Let's Return to Pre-1967 Zionism

Here's an interesting opinion piece from today's Haaretz:

Before and after 1967 (source in Hebrew and in English):

The wrongs committed after 1967 threaten the justice of Zionism in its entirety, while pre-'67 wrongs were wrongs of particular moves in the realization of Zionism.

By Chaim Gans

The members of a bizarre coalition of pro-settlement right-wingers (for example, the late Yosef Ben-Shlomo, and Israel Harel, long may he live) and the anti-Zionist left (recently, Yehouda Shenhav) are united in one claim. They hold that the Zionist left's support for the pre-1967 borders, and its sharp opposition to the settlements since, are hypocritical and inconsistent. The inconsistency, they say, is that Zionism has been settling at the Arab's expense since it began - not only since 1967.

In addition, they claim that even if the post-'67 settlements are the basis of unjust acts, Zionism committed many more injustices in 1948 and the following decade. At that time it not only settled on private land belonging to Palestinians, it also uprooted masses of people from their homes and refused to allow them to return.

But the position of the Zionist left is far from inconsistent. There is a huge gap between the post-'67 settlements and the injustices perpetrated by Zionism until then; the wrongs committed after 1967 threaten the justice of Zionism in its entirety, while pre-'67 wrongs were wrongs of particular moves in the realization of Zionism.

The source of this distinction is of course the well-known distinction between the jus ad bellum and jus in bello. There is no contradiction between the claim that Britain's bombing of Dresden during World War II was a criminal act and the claim that this criminality represented a step taken in a just war - even a sublimely just war, the war against Nazism.

We must acknowledge the great injustices committed by Zionism up to 1967. We have to take responsibility for them (via reparations ) - mainly for the expulsion of refugees. We must also acknowledge the high price the Palestinians paid for the realization of Zionism, even when Zionism did not commit injustices against them. But none of these admissions undermines the justice of Zionism in the least. For in 1948, Zionism realized the right of Jews to self-determination - after a history of persecution that created a necessity to implement the right to a historic homeland. The justice of this Zionism is sublime, even though crimes were committed during its realization.

The post-'67 settlements (in contrast to just an Israeli military presence in the territories ) cannot be justified on the basis of the needs of a persecuted nation. The settlements are the bases for the continuing injustices committed by a powerful state. These wrongs are being carried out many decades after the persecution of the Jews ended. They are in effect acts of persecution committed by Jews against Arabs with the backing of the Jewish state. So the Zionism in whose name they are carried out cannot be considered just.

Zionism cannot be just if it is a proprietary movement representing the so-called "generations of the Jewish people" to acquire the deed to the entire Land of Israel and Jerusalem - the way the right wing justifies the settlements and its opposition to the construction freeze in the territories and Jerusalem. Zionism can be just only if it is an existential movement of Jews interested as individuals in maintaining their culture and living in their homeland without being persecuted. This justification supports the Zionism that existed before 1967. But not after. The settlements are therefore criminal not only in isolation. They deny Zionism of its justice as a whole.

They deny not only the justice of its present and future, they also deny the justice of its past. The acts that were committed by Zionism up to 1967 - including its criminal acts - do not have these implications. Therefore, we must return to 1967. Not because of demographics. For the sake of justice.

Extremist Kenneth O'Keefe

BBC's HARDtalk just introduced me to one of the world's most bizzare characters. Tattooed, crazy-eyed ex-US Marine (and ex-US citizen) Kenneth O'Keefe was interviewed about the events onboard the Mavi Marmara, which he witnessed first hand as one of the pro-Palestinian passengers. [Update: video available after the jump]. The guy is mad as hell at Israel and the world at large.

O'Keefe is a one-stater who dismisses Qasam and Grad rockets as "glorified firecrackers". He said he's willing to die for his cause. He's so extreme he renounced his American citizenship. In the interview, he said he did so because the United States violated human rights, so I assumed this came after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to O'Keefe's website, this is not the case. He renounced his citizenship six months before 9/11, and accepted "Hawaiian [Kingdom] citizenship" (which, of course, does not exist), as part of his battle for Hawaiian independence, an idea which I doubt most Hawaiians support. He also believes the United States is engaged in genocide against native Hawaiians.

On a different front, O'Keefe organized "Human Shield Action to Iraq", which was meant to prevent the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many criticized it as protecting Saddam Hussein's regime rather than Iraqi civilians.

The more interviews this aggressive nut gives, the better for Israel. He's not likeable at all, in contrast with some of the softer-spoken pro-Palestinian activists such as Huwaida Arraf. I don't think he convinced a lot of people who aren't die-hard anti-Israel/anti-Western activists as it is.

A self-proclaimed anti-Imperialism activist who is an ex-Marine: doesn't that sound like a James Bond villain?

Reminder: Ken O'Keefe's interview on BBC's HARDtalk after the jump (video via the blog Jews sans frontieres, which takes the exact opposite view from me on this). Judge for yourselves.

Stop the Lebanese Flotilla

A new flotilla is about to set sail for Gaza from Lebanon. Another one might come soon from Iran. These are terrorist-harboring nations, the very people we Israelis don't want Hamas to be able to be in contact with for fear of arms smuggling. Iranian and Lebanese ships must not be allowed to reach Gaza.

These flotillas are very different from last month's Turkish flotilla. Then, there were hundreds of naive peace activists onboard and a few dozen violent provocation activists. Here, the ships will be manned solely by provocateurs and chances are higher that there will be Hamas-bound weapons as part of the cargo. Had we dealt with the previous flotilla in a smarter way, avoided casualties and an international outcry, the Lebanese and Iranians maybe wouldn't have even thought of sending their own "aid".

Some fear that intercepting enemy ships (and this time, that is exactly what they are) might start a war with Lebanon and Iran. I doubt that will be the case. Neither of them have any interest in a war. That is especially true about Iran, who knows that declaring war on Israel and firing missiles on it would give a green light to Israel, and possibly the United States, to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. After all, if fear of being bombed by Iran is what keeps us from taking action, we'll have no reason not to do it anymore.

Saudi Arabian Searches for Jewish Genome "Hoax"

I'm sometimes very happy to have my Lijit Widget (see it on the left). It shows me how people reached my blog and from where on the globe, and sometimes I have interesting visitors. One of my latest readers hails from Riyad, Saudi Arabia and reached this site by searching for "hoax the genome-wide structure of the Jewish people". I shouldn't reach conclusions based on one internet user, but I must say I'm not surprised that the recent studies showing a genetic link between different Jewish communities around the world would automatically be seen as hoaxes by certain people in the Arab world.

