Oskar Schell Goes to the Movies

I read Jonathan Safran Foer's novel "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" four and a half years ago. I absolutely loved it. I even posted a review on this blog (which I don't remember ever doing with other books), and discussed the question of whether or not Oskar is autistic (I said no, most commenters said yes). For some reason, the latter post is the most popular one on my blog, with people reaching it through Google searches every day. Apparently, the question is on the minds of many (though it seems like often it has been assigned to them for a school paper).

Now there's a movie adaptation out, which is even nominated for a Best Film Oscar. I have only seen a couple of trailers, since the movie itself hasn't opened in Israel yet. The reviews are mixed, with some critics saying it is a manipulative weepy.

From the trailer and other things I've read, the movie has done away with any ambiguity about autism/Asperger's, and even mentions that Oskar was assessed for Asperger's but the diagnosis was inconclusive. I'm not too happy about that. I think it would have been better to let moviegoers decide for themselves, just like the novels lets readers decide for themselves. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not that hurts the film.

I'll certainly write about the movie again after I see it.

Newt Gingrich: America's Netanyahu

Conventional wisdom about the presidential elections looks like it may be wrong again, just like it was wrong in 2008. Newt Gingrich just might end up being the Republican nominee, rather than Mitt Romney. Even scarier, the guy might get himself elected president.

If this happens, my two countries, Israel and the United States, will have chief executives who are each other's clones. Politically, they're both on the extremely conservative side (though in Netanyahu's case, that's mainly true about economics and hawkishness, and less about social issues). That's probably why both of them are backed by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson: Adelson has given millions to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC and owns a free Israeli daily, "Yisrael Hayom", which many consider Netanyahu's unofficial spokesman.

The differences don't stop there. Netanyahu and Gingrich are both married to their third wives. Gingrich cheated on Wife No. 1 with Wife No. 2, and then on Wife No. 2 with Wife No. 3. As far as I know, Netanyahu was already divorced when he met Wife No. 3, Sarah, but in the early 90's he admitted to cheating on her when he thought a sex tape was about to be made public (in an interview with Sarah, which everybody compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton's famous interview).

In today's New York Times, Frank Bruni writes about many of Gingrich's negative character traits. When I read the article, all I could think of was the fact that it almost sounded like Bruni was talking about Netanyahu. Gingrich and Netanyahu like to falsely insert themselves into important events of the late 20th century (for example, Netanyahu once reminisced about Rehavam Ze'evi's time in his cabinet, even though Ze'evi never joined Bibi's government; other times, he claimed his first government proposed all kinds of initiatives that were actually started under other prime ministers). Also, Netanyahu and Gingrich regularly attack the elites, and just as Bruni can't find a definition of "elite" where Gingrich isn't part of it, I can't find a definition of the word that doesn't include Netanyahu.

As Bruni notes, Gingrich trumpets his Roman Catholicism and attacks secularists, despite having had a six-year affair with his current wife. Netanyahu, too, has whispered in the ears of rabbis that the left has "forgotten how to be Jewish", although he himself is far from being a righteous religious Jew.

I could go on: their animosity toward the media, except when it helps them; their love of deregulation; their de-facto opposition to the two-state solution, and much much more.

Oh, and there's one more similarity: I really would like neither one to be in government.

Hacker Wars

In today's Haaretz (Hebrew edition only), Assaf Ronel criticizes the Israeli hackers who published the credit card details of innocent Saudi civilians in retaliation for a Saudi hacker revealing innocent Israelis' credit card information. He also argues that Israeli police should investigate the Israeli hackers.

Ronel is absolutely right. Responding to criminal acts with criminal acts of our own should not be our way. The police should arrest and prosecute those who hacked into Saudi websites and stole credit card numbers.

There is a lot of idiocy in this whole affair. Calling hacking Cyberterrorism, as our genius Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has, is just stupid. It's a nuisance, a crime and might cost credit card companies money, but it isn't terrorism. You don't fear for your life, and there are very easy ways to avoid falling prey to hackers (like using PayPal, for instance, or only very trustworthy Israeli websites). So chill, Ayalon.

"The West Wing" Holy Land Map

A Palestinian friend of mine linked to the clip above on Facebook, and I later saw it pop up on various anti-Israel sites. In case the video disappears due to copyright infringement, here's a description: The clip shows the fictional President Bartlett of "The West Wing" receiving a 1709 map of what is now Israel, which is titled "Palestine/Canaan/Holy Land", but does not mention Israel. The president loves the gift and wants to put it up on the wall, but his staff members are afraid of the political and diplomatic fall-out.

