Does a shark have the right to (eat) bear arms?
This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever written about, but who cares?
A shark would be able to rip the bear's guts out with a single bite, though the shark would be badly beaten up as well.
Monday, March 09, 2009
A shark would beat a bear!
One Female Minister
Yesterday was International Women's Day, so it's a good opportunity to take a look at women in our government. The outgoing Knesset saw the first female speaker, and the incoming Knesset has more women than ever before (21 out of 120 - 17.5%). The next head of the opposition will be a woman - Tzippi Livni.
The judicial branch is headed by a woman, Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. The Supreme Court's permanent membership is made up of five women and seven men, plus two male justices on temporary appointments.
The executive branch is the most problematic. Though Tzippi Livni was close to becoming Israel's second female prime minister after Golda Meir, our next government will probably have only one female cabinet minister or two at the most. The Likud will appoint Limor Livnat, while Yisrael Beitenu might appoint Sofa Landver. However, the other coalition partners are likely to be religious parties with no female Knesset members, so they will not appoint female ministers.
What I don't understand is why the Likud will only have one female minister. Why isn't Leah Ness, who won a higher position than Limor Livnat in the primaries, getting a seat in the cabinet? Netanyahu can also bring in experienced women who are not parliament members if he doesn't like the women in the Likud's caucus.
The judicial branch is headed by a woman, Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. The Supreme Court's permanent membership is made up of five women and seven men, plus two male justices on temporary appointments.
The executive branch is the most problematic. Though Tzippi Livni was close to becoming Israel's second female prime minister after Golda Meir, our next government will probably have only one female cabinet minister or two at the most. The Likud will appoint Limor Livnat, while Yisrael Beitenu might appoint Sofa Landver. However, the other coalition partners are likely to be religious parties with no female Knesset members, so they will not appoint female ministers.
What I don't understand is why the Likud will only have one female minister. Why isn't Leah Ness, who won a higher position than Limor Livnat in the primaries, getting a seat in the cabinet? Netanyahu can also bring in experienced women who are not parliament members if he doesn't like the women in the Likud's caucus.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Chiney's American-Style Scandal
The commander of Israel's navy, Major General/Vice Admiral Eli "Chiney" Marom, has gotten himself in trouble. He was spotted at a strip club last week by a journalist. He was reprimanded by the military's chief of staff, but many are calling for his resignation, saying that it is inappropriate for a high ranking member of the military to attend a club that demeans women. Also, Chiney, who got his nickname because of his East Asian looks (he is one quarter Chinese), apparently lied about being at the strip club only once. Yediot Ahronot reported this week that many in the military have slightly changed his nickname to Dick Cheney.
I have mixed feelings about this scandal. On the one hand, I think that attending strip clubs, especially when you pay for personal lap dances as the admiral did, is a form of sexual abuse. On the other hand, it isn't illegal, and it is somewhat accepted socially. Also, should this man, who is praised for his work in the military, be punished for what he does on his own free time?
I don't think this kind of scandal would have made headlines in Israel until recently. This sounds more like an American scandal, where the private life of a high ranking official - or at least one aspect of it - is seen as inseparable from his job. In a way, it simultaneously both a move in the right and wrong direction. Demanding that our military and civilian leaders will not attend businesses that objectify and demean women is a step in the right direction. However, mixing the private and the public lives of our officials is not good. Until now, their private lives have been the interest of gossip columnists, not of the serious news pages.
I have mixed feelings about this scandal. On the one hand, I think that attending strip clubs, especially when you pay for personal lap dances as the admiral did, is a form of sexual abuse. On the other hand, it isn't illegal, and it is somewhat accepted socially. Also, should this man, who is praised for his work in the military, be punished for what he does on his own free time?
I don't think this kind of scandal would have made headlines in Israel until recently. This sounds more like an American scandal, where the private life of a high ranking official - or at least one aspect of it - is seen as inseparable from his job. In a way, it simultaneously both a move in the right and wrong direction. Demanding that our military and civilian leaders will not attend businesses that objectify and demean women is a step in the right direction. However, mixing the private and the public lives of our officials is not good. Until now, their private lives have been the interest of gossip columnists, not of the serious news pages.
The Shoe Flies Both Ways
President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran was on the recieving end of a shoe throwing incident this week. The perpetrator has not been caught. It's nice to see that not only the representatives of Big Satan (then-President George W. Bush) and Little Satan (the Israeli ambassador to Sweden) are getting the footwear treatment. The representatives of the Axis of Evil are getting their share as well.
I wonder if there will be a new kind of shoe now. Like there are shoes made especially for running, walking, playing basketball or going to a fancy restaurant, maybe there will be special "throwing shoes". They'll be aerodynamic, with a special hissing sound and hidden camera which automatically uploads a YouTube video of the official getting shoed.
I wonder if there will be a new kind of shoe now. Like there are shoes made especially for running, walking, playing basketball or going to a fancy restaurant, maybe there will be special "throwing shoes". They'll be aerodynamic, with a special hissing sound and hidden camera which automatically uploads a YouTube video of the official getting shoed.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
This Plinky Thing
I tried out Plinky yesterday. It is supposed to inspire people suffering from "blogger's block" to write. They post a new "prompt" every day, which is actually a question for bloggers. I answered one of these questions yesterday in my previous post. It was one of their first questions, posted in January. That's how far I had to go to find a question I'd like to answer, or even see what other people had to say about it.
Oh well, maybe they'll have interesting questions once in a while. We'll just have to wait and see.
Oh well, maybe they'll have interesting questions once in a while. We'll just have to wait and see.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Check out the ice caves near Salzburg, Austria
This is quite literally the coolest thing I've ever seen.
