The Path To The Knesset

Ding Dong Osama's Dead

2011-05-03T23:14:00.000+03:00

Here are some important lessons to take from Osama bin Laden’s demise:

Some people will say that killing bin Laden will only bring a new more radical leader to the head of al Qaeda, and that it will spur some sort of reprisals. They are wrong. Killing bin Laden takes out a THINKING terrorist, creates panic among his followers and won’t cause any more attacks than those already being planned. Killing bin Laden has absolutely made the world a safer and better place

Many are calling the takedown of Osama a symbolic or psychological victory. This is true, but the intel from Osama’s compound shows he was still very much the center of a terrorist network, and losing both a central leader, as well as a strategic base WILL disrupt al-Qaeda’s procedures for some amount of time.

Some people have also criticized the decade-long timeframe it took to locate and kill one troublemaker. However, the strategy of the Global Jihad is a long game startegy – they will respect and fear the USA more for sticking it out in the long run, especially that it was bin Laden who preached that the West could not withstand a drawn-out conflict.

Pakistan is a fragile country and bin Laden’s support obviously extended deep within official Pakistani territory and not just in the North-Western tribal areas. There is still a large need for US military presence in Pakistan lest a nuclear-armed country go off the rails. I was overjoyed to hear Hilary Clinton point this out.

Osama bin Laden was, to paraphrase Gandalf, a great evil, but there are many others. Osama’s message to the world is “Do-it-yourself Jihad.” You may want to shoot up an El Al counter at LAX or try to take down a plane with your underwear, or blow up Times Square. Al Qaeda couldn’t care less how much of a screw up you are, as long as you get the TSA to make commercial flying a more miserable experience than being a Gitmo detainee. Unfortunately, this sort of terror, and this sort of unnecessary stupidity of making passengers “feel safer” will far out live bin Laden.

Hamas, the more popular branch of Fatah and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood all condemned or mourned the bin Laden killing. It’s important to remember this. I I was better at video editing I would combine a montage of Gazans dancing in celebration of the 9/11 attacks, with New Yorkers celebrating bin Laden’s death. If anyone does this artfully, please send me a link.

Another of “Sheikh Osama’s” legacies to the world is the al-Jazeera network. Remember the new Emir of Qatar founded al-Jazeera in 1995 primarily to give a platform for bin Laden’s video recordings, preaching that the US should remove all ot its troops from Saudi Arabia (I forget if bin Laden ever preached against the US Air Force base in Qatar). Al-Jazeera has since developed a life of its own, having tremendous impact in its ability to spread convenient truths and whacky conspiracy theories throughout the Arab world. Of course, as bin Laden tapes were fewer and farther between over the years, the new front face for al-Jazeera became Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who will contend for at least 50% of the seats in Egypt’s parliament this summer. I wonder, do you think have the support of a mainstream media network will help them?

The Lesson to be Learned from Goldstone

2011-04-03T15:49:00.000+03:00

While Israel and its supporters have welcomed Richard Goldstone's retraction of his scathing false accusations against Israel and its army, I think that there is an important side to the story being largely overlooked: Palestinian reaction.

Obviously, Hamas roundly condemned any retraction and implored the UN to act based on Goldstone's initial report. That same report also castigates Hamas with war crimes, but Hamas' hypocrisy can be overlooked because it knows it is not subject to any UN pressure (despite the fact that the UN is the biggest employer and provider of services in Gaza).

More important is the reaction coming from the less violent wings of the Palestinian Arab population, namely Mustafa Barghouti, the so called 'third way' candidate, supposedly most amenable to peace with Israel, and Yasser Abed Rabbo, a PLO and Fatah VIP who was Yossi Beilin's partner in drafting the Geneva Initiative. Why wouldn't supposedly peace-loving Palestinians want to exonerate Israel, so that their population will be more supportive of their former declarations of peace?

The obvious answer, clearly, is that no one was really interested in selling the idea of peace, or that the IDF could make a good neighbor, to the Palestinian street. While every Israeli household received a copy of the Geneva Initiative no such distribution was done in Arab communities in Yehuda, Shomron or Azza. Palestinian overtures were only made towards Israel for Israeli consumption, and to dupe Israelis into thinking that giving away their land would guarantee peace. The furor which erupted over the so-called "Palestine Papers" was also based on the fact that the average Palestinian had no idea of even which potential compromises their leaders were being asked to make.

Since the PLO stopped negotiations with Israel, using Operation Cast Lead as an excuse to cover up the unbridgeable gaps between Olmert and Livni's concessionary offers and Abbas' intransient demands, it has been obvious to close observers that the PLO intended to act unilaterally against Israel through the UN. On March 20th, Saeb Erekat, the chief non-negotiator, announced this officially.

Israel's goal now has to be not only to show that its army acted justifiably against Hamas, but that Fatah and more moderate-sounding factions are just as willing as Hamas to incite against Israel, and are as unwilling as Hamas to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

The original platform for negotiations was the concept of "Land for Peace." The international community must understand that with the thorough PLO rejection of peace, there is no reason to entertain that Israel should depart from any of its land.

The New Ten Plagues

2011-01-31T15:26:00.001+02:00

Here are ten interesting points worth knowing about what is happening in Egypt, that I have not seen widely reported:

The wannabe leader of the protests is Mohammad El Baradei. Many media have called him a reformer or democracy advocate, seemingly showing up from out of nowhere. However, El Baradei is not a new face. He was already campaigning for the Egyptian presidency in the elections scheduled for September 2011. What's more, his main endorsement, and reportedly, his financial backing were from the Muslim Brotherhood. The "unity" government El Baradei is calling for is unity between himself and his main constituency. Even if that constituency wasn't fundamentalist Muslims, it would portend badly for "democratic reform."

Only El Baradei and Westerners are talking about freedom and rights. Actual protesters are almost exclusively talking about (a) hating Mubarak (b) a need for economic improvement. Egypt's economy is poor and the citizens seem to be looking for a short term solution. The liberation of Egypt may turn out a lot like the "liberation" of Cuba, in which the wealth of too few elites was "liberated" and dispersed to the masses. In other words: communism. Of course, this might be couched in terms of "Zakat" - Islamic charity by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt is a considered the largest Arab country but it has hardly ever been ruled by Arabs. It was the seat of the second largest Shia Empire and mostly ruled by Shia Berbers and Albanians/Turks for most of its modern history. The serf culture runs deep and Egyptian Arabs were used to second class status. Nasser's Pan-Arabism invigorated Arab pride, but it basically fizzled when Nasser essentially let the USSR take over Egypt.

Mubarak appointed Omar Suleiman as his Vice President, seemingly, to dispel the idea that he intended to name his son, Gamal as successor. Suleiman is well respected in the army, is known to be close to Israel and is well entrenched in the old regime. He has considered himself the true heir to Mubarak, as Egypt, since 1952, has been ruled by a military dynasty. Suleiman is also hated by the Muslim Brotherhood. No one was fooled that Suleiman represented any change - so why appoint him? Perhaps Suleiman forced his way in with a simple threat: Make me your successor and I'll make sure the army protects you. Don't, and I'll join the protesters and launch a military coup. An alternative explanation is that Mubarak wants Suleiman to be held responsible for any crackdown. He could be throwing Suleiman to the wolves so that his son could still be considered as a future leader. Maybe both?

The Muslim Brotherhood has taken a shadowy role in these protests but, besides El Baradei, there are other small signs of Islamic influence in the protests. Many news agencies reported on protesters throwing stones at pictures of Mubarak. The symbolism of this, lost on many non-Muslims, is the equation of Mubarak with the Jamarat – the symbolic demon at which Muslims throw stones during the Hajj. While Western media think of this as just an expression of anger at Mubarak, it means much more to the Muslim protesters and turns the battle for a new regime into a Jihad. Furthermore, the Ulemma (Islamic Scholars – controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood) declared that the rioters killed in the protests have the status of Shahidin – holy martyrs. This means that the all-important "Rule of 40" will apply.