Take This, Shlomo Sand!

Two new studies published in Nature and in the American Journal of Human Genetics prove that Jews worldwide are related to each other and are of Middle Eastern origins. Except for Jews from Ethiopia, Georgia, and certain communities in India, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are much more similar to each other and to Middle Eastern populations than to local non-Jewish populations.

Read about it in the New York Times, or read the abstracts and articles themselves:

"The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" in Nature:

Contemporary Jews comprise an aggregate of ethno-religious communities whose worldwide members identify with each other through various shared religious, historical and cultural traditions. Historical evidence suggests common origins in the Middle East, followed by migrations leading to the establishment of communities of Jews in Europe, Africa and Asia, in what is termed the Jewish Diaspora. This complex demographic history imposes special challenges in attempting to address the genetic structure of the Jewish people. Although many genetic studies have shed light on Jewish origins and on diseases prevalent among Jewish communities, including studies focusing on uniparentally and biparentally inherited markers, genome-wide patterns of variation across the vast geographic span of Jewish Diaspora communities and their respective neighbours have yet to be addressed. Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations. In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant.

"Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry" in the American Journal of Human Genetics:

For more than a century, Jews and non-Jews alike have tried to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people. Previous genetic studies of blood group and serum markers suggested that Jewish groups had Middle Eastern origin with greater genetic similarity between paired Jewish populations. However, these and successor studies of monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial genetic markers did not resolve the issues of within and between-group Jewish genetic identity. Here, genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews represent a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared IBD genetic threads.

I wonder what Shlomo Sand thinks about this. His main argument in "The Invention of the Jewish People" is that modern Jews aren't related to the ancient Jews of the Kingdoms of Israel & Judea, but rather are made up of unrelated groups of peoples who converted to Judaism over the centuries, and that most Ashkenazi Jews descend from the Turkic Khazars. Sand's theory, often used by anti-Zionists to delegitimize the state of Israel, has just been proven false once again.

"Happy" Anniversary

Today is my blog's 7th birthday. More importantly, it is the 43rd anniversary of the Six Day War (or of Day 2 of 6, to be exact). The war itself was justified, as was taking control over the territories we conquered. It was the colonization and the idea that we'll never leave that were the problem.

At the time, we didn't have any negotiating partners in the Arab world. The Arab League's summit in Khartoum in August 1967 declared "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel", and vowed to continue fighting for the destruction of the Jewish State. If the Israeli leaders of the time had been smart, they would have created a Palestinian autonomy right then and treated the people of the West Bank and Gaza much better than the Jordanians and Egyptians had treated them. They'd rebuild their lives and their economy until the Palestinians would be stable enough to have their own state.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened and we're still in control of the West Bank, and a band of terrorists is in control of Gaza. Despite everybody knowing what the solution should be, nobody seems to be honestly working toward that solution.

Will last week's flotilla fiasco push the Israeli and Palestinian governments in the right direction? I doubt it. Things will probably get much worse now. Israel is on a collision course with Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be considering "breaking the siege" in person, with Turkish navy ships protecting him. Nothing good can come of this.

This was quite a pessimistic post, but let's end it on a lighter note:

Raed Salah, Violent Turks and Violent Knesset Members

In a television interview today, Sheikh Raed Salakh, the radical Islamic cleric, claimed that Israeli soldiers shot one of the people onboard the Marmara because they thought it was him. Interestingly, he called his doppleganger a soldier, a "jundi" in Arabic. Would he call a peace activist, or even an unarmed pro-Gaza activist, a "soldier"? A few of the other passengers on the ship talked about becoming Shaheeds, martyrs. One even expressed regret for surviving.

Foolishly, all the Turkish citizens arrested on the flotilla were sent back to Turkey. We should have deported only those not involved in violence. Those who attacked our soldiers will now be able to join the Irish ship named after Rachel Corrie, which is currently docked in Turkey, and unless some kind of agreement between Israel, Ireland, the Free Gaza Movement and the crew of the Rachel Corrie is reached, they'll be able to attempt a repeat of the events of the Marmara.

I have to say that this whole flotilla thing is one case where I'm mad as hell at almost everyone involved, from the Israeli government to the anti-Israel "provocation activists". Yesterday, a few of our Knesset Members joined the list of people who piss me off. Yossi Sarid's reaction to the near-brawl and all the cursing was just perfect (the English version, unfortunately, dropped Sarid's lament in the end against the nationalism taking over the Knesset, by both Jews and Arabs).

Alleviate the Gaza Blockade, Don't Lift It

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was too defiant in his public statement yesterday, but he certainly was right about one thing - letting ships sail to Gaza freely would create an Iranian port on the Mediterranean Sea. Do all those demanding that Israel lift the blackade not realize that such a move would amount to giving Hamas a free pass to arm itself with thousands of missiles a day, or do they just not care?

Much of our policy is foolish. While we already do transport a lot of stuff into Gaza,  the list of items we don't allow into the territory seems quite random. Supplies without any military purposes should be allowed in, as should people who are not suspected terrorists. This isn't a free flow of people and goods, but it is a freer flow.

And by the way, Israel took the cargo from the "freedom flotilla" and loaded it on trucks. They're now stuck at the border with Gaza, because Hamas is the one who won't let it in. What the hell is up with that?

Israel Must Investigate Itself

Israel should not submit to an international investigation of the Gaza flotilla fiasco. It should conduct its own investigation. It should be a National Investigative Committee (ועדת חקירה ממלכתית), the highest, most independent sort of investigation, in which the government is the one who decides to establish it, but it is the chief justice of the Supreme Court who appoints its members. It can even have international observers, but the Israelis will be the ones conducting the investigation.

Investigations of lower stature are not enough. An investigation by the military won't have international credibility, and most importantly, wouldn't have the authority to look into the government ministers' decision-making process. A government-appointed committee wouldn't cut it either, unless it has exactly the same authority as a National Investigative Committee and its members can be trusted to be independent (this might be what happens in the end, if the law doesn't allow for a National Investigative Committee to have international observers).