The ice caves have nothing but ice formations in them. It's much more impressive than any stalagmite cave I've ever visited. The entrance into the cave is very cool - there are gusts of wind you have to go through, but once inside, there will be no wind whatsoever.
The New Face of Israel
I haven't blogged since the Israeli elections. I just didn't have the muse to write about the depressing results. Now Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to piss me off even more than I ever expected. Reportedly, he is planning on appointing Avigdor Lieberman as the next foreign minister. Really? Bibi wants this fascist to be the face of Israel to the world? You think this guy will be welcomed with open arms in Europe and the United States? Foreign officials will not ignore the fact that Lieberman and his party, Yisrael Beitenu, want to revoke the citizenship of anyone who is unwilling to vow allegiance to the state (mostly Arabs, but also Jews with the "wrong" views).
This guy who looks and acts like a bulldog or nightclub bouncer is unfit for government in general. He's especially unfit to be our top diplomat. Is there anything diplomatic about him?
Holy crap.
This guy who looks and acts like a bulldog or nightclub bouncer is unfit for government in general. He's especially unfit to be our top diplomat. Is there anything diplomatic about him?
Holy crap.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Racism According to Herzl
Herzl's vision of racism (original Hebrew version)
By Shlomo Avineri, Ha'aretz
In 1902, Theodor Herzl published his utopian novel "Altneuland" ("The Old New Land"), in which he described the Jewish state to be established in Palestine in 1923. In doing so, Herzl not only provided an idealized description of the Zionist movement's goal; he also provided the State of Israel - the product of Zionism - with a mirror for viewing itself in light of Herzl's vision. Not many national movements have such an efficient tool for self-scrutiny.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is the description of the election campaign that was to have taken place in 1923. The campaign focused on the rights of the country's non-Jewish inhabitants. Contrary to what is sometimes said of Zionism - that it ignored the existence of Arabs in the country - the book reveals not only an awareness of the existence of the Arab population; the Jewish state is predicated on the concept that all its inhabitants, regardless of religion, race or gender, enjoy equal rights and the right to vote. These rights are extended not only to Arabs, but to women, though at the time the book was written no Western democracy had given women the vote.
In the book, not only do the country's Arabs have the right to vote, some of them serve in key posts. Among them is one of the novel's heroes, an Arab engineer from Haifa named Rashid Bey. To use a term from our day, Herzl envisioned a state that would be both Jewish and democratic, both a Jewish nation state and a state of all its citizens.
A new party appeared in the 1923 campaign, headed by a man who had recently come to the country and wanted to annul his old citizenship and rescind the right to vote of all non-Jews. Herzl named the founder of the Jewish racist party Geyer (which in German means a bird that eats carrion), modeling the character and his ideology after the Viennese anti-Semitic leader Karl Lueger.
Geyer's argument was simple: This is a Jewish state, and only Jews should have the right to citizenship. Others can remain as tolerated residents, but they do not deserve equal political rights.
The depiction of the campaign in "Altneuland" is compelling: Geyer's racist party creates quite a stir. In one of the book's most dramatic moments, a confrontation takes place between Geyer's supporters and a number of the new society's liberal leaders. While Geyer claims the exclusivity of citizens' rights for Jews, the liberals justify giving equal rights to the Arab inhabitants based on liberal, universal principles and on Jewish sources ("Ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and for him that was born in the land" - Numbers 9:14).
After a hard fought contest, the liberals win and the defeated Geyer leaves the country in shame. There is something very special in this description. In the classical utopias that were Herzl's guiding light, from Thomas More's "Utopia" to the 19th century utopias, it is always an ideal society that is depicted, without defects. In "Altneuland," in contrast, Herzl combined an ideal society with political realism. As one who had seen for himself the anti-European, anti-Jewish racism, he imagined that Jews could also be racists and inserted into his utopia the errant and disturbing image of a Jewish racist. But in contrast to Europe, where racism was victorious, in Zion and Jerusalem, it was defeated and the principles of equality and liberalism won.
A utopian novel? Contemporary reality? The moral of the story, of course, is crystal clear. It should be remembered that the motto of Altneuland is "If you will it, it is no dream." It is in our hands.
By Shlomo Avineri, Ha'aretz
In 1902, Theodor Herzl published his utopian novel "Altneuland" ("The Old New Land"), in which he described the Jewish state to be established in Palestine in 1923. In doing so, Herzl not only provided an idealized description of the Zionist movement's goal; he also provided the State of Israel - the product of Zionism - with a mirror for viewing itself in light of Herzl's vision. Not many national movements have such an efficient tool for self-scrutiny.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is the description of the election campaign that was to have taken place in 1923. The campaign focused on the rights of the country's non-Jewish inhabitants. Contrary to what is sometimes said of Zionism - that it ignored the existence of Arabs in the country - the book reveals not only an awareness of the existence of the Arab population; the Jewish state is predicated on the concept that all its inhabitants, regardless of religion, race or gender, enjoy equal rights and the right to vote. These rights are extended not only to Arabs, but to women, though at the time the book was written no Western democracy had given women the vote.
In the book, not only do the country's Arabs have the right to vote, some of them serve in key posts. Among them is one of the novel's heroes, an Arab engineer from Haifa named Rashid Bey. To use a term from our day, Herzl envisioned a state that would be both Jewish and democratic, both a Jewish nation state and a state of all its citizens.
A new party appeared in the 1923 campaign, headed by a man who had recently come to the country and wanted to annul his old citizenship and rescind the right to vote of all non-Jews. Herzl named the founder of the Jewish racist party Geyer (which in German means a bird that eats carrion), modeling the character and his ideology after the Viennese anti-Semitic leader Karl Lueger.
Geyer's argument was simple: This is a Jewish state, and only Jews should have the right to citizenship. Others can remain as tolerated residents, but they do not deserve equal political rights.
