A gunman opened fire at a gay and lesbian youth center in Tel-Aviv yesterday, killing two people. The man escaped and has not yet been apprehended.
Israelis were shocked by this terrible hate crime. Many of my friends on Facebook have changed their profile picture to the gay pride flag with a memorial candle or black stripe as a sign of protest and identification with the gay community. Accusations are flying against the leaders of Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party, who have in the past condemned homosexuality as a perversion that must be treated. Politicians from Shas have condemned yesterday's murders.
I think that while Shas's homophobic words and policies are horrible, it is too early to lay blame on them for what happened. We don't know who the shooter is and whether he's a Shasnik, or even religious. Unfortunately, there are plenty of possible sources for this intolerance.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Issue of Settlements
Yes indeed, the settlements
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]
Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.
Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.
It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.
The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.
Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?
Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.
Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.
And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.
The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.
If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]
Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.
Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.
It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.
The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.
Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?
Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.
Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.
And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.
The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.
If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Bibi and Self-Hating Jews
Rahm Emanuel can't get a break. Palestinians and their supporters see him as a Zionist mole inside the White House. The Israeli right-wing, on the other hand, sees him as a traitor. More on how Netanyahu sees Emanuel and fellow Obama advisor David Axelrod in this excellent op-ed from today's Ha'aretz:
What Netanyahu wants from Obama's 'self-hating Jews'
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz [English, Hebrew]
Who is to blame for the latest dispute with the United States over the new neighborhood going up in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah area? Mayor Nir Barkat? Certainly not. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stood behind him? Ridiculous. Any child knows that everything is the fault of other Jews: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, two American administration officials who are inciting President Barack Obama against their own people.
This is not the first time that "self-hating Jews" have given us trouble. In negotiations over the separation of forces agreement in the 1970s, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the scion of a family of Jewish refugees who had escaped from Nazi Germany, earned the anti-Semitic epithet "Jewboy" in Israel. At the end of the 1980s, when president George H.W. Bush dared to argue that the peace process does not jibe with settlement expansion, the Shamir government instigated a campaign against "the 'Jewboy' trio": Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer. Now it is the turn of Obama's Jewish confidantes to be the scapegoats.
It is easy to imagine what an uproar there would be in Jerusalem if an Arab leader or newspaper dared to claim that an American president was favorable to Israel because of the influence of a Jewish adviser. Netanyahu, who spent many years in the United States, knows very well the extent to which Jewish administration officials in key positions are sensitive to the slightest hint of dual loyalty - to their birthplace and their historic homeland. It turns out that for him, politics bends the iron-clad rule that "all Jews are responsible for one another."
To satisfy the settlers, he permits himself to hurt people whose only sin is that they are trying to promote the goals enshrined in the platform of his senior coalition partner - the Labor Party.
We want our Jews in the administration to be blind to the settlements and deaf to the complaints of the Arabs. Take Elliott Abrams, for example, who was in charge of Middle East affairs in the Bush administration. Abrams, who is identified with the neo-conservative right, made an important contribution to legitimizing a good many dubious Israeli acts. He was an excellent salesman for the "no partner" theory, and the guiding spirit behind the indulgent policy toward the flourishing of settlements. He recently publicly criticized the two-state vision of the president who had hired him, among other things, to promote that vision.
Back during his election campaign Obama made it clear that he did not have to join Likud to be a friend of Israel. Opinion polls in the United States revealed that the views of most Jews are closer to the attitudes of organizations like the Reform movement, American Friends of Peace Now and J Street, which support a two-state solution and eschew Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's doctrine - and above all, largely object to the settlements.
The conversation Obama held with representatives of the Jewish community last week confirms that Netanyahu is drafting them for the wrong war. Even his oldest supporters did not attack the president's position on the settlements, and made do with a complaint about the high profile given to disputes over the issue of natural growth in the settlements. One of the guests at that meeting said that history showed that exposing the differences between the U.S. and Israel does not help to advance peace.
"This was not my reading of the lessons of the last eight years," Obama responded without flinching. Moreover, he said he would not shy away from a willingness to pressure all parties, including Israel, if that is in the best interests of the United States and Israel. Obama did not hesitate to tell his Jewish interlocutors that beyond the special commitment to Israel's security, his policy would be completely even-handed. If it became necessary, Obama said, he would speak to Israelis, as he had done to the Arab and Muslim world, to help them to achieve some kind of self-reflection.
Obama has internalized what his predecessors refused to understand: the traditional supporters of the Israeli right are growing old, or losing their relevance. They are giving way to younger, liberal forces who identify with Obama's values. In the "best" case, Netanyahu's incitement against the "self-hating Jews" will do to them what his whispered comment in the ear of Rabbi Kaduri "those leftists are not Jews" did to Israelis a decade ago - it turned them against him.
What Netanyahu wants from Obama's 'self-hating Jews'
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz [English, Hebrew]
Who is to blame for the latest dispute with the United States over the new neighborhood going up in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah area? Mayor Nir Barkat? Certainly not. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stood behind him? Ridiculous. Any child knows that everything is the fault of other Jews: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, two American administration officials who are inciting President Barack Obama against their own people.
This is not the first time that "self-hating Jews" have given us trouble. In negotiations over the separation of forces agreement in the 1970s, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the scion of a family of Jewish refugees who had escaped from Nazi Germany, earned the anti-Semitic epithet "Jewboy" in Israel. At the end of the 1980s, when president George H.W. Bush dared to argue that the peace process does not jibe with settlement expansion, the Shamir government instigated a campaign against "the 'Jewboy' trio": Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer. Now it is the turn of Obama's Jewish confidantes to be the scapegoats.
It is easy to imagine what an uproar there would be in Jerusalem if an Arab leader or newspaper dared to claim that an American president was favorable to Israel because of the influence of a Jewish adviser. Netanyahu, who spent many years in the United States, knows very well the extent to which Jewish administration officials in key positions are sensitive to the slightest hint of dual loyalty - to their birthplace and their historic homeland. It turns out that for him, politics bends the iron-clad rule that "all Jews are responsible for one another."
To satisfy the settlers, he permits himself to hurt people whose only sin is that they are trying to promote the goals enshrined in the platform of his senior coalition partner - the Labor Party.
We want our Jews in the administration to be blind to the settlements and deaf to the complaints of the Arabs. Take Elliott Abrams, for example, who was in charge of Middle East affairs in the Bush administration. Abrams, who is identified with the neo-conservative right, made an important contribution to legitimizing a good many dubious Israeli acts. He was an excellent salesman for the "no partner" theory, and the guiding spirit behind the indulgent policy toward the flourishing of settlements. He recently publicly criticized the two-state vision of the president who had hired him, among other things, to promote that vision.
Back during his election campaign Obama made it clear that he did not have to join Likud to be a friend of Israel. Opinion polls in the United States revealed that the views of most Jews are closer to the attitudes of organizations like the Reform movement, American Friends of Peace Now and J Street, which support a two-state solution and eschew Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's doctrine - and above all, largely object to the settlements.
The conversation Obama held with representatives of the Jewish community last week confirms that Netanyahu is drafting them for the wrong war. Even his oldest supporters did not attack the president's position on the settlements, and made do with a complaint about the high profile given to disputes over the issue of natural growth in the settlements. One of the guests at that meeting said that history showed that exposing the differences between the U.S. and Israel does not help to advance peace.
"This was not my reading of the lessons of the last eight years," Obama responded without flinching. Moreover, he said he would not shy away from a willingness to pressure all parties, including Israel, if that is in the best interests of the United States and Israel. Obama did not hesitate to tell his Jewish interlocutors that beyond the special commitment to Israel's security, his policy would be completely even-handed. If it became necessary, Obama said, he would speak to Israelis, as he had done to the Arab and Muslim world, to help them to achieve some kind of self-reflection.
Obama has internalized what his predecessors refused to understand: the traditional supporters of the Israeli right are growing old, or losing their relevance. They are giving way to younger, liberal forces who identify with Obama's values. In the "best" case, Netanyahu's incitement against the "self-hating Jews" will do to them what his whispered comment in the ear of Rabbi Kaduri "those leftists are not Jews" did to Israelis a decade ago - it turned them against him.
In the Interest of Wine and View
"[Israel has to keep the Golan] for strategic, military and land-settlement reasons. Needs of water, wine and view." - Uzi Arad, Benjamin Netanyahu's national security advisor in an interview with Ari Shavit in Ha'aretz.
This is old news already, I know. The interview was published the weekend before last, but I felt I had to mention how ridiculous, dangerous and weird this statement is. It's no better in the original Hebrew ("מסיבות אסטרטגיות, צבאיות והתיישבותיות. צורכי מים, נוף ויין").
I disagree with his assessment that Israel needs the Golan Heights for strategic and military purposes, but I accept it as a legitimate consideration. We'd be safer if we had peace with Syria and no Golan, in my opinion, but those who either don't trust the Syrian regime or don't believe it will last long have some good arguments. Water needs are also an important issue, though I'm sure we can come to a satisfying settlement on this with Syria.
Land-settlement. Now that's where things start to get problematic. Sure, Israel is a small country, but it has plenty of uninhabited lands in the nearby Galilee and especially down south in the Negev. The Golan may be more fertile than the Negev, but since we aren't an agrarian society, it doesn't really matter.
And now for the really outrageous reasons to stay on the Golan. Wine and view. Excuse me? Yes, you heard correctly. Wine and view are more important to Uzi Arad than the lives that may potentially be lost in a future war with Syria. Never mind that peace may also prevent future clashes with Hezbollah. We want out tasty wines and beautiful views!
The Golan is breathtaking and its wines are of high quality. Still, it isn't like Israel proper is an ugly, wineless piece of territory. We'll make do with the wineries of Mount Carmel and the scenery of the rest of Israel, in exchange for peace. Or at least we should. The government and most Israelis seem to disagree with me.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Max Blumenthal: Tel-Aviv Edition
Max Blumenthal is at it again, cherry picking who gets into his clip to make sure no reasonable Jewish Israeli makes it on screen, so that Israel can look like a racist Little Satan. Here's the clip, titled "Feeling the Hate in Tel-Aviv", and right below it is the comment to Max I posted on Mondoweiss:
You say yourself that all but two of the Jewish students you interviewed at Tel-Aviv University were part of a counter-protest in support of the Nakbah Law. Sounds like the kind of thing "Im Tirtzu" ("If You Will It"), a right-wing student organization, would arrange. Were any of them by any chance wearing shirts with pictures of early Zionist leaders? They're not exactly a representative bunch.
Also, the date you shot your video is important. When people watch the clip now, after the Iranian people's protests following the June 12 elections, they think the Israelis interviewed are actually talking about regular Iranians. On May 27, the context was completely different. When someone said he didn't like the Iranians, he probably had Ahmadinijad and the Ayatollahs in mind.
I also find it interesting that you found only three "Iran-haters" and two racists at the White Night event. How many Israelis who didn't say anything hateful remain on your cutting room floor?
You say yourself that all but two of the Jewish students you interviewed at Tel-Aviv University were part of a counter-protest in support of the Nakbah Law. Sounds like the kind of thing "Im Tirtzu" ("If You Will It"), a right-wing student organization, would arrange. Were any of them by any chance wearing shirts with pictures of early Zionist leaders? They're not exactly a representative bunch.