The anti-Israel crowd seems to love this clip. I love this clip, too, but not for the same reason. Anti-Zionists might see this clip as suggesting that the area doesn't belong to the Jews, because Israel didn't exist before 1948, but the geographical designation "Palestine" did. Also, they might see it as suggesting that the Israel Lobby is so powerful that the president can't put up such a benign map.

I don't think the clip is necessarily suggesting any of that. It's brilliant because it shows how politically charged history and geography can be. The way you teach history and the way you draw maps (both in how you label them and the boundaries you mark) is bound to piss someone off. It could have been a map of the UK, showing all of Ireland as part of it, or a map labeling present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as one united India, or any other explosive situation. Perhaps they chose Israel as the best-known example, or because it would make sense for a Christian to want to put up a map of the Holy Land, but not of another foreign region of the world.

1948 vs. 1967

Prof. Asher Susser of Tel-Aviv University was interviewed on the news show "London and Kirschenbaum" last week. He said interesting things that are worth repeating. The gist of it was that there are two "cases" in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the Case of 1948 and the Case of 1967. The latter is easier to resolve, and indeed, the two sides have come closer on '67-related issues over the years: the two-state solution, borders, and even the question of Jerusalem. The Case of 1948, however, seems harder to resolve, if it is even possible at all. Over the last few years the gaps have even widened over the issues stemming from the very birth of the State of Israel: Palestinian refugees, the Jewish character of Israel, the question of Israeli responsibility for the Nakba, etc.

So if we realize that this is the reality, what is to be done? Susser suggested in the interview that Israel should withdraw unilaterally from most of the West Bank, except for the large settlement blocs just on the green line. I strongly disagree with this solution. I opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and in hindsight, I was absolutely right. Unilateralism is a disaster that awards and encourages terrorism like the rocket fire from the Strip.

It is exactly this inability to resolve the Case of 1948 that makes unilateralism dangerous.  If we leave the West Bank and semi-solve some of the 1967 problems without any agreement, the Palestinians will be encouraged to keep fighting for 1948. We need an agreement - not because it will absolutely prevent Palestinians from reigniting the flames of conflict, but because it will be our insurance in case they do. If Palestinians violate the agreement, the world will hold them responsible.

So what's the solution? That's the million dollar question and I don't have an answer.

Since the interview was in Hebrew, I looked for a similar link in English. Here is a lecture Prof. Susser gave at a conference at Tel-Aviv University a few months ago, where he pretty much discusses the same issue. It's almost 20 minutes long, but it is worth it. He talks more specifically about 1948 vs. 1967 near the end, at the 1 hour 7 minute mark, if you don't want to hear the whole thing.

Tel-Aviv: Gay Capital of the World

Those who like to scream "pinkwashing" (i.e., using gay rights to cover up Israel's human rights violations) are going to blow a gasket. Tel-Aviv has won a competition for best gay city in the world. The contest was run by American Airlines. Congrats Tel-Aviv!

Is it the most homosexual-friendly place in the world? Probably not, but it is one of the top, and though I am neither gay or live in Tel-Aviv, I assume it is the best, most accepting place in Israel and in the Middle East in general.

Those who claim this is pinkwashing don't seem to understand that Israel is a complicated country. We have both positive and negative sides, and talking about the positive doesn't excuse the negative.

Predicting 2012

The first week of January is almost over, and I haven't done the futile annual ritual of trying to predict the future. Let me guess what might happen, some of it wishful thinking, some of it I hope won't come true (you figure out which is which):