The depiction of the campaign in "Altneuland" is compelling: Geyer's racist party creates quite a stir. In one of the book's most dramatic moments, a confrontation takes place between Geyer's supporters and a number of the new society's liberal leaders. While Geyer claims the exclusivity of citizens' rights for Jews, the liberals justify giving equal rights to the Arab inhabitants based on liberal, universal principles and on Jewish sources ("Ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and for him that was born in the land" - Numbers 9:14).
After a hard fought contest, the liberals win and the defeated Geyer leaves the country in shame. There is something very special in this description. In the classical utopias that were Herzl's guiding light, from Thomas More's "Utopia" to the 19th century utopias, it is always an ideal society that is depicted, without defects. In "Altneuland," in contrast, Herzl combined an ideal society with political realism. As one who had seen for himself the anti-European, anti-Jewish racism, he imagined that Jews could also be racists and inserted into his utopia the errant and disturbing image of a Jewish racist. But in contrast to Europe, where racism was victorious, in Zion and Jerusalem, it was defeated and the principles of equality and liberalism won.
A utopian novel? Contemporary reality? The moral of the story, of course, is crystal clear. It should be remembered that the motto of Altneuland is "If you will it, it is no dream." It is in our hands.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Why I'll Vote For Meretz
I have finally come to a decision who to vote for in Tuesday's Knesset elections. After careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that for dovish Zionists, even the most moderate of them, there is no real choice. Meretz is our only option.
First of all, I'll explain why all the other parties are not worth a vote. Obviously, Likud and parties to the right of it are not an option for anyone who believes in the land for peace, two-state solution.
Between Benjamin Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, I'd rather see Tzipi Livni as prime minister. The two others are members of the "four worst Israeli prime ministers club", along with Ehud Olmert and Golda Meir, and both seem to be more hawkish than Livni. However, I will not vote for Kadima. Even if it becomes the largest party, the right wing will still be the largest parliamentary bloc, and Livni will not be able to form a government, unless Avigdor Lieberman decides to join her instead of a Likud government. Lieberman is Israel's Jorg Haider. His presence in the Israeli government will not only bring down chances of peace to zero, it will also endanger our democracy.
I will not vote for Labor, either. I am a member of the party and voted for it in 2006, despite my disdain for Amir Peretz, who was then head of the party. Back then, I knew Peretz would not become prime minister, so I voted for them at least so they'll be as large as possible. I'm not going to do that now. They have some excellent candidates, who I'd normally vote for happily (like I did in the primaries), but Barak is almost as hawkish as Netanyahu, and he has said he would not object to sitting in the same government as Lieberman. So a vote for Labor is a vote for Yisrael Beitenu.
Another option is the small list The Green Movement-Meimad. This is a joint list of two moderate left parties. One of them, Meimad, ran with Labor during the last couple of elections. The head of the joint list, Meimad chairman Michael Malchior, is one of the finest Knesset members we've had in recent years. Unlike the other environmental parties running this year, it isn't a one-issue party. It also tackles social and national security issues from a moderate point of view. The problem is that they may not cross the 2% threshold, so a vote for them may be a vote wasted.
Chadash is a communist and anti-Zionist party. Both are big no-noes for me. The other Arab parties are even further from my views.
That leaves me with Meretz, a party which is too naive regarding the Palestinians but seems to be the only Zionist party not naive at all regarding the danger posed by Avigdor Lieberman. They have pledged not to join a government where Yisrael Beitenu is also at the table. They are to the left of me on both national security/peace and socio-economic issues, but when all the rest are radically to the right of me, it will be good to hear at least a few voices for peace and justice in the Knesset. The issue where Meretz and I are in almost perfect agreement is secularism. Unfortunately, the party has neglected this issue lately, but hopefully will pick it up again in the 18th Knesset.
Meretz will probably remain in the opposition. That's fine with me. With Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, or with any government that includes Lieberman, a strong, sane opposition is important.
First of all, I'll explain why all the other parties are not worth a vote. Obviously, Likud and parties to the right of it are not an option for anyone who believes in the land for peace, two-state solution.
Between Benjamin Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, I'd rather see Tzipi Livni as prime minister. The two others are members of the "four worst Israeli prime ministers club", along with Ehud Olmert and Golda Meir, and both seem to be more hawkish than Livni. However, I will not vote for Kadima. Even if it becomes the largest party, the right wing will still be the largest parliamentary bloc, and Livni will not be able to form a government, unless Avigdor Lieberman decides to join her instead of a Likud government. Lieberman is Israel's Jorg Haider. His presence in the Israeli government will not only bring down chances of peace to zero, it will also endanger our democracy.
I will not vote for Labor, either. I am a member of the party and voted for it in 2006, despite my disdain for Amir Peretz, who was then head of the party. Back then, I knew Peretz would not become prime minister, so I voted for them at least so they'll be as large as possible. I'm not going to do that now. They have some excellent candidates, who I'd normally vote for happily (like I did in the primaries), but Barak is almost as hawkish as Netanyahu, and he has said he would not object to sitting in the same government as Lieberman. So a vote for Labor is a vote for Yisrael Beitenu.
Another option is the small list The Green Movement-Meimad. This is a joint list of two moderate left parties. One of them, Meimad, ran with Labor during the last couple of elections. The head of the joint list, Meimad chairman Michael Malchior, is one of the finest Knesset members we've had in recent years. Unlike the other environmental parties running this year, it isn't a one-issue party. It also tackles social and national security issues from a moderate point of view. The problem is that they may not cross the 2% threshold, so a vote for them may be a vote wasted.
Chadash is a communist and anti-Zionist party. Both are big no-noes for me. The other Arab parties are even further from my views.