Also, the date you shot your video is important. When people watch the clip now, after the Iranian people's protests following the June 12 elections, they think the Israelis interviewed are actually talking about regular Iranians. On May 27, the context was completely different. When someone said he didn't like the Iranians, he probably had Ahmadinijad and the Ayatollahs in mind.
I also find it interesting that you found only three "Iran-haters" and two racists at the White Night event. How many Israelis who didn't say anything hateful remain on your cutting room floor?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Forcing Peace
Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said Saturday that if Israel and the Palestinians don't reach an agreement on their own by a certain deadline, then the United Nations Security Council should recognize the Palestinian state without Israel's consent. This is a horrible idea. As unhappy as I am with the lack of progress in the peace process, I think the international community can only nudge and push, but it must not impose a solution. Such a solution would be doomed to fail, and I fear it would lead to more bloodshed.
Also, what Palestinian State would the UN recognize? What would be its borders, its capital? What about the Palestinian refugees? Would the international community adopt one side's position on these issues or would it go with something in the middle? How would such a decision be implemented? Would an international force be sent in to drive Israel out of the newly recognized Palestine?
Which Palestinian faction would the United Nations recognize as Palestine's legitimate government? I doubt they'd go with the terrorist group Hamas, so if they recognize Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, what would be the status of Gaza?
This is a horrible, unconstructive idea. I have a feeling even Solana doesn't believe in it and is using it more as a threat against Israel, and Israel alone. It doesn't threaten the Palestinians. No matter what they do and whether they negotiate with Israel or not, they'll end up with a state and probably almost all of their demands will be met by the UN. In fact, Solana inadvertently encourages Palestinian negotiators to stall.
Also, what Palestinian State would the UN recognize? What would be its borders, its capital? What about the Palestinian refugees? Would the international community adopt one side's position on these issues or would it go with something in the middle? How would such a decision be implemented? Would an international force be sent in to drive Israel out of the newly recognized Palestine?
Which Palestinian faction would the United Nations recognize as Palestine's legitimate government? I doubt they'd go with the terrorist group Hamas, so if they recognize Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, what would be the status of Gaza?
This is a horrible, unconstructive idea. I have a feeling even Solana doesn't believe in it and is using it more as a threat against Israel, and Israel alone. It doesn't threaten the Palestinians. No matter what they do and whether they negotiate with Israel or not, they'll end up with a state and probably almost all of their demands will be met by the UN. In fact, Solana inadvertently encourages Palestinian negotiators to stall.
Friday, July 10, 2009
New Feature
I just added a new feature to my blog. It's the Lijit Search widget (or wijit, as they called it). It'll display the search terms that people used to find this site, as well as where in the world people are coming from. You can also search my blog with Lijit, and if you click on "Surprise Me" it'll bring you to a random post.
They say it may take some time before the widget is really effective, because it takes time to collect all the data about all my posts.
They say it may take some time before the widget is really effective, because it takes time to collect all the data about all my posts.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Netanyahu's Speech
Well, the room was smaller and the applause pathetic compared to Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech as Bar-Ilan University has important ramifications. On the one hand, he finally accepted the idea of a Palestinian State, and called for negotiations with Arab countries. On the other, he refused to stop settlement expansion, declared Jerusalem will never be divided and demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, something they will never agree to.
The most interesting idea in his speech is his call for a demilitarized Palestinian State. He's absolutely right to demand that. Palestinians will always keep wishing Israel never existed. The only way to make sure Palestine won't try to retake what it sees as its rightful territory is by making sure it is disarmed. The new state must not look like Gaza does now. I don't support Israeli control of Palestine's airspace, though. While the proximity of Gaza and the West Bank to Tel-Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport poses a risk, I am sure there are ways to deal with the problem.
The most interesting idea in his speech is his call for a demilitarized Palestinian State. He's absolutely right to demand that. Palestinians will always keep wishing Israel never existed. The only way to make sure Palestine won't try to retake what it sees as its rightful territory is by making sure it is disarmed. The new state must not look like Gaza does now. I don't support Israeli control of Palestine's airspace, though. While the proximity of Gaza and the West Bank to Tel-Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport poses a risk, I am sure there are ways to deal with the problem.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The End of the Islamic Republic?
I know this is probably wishful thinking, but I sure would be happy if the protests in Iran against the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would lead to the overthrow of the Ayatollahs. I have no idea whether or not the results were rigged, but they certainly are suspicious. Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi were in a tight race, according to polls, and in the end, Mr. Ratface wins over 60% of the votes?
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Writers' Haaretz
It took me two days to finish reading Wednesday's special edition of Ha'aretz. To celebrate the annual Hebrew Book Week, the entire news section of the paper, an op-ed piece, the weather report and the "letters to the editor", were written by Israeli writers and poets. Two pieces were written by Turkish Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk (translated from The New Yorker) and Italian author and philosopher Umberto Eco (an amusing essay about taxi drivers originally written 20 years ago). 
It was the first time I've read the entire news section cover to cover and I enjoyed every single one of the articles (except for Shimon Adaf's over-technical report about quantum physics). The different writers wrote beautifully and from very special perspectives. I especially liked Etgar Keret's interview with Ehud Barak (Hebrew here), David Grossman's report from a rehab center for youth (Hebrew here) and Nurit Gertz's observations about the disconnect between Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the staff of his ministry (Hebrew here).
To see all the articles in Hebrew click here. For the articles in English click here and choose June 10 from the drop down menu on the left (sorry, there doesn't seem to be a static URL for the English edition of the writers' table of contents).
It was the first time I've read the entire news section cover to cover and I enjoyed every single one of the articles (except for Shimon Adaf's over-technical report about quantum physics). The different writers wrote beautifully and from very special perspectives. I especially liked Etgar Keret's interview with Ehud Barak (Hebrew here), David Grossman's report from a rehab center for youth (Hebrew here) and Nurit Gertz's observations about the disconnect between Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the staff of his ministry (Hebrew here).
To see all the articles in Hebrew click here. For the articles in English click here and choose June 10 from the drop down menu on the left (sorry, there doesn't seem to be a static URL for the English edition of the writers' table of contents).
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Haaretz's Poetic License
Ha'aretz will conduct an interesting experiment tomorrow, in honor of the annual Hebrew Book Week, a nationwide celebration of literature. The paper's usual journalists will have the day off, and instead, the entire newspaper - news, opinions, features and even the weather report - will be written by 35 prose writers and poets, "through their own experience" (whatever that means).
Yes, it's mostly a publicity stunt (though not a very good one - since I only know about it because I read today's print edition - the website has nothing about it and I haven't seen any commercials about it either), and writing subjectively about the news by people who usually write literature is very un-journalistic. I don't see the New York Times, Washington Post or Le Monde handing over their news pages to non-journalists. I really don't care about all that, though. Since it is just a one time thing, I don't see this as an insult to the idea of objective, professional reporters covering the issues in as balanced a way as possible.
So, if any of you notice new bylines and offbeat reports tomorrow on Ha'aretz's website, don't be surprised.
Expect more on this tomorrow, after I read the special edition.
Yes, it's mostly a publicity stunt (though not a very good one - since I only know about it because I read today's print edition - the website has nothing about it and I haven't seen any commercials about it either), and writing subjectively about the news by people who usually write literature is very un-journalistic. I don't see the New York Times, Washington Post or Le Monde handing over their news pages to non-journalists. I really don't care about all that, though. Since it is just a one time thing, I don't see this as an insult to the idea of objective, professional reporters covering the issues in as balanced a way as possible.
So, if any of you notice new bylines and offbeat reports tomorrow on Ha'aretz's website, don't be surprised.
Expect more on this tomorrow, after I read the special edition.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
The Amendment Amendment
Don't get me wrong, I have better things to do, but for some reason, after finding an old copy of the United States Constitution (old enough to be missing the 27th amendment), I just felt like writing an amendment to the method of proposing and ratifying amendments. Here it is, and any Senator or Representative can feel free to submit it to Congress (not that I have delusions that anything like that is going to happen):
Section 1. (1) Proposed amendments to this constitution may be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a Constitutional Convention called by Congress.
(2) A Constitutional Convention shall be called whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall submit applications to Congress regarding a specific issue within three years of each other.
(3) The number of Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from each state shall be the same as the number each state in entitled to have in the House of Representatives and shall be elected by the same method as representatives by the people of each state. The qualifications to serve as Delegate shall be identical to the qualifications to serve as a Representative, as shall be the compensation each shall receive for their service. However, no senator, representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall serve as Delegate.
(4) The term of a Constitutional Convention shall not exceed two years. The Convention may dissolve itself earlier if, after proposing at least one amendment to the Constitution, a majority of Delegates so decides. If, after two years, a Convention fails to propose amendments, Congress may call a new convention, even without the application of the state legislatures. This right of Congress shall expire six months after the end of the Convention's term.
Section 2. (1) Amendments proposed by either method mentioned in Section 1 shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures, conventions, or the people of three-fourths of the several states, as whichever of these three modes the proposing body may direct, provided that no more than seven years shall pass from the date of proposal to the date of ratification, unless the proposing body shall specify otherwise when proposing the amendment; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
(2) Whenever conventions shall be chosen as the mode of ratification, the delegates thereof shall be specially elected for that purpose, by whichever method each state shall by law provide. No state delegate shall simultaneously serve in a state legislature, Congress, or any federal or state executive office.
Section 3. All amendments proposed to the several states more than seven years before the ratification of this article and which have not yet been ratified, shall expire one year after the ratification of this article.
Section 4. The Congress and the several states shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as previously provided in Article V of the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Section 1. (1) Proposed amendments to this constitution may be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a Constitutional Convention called by Congress.
(2) A Constitutional Convention shall be called whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall submit applications to Congress regarding a specific issue within three years of each other.
(3) The number of Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from each state shall be the same as the number each state in entitled to have in the House of Representatives and shall be elected by the same method as representatives by the people of each state. The qualifications to serve as Delegate shall be identical to the qualifications to serve as a Representative, as shall be the compensation each shall receive for their service. However, no senator, representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall serve as Delegate.
(4) The term of a Constitutional Convention shall not exceed two years. The Convention may dissolve itself earlier if, after proposing at least one amendment to the Constitution, a majority of Delegates so decides. If, after two years, a Convention fails to propose amendments, Congress may call a new convention, even without the application of the state legislatures. This right of Congress shall expire six months after the end of the Convention's term.
Section 2. (1) Amendments proposed by either method mentioned in Section 1 shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures, conventions, or the people of three-fourths of the several states, as whichever of these three modes the proposing body may direct, provided that no more than seven years shall pass from the date of proposal to the date of ratification, unless the proposing body shall specify otherwise when proposing the amendment; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
(2) Whenever conventions shall be chosen as the mode of ratification, the delegates thereof shall be specially elected for that purpose, by whichever method each state shall by law provide. No state delegate shall simultaneously serve in a state legislature, Congress, or any federal or state executive office.
Section 3. All amendments proposed to the several states more than seven years before the ratification of this article and which have not yet been ratified, shall expire one year after the ratification of this article.
Section 4. The Congress and the several states shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as previously provided in Article V of the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Goodbye Avoda
The Labor Party is finally going to split up. It's about time. Under Ehud Barak's leadership the party has lost its way. Barak takes any crap Benjamin Netanyahu throws at him.