• Israel's Attorney General will make a final decision to indict Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman will resign from the cabinet, but will stay chairman of Yisrael Beitenu and will not resign from the Knesset. Faina Kirschenbaum will become Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in his place. Lieberman will decide to stay in the coalition instead of bringing about early elections.
• It will be Ehud Barak's last full year as a member of the government. That will be the case for all ministers from his Atzmaut (Independence) Party.
• Benjamin Netanyahu will win the Likud leadership elections, since he won't have any serious opposition. In Kadima, Tzippi Livni will be forced to have leadership elections, which she will lose to Shaul Mofaz. Livni will leave Kadima with a few other MKs and form a new party. And here's a prediction for 2013: this split will lead to neither Kadima or Livni's new party winning any seats in the 19th Knesset.
• In the United States, Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee. He will pick Mike Huckabee as his running-mate (Romney-Huckabee was also my erroneous prediction in 2008). They will lose to the Obama-Biden ticket, but Republicans will gain control of the Senate and retain a majority in the House of Representatives.
• Iran will develop a nuclear warhead. Nobody attacks them before or after this happens.
• The new elected president of Egypt will put the peace treaty with Israel to a referendum, scheduled for around the same time as Mubarak's execution. The people will decide to declare the treaty null and void. The United States will halt all aid to Egypt, while Avigdor Lieberman, now the former Foreign Minister, will threaten that Israel will conquer the Sinai Peninsula for a third time in history.
• Syria's civil war will drag on all year with no foreign intervention and no end in sight.

Time's Person of the Year 2012: You Read It Here First

A day before 2012 begins, I can already predict with 90% certainty who Time Magazine will choose as Person of the Year 2012. I can't give you a name, but I can give you a title: President-elect of the United States. Here's why:

• Every president since Franklin Roosevelt, except for the unelected Gerald Ford, has been Time's Person of the Year at least once, either during their presidency or in the election year.
• Between 1932 and 2008, there have been 20 election years. During half of them, the presidential winner was POY. That includes seven of the last ten election years (since 1972), including the last three in a row.
• If Obama is defeated, the chances of the president-elect to be POY are even greater. Since 1972, presidential election years in which the winning candidate was not selected by Time were only years when the White House did not switch parties: Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984, the election of then-VP George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996.

2011 Predictions: How Did I Do?

Last January, I wrote a post listing some things I hoped would happen, even if I didn't believe they would, and a list of predictions. My list of fantasies was, well, fantastical, and didn't come true. On the other hand, some of my predictions weren't that far off.

I predicted the Labor Party would leave the Israeli government, but that the coalition will remain strong without it. Of course, I did not see Ehud Barak's abandonment of the party coming. Maybe that's why I was wrong to think the Laborites would hold leadership elections.

I was right about Netanyahu not reaching any peace agreement with the Palestinians or Syrians, unfortunately, though I didn't predict the Syrian riots or the release of Gilad Shalit.

All in all, it was a shitty year. I can't remember the last time a year ended and I didn't think it was a bad year when it comes to world events (rather than my personal life, which isn't bad at all). Perhaps it was 1999? 1994?

Jewish Terrorists Are Just Like Palestinian Terrorists

The IDF should be allowed to shoot extremist Jews who attack them. Yesterday, settlers attacked an army base and a group of soldiers, including a brigade commander and his deputy. The deputy was injured when his car was stoned. He would have been justified had he shot those who were putting his life in danger.

Yesterday, a mosque in Jerusalem was torched. Today, police officers trying to arrest people involved in yesterday's incidents were themselves assaulted.

It's time to stop talking and start clamping down on these bastards.

Told You So

Time Magazine announced their Person of the Year 2011. Just as I said they should, they picked "The Protester". Of course, it didn't take a genius to predict this choice. Unlike fiction, reality rarely has an all-encompassing theme. This year it did. No "Year in Review" would be complete without the angry demonstrations around the world.

Good choice, Time! But then again, they didn't really have any other worthy choice, did they?

Denying the Existence of a People

Newt Gingrich's statement about the Palestinians being an invented people is, at the very least, unhelpful. There is no denying that the Palestinians exist now, and it doesn't really matter if they became a national group in 1948 or centuries earlier.

Palestinians are right to be angry at Gingrich. However, they need to take a moment to think about their own hypocrisy. They regularly deny the existence of the Jewish people, claiming that Jews are merely a religious group, not a national one. Even the most moderate Palestinians hold this view, and it is one of the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East.

Neither Palestinian or Jewish peoplehood should be denied.

Lieberman Defends Russian Elections

While most of the Western world is questioning whether the recent Russian parliamentary elections were fair, and while Russian protesters are being brutally suppressed, Vladimir Putin has one ally he can depend on. That would be Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who vouched for the election's fairness and democratic practices. He should know, as fellow Yisrael Beitenu member Faina Kirschenbaum was an official foreign observer, and she claims there was nothing wrong with the election.