That leaves me with Meretz, a party which is too naive regarding the Palestinians but seems to be the only Zionist party not naive at all regarding the danger posed by Avigdor Lieberman. They have pledged not to join a government where Yisrael Beitenu is also at the table. They are to the left of me on both national security/peace and socio-economic issues, but when all the rest are radically to the right of me, it will be good to hear at least a few voices for peace and justice in the Knesset. The issue where Meretz and I are in almost perfect agreement is secularism. Unfortunately, the party has neglected this issue lately, but hopefully will pick it up again in the 18th Knesset.
Meretz will probably remain in the opposition. That's fine with me. With Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, or with any government that includes Lieberman, a strong, sane opposition is important.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The Arabs and Election 2009
One fifth of the citizens of Israel are Arabs. One fifth of the Knesset would be 24 MKs. However, the Arab parties have only 10 MKs in the outgoing Knesset, plus 4 more Arabs who represent Zionist parties. The Arab parties are expected to do even worse in the upcoming elections. About half the Arabs don't plan on voting.
"Why should I vote? By doing that I legitimize those who attack my people," one person was quoted in Ha'aretz as saying. This is backwards thinking. How would a vote for one of the Arab parties legitimize attacking Palestinians? As long as there are very few Arabs in the Knesset, they can be ignored. Arabs are the one group who needs the elections most. If they voted in higher percentages than Jewish citizens they could get more than 24 MKs, maybe even 30. Nobody can ignore a bloc that makes up one quarter of the Knesset.
The only ones who benefit from the Arab boycott of the elections are us Jewish Zionists. The truth is that I don't really mind that Arabs don't vote. It's their own problem. Having 20-something Arab MKs pushing for the right of return would be a nightmare.
"Why should I vote? By doing that I legitimize those who attack my people," one person was quoted in Ha'aretz as saying. This is backwards thinking. How would a vote for one of the Arab parties legitimize attacking Palestinians? As long as there are very few Arabs in the Knesset, they can be ignored. Arabs are the one group who needs the elections most. If they voted in higher percentages than Jewish citizens they could get more than 24 MKs, maybe even 30. Nobody can ignore a bloc that makes up one quarter of the Knesset.
The only ones who benefit from the Arab boycott of the elections are us Jewish Zionists. The truth is that I don't really mind that Arabs don't vote. It's their own problem. Having 20-something Arab MKs pushing for the right of return would be a nightmare.
Baruch Marzel's Election Day Provocation
The method of appointing poll station supervisors has never been a problem. The different parties are allocated positions in different polling sites around the country, and the parties themselves appoint their representatives. The board of elections has no say in the matter of personnel.
The method of appointing poll station supervisors has never been a problem. The different parties are allocated positions in different polling sites around the country, and the parties themselves appoint their representatives. The board of elections has no say in the matter of personnel.
Now, the National Union Party has decided to abuse the system. It has appointed Baruch Marzel, one of the most famous and infamous members of transferist far right, as head of a polling station in the Arab city of Umm al-Fahm. This is pure provocation and should be prevented. The board of elections should intervene. Even if it technically has nothing to do with the appointment of supervisors, it has the responsibility to make sure elections go as smoothly as possible. Everybody knows that if Marzel shows up, the election there will be disrupted by violent protest.
I think it is a good idea that right wingers, even radical right wingers, will act as observers in Arab towns, where election fraud is commonplace. I also think Arabs and far left wingers should be observers in ultra-Orthodox and right wing communities, where election fraud is just as rampant. Opposites should monitor each other. However, the observers should not be well-known figures. They should be people who can do their jobs quietly, without causing a stir.
The method of appointing poll station supervisors has never been a problem. The different parties are allocated positions in different polling sites around the country, and the parties themselves appoint their representatives. The board of elections has no say in the matter of personnel.
Now, the National Union Party has decided to abuse the system. It has appointed Baruch Marzel, one of the most famous and infamous members of transferist far right, as head of a polling station in the Arab city of Umm al-Fahm. This is pure provocation and should be prevented. The board of elections should intervene. Even if it technically has nothing to do with the appointment of supervisors, it has the responsibility to make sure elections go as smoothly as possible. Everybody knows that if Marzel shows up, the election there will be disrupted by violent protest.
I think it is a good idea that right wingers, even radical right wingers, will act as observers in Arab towns, where election fraud is commonplace. I also think Arabs and far left wingers should be observers in ultra-Orthodox and right wing communities, where election fraud is just as rampant. Opposites should monitor each other. However, the observers should not be well-known figures. They should be people who can do their jobs quietly, without causing a stir.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
The Israeli Electoral Compass
Whether or not you're an Israeli citizen, you can check out which parties are closest to your political position using the Electoral Compass. Take the results with a grain of salt, since the results are quite simplistic. It would take a hundred questions to accurately place a person on the political spectrum.
My own results are mixed. Some things make sense, while others don't. According to the Electoral Compass, my views are closest to Meretz, with an overall score of 81%. I really am considering a vote this party (and not because of the test results). On religious issues we're 95% compatible, which makes perfect sense. On security issues the score was 95% as well, but I think that's an exaggeration. All the questions are about what I'd agree to at the end of the negotiation process, but there is nothing about the way to get there, which is where Meretz is more dovish than I am. On economic issues we're 67% compatible, which doesn't surprise me, since Meretz is a socialist party and I'm more of a US-style liberal.
Now here's the weird stuff. The next three parties are the Arab ones: the Islamist religious Ra'am-Ta'al (79% agreement), the communist Hadash (76%) and the nationalist Balad (69%). I supposedly agree with more than 90% of their security positions, again because the questions are about the end result and not the process itself. Also, there is no question about the right of return, where I'd be in direct opposition to all three parties. In addition, I'm supposedly in 85% agreement with Ra'am-Ta'al on religious issues, which is completely not the case. Apparently the Compass thinks the party shares my support for the separation of church/synagogue and state, when the truth is they support the creation of an Islamic caliphate.