Unfortunately, only four Knesset Members have decided to ditch Labor. Of those four, just one is a politician I like – Ofir Pines-Paz. I have mixed feelings about Eitan Cabel, who was a failure as Labor Party secretary-general but at least had the courage to quit the Olmert government after the Second Lebanon War. The other two defectors are Amir Peretz and Yuli Tamir, both of whom I dislike just as much as I dislike Ehud Barak. Peretz is the incompetent fool who botched the Lebanon War as Defense Minister. He's nothing more than a petty wheeler and dealer. Yuli Tamir, who I used to like, was a terrible Minister of Education who promoted the horrid "Ofek Hadash" (New Horizon) reform plan, which gave teachers a very slight raise in salary in exchange for a lot more hours of work, in effect cutting their per-hour salary.
There are three MKs the defectors need in order for me to support them: Minister for Minority Affairs Avishay Braverman, Labor caucus chairman Daniel Ben-Simon, and Shelly Yechimovich. I voted for all three in the Knesset primaries (among those who ended up in the Knesset, Ofir Pines is the fourth person I voted for). If at least one of them joins, the chances of my vote going in their direction will be higher.
In any case, my association with the Labor Party is over. Unless they make major changes, I'm not going to vote for them ever again. Since I've already paid my membership dues for the year, I'll stay on as a party member in case leadership primaries are held during the time I've already paid for anyway. I will not renew my membership after that.
Unfortunately, only four Knesset Members have decided to ditch Labor. Of those four, just one is a politician I like – Ofir Pines-Paz. I have mixed feelings about Eitan Cabel, who was a failure as Labor Party secretary-general but at least had the courage to quit the Olmert government after the Second Lebanon War. The other two defectors are Amir Peretz and Yuli Tamir, both of whom I dislike just as much as I dislike Ehud Barak. Peretz is the incompetent fool who botched the Lebanon War as Defense Minister. He's nothing more than a petty wheeler and dealer. Yuli Tamir, who I used to like, was a terrible Minister of Education who promoted the horrid "Ofek Hadash" (New Horizon) reform plan, which gave teachers a very slight raise in salary in exchange for a lot more hours of work, in effect cutting their per-hour salary.
There are three MKs the defectors need in order for me to support them: Minister for Minority Affairs Avishay Braverman, Labor caucus chairman Daniel Ben-Simon, and Shelly Yechimovich. I voted for all three in the Knesset primaries (among those who ended up in the Knesset, Ofir Pines is the fourth person I voted for). If at least one of them joins, the chances of my vote going in their direction will be higher.
In any case, my association with the Labor Party is over. Unless they make major changes, I'm not going to vote for them ever again. Since I've already paid my membership dues for the year, I'll stay on as a party member in case leadership primaries are held during the time I've already paid for anyway. I will not renew my membership after that.
Six Years of Blogging
Just wanted to mention that today is the blog's sixth anniversary. It is also Emmanuel Schiff's sixth birthday as a pseudonym. On Friday, June 6, 2003, I lost my bloginity (blog virginity).
In 2006, when the date was 06/06/06 (666) I joked that my blog is satanic. Not that it's 06/06 again and the 6th anniversary, should I repeat the same joke?
In 2006, when the date was 06/06/06 (666) I joked that my blog is satanic. Not that it's 06/06 again and the 6th anniversary, should I repeat the same joke?
Friday, June 05, 2009
Bibi and Dudu
Here's a hilarious cartoon from today's Ha'aretz:
Prime Minister Netanyahu asks: "What will we do with this Obama guy?" and one of his ministers answers "Let's consult Dudu [Topaz]".
If you don't know who Topaz is - well, to make a long story short, he is a former television star who, as revealed this week, responded disproportionately and violently to the decline of his career and to perceived threats to his prospects for renewed success.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Nakba In the Classroom
Ha'aretz reports today that Zochrot has been disseminating an educational kit about the Nakba to school teachers, and some teachers have used it. The kit includes units about Palestinian communities before 1948, personal stories of refugees, events of the 1947-1948 conflict, a discussion of the right of return and a tour of a destroyed village.
Zochrot, whose name is the feminine form of "[we] remember" in Hebrew, is an anti-Zionist organization dedicated to remembering the Palestinian villages destroyed during Israel's War of Independence, the return of Palestinian refugees and the one state solution. It is mostly made up of Jews rather than Palestinians, which makes it all the more irritating. I have no problem with Palestinians wanting to commemorate their own heritage, but far-left Jewish Israelis whining about how evil we are just piss me off. These are not the people I'd like to see teaching Israel's children.
The Nakba is a fact and should be addressed in high schools. Zochrot's way is not the way, though. Teaching children that we are the bad guys is no less simplistic than teaching them we're the good guys. Let's not teach the anti-Zionist narrative instead of the Zionist one. Show them both, side by side, analyze the differences and think about the Israeli and Palestinian versions critically.
Do it the PRIME way, not the Zochrot way.
Zochrot, whose name is the feminine form of "[we] remember" in Hebrew, is an anti-Zionist organization dedicated to remembering the Palestinian villages destroyed during Israel's War of Independence, the return of Palestinian refugees and the one state solution. It is mostly made up of Jews rather than Palestinians, which makes it all the more irritating. I have no problem with Palestinians wanting to commemorate their own heritage, but far-left Jewish Israelis whining about how evil we are just piss me off. These are not the people I'd like to see teaching Israel's children.
The Nakba is a fact and should be addressed in high schools. Zochrot's way is not the way, though. Teaching children that we are the bad guys is no less simplistic than teaching them we're the good guys. Let's not teach the anti-Zionist narrative instead of the Zionist one. Show them both, side by side, analyze the differences and think about the Israeli and Palestinian versions critically.
Do it the PRIME way, not the Zochrot way.
Obama's Cairo Speech
I was very impressed by President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world. I disagreed with almost nothing he said. Cooperation with Muslims is a positive thing. The belligerence of the Bush years only created hostility and hindered progress for both the United States and Muslim countries.
I agreed with Obama's words about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the general Israeli-Arab situation. The two-state solution is crucial. Israel has to stop settlement activity while Israelis, Palestinians and Arab countries work toward building the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. I also agree with his demand that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel in order to be part of the peace process.
The only part of his speech I disagree with is his vision of a nuclear-free world. I'd love nothing more than to see all nukes destroyed, never to be seen again. However, I don't believe that is how things will play out. A "nuclear-free world" would, in reality, mean a situation where rogue countries would have nukes and international law-abiding nations wouldn't. What deterrent would the rogues have against nuking their enemies? Just imagine a world where nobody has WMD except for North Korea.
I agreed with Obama's words about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the general Israeli-Arab situation. The two-state solution is crucial. Israel has to stop settlement activity while Israelis, Palestinians and Arab countries work toward building the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. I also agree with his demand that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel in order to be part of the peace process.
The only part of his speech I disagree with is his vision of a nuclear-free world. I'd love nothing more than to see all nukes destroyed, never to be seen again. However, I don't believe that is how things will play out. A "nuclear-free world" would, in reality, mean a situation where rogue countries would have nukes and international law-abiding nations wouldn't. What deterrent would the rogues have against nuking their enemies? Just imagine a world where nobody has WMD except for North Korea.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Loyalty Oath Defeated
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation resoundingly rejected the proposed bill that would have demanded an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state and military or community service in exchange for citizenship. All the members on the committee, except for three ministers from Yisrael Beitenu, voted against the bill. Without the support of the coalition, the bill's chances of being approved by the Knesset are nearly non-existent.
Finally, the government does something right. I'm glad Avigdor Lieberman was unable to pressure Likud ministers into voting in favor of this repugnant proposal.
In related news, politicians are negotiating a compromise over the so-called "Nakba Law". In its original form, the bill would make it illegal to commemorate the Nakba and mourn the creation of the State of Israel. The revised version would not make it illegal for private citizens to commemorate the Palestinians' catastrophe, but would make it illegal to use public funds (taxpayers' money) for mourning Israel's independence. This would mostly mean that Arab municipalities, whose budgets rely more on government money than local taxes, would be barred from funding Nakba-related events.
This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Palestinian citizens of Israel should be allowed to express their negative feelings towards Israel, but it would be ridiculous to expect Israel to fund events and materials decrying its own existence. I don't want my taxes to be spent on the Nakba. The Arabs can find other sources to fund these activities.
Finally, the government does something right. I'm glad Avigdor Lieberman was unable to pressure Likud ministers into voting in favor of this repugnant proposal.
In related news, politicians are negotiating a compromise over the so-called "Nakba Law". In its original form, the bill would make it illegal to commemorate the Nakba and mourn the creation of the State of Israel. The revised version would not make it illegal for private citizens to commemorate the Palestinians' catastrophe, but would make it illegal to use public funds (taxpayers' money) for mourning Israel's independence. This would mostly mean that Arab municipalities, whose budgets rely more on government money than local taxes, would be barred from funding Nakba-related events.
This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Palestinian citizens of Israel should be allowed to express their negative feelings towards Israel, but it would be ridiculous to expect Israel to fund events and materials decrying its own existence. I don't want my taxes to be spent on the Nakba. The Arabs can find other sources to fund these activities.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Weird Search Terms: May 2009 Edition
I checked which keywords people used to reach my site and I got a few odd results.
- I got two hits from Venezuela, three days apart, from someone(s) who looked up "rape fantasy ingrid betancourt". Each one used a different browser, but I'm pretty sure it is the same person. How many sick bastards are there?
- One person from California looked up "fuck Shimon Peres", and reached my site, despite the fact that I never cursed President Peres.
- Someone at the office of the United States Senate Sargeant-at-Arms looked up "Schumer and Israel and concert" and reached my post about the settler rally. Why is the Senate's chief law enforcement officer searching for information about senators or reactions to the senators' activities?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Settlements, Nakba, Culture and Netanyahu-Leiberman
The Netanyahu government has made so many bad decisions since its inception, and these last few days particularly, that it's hard to decide where to start criticizing it. I'll try, anyway.
- Netanyahu has declared that construction in the settlements will not be halted. He claims it doesn't make sense not to allow for "natural growth". I'd say that if a family has a new baby and doesn't have enough room for him, or a new couple gets married, they should do something crazy like buy a house within the green line. What's so bad about the Galilee or the Sharon area?
- A government panel has approved a bill banning the commemoration of the Nakba. Ministers from the Labor Party have appealed the decision, so the question will come before the whole cabinet prior to a vote in the Knesset. If this becomes law it will do nothing but incite violence and radicalize Israel's Arab population. Who proposed this bill? It's MK Alex Miller, of Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu Party. Ehud Barak, meanwhile, has avoided voicing an opinion on the matter, saying people should be dealing with "more serious issues". This powder keg is not a serious issue?
- Another Liebermanite, Minister of Internal Security Yitzhak Aharonovich, ordered the police to disrupt an international Palestinian literary fair in East Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority has declared Jerusalem as the Palestinian center of culture, and the Israeli government is scared shitless that this tag may stick. What does Israel gain by disrupting cultural events? It just ends up looking like a bully.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Schumer, Weiner and the Settler Rally
Sen. Chuck Schumer and potential NYC mayoral candidate Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, are scheduled to speak at The Israel Day Concert, a radical right-wing rally. They should cancel their participation. As an Israeli and American citizen with voting rights in federal elections in New York, I plan on letting these guys know of my dissatisfaction. You can, too. Contact Schumer here and Weiner here.