Lieberman, Kirschenbaum and Putin believe in democracy as the rule of the majority. The rule of the current majority, when they're part of it, that is. Then, the majority can do anything to make sure it stays the majority - starve human rights NGOs of funds, toss out votes cast for the wrong candidates, etc.

Yes, I'm sure the recent Russian elections were a model of democracy. Putinistic democracy. It is a model Lieberman would like to implement in Israel. He, members of his party, members of Likud and even members of Kadima, are working on it as we speak. He won't succeed.

Calling All Israeli Expats

A couple of months ago, I first saw the heavy handed ads calling for Israeli citizens to return home.  A friend had posted them on Facebook, saying he found it disgusting. Many answered with equal dismay - all Israelis, but as far as I know, none living abroad.

What's the problem? In one ad, a child calls his sleeping father with the word "daddy", but the father only wakes up to the Hebrew "Aba". In another, a woman looks at her computer and sees the word "Yizkor" ("Remember"). There's also a yahrzeit candle on the table. Her American boyfriend, unaware that these are symbols of Memorial Day in Israel, doesn't understand why she is sad. The third, most irritating ad, shows a girl having a video chat with her grandparents, who are sitting in front of a Chanukiah (Hanukah Menorah). They ask her what holiday it is and she says it's Christmas. You can watch the first two ads below. The third has been removed from YouTube.

I'm not surprised by the uproar the now discontinued ads caused. I'm just surprised by how long it took Americans to notice it. I'm also perplexed by Immigration Minister Sofa Landver's cluelessness. She doesn't understand why American Jews are offended by something that isn't even aimed at them. Well, Minister Landver, even if they aren't the target audience, they can still see the ads, and at least in the Hannukah/Christmas ad, can interpret the campaign as attacking their own Jewishness.

This teaches us something about official Israeli government ads shown abroad. Whether its the Ministry of Immigration, the Ministry of Tourism or any other agency, ads should also be approved by the Prime Minister and Foreign Ministry, including input from the local embassy and consulates. Someone who knows the local culture should make sure the locals won't find the ads offensive.

Protesters Should Be Time's 2011 People of the Year

It's the last month of the year, which means that Time Magazine will anounce its Person of the Year soon. I can't say that any particular candidate, like Barack Obama or Angela Merkel, seems worthy of the title. An amorphous group, though, just might be: the protesters. The magazine's website suggests the 99% as one of the candidates, but it would be a mistake (and extremely America-centric) to choose only that particular movement, especially since they are one of the less influential protest movements that were active during 2011.

This was the year of protesters around the word, on every continent, except for Antarctica. People unhappy with the economic and/or dictatorial status quo took to the streets of Spain, Greece, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Chile, Israel, Yemen, the United States, Canada and other countries. They had varying degrees of success and different grievances, and operated in different types of regimes. What was common was that they all demanded change and they all formed together the greatest global wave of protests since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Can you think of anybody more worthy? I certainly can't.

UNESCO's Cartoonish Idiocy

Credit: Eran Wolkovsky, Haaretz

The leadership of UNESCO has officially complained to the Israeli government about a satirical cartoon in Ha'aretz. The cartoon, shown above, depicts Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak instructing Air Force pilots to hit UNESCO offices in Ramallah on their way back from attacking nuclear facilities in Iran.

This complaint is so dumb on so many levels. First of all, it's quite clear that the cartoonist was attacking Netanyahu and Barak, not UNESCO. They are depicted as overreacting to the admission of Palestine as a member state of UNESCO. Second of all, what do they expect the government to do? We're a democratic country. Our government doesn't control the newspapers (maybe accept for the free daily Yisrael Hayom, owned by Sheldon Adelson, a Netanyahu supporter).

Maybe UNESCO is too used to working with non-democratic regimes that it thinks that it can complain about what appears in newspapers, and the government will make things go away. Rather than spending time filing silly complaints, the organization should be finding new ways to fund itself, now that the United States and other countries have stopped paying it.

Syria, Iran and Israel

The threat of rocket fire all over Israel, including Tel-Aviv, is looming large over our heads. There are two very possible scenarios that would bring about such a hellish result. Both scenarios involve best buddies Iran and Syria, as well as their allies Hamas and Hizbullah. If Israel (or anyone else) attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack the entire state with rockets. If NATO intervenes militarily in Syria, then Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack Israel.