My next results: In 4th place, Labor (68%), Kadima is fifth (66%), then the Green Movement-Meimad (57%), Torah Judaism (56%), Greens (53%), Likud (49%), Yisraeli Beitenu (48%), Pensioners (48%), Shas (39%), National Union (38%), and in last place Ha'Bait Ha'Yehudi (36%).
Not surprisingly, Shas and United Torah Judaism, the ultra-Orthodox parties, get a score of zero compatibility with me on religious issues. The other two religious parties don't fair too well, either. The National Union gets 15% and Ha'Bait Ha'Yehudi 5% on religion.
My own results are mixed. Some things make sense, while others don't. According to the Electoral Compass, my views are closest to Meretz, with an overall score of 81%. I really am considering a vote this party (and not because of the test results). On religious issues we're 95% compatible, which makes perfect sense. On security issues the score was 95% as well, but I think that's an exaggeration. All the questions are about what I'd agree to at the end of the negotiation process, but there is nothing about the way to get there, which is where Meretz is more dovish than I am. On economic issues we're 67% compatible, which doesn't surprise me, since Meretz is a socialist party and I'm more of a US-style liberal.
Now here's the weird stuff. The next three parties are the Arab ones: the Islamist religious Ra'am-Ta'al (79% agreement), the communist Hadash (76%) and the nationalist Balad (69%). I supposedly agree with more than 90% of their security positions, again because the questions are about the end result and not the process itself. Also, there is no question about the right of return, where I'd be in direct opposition to all three parties. In addition, I'm supposedly in 85% agreement with Ra'am-Ta'al on religious issues, which is completely not the case. Apparently the Compass thinks the party shares my support for the separation of church/synagogue and state, when the truth is they support the creation of an Islamic caliphate.
My next results: In 4th place, Labor (68%), Kadima is fifth (66%), then the Green Movement-Meimad (57%), Torah Judaism (56%), Greens (53%), Likud (49%), Yisraeli Beitenu (48%), Pensioners (48%), Shas (39%), National Union (38%), and in last place Ha'Bait Ha'Yehudi (36%).
Not surprisingly, Shas and United Torah Judaism, the ultra-Orthodox parties, get a score of zero compatibility with me on religious issues. The other two religious parties don't fair too well, either. The National Union gets 15% and Ha'Bait Ha'Yehudi 5% on religion.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Fascists and Theocrats
All polls now show that the right wing will have a majority in the next Knesset. How large the majority will be varies wildly from poll to poll, with estimates ranging from 62 seats to 70-plus, out of a total of 120 Knesset seats. It seems certain Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next prime minister.
Unless Netanyahu decides to form a unity government with Kadima and Labor, his natural coalition partners would be Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) and the four religious parties. There is a problem here, though. Lieberman and the ultra-Orthodox parties don't like each other. Both sides share a disdain for democracy, but each takes it in a different direction. Yisrael Beitenu wants all citizens to declare their loyalty to the State of Israel or lose their citizenship. This, of course, is aimed at Arab citizens, but soon enough it will reach whoever has the wrong political views, in Lieberman's eyes. Shas and United Torah Judaism, the two ultra-Orthodox parties, don't necessarily object to this. They do object to the only part of Lieberman's platform that I agree with: making the country more secular, including non-religious marriages.
Shas and UTJ, on the other hand, would like to make Israel a Medinat Halacha, Halacha being the Jewish equivalent of Sharia law. A theocracy is their favored form of government, though they try not to say it directly. Lieberman, of course, totally opposes this idea.
I have a slim hope that the Likud-led right wing bloc will receive such a small majority that the coalition will have to include all the bloc's parties to pass the 61-member threshold. Then, maybe the disagreements between the fascists and theocrats will lead to Netanyahu's failure to form a government.
Unless Netanyahu decides to form a unity government with Kadima and Labor, his natural coalition partners would be Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) and the four religious parties. There is a problem here, though. Lieberman and the ultra-Orthodox parties don't like each other. Both sides share a disdain for democracy, but each takes it in a different direction. Yisrael Beitenu wants all citizens to declare their loyalty to the State of Israel or lose their citizenship. This, of course, is aimed at Arab citizens, but soon enough it will reach whoever has the wrong political views, in Lieberman's eyes. Shas and United Torah Judaism, the two ultra-Orthodox parties, don't necessarily object to this. They do object to the only part of Lieberman's platform that I agree with: making the country more secular, including non-religious marriages.
Shas and UTJ, on the other hand, would like to make Israel a Medinat Halacha, Halacha being the Jewish equivalent of Sharia law. A theocracy is their favored form of government, though they try not to say it directly. Lieberman, of course, totally opposes this idea.
I have a slim hope that the Likud-led right wing bloc will receive such a small majority that the coalition will have to include all the bloc's parties to pass the 61-member threshold. Then, maybe the disagreements between the fascists and theocrats will lead to Netanyahu's failure to form a government.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
What About the Israeli Elections?
I've been asked why I haven't written about the upcoming Israeli elections, scheduled for Feb. 10. That's a good question. In a way, you can generally ask where the hell the elections have gone.
Though it has been in the back of my mind, it hasn't been one of the main things to occupy my thoughts recently. Despite the fact that Election Day is just three weeks away, it doesn't feel like a campaign season yet. The parties put their campaigns on hold during the operation in Gaza, and just now they're restarting all the political propaganda again. Usually the streets are littered with campaign literature and banners by this time. So far this time around, I've only seen one such sign (Avigdor Lieberman and his fascist slogan: "No loyalty, no citizenship").