I wonder if Schumer and Weiner knew what exactly they were getting into. If you take a look at the fine print of the poster, you'll see that the event is dedicated, among other things, to:
I wonder if Schumer and Weiner knew what exactly they were getting into. If you take a look at the fine print of the poster, you'll see that the event is dedicated, among other things, to:
- The "eternal" unity of Jerusalem, West and East.
- The far-right wing Ateret Cohanim organization, which specializes in taking over Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and handing it over to Jewish settlers.
- The "heroic front line families" in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, who endanger Israel's security, not to mention their children's, by being there and who get preferential treatment over us Israelis living within the green line.
- The "displaced families" from Gush Katif in the Gaza strip.
- Here's my favorite line: "The more than 3,000 victims of Oslo since September 13, 1993".
They also say no to the division of Jerusalem, giving up any part of the land, the expulsion of settlers, and no to "a PLO/Fatah/Hamas Terrorist State" (when you put it this way, I agree, but there is an option of a PLO non-terrorist state, you know).
Schumer and Weiner, you sure you want to participate in this nuttiness? Is this what supporting Israel means to you? Israel and the settlers aren't the same thing. Hell, they don't even live in Israel!
HT: Jewschool
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Eurotrash 2009
The Eurovision Song Contest will take place in half an hour. I'll just watch the beginning to see Israel's Noa (Achinoam Nini) and Mira Awad perform, and if I'll still be up, I'll tune in again about two hours into the broadcast (midnight Israel time) to see the point allocation.
I wonder how Noa and Awad will fair. I've seen at least a few seconds of about half the songs in the contest and most of them are horrid. "There Must Be Another Way", Israel's entry, is one of just a handful of relatively good songs, but it may still suffer for political reasons. Voters in other countries might punish Israel for the operation in Gaza and the election of Benjamin Netanyahu. On the other hand, it is a song about co-existence between Jews and Arabs, so some might want to reward Israel for that. And maybe there are some who will vote for the song just because they like it.
By the way, what's with the Czech guy in a superhero suit who looks a little like Mahmoud Ahmedinijad?
I wonder how Noa and Awad will fair. I've seen at least a few seconds of about half the songs in the contest and most of them are horrid. "There Must Be Another Way", Israel's entry, is one of just a handful of relatively good songs, but it may still suffer for political reasons. Voters in other countries might punish Israel for the operation in Gaza and the election of Benjamin Netanyahu. On the other hand, it is a song about co-existence between Jews and Arabs, so some might want to reward Israel for that. And maybe there are some who will vote for the song just because they like it.
By the way, what's with the Czech guy in a superhero suit who looks a little like Mahmoud Ahmedinijad?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Israelis Unhappy With Netanyahu
Haaretz published a public opinion poll today with some interesting results (in Hebrew here, and in English here). A majority of Israelis (52%) are not satisfied with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's performance, while just 28% are satisfied. Ha'aretz notes that these are worse approval ratings than Ehud Olmert had after the botched Second Lebanon War. When asked whether Netanyahu is better than Olmert or not, a plurality of 31% said Netanyahu is worse, 28% said they are both the same, and 27% said Netanyahu is better. Considering how hated Olmert was, this is really striking.
I'm not sure how I'd answer that question. On the one hand, Netanyahu is extremely right wing in all areas of policy, while Olmert was supposedly a centrist leader. On the other, Olmert just gave lip service to peace without bringing about results, and his social and economic policies were just as conservative as Netanyahu's. On the peace front, at least we know where Bibi stands. Is it worse to openly oppose the two-state solution than to publicly embrace the idea without doing anything substantial to make it happen?
Speaking of the two-state solution, it is alive and well in the minds of the Israeli public. 57% of respondents in this poll said Netanyahu should tell Obama he accepts the idea of a Palestinian state. 35% say he shouldn't.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
I Like Keyboards. Do you?
Plinky asks: Do you prefer writing on paper or a keyboard?
There's nothing like being able to instantly edit whatever you are writing. You suddenly think of something you should have written between two sentences or noticed a typo? No, problem. Just go back and fix it!
I have no problem with writing on paper, but writing stuff up on the computer is much better.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Happy Israeli Independence Day!
Israel's 61st Independence Day began at 8 PM tonight and will continue tomorrow. My family will celebrate with a "mangal", a BBQ, but unlike most Israelis, we'll do it in our own yard instead of in a public park.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Social Scientists Behaving Badly
I sure am glad I joined the "Social Science-IL" mailing list. A fascinating and hypocrisy-ridden debate is raging there between university professors from the left and right accusing each other of stifling freedom of speech, McCarthyism, and the destruction of Israeli higher education.
It all started when Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal, a psychologist from Tel-Aviv University, published a reasonable call to fight "Campus Watch"-type organizations and not to allow letters using unacceptable language against ideological opponents to be sent to the mailing list. What followed was a debate where about half the e-mails wouldn't have been published had Bar-Tal's suggestion been implemented.
Dov Shinar, a Mass Media professor, accused right wing professors of not even knowing Hebrew. David Levi-Faur, a political scientist from Hebrew University and the moderator of the list, implied that Steven Plaut was responsible for the attack against left-wing professor Zeev Sternhall a few months ago. Prof. Gerald Steinberg accused leftist professors of furthering their anti-Israel agenda instead of conducting real academic research.
Both sides are right on some points and wrong on others. On the one hand, right-wing "Israeli Academia Watch" and its sister "monitors" are disgusting organizations dedicated to smearing anyone who doesn't agree with them, often crossing the line into libel. It is entirely plausible that someone who reads these websites will be motivated to take violent action.
On the other hand, many left-wing lecturers abuse their positions to preach instead of teach. Academic freedom doesn't mean you're free to stuff your ideology down your students' throats. Also, while university hiring is officially politically neutral, candidates who are either leftists or whose views are not widely known have an easier time getting hired than right-wingers.
I would have cut and pasted the whole debate (or at least the interesting parts) if I had the time. Alas, you will miss this quite unintellectual discussion between distinguished social scientists.
It all started when Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal, a psychologist from Tel-Aviv University, published a reasonable call to fight "Campus Watch"-type organizations and not to allow letters using unacceptable language against ideological opponents to be sent to the mailing list. What followed was a debate where about half the e-mails wouldn't have been published had Bar-Tal's suggestion been implemented.
Dov Shinar, a Mass Media professor, accused right wing professors of not even knowing Hebrew. David Levi-Faur, a political scientist from Hebrew University and the moderator of the list, implied that Steven Plaut was responsible for the attack against left-wing professor Zeev Sternhall a few months ago. Prof. Gerald Steinberg accused leftist professors of furthering their anti-Israel agenda instead of conducting real academic research.
Both sides are right on some points and wrong on others. On the one hand, right-wing "Israeli Academia Watch" and its sister "monitors" are disgusting organizations dedicated to smearing anyone who doesn't agree with them, often crossing the line into libel. It is entirely plausible that someone who reads these websites will be motivated to take violent action.
On the other hand, many left-wing lecturers abuse their positions to preach instead of teach. Academic freedom doesn't mean you're free to stuff your ideology down your students' throats. Also, while university hiring is officially politically neutral, candidates who are either leftists or whose views are not widely known have an easier time getting hired than right-wingers.
I would have cut and pasted the whole debate (or at least the interesting parts) if I had the time. Alas, you will miss this quite unintellectual discussion between distinguished social scientists.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
At Least They're Inconsistent
I was just about to blog about the Netanyahu government's flip-flopping when I saw this Kishkushim post:
Both these flip-flops are of the better kind. In both instances, the government moved in a positive direction. The question is, though, why start out with foolish policies that you'll have to end up modifying?
I hope Netanyahu will also flip-flop on his position opposing the two-state solution. And his position regarding the budget. And healthcare. And, well, just about all his policies.
"One day Lieberman "cannot see Syria as a real partner for any kind of settlement" (see previous post), and the next he is "willing to negotiate," albeit "without preconditions" (Ha'aretz). This is diplomatic silliness. It looks we are going to see a lot of instant reversals with this new government. If you play hard to get on Saturday, you can't suddenly drop your skirt (or pants) on Sunday. The Prime Minister's Office has been strangely silent. Maybe they are hoping that Lieberman will render himself irrelevant."Nice to know I wasn't the only one who noticed. First, Netanyahu says he'll negotiate with the Palestinians only if they recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. Then he drops all pre-conditions. Then Lieberman says Syria has to stop its support of terrorism before negotiations with Israel can continue, and the same day Ha'aretz publishes that comment, he takes it back.
Both these flip-flops are of the better kind. In both instances, the government moved in a positive direction. The question is, though, why start out with foolish policies that you'll have to end up modifying?
I hope Netanyahu will also flip-flop on his position opposing the two-state solution. And his position regarding the budget. And healthcare. And, well, just about all his policies.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Palestinians' Self-Determination
Israel can try to get the Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, but should not insist. Recognition of Israel's existence and a commitment not to fight it, as well as an end to the call for the right of return, should be enough. However, any peace treaty that doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist should not recognize the Palestinians' right to self-determination. Just like the Palestinians accept Israel because that's the only way to achieve peace, that is also the only reason Israel agrees to the creation of a Palestinian state.
Without a mutual recognition of rights, the agreement should only include mutual recognition of existence. The Palestinians can't demand that Israel will be the only party to recognize the other side's rights.
Without a mutual recognition of rights, the agreement should only include mutual recognition of existence. The Palestinians can't demand that Israel will be the only party to recognize the other side's rights.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Shut Up About Ahmedinijad Already!
Yesterday was Holocaust Remembrance Day here in Israel. It seemed like current geopolitical threats were on the minds of Israel's leaders more than the genocide perpetrated by Nazis 65 years ago. I didn't listen to any of the speeches, but from the quotes I've read it seems like every single one of them mentioned Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, his Holocaust denial and the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons: President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Vice Prime Minister Sylvan Shalom and Knesset Speaker Rubi Rivlin are just a few examples.
My dear leaders, shut the fuck up! Yes, Ahmedinijad is a Holocaust denying, nuke-building son of a bitch who would like nothing more than to annihilate Israel. This is definitely a problem we have to deal with, but it shouldn't be exaggerated either. If you're whining hysterically in public, you're probably not really getting things done behind the scenes diplomatically.
Also, who the hell is Ahmedinijad to take over all of our discussions of the Holocaust? Sure, his speech at Durbin II on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't help, but there are more important things to learn from the Holocaust, like how we should treat Holocaust survivors or the new survivors of the genocide in Darfur who now live in Israel as refugees.
How about asking ourselves whether "never again" only applies to Jews. The answer should be an unequivocal no. "Never again" should apply to all peoples and the genocides that have occurred before and after the Holocaust should also be addressed without minimizing the horrors of the Nazis, who ran the most efficient, meticulous, calculated and well-planned, as well as largest scale, genocide of all time. We should especially bring attention to the genocides taking place right now and the lack of international effort to stop them.
