handling relations with the US well or very well. So what if he hasn't shown any signs of budging on the Palestinian issue, which is at the center of US-Israel relations right now? My fellow Israelis still think he's doing swell.

Israelis aren't crazy about Obama, but don't hate him either. 43% think he's neutral towards Israel, which is similar to a previous poll. By comparison, a majority of Israelis found George W. Bush and Bill Clinton favorable towards Israel. Also in today's poll, 55% said Obama is favorable or very favorable toward the Arab world. I'd say that to many Israelis, if not most of them, being favorable toward the Arabs is not a very positive thing.

Also of interest is the fact that 73% of Israelis think Israel will continue to be criticized no matter what it does. The poll says a majority among all of Israel's parties says so, with the lowest percentage coming from Meretz, 55%. Does this mean that voters for Chadash (the Arab-Jewish Communist party) and other Arab parties have an even higher percentage than 55% thinking that Israel will always be criticized, or were the pollsters only referring to the Jewish parties?

Anyway, this vast majority isn't surprising. I, too, think that Israel will be criticized even when it does the right thing. Even when the two-state solution will be implemented, we'll still be criticized, but a lot less.

Palestinian Israelis, the Arab World and Gadhafi

I usually don't understand it when Israeli authorities deny Palestinian citizens of Israel the right to travel to Arab countries. They are part of the Arab world, and should be able to interact with their fellow Arabs. This is especially true when it comes to cultural interaction. When the government recently denied author Ala Hlehel the right to travel to Lebanon to accept a reward at an Arab literary festival, the Supreme Court rightly stepped in and allowed him to go to Lebanon.

There should be certain limits to the right to travel to Arab countries, though. Meeting with leaders and terrorist groups to plot against Israel should not be tolerated.

That's not exactly what the delegation of Arab Knesset Members did when it visited Muammar Gadhafi in Libya this week. It was just bizzare. Why suck up to such an eccentric, ruthless leader? I don't think the MK's should be punished for this trip. It doesn't seem anything threatening to Israel came out of it. The only thing that was threatened was these particular MK's reputations.

Salman Masalha, an Israeli Arab, expressed his own frustration in yesterday's Haaretz. It's an interesting read. Here it is in English, and here it is in Hebrew.

Mourning on the Anniversary of Israeli Independence

In Israel, Independence Day is oddly coupled with Memorial Day, the day we remember our fallen soldiers. First comes Memorial Day, followed immediately by Independence Day. Jewish holidays begin at sundown of the day before, and even the civil holidays and remembrance days in Israel follow this tradition. For this reason, at 8 PM sharp on the fourth day of the Hebrew month of Iyar, we go from manic to depressive. We stop crying and start celebrating.

This odd coupling has created a situation where our public schools don't celebrate independece. They can't do that on the day before Independence Day, because that's Memorial Day and schools have ceremonies for the dead. Some schools might have celebrations on the day after Independence Day, but many don't.

Another oddity of the Memorial Day/Independence Day duo is that by law, if the 4th of Iyar falls on a Sunday, then Memorial Day is pushed to Monday so Memorial Day Eve would not come immediately after the Sabbath, and then Independence Day is pushed to Tuesday. That means that, absurdly, on the anniversary of the declaration of independence, the 5th of Iyar, Israelis don't celebrate but rather mourn. That's the situation this year.

Imagine if every few years the United States would celebrate Independence Day on the 5th of July and held a day of mourning on the 4th of July. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Well, that's how we do it in Israel.

"Lost" Theorizing: What the Timelines Are

If you haven't watched "Happily Ever After", the eleventh episode of the sixth season of "Lost", you might not want to continue reading. Spoilers ahead.

Anat Kam: Whistleblower or Spy?

Following a request by the prosecution, the court has lifted most of the gag order concerning the "Mysterious Security Affair", which has been in place for 4 months. I didn't expect to learn anything new, since I thought the foreign press has already published everything, but I was surprised to find some details that, if true and not prosecutors' spin, have given me more confidence in our justice system.

Until now, I thought the story was this: Anat Kam, a young gossip columnist, gave a couple of secret documents to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau in which Major General Yair Naveh, head of the Central Command, wrote illegal orders and instructions allowing soldiers to kill terrorist suspects even if they don't pose a threat to the forces. Kam was a whistleblower revealing the army's disregard for Israeli law and our own supreme court's decisions while Uri Blau was a good investigative reporter who had to flee from prosecutors who are unfamiliar with the concept of a free press.

Now, after reading the new information, the government sounds a lot less sinister, and Anat Kam a lot less innocent. It is not just two or three documents that she has. She is accused of stealing about 2,000 top secret documents, with very sensitive information. Most of it isn't about illegal actions by the army but about operational plans and troop movements. The most sensitive stuff there is. Our enemies would love to get their hands on this.

The gag order was even more counterproductive than I thought. Not only did many Israelis know about this affair from the internet, they got a distorted picture. If the accusations against Anat Kam are true, she deserves a few years in jail.