"The Rule of 40" was a key component in both the radicalization and success of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. Every time protests were quashed or fizzled, the 40-day mourning period of some dead protester ended. The memorial service on the 40^th day drew together large crowds and gave the religious leaders the opportunity to fire up the crowds for more protests. More protests led to more deaths, more deaths led to more memorials and more memorials led to more fiery fundamentalist sermons. So far, relatively few protesters have been killed in Egypt, but by declaring the dead as martyrs, more people will feel the need to attend their memorial services and the Rule of 40 will perpetuate the Islamic takeover. Ironically, the Muslim Brotherhood stands less of a chance if the protesters take down Mubarak quickly, without much assistance from Islamic rhetoric.

Despite the radical nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no need to prepare for immediate warfare. Egypt is still a cracked reed – a horrible economy and not prepared for any immediate conflict.

Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip there has been eerie silence from Hamas. That's good news for Sderot, but weird in that one would expect mass rallies of solidarity with their Muslim Brotherhood sponsors or at least some celebratory rockets on Sderot. It might be that they are lying low just as the Muslim Brotherhood is acting behind the scenes for now.

Al-Jazeera seems to be the guiding hand behind the delegitimization of Arab governments, and for spurring protesters to arise and organize. People are beginning to notice this, especially Mahmoud Abbas, who claimed that Al-Jazeera had declared war on Fatah and the PLO, and by the Mubarak regime, which closed Al-Jazeera's Cairo bureau. But who is behind Al-Jazeera? Their news director is Whadh Khanfir (hat tip, Dashiell Shapiro), a Palestinian from Jenin, with an obvious bone to pick with the PLO. But the true power behind the network is the Emir of Qatar, Hamad ibn Khalifa al-Thani. As the leader of Qatar since overthrowing his father in 1995, al-Thani has built Al-Jazeera to give voice to the most dangerous extremists in the Arab world, usually suppressed by regimes desperate to maintain ties with the United States. Al-Thani created the soapbox for Usama Bin-Laden and seems to admire the al-Qaeda goals of subverting western-facing Arab governments and restoring a Caliphate. However, fomenting popular uprisings seems to be an odd occupation for the decadent dictator of a small republic chosen to host the 2022 World Cup. Perhaps Al-Thani thinks that Iran can protect him, perhaps he's afraid Saudi Arabia will shut him down, perhaps he just wants better TV ratings. Whatever his reasons, Al-Jazeera is intent on spreading Tunisian style chaos throughout the Arab World, country by country.

Sudan is next!

The Dependency Curse

2011-01-26T16:39:00.001+02:00

A version of this article was published at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9962

Last week, Netanyahu adopted the recommendations of the Sheshinski Commission, charged with determining the appropriate rate of taxation on oil and gas extraction profits. The commission was empaneled based on the recent discovery of large offshore gas fields, Tamar and Leviathan. At the beginning of this week, the recommendations were brought to the cabinet for a vote, and passed. The only ministers to oppose were from Yisrael Beytenu.

The commission decided to raise the extraction taxes to rates comparable to those found in Western resource-rich countries, to a rate ranging from 52% to 60%, nearly doubling the current levels. They applied the tax to all future and current extraction sites, so that the large profits expected from the Tamar and Leviathan fields would essentially be divided between the invested companies and the State.

As soon as these major finds were revealed to the public there was strong pressure on the government to raise tax rates so that "the country's resources" could be shared by the entire country. The socialist elite were the first to jump on the "spread-the-wealth wagon" but a lot of people who should know better were also pulled up along the way. First and foremost of these is our Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who was forced by public pressure to form the Sheshinski commission and is now standing firmly behind its conclusions.

Obviously, the oil and gas companies were livid about the idea that tax law would be changed specifically to garnish their profits after they had spent considerable time gaining exclusive rights to mine the ocean floor and even commissioning a geographical study to ensure that the Leviathan Gas Field was squarely in Israeli territorial waters, so as not to encroach on the rights of Cyprus.

However, the media and generally socialist-leaning public had no sympathy for Delek Group Chairman, Yitzchak Tshuva, or the other "tycoons."

Only National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beytenu) stood up for the right of companies to adhere to the tax rate they expected when they invested millions of shekels in their exploratory venture.

Another Yisrael Beytenu MK, Anastassia Michaeli, pointed out that it was not just "greedy tycoons" who held a stake in the large gas finds. The companies who had secured the extraction rights and prepared the fields for extraction were publicly held companies. Shares in these companies were held by private investors, as well as popular mutual and pension funds. The stock price dropped accordingly hurting the bottom line of many average citizens, as well.

As soon as the public campaign to raise taxes on these companies gained steam, so did ideas of what to do with the huge tax windfall. The opposition to the tax created even greater animosity towards the tycoons. MK Yachimovich (Labor) decried the greed of the tycoons for preferring lining their own pockets instead of improving the nation's health, education and welfare systems. Popular radio personalities asked: "How much wealth do they need?"

The irony of course, was that the ones ascribing greed to businessmen who work hard to generate profits, were themselves the very personifications of the green-eyed monster, lusting over money they did nothing to earn. No pot has ever so brazenly called the kettle black.

It seems that only Yisrael Beytenu has seen how damaging this tax-and-grab policy can be, or, at the very least, the only party willing to explain the issues without being swept into populist positions.

The companies involved in discovering and developing the gas fields entered into an expensive and somewhat risky project. The project was financed based on a reward-to-risk ratio by investors who assumed that the current tax rate would remain. A tax hike offsets this balance. While it is true that a democratic government has the right to change tax policy at whim, it is simply a bad business practice to change the terms of even an assumed deal. Legality aside, opportunistic tax hikes look very bad, especially to foreign investors, hurting the entire Israeli economy.

Furthermore, the Israeli extraction industry is relatively new. Adding new taxes makes the industry less lucrative and will discourage competition in the industry, which leads to a monopoly or a small cadre of companies acting in monopolistic fashion.

As mentioned above, these new taxes will not only take money from "tycoons" (who should be protected by rule of law as much as a beggar), but from average working Israelis who invested in oil and gas through the stock market or through pension funds.

The economic reasons for opposing this tax hike are compelling, but there is an even more important reason that the Knesset must work hard to prevent the tax from being raised.

The psychological effects of tax dependency may be the most damaging to Israel in the long run. The effects are being felt prematurely, as different government bodies have already started to snipe over who should benefit from the gas revenues. Each Ministry is now trying to explain how it is financially incapable of development without these gas revenues. The mere thought of extra disposable cash has discouraged ministers from reforming their sectors or increasing efficiency. Why bother belt tightening when we can "suckle from the bounty of the seas?"

The other aspect is that government is by nature inflationary. Wants are infinite but resources are finite. When the gas runs out, how will the country deal with a sharp drop-off in its tax-revenue? Will a society based on tax dependency be prepared for austerity measures, or will the urge to tax only grow? Here, we need only look to modern Europe as an example. For years, the European hunger for taxes was insatiable, and now every European country is forced to make severe public sector cuts – depressing the mood of an already depressed economic situation.

But what about those countries that are riding the resource-profit high? First, Israel's finds are significant, but are no match for those of Abu Dhabi or Qatar. However, these countries are also not models to be emulated. While these are small states with dictatorial rulers, one can see that excess wealth can lead to weird and not-necessarily-sustainable growth. Flashy items like World Cup Stadiums and Towers of Babylon may not be on the Israeli agenda, but there is always an urge to make a splash when you have what to spend.

PM Netanyahu suggests the tax revenues be dedicated solely to education – very practical – until there is a push to turn every classroom in the country into a "smart classroom." Besides the questions of whether "smart classrooms" actually produce smart students, it is only natural for someone spending someone else's money to go beyond necessity into luxury.

The worst effect will be felt by the population as a whole, which, after years of painstaking free-market gains in Israel, will be brought back to the attitude that one can make a living on somebody else's work. The psychological effects of this are immense. Rather than contributing to social cohesion, the attitude will enforce an obsession with jealousy, "wealth gaps" and allocations. The rabbinic dictum of "Who is rich? One who is happy with his portion" will lose all meaning. The psychological attitude of tax dependency, along with the resultant drop in foreign investment, discourages the resourcefulness and entrepreneurial spirit that has been the pride and lifeline of Israel for the last two decades. Israel cannot afford to let its entrepreneurial engine relax!