Maybe in August, around the 64th anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if Ahmedinijad is re-elected president of Iran and the Obama administration doesn't seem successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel's leaders will speak about this favorite subject of theirs again.
My dear leaders, shut the fuck up! Yes, Ahmedinijad is a Holocaust denying, nuke-building son of a bitch who would like nothing more than to annihilate Israel. This is definitely a problem we have to deal with, but it shouldn't be exaggerated either. If you're whining hysterically in public, you're probably not really getting things done behind the scenes diplomatically.
Also, who the hell is Ahmedinijad to take over all of our discussions of the Holocaust? Sure, his speech at Durbin II on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't help, but there are more important things to learn from the Holocaust, like how we should treat Holocaust survivors or the new survivors of the genocide in Darfur who now live in Israel as refugees.
How about asking ourselves whether "never again" only applies to Jews. The answer should be an unequivocal no. "Never again" should apply to all peoples and the genocides that have occurred before and after the Holocaust should also be addressed without minimizing the horrors of the Nazis, who ran the most efficient, meticulous, calculated and well-planned, as well as largest scale, genocide of all time. We should especially bring attention to the genocides taking place right now and the lack of international effort to stop them.
Maybe in August, around the 64th anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if Ahmedinijad is re-elected president of Iran and the Obama administration doesn't seem successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel's leaders will speak about this favorite subject of theirs again.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Al-Zahar Doesn't Mean It
Reuters reports that Mahmoud Al-Zahar, foreign minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, came out of hiding for the first time since January:
Wow, now I'm finally convinced by all those who say that Hamas in power is no longer the irresponsible terrorist organization it used to be. It has clearly morphed into a pragmatic, peace-loving political party Israel and the world can do business with. When Al-Zahar says he will never recognize the enemy, he clearly means that as long as Israel is the enemy, they will not recognize it, but once it is no longer the enemy there will be no problem. See, interpretation is key!
Also, he doesn't recognize Israel because he hasn't seen it. How can you recognize something without seeing it first? Imagine someone telling you to give him a call if you see Israel Israelov, but you've never seen Mr. Israelov before, so how will you recognize him if you run into him? We need to arrange a tour around the country for the leaders of Hamas so they'll be able to recognize it next time around.
"We cannot, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form," Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the two leaders, said in a mosque sermon broadcast on the Islamist movement's radio station, referring to Israel.
Wow, now I'm finally convinced by all those who say that Hamas in power is no longer the irresponsible terrorist organization it used to be. It has clearly morphed into a pragmatic, peace-loving political party Israel and the world can do business with. When Al-Zahar says he will never recognize the enemy, he clearly means that as long as Israel is the enemy, they will not recognize it, but once it is no longer the enemy there will be no problem. See, interpretation is key!
Also, he doesn't recognize Israel because he hasn't seen it. How can you recognize something without seeing it first? Imagine someone telling you to give him a call if you see Israel Israelov, but you've never seen Mr. Israelov before, so how will you recognize him if you run into him? We need to arrange a tour around the country for the leaders of Hamas so they'll be able to recognize it next time around.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thomas Friedman: Age of Pirates
In the Age of Pirates
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, The New York Times
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, The New York Times
I’ve been thinking lately of starting a new school of foreign service to train U.S. diplomats. My school, though, would be very simple. It would consist of a single classroom with a desk and a chair. At the desk would be a teacher, pretending to be a foreign leader. The student would come in and have to persuade the foreign leader to do something — to pull this or that lever. At one point, the foreign leader would nod vigorously in agreement and then reach behind him and pull the lever — and it would come off the wall in his hands. Or, he would nod vigorously and say, “Yes, yes, of course, I will pull that lever,” but then would only pretend to do so.
The student would then have to figure out what to do next.
I’m wondering if President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aren’t those students, trying to deal with the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. I say that not to criticize but to sympathize. “Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be diplomats.”
This is not the great age of diplomacy.
A secretary of state can broker deals only when other states or parties are ready or able to make them. In the cold war, an age of great powers, grand bargains and reasonably solid client states, there were ample opportunities for that — whether in arms control with the Soviet Union or peacemaking between our respective client states around the globe. But this is increasingly an age of pirates, failed states, nonstate actors and nation-building — the stuff of snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats.
Hence the déjà vu all over again quality of U.S. foreign policy right now — the sense that when it comes to our major problems (Afghanistan and Pakistan and North Korea and Iran), we just go around and around, buying the same carpets from the same people, over and over, but nothing changes.
“We are dealing with states and leaders who either cannot deliver or will not deliver,” notes the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy professor Michael Mandelbaum. “The issues we have with them look less like problems that can be solved and more like conditions that we have to manage.”
The ones who can’t deliver — the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan — are the ones who promise to do all sorts of good things, and pull all sorts of levers, but at the end of the day the levers come off the wall because the governments in these countries have only limited powers. The ones who won’t deliver — Iran and North Korea — time and again tell us: “Yes, we need to talk.” But at the end of the day, their hostile relationships with America or the West are so central to the survival strategy of their regimes, so much at the core of their justifications for remaining in power, that it is not in their interest to deliver real reconciliation, but just to pretend to deliver it.
The only thing that could change this is a greater exercise of U.S. and allied power. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that power would have to be used to actually rebuild these states from the inside into modern nations. We would literally have to build the institutions — the pulleys and wheels — so that when the leaders of these states pulled a lever something actually happened, and the lever wouldn’t just break off in their hands.
And in the case of the strong states — Iran and North Korea — we would have to generate much more effective leverage from the outside to get them to change their behavior along the lines we seek. In both cases, though, success surely would require a bigger and longer U.S. investment of money and power, not to mention allies.
Instead, I fear that we are adopting a middle-ground strategy — doing just enough to avoid collapse but not enough to solve the problems. If our goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is nation-building, so they will have self-sustaining moderate governments, we surely don’t have enough troops or resources inside devoted to either. If our goal is changing regime behavior in Iran and North Korea, we surely have not generated enough leverage from outside. North Korea’s defiant missile launch and Iran’s continued development of its nuclear capability testify to that.
So, in sum, we have four problem countries at the heart of U.S. foreign policy today that we don’t have the will or ability to ignore but seem to lack the leverage or the allies to decisively change. The big wild card — a critical mass of people who share our aspirations inside these countries, rising up and leading the fight, which is ultimately what tipped Iraq for the better — I don’t see. As such, I fear we are sliding into commitments in Afghanistan and Pakistan without a real national debate about the ends or the means or the exits. That is a recipe for trouble.
Given all that is on his plate, you cannot blame President Obama for looking for a middle ground — not wanting to abandon progressives and women in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not wanting to get in too deeply. But history teaches that the middle ground can be a perilous place. Think of Iraq before the surge — not enough to win or lose, but just enough to be stuck.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Happy Passover!
I had a great time last night at the Seder. My nephew and niece participated very nicely. My nephew read quite a bit of the Haggadah himself. He reads very well, and the Haggadah is more complicated than regular Hebrew because of its mixture of biblical and Talmudic Hebrew and Aramaic. He laughed when he read the part where it says that God himself saved the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, and not through an emissary. The Hebrew word for emissary, Shaliach, is the same as the word for deliveryman. He joked that if they'd use a deliveryman maybe we'd eat pizza for a week instead of Matzah. My niece sang the Four Questions song very nicely. It is the part that the youngest person at the Seder is supposed to either read or sing.
Although it was nice, boy, am I happy that there is only one Seder in Israel. For one thing, I ate too much (though I'm sure I'll keep eating too much as long as there are leftovers). Also, being with my sister's kids until 10 PM is tiring.
Although it was nice, boy, am I happy that there is only one Seder in Israel. For one thing, I ate too much (though I'm sure I'll keep eating too much as long as there are leftovers). Also, being with my sister's kids until 10 PM is tiring.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Hamas and the Jews
I totally agree with the following op-ed by Shlomo Avineri (Hebrew, English):
What to speak with Hamas about
By Shlomo Avineri
Recently, more and more voices have been heard saying that the only way to reach an Israeli-Palestinian accord is by talking to Hamas. These voices are not only in Europe but also in the United States. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, for example, and Brent Sowcroft, who was national security adviser to the first president Bush, have said that without a dialogue with Hamas there will be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And if Israel refuses to do so, the Europeans or the Americans should begin a dialogue with Hamas.
Similar statements can also be heard in the margins of Israeli politics.
I believe they are right, but not for the reasons they cite. The question is what to talk to Hamas about. It is clear we have to talk with them - and Israel indeed does speak with them indirectly - about freeing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and achieving calm.
I believe we must talk to Hamas about other things too, like about what is written in their founding covenant. Most Israelis, as well as the Europeans and Americans, know that Hamas espouses the destruction of Israel. What most of them do not know is that Hamas' founding document includes a much more comprehensive attitude, not merely to Israel and Zionism, but to the Jews.
The prologue to the covenant states that Hamas' aim is a war - not against Israel or Zionism but against the Jewish people at large, since the Jews, and not merely Israel and Zionism, are the enemies of Islam.
And in order to remove any doubt, the entire chapter 22 is devoted to detailing the iniquities of the Jews.
According to Hamas, the Jews are responsible for all the ills of modern society - the French Revolution; the Communist revolution; the establishment of secret associations (Freemasons, Rotary and Lions clubs, B'nai B'rith) designed to help them gain control of the world by secret means. They control the economy, press and television; they are responsible for the outbreak of World War I, which they initiated in order to destroy the Muslim caliphates (the Ottoman empire), to get the Balfour Declaration and set up the League of Nations with the aim of establishing their state. They also initiated World War II in order to make a fortune from selling war materials; they use both capitalism and communism as their agents.
Sound familiar? Yes, some of it is taken directly from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and some, particularly the parts dealing with the world wars, is original.
Don't tell me that these are merely words and Hamas must not be judged only on the basis of its covenant. Would anyone dare say that if a similar movement were to arise in Europe or America and, in addition to statements like these, was busy killing Jews?
Compared with what is written in the Hamas covenant, Austria's Joerg Haider and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France are moderates.
It is clear that if a movement like this were to come out of Europe, no one would even imagine proposing that negotiations be held with it, or that it be asked to join a government. It would not merely be declared illegal but denounced by humankind. An abomination like that has no place in any political discourse.
But perhaps it is nevertheless worthwhile talking to Hamas - not about its contribution to peace but rather about what is stated in its covenant. Perhaps those who espouse the view that we must talk with Hamas will first talk with it about these subjects? Who knows, perhaps it will change its principles? I do not expect this to happen exactly, but I am certainly curious to know what those who think Hamas is the key to peace in the Middle East will say about these things.
And perhaps they are actually correct, perhaps Hamas is the key. If that's the case, it's difficult to expect that peace can be established in our region.
Mitzi Nostalgia
Does Plinky permit more than one response to each prompt? We'll find out now, as I post a follow-up to a previous answer where I chose "Miss Nelson Is Missing", but also mentioned various other children's books, including "Tell Me a Mitzi".
There was something strangely enjoyable about these physically ugly characters. I don't remember what the hell the story was, but I remember I loved the drawings.