Uri Blau is now in negotiations with authorities over whether he'd be forced to testify against Kam and what materials that he got from her he'll have to return and destroy. He shouldn't have to testify. The big question in my mind is what documents he still has. If he has top secret information that would endanger soldiers, he should return it or destroy it. He shouldn't be forced to return materials that are uncomfortable to the army but don't endanger Israeli security.

Say No to the Gag Order

The freedom of the press in Israel is under attack. No less. I can't elaborate because of a gag order on the case. I'm pretty sure the authorities wouldn't do anything against a lowly, almost completely unread blogger like myself, but I still won't risk it. All I can say for now is something that I'm pretty sure doesn't fall under the gag order: an Israeli journalist has fled the country and will not return until authorities guarantee he will not be prosecuted. Sounds bad enough, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that's not all of it.

On April 12 the supreme court will hear Israeli media outlets' arguments in favor of allowing the press to report on this matter. Their main argument will certainly be that the Israeli public has a right to hear about this. It might have some aspects that should not be revealed because of national security, but most of the info should be out there - including the names of people involved. A second argument would be that foreign media has already reported this story and any Israeli with an internet connection (which is almost everybody) can find it all on-line, as I have. Israel's leading newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, even published an article decrying the gag order without giving any details, except for telling people to google "Israeli journalist gag" (in English).

I believe the supreme court will remove the gag order. I see it as the only option, if our democracy and freedom of the press is still strong.

It's hard to describe why this gag order and the whole case behind it is so undemocratic without going into details, so I guess I'll just have to to wait until I'll be able to say whatever I want.

Update (April 8): The gag order has been removed. See my newer post on the matter for details on the Anat Kam-Uri Blau Security Affair (yes, I can name them now).

Obama Just Earned His Nobel

Although I voted for Barack Obama, I wasn't too crazy about him. I thought he wasn't prepared to lead the United States. When he won his Nobel Prize for peace, I thought it was ridiculous, and still think he shouldn't have won in 2009. Obama has proved me wrong about his preparedness for the job, at least when it comes to domestic issues. What he has done with his health insurance reform is huge. That alone now makes him worthy, in my opinion, of a peace prize. He may not have resolved international conflicts, but  his actions will bring about an improvement in the health of millions of Americans and will prevent the deaths of countless people who currently can't afford care for their curable diseases. This will save no less lives than bringing an end to a bloody war.

A Question About Ambassador Oren

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for quite a while but never blogged about. Ever since Michael B. Oren's appointment as Israel's ambassodor to the United States was announced last year I've been thinking that this is a problematic choice. I have nothing against Oren himself. He's a right-winger, but not a nut, and has proved himself to be quite a capable diplomat, even though he was an academic before he was chosen for the post. What bothers me about him is what some might see as a technicality, and others will see as a major problem.

Michael Oren was born in the United States, and from the time he immigrated to Israel and until his appointment as ambassador he was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. The United States does not allow its own citizens to serve as a foreign county's representatives in the States, and so, Oren had to renounce his American citizenship to be accepted by the United States as Israel's ambassador.

People in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office said that the fact that Oren is American makes him understand American politics and diplomacy better, and so he's better equipped to serve Israel's interests in America. That might be true. But wouldn't such an appointment also offend many Americans priding themselves as patriots, who would see the new ambassador's renunciation of his American citizenship, and thus his American identity, in favor of serving a foreign government, as an act of treason on his part?

Ambassador Oren has been in office since the summer of 2009. I haven't heard of any American officials expressing their discomfort with his status as a former American. Still, the question remains whether there are people whose support Israel needs who are quietly offended by this.

Obama and Israelis: The Myth of Hostility

Long before Barack Obama was elected president, this notion arose out of nowhere that Israelis didn't like the guy. Maybe people expected Israelis to dislike anybody with "Hussein" in his name, even though King Hussein of Jordan was quite popular here. Yes, Israelis preferred Hillary Clinton, whose husband Bill is still probably the most popular former American president in Israel, and John McCain. But time and again we see that Israelis aren't as hostile towards Obama as people think. In the Democratic primary in 2008, Americans in Israel gave Obama 45% of their votes.

The recent crisis between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government is an excellent opportunity to check the pulse of Israelis' attitudes towards Obama. According to a poll published by Haaretz yesterday, Obama may not be as popular as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but Israelis don't show hostility towards him either.

When asked how Obama relates to Israel, 51% said he is fair, 18% said friendly, and 21% said hostile. With the two previous presidents, the vast majority would have said they're friendly. But according to the hostility myth, you'd expect to see at least 80% of respondents saying Obama is hostile. That just isn't the case.

One thing Obama should be worried about if he cares about Israeli public opinion is the question of anti-Semitism. While the majority, 56%, don't think he's anti-Semitic, more than a quarter (27%) said that he is. That's a much higher number than previous presidents would get, and it is also ridiculous, considering the fact that his most trusted advisors are Jewish.

For furthur analysis of the Haaretz poll and other weekend polls, here's Daneil Levy's take in Foreign Policy.