Proponents of the tax hike must look past the short term benefits and be very wary of the long term damage to the nation and people of Israel. Let our country develop naturally, with resourceful companies generating new sources of employment for workers and profit for investors. Stand up to the populist greed and jealousy. The economic effects of a tax-hike can be reversed. If the tax is repealed, investor trust in Israel will return and competition will enter the market, since markets adjust to new realities very quickly. However, the psychological effects of a tax dependent society may last decades. The Knesset must stem the government's attempt to "reel in the Leviathan on a fishing-rod" and convince the public to resist the urge to live off its ample ingenuity and skill.

AQDVTDQYWX25

2010-12-23T19:09:00.001+02:00

AQDVTDQYWX25 this is my claim token to get listed on technorati!

A Smarter Freeze

2010-11-16T09:48:00.000+02:00

I am not in favor of a continued freeze in Yehuda and Shomron.
However, as things look, it is likely that this dangerous idea will pass the vote in the Security Cabinet and take effect.

Therefore, and only therefore, I am proposing a different version of the freeze proposal:

(1) Transparency - the people of Israel deserve to know the exact terms of the deal with the USA. I'm not an American or Arab politician, but if I were, I'd want my constituents to know, as well.

(2) Israel should vote that: Construction will halt for 3 days. If the PLO agrees to a meeting within those three days, the freeze will THEN continue for 87 days. If within 3 days, Abbas or Ahmed Queri cannot make the short drive to the Prime Ministers Office in Jerusalem, the freeze is canceled.

(3) If the PLO agrees to negotiations and the freeze goes into effect, within one month, the PLO must make a public statement of a major concession (on "blocs", Jerusalem, the Kotel, ending incitement, Jewish State - something!). If after one month of negotiations (at least two summit meetings plus at least 3 negotiating team meetings), no public announcement of a concession is made, the freeze will be canceled without prejudice or condemnation by the USA.

(4) If, after the freeze, the PLO wishes to continue negotiations, they must do so without the demand of a freeze. The USA commits to (a) not ask for another freeze and (b) commits to no public pronouncements or condemnations regarding construction or zoning permits issued in Jerusalem, Yehuda, Binyamin, Shomron or the Golan.

I can't honestly see how anyone; left, right or center could possibly disagree that this formula is a vast improvement on the current idea of "Freeze for 90 days and then wait and see who shows up." Even supporters of a freeze have to realize that without some gesture from the PLO, the freeze works completely against Israel and is a useless burden to the economic and social fabric of the country.

Deny the freeze! But if it must pass, at least condition it on actual progress.

Absurdities

2010-11-14T17:11:00.002+02:00

Supposedly, PM Netanyahu has returned to Israel with a new offer of American support in return for renewing a construction freeze in Yehuda and Shomron. We’ll analyze that deal shortly.

The New York Times has also published an editorial blaming Netanyahu for the disintegration of peace negotiations (for not agreeing to resume a freeze). The editorial comes on the heels of Thomas Friedman’s op-ed accusing Israel of acting like a spoiled child.

There are two troubling signs in these NYT articles. Friedman’s talks about Israel acting like a “spoiled child.” But why should Israel be compared to a child at all? Israel gives great deference to the USA, and appreciates it as an ally, but not as a “parent figure.” This distinction has been made during every disagreement between the two allies over the years, regardless of which political parties were in charge at the time.

The NYT accuses Netanyahu of putting politics ahead of peace. Even if one were to assume that peace would be the result of renewing the freeze (something the Palestinians themselves deny), it is an arrogant statement to say that Netanyahu should not prefer the will of his own electorate over the opinion of a foreign ally. If Israel is an ally of the USA because of shared democratic values, shouldn’t the USA accept that Israel’s democracy may not always come to the same conclusions as America’s?

Moreover, the two NYT pieces both seem to ignore that continuing a freeze, while not a threat to Israel’s existence, is not seen to be to its advantage, either. Israel’s government sees its previous freeze as the barrier to resuming negotiations. Negotiations only started at the very end of the ten-month freeze, when the PLO realized it could restate its immutable positions and then have America demand that the freeze be extended. Both the Times’ editor and Friedman (who may be one and the same, in this case) assume that the choice is between settlements and peace – a choice the PLO made when it refused to discuss a peace deal while settlements were frozen! However, the reality is that the choice is between continuing construction and thus improving the PA economy, helping to lower Israel’s crippling real-estate bubble, and making the PLO realize time is not on its side; or acquiescing to a renewed freeze and entering into another round of fruitless negotiations, during which Israel will suffer from further terrorist attacks, be hounded into making more unilateral concessions and have the talks break down without achieving peace.

When the choice is between settlements and no peace, or politics and no peace even the New York Times should be able to understand the rationale for Israel’s choice.

One can excuse the NYT its naïveté, but what about the American Government? Don’t the officials at the State Department realize how unlikely a full peace agreement is? Absolutely! I have spoken to senior members of the State Department and one message has come through loud and clear: the United States wants Israel and the Palestinians to keep talking – not necessarily to reach a deal, but to continue talking, no matter how far apart the negotiating positions.

Speculation on why this is the ultimate concern, I will leave to the readers, but it is quite clear that the deal the USA presented Israel is focused entirely on that goal – to keep the parties talking, and anything beyond that is icing on the cake.

So what’s the deal? Reportedly, the deal consists of three parts: In return for Israel renewing its construction freeze for 90 more days:

(1) The USA will give Israel 20 Stealth F35i jets.

(2) The USA will not call for renewing the freeze, afterward.

(3) The USA will veto all UN resolutions directed against Israel.

So how worthy is this deal?

(1) Stealth jets are important to keeping Israel’s air force on the cutting edge of technology. However, it is unclear whether these 20 are to be gifted or simply released for sale. If they are only being released for sale, is this a perk or an implicit threat to prevent the sale of jets Israel has said it wants, if it is not compliant?

(2) The previous freeze was supposed to be a one-shot test, and the PLO failed. While the USA might genuinely believe it will not call for another freeze afterward, can it honestly make this assessment? What happens, then, if the PLO backs out after 90 days, or (more likely) only sits down with Israel on the 89^th day? Isn’t it likely that the USA can now say, since circumstances or “progress” has been made, that they will ask for another freeze extension to meet a “new reality?”

(3) This is the strangest perk of all. If Israel does not agree to renew the freeze, will the USA then not exercise its veto against the usual blatantly anti-Israel claptrap? Will they allow the UNSC to endorse the Goldstone Report, which every US defense and political echelon found flawed? Various members of Congress and Pentagon have praised Israel’s action during Operation Cast Lead and have worried about the implications of the Goldstone Report on America’s own ability to react militarily to threats. Would the USA really compromise its own national interests in order to punish Israel? Furthermore, while no one in Israel or the USA really expects this, what if Israel were to agree to a new freeze and then embark on an actual full-scale genocide? Would the USA veto a condemning resolution just because it promised? Could the USA make such an absurd gesture, essentially renting out its foreign policy to another nation?

Then how can it expect Israel to do so?

The Blame Game

2010-10-06T10:03:00.000+02:00

As many analysts have noted, the key issue in the “negotiations” between Israel and the PLO is who is “it” in The Blame Game? In whose “court” is the “ball”? To whom does the “arrow” point? For whom does the bell toll? (Better not to ask that last one!)

Neither the Israeli government nor the PLO wants to be the party that walks out on negotiations, which have been heavily invested in by the current US administration. No one wants to be the one to let America down.

Of course, PM Netanyahu is anxious to provide an offer less attractive than the one Abbas turned down in 2008, to reverse the trend of increasingly conciliatory Israeli offers. Meanwhile, Chairman Abbas has little wiggle room from the PLO to accept any deal, and no support for anything from Hamas. Essentially, both leaders know that the talks are bound for a dead end, but neither wants to be the one who “rejects peace.”

This week The Blame Game took a new absurd twist.

After the pointless settlement freeze ended, and Fatah and PLO personalities declared an intention to walk out, both sides went into hibernation to avoid arriving at the obvious conclusion that final status talks were a non-sequitur. While the building freeze ended during the Sukkot holiday, Abbas took a typical Israeli attitude that he’d consult his colleagues only “Aharei HaHagim” (“after the holidays” – a popular Israeli excuse for not getting things done during the late summer.) Then, Abbas further postponed his meeting with the Arab League so that he could spend more time “in” the negotiations without actually negotiating.