The elections haven't become the main focus of the media, either. First there was Cast Lead in Gaza, and then there was the Obama inauguration. Now that those are behind us, I expect Bibi vs. Livni to become the leading item. I haven't watched this evening's TV news, but I wouldn't be surprised if election coverage moved to the forefront already today.
You can expect my next few posts to be mostly about the campaign.
Though it has been in the back of my mind, it hasn't been one of the main things to occupy my thoughts recently. Despite the fact that Election Day is just three weeks away, it doesn't feel like a campaign season yet. The parties put their campaigns on hold during the operation in Gaza, and just now they're restarting all the political propaganda again. Usually the streets are littered with campaign literature and banners by this time. So far this time around, I've only seen one such sign (Avigdor Lieberman and his fascist slogan: "No loyalty, no citizenship").
The elections haven't become the main focus of the media, either. First there was Cast Lead in Gaza, and then there was the Obama inauguration. Now that those are behind us, I expect Bibi vs. Livni to become the leading item. I haven't watched this evening's TV news, but I wouldn't be surprised if election coverage moved to the forefront already today.
You can expect my next few posts to be mostly about the campaign.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
It's All Israel's Fault
Ann El-Khoury of People's Geography (I'm not linking to it, find it yourself) wrote a post a few days ago about her father's sunflowers wilting exactly in time for Israel's operation in Gaza. She quickly removed it. Maybe she realized how ridiculous the post was. It was like a parody of Arabs, and anti-Zionists in general, who blame Israel for everything. Is the weather bad? It's the Israelis. Was there a traffic accident between two Arabs? The Israelis must have done something to the cars!
Yes, Ann, Israel killed your father's sunflowers. He should sue us in the Hague for crimes against vegetation.
Yes, Ann, Israel killed your father's sunflowers. He should sue us in the Hague for crimes against vegetation.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A Letter to Gideon Levy
A. B Yehoshua, a prominent Israeli author and one of the "spiritual/intellectual leaders" of the the Israeli left, wrote a letter to bleeding-heart Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy (original Hebrew version here):
Dear Gideon,
You remember that in recent years I called you occasionally to praise you for your articles and your writing about the wrongs done to the Palestinians in the administered territories, whether by the army or by the settlers. Physical wrongs, land expropriations, acts of abuse, perversions of justice and so on. I told you that it is very difficult to read what you write, because it weighs on our conscience, but that the work you are doing and the voice you are sounding are extremely important. I was also concerned about your physical safety, knowing that you risked your life by visiting such hostile places.
I did not ask you why you did not visit Israeli hospitals in order to tell the painful stories of Israeli citizens who were hurt in terrorist attacks. I accepted your position that there are plenty of other journalists doing this and that you had taken on the crucial mission of telling the story of the afflictions of the other side, our enemies today and our neighbors tomorrow.
Accordingly, it is from this position of respect that I find it necessary to respond to your recent articles on the war in which we are engaged today, so that you will be able to preserve the moral validity of your distinctive voice for the future. A few years ago, when the Hatuel family - a mother and her four children, of blessed memory - were killed on the way to one of the settlements in Gush Katif, I believed that this terrible death pained you as it did all of us but that like many of us you said in your heart: Why should these Israelis endanger their children by living provocatively, hopelessly, dangerously and immorally in Gush Katif? By what right do 8,000 Jews expropriate a sizable area in the densely overcrowded Gaza Strip in order to build blossoming villages before the eyes of hundreds of thousands of refugees living in such abysmal conditions? You were angry, as I was, at the parents and at those who sent them. And even though I believe that like all of us you felt the pain of the children who were killed, you did not brand the leaders of Hamas "war criminals" as you did the Israeli leaders, and you did not demand the establishment of an international tribunal to try them.
When I asked you after the disengagement from Gaza, Gideon, explain to me why they are firing missiles at us, you replied that they want us to open the crossings. I asked you whether you truly believe that if they fire missiles the crossings will be opened, or the opposite. And whether you truly believe that it is right and just to open crossings into Israel for those who declare openly and sincerely that they want to destroy our country. I did not get an answer from you. And even though the crossings were in fact opened many times, and were closed in the wake of the missile attacks, regrettably I still did not see you standing firmly behind a moral position which says: Now, people of Gaza, after you expelled the Israeli occupation from your land, and justly so, you must hold your fire.
The doleful thought sometimes crosses my mind that it is not the children of Gaza or of Israel that you are pining for, but only for your own private conscience. Because if you are truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs, you would understand the present war - not in order to uproot Hamas from Gaza but to induce its followers to understand, and regrettably in the only way they understand in the meantime, that they must stop the firing unilaterally, stop hoarding missiles for a bitter and hopeless war to destroy Israel, and above all for the sake of their children in the future, so they will not die in another pointless adventure.
After all, now, for the first time in Palestinian history, after the Ottoman, British, Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli conquests, part of the Palestinians has gained a first and I hope not a last piece of land on which they are to maintain a full and independent government. And if they start building, developing and pursuing social endeavors, even according to Islamic religious law, they will prove to the whole world, and especially to us, that the moment we terminate the occupation they will be ready to live in peace with their surroundings, free to do as they wish, but also responsible for their deeds.
There is something absurd in the comparison you draw about the number of those killed. When you ask how it can be that they killed three of our children and we cause the killing of a hundred and fifty, the inference one can draw is that if they were to kill a hundred of our children (for example, by the Qassam rockets that struck schools and kindergartens in Israel that happened to be empty), we would be justified in also killing a hundred of their children.
In other words, it is not the killing itself that troubles you but the number. On the face of it, one could answer you cynically by saying that when there will be two hundred million Jews in the Middle East it will be permissible to think in moral terms about comparing the number of victims on each side. But that is, of course, a debased argument. After all, you, Gideon, who live among the people, know very well that we are not bent on killing Palestinian children to avenge the killing of our children. All we are trying to do is get their leaders to stop this senseless and wicked aggression, and it is only because of the tragic and deliberate mingling between Hamas fighters and the civilian population that children, too, are unfortunately being killed. The fact is that since the disengagement, Hamas has fired only at civilians. Even in this war, to my astonishment, I see that they are not aiming at the army concentrations along the border but time and again at civilian communities.