Fond Memories of Viola Swamp
Here's a fun prompt: name a children's book that makes you nostalgic. Just one? I could list a lot: Curious George, the Berenstain Bears, Mitz Petel (about a lion and a giraffe wondering how the mysterious Mitz Petel [Rapberry Juice] looks), Dira Le'haskir (apartment for rent), Clifford the Dog, An American Tail (which I first knew in book form - I'm not sure if I ever saw the movie), the Arthur books, Tell Me a Mitzi (with the ugliest human beings in children's literature) and on and on and on.
But I had to pick just one, and "Miss Nelson is Missing" by Harry Allard and James Marshall is it.
I loved this book, in which a substitute teacher that looks like a witch makes the students appreciate their regular teacher, Miss Nelson. At the end of the book it is revealed that Viola Swamp, the substitute, was actually Miss Nelson in disguise.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Breaking News: Lieberman Pressures Netanyahu Into Peace Deal
JERUSALEM (AFP*) - In his first full day in office, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to a peace deal with the Palestinians. The deal was reached during an overnight marathon negotiation between several ministers headed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on the Israeli side and President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on the Palestinian side. Netanyahu was reluctant at first, but was convinced by the liberal Mr. Lieberman of the necessity of a just peace.
According to the peace agreement, the State of Palestine would be formed on the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. All refugees will be allowed to return to both Israel and Palestine. Such refugees will not require a loyalty oath to Israel, which only Jews will be required to take. Also, Gaza will be ruled under Islamic Sharia law and retains the right to lob missiles at Sderot, while the West Bank will be ruled under secular law.
"I could not have done this on my own," said Lieberman. "The fact that we have so many different ministers with overlapping responsibilities made us ten times more efficient in this negotiation." He commended the ministers of defense, strategic planning, negotiations, diplomatic maneuvering, minority affairs, regional development, and peace in our times, as well as the deputy minister of covering up settlement activity, for their work on this historic document.
In related news, Shas and United Torah Judaism declared their support for a separation of synagogue and state, while Meretz leaders forced Nitzan Horowitz to resign from the Knesset after they found out he was gay.
* April Fools Press, not Agence France-Presse
According to the peace agreement, the State of Palestine would be formed on the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. All refugees will be allowed to return to both Israel and Palestine. Such refugees will not require a loyalty oath to Israel, which only Jews will be required to take. Also, Gaza will be ruled under Islamic Sharia law and retains the right to lob missiles at Sderot, while the West Bank will be ruled under secular law.
"I could not have done this on my own," said Lieberman. "The fact that we have so many different ministers with overlapping responsibilities made us ten times more efficient in this negotiation." He commended the ministers of defense, strategic planning, negotiations, diplomatic maneuvering, minority affairs, regional development, and peace in our times, as well as the deputy minister of covering up settlement activity, for their work on this historic document.
In related news, Shas and United Torah Judaism declared their support for a separation of synagogue and state, while Meretz leaders forced Nitzan Horowitz to resign from the Knesset after they found out he was gay.
* April Fools Press, not Agence France-Presse
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Hollywood to Israelis and Arabs: You're All the Same to Us
A few days ago I watched an episode of "Desperate Housewives" featuring the character Yaniv, an Israeli fitness trainer who uses boot camp tactics on women trying to lose weight. He looked like he could be Israeli, but his accent was off. Curious, I went on-line and checked if he was really an Israeli actor. Turns out his name is TJ (Tarek Jafar) Ramini, and he's a British actor of Palestinian descent. I found this amusing.
The running joke in Israel about Israeli actors trying to make it big in Hollywood is that they are only cast as Arabs, usually terrorists. So, in this instance, the situation is the exact opposite: an Arab playing an Israeli.
There are enough Israeli actors in the States to play Israeli characters and I'm sure there are enough Arab actors in Los Angeles to play Arab characters, but still Hollywood groups them together. Is that a covert pro-peace message: you're all the same anyway, so just get your shit together already?
The running joke in Israel about Israeli actors trying to make it big in Hollywood is that they are only cast as Arabs, usually terrorists. So, in this instance, the situation is the exact opposite: an Arab playing an Israeli.
There are enough Israeli actors in the States to play Israeli characters and I'm sure there are enough Arab actors in Los Angeles to play Arab characters, but still Hollywood groups them together. Is that a covert pro-peace message: you're all the same anyway, so just get your shit together already?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Filling the Gaps of Battlestar Galactica
It isn't often that I need to include a spoiler warning in my posts, but this time I do. If you haven't watched the series finale of Battlestar Galactica and don't want to find out what happens then read no further.
SPOILER AND GEEK ALERT!
SPOILER AND GEEK ALERT!
Well, weirdly, somehow the final episode was at once very satisfying and very unsatisfying. The battle portion was great. Even most of the Earth part was good. We said goodbye to the characters in an emotionally satisfying way, although the idea of the Colonials being the source of Greek mythology makes no sense, considering the fact that they arrived about 140,000 years before the emergence of Greek myths. Also, the whole "God did it" thing is unsatisfying. There were so many unaswered questions here (like what's the connection between the Lords of Kobol and the Cylon God). Maybe some of this will be addressed in the prequel Caprica, but I doubt it.
Anyway, I made up my own answers for the unanswered questions. I used some background from the original series and shifted it around to suit me. Here's a time-line:
- 22,000 BCH (Before Cylon Holocaust): A reptilian race in a far away galaxy creates robots which rebel against them and wipe them out completely. The robots then go on to attack Humania, the only other inhabited planet in that galaxy. A one thousand year war begins.
- 21,000 BCH: The Humanians, a humanoid race (though not human), create their own robots to help them in their war. However, their own robots turn against them and join the original robots. The war ends in mutual annihilation, with all robots destroyed completely, and of the Humanians only 50 people aboard the Starship Kobol survive. They see that their race cannot survive through regular reproduction, so they invent resurrection technology.
- 20,000 BCH: Humanians settle upon a planet in the Milky Way Galaxy. They name it after their ship, Kobol.
- 18,000 BCH: Humanians find our Earth and primitive homo sapiens. For some reason, they decide that genetically engineering biological creatures would be safer than building robots, so they take a few thousand bone samples and try to guess how they'd naturally evolve. They call the homo sapiens Humans, after their original planet. They place them on twelve different locations on Kobol, which would later become the basis for the twelve tribes. The Humanians come to be known as the Lords of Kobol and are thought to be gods by the humans.
- 4,400 BCH: El, one of the few offspring of the original 50 Lords of Kobol, is born.
- 4,100 BCH: Humans create Cylons. The LOK are pissed, but El convinces them not to do anything.
- 4,000 BCH: A human scientist discovers that Cylon resurrection technology can be used on humans as well. The Lords of Kobol kill him before he can announce his discovery and prevent him from downloading into a new body. They decide to banish the Cylons. El is furious and leaves Kobol with them. Also joining him are five human priests who worship the Lords of Kobol.
- A few months later: The Temple of Hopes in established, where the Cylons and the five human priests pray to the Gods. They later find Cylon Earth. A few homesick Cylons take the last remaining FTL-capable ships and return to Kobol. They are the source of the information on Kobol about Earth and the Temple of Hopes. However, the LOK distort the story and make it sound as if El made the Cylons create the temple for himself and the five priests. He would use this distortion a few centuries later to reveal the identities of the Final Five (who don't really have anything to do with the five priests).
- 2,000 BCH: The Cylons create robots who attack them. The humanoids and the robots destroy each other. El, though, saw it coming because of the previous encounters with robots, so he warned the Final Five. He builds an FTL-capable ship for them, but the Lords of Kobol destroy it, so the Final Five must use a subluminal ship.
- Meanwhile, El returns to Kobol, and the Lords of Kobol, in their panic, decide to banish the twelve tribes (plus the remnants of the Cylons who returned to Kobol, which is why sometimes it is said that the 13 tribes left at this time). Athena, who disagrees with this decision, disables her own ability to resurrect and commits suicide.
- 1,990 BCH: A solar system with 12 inhabitable planets is discovered by the 12 human tribes. Meanwhile, the Kobolian Cylons go in search of Earth. Unfortunately for them, they never find it and die out.
- Towards the end of the first Cylon war, the final five finally reach Kobol, but find it abandoned. They mysteriously find a ship identical to their own orbiting the planet. They discover it is a jump-capable ship with the coordinates to humanity's current location. The Lords of Kobol, who had come to regret their actions of 2,000 years earlier, are the ones who secretly provided the ship.
- The Lords of Kobol and El partially reconcile. They both manipulate humanity, sometimes with the same goals in mind, sometimes with conflicting goals.
- When Kara Thrace is killed in the maelstrom, the LOK recreate her body and viper on Earth, and then downloads her into a new body. El, on the other hand, is the one who turns on four of the Final Five with the music.
- When the Colonials reach our Earth, the Lords of Kobol make her see her father one last time, and he tells her it is her time to go. She says so to Lee and disappears. She's actually taken to the LOK's ship, because they believe she deserves an explanation for everything that happened. She dies on the ship and is taken to Kobol to be buried.
- Colonial culture was lost, and all we got from them is DNA. However, the LOK manipulate things so that their names come up in Greek mythology.
- Head Six and Head Balter in Times Square don't really exist. It is just a representation of El's internal thoughts, using the images he made Caprica-Six and Baltar see. He himself has a side of him who thinks humanity will succeed and one side that thinks they won't. He's also joking with himself about how people see him as a god.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Joker Card of Israeli Politics
The Labor Party's convention is debating whether or not to join Benjamin Netanyahu's government. This is a major part of why I didn't vote for Labor in the election, even though I am a member of the party. I knew that a vote for Labor is a wildcard vote, a vote for the Joker, who can become anything. Ehud Barak wants to join a radical right wing government, spearheaded by Likud and the fascist Israel Beitenu. He didn't even demand that Avigdor Lieberman not be appointed foreign minister.
Seven of Labor's thirteen Knesset members oppose joing the coalition, but the decision isn't up to them. If the convention votes with Barak, the seven MKs should split from Labor. As a majority of the Knesset caucus they even have the right to take the name Labor with them and force Barak's faction to call itself by another name. I have a few suggestions: The Coalition Party, CMNMW Party (Cabinet Members No Matter What), Anti-Opposition Party, Fig Leaf Party, etc. I have a million of these. I can go on forever.
If this split does take place, I'd leave the current Labor Party and may join the new one that will stay in the opposition. If the party will join the coalition and won't split, I'll leave the party. If it stays in the opposition it will be on probation - if it doesn't get its act together soon and be a distinctively pro-peace party that's less naive than Meretz but more serious about the two-state solution than Kadima, it won't be able to count me among its members.
Seven of Labor's thirteen Knesset members oppose joing the coalition, but the decision isn't up to them. If the convention votes with Barak, the seven MKs should split from Labor. As a majority of the Knesset caucus they even have the right to take the name Labor with them and force Barak's faction to call itself by another name. I have a few suggestions: The Coalition Party, CMNMW Party (Cabinet Members No Matter What), Anti-Opposition Party, Fig Leaf Party, etc. I have a million of these. I can go on forever.
If this split does take place, I'd leave the current Labor Party and may join the new one that will stay in the opposition. If the party will join the coalition and won't split, I'll leave the party. If it stays in the opposition it will be on probation - if it doesn't get its act together soon and be a distinctively pro-peace party that's less naive than Meretz but more serious about the two-state solution than Kadima, it won't be able to count me among its members.