In the meantime, the USA put pressure on Israel to renew the construction freeze. As rumors abounded about the specifics of the USA offer to Israel (who are we negotiating with, again?), Netanyahu arranged a meeting of the high level “Septet” – Netanyahu and his six top advisors in the government – to be followed by a meeting of Israel’s security cabinet. Obviously, media assumed that these quickly arranged, high-level meetings were to discuss the American offer to Israel – both carrots and implied sticks – and, if approved, to have a cabinet vote on renewing the freeze. While the Prime Ministers office publicized the timing of the meetings, the agenda of both was set as “classified.” Furthermore, Netanyahu’s advisors to Israel radio that renewal of the freeze would not be discussed. So what will they talk about? Tips to help Netanyahu’s golf game?

Obviously, the USA’s offer will be discussed, but no one can admit that, in case the offer has to be rejected. Luckily, since the USA has been stymied over and over again in this whole charade, the Americans will not even admit to making an offer, unless it is accepted.

The offer, as has been reported in the media is not very good, and relies on the type of amorphous guarantees that are easily abrogated. Prof. Barry Rubin has a good analysis of the deal here, where he points out that the implied punishments are much greater than the explicit benefits. In other words, it is more of a threat than an “offer.” The Septet are well aware of this and will likely reject even bringing up the issue for a public vote. However, the “deliberations” are meant to postpone Israel’s unofficial response till after the weekend, when Abbas will meet with the Arab League. Will the Arab League tell Abbas to walk out of negotiations? Probably not. They don’t want to piss off the Americans either. I assume that they will issue some condemnation of Israel for continuing building, while endorsing the Saudi Plan, and leaving the decision up to Abbas, which will give him more time to say nothing of substance.

In other words, the blame game has come to a head, and has now turned into the waiting game, where each party, who knows the negotiations are dead, tries to wait out the other party, hoping they’ll “blink” first.

The blame game and the waiting game are both stupid, but an improvement on Israel’s usual choice of games: Sorry, Monopoly, and Risk.

The only way Israel can bring the PLO back to the table is to show them that their position will weaken as they wait. Specifically, this should be accomplished by building an strengthening towns across Yehuda and Shomron, starting with the Mevasseret Adumim neighborhood in Maaleh Adumim. While the world will condemn us for such construction, it was they already expect, after the official ending of the building freeze – no amount of building will shock any of our allies.
While a passive attempt to avoid making any crucial decisions or taking a stand works well for a non-governmental organization like the PLO, it does not at all befit an independent country!
To quote Homer (Simpson): “Waiting Game sucks! Let’s play Hungry, Hungry Hippos.”

Build Baby Build!

2010-09-28T15:05:00.001+02:00

Three strategies for Yehuda and Shomron

The construction freeze has now ended, without any government declaration or qualification. That means that at least 2,066 units can be built immediately, and almost 19,000 housing units can be started under already accepted Housing Ministry guidelines, pending permits from the Defense Ministry.

The question should no longer be whether or not these units should be built, but (1) how fast can they be built, (2) Where should the effort be concentrated, and (3) how can the building be presented to the media.

Though, I should add one note regarding whether housing units should be built, even from a peace enthusiast’s perspective. It should be clear to even the most hardened Meretz voter that the PLO was not the least bit softened by the construction freeze. In fact, as Avigdor Lieberman has pointed out on numerous occasions, they waited almost all ten months without agreeing to negotiate, and only enjoined negotiations at the last moment in an attempt to extend the freeze. In other words, as long as construction was frozen the PLO has no incentive to negotiate. Only while construction is happening do they have an incentive to attempt to halt it by creating some sort of deal. A proponent of reaching a final status settlement with the PLO should, therefore, want Israel to build as intensively as possible to scare the PLO back to peaceful negotiations.

I think it’s obvious, that the PLO no longer views negotiations as a means of gaining an independent state but only of slowing down Israeli growth in Yehuda and Shomron. In this sense, one might even see Hamas as more “nationalist” that the PLO, since Hamas actually maintains an interest at creating an independent Arab State (through violence), while the PLO is willing to sit back and prosper under the status quo (building in Yo”sh is a major economic booster for PA Arabs). The PLO strategy seems to be to let Israelis build and get international condemnation, until the UN grants the PLO statehood throughout the Green-line territories.

This international condemnation is coming – whether we like it or not, and it will happen whether we build in Modiin Illit or in Elon Moreh. It will be just as scathing if we build 20 houses or 20,000. So, as the old saying goes, might as well be hung for a sheep as for a goat. It’s worthwhile to build expansively since the international reaction will be the same regardless of the scope or location of the building.

Therefore, returning to the questions above, (1) how fast can the buildings be built? Ideally the answer should be in less than one calendar year. Israel will be under tremendous pressure to negotiate until the US elections in November. Unfortunately, this period will see additional terrorist attacks, which will focus the issues on security instead of settlements or borders. By the time the new congress sits in January, there will be an alleviation of pressure. However, as Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and Arab countries continue to pacify their populations from seeing Iran as a leader among Mulisms, the US will put further pressure on Israel. I suspect that Israel will come under pressure in the summer of 2011 as Obama prepares to defend his presidency. At that point there may be intense pressure for a slowdown and it is likely that, without any official declarations, a soft-freeze will be enacted.

How do you build 20,000 buildings in a year? The answer is with a large labor force and through strategic planning. Therefore, to facilitate the quickest possible overall growth will come by ceasing to employ 15-year old girls to haul bricks up hillsides and instead employing large Jewish-Arab construction firms with modern heavy equipment.

This means neglecting the new hilltops and focusing effort where permits exist and large projects are planned, namely in the large and midsize towns. Mass hiring of Arab labor will boost the PLO economy, and deflect some of the vitriol coming from the PA itself. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks will happen, regardless.

Skipping to question (3): how should this construction be presented to the media? We have to ensure that there is no useless provocation, no wild celebrations or festivities, certainly not at the launch of projects. Clearly, the USA and others are not happy about the end of the freeze. We have to act in our interest, but there is no reason to rub this in the face of our allies or enemies. Furthermore, when a new building project goes up in Netanya or Haifa, there isn’t any pomp; at most some ceremonial ribbon cutting by a local official with a cake and soft drinks. Our goal should be to make towns in Yehuda and Shomron equivalent to any town in Israel, and local building projects should receive no less and no more attention, wherever they occur.
Returning to question (2): what should our priorities be? Due to the worry of another slowdown or freeze, it may be wise to ensure that major projects are finished first, so that they can easily be populated. Also, resources should be strategically allocated to best benefit the residents of Yehuda and Shomron. My suggestion would be to use the following list of priorities:

(a) Finish new neighborhoods for Gaza expellees. It’s a national black mark how these people are still being treated and they deserve precedence over people affected by the more recent government misstep.

(b) Private homes which were stopped mid construction due to the freeze. Obviously, this should be done with private money, but it is important to ensure that labor and materials are available to first help those affected by the freeze before turning to ideological projects.

(c) Mevasseret Adumim should be the first major undertaking. The planned new neighborhood of Maaleh Adumim helps make the town into a serious city. With the new neighborhood, Maaleh Adumim could reach 100,000 residents. This makes it virtually immovable and will perpetuate the growth of its own suburbs, such as Kfar Adumim, Mitzpe Yericho, Kedar and Vered Yericho.
(d) Ariel should get the next big push. By expanding towards its suburbs, Ariel could also create a greater metropolitan area and also become a truly regional center and less of a suburb of Rosh HaAyin. If Ariel expands to swallow up Kfar Tapuah and Netafim, some residents will be mad, but they’ll get over it!
(e) Smaller towns should not try to expand geographically but construct within existing lines, so as not to provide too much of a scandal. While previous construction drives have been land based, this one should be population based. Bringing infrastructure and housing options for more people will be the most effective way to ensure that Yo”Sh is regarded by more Israelis as an integral and normal part of Israel. This should be the primary goal.

Money Talks?

2010-08-16T00:28:00.000+03:00

Is it possible that radical Islam is Westernizing? Two recent stories may indicate just that. The higher profile story comes from Lebanon, where the Lebanese army had been promised $100 million in arms to help it control its border with Israel and prevent Hizbullah terrorists from attacking Israel.