Please, preserve the moral authority and concern that you possessed, and your distinctive voice. We will need them again in the future, which promises further ordeals on the road to peace. In the meantime, it would be best for us all - we and the Palestinians and the rest of the world - to follow the simple moral imperative of Kantian philosophy: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
In friendship always,
A. B. YehoshuaThe writer is an Israeli author. His latest novel, "Friendly Fire," was published in recent months
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Response to Rashid Khalidi
Originally, I wrote this as a comment on Gert's blog post which reprinted Rashid Khalidi's New York Times op-ed piece, What You Don’t Know About Gaza. It came out so long, I decided it merits its own post.
I must say, today's NY Times op-ed page was very unfriendly to Israel, with critical articles by Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen, Khalidi and Gideon Lichfield. But that's okay. Conservatives David Brooks and William Kristol, as well as my favorite columnist Thomas Friedman, had previously written articles in favor of Israel's Gaza operation. I particularly liked Thomas Friedman's piece.
Anyway, here is my response to Rashid Khalidi's opionion article:
I read this article this morning and found it very troubling, though not at all surprising. I truly do hope Barack Obama's connection with Khalidi was exaggerated by Republicans.
THE GAZANS How is it relevant that the Gazans are not there by choice? Is it alright for them to fire at Ashkelon and Be'er-Sheva because their grandparents came from those cities?
The Gazans have been kept in the refugee camps by their Arab brethren. Had Egypt, who controlled the strip between 1948-1967, or any other Arab country, rehabilitated the refugees and invested in them, things would look differently. Instead, the refugees and their suffering were used as a tool against Israel to keep calling for the right of return. After all, if they'd rebuild Palestinians' lives in their new locations it would have seemed like they were giving up on the right of return.
THE OCCUPATION First of all, the Gazans have never NOT lived under occupation. Before 1967 they were occupied by Egypt; before 1948 by the UK; and before 1917 by the Ottomans. Right now, their self-rule is greater than at any time in the past.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years in Gaza. It should have done what Egypt before it should have done - it should have made Gazans' lives better. However, once Israel withdrew from the territory, it was up to the Palestinians to make their lives better, even if Israel controlled the border. Even before the blockade that started when Hamas rose to power, Palestinians did nothing with their territory.
THE BLOCKADE Fuel, electricity and humanitarian aid kept coming in to Gaza all this time. The aim of the blockade was not to choke the Palestinians, but to harm the Hamas government. If a nation elected a government bent on your destruction, would you cooperate with it economically and otherwise?
THE CEASE-FIRE In November Israel attacked a tunnel where arms were being smuggled in. The IDF said there was an imminent threat to Israel from whatever was coming through that tunnel. Was it a smart move? Maybe not, but it didn't come out of thin air.
WAR CRIMES The numbers do not speak for themselves. They don't demonstrate each side's intentions, but rather each side's technological advancement. The civilian death toll is too high - the result of both Israeli recklessness and Hamas activity within population centers. However, this is not a war crime on Israel's part, since the civilians are not the targets. Also, it is not true that civilians are the majority of the dead.
"Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip."
Israel wanted to continue the cease-fire, but Hamas refused. It demanded that the border crossings be opened, but as long as Hamas is unwilling to allow inspections they cannot be fully opened. The smuggling of arms must stop.
"This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets."
Khalidi would like to think that it isn't. This way, the Palestinians have absolutely no responsibility for what is happening. The truth is that it is about rockets. After eight years of Qassams and Grad missiles, Israelis have had enough.
"Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
This is a horrible statement. Moshe Yaalon is an idiot, though not an isolated idiot. Maybe this kind of thinking has something to do with some of the tactics of the current operation but it is not the goal. The end of rocket fire and rocket smuggling is.
I must say, today's NY Times op-ed page was very unfriendly to Israel, with critical articles by Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen, Khalidi and Gideon Lichfield. But that's okay. Conservatives David Brooks and William Kristol, as well as my favorite columnist Thomas Friedman, had previously written articles in favor of Israel's Gaza operation. I particularly liked Thomas Friedman's piece.
Anyway, here is my response to Rashid Khalidi's opionion article:
I read this article this morning and found it very troubling, though not at all surprising. I truly do hope Barack Obama's connection with Khalidi was exaggerated by Republicans.
THE GAZANS How is it relevant that the Gazans are not there by choice? Is it alright for them to fire at Ashkelon and Be'er-Sheva because their grandparents came from those cities?
The Gazans have been kept in the refugee camps by their Arab brethren. Had Egypt, who controlled the strip between 1948-1967, or any other Arab country, rehabilitated the refugees and invested in them, things would look differently. Instead, the refugees and their suffering were used as a tool against Israel to keep calling for the right of return. After all, if they'd rebuild Palestinians' lives in their new locations it would have seemed like they were giving up on the right of return.
THE OCCUPATION First of all, the Gazans have never NOT lived under occupation. Before 1967 they were occupied by Egypt; before 1948 by the UK; and before 1917 by the Ottomans. Right now, their self-rule is greater than at any time in the past.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years in Gaza. It should have done what Egypt before it should have done - it should have made Gazans' lives better. However, once Israel withdrew from the territory, it was up to the Palestinians to make their lives better, even if Israel controlled the border. Even before the blockade that started when Hamas rose to power, Palestinians did nothing with their territory.