It now seems that some cabinet members support a high-ranking investigation. Even Avigdor Lieberman is on board, so I'm pretty confident it won't be too long before the government decides to act.

Nobody Takes Responsibility

Today's Ha'aretz is the second annual Author's Edition, in which fiction writers and poets take over the newspaper for one day and report the (real) news. Etgar Keret's piece about trying to find someone to interview who would take responsibility for the flotilla fiasco is quite telling. In a normal country, at least one top ranking official would resign over such a fatal failure, but not in Israel.

With officials mum, journalists are told: Just watch the faces (source: English/Hebrew)
By Etgar Keret

At 7 A.M. yesterday, the newspaper called to tell me I would be its diplomatic correspondent for the day. They apologized for the early hour, but "after all, it's going to be a long day, not to say critical. We have nine killed, dozens wounded, denunciations from the whole world .... And today is the day when someone will have to take responsibility for this snafu."

They promised to set up an interview for me by 9 A.M. By 11 A.M., they still hadn't called back, so I called to see what was happening.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still overseas, they explained; we're trying to get you an interview with another member of the forum of seven ministers that approved the raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla.

Another hour passed; still no word. I called again.

"Not for attribution, those guys from the septet are blaming the whole thing on the military," my editor said. "But none of them is willing to be interviewed by you" - except maybe Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon. But maybe, he suggested, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor would agree to talk if you called him yourself.

So I called Meridor. He said he would love to talk to me, but his daughter was getting married that day. He didn't even plan to attend the meeting of the inner cabinet.

I told my editor. It's okay, he said, we have another idea: If the army is to blame, maybe it's better that you speak to a senior officer. "Give us 10 minutes and we'll get back to you."

An hour later I still hadn't heard back, so I called again.

"It's complicated," the editor said. "On the scene, they're saying that the military is furious at [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak, that he's the one who forced them to board the ship without Kalashnikovs. But we checked, and none of them has the courage to talk to the media, they're all afraid."

But don't worry, he added, we've had a brilliant idea: We'll arrange an interview with Ami Ayalon. As a former commander of both the navy and the naval commandos, he can comment knowledgeably on the military aspect, and as a former Labor Party minister and Knesset member, he knows all about party chairman Ehud Barak's tricks. And he's a leftist, so he won't be afraid to take on the government.

An hour later, when I hadn't heard back from the paper, I called again. Unfortunately, they said, Ayalon is abroad. So maybe it will have to be Ya'alon after all.

"But we're not wild about it," the editor added. "For an incident of this magnitude, it would be better for you to talk with someone a little more ... well, it's not important. But you know what? We have a new angle. We'll arrange an interview for you with one of the naval commandos who was there. One of them could give you the most authentic angle, from the field. If he can't tell you who's guilty, who can?"

Again, I waited an hour. Nothing. I called again. They said the interview with the commando wasn't going to happen. But Netanyahu is going to give a press conference, they said. It isn't definite yet, but really, he has no choice. "Give us just a few minutes to find out when exactly it's happening."

This time, they actually got back to me - and quickly.

"Netanyahu won't hold a press conference," my editor said. "The issues he could be asked about are critical to the country's future, and it's not appropriate for him to answer them off the cuff like that, still jet-lagged."

But don't worry, he added, we've thought of something else: We spoke to the defense minister's aide, and he said Barak would be willing to take you with him in his helicopter from Jerusalem to the naval commando base at Atlit. But you'll have to vanish as soon as you arrive, because the base is top secret.

"And during the flight he'll agree to answer questions?" I asked.

"Well, the thing is," the editor responded, "he'd love to answer, but it's impossible because there's noise in the helicopter .... But his aide says you can write down your impressions. You know, of the view, his facial expressions. We understand this isn't a lot, but it's still information. You can observe and interpret for our readers whether he looks more determined or more guilty."

"Enough!" I roared. "I've had it with all this nonsense. I don't want to look at Barak. I want to ask someone questions and get answers. And if only Bogey [Ya'alon] is prepared to talk, I want to talk with Bogey. The man is in the septet forum and he replaced Netanyahu as acting premier when he was abroad. He's ready to talk? Then I want to listen."

"Well, that's the thing," my editor said, sounding embarrassed. "It seems that even Bogey isn't willing to be interviewed today. It's strange. It's very unlike him."

"So what do you suggest I do?" I asked.

"Good question," he responded. "So we thought, why not leverage this? Stop running after them; we'll leave a few blank columns on the side and the readers can guess for themselves who's to blame for this screw-up."

More on the Flotilla Fiasco

As more information comes in, it is clear that there were some armed activists on the main ship that was raided by Israeli commandos today. There are reports that not only were the soldiers attacked with clubs, sticks and knives, they were also fired at. A few soldiers are in the hospital with gunshot wounds, and others with broken bones. One soldier was tossed off a deck and somehow survived.

Some people on the "Free Gaza" flotilla were true, albeit naive, peace activists. Some, on the other hand, were "provocation activists" and terrorists. I do believe that most of the peace activists didn't know that the provocation activists were armed, and I feel sorry for the real peaceniks who were killed or injured. I don't feel sorry for anyone who shot at the soldiers. If they were truly peaceful, they should have used passive resistance, as they had announed they would do.

There were reports that all armed activists were Arabs. It wouldn't surprise me if they were all Hamas militants who joined the flotilla for a chance to shoot Israeli soldiers, rather than to raise awareness or bring aid to Gaza.

Earlier today, I talked to an Arab Israeli friend and was surprised by how shocked he was by today's incident. Jewish Israelis are dismayed and worried about the implications of the high death toll, but his feelings seemed to go beyond that. He saw this as the end of any glimmer of hope for peace, which seems to me like quite an overreaction. Yes, the death toll is horrible, but it is just one incident, and most of the dead (and perhaps none - we don't know yet) aren't even Palestinians. I think that part of his reaction stemmed from reports that are now known to be false, that Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, the head of the Northern faction of the Islamic Movement was either critically injured or dead. Turns out Salah, one of the most radical leaders of the Arab citizens of Israel (he has called for an Intifadah within Israel to protect Al-Aqsa), is alive and well and ready for more anti-Israel provocations. I hope the fact he's still around will make Arabs in Israel feel a little less anxious.