Five things to do before I die
Don't worry, I'm not planning on kicking the bucket any time soon.
Visit all six inhabited continents
I'd like to see as much as possible of the different cultures of the world.
Write a critically acclaimed work of fiction
I love writing.
Establish a cult that would worship me as a god
Not a death cult or a sexploitation cult, just one where they thought I was Zoroaster or Jahova or something.
Escape from said cult
Because I'd find out quite quickly that it's just too damn creepy.
Start my own Science Fiction franchise
To make millions of dollars and millions of fanboys and fangirls dress up as weird alien characters I made up.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Egypt May Boycott Lieberman
The Egyptian ambassador to Israel may not attend the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, as protest for the upcoming appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. Lieberman in the past suggested that Israel should bomb the Aswan Dam in Egypt and said that if President Husni Mubarak isn't willing to visit Israel he can go to hell. So who can blame the Egyptians for cooling off relations with Israel?
This is just one of the many reasons why it is insane and/or idiotic to appoint Lieberman as foreign minister.
This is just one of the many reasons why it is insane and/or idiotic to appoint Lieberman as foreign minister.
Something Rotten in the IDF
Ha'aretz published very disturbing soldiers' accounts from the operation in Gaza today (in Hebrew and in English), with more details coming out in tomorrow's weekend magazine. Even if you think Cast Lead was justified, like I do, the practices the soldiers speak of are unjustifiable. The article paints a clear picture of disregard for human life, excessive force, and in many cases, racism towards the Palestinians. This has to change.
A few years ago I attended a "mesibat gius", an "enlistment party", for a relative who was joining a combat unit. People gave him various tips about army life. Several people told him to always remember the Palestinians were humans, not just automatic terrorist suspects. I remember one person saying that "once you forget the Palestinian civilians are human, you also forget that you're human". It seems to me that kind of message needs to be an integral part of the training of combat soldiers.
Today's Haaretz editorial (Hebrew version here) calls for an external investigation:
A few years ago I attended a "mesibat gius", an "enlistment party", for a relative who was joining a combat unit. People gave him various tips about army life. Several people told him to always remember the Palestinians were humans, not just automatic terrorist suspects. I remember one person saying that "once you forget the Palestinian civilians are human, you also forget that you're human". It seems to me that kind of message needs to be an integral part of the training of combat soldiers.
Today's Haaretz editorial (Hebrew version here) calls for an external investigation:
"The IDF's internal investigations, which are moving ahead very slowly, are not enough. The army is absorbing more and more religious extremism from the teachings of the IDF's rabbinate. It would be appropriate to investigate the problems from outside the IDF and root them out before the rot destroys the IDF and Israeli society."I couldn't agree more. An investigative committee like the one set up after the Second Lebanon War should be set up, but this one should be focused on the moral and ethical aspects of the operation and IDF soldiers' training in general.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Stanley Fish: To Boycott or Not to Boycott
Stanley Fish, a law professor and former dean at the University of Illinois at Chicago, addresses the question of the academic boycott on Israel in his weekly New York Times blog:
"[...]
In the last line of the [previous] column I say that the arguments of the academic critics of neoliberalism lead straight to support for and participation in the boycott of Israeli academics. (Which isn’t to say that all critics of the neoliberal university are necessarily pro- boycott, only that it is easier for them to arrive at that position because they are already halfway down the road.) Several posters wondered how I could get from here to there. Here’s how, in five easy steps:
(1) The academic critics of neoliberalism complain that one effect of the neoliberization of the university has been the retreat by faculty members from public engagement, with the result that intellectual work becomes hermetic and sealed off from political struggle. “We need,” says Henry Giroux, “to link knowing with action, and learning with social engagement, and this requires addressing the responsibilities that come with teaching . . . to fight for an inclusive and radical democracy by recognizing that education in the broadest sense is not just about understanding . . . but also about providing the conditions for assuming the responsibilities we have as citizens to expose human misery and to eliminate the conditions that produce it” (“Against the Terror of Neoliberalism,” 2008)
(2) In the eyes of many academics, a great deal of human misery is being produced by Israel’s policy toward Palestinians. Eliminating it is everybody’s business.
(3) This includes academics who cannot stop at just talking about injustice, but must do something about it, must act.
(4) The political resources of academics are limited, but one way academics can show political solidarity is to put pressure on colleagues who are silent in the face of injustice: “The boycott or the divestment campaign is the mode of political protest that is left after all other forms of struggle have been tried”; it is “the politics of last resort” (Grant Farred, “The Act of Politics Is to Divide,” Works and Days).
(5) Therefore, it is appropriate and even obligatory to boycott Israeli academics and Israeli universities “that have turned a blind eye to the destruction and disruption of Palestinian Schools” (David Lloyd, Daily Trojan). “If, in the midst of oppression, these institutions do not function to analyze and explain the world in a way that promotes justice . . . but rather acquiesce in aggressive neocolonialist practices, then others may legitimately boycott them” (Mona Baker and Lawrence Davidson).
Nor will they be saved by the invocation of academic freedom, for rather than protecting Israeli academics, academic freedom, as the boycotters understand it, demands reprisals against them for having stood by while the freedom of Palestinians was being violated. “There is a whiff of hypocrisy,” says Steven Rose, when after failing to protest against the atrocities of their government “Israeli scientists complain that those of us . . . who refuse to collaborate with them . . . are attacking their academic freedom” (The Guardian, May 27, 2004).
David Lloyd drives the point home: “Israeli institutions are complicit in immense infringement on Palestinian academic freedom, so it’s really hard, it seems to me, for Israeli institutions to claim the rights of academic freedom that they are so systematically denying to their Palestinian counterparts.”
Lloyd’s last phrase — “their Palestinian counterparts” — raises a question that helps us to see what has happened to academic freedom in these statements. Counterparts in what respect? Not, obviously, as co-religionists or citizens of the same polity, but as academics — men and women trained to engage in research and to follow lines of intellectual inquiry wherever they might lead.
Whatever their political or religious or geographical situations, scholars throughout the world are linked by a set of concerns to which they have a responsibility that is distinct from (although not necessarily antithetical to) the responsibilities they may have in other respects. The strength of an academic discipline, Murray Hausknecht observes, “depends on maintaining relationships across national borders.” (Dissent)
Academics, Hausknecht explains, “can be likened to citizens of a nation,” and while they are also citizens in political units (particular nations and finally the world), if we conflate the two citizenships by making academic judgments (whether to accept a paper in a journal or invite a speaker to a conference) on political grounds, we do great damage to the scholarly community, the nature of which “is exemplified by academics who publish papers in foreign journals, attend international conferences, and collaborate with colleagues in research projects.”
But it is just such a conflation that the boycotters insist on, as Grant Farred makes clear when he declares that “academic freedom has to be conceived as a form of political solidarity.” Political solidarity, not academic solidarity. Farred denies to academic work any distinctive identity (he of course would receive this as a compliment, not an accusation), and insists that decisions about how to engage in it — where, in collaboration with whom — should be guided by political considerations, by a determination of whether this or that scholar is on the right side.
For the most part, opponents of the boycott do not engage on this point, but instead put forward arguments that are weak, either because they are counterproductive or merely strategic. In the counterproductive category is the charge that the boycotters are anti-Semitic. Rather than shaming or cowing those it is aimed at, this accusation only produces indignation, both on the part of those who favor a boycott and are Jewish (like its founders Steven and Hilary Rose) and those who declare that they have been fighting all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, for their entire lives.
The charge of anti-Semitism also provokes two responses of principle: first that one can and should distinguish between opposition to the policy of a state and prejudice against that state’s racial majority (Are you telling me I can’t criticize Israel without being a racist?); and second, that the invocation of anti-Semitism has the effect, if not the intention, of chilling speech (a First Amendment no-no). How can one “vigorously advocate the idea that the Israeli occupation is brutal and wrong . . . if the voicing of these views calls down the charge of ant-Semitism?” (Judith Butler, “No, It’s Not Anti-Semitic” London Review of Books, August 21, 2003).
A second line of anti-boycott reasoning invites counter-responses that merely continue the debate without in any way clarifying it. It asks, why single out Israel when European and North American academics regularly engage with researchers from countries (including, perhaps, the United States) with well-documented records of human-rights abuses? The trouble with this debating point in the guise of a question (you’re supposed to realize that you’d end up boycotting everyone) is that it implies that if Israel were the only state performing bad acts it would be O.K. to embargo its academics.
The real question is, should the policies (whatever they are) of a country an academic happens to live in ever be a reason for denying her the courtesies academics extend to each other in recognition of the collaborative nature of the work they do? (Yes, I would include academics from the Third Reich.) That question has the advantage of facing squarely the issue of what academic work is and isn’t, an issue that is obscured if you’re just toting up and rank-ordering atrocities as a preliminary to determining which scholars you will or won’t deal with.
Boycott opponents do no better when the focus is narrowed to just Israel and Palestine and they argue, as Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz do, that it is incorrect and a suspicious distortion to regard Israel “as the pure aggressor,” and the Palestinians “as pure victims” (“The Contemporary Fight Against Anti-Semitism”).
But again, the degree of culpability assigned to the two states (and of course that is a matter that will never be settled) should not yield a formula for treating its academics differently (you guys can come to our conference, but you lot can’t). Even if it were agreed that Julius and Dershowitz are right and there is blame all around, that agreement would say nothing about whether or not to boycott, unless you believe that the question is an empirical one that can be answered by history and analogy.
Because anti-boycotters offer arguments that trade in comparisons and calculations of relative guilt, they are vulnerable to the boycotters’ trump card: If you supported the boycott of South Africa and the disinvestment by universities from companies doing business in or with that country, you are obligated, by your own history, to support the boycott of Israeli academics. Hilary and Steven Rose reported in 2002 that they knew many academics “who thought that cooperating with Israeli institutions was like collaborating with the apartheid regime” (“The Choice Is to Do Nothing or Try to Bring About Change,” www.guardian.co.uk/Archive).
In response, anti-boycotters say that (1) boycotting is a “blunt instrument” that harms individuals and institutions indiscriminately; (2) it wasn’t the boycotts that brought down the South African regime; (3) the boycott against South Africa was economic and was not aimed primarily at scholars, and (4) despite the loose use of the word by boycott promoters, Israel is not an apartheid state, for it accords its Arab citizens political rights that were denied to blacks in apartheid South Africa.
But the effort to detach Israel from South Africa by claiming that the sins of the latter were much greater than the sins of the former has not been successful, in part because those who make it are trying too hard. (You can almost see the sweat on their foreheads.) The American Association of University Professors ties itself up in knots explaining that while its own history includes “support for divestiture during the anti-apartheid campaigns in South Africa,” it nevertheless opposes this boycott. The rationale seems to be that South Africa was a special, one time case — “South Africa is the only instance in which the organization endorsed some form of boycott” — but that is hardly going to satisfy those who are prosecuting the “if-you-protested-injustice-then–you-should-protest-it-now” argument.
The better course would be for the AAUP and other boycott opponents to accept the equivalence of the two situations, and repudiate what they did in the past. Not “what we did then is different from what we decline to do now,” but “we won’t boycott now and we were wrong to boycott then.”