However, recently, when the Lebanese army used its weapons to attack an Israeli border patrol in a similar fashion to the Hizbullah raid that started the 2006 war, the US congress rescinded its support for the Lebanese Army. People were still debating the usefulness of such a move when Iran stepped in and announced it would happily fund the shortfall to ensure that “Lebanon can protect itself against aggression.”

That same, week Pakistan began suffering from devastating mass flooding. The Pakistan floods have left over 12 million people homeless, so the Pakistani government called for international aid. At that point, the TTP, the Pakistani Taliban, announced that if the government refused to take aid from non-Muslim countries, the Taliban would cover the cost of the refused aid.

Iran’s offer to essentially buy the Lebanese Army seems much more plausible, since Iran would only be paying a tenth of what they annually give to Syria. As well, Iran has been paying for Syria to arm Hizbullah for a long time, so arming the Lebanese Army may just mean merging the two armed groups.

On the other hand, the non-Muslim G7 countries were pledging billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan’s government. Whatever rumors of Osama Bin Laden’s wealth one may believe, it is doubtful that the Taliban controls even a fraction of the money necessary to make its proposed deal worthwhile.

However, what interests me about these two situations is the inversion of tactics from, what are assumed to be, the most ideologically driven groups.

For quite some time, Iran has had its hooks in Lebanon. Its Shiite clients, Amal and Hizbullah openly benefit from Iranian largesse and push for a more Shia Muslim society. However, the more secularly led Lebanese Army are theoretically subservient to the ruling March 14 Coalition and are nominally Iran’s ideological enemy. Similarly, the TTP is effectively at war with Pakistan’s government, trying to turn Pakistan into a Sunni version of Iran.

Both Iran and the Taliban are now trying to buy influence, even from governments to which they are ideologically opposed. This brings to mind America’s famous HOSOB strategy used on countries such as Iran during the Cold War. HOSOB is an acronym for “He’s our son of a bitch” as in: “That dictator is a son of a bitch, but as long as we’re paying him, at least he’s our son of a bitch.” And that propping up brutal dictators was worth the money to keep their countries from becoming Soviet clients. Of course, unlike America, today’s influence shoppers probably feel that enough money will not only co-opt their enemy into their sphere of influence, but may actually allow their ideology to take hold and eventually take over.

Still, this is a very Western attitude to take and it strikes me as interesting that both Iran and the Taliban would make such offers in the same month. Also interesting is that the US congress departed from the HOSOB strategy and retracted funds from the Lebanese Army on an ideological basis, when they realized that there was little operational difference between them and Hizbullah.

These developments may be very worrying to some foreign policy watchers. Iran’s purchase of the Lebanese Army essentially gives it operational control over Lebanon, and allows Hizbullah to cement its control. Also, while Pakistan’s government couldn’t seriously consider the TTP’s offer, since it needed actual help and aid for actual citizens, the Taliban may have regained some of it waning popular support for making a seemingly principled statement that Muslims should not accept money from the “imperialist” West.

However, I see in these developments a positive aspect in that the theoretically fundamentalist parties are now willing to “sell out.” They see sufficient weakness in their ideology to need to bribe others into aligning with them, and they are appealing to the Western ideal that money can solve all problems. At the same time, the USA has taken a more principled position and will hopefully regain an ideological confidence, necessary to assert democratic principles around the world and only rewarding their ideal supporters instead of paying off democracy’s worst detractors.

It is this ideological strength and confidence that will allow the Western world to spread its values of freedom and truly win the “hearts and minds” of the global village. It might be that the global Jihad has stretched its extremist ideology too thin across the globe and we must use this moment of its self-doubt to our advantage.

Kadima’s Talking Points

2010-08-11T11:14:00.000+03:00

Recently, Kadima has used the open portion of the Terkel commission to lambaste the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and government in a completely irresponsible manner. Kadima criticized PM Netanyahu for stating that Defense Minister Barak was in charge of the flotilla operation while he was in Canada, and then DM Barak received their ire for saying that he reviewed the plans with army brass before authorizing the mission. Also, both critiques called the operation a failure.

So let’s assume that everyone had acted differently, what would Kadima have said then? Would they have heaped praise on our leaders? Or would it be more a long the lines of:

Netanyahu: I was the only one in charge, and did not delegate responsibility, even while I was in Toronto.

Kadima: What arrogance! The PM has no faith in his cabinet ministers and leaves the country like a headless chicken while he is seven time zones away!

Barak: I made the decision myself with no input from the Chief of Staff or the head of the naval commando unit.

Kadima: Didn’t Barak read the Winograd report? The government was instructed to review the viability of every operation with the army AND the operational commanders!

Oh well, I guess there is no pleasing some people when there are political points to be scored. But what about the “failed” operation, shouldn’t someone be blamed? Well, considering that Kadima, itself, tried very successfully to push the blame for the Second Galil war on to the army, and that in that conflict Israeli soldiers and Israeli and Lebanese civilians were killed, it is quite hypocritical for those same people (Livni, Bar On) to require heads to roll for a very successful operation, where only nine armed enemies were killed.

Yes, it would have been nicer if the commandos were not temporarily ambushed and captured, or if they had advanced knowledge of how Jihadi some of the passengers were, but there is no such thing as perfect intelligence and the soldiers reacted quicly and properly to secure the safety of their men, subdue the attackers with minimal force (considering the violent intentions of the attackers) and successfully complete the mission, which was to commandeer the vessel. It is a self-defeating attitude to state that this operation “failed.” In fact, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni repeatedly defended the operation as a success, when agreeing with the government was seen as politically expedient.

While the next election is still a ways off, I hope that the Israeli public can see Kadima as a party that is willing to endanger the country for the sake of its own gains. They deserve to be severely punished at the ballot box.

Conspiricismism

2010-08-10T14:56:00.000+03:00

Hassan Nasrallah is obviously a proponent of Conspiricismism. Conspiricismism is not (as many believe) a belief in conspiracies, but a belief in the belief in conspiracies by others.

There is scant other explanation for the show the leader of Hizbullah put on for the Arab and Muslim world on Monday evening.

Recently, the UN commission investigating the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri focused its attention on Hizbullah and implied it would soon publish a report implicating Hizbullah members in the murder.

Some people believe that this belief: that the release of the Hariri findings was imminent, was what led to the serious incident on August 3^rd where the Lebanese Army assassinated an Israeli commander and heavily shelled a position inside

Israel

Regardless, it was clearly this belief that led Nasrallah to hold a large video press conference in which he blamed Israel for Hariri’s murder.

Without much in a way of explanation as to why he waited until now to implicate Israel, Nasrallah went on to surmise that Israel supposedly killed Hariri to initiate some sort of backlash against Syria in Lebanon (ie what actually happened). His major proof were videos of the coastal route along which Hariri’s motorcade was bombed on February 14, 2005. Nasrallah claims that they intercepted signals from an Israeli drone which took the pictures and that an accused Israeli spy was actually at the rally at which Hariri was killed.

A more plausible explanation is that Hizbullah took the surveillance photos themselves (since Hizbullah has bragged about flying drones over Israeli airspace, most recently last month.) and that Nasrallah just gave away the modus operandi of a car-bombing that he orchestrated.

So why would Hizbullah show its hand? Was this press conference a last move of desperation before the Arab public turns against it for eliminating a (somewhat) beloved Arab leader?

Not by a long shot! Nasrallah was simply practicing Conspiricismism. He felt that any pile of lies he promulgated among the Arab public (his main target – he couldn’t care less if the USA thinks he killed Hariri), that was then vociferously denied by Israel, would lead the Arabs to disbelieve Israel, believe “his eminence” Nasrallah, and believe that the UN Comission was just part of some Zionist conspiracy to stir conflict among the Arabs. Nasrallah, thus, attempted to marginalize the investigating committee and anything they may report. That’s Conspiracismism.

Of course Israeli and American officials described the whole press conference as ridiculous and saw it as further proof of Hizbullah’s guilt. The only problem I have is that I am a Conspiricismist, too!

I believe that Nasrallah’s press conference ranks as a brilliant example of Conspiricism, almost to the level of the lies spread about Mossad involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. That theory, it seems, was cooked up by a Malaysian government official but, worldwide is the most accepted theory! On a global scale, it far surpasses any theory or proof of Al-Qaeda’s involvement.