The Flotilla Fiasco

What exactly happened when Israeli commandos took over the Pro-Gaza activists' boats is still murky. It is now clear that there are some deaths, though the number is quite uncertain, as reports range from 2 to 16. Israeli reports say the soldiers were attacked with clubs and knives and some activists tried to take over the soldiers' guns. That definitely contributed to the death toll.

Nobody is blameless in this fiasco. Israel's policy on the matter was ill advised from the beginning. The navy should have just allowed the boats to reach Gaza after an inspection of the cargo for weapons, though right now I'm not sure whether or not the provocation-seeking activists would have peacefully let the navy on board for such inspections.

The activists, on their part, wanted to make Israel look bad more than they wanted to bring aid to Gazans or to "break the siege". They claimed they come in peace and that they would not violently resist, but resist they did. Pictures coming via Turkish television show activists attacking soldiers with clubs. They didn't actually think they could win, repell the Israelis and then reach their destination. At least some of the activists, if not most of them, wanted there to be a riot to make Israel look as bad as possible.

If anything good will come of this terrible situation it will be that nobody but crazy people with suicidal tendencies will want to come on these publicity stunt boat rides, bringing aid that, for the most part, comes in via the Israel-Gaza border anyway.

The Role of the Anti-Defamation League

Following Peter Beinart's article in the New York Review of Books about the American Jewish establishment's blind support for Israeli governments (which I previously blogged about here), the NYRB has published an exchange between Beinart and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. I have to say that most of it isn't very interesting, because Foxman repeats the same thing we've heard time and time again, and Beinart repeats what he wrote in his article, what he said in his Bloggingheads debate with Eli Lake and his answers in today's Haaretz Q&A feature (which, for some reason, I could only find in Hebrew).

However, I did find the last two paragraphs of Beinart's response to Foxman noteworthy:

The ADL was founded “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” What I have always admired about that statement is its suggestion that to truly defend Jewish dignity, one must also defend the dignity of other vulnerable groups. At home, the ADL still honors that mission, working valiantly, for instance, against racial profiling in Arizona. But how can an organization that is so vigilant in opposing bigotry in the US be so complacent about a government shaped by men like Lieberman, Effi Eitam, and Ovadia Yosef? How can it not take its rightful place in the struggle on behalf of Palestinians evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah?

When it comes to Israel, the ADL too often ignores the interconnectedness of Jewish and non-Jewish dignity. After all, the same sort of settler fanatics who burn Palestinian olive groves also assassinated an Israeli prime minister. The same ultra-Orthodox hooligans who burn Christian holy books also attack Jewish women trying to pray at the Western Wall. And the same Israeli government that demonizes Israeli Arabs also demonizes Israeli human rights groups. To be for ourselves, we must also be for others. I hope the ADL will live that ethic again.

Of all the organizations in the so-called "Israel Lobby", the ADL is probably the most problematic, in my opinion. As Beinart points out, its official purpose is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” However, it also acts as a pro-Israel organization. Now, both roles are not only legitimate, but important. Fighting anti-Semitism is a worthy cause that can never end as long as anti-Jewish racism exists. Advocating for Israel, the state and its people rather than the government, is also important. The problem is that those two missions should not be undertaken by the same organization, because that would suggest that being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, or even sometimes just an opponent of the current Israeli government, is equal to being anti-Semitic, and that isn't the case.

You might say that I'm unfairly singling out the ADL, since other Jewish organizations also blend fighting anti-Semitism with being pro-Israel. I'd say there's a big difference. The ADL's main purpose is defending Jews from discrimination and anti-Semitism. Other organizations, on the other hand, focus more on the internal workings of the Jewish community, rather than anti-Semitism. That makes them less problematic than the Anti-Defamation League, but of course it doesn't make Beinart's criticism of them any less relevant.

American Zionism and Israeli Democracy

There's an interesting Bloggingheads debate between Peter Beinart and Eli Lake, in which they debate a few aspects of Israel-U.S. relations. I found two parts of it particularly compelling. First, they discuss the growing gulf between American Jews, especially young ones, and Israel. Beinart recently wrote an excellent article on the subject in the New York Review of Books, where he explains that young liberal Jewish Americans don't see Israel as a liberal country and so don't identify with it, while most of the young people in the States who still feel a strong connection with the Jewish State are illiberal Orthodox Jews. He says that part of the problem is that the major Jewish organizations support anything Israel does, and so young Jews don't see that they can be both liberal and Zionist at the same time. I think his analysis of the situation is spot on.

The other part I found interesting was the question of whether Israel is becoming more and more illiberal and undemocratic. Here, again, I think Beinart is right that there are alarming signs, but I also believe Israeli democracy is still strong.

Eli Lake keeps saying to Beinart that he (Beinart) just isn't capable of reading Israeli politics. First of all, it is kind of rude to dismiss these arguments by basically saying "you're an idiot". Secondly, I'm an Israeli, meaning I'm probably better at understanding Israeli politics than Lake himself, and I agree with most of what Beinart says. Lake seems like such a douchebag (I love that word).

On a related note, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy agrees with me about our democracy. He thinks our main problem is "small politicians".

Let Pro-Gaza Activists Through

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

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

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

Umberto Eco Opposes the Boycott of Israel

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

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

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

The Idiocy of the Chomsky Affair

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

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

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

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

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

Appointing a friend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SCOTUS Bat Mitzvah Syndrome

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

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

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

The May 2010 War and Peace Index

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

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

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

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

Palestinian Israelis, the Arab World and Gadhafi

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

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

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

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

Mourning on the Anniversary of Israeli Independence

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

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

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

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

"Lost" Theorizing: What the Timelines Are

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

Anat Kam: Whistleblower or Spy?

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

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

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

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

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

Say No to the Gag Order

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Just Earned His Nobel

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

A Question About Ambassador Oren

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

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

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

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

Obama and Israelis: The Myth of Hostility

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

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

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

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

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

Obama vs. Netanyahu

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

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

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

Livni Warns Against Fascism

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

Contempt of Court

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

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

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

Finding Roots on Television

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

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

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

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

Asperger's and Autism on TV

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

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

Autism and the Environment

Toxins in the environment are much more dangerous than mercury in vaccines, and pollution is much more likely to be one of the causes of autism than the shots babies get. I've been saying so for years. Now, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof backs up my argument that "it's the environment, stupid!", based on a new article published in the journal Courant Opinion in Pediatrics, "What causes autism? Exploring the environmental contribution" by Philip J. Landrigan (unless your institution purchased access to the journal, you'll have to pay to read it online).

