I never thought I'd ever side with Hamas on anything, but that's just what happened this weekend. The Muslim terrorist organization which controls Gaza confronted an Al Quaeda-linked group, Jund Ansar Allah (Soldiers of God's Companions), after the group's leader declared Gaza an Islamic emirate under his control. Hamas killed this leader, Abdul-Latif Moussa, and other members of the fringe group.
Had Jund Ansar Allah not existed, Hamas would have to invent it. It's a great way to show the world that everything is relative. Sure, Hamas is a group of radical Islamic terrorists, but compared to Al Quaeda, they're like Switzerland.
Okay, not quite Switzerland...
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
A Free Country
Alexander Jacobson has a great piece in Haaretz today, which for some reason doesn't appear in the English version. I'll translate a few parts.
He starts out by recalling something he experienced during the peace rally on November 4, 1995, the one that ended with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He was in the crowd, and next to him were two religious teenagers who were arguing with those attending the rally. They accused the left of not allowing dissent. "I thought to myself, you [the religious teenagers] have a lot of confidence in the tolerance and non-violence of the Israeli left. You're standing in a sea of leftists and arguing with them without fear, and even accusing them of silencing dissent. Would any of us dare to venture into a crowd of right-wing protestors and open our mouths?", he writes.
Then he tells the story of the annual memorial service for the victims of the 2002 terrorist attack at the Hebrew University. The ceremony ended with the singing of "HaTikvah", the Israeli national anthem. One of the lecturers stayed put in his seat. He doesn't name him, but says it's a leftist Jewish lecturer who isn't even much of an extreme leftist. Jacobson says this was quite rude, but nobody said anything. This made Jacobson proud.
"[The lecturer] doesn't even think of appreciating the freedom he enjoys - he's Israeli, and freedom runs through his veins. He doesn't even think of fearing state or university authorities - and really, where has it been heard of that a brave dissident in a brutal apartheid state (one whose anthem is worthy of contempt) needs to fear the authorities?"
Thursday, August 06, 2009
How Many Posts Per Page?
I just changed my blog's settings so it will display ten days' worth of posts on the main page, instead of five. Only days I post on are counted, which is why right now there are posts from as far back as June and not just from the last ten calendar days.
Do you have any preferences? Is it taking any longer to load now (though I don't see why it should, since I rarely add videos and pictures to my posts)? I'm open to feedback from all my avid readers. Yes, both of you.
Update (August 28, 2009): I've switched back to five days' worth of posts. I've shortened the list of labels, so a shorter first page is more suitable, in my opinion.
Do you have any preferences? Is it taking any longer to load now (though I don't see why it should, since I rarely add videos and pictures to my posts)? I'm open to feedback from all my avid readers. Yes, both of you.
Update (August 28, 2009): I've switched back to five days' worth of posts. I've shortened the list of labels, so a shorter first page is more suitable, in my opinion.
Israel Killed Arafat, Fatah Says
The Fatah Party Conference today decided unanimously to declare that Israel is responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat and to open an investigation into what they see as his assassination. Fatah asked for international aid in getting to the truth.
Oh, come on. The guy got sick and died. His own doctor said he had AIDS, though he blamed Israel for injecting him with the virus (how, with an AIDS rocket? Israelis weren't in physical contact with him during the Second Intifada, except for a few far left wing activists, who I wouldn't see as prime suspects).
How is this resolution blaming Israel and calling for an investigation constructive in any way? This won't bring peace to anyone. It will not even give the Palestinians peace of mind regarding the death of Arafat, since they will not except any conclusion other than the one they've already come to.
Oh, come on. The guy got sick and died. His own doctor said he had AIDS, though he blamed Israel for injecting him with the virus (how, with an AIDS rocket? Israelis weren't in physical contact with him during the Second Intifada, except for a few far left wing activists, who I wouldn't see as prime suspects).
How is this resolution blaming Israel and calling for an investigation constructive in any way? This won't bring peace to anyone. It will not even give the Palestinians peace of mind regarding the death of Arafat, since they will not except any conclusion other than the one they've already come to.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Murderous Homophobia in Tel-Aviv
A gunman opened fire at a gay and lesbian youth center in Tel-Aviv yesterday, killing two people. The man escaped and has not yet been apprehended.
Israelis were shocked by this terrible hate crime. Many of my friends on Facebook have changed their profile picture to the gay pride flag with a memorial candle or black stripe as a sign of protest and identification with the gay community. Accusations are flying against the leaders of Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party, who have in the past condemned homosexuality as a perversion that must be treated. Politicians from Shas have condemned yesterday's murders.