THE BLOCKADE Fuel, electricity and humanitarian aid kept coming in to Gaza all this time. The aim of the blockade was not to choke the Palestinians, but to harm the Hamas government. If a nation elected a government bent on your destruction, would you cooperate with it economically and otherwise?
THE CEASE-FIRE In November Israel attacked a tunnel where arms were being smuggled in. The IDF said there was an imminent threat to Israel from whatever was coming through that tunnel. Was it a smart move? Maybe not, but it didn't come out of thin air.
WAR CRIMES The numbers do not speak for themselves. They don't demonstrate each side's intentions, but rather each side's technological advancement. The civilian death toll is too high - the result of both Israeli recklessness and Hamas activity within population centers. However, this is not a war crime on Israel's part, since the civilians are not the targets. Also, it is not true that civilians are the majority of the dead.
"Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip."
Israel wanted to continue the cease-fire, but Hamas refused. It demanded that the border crossings be opened, but as long as Hamas is unwilling to allow inspections they cannot be fully opened. The smuggling of arms must stop.
"This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets."
Khalidi would like to think that it isn't. This way, the Palestinians have absolutely no responsibility for what is happening. The truth is that it is about rockets. After eight years of Qassams and Grad missiles, Israelis have had enough.
"Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
This is a horrible statement. Moshe Yaalon is an idiot, though not an isolated idiot. Maybe this kind of thinking has something to do with some of the tactics of the current operation but it is not the goal. The end of rocket fire and rocket smuggling is.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Ariel Sharon's Conspiracy
I was adamantly opposed to the disengagement plan in 2005. I thought the unilateral move would lead to a Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Did nobody else realize this? Our country's leadership and intelligence officials should have been able to predict this.
Maybe they did. I have a feeling Ariel Sharon wanted to ensure Israeli control of the West Bank. The best way to do this would be by eliminating Israeli public support for any further withdrawals. The evacuation of Jewish settlers had to be as traumatic as possible and terrorists had to take over the strip.
Achieving a traumatic effect during the evacuation worked in two ways. One was more obvious: people who fortified themselves in houses and on rooftops, women and children being dragged out of houses, and instances of little kids wearing orange Stars of David, reminiscent of the yellow Stars of David during the Holocaust. The second method was more subtle. The government office set up to take care of settlers, most of whom left Gaza by the required deadline, was utterly inefficient. Today, three and a half years later, many evacuees still do not have permanent housing, and currently live in "caravillas" (caravan villas) within missile range from Gaza.
Letting Hamas take over Gaza was not very complicated. All that had to be done was leave in such a way that it would seem like we were escaping Hamasnik wrath. Gazans already sympathized with Hamas, so such a move would empower an already popular terrorist organization. Had we reached a deal with the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the evacuation would have been seen as the fruits of negotiations, not of terror.
Just because Ariel Sharon was hoping for Hamas to rise to power doesn't mean that our current operation in Gaza is not justified. It certainly is. Even if our own government's actions have contributed to the situation, rocket fire into Israel still must be stopped. Keep in mind that the Qassams started coming in 2001, before the disengagement. Hamas would not have stopped the rocket fire even if Gaza would have been given peacefully to the PA, and there is no guarantee that it wouldn't have taken over the territory anyway.
Maybe they did. I have a feeling Ariel Sharon wanted to ensure Israeli control of the West Bank. The best way to do this would be by eliminating Israeli public support for any further withdrawals. The evacuation of Jewish settlers had to be as traumatic as possible and terrorists had to take over the strip.
Achieving a traumatic effect during the evacuation worked in two ways. One was more obvious: people who fortified themselves in houses and on rooftops, women and children being dragged out of houses, and instances of little kids wearing orange Stars of David, reminiscent of the yellow Stars of David during the Holocaust. The second method was more subtle. The government office set up to take care of settlers, most of whom left Gaza by the required deadline, was utterly inefficient. Today, three and a half years later, many evacuees still do not have permanent housing, and currently live in "caravillas" (caravan villas) within missile range from Gaza.
Letting Hamas take over Gaza was not very complicated. All that had to be done was leave in such a way that it would seem like we were escaping Hamasnik wrath. Gazans already sympathized with Hamas, so such a move would empower an already popular terrorist organization. Had we reached a deal with the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the evacuation would have been seen as the fruits of negotiations, not of terror.
Just because Ariel Sharon was hoping for Hamas to rise to power doesn't mean that our current operation in Gaza is not justified. It certainly is. Even if our own government's actions have contributed to the situation, rocket fire into Israel still must be stopped. Keep in mind that the Qassams started coming in 2001, before the disengagement. Hamas would not have stopped the rocket fire even if Gaza would have been given peacefully to the PA, and there is no guarantee that it wouldn't have taken over the territory anyway.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
No 48-Hour Truce
Several prominent figures such as French President Nikolas Sarkozy and authors/gurus of the Israeli left Amos Oz and David Grossman have called for a 48-hour truce. They hope this truce will become perminent, but if it doesn't, they think it will at least allow the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to be eased.
If there is a truce for only 2 days and violence resumes, it will have been the worst kind of truce possible. Hamas will be able to regroup during this short period.
So, no, there should only be a truce that will truly end the fighting and the missile attacks for a very long time.
If there is a truce for only 2 days and violence resumes, it will have been the worst kind of truce possible. Hamas will be able to regroup during this short period.
So, no, there should only be a truce that will truly end the fighting and the missile attacks for a very long time.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Nizar Rayyan: A Limerick
There once was a Sheikh who had four wives,
He was a terrorist so they all lost their lives.
Israel warned the women to leave the house,
But the four decided to stick by their spouce,
And wait 'till the Israeli missile arrives.
He was a terrorist so they all lost their lives.
Israel warned the women to leave the house,
But the four decided to stick by their spouce,
And wait 'till the Israeli missile arrives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