Protecting our environment is a public health issue. Pollution is not just a threat to our flora and fauna, it's a threat to us and to the next generations. I also think that the prominence of anti-global warming advocates has shifted the focus away from pollutants that have nothing to do with carbon emissions. Don't get me wrong - global warming is a serious, pressing problem, but it is far from being the only serious, pressing environmental issue we face.

Jerusalem, City of... Love?

Yesterday was Valentine's Day, a perfect day for romantic movies. I'm sure many couples went out to see "New York, I Love You", the second installment in the "Cities of Love" series, or rented a DVD of the first installment, 2006's "Paris, je t'aime". Each film is an anthology of several love stories from different neighborhoods of the city in the title.

I have not seen either film, nor do I intend to do so. The only reason I'm interested in this series is the odd news that one of the next films will be "Jerusalem, I Love You", with segments directed by American, Israeli and international directors. Jerusalem? Really?

Paris made sense as the first city in the series. After all, it is the City of Love, and considered the most romantic city in the world. New York is also the location of many a love story. Rio, one of the future installments is quite exotic. But Jerusalem?

I do not associate Jerusalem with romance. The only famous Jerusalem love story I can think of is David and Bathsheba - you know, the one with the cheating, the murder of the cheated husband and the death of the bastard baby. Israel has much more romantic cities, like Tel-Aviv, Eilat or even Haifa. These are cities with beaches and quite a night life. In Haifa, there's also romantic natural scenery.

The only love I associate with Jerusalem is the love of God. The excessive love of God, that is. Fanatics spilling the blood of those who are of different religions or are their co-religionists but not devout enough in their own minds.

Oh, well. The creators of the short films about Jerusalemite romance will find something to write about. Romance happens in Jerusalem all the time, just like in any other city. And the movie has one good thing going for it: I'm sure Natalie Portman will appear in it, and maybe even direct a segment. After all, she directed a segment of "New York, I Love You", appeared in both the New York and Paris installments and was born in Jerusalem.

Oh, and one more thing in Jerusalem's defense: Another future installment in the series will be about Shanghai, a city I associate with romance even less than Jerusalem.

Shutting Up Opposing Views

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon were heckled by pro-Palestinian protesters during recent appearances at respected universities. Oren was treated to a series of shout downs at the University of California, Irvine (see Youtube video below), while Ayalon was heckled during a speech at Oxford. The protesters chose not to ask difficult questions during the Q&A, but rather to try to shut the Israeli speakers up by shouting all kinds of slogans. It seemed to be pre-organized, but not in a very smart way. The UC-Irvine protesters (and maybe the ones in Oxford, too, but I haven't seen a video of them) had written their slogans on little notes beforehand, and shouted them out one person at a time, with no connection between what Amb. Oren was saying at that point and what they were shouting.

There is no difference between what these protesters did and what the right-wing organization "Im Tirtzu" is trying to do to the New Israel Fund and left wing organizations. Both groups are fighting to shut up their own opposition while claiming that what they themselves are doing is an exercise in free speech. How can an attempt to silence free speech be itself protected by free speech?

You might say that there is a difference between NGOs like the New Israel Fund and government officials like the deputy foreign minister and a diplomat. You might try to claim that the protesters were speaking truth to power. That isn't the case. People in the audience only heard slogans. They didn't really hear in depth arguments in favor of the Palestinian cause, which the Arab protesters could have made during the Q&A. Audience members didn't hear a debate that would make them understand the situation better. Instead, they got fragments of the Israeli view and even smaller fragments of the pro-Palestinian view, but no interaction between the two. The hecklers turned the event into a disgrace unworthy of an academic venue.

UC-Irvine video after the jump.

L-less Lesbians

Once upon a time in a country far far away there was a young maiden named Jane. Everybody adored her. Boys wanted to date her, but for some reason she was not interested. Even when Brad Pitt came into town, she found her eye wandering to his wife. She did not understand what she was, or perhaps refused to say it in front of others.



One day, she became infatuated with a woman named Marcia and the two had sex. "This was just a one time thing," Jane said. "I am not a... Not a..."



"You can't even say the damn word," said Marcia. "You are what I am. A..."



"No, don't say it," Jane interrupted, anxious of what might happen if she heard the word.



"Give me a ring when you come out. Before then, I don't want to have anything to do with you," announced Marcia. She got dressed and started opening the door, then gave Jane another chance. "Come on. Your window won't be open much more."



Jane said nothing. Marcia went out the door and never turned her head back. Jane regretted her decision the moment she made it, but did not have the courage to change it.



The End.



And that, my friends, was a story about lesbians not only without the L-Word, but also without the L-Letter.

Absentee Voting In Israel

First, a few disclaimers. I am a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. I vote in US elections (as a "Special Federal Voter" - ain't that a cool title?) despite the fact that I haven't lived there in over twenty years. I might move to the States temporarily for a few years, but I plan to return to Israel after that.

Alright, what was all that about? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman have proposed to allow Israelis living abroad to vote in Knesset elections. Not all citizens living abroad will be allowed to vote. The exact formula hasn't been finalized yet: Lieberman's proposal says that anyone who has had an Israeli passport for at least 10 years will be eligible to vote absentee, while the Likud proposes that this right will be given to citizens who left Israel less than six years before the election, and spent no less than 40 days in the country during that period. It should be noted that currently, every citizen may vote as long as he's in Israel on election day, regardless of whether or not he lives in Israel.

I don't like the current proposals. Lieberman's proposal is too broad and is simply meant to reduce the percentage of Arab voters. Someone who spent very little time in Israel can vote absentee ten years after becoming a citizen, even if he left the day he got his Israeli citizenship. Netanyahu's proposal is also ridiculous. If I understand it correctly, 40 days in Israel are enough to restart the six-year countdown.

People who have permanently left Israel should not be allowed to vote by absentee ballot. They have no moral right to do so. They will not have to live with the consequences of their vote. What's the difference between Israel and the US, you ask? Not much difference. As someone who does not live in the States, I don't have a moral right to vote in US elections. I have a legal right, which I implement. If Israelis who left the country years ago are allowed to vote, I won't blame those who take advantage of this right. I'll blame the lawmakers who gave it to them.