Similarly, Nasrallah’s comments were reported as incontrovertible truth by Iran’s national media, by Al Jazeera and by Al Arabiya.

These networks provide the information to the vast majority of Muslims and their stories are often picked up by non-Muslim media such as China’s People's Daily. They provide sufficient media “weight” that many western networks also give the crazy accusations some credence.

So, through Conspiricismism, the prevailing majority theory as of this morning is that

Israel

killed Rafiq Hariri – not the organization that had videos tracking his movements, or that Hariri was warned would murder him.

This is an important lesson to learn when discussing Israeli PR. Does it matter if UNIFIL confirms that Israel never crossed Lebanon’s border last week, and that the border maintenance was coordinated and announced ahead of time? To some responsible governments it might matter, and to Israelis it is of some importance, but the effect on the majority of the world’s population is that they believe UNIFIL is just a part of the Zionist conspiracy. This, more than poverty or anything Israel or the US does, pushes further radicalism.

So what can we do? Instead of refuting ridiculous stories, which only increases the furor of conspiracy believers, we must embarrass those who perpetrate the lies. Don’t ask Al Jazeera why they believe Nasrallah, ask them why such a brave resistance fighter who praises martyrdom, didn’t appear at the press conference in person. Ask why Bashar Assad has tried to close the Hariri probe. Perhaps

Israel

should hire some British tabloid photographers to catch Mullahs with their pants down (literally), or with their hands in the till.

Whatever the case, reasonable proof and logical arguments have no effect on adherents of Conspiricismism. The only way to defeat it is by recognizing its existence (possibly by adding the word to major dictionaries) and by combating its effects with wilder, less rational ideas.

Back to Khartoum

2010-08-02T00:38:00.000+03:00

We are just one month away from the 43rd anniversary of the famous Khartoum Conference, at which the Arab League declared its reaction to the Arab defeat in the Six-Day War: no negotiations with Israel, no peace with Israel and no recognition of Israel.

Eventually, both Egypt and Jordan entered into peace treaties with Israel, largely to their benefit, but the spirit of Khartoum lives on.

Last week, the Arab League held a conference, which, among other things, dealt with negotiations with Israel. Despite widespread reports that the Arab League “endorsed” direct negotiations, the actual resolution stated that Mahmoud Abbas could decide if and when he wanted to directly negotiate with Israel. Since Abbas had already told them all that he didn’t want to negotiate, the resolution was no different than the one delivered at Khartoum – no negotiating with Israel, which leads to no recognition of Israel by the PLO and, obviously, no peace!
“But, wait!” say the enthusiasts, if the Palestinians don’t want peace, why did Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat offer Israel “the best deal ever?” Well, he didn’t, despite what the headlines read. Erekat himself only said that they had offered the deal to the American representative, George Mitchell. Regardless of whether Netanyahu or anyone else ever saw this plan, it was not a offer for negotiation but rather “a plan to end the conflict” – a Final Status Agreement dictated by only one party, without negotiations nor an invitation to use this secretive plan as a basis for negotiations.

I would point out that presenting such plans as a fait accompli violates the Oslo agreements, but that piece of paper has now had so many holes punched in it over the last 17 years, it couldn’t qualify for Swiss cheese.

Of course neither the Israelis nor the Arabs have a huge incentive to make peace right now. Despite Netanyahu’s repeated calls for negotiations, the PM knows that no plan can effectively pass public critique while Hamas still rules Gaza and continues its regular rain of rockets on Israeli towns and cities to remind us of that fact.

(It should be noted that despite the recent return to media coverage of Hamas’ bombardment of Western Israel, the surge in violence started well before the Arab League “endorsement.” Yours truly tried to point this out in a blog post “Oil and Blood,” one month ago.)

Recently, Islamic Jihad, the original Iranian proxy in Israel, has said it will renew martyrdom operations, read: suicide bombings. As well, recent Fatah elections ensured that the old guard of Fatah continues to control the PLO, making any negotiated agreement unlikely, from the Arab side, as well.
Knowing the facts, the USA wants to create the pretense of negotiations to pat itself on the back for getting to the same position that three previous administrations have accomplished, without expecting any better results.
So why did the Arab League not just repeat the mantra of Khartoum outright? For two reasons:
(1) Settlements – with building in Judea and Samaria set to resume in September, everyone in the quartet and Arab League is looking for an excuse to extend the construction freeze. By offering the slightest hope for negotiations, they hope to increase pressure from the quartet powers to this end.

(2) Iran – While the PLO and its chairman, Dr. No, have little incentive to cave to American pressure, since past instances of refusal have only increased world pressure on Israel, the Arab states have a compelling reason to feign cooperation with US demands. The US is pliable and ready to make compromises, meaning it is a much-preferred regional arbiter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Arab leaders have stated, both privately and publicly, that Iran must be stopped before acquiring nuclear weapons capability. While the US can fathom a containment policy for its own citizens and those of Europe, the Arabs know they will quickly fall under Iranian influence and their regimes may be in danger.
Netanyahu has boldly stated that negotiations will start by mid-August, though it is difficult to imagine with whom he intends to negotiate. More likely, Netanyahu is staying the course of transferring the responsibility for the “peace process” on to the shoulders of Abbas in preparation for whatever comes next.
The Khartoum resolution effectively started the War of Attrition. What will happen in the months following Khartoum II is anybody’s guess.

The Conversion Controversy

2010-07-19T17:05:00.001+03:00

This post was also published in the Jerusalem Post.

I was once asked to speak about Judaism at a university interfaith conference. Since it was winter time, I spoke about Hanukka and the historical background of the Syrian-Greek religious oppression and the Jewish fight for political sovereignty in Israel.

After the presentations, people milled about a table of pastries and soft drinks and a young man approached me and told me he enjoyed our presentation. I thanked him and asked him what religion he represented, to which he replied,

“Oh, I just came here to watch. I believe in a Higher Power but I despise any organized religion.”

While it is against Jewish tradition to proselytize, I couldn’t help myself:
“Then Judaism is definitely for you!” I responded. “We believe in God and you’ll never find a religion that’s less organized.”

My point was reinforced this week with the furor that erupted over a bill meant to organize the conversion process in Israel.

MK David Rotem’s original idea for conversion reform: that any former or current city Rabbi could organize a conversion court and oversee the conversion, was widely supported inside Israel and in the Diaspora. However, in order to receive the full support of the coalition, a clause was added to the bill proposal which designated the Chief Rabbinate of Israel as the titular figurehead of the conversion authority.

Through most of Modern Israeli history the Chief Rabbis have been Zionist visionaries who have been widely respected by a wide swathe of Israelis and Jews world wide. However, the recent trend of greater Haredi control of the Chief Rabbinic Council and pressure by Haredi parties to influence the election of the Chief Rabbi caused the bill to create a serious crisis. Also, while conversion in Israel had always been conducted under the auspices of the Rabbinate, no stream of conversion was given official legal authorization.

The Conservative and Reform movements in the United States objected to the bill which granted official authority over conversions to the Chief Rabbis who have always been, and will be for the foreseeable future, Orthodox. Since Conservative and Reform Jews make up a large majority of affiliated American Jews, these concerns were brought to major international Jewish Organizations and a vociferous protest was launched saying that the bill created the danger of causing a split between Israeli and Diaspora Jews.

Along with legitimate concerns raised by the Jewish Organizations, the disagreement was accompanied by wild speculation and misinformation from less-informed sources. One e-mail, circulated by conservative Jews said that the law would prevent Jews converted by non-Orthodox Rabbis from making Aliyah. This was explicitly denied in the bill, which promised that no change would be made to the law of return, which allows all Jews who are converted by a recognized Rabbinic body to receive Aliyah benefits and be registered as Jewish citizens upon moving to Israel. Another e-mail claimed that a two-tier system was being created, through which Israel would prevent any non-Orthodox Jew from moving to Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The law only relates to converts who wish to convert in Israel, and is meant to level the field, so that all converts and born Jews can receive equal marriage, divorce and burial services, without question. Furthermore, Yisrael Beytenu, the party who proposed and pushed the bill, has always been known as the most ardent proponent for the Aliyah of all Jews, regardless of their religious practice or affiliation.