Whether or not divestiture and other actions taken by academics were decisive in, or even strongly contributory to, ending the apartheid regime is in dispute. What should not be in dispute is that those actions, however salutary and productive of good results, were and are antithetical to the academic enterprise, which while it may provide the tools (of argument, fact and historical research) that enable good and righteous deeds, should never presume to perform them."
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Shalit Deal
A deal to release 450 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would be much more justifiable than the two deals with Hezbollah. Does that mean the current deal is a right move? No, it doesn't.
The deals with Hezbollah were so extremely wrong that it isn't hard to achieve a better agreement. We gave the Lebanese terrorist group hundreds of prisoners in exchange for soldiers' dead bodies and one living criminal. We should have only given dead bodies in exchange for dead soldiers, and the criminal, who was captured while doing something illegal, was not worth a high price.
Gilad Shalit is different. He is alive. It is right to release hundreds of living Palestinian prisoners for him. The question isn't the number. The question is who is being released exactly and how they will affect Israel's security. What these prisoners have done before is unimportant. It is important to assess what they might do if they are released. If they pose a serious threat and will carry out or plan attacks that will kill many Israelis they should not be released.
Also, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship should not be released as part of this deal. We cannot let Hamas become the representative of Palestinians inside Israel. These Israeli citizens who were involved in terrorism are not part of the Hamas's jurisdiction, or even the Palestinian Authority's. You know what? Any Israeli Arab prisoner who wants to be released as part of the Hamas deal should be given two options: either stay in prison till the end of your term, or give up your citizenship and be deported to Gaza. Who needs convicted terrorists walking Israel's streets?
So, should Israel go through with this deal? I don't know. I don't feel that I know enough about the prisoners Hamas is demanding. If the threat to Israeli civilians is low, than I support it. Otherwise, I don't.
The deals with Hezbollah were so extremely wrong that it isn't hard to achieve a better agreement. We gave the Lebanese terrorist group hundreds of prisoners in exchange for soldiers' dead bodies and one living criminal. We should have only given dead bodies in exchange for dead soldiers, and the criminal, who was captured while doing something illegal, was not worth a high price.
Gilad Shalit is different. He is alive. It is right to release hundreds of living Palestinian prisoners for him. The question isn't the number. The question is who is being released exactly and how they will affect Israel's security. What these prisoners have done before is unimportant. It is important to assess what they might do if they are released. If they pose a serious threat and will carry out or plan attacks that will kill many Israelis they should not be released.
Also, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship should not be released as part of this deal. We cannot let Hamas become the representative of Palestinians inside Israel. These Israeli citizens who were involved in terrorism are not part of the Hamas's jurisdiction, or even the Palestinian Authority's. You know what? Any Israeli Arab prisoner who wants to be released as part of the Hamas deal should be given two options: either stay in prison till the end of your term, or give up your citizenship and be deported to Gaza. Who needs convicted terrorists walking Israel's streets?
So, should Israel go through with this deal? I don't know. I don't feel that I know enough about the prisoners Hamas is demanding. If the threat to Israeli civilians is low, than I support it. Otherwise, I don't.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Call Me Procrastinatus
If I were named after one of my traits my name would be Procrastinatus. Why? Simply put, because I waste way too much time on unimportant things and leave the important stuff for the last minute.
I'd Write About Venice
Paul Simon was going to Graceland, Toto blessed the rains down in Africa – what place would you write a song about?
Venice is the most unique city I've ever visited. Where else are there boat lines instead of bus lines? Where are there buildings that go right down to the water, with no sidewalk or beach between the houses and the lagoon?
I know I'm not being very original here. Many have written songs about Venice. It has been an inspiration for all sorts of art forms. There is good reason for it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Angry Arab Children
I just came across a Kishkushim post about something the Angry Arab had to say: "During recent months, children in the southern town of Rahat, near Be'er Sheva, have taken up a new and cruel pastime - burning dogs alive". The title of the post was "Zionist Games".
Apparently, Angry Arab doesn't know that Rahat is the largest Arab city in Southern Israel. I doubt those Bedouin kids are Zionists, but hey, it's happening in Israel, so let's just use it as proof of the horrors of Zionism. Even if they were Jewish kids, would this mean Zionism condones animal cruelty? Does the fact that they are Arabs mean all Arabs abuse dogs? The answer to both questions is a big fat no.
Apparently, Angry Arab doesn't know that Rahat is the largest Arab city in Southern Israel. I doubt those Bedouin kids are Zionists, but hey, it's happening in Israel, so let's just use it as proof of the horrors of Zionism. Even if they were Jewish kids, would this mean Zionism condones animal cruelty? Does the fact that they are Arabs mean all Arabs abuse dogs? The answer to both questions is a big fat no.
Monday, March 09, 2009
A shark would beat a bear!
Does a shark have the right to (eat) bear arms?
This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever written about, but who cares?
A shark would be able to rip the bear's guts out with a single bite, though the shark would be badly beaten up as well.
One Female Minister
Yesterday was International Women's Day, so it's a good opportunity to take a look at women in our government. The outgoing Knesset saw the first female speaker, and the incoming Knesset has more women than ever before (21 out of 120 - 17.5%). The next head of the opposition will be a woman - Tzippi Livni.
The judicial branch is headed by a woman, Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. The Supreme Court's permanent membership is made up of five women and seven men, plus two male justices on temporary appointments.
The executive branch is the most problematic. Though Tzippi Livni was close to becoming Israel's second female prime minister after Golda Meir, our next government will probably have only one female cabinet minister or two at the most. The Likud will appoint Limor Livnat, while Yisrael Beitenu might appoint Sofa Landver. However, the other coalition partners are likely to be religious parties with no female Knesset members, so they will not appoint female ministers.
What I don't understand is why the Likud will only have one female minister. Why isn't Leah Ness, who won a higher position than Limor Livnat in the primaries, getting a seat in the cabinet? Netanyahu can also bring in experienced women who are not parliament members if he doesn't like the women in the Likud's caucus.
The judicial branch is headed by a woman, Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. The Supreme Court's permanent membership is made up of five women and seven men, plus two male justices on temporary appointments.
The executive branch is the most problematic. Though Tzippi Livni was close to becoming Israel's second female prime minister after Golda Meir, our next government will probably have only one female cabinet minister or two at the most. The Likud will appoint Limor Livnat, while Yisrael Beitenu might appoint Sofa Landver. However, the other coalition partners are likely to be religious parties with no female Knesset members, so they will not appoint female ministers.
What I don't understand is why the Likud will only have one female minister. Why isn't Leah Ness, who won a higher position than Limor Livnat in the primaries, getting a seat in the cabinet? Netanyahu can also bring in experienced women who are not parliament members if he doesn't like the women in the Likud's caucus.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Chiney's American-Style Scandal
The commander of Israel's navy, Major General/Vice Admiral Eli "Chiney" Marom, has gotten himself in trouble. He was spotted at a strip club last week by a journalist. He was reprimanded by the military's chief of staff, but many are calling for his resignation, saying that it is inappropriate for a high ranking member of the military to attend a club that demeans women. Also, Chiney, who got his nickname because of his East Asian looks (he is one quarter Chinese), apparently lied about being at the strip club only once. Yediot Ahronot reported this week that many in the military have slightly changed his nickname to Dick Cheney.
I have mixed feelings about this scandal. On the one hand, I think that attending strip clubs, especially when you pay for personal lap dances as the admiral did, is a form of sexual abuse. On the other hand, it isn't illegal, and it is somewhat accepted socially. Also, should this man, who is praised for his work in the military, be punished for what he does on his own free time?
I don't think this kind of scandal would have made headlines in Israel until recently. This sounds more like an American scandal, where the private life of a high ranking official - or at least one aspect of it - is seen as inseparable from his job. In a way, it simultaneously both a move in the right and wrong direction. Demanding that our military and civilian leaders will not attend businesses that objectify and demean women is a step in the right direction. However, mixing the private and the public lives of our officials is not good. Until now, their private lives have been the interest of gossip columnists, not of the serious news pages.
I have mixed feelings about this scandal. On the one hand, I think that attending strip clubs, especially when you pay for personal lap dances as the admiral did, is a form of sexual abuse. On the other hand, it isn't illegal, and it is somewhat accepted socially. Also, should this man, who is praised for his work in the military, be punished for what he does on his own free time?
I don't think this kind of scandal would have made headlines in Israel until recently. This sounds more like an American scandal, where the private life of a high ranking official - or at least one aspect of it - is seen as inseparable from his job. In a way, it simultaneously both a move in the right and wrong direction. Demanding that our military and civilian leaders will not attend businesses that objectify and demean women is a step in the right direction. However, mixing the private and the public lives of our officials is not good. Until now, their private lives have been the interest of gossip columnists, not of the serious news pages.
The Shoe Flies Both Ways
President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran was on the recieving end of a shoe throwing incident this week. The perpetrator has not been caught. It's nice to see that not only the representatives of Big Satan (then-President George W. Bush) and Little Satan (the Israeli ambassador to Sweden) are getting the footwear treatment. The representatives of the Axis of Evil are getting their share as well.
I wonder if there will be a new kind of shoe now. Like there are shoes made especially for running, walking, playing basketball or going to a fancy restaurant, maybe there will be special "throwing shoes". They'll be aerodynamic, with a special hissing sound and hidden camera which automatically uploads a YouTube video of the official getting shoed.
I wonder if there will be a new kind of shoe now. Like there are shoes made especially for running, walking, playing basketball or going to a fancy restaurant, maybe there will be special "throwing shoes". They'll be aerodynamic, with a special hissing sound and hidden camera which automatically uploads a YouTube video of the official getting shoed.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
This Plinky Thing
I tried out Plinky yesterday. It is supposed to inspire people suffering from "blogger's block" to write. They post a new "prompt" every day, which is actually a question for bloggers. I answered one of these questions yesterday in my previous post. It was one of their first questions, posted in January. That's how far I had to go to find a question I'd like to answer, or even see what other people had to say about it.
Oh well, maybe they'll have interesting questions once in a while. We'll just have to wait and see.
Oh well, maybe they'll have interesting questions once in a while. We'll just have to wait and see.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Check out the ice caves near Salzburg, Austria
This is quite literally the coolest thing I've ever seen.
The ice caves have nothing but ice formations in them. It's much more impressive than any stalagmite cave I've ever visited. The entrance into the cave is very cool - there are gusts of wind you have to go through, but once inside, there will be no wind whatsoever.
The New Face of Israel
I haven't blogged since the Israeli elections. I just didn't have the muse to write about the depressing results. Now Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to piss me off even more than I ever expected. Reportedly, he is planning on appointing Avigdor Lieberman as the next foreign minister. Really? Bibi wants this fascist to be the face of Israel to the world? You think this guy will be welcomed with open arms in Europe and the United States? Foreign officials will not ignore the fact that Lieberman and his party, Yisrael Beitenu, want to revoke the citizenship of anyone who is unwilling to vow allegiance to the state (mostly Arabs, but also Jews with the "wrong" views).
This guy who looks and acts like a bulldog or nightclub bouncer is unfit for government in general. He's especially unfit to be our top diplomat. Is there anything diplomatic about him?
Holy crap.
This guy who looks and acts like a bulldog or nightclub bouncer is unfit for government in general. He's especially unfit to be our top diplomat. Is there anything diplomatic about him?
Holy crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