But there still is a difference between Israel and the United States - the proportion of Americans abroad is miniscule. The proportion of Israelis abroad is quite large. I don't have much impact on US elections, except for cases of very close elections. With the large number of Israelis living abroad and the proportional representation system, absentee voters will have a huge impact on elections, even when one party or bloc has a clear lead.

Israelis who are abroad temporarily - one week, one month, or even a few years while studying or working - should be allowed to vote. The best way to differentiate between those who have left the country for good and those who are abroad temporarily is to set a real limit: let's say that someone must have lived in Israel for at least four out of the last eight years in order to qualify for an absentee ballot.

It seems like Labor and Shas are going to kill absentee voting. Too bad. While I'm glad what Lieberman and Netanyahu are proposing won't become law, I'm sorry no solutions for the temporary absentees will be reached.

Asperger's No More (No PDD, Either)

The American Psychiatric Association is working on the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-V, which would replace the current version, DSM-IV. As part of the revision process, the APA is considering a new approach to Autistic Spectrum Disorders, where all the disorders will be given the same diagnosis, without categorizing them into autism, Asperger's Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) or any other category. Autistics will still get the treatments they need, and might even get better care, because it will be custom tailored to each one's needs, rather to the label they got.

This is a very smart move. The lines between the different autistic categories are quite blurry, and a person can fit one category at a certain age and then move to another as he grows older. My nephew, for instance, who has an autism diagnosis, is now almost like a non-autistic kid. Is he an Aspie? Does he fit the description of PDD-NOS? He doesn't fit perfectly into either one. He's an extremely high functioning autistic kid. That's it.

The DSM-V is also going to have revised criteria for an autism diagnosis. I'm not sure I'm crazy about what is being proposed, but I'm not an expert either. For more information, you should check out a New York Times op-ed on the matter and Sullivan's post at Left Brain/Right Brain.

Ahmadinejad and the West: Haaretz Cartoon

Amos Biderman, Ha'aretz

Gay Soldiers in International Forces

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bans openly gay men and women from serving in the United States military should be repealed immediately. Many countries, including Israel, allow gays to serve openly in their armed forces and no harm is done.

The main argument made by supporters of the current policy is that changing the regulations would hurt unit cohesion. In other words, homophobic soldiers won't feel comfortable around homosexuals who are out of the closet. Well, it's easy to check if American soldiers are less open-minded than Canadian and European soldiers. Many Americans already serve with openly gay foreign soldiers, as part of NATO and other international forces. How are the relationships between American soldiers and their gay counterparts? It wouldn't take too long to conduct such a study.

Obviously, there will be problems here and there with homophobic incidents, but on the whole, acceptance of gays will probably go smoothly.

Rahm Emanuel, the R-Word and Sarah Palin

The Wall Street Journal revealed that Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's White House chief of staff, used the phrase "fucking retarded" during a strategy session last summer. Mr. Emanuel shouldn't have said that, and he rightly apologized.

That is not enough for Sarah Palin, who is using the fact that she has a son with Down Syndrome to demand that Obama fire Emanuel over the remarks (to be fair, I'm using the fact I have an autistic nephew and a few relatives with different kinds of mental disabilities as proof of my right to voice an opinion on the matter). Well, okay, it's Sarah Palin, looking for a chance to hit the Democratic administration whenever she can. What surprises and even worries me is the fact that a lot of people, even liberals, agree with her.

Rahm Emanuel is a jackass for using the R-word, but it isn't a reason to fire him. He apologized, and that's it. Does using the word "retarded" mean that he has policies that would harm people with disabilities or that he has negative feelings toward the mentally disabled? No. It just means he's foul-mouthed. This isn't like racial epithets.

"Retarded" has become a word that should not be used, ever. It didn't start that way. It was a statement of fact. Retardation means delay. Mental retardation means exactly the same thing as delayed mental development. It was the use of the word "retarded" as an insult that turned the word into one that should not be used, because it has a negative connotation. The new words and phrases that replaced the term should be used when referring to people with cognitive disabilites, but shouldn't be used as curse words. "You're so mentally disabled" is no better than "you're so retarded".

The word "retarded" doesn't need to be banished from the world completely, if it is used satirically. Attention to it (or to "retard") started when it was used in "Tropic Thunder". In the film, the term didn't laugh at disabled people. It laughed at, and criticized, supposedly liberal actors who play disabled people to win awards, not to open up the audience's minds to the difficulties of life with such conditions.

When I think about it, the Hebrew words Mefager (retarded) and Pigoor (retardation) are used all the time, even by myself. I'd never use the English word, but the word in Hebrew is just so pervasive in the language and the culture. Every time I say it, I think to myself "damn, I shouldn't have said it. That was the last time." But then again, the word isn't the exact translation. It's used way more often in Hebrew to mean "delay" than it does in English ("Israel's train system is Mefageret behind Europe's"), so that might explain why it is considered less offensive. Either that, or just Israelis or more ignorant about the issue than Americans.

Ajami, Oscar Nominee

For the third time in a row, an Israeli film has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. Unlike "Beaufort" and "Waltz With Bashir", this film has nothing to do with the First Lebanon War, though it does touch on Jewish-Arab relations. "Ajami", which I have not yet seen, tells the story of  people who live in Ajami, a mostly-Arab neighborhood in Jaffa. It has an 86% favorable rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on seven critics' reviews [Update: As of Feb. 15, it has a 95% favorable rating among all critics, with 19 positive and just one negative review. Among Top Critics it has a 100% positive rating, based on six reviews].

"Ajami" is competing against “El Secreto de Sus Ojos” (Argentina), “The Milk of Sorrow” (Peru), “Un Prophète” (France) and “The White Ribbon” (Germany). I haven't seen any of these, either, but I understand that the French and German films are very good and are very tough competition. Then again, these last few years this category has provided surprises. Last year, there were two favorites to win, including "Waltz With Bashir", and neither of the two won. Maybe "Ajami" will be this year's dark horse.

Update (Feb. 15, 2010): I watched the film and loved it. It is very powerful, and the acting is excellent. Surpisingly, all the actors are amateurs, but it doesn't show. The movie might be a bit confusing at times, but that doesn't hurt the film. It is similar to the movie "Precious" in how cruel and relentless the protagonists' lives are and how little hope there is for the future.