I think that while Shas's homophobic words and policies are horrible, it is too early to lay blame on them for what happened. We don't know who the shooter is and whether he's a Shasnik, or even religious. Unfortunately, there are plenty of possible sources for this intolerance.
Israelis were shocked by this terrible hate crime. Many of my friends on Facebook have changed their profile picture to the gay pride flag with a memorial candle or black stripe as a sign of protest and identification with the gay community. Accusations are flying against the leaders of Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party, who have in the past condemned homosexuality as a perversion that must be treated. Politicians from Shas have condemned yesterday's murders.
I think that while Shas's homophobic words and policies are horrible, it is too early to lay blame on them for what happened. We don't know who the shooter is and whether he's a Shasnik, or even religious. Unfortunately, there are plenty of possible sources for this intolerance.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Issue of Settlements
Yes indeed, the settlements
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]
Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.
Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.
It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.
The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.
Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?
Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.
Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.
And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.
The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.
If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.
By Tzvia Greenfield [from Ha'aretz, available in English or the original Hebrew]
Of all the strange things that have happened this peculiar summer, the strangest is the way that oddly assorted elements have lined up to explain to U.S. President Barack Obama why pressure regarding freezing the Jewish settlements in the territories is not the best way to deal with Israel's evasion of implementing the two-state solution.
Beyond the urgent need to internalize that the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure Israel's salvation as a Jewish and democratic state, it would seem that two facts should be clear to every sensible person. One is that Obama seems to have irrevocably made up his mind that a Palestinian state will be established, even at the price of serious pressure on Israel. The other is that of all the promises he made on the eve of his election, it is most convenient to deal with this one immediately, especially because dealing with it consists at the moment only of pressure on Israel.
It has, after all, become completely clear that it is very difficult to deal with the economic crisis; it is almost impossible to arrive at results regarding Iran; and North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are not child's play either. Obama can be trusted to act in accordance with his political interests without being frightened by Israel's threats.
The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not understood these basic facts is leading to his inevitable defeat, unless he comes to his senses and brings opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni of Kadima into his government. In the inevitable clash with the United States to which the prime minister and his cabinet are leading us, the result has to be clear in advance: It's the Titanic that will sink, not the iceberg.
Nevertheless, some consolation can be found in the current situation: Obama, after all, is being kind to us. Of all the means at his disposal to push Israel to the negotiating table, the only one that cannot really hurt it in any way is the discussion surrounding construction in the settlements. And would it be better for us if the United States decided to harm Israel's security interests? Is it preferable that the profound relations of friendship and trust between the two countries be damaged?
Of all the issues that Israel insists are important, expanding Jewish settlement in the territories is the only one that has no objective justification apart from the hallucinatory agenda of the settlers and their supporters. On the contrary, stopping it can only be beneficial to advancing peace.
Why then should the Obama administration not pressure Netanyahu on precisely this issue? Only because the right refuses to touch its sacred cows, even though they are harming the interests of us all? After all, the settlements are the excess we will have to get rid of to reach an agreement. Obama is serving our interests in that he is trying to limit the damage we are bringing on ourselves.
And precisely because the settlements really are not important, as many claim, it is in our interest that they, and not more serious issues, bear the price of getting the peace process started.
The United States, with justification and wisely, is not giving in to Israel on this issue, and it appears the Obama administration understands correctly that the real and perhaps only test of Netanyahu's seriousness regarding the two-state plan will be his willingness to end the expansion of the settlements.
If Netanyahu, despite all his speeches, is not able to fulfill this simple requirement - which as noted does no real damage to Israel - it is a sign that it is not in our interest to keep discussing a Palestinian state with him. And it really isn't in our interest for Obama to reach this conclusion.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Bibi and Self-Hating Jews
Rahm Emanuel can't get a break. Palestinians and their supporters see him as a Zionist mole inside the White House. The Israeli right-wing, on the other hand, sees him as a traitor. More on how Netanyahu sees Emanuel and fellow Obama advisor David Axelrod in this excellent op-ed from today's Ha'aretz:
What Netanyahu wants from Obama's 'self-hating Jews'
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz [English, Hebrew]
Who is to blame for the latest dispute with the United States over the new neighborhood going up in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah area? Mayor Nir Barkat? Certainly not. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stood behind him? Ridiculous. Any child knows that everything is the fault of other Jews: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, two American administration officials who are inciting President Barack Obama against their own people.