The legitimate protests, as well as out-of-control rumors, caused Prime Minister Netanyahu to make strong statements against the bill, essentially ensuring that it would not progress to a first reading in the Knesset. I agree with the Prime Minister that it is of vital importance to the Jewish people to maintain cohesion, and under the current climate of exaggerated fury, the bill was untenable.

However, while the situation is given time to cool off; it is of vital importance that we explain to all of the bill’s opponents that their concerns can be addressed, and that we dispel the vicious rumors and hyperbole that surrounded the bill.

The bill did have some ambiguity built in to make it more digestible, but it had not yet passed a first reading. It is only after a bill is sent to committee after a first reading that it is fleshed out and clarified. It is a shame that this could not happen. MK Rotem had promised the Jewish Organizations that they would be able to take part in deciding the exact language before the bill was brought for a final vote, but now the practical discussion of the issues of conversion in the Knesset will not occur.

The initial complaint that the Knesset was officially recognizing Orthodoxy over other streams of Judaism was also, technically, not accurate. From a practical perspective, the Orthodox monopoly on conversion in Israel has led to the current bureaucratic nightmare, and has existed since the refounding of the State. Practically, the Reform and Conservative movements would have no less say in conversion issues than before. However, the worldlier and more concerned local Rabbis would draw attention and potential converts to their courts and thus rise in influence in the rabbinic hierarchy.
From an institutional perspective, there would also be no difference, since, according to law, nothing prevents a Conservative Rabbi from joining the Rabbinate or becoming Chief Rabbi. Obviously, I know that this is very unlikely to occur in practice, but, in theory, granting authority to the Chief Rabbi does not explicitly-legally mean Orthodoxy, and as I stated, makes no difference in the practical realm from the current status quo.

I am also afraid, that as discussion of the Haredi control of the chief rabbinate fades from memory, once again the Haredim will be able to exert more pressure on the rabbinate, without media scrutiny. The Haredization of the Rabbinate will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Lastly, but most importantly, we must consider the reason that conversion reform is necessary. There are thousands of Israelis in a bureaucratic purgatory, while trying to become part of the Jewish People. Jews in Israel and abroad must sympathize with these good-hearted people and see the value of bringing them into our tradition. While the practical implications of the bill would not have made any difference in the status of Diaspora Jews, it could have smoothed the process of conversion for many Israelis.

For their sake, we must redouble the efforts to work with this bill outside the Knesset and come to an understanding with all of the interested parties. I think that a compromise language will be easy to achieve, with the forethought that conversion reform is needed to help real people and help them really soon. As well, I think that anyone who takes issue with the disorganized and ambiguous current system should congratulate MK Rotem for working tirelessly on this project for nearly four years and for not shying away from addressing this sensitive issue that other governing parties have refused to seriously address.

On Oil and Blood

2010-07-04T12:11:00.003+03:00

“The oil leak is not so bad, it’s only affecting places like New Orleans and Biloxi. What we have to worry about is that it won’t reach New York or Boston.”

If an American politician or civil servant were to say something like this, that person would be attacked from both the left and the right; and metaphorically, or perhaps literally, run out of town on the rails. However, a comparable statement is made repeatedly every time Israeli officials talk about some terrorist group acquiring missiles that “could reach Tel Aviv.” Essentially, this is tantamount to saying that the citizens of Sderot and Ashkelon, Nahariya and Kiryat Shemona, or even those who live in the small communities along the Gaza or Lebanon fences are of somewhat less value than those in highly populated areas. Of course, the people who make these foolish statements defend themselves by saying that while all citizens are equal and equally deserving of protection, the potential for death rises exponentially when a missile hits a more densely populated target.

Over the past month, Hamas has once again started shelling the cities and villages adjacent to Gaza with mortar and rocket fire at a steadily increasing pace. However, you may not have noticed this if you don’t live in the area, and are only paying attention to political and military assessments. The IDF has responded to some of the incidents of rocket fire from Gaza, but only in the perfunctory manner that made no dent in Hamas’ arsenal prior to Operation Cast Lead.

Why did Hamas renew the rocket and mortar fire? They are taking shrewd advantage of Israel’s hypersensitivity in the wake of the raid on the flotilla. After having been lambasted by the world for killing nine armed men associated with a terrorist organization, Israel would not risk a retaliatory strike on a Gaza suburb in which an innocent civilian, or someone dressed as an innocent civilian might be killed. Unfortunately, it is this hypersensitivity that pushes Israel into an ever more precarious corner.

In the run-up to Cast Lead Israel waited for an excuse to launch its well-planned Gaza operation. However, even as excuses came almost every week, Israel waited until after a six-month truce for a significant increase in rocket fire to begin its response. The message that was conveyed was simply that a missile or two per week is a tolerable level of violence, even if somebody dies. And indeed, more than 15 deaths were attributed to Hamas rocket and mortar attacks before Cast Lead even began. If we can tolerate a few missiles leading to a death, why fight about a barrage in which innocent people sustained only injuries, or had their homes destroyed?

This attitude not only hurts Israel in its attempts to hold to its positions against the demands of the world, but it hurts Israel from within, as Israelis internalize a sad fact that their individual lives are often less valuable than political considerations.

Israel must not make light of any rocket attack against its citizens and not “hide” behind the fact that, miraculously, the rockets have had a relatively low death rate.

Every government talks about developing the peripheral areas of the country and promoting life there. However, it cannot do so without ignoring the existential danger of living in the Western Negev.

It is imperative that every rocket or mortar launched into Israeli territory be documented and receive a severe reaction. A proportional response, as discussed in the Fourth Geneva Conventions, specifically relates to a response to a threat, not an actual result. Therefore, a rocket which is potentially deadly may be responded to with deadly force, and we should ensure that such a proportional response be meted out over every violation.

If not, Israel has only itself to blame for the further delegitimization of her sovereign rights and the cheapening of Jewish blood.

Ships of Fools

2010-05-24T23:59:00.001+03:00

Welcome aboard, “Freedom Flotilla” passengers! I trust that you enjoyed your embarking in Istanbul and felt an adequate degree of anti-Semitism mingled with “concern” for Gaza’s population as our ships were loaded.

As we approach the port of call, it will be my pleasure to point out some noteworthy sites along our journey. We will very likely encounter some Israeli Navy patrols in the area. As you may know, the Gaza Strip was part of the territory originally mandated by the League of Nations for a Jewish National Homeland. But in 1948, Egypt overran the area, destroying existing Jewish towns. Israel reclaimed this territory in 1967.

The Navy may board our boats or accompany us to shore because we do not have permission to enter Israeli waters and dock at Gaza. Israel has denied most ships this request for almost four years, since an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and the ruling power in Gaza has refused to let him be examined by the International Red Cross, as required by the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. Gaza has also refused to negotiate a prisoner exchange, despite Israeli offers to release hundreds of terrorists who were tried, convicted and sentenced to jail in Israel.

As we near the coast you will see the Gaza beaches. Don’t be surprised if they are empty. The governing organization in Gaza, the Islamic terrorist group, Hamas, forbids men and women from mingling on the beaches and women are prohibited from wearing bathing suits. When we arrive, we will be turning over all of the cargo in our boats to Hamas, for free.

In the meantime, UNRWA, a United Nations group dedicated to maintaining the Gazans’ refugee status and reinforcing the notion that they can reclaim all of Israel without the need to make peace, has been providing free humanitarian goods to the people of Gaza almost consistently since 1948. While illegal unregistered cargo from ships such as ours have been turned away fro the Gaza port, UNRWA has continued to operate there, virtually unhindered.

Besides providing basic goods for the Gazan people (instead of handing goods to the corrupt, oppressive regime, as we intend to do), UNRWA also sets up summer camps for Gazan children. You’ll notice the charred remains of one such camp along the beach. On Sunday, this UNRWA campsite for girls was raided by Islamic fundamentalists, supported by Gaza’s government, and was utterly destroyed because the summer camp intended to teach the girls swimming and dance. I am sure these fundamentalist groups, who control most of the smuggling cartels in Gaza, will appreciate all of the supplies we are bringing them, which they can mark up and sell to the people of Gaza for a large profit to finance their activities.