Im Tirtzu's Attack on the New Israel Fund

Im Tirtzu, a right-wing student organization who for some reason insists on calling itself a centrist movement, has started a campaign against the New Israel Fund and its chairwoman, former MK Prof. Naomi Chazan. In ads in newspapers and online, Im Tirtzu claims that 92 percent of the negative claims against Israel and the IDF in the Goldstone Report whose source is Israeli, came from organizations funded by the NIF. They invite people to read a report they prepared, and I assume they hope people won't actually read the report. I read it, and checked out some of their refrences to the Goldstone Report.

They're careful to say it is 92% of negatives claims against Israel made by Israeli organizations, but most people who read it would think it is a whopping 92% of all claims, which isn't the case. Remember, that NIF sources are less than 14% of the whole sources of the Goldstone Report. The Palestinians' claims would still be there even if it weren't for NIF-funded organizations.

Now, how did they get to the exact 92% figure. They took 191 references to NIF sources (including "New Profile", which Naomi Chazan has already said is not affiliated with the NIF), plus 56 references to non-NIF Israeli organizations. At this stage, the NIF is responsible for only 77% of the references. That isn't bad enough, so Im Tirtzu needed to increase the percentage. What did they do? They split the 56 non-NIF references to those who are either supportive of Israel or neutral (40) and those who criticize it (16). So those critical of Israel are now 191 NIF sources (92%) and 16 non-NIF sources (8%). But wait, why didn't they perform a similar split between NIF sources criticizing Israel and those supporting it? I noticed that at least a few of the NIF sources they listed actually talk about life under the threat of the Qassams. If I had the time to go over all the references, I'm sure I'd be able to find more NIF sources in the Goldstone Report that are either supportive of Israel or neutral.

I have to say that I'm not too thrilled with the organizations that did give the Goldstone Commission certain one-sided information, but it's their right to give the Commission information as they see it. This McCarthyist campaign by Im Tirtzu is disgusting.

The New Israel Fund has many great programs in Israel, most of them not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would hate to see them lose contributions because of this slanted report.

More on the Binationalism Debate

Haaretz's opinion section has two articles today that discuss the idea of binationalism. They both respond to an essay by Meron Benvenisti (here in Hebrew or English) who says that binationalism is a fact already today and that there is no other solution.

One article, by Elia Leibowitz (in Hebrew, not yet available in English), only slightly touches on Benvenisti's assertions, arguing that actions such as the recognition of Ariel College as a university, the concensus among Israelis about Ariel remaining part of Israel and the left-wing belief in binationalism - all these share a fatalistic view, that there are things that cannot be undone; that Israel can't do a thing to change the future. Leibowitz calls upon Israel to start building other kinds of facts on the ground, such as a massive highway that will connect Gaza to the West Bank.

The second article, by Alexander Yakobson (Hebrew and English), is entirely a rebuttal of Benvenisti. I agree with it completely.

A binational state? Here?
By Alexander Yakobson

Since the division of the land into two viable states is no longer possible, there is no choice - for anyone who believes in equality - but to support a democratic binational state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, claims Meron Benvenisti (Haaretz, January 22).

In my opinion, exactly the opposite is true: Since it is clear that the state Benvenisti recommends instead of Israel will not be a binational democracy, anyone who believes in equality (as opposed to someone who believes in the need to surrender to Arab nationalism) must adhere to the principle of two states for two peoples. This solution is definitely possible if both sides really want it. Yes, the Palestinian side too, whose contribution to the present situation Benvenisti is careful to not examine.

Goodbye, Holden Caulfield

Coincidentally, the news of J.D Salinger's death came just a few days after I started reading his short story collection, "Nine Stories" (a.k.a. "For Esme with Love and Squalor"). At the end of every single story I just said "wow". His writing skills were amazing, and I believe he was the best author I have ever read.

I read "The Catcher in the Rye" when I was in high-school and absolutely loved it. Even though I wasn't much of a rebel and didn't particularly think of adults as phony, I completely identified with Holden Caulfield. Every time I heard a reference to the book as the crazy assassin's bible, I was pissed as hell. There was nothing in the novel that promoted murder. So what if Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's killer, and John Hinckley Jr., who tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, were fans of the book? So was Reagan's VP, former President George H. W. Bush!

I'm thinking of re-reading "Catcher". I'm sure it would be a totally different experience from the original reading, not just because it would be the second time around, but mostly because I'm in a different place in my life now. A teenager reading about a teenager is not the same as someone in his late twenties reading about a character who is a decade younger than him. I have no doubt I'll still love the book, and I'll discover new things I didn't notice in high-school.

I'll also probably get around to reading Salinger's other works sometime.

Burkas and Binationalism

In accordance with the findings of a French parliamentary committee, President Nikolas Sarkozy plans to ban the use of burkas and any other clothing that covers people's faces when in public. I strongly oppose this idea. Some women choose to wear burkas, and the ones who don't will not be helped by such a ban. If they will be forced to dress in a way they see as immodest when in public, they won't be in public at all. They will be trapped inside their homes by their husbands and families.

Women should be required to show their faces when taking pictures for IDs and passports, and other instances where they need to prove their identity, such as when they go to vote. But when just walking in the street, attending university or sitting in a library there is no reason not to allow them to cover their faces.

Avirama Golan writes in today's Haaretz (Hebrew and English) that French-Muslim women are being abused by two opposing political factions. She also makes a very good point about what French national values can teach us about the idea of a one-state solution in Israel:

The case of France, a secular republic whose president, based upon its constitution, can make such statements as "the burka is contrary to our values," is conspicuous, but it has implications for other countries as well, especially Israel.

Forget about the burka and the veil and the hat and the sheitel worn by Jewish religious women, and all the other bright ideas that men have invented and that women have had to suffer or have tried to transform from a sign of weakness into a sign of strength. Take note of the official statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, opposing isolationism and promoting nationalism in the name of the state.

This is in contrast to Israel, where nationalism has, for increasing numbers of groups, become a dirty word. Both the right and the left are coming up with a new invention: a binational or multinational state.

The right wants to erase the border and annex the territories, while elements on the left seek to give up Israeli nationalism which is offensive in their view and which they say is an abomination in the eyes of the progressive international community. Both are convinced that there is no prospect and no need for "two states for two peoples." From now on, the settler shall dwell with the Palestinian and the ultra-Orthodox with the atheist. They will all show respect for each other and their kind and the hijab and the tefillin will be jumbled all together.