This is not the first time that "self-hating Jews" have given us trouble. In negotiations over the separation of forces agreement in the 1970s, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the scion of a family of Jewish refugees who had escaped from Nazi Germany, earned the anti-Semitic epithet "Jewboy" in Israel. At the end of the 1980s, when president George H.W. Bush dared to argue that the peace process does not jibe with settlement expansion, the Shamir government instigated a campaign against "the 'Jewboy' trio": Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer. Now it is the turn of Obama's Jewish confidantes to be the scapegoats.
It is easy to imagine what an uproar there would be in Jerusalem if an Arab leader or newspaper dared to claim that an American president was favorable to Israel because of the influence of a Jewish adviser. Netanyahu, who spent many years in the United States, knows very well the extent to which Jewish administration officials in key positions are sensitive to the slightest hint of dual loyalty - to their birthplace and their historic homeland. It turns out that for him, politics bends the iron-clad rule that "all Jews are responsible for one another."
To satisfy the settlers, he permits himself to hurt people whose only sin is that they are trying to promote the goals enshrined in the platform of his senior coalition partner - the Labor Party.
We want our Jews in the administration to be blind to the settlements and deaf to the complaints of the Arabs. Take Elliott Abrams, for example, who was in charge of Middle East affairs in the Bush administration. Abrams, who is identified with the neo-conservative right, made an important contribution to legitimizing a good many dubious Israeli acts. He was an excellent salesman for the "no partner" theory, and the guiding spirit behind the indulgent policy toward the flourishing of settlements. He recently publicly criticized the two-state vision of the president who had hired him, among other things, to promote that vision.
Back during his election campaign Obama made it clear that he did not have to join Likud to be a friend of Israel. Opinion polls in the United States revealed that the views of most Jews are closer to the attitudes of organizations like the Reform movement, American Friends of Peace Now and J Street, which support a two-state solution and eschew Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's doctrine - and above all, largely object to the settlements.
The conversation Obama held with representatives of the Jewish community last week confirms that Netanyahu is drafting them for the wrong war. Even his oldest supporters did not attack the president's position on the settlements, and made do with a complaint about the high profile given to disputes over the issue of natural growth in the settlements. One of the guests at that meeting said that history showed that exposing the differences between the U.S. and Israel does not help to advance peace.
"This was not my reading of the lessons of the last eight years," Obama responded without flinching. Moreover, he said he would not shy away from a willingness to pressure all parties, including Israel, if that is in the best interests of the United States and Israel. Obama did not hesitate to tell his Jewish interlocutors that beyond the special commitment to Israel's security, his policy would be completely even-handed. If it became necessary, Obama said, he would speak to Israelis, as he had done to the Arab and Muslim world, to help them to achieve some kind of self-reflection.
Obama has internalized what his predecessors refused to understand: the traditional supporters of the Israeli right are growing old, or losing their relevance. They are giving way to younger, liberal forces who identify with Obama's values. In the "best" case, Netanyahu's incitement against the "self-hating Jews" will do to them what his whispered comment in the ear of Rabbi Kaduri "those leftists are not Jews" did to Israelis a decade ago - it turned them against him.
What Netanyahu wants from Obama's 'self-hating Jews'
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz [English, Hebrew]
Who is to blame for the latest dispute with the United States over the new neighborhood going up in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah area? Mayor Nir Barkat? Certainly not. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who stood behind him? Ridiculous. Any child knows that everything is the fault of other Jews: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, two American administration officials who are inciting President Barack Obama against their own people.
This is not the first time that "self-hating Jews" have given us trouble. In negotiations over the separation of forces agreement in the 1970s, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the scion of a family of Jewish refugees who had escaped from Nazi Germany, earned the anti-Semitic epithet "Jewboy" in Israel. At the end of the 1980s, when president George H.W. Bush dared to argue that the peace process does not jibe with settlement expansion, the Shamir government instigated a campaign against "the 'Jewboy' trio": Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer. Now it is the turn of Obama's Jewish confidantes to be the scapegoats.
It is easy to imagine what an uproar there would be in Jerusalem if an Arab leader or newspaper dared to claim that an American president was favorable to Israel because of the influence of a Jewish adviser. Netanyahu, who spent many years in the United States, knows very well the extent to which Jewish administration officials in key positions are sensitive to the slightest hint of dual loyalty - to their birthplace and their historic homeland. It turns out that for him, politics bends the iron-clad rule that "all Jews are responsible for one another."
To satisfy the settlers, he permits himself to hurt people whose only sin is that they are trying to promote the goals enshrined in the platform of his senior coalition partner - the Labor Party.