Action in either Iran or Syria is stupid. In Iran, an attack on the nuclear facilities may eventually be the last option, but we aren't there yet. Impose tougher sanctions and see if they work. As for Syria, let them deal with their own internal chaos on their own. I'm not willing to risk Israeli lives to save the Syrians who are rising up against Assad.

However, since either situation would lead to all-out war and missiles all over Israel, if one scenario comes to fruition, then the other one should be executed as well. A NATO attack on Syria would make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities a wise move, provided that Syria does indeed retaliate with rockets. And vice versa - if Iran's atomic plants are attacked, followed by an attack on Israel, NATO should help take out Assad's regime, like it did with Qaddafi.

Peace Now and Jerusalem

According to Haaretz, Americans for Peace Now has filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, arguing against recognition of Jerusalem as part of Israel. They believe Americans born in the city should be listed as having been born in "Jerusalem", without the name of a country, rather than writing Israel as their place of birth. This is the case even if a person was born in the western portion of Jerusalem, the part under Israeli sovereignty since the War of Independence.

It is unclear whether the Israeli Peace Now agrees with the actions of its American sister organization. If it does, it's very troubling. An Israeli organization that not only does not recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but doesn't even recognize it as being a part of the State, in effect, does not recognize the results of the War of Independence. What is the difference between the the areas gained by Israel in 1948 which were intended for the Arab State in the Partition Plan, and the parts of the Corpus Seperatum of Jerusalem which Israel took over during the same war? Neither the Arab State or the Corpus Seperatum ever came into being, so there should be no difference.

It makes no sense not to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the western portion of Jerusalem while recognizing its sovereignty over Nazareth, Be'er-Sheva, Nahariya, Akko, Jaffa and Ramla - all cities intended to be part of the Arab state. They are now rightly recognized by all the countries of the world as legitimate parts of Israel - except for countries that don't recognize Israel at all.

Releasing More Prisoners to Strengthen Abbas?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Time Magazine that he will demand that Benjamin Netanyahu fulfill Ehud Olmert's promise to release more prisoners as a gesture to the PA. According to an article in Haaretz, he is demanding the release of archterrorists Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa'adat. Olmert has confirmed that he promised to release more prisoners once the Shalit deal is reached, but if I understand correctly, Barghouti and Saadat weren't part of the promise.

So, should Israel release more prisoners to strengthen Abbas? Well, first we should ask if such a move would really bolster the Palestinian president's standing among Palestinians. I don't think so. If Israel releases Palestinians to the PA, in order to balance the achievements of Hamas, wouldn't Palestinians credit Hamas also with this additional release? After all, they will argue that it would not have happened in the first place without the Hamas deal, and they would probably be right. At best, Hamas and Abbas would get joint credit.

Let's say Abbas does get a boost from this, does he deserve it? No, he doesn't, with his UN bid and tendency to come up with new preconditions for negotiations. Be that as it may, it is in Israel's best interest to resume the peace process with a serious partner, and Abbas is the closest thing we've got.

Having said all that, I haven't come to a conclusion, one way or another. It may be a good idea to release more prisoners, and it might not be. One thing I'm certain of, though, is that if we do release more prisoners, Barghouti and Saadat should not be included.

Gilad Shalit vs. 1,027 Palestinians

Let's make a quick comparison between the people released yesterday. On the one side, there was Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and on the other, 1,027 Palestinians convicted of various crimes, many of them murderers and accomplices. Shalit was a soldier who never targeted Palestinian civilians. Many of the released Palestinian prisoners set out to murder civilians. That's what Ahlam Tamimi did when she drove the suicide bomber to Sbarro in 2001, where he killed 15 people. That's what Amna Muna did when she lured sixteen year old Ofir Rahum to Ramallah, where she and her accomplices killed him.

Gilad Shalit, in his first public interview, said he wished for more Palestinian prisoners to be released if they don't go back to fighting Israel. He also hoped this deal would bring Israel and the Palestinians closer to peace. On the other side, some of the released Palestinian convicts called for the abduction of more Israeli soldiers. Shalit hopes for peace, released Palestinian prisoners hope for more conflict.

The Palestinians' main argument in favor of more kidnappings is that Israel only understands force, and that this is the only way to get their prisoners released. That is simply false, considering the fact that during the last four years, the Israeli government has released 1,233 Palestinians as peace gestures to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas. Of course, there is some truth to the Palestinians' claims. The only way to release mass murderers is by kidnapping Israelis. Those terrorists are the real people Hamas cares about.