But maybe just wait a minute. Maybe first we should see if Europe fulfills the post-nationalist dream and if leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Sarkozy and others, together with all of the citizens who weep while singing the national anthem and on national days of remembrance, give up nationalism in favor of the multi-communal dream. According to all indications, including the French parliamentary report on the burka, we can ensure that for the time being that it absolutely does not happen.

1 Million Shekels Over a Gardener?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sarah are suing Ma'ariv for libel. They are seeking one million shekels (about $270,000) in damages from the newspaper for reporting that an elderly gardener in the Prime Minister's Residence was fired by the Netanyahus when they moved in last year. Ma'ariv described the gardener as a bereaved father who performed basic gardening tasks for less than minimum wage. The Netanyahus claim in their suit that the report is not true and the gardener is still working at the official residence. Ma'ariv, the newspaper with the second largest circulation in Israel, has not responded to the suit yet.

Even if Ma'ariv published a bogus report, why sue them? Why not just complain to the Israeli Press Council, as Netanyahu did regarding Yediot Ahronot and its report about Lillian Peretz's lawsuit against Sarah Netanyahu?

When the prime minister sues a newspaper it stinks. When he sues a newspaper over such an unimportant issue as whether or not a damn gardener was fired - it stinks even more. It looks like Netanyahu is trying to intimidate the press so it stops reporting on his wife's and his own conduct. I hope this suit is thrown out by the courts.

Muhammad al-Dura: Dead or Alive?

Reuven Pedatzur, by no means a right-wing nut, writes in today's Haaretz that there is strong evidence that Mohammed al-Dura never died. Al-Dura became a symbol of Palestinian resistance when his death, while huddled with his father behind a concrete barrier, was caught on tape by a Palestinian freelancer on the second day of the second Intifada. I'm not convinced that the incident was completely staged and that al-Dura wasn't killed, but I do believe there is solid evidence that shows he wasn't killed by Israeli soldiers.

Anyway, judge for yourselves (English version taken from here, or read the original Hebrew article):

Mohammed al-Dura - Israel's greatest PR failure
By Reuven Pedatzur

The photograph of Mohammed and Jamal al-Dura crouching behind a cement-filled barrel in a fruitless effort to avoid being hit by the bullets of Israeli soldiers became a symbol of the cruelty and brutality of Israel. It established the image of the Israel Defense Forces as a bloodthirsty army, operating on the basis of unacceptable norms. At the end of the 55-second footage aired by the France 2 television station, reporter Charles Enderlin declared that "Mohammed is dead," opening "the floodgates to a torrent of vengeance," as Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff wrote in their book "The Seventh War."

Mohammed al-Dura became a martyr, a symbol of the struggle of the Palestinian people against a ruthless occupier. Postage stamps bearing an image of the father and son were issued throughout the Arab world, and streets were named after the boy.

The story of Mohammed al-Dura was a tremendous propaganda victory for the Palestinians. But it was also Israel's biggest public relations failure, and it is unclear why. There is plenty of evidence showing that the story about the boy's death was a show skillfully orchestrated by the Palestinians.

What is troubling in this affair is that official Israel ignored the testimonies and investigations that began piling up immediately after the incident. The documentary by the German journalist Esther Shapira, and the investigation by French businessman Philippe Karsenty, raise suspicions that Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma who shot the footage that was delivered to France 2 meddled with the story. And many others were party to this effort.

The cameraman's testimony is full of contradictions. He says that "the soldiers shot the two in cold blood for 45 minutes." However, if the IDF soldiers wanted to hit Mohammed and his father in "cold blood" they could have killed them in less than a minute. Regarding the question of how many bullets were fired toward the two, Abu Rahma said "at least 400." The wall at the site of the incident clearly shows eight holes.

Karsenty managed to acquire the raw footage of Abu Rahma, including the 10 seconds of film after Enderlin declares that "Mohammed is dead," which shows the child raising his hand and peering toward the camera. Nowhere in the footage are bullets seen hitting the bodies of father and son, even though the father claims he was hit by 12 bullets and his son by three. No blood was found at the site of the incident.

Mohammed al-Dura was buried in a funeral attended by masses. However, the child who was buried was brought to Shifa Hospital in the Gaza Strip at 10 A.M., according to the testimony of a doctor who admitted him. The shots at the Netzarim junction began only at 2 P.M., and Mohammed was taken away from the site at 3 P.M. In the photographs shown by a Gaza pathologist, a child who had been hit by bullets is seen, but his injuries are not the sort that Jamal spoke of. While the father says that Mohammed was hit in his right leg, the boy at Shifa was hit in his left leg. A biometric identification expert compared the photograph of the child who was buried and the child at the Netzarim junction, and found that they are different.

The father, Jamal, claims that 12 bullets hit his body, and he proudly shows off the scars on his arms. However, Shapira found Dr. Yehuda David, who says that he operated on him six years before the incident and that the scars are the result of knife wounds.

Nonetheless, official Israel is silent. A golden opportunity to challenge the credibility of the Palestinian version on one of the most formative events in the history of the conflict is being missed, and it is hard to understand why. The IDF, more than once, has sinned in the excessive use of military force, which leads to the death of innocents. But when it turns out that in the Dura affair IDF soldiers did not hit a child and his father, those responsible for public relations at the IDF are silent, as is the Foreign Ministry. Thus Israel relinquishes the media front to the Palestinians, who are taking advantage of it with sophistication while using television stations that sympathize with their cause such as France 2.

My First Year As Prime Minister

Finally, a Plinky prompt that has something to do with politics!

Here are two things I'd definitely achieve within my first year as prime minister of Israel. After all, this is a fantasy and in my fantasy my party, the Real Achievements Party, has 80 seats in the Knesset, so I have no problem passing all of my initiatives.

Opening up the media market
Until now, Israeli TV has been based on the public service concession model, where only a certain number of companies have the right to have television channels. I passed a law making television channels license-based, meaning that anyone who is financially capable of establishing a channel now can get one.

Civil Marriage
Marriage in Israel is no longer exclusively in the hands of the Orthodox Rabbinate for Jews and other religious authorities for members of other religions. From now on, you can be married by judges and other public officials. Also, Reform, Conservative and other non-Orthodox rabbis can perform weddings.