We want our Jews in the administration to be blind to the settlements and deaf to the complaints of the Arabs. Take Elliott Abrams, for example, who was in charge of Middle East affairs in the Bush administration. Abrams, who is identified with the neo-conservative right, made an important contribution to legitimizing a good many dubious Israeli acts. He was an excellent salesman for the "no partner" theory, and the guiding spirit behind the indulgent policy toward the flourishing of settlements. He recently publicly criticized the two-state vision of the president who had hired him, among other things, to promote that vision.
Back during his election campaign Obama made it clear that he did not have to join Likud to be a friend of Israel. Opinion polls in the United States revealed that the views of most Jews are closer to the attitudes of organizations like the Reform movement, American Friends of Peace Now and J Street, which support a two-state solution and eschew Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's doctrine - and above all, largely object to the settlements.
The conversation Obama held with representatives of the Jewish community last week confirms that Netanyahu is drafting them for the wrong war. Even his oldest supporters did not attack the president's position on the settlements, and made do with a complaint about the high profile given to disputes over the issue of natural growth in the settlements. One of the guests at that meeting said that history showed that exposing the differences between the U.S. and Israel does not help to advance peace.
"This was not my reading of the lessons of the last eight years," Obama responded without flinching. Moreover, he said he would not shy away from a willingness to pressure all parties, including Israel, if that is in the best interests of the United States and Israel. Obama did not hesitate to tell his Jewish interlocutors that beyond the special commitment to Israel's security, his policy would be completely even-handed. If it became necessary, Obama said, he would speak to Israelis, as he had done to the Arab and Muslim world, to help them to achieve some kind of self-reflection.
Obama has internalized what his predecessors refused to understand: the traditional supporters of the Israeli right are growing old, or losing their relevance. They are giving way to younger, liberal forces who identify with Obama's values. In the "best" case, Netanyahu's incitement against the "self-hating Jews" will do to them what his whispered comment in the ear of Rabbi Kaduri "those leftists are not Jews" did to Israelis a decade ago - it turned them against him.
In the Interest of Wine and View
"[Israel has to keep the Golan] for strategic, military and land-settlement reasons. Needs of water, wine and view." - Uzi Arad, Benjamin Netanyahu's national security advisor in an interview with Ari Shavit in Ha'aretz.
This is old news already, I know. The interview was published the weekend before last, but I felt I had to mention how ridiculous, dangerous and weird this statement is. It's no better in the original Hebrew ("מסיבות אסטרטגיות, צבאיות והתיישבותיות. צורכי מים, נוף ויין").
I disagree with his assessment that Israel needs the Golan Heights for strategic and military purposes, but I accept it as a legitimate consideration. We'd be safer if we had peace with Syria and no Golan, in my opinion, but those who either don't trust the Syrian regime or don't believe it will last long have some good arguments. Water needs are also an important issue, though I'm sure we can come to a satisfying settlement on this with Syria.
Land-settlement. Now that's where things start to get problematic. Sure, Israel is a small country, but it has plenty of uninhabited lands in the nearby Galilee and especially down south in the Negev. The Golan may be more fertile than the Negev, but since we aren't an agrarian society, it doesn't really matter.
And now for the really outrageous reasons to stay on the Golan. Wine and view. Excuse me? Yes, you heard correctly. Wine and view are more important to Uzi Arad than the lives that may potentially be lost in a future war with Syria. Never mind that peace may also prevent future clashes with Hezbollah. We want out tasty wines and beautiful views!
The Golan is breathtaking and its wines are of high quality. Still, it isn't like Israel proper is an ugly, wineless piece of territory. We'll make do with the wineries of Mount Carmel and the scenery of the rest of Israel, in exchange for peace. Or at least we should. The government and most Israelis seem to disagree with me.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Max Blumenthal: Tel-Aviv Edition
Max Blumenthal is at it again, cherry picking who gets into his clip to make sure no reasonable Jewish Israeli makes it on screen, so that Israel can look like a racist Little Satan. Here's the clip, titled "Feeling the Hate in Tel-Aviv", and right below it is the comment to Max I posted on Mondoweiss:
You say yourself that all but two of the Jewish students you interviewed at Tel-Aviv University were part of a counter-protest in support of the Nakbah Law. Sounds like the kind of thing "Im Tirtzu" ("If You Will It"), a right-wing student organization, would arrange. Were any of them by any chance wearing shirts with pictures of early Zionist leaders? They're not exactly a representative bunch.
