The Election Results Game

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

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

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

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

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections

Out of Touch

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

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

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

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

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

How I Learned to Love Irshad Manji

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

In her own words:

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

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

Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Middle East, terrorism

My Potential Choices: Pros and Cons

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

Labor

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

Meretz

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

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

Pros

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

Cons

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

The Retired Pensioners (Ha'Gimlaim)

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections

Young Secular Israelis - Vote!

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

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


Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Israeli Elections

Autistic vs. Education Experts: Success Is Punished

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

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

Tags: autism, education

Just Blame It On the Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nuclear Differences Between Israel and Iran

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

Here's the English version:

Time to come clean on the bomb
By Avner Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Pollard Group Has Mock Kadima Site

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


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

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


Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Kadima, Jonathan Pollard

The Lesser of Evils

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use Bullets Next Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Israel, Israeli Politics, Politics, Disengagement

The Stripes on Israel's Flag

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

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

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Hamas

The Social Dangers of Not Vaccinating Kids

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

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

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

Tags: autism, mercury, thimerosal, health

Israelis Ignore Pat Robertson

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

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

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

Die, Sharon, For Your Own Sake

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

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


Ariel Sharon, Israel, Israeli Politics

The Prime Minister's Brain

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

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

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

Ariel Sharon, Israel, Israeli Politics

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