Obama vs. Netanyahu

I usually don't like it when my two countries' relations with each other get strained. Now, though, I'm just elated about the mini-crisis we're in following the East Jerusalem construction announcement that came out while Vice President Joe Biden was here. Biden publicly censured the Israeli government, and voiced his disapproval in private meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a 40-minute phone conversation with Netanyahu in which she reprimanded him. The PM has apologized, saying the timing was off and that he plans to make sure such announcements are never made without his say-so. He doesn't seem to understand that the timing is the minor issue here. The problem is the construction itself, which isn't just a slap in the Americans' and Palestinians' faces but also against Israel's interests. Even more worrying is the fact that even some Labor Party ministers don't understand what the big deal is.

So, why am I happy about this controversy? Netanyahu deserves a good whooping. The opposition is too fragmented to forcefully and effectively speak out against the current government's policies. The Labor Party, which claimed to join the coalition in order to be a moderating force, is being dragged rightward rather than dragging Netanyahu leftward. The electorate may not be crazy about Netanyahu, but according to polls, if the elections were held today the Likud would have an even larger delegation in the Knesset. Nothing much is really threatening Netanyahu into action. Perhaps some kind of ultimatum from Obama is the only way to convince Bibi to prove that he really does support the two state solution.

I'm against an imposed solution, but some prodding in the right direction can be helpful.

Livni Warns Against Fascism

I really don't understand how this didn't make headlines: Head of the opposition and Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni warned in an interview aired last night on "Uvda" ("Fact") with Ilana Dayan that the policies of the current government may lead to either anarchy or the desire for a strong, fascist leader. She accused the leaders of the three main coalition parties, Netanyahu, Lieberman and Barak, of joining forces with her party's number 2, Shaul Mofaz, in an attempt to break up Kadima, thus eliminating any serious opposition within the Knesset.

Contempt of Court

A former deputy attorney general recently prepared a report listing several cases in which the powers that be - either Israel's government and its agencies or local authorities - have ignored the rulings of the supreme court and lower courts. I'd say it is time for the judges to send people to jail for contempt of court. I don't know if the law allows jailing in such cases, but it certainly should.

Eli Reifman, a businessman, has been repeatedly sent to jail this last year for contempt of court when he refused to transfer his shares in a high-tech company, Emblaze, to a court-appointed special manager. Just like private citizens get fined or jailed when they defy the judges, so should public officials. Start by fining mayors and officials in the government ministries responsible for the lack of implementation of judicial orders. Then, if that doesn't work, start giving out jail time.

Perhaps Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat would be the first public official to be sent to jail for contempt of court. He seems determined not to comply with supreme court decisions, and he's too rich to be hurt by heavy fines.

Finding Roots on Television

My previous post was about a new NBC show, "Parenthood", which reminded me of another new show about to debut on that much-maligned network on Friday, March 5. Every episode of "Who Do You Think You Are", a documentary series based on a British show of the same name, takes a different celebrity on a journey to find their roots and uncover unknown facts about their ancestors. Several international versions of this show have been produced in different countries, including in Israel.

I've been fascinated with the Israeli version, where every episode and every celebrity's story and reactions have been very different, even in cases when there were similar family histories (two stories included ancestors serving in the Hungarian Labor Battalions, and in all four episodes that have aired so far, the story of at least one side of the family involved the Holocaust). The episode with comedian Tal Friedman was laugh-out-loud funny, while other celebrities were more somber. Friedman retraced his mother's steps as a young child running across the French-Swiss border alone, only with an even younger boy by her side. Actor Ohad Knoler discovered that one of the scenes in "Munich", a film he appeared in, was filmed in a building designed by his own great-uncle and once owned by his family. Journalist Gabby Gazit discovered the horrible conditions both his parents lived through during the Holocaust. Writer Shifra Horn discovered she was descended from the Moroccan rabbi who re-awakened the Jewish community in Buchara, Uzbekistan. Each one of these celebrities discovered much more information about their families.

Two episodes are left. The promo for Thursday's episode promises actress and TV presenter Michal Yanay will discover a horrible secret. Then a week later, TV psychoanalyst Yoram Yuval, will explore his own roots as well.

The celebrities on the American version will be Lisa Kudrow, who also serves as producer, Sarah Jessica Parker, Susan Sarandon, Spike Lee, Matthew Broderick, Brooke Shields and Emmitt Smith.

Asperger's and Autism on TV

"Parenthood", a new NBC show based on the 1989 Steve Martin film, will feature a child with Asperger's Syndrome. The pilot episode will depict the child being diagnosed and how his parents deal with this. I'm curious to see how well the show portrays Asperger's. Alan Sepinwall, TV critic for the New Jersey Star-Ledger, has an interesting article about Aspie characters on TV.

It seems to me that of all the autism spectrum disorders, Asperger's Syndrome is way over-represented. When it comes to high-functioning autism, there is nothing but AS on television and in films these days, at least among those with autistic traits who are declared as autistic and not just hinted as such. Even clearly non-Asperger characters such as the heart surgeon on "Grey's Anatomy" and the lawyer from Boston Legal, both mentioned in Sepinwall's article, are called Aspies. The surgeon seems like she has a different kind of autism, but the lawyer seems to have an assortment of mental problems that don't have much to do with autism, including David E. Kelly's favorite whacky disorder, Tourette's Syndrome.