Also, the date you shot your video is important. When people watch the clip now, after the Iranian people's protests following the June 12 elections, they think the Israelis interviewed are actually talking about regular Iranians. On May 27, the context was completely different. When someone said he didn't like the Iranians, he probably had Ahmadinijad and the Ayatollahs in mind.
I also find it interesting that you found only three "Iran-haters" and two racists at the White Night event. How many Israelis who didn't say anything hateful remain on your cutting room floor?
You say yourself that all but two of the Jewish students you interviewed at Tel-Aviv University were part of a counter-protest in support of the Nakbah Law. Sounds like the kind of thing "Im Tirtzu" ("If You Will It"), a right-wing student organization, would arrange. Were any of them by any chance wearing shirts with pictures of early Zionist leaders? They're not exactly a representative bunch.
Also, the date you shot your video is important. When people watch the clip now, after the Iranian people's protests following the June 12 elections, they think the Israelis interviewed are actually talking about regular Iranians. On May 27, the context was completely different. When someone said he didn't like the Iranians, he probably had Ahmadinijad and the Ayatollahs in mind.
I also find it interesting that you found only three "Iran-haters" and two racists at the White Night event. How many Israelis who didn't say anything hateful remain on your cutting room floor?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Forcing Peace
Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said Saturday that if Israel and the Palestinians don't reach an agreement on their own by a certain deadline, then the United Nations Security Council should recognize the Palestinian state without Israel's consent. This is a horrible idea. As unhappy as I am with the lack of progress in the peace process, I think the international community can only nudge and push, but it must not impose a solution. Such a solution would be doomed to fail, and I fear it would lead to more bloodshed.
Also, what Palestinian State would the UN recognize? What would be its borders, its capital? What about the Palestinian refugees? Would the international community adopt one side's position on these issues or would it go with something in the middle? How would such a decision be implemented? Would an international force be sent in to drive Israel out of the newly recognized Palestine?
Which Palestinian faction would the United Nations recognize as Palestine's legitimate government? I doubt they'd go with the terrorist group Hamas, so if they recognize Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, what would be the status of Gaza?
This is a horrible, unconstructive idea. I have a feeling even Solana doesn't believe in it and is using it more as a threat against Israel, and Israel alone. It doesn't threaten the Palestinians. No matter what they do and whether they negotiate with Israel or not, they'll end up with a state and probably almost all of their demands will be met by the UN. In fact, Solana inadvertently encourages Palestinian negotiators to stall.
Also, what Palestinian State would the UN recognize? What would be its borders, its capital? What about the Palestinian refugees? Would the international community adopt one side's position on these issues or would it go with something in the middle? How would such a decision be implemented? Would an international force be sent in to drive Israel out of the newly recognized Palestine?
Which Palestinian faction would the United Nations recognize as Palestine's legitimate government? I doubt they'd go with the terrorist group Hamas, so if they recognize Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, what would be the status of Gaza?
This is a horrible, unconstructive idea. I have a feeling even Solana doesn't believe in it and is using it more as a threat against Israel, and Israel alone. It doesn't threaten the Palestinians. No matter what they do and whether they negotiate with Israel or not, they'll end up with a state and probably almost all of their demands will be met by the UN. In fact, Solana inadvertently encourages Palestinian negotiators to stall.
Friday, July 10, 2009
New Feature
I just added a new feature to my blog. It's the Lijit Search widget (or wijit, as they called it). It'll display the search terms that people used to find this site, as well as where in the world people are coming from. You can also search my blog with Lijit, and if you click on "Surprise Me" it'll bring you to a random post.
They say it may take some time before the widget is really effective, because it takes time to collect all the data about all my posts.
They say it may take some time before the widget is really effective, because it takes time to collect all the data about all my posts.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Netanyahu's Speech
Well, the room was smaller and the applause pathetic compared to Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech as Bar-Ilan University has important ramifications. On the one hand, he finally accepted the idea of a Palestinian State, and called for negotiations with Arab countries. On the other, he refused to stop settlement expansion, declared Jerusalem will never be divided and demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, something they will never agree to.
The most interesting idea in his speech is his call for a demilitarized Palestinian State. He's absolutely right to demand that. Palestinians will always keep wishing Israel never existed. The only way to make sure Palestine won't try to retake what it sees as its rightful territory is by making sure it is disarmed. The new state must not look like Gaza does now. I don't support Israeli control of Palestine's airspace, though. While the proximity of Gaza and the West Bank to Tel-Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport poses a risk, I am sure there are ways to deal with the problem.
The most interesting idea in his speech is his call for a demilitarized Palestinian State. He's absolutely right to demand that. Palestinians will always keep wishing Israel never existed. The only way to make sure Palestine won't try to retake what it sees as its rightful territory is by making sure it is disarmed. The new state must not look like Gaza does now. I don't support Israeli control of Palestine's airspace, though. While the proximity of Gaza and the West Bank to Tel-Aviv and Ben-Gurion Airport poses a risk, I am sure there are ways to deal with the problem.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The End of the Islamic Republic?
I know this is probably wishful thinking, but I sure would be happy if the protests in Iran against the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would lead to the overthrow of the Ayatollahs. I have no idea whether or not the results were rigged, but they certainly are suspicious. Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi were in a tight race, according to polls, and in the end, Mr. Ratface wins over 60% of the votes?
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Writers' Haaretz
It took me two days to finish reading Wednesday's special edition of Ha'aretz. To celebrate the annual Hebrew Book Week, the entire news section of the paper, an op-ed piece, the weather report and the "letters to the editor", were written by Israeli writers and poets. Two pieces were written by Turkish Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk (translated from The New Yorker) and Italian author and philosopher Umberto Eco (an amusing essay about taxi drivers originally written 20 years ago). 
It was the first time I've read the entire news section cover to cover and I enjoyed every single one of the articles (except for Shimon Adaf's over-technical report about quantum physics). The different writers wrote beautifully and from very special perspectives. I especially liked Etgar Keret's interview with Ehud Barak (Hebrew here), David Grossman's report from a rehab center for youth (Hebrew here) and Nurit Gertz's observations about the disconnect between Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the staff of his ministry (Hebrew here).
To see all the articles in Hebrew click here. For the articles in English click here and choose June 10 from the drop down menu on the left (sorry, there doesn't seem to be a static URL for the English edition of the writers' table of contents).
It was the first time I've read the entire news section cover to cover and I enjoyed every single one of the articles (except for Shimon Adaf's over-technical report about quantum physics). The different writers wrote beautifully and from very special perspectives. I especially liked Etgar Keret's interview with Ehud Barak (Hebrew here), David Grossman's report from a rehab center for youth (Hebrew here) and Nurit Gertz's observations about the disconnect between Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the staff of his ministry (Hebrew here).
To see all the articles in Hebrew click here. For the articles in English click here and choose June 10 from the drop down menu on the left (sorry, there doesn't seem to be a static URL for the English edition of the writers' table of contents).
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Haaretz's Poetic License
Ha'aretz will conduct an interesting experiment tomorrow, in honor of the annual Hebrew Book Week, a nationwide celebration of literature. The paper's usual journalists will have the day off, and instead, the entire newspaper - news, opinions, features and even the weather report - will be written by 35 prose writers and poets, "through their own experience" (whatever that means).
Yes, it's mostly a publicity stunt (though not a very good one - since I only know about it because I read today's print edition - the website has nothing about it and I haven't seen any commercials about it either), and writing subjectively about the news by people who usually write literature is very un-journalistic. I don't see the New York Times, Washington Post or Le Monde handing over their news pages to non-journalists. I really don't care about all that, though. Since it is just a one time thing, I don't see this as an insult to the idea of objective, professional reporters covering the issues in as balanced a way as possible.
So, if any of you notice new bylines and offbeat reports tomorrow on Ha'aretz's website, don't be surprised.
Expect more on this tomorrow, after I read the special edition.
Yes, it's mostly a publicity stunt (though not a very good one - since I only know about it because I read today's print edition - the website has nothing about it and I haven't seen any commercials about it either), and writing subjectively about the news by people who usually write literature is very un-journalistic. I don't see the New York Times, Washington Post or Le Monde handing over their news pages to non-journalists. I really don't care about all that, though. Since it is just a one time thing, I don't see this as an insult to the idea of objective, professional reporters covering the issues in as balanced a way as possible.
So, if any of you notice new bylines and offbeat reports tomorrow on Ha'aretz's website, don't be surprised.
Expect more on this tomorrow, after I read the special edition.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
The Amendment Amendment
Don't get me wrong, I have better things to do, but for some reason, after finding an old copy of the United States Constitution (old enough to be missing the 27th amendment), I just felt like writing an amendment to the method of proposing and ratifying amendments. Here it is, and any Senator or Representative can feel free to submit it to Congress (not that I have delusions that anything like that is going to happen):
Section 1. (1) Proposed amendments to this constitution may be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a Constitutional Convention called by Congress.
(2) A Constitutional Convention shall be called whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall submit applications to Congress regarding a specific issue within three years of each other.
(3) The number of Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from each state shall be the same as the number each state in entitled to have in the House of Representatives and shall be elected by the same method as representatives by the people of each state. The qualifications to serve as Delegate shall be identical to the qualifications to serve as a Representative, as shall be the compensation each shall receive for their service. However, no senator, representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall serve as Delegate.
(4) The term of a Constitutional Convention shall not exceed two years. The Convention may dissolve itself earlier if, after proposing at least one amendment to the Constitution, a majority of Delegates so decides. If, after two years, a Convention fails to propose amendments, Congress may call a new convention, even without the application of the state legislatures. This right of Congress shall expire six months after the end of the Convention's term.
Section 2. (1) Amendments proposed by either method mentioned in Section 1 shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures, conventions, or the people of three-fourths of the several states, as whichever of these three modes the proposing body may direct, provided that no more than seven years shall pass from the date of proposal to the date of ratification, unless the proposing body shall specify otherwise when proposing the amendment; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
(2) Whenever conventions shall be chosen as the mode of ratification, the delegates thereof shall be specially elected for that purpose, by whichever method each state shall by law provide. No state delegate shall simultaneously serve in a state legislature, Congress, or any federal or state executive office.
Section 3. All amendments proposed to the several states more than seven years before the ratification of this article and which have not yet been ratified, shall expire one year after the ratification of this article.
Section 4. The Congress and the several states shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as previously provided in Article V of the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Section 1. (1) Proposed amendments to this constitution may be proposed either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a Constitutional Convention called by Congress.
(2) A Constitutional Convention shall be called whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall submit applications to Congress regarding a specific issue within three years of each other.
(3) The number of Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from each state shall be the same as the number each state in entitled to have in the House of Representatives and shall be elected by the same method as representatives by the people of each state. The qualifications to serve as Delegate shall be identical to the qualifications to serve as a Representative, as shall be the compensation each shall receive for their service. However, no senator, representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall serve as Delegate.
(4) The term of a Constitutional Convention shall not exceed two years. The Convention may dissolve itself earlier if, after proposing at least one amendment to the Constitution, a majority of Delegates so decides. If, after two years, a Convention fails to propose amendments, Congress may call a new convention, even without the application of the state legislatures. This right of Congress shall expire six months after the end of the Convention's term.
Section 2. (1) Amendments proposed by either method mentioned in Section 1 shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures, conventions, or the people of three-fourths of the several states, as whichever of these three modes the proposing body may direct, provided that no more than seven years shall pass from the date of proposal to the date of ratification, unless the proposing body shall specify otherwise when proposing the amendment; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
(2) Whenever conventions shall be chosen as the mode of ratification, the delegates thereof shall be specially elected for that purpose, by whichever method each state shall by law provide. No state delegate shall simultaneously serve in a state legislature, Congress, or any federal or state executive office.
Section 3. All amendments proposed to the several states more than seven years before the ratification of this article and which have not yet been ratified, shall expire one year after the ratification of this article.
Section 4. The Congress and the several states shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as previously provided in Article V of the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Goodbye Avoda
The Labor Party is finally going to split up. It's about time. Under Ehud Barak's leadership the party has lost its way. Barak takes any crap Benjamin Netanyahu throws at him.
Unfortunately, only four Knesset Members have decided to ditch Labor. Of those four, just one is a politician I like – Ofir Pines-Paz. I have mixed feelings about Eitan Cabel, who was a failure as Labor Party secretary-general but at least had the courage to quit the Olmert government after the Second Lebanon War. The other two defectors are Amir Peretz and Yuli Tamir, both of whom I dislike just as much as I dislike Ehud Barak. Peretz is the incompetent fool who botched the Lebanon War as Defense Minister. He's nothing more than a petty wheeler and dealer. Yuli Tamir, who I used to like, was a terrible Minister of Education who promoted the horrid "Ofek Hadash" (New Horizon) reform plan, which gave teachers a very slight raise in salary in exchange for a lot more hours of work, in effect cutting their per-hour salary.
There are three MKs the defectors need in order for me to support them: Minister for Minority Affairs Avishay Braverman, Labor caucus chairman Daniel Ben-Simon, and Shelly Yechimovich. I voted for all three in the Knesset primaries (among those who ended up in the Knesset, Ofir Pines is the fourth person I voted for). If at least one of them joins, the chances of my vote going in their direction will be higher.
In any case, my association with the Labor Party is over. Unless they make major changes, I'm not going to vote for them ever again. Since I've already paid my membership dues for the year, I'll stay on as a party member in case leadership primaries are held during the time I've already paid for anyway. I will not renew my membership after that.
Unfortunately, only four Knesset Members have decided to ditch Labor. Of those four, just one is a politician I like – Ofir Pines-Paz. I have mixed feelings about Eitan Cabel, who was a failure as Labor Party secretary-general but at least had the courage to quit the Olmert government after the Second Lebanon War. The other two defectors are Amir Peretz and Yuli Tamir, both of whom I dislike just as much as I dislike Ehud Barak. Peretz is the incompetent fool who botched the Lebanon War as Defense Minister. He's nothing more than a petty wheeler and dealer. Yuli Tamir, who I used to like, was a terrible Minister of Education who promoted the horrid "Ofek Hadash" (New Horizon) reform plan, which gave teachers a very slight raise in salary in exchange for a lot more hours of work, in effect cutting their per-hour salary.
There are three MKs the defectors need in order for me to support them: Minister for Minority Affairs Avishay Braverman, Labor caucus chairman Daniel Ben-Simon, and Shelly Yechimovich. I voted for all three in the Knesset primaries (among those who ended up in the Knesset, Ofir Pines is the fourth person I voted for). If at least one of them joins, the chances of my vote going in their direction will be higher.
In any case, my association with the Labor Party is over. Unless they make major changes, I'm not going to vote for them ever again. Since I've already paid my membership dues for the year, I'll stay on as a party member in case leadership primaries are held during the time I've already paid for anyway. I will not renew my membership after that.
Six Years of Blogging
Just wanted to mention that today is the blog's sixth anniversary. It is also Emmanuel Schiff's sixth birthday as a pseudonym. On Friday, June 6, 2003, I lost my bloginity (blog virginity).
In 2006, when the date was 06/06/06 (666) I joked that my blog is satanic. Not that it's 06/06 again and the 6th anniversary, should I repeat the same joke?
In 2006, when the date was 06/06/06 (666) I joked that my blog is satanic. Not that it's 06/06 again and the 6th anniversary, should I repeat the same joke?
Friday, June 05, 2009
Bibi and Dudu
Here's a hilarious cartoon from today's Ha'aretz:
Prime Minister Netanyahu asks: "What will we do with this Obama guy?" and one of his ministers answers "Let's consult Dudu [Topaz]".
If you don't know who Topaz is - well, to make a long story short, he is a former television star who, as revealed this week, responded disproportionately and violently to the decline of his career and to perceived threats to his prospects for renewed success.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Nakba In the Classroom
Ha'aretz reports today that Zochrot has been disseminating an educational kit about the Nakba to school teachers, and some teachers have used it. The kit includes units about Palestinian communities before 1948, personal stories of refugees, events of the 1947-1948 conflict, a discussion of the right of return and a tour of a destroyed village.
Zochrot, whose name is the feminine form of "[we] remember" in Hebrew, is an anti-Zionist organization dedicated to remembering the Palestinian villages destroyed during Israel's War of Independence, the return of Palestinian refugees and the one state solution. It is mostly made up of Jews rather than Palestinians, which makes it all the more irritating. I have no problem with Palestinians wanting to commemorate their own heritage, but far-left Jewish Israelis whining about how evil we are just piss me off. These are not the people I'd like to see teaching Israel's children.
The Nakba is a fact and should be addressed in high schools. Zochrot's way is not the way, though. Teaching children that we are the bad guys is no less simplistic than teaching them we're the good guys. Let's not teach the anti-Zionist narrative instead of the Zionist one. Show them both, side by side, analyze the differences and think about the Israeli and Palestinian versions critically.
Do it the PRIME way, not the Zochrot way.
Zochrot, whose name is the feminine form of "[we] remember" in Hebrew, is an anti-Zionist organization dedicated to remembering the Palestinian villages destroyed during Israel's War of Independence, the return of Palestinian refugees and the one state solution. It is mostly made up of Jews rather than Palestinians, which makes it all the more irritating. I have no problem with Palestinians wanting to commemorate their own heritage, but far-left Jewish Israelis whining about how evil we are just piss me off. These are not the people I'd like to see teaching Israel's children.
The Nakba is a fact and should be addressed in high schools. Zochrot's way is not the way, though. Teaching children that we are the bad guys is no less simplistic than teaching them we're the good guys. Let's not teach the anti-Zionist narrative instead of the Zionist one. Show them both, side by side, analyze the differences and think about the Israeli and Palestinian versions critically.
Do it the PRIME way, not the Zochrot way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