If we do reach Gaza port, you may be interested in touring the city. You’ll notice that there are stores selling food, clothing and medicine. Electricity and fuel are available. This is because, every day, Israel allows truckloads of basic supplies to enter Gaza through the usual checkpoints and depots. However, Gazans are blockaded from official trade with one country: the Arab Republic of Egypt. One event you might want to take in is an execution, which happens very often in Gaza, for all sorts of charges. None are scheduled? Don’t worry; most of the executions here are ad hoc and extra-judicial. Even official executions are likely to pop up after a one-day trial and sentencing.

Yes there is nothing quite like supporting an Islamic-fundamentalist, misogynist territory engaged in a violent struggle against a country who can claim rightful ownership of the territory under international law.

Enjoy your trip.

Lest We Forget

2010-04-12T16:26:00.000+03:00

Today is Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day in Israel, so I thought it appropriate to post the above picture. In virtually every modern country it is a crime to spray paint a swastika on a Jewish home or institution, but this picture was not taken in Europe or North America and it obviously isn’t a holdover from the 1940s. I took this snapshot in March of 2010 in central Jerusalem. Yes, our Jerusalem. The house is a Jewish-owned home with recently arrived Jewish tenants in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood.

When I was given a tour of the neighborhood last month, I was shown the buildings owned by the Committee for the Sephardic Community of Jerusalem from which Arab squatters had been evicted and been replaced by Jewish tenants, under the authority of Israel’s Supreme Court.
The evictions sparked demonstrations in the neighborhood and the Jewish residents are continuously harassed. Many, including myself, have labeled the protestors as “leftists” but perhaps, their choice of graffiti shows that these protestors do not align with traditional liberal symbols. Besides, when was the last time you heard about the left protesting a Supreme Court decision?

Whatever one’s opinion of Israel’s Supreme Court or Jewish owned property in the eastern part of Jerusalem, it is appalling that such graffiti be used on a Jewish home. Soon the Supreme Court will here the final appeal of another squatter in the Shimon Hatzaddik Neighborhood and the failure of this appeal will result in another legal and court sanctioned eviction. No doubt, protests in the neighborhood will start again. When I was given my tour of the neighborhood, I was told that the protestors were made up of mostly Jewish Israelis, some European anarchists and anti-Zionists, and a small minority of Israeli Arabs. Who do you think sprayed the swastikas on to the houses? Who will be willing to stand next to those who espouse such an ideology?

We All Live in Shimon HaTzaddik

2010-03-07T19:40:00.002+02:00

A traditionally Jewish territory, with historical significance to the Jewish people, was violently conquered and settled by foreign Arabs, and is now being reclaimed by rightful Jewish owners. Now this territory is becoming a source for international condemnation and denial of Jewish rights. Sound familiar?

The Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood is an area of Jerusalem just north of the Old City. The neighborhood is named for, and centered around, the tomb of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just), a venerated high-priest who served in the Second Temple (in either the 4^th or 2^nd Century BCE). The tomb and its compound were purchased in 1876 and settled in 1891 as a Jewish neighborhood, at a time when the Old City had become dangerously overcrowded.

In 1936, the neighborhood was attacked by Arab rioters and later conquered by the Arab Legion in 1948, before being annexed to the Kingdom of Jordan in1950. The Jordanian conquerors allowed Arab families to occupy abandoned Jewish homes, in violation of the rights of the property owners. When Israel retook the area in 1967, the committee that originally purchased the land began working to evict Arab tenants who would not pay rent to the rightful property owners, and to resettle the neighborhood with Jewish tenants, as intended at the time of the original purchase.

Israel’s Supreme Court has upheld these evictions, however, Gush Shalom activists and Arab supporters have recently made these legal evictions a flashpoint issue in the general Israeli-Arab conflict. And why shouldn’t they?

The entire country of Israel was brutally conquered by Rome in 64 BCE and, later, by the Arabians of the Islamic Caliphate. Between these conquests, the Jewish residents repeatedly attempted to regain their sovereignty, but were slaughtered and expelled in stages after each revolt against the foreign occupiers, throughout the years.

Since the mid 1800s, our struggle to wrest back our property from its current squatters has received international legitimacy through the Balfour declaration and the San Remo Conference, to name two examples. However, the Arabs, various anti-Semitic groups, and even the anti-Zionists in our midst have consistently opposed these efforts.

If we cannot uphold our rights against squatters from the1950s, how can we effectively defend our claims against the squatters of the 7th century?

The very foundation of Zionism has to be that we, as Jews, have been dispossessed of our land and have every legal, historical and moral right to reclaim it, by force if necessary.

While we can generally agree to give basic freedoms to non-Jews who wish to live peacefully under Jewish sovereignty, we cannot grant anyone extralegal rights to our territory without compromising the fundamental right of Israel’s existence.

People may be upset, protest or even riot, but there is no justification to forego this right. Temperance in justifying one’s existence is no virtue, and, in fact, threatens the State’s very existence. Shying away from controversy only encourages violent confrontation and further historical revisionism.

On Shabbat, the Prime Minister of Turkey encouraged the Arabs to riot because of Israel’s inclusion of ancient religious sites in Hevron and Bethlehem on a list of heritage sites slated for restoration. The Turkish leader also denied any Jewish connection to these sites, which Jews used as sites of pilgrimage and prayer continuously since the Second Temple period.

The audacity of such a statement shows that even the slightest hesitation in asserting our fundamental right can cause an immediate threat to our existence. The American and European governments also criticized the inclusion of these sites on the National Heritage list as problematic and counterproductive to peace efforts. Clearly, such comments are not as biased or anti-Semitic as the statements issued by the Turkish government, but they point to the same central issue: In the world’s eyes, Israel cannot make peace with the Arabs without giving up its fundamental claim to the territory. A peace based on our denial of our own rights cannot last and will bear tragic results, especially since our claim to sovereignty in Hevron is sounder than our claim to sovereignty in Haifa, Ashdod or the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood in Jerusalem.

Every neighborhood in the country could one day face the same challenges and protests that Shimon HaTzaddik faces today. We are all residents of some “Shimon HaTzaddik” neighborhood. So, for the sake of our entire country, the most prudent move is to give our complete support to the residents of Shimon HaTzaddik, today.

Stewing in your own Sauce

2010-03-05T00:12:00.002+02:00

Channel 10 News reported last night that Azad restaurant in Haifa has repeatedly refused to serve soldiers in uniform. There have been some calls to have City Hall intervene and force the restaurant to accept all paying diners.

I find the premise of refusing service to those who do us the greatest national service dispicable. This case, along with the case of a student being kicked out of class in Sapir College for wearing his reserve army uniform in class. These incidences show that the deligitimization of Israel, of which we are quick to accuse other countries, exists, as well, within our midst.

However, I disagree that the Hiafa municipality or any government body should interfere with a private restaurant (as opposed to Sapir College, which receives govenment subsidies).

A private business owner should be free to discriminate to his own detriment. If the restaurant took a more overtly racist policy, such as refusing to serve Ethiopian immigrants, there may be a case, since a soldier can changes his clothes but an Ethiopian cannot change his skin. However, even in overtly racist cases, one could easily say that the owner's discrimination hurts only his income, by turning away potential customers. In a city setting like Haifa, diners can find a good number of available restaurants in the area, some of which even give DISCOUNTS to soldiers in active service.

So what should be done to punish such actions? Simple, vote with your feet. Azad restaurant is on Hillel Street, near the Bahai Gardens. If you are planning to eat in Haifa, avoid this place and make sure that the owner's refusal to receive income from uniformed soldiers is applied to all soldiers and their supporters, as well.

Recent Radio Appearances part II

2010-02-15T23:45:00.001+02:00

On Wednesday, February 3, I co-hosted the “Judean Eve” show on Israel National Radio with Dr. Mike Cohen on Israel National Radio. You can listen to the show at:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/1903

The show gave me an opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics, and interview Ronen Shoval, the head of the Zionist student organization, Im Tirzu. Shoval is a dedicated activist doing important work in showing the political slant in the Goldstone Report and its supporters.

The show also gave me an opportunity to discuss Israel Flying Aid.

For many of us, the disaster in Haiti has passed. That is, it has passed from the headlines and from most people’s consciousness. Only recently we were all saddened by the devastation wrought by the earthquake in Port-au-Prince and we also swelled with pride as Israel played a central role in helping rescue and treat hundreds of wounded people.

However, while the main dangers have passed and the main IDF team went home, Haiti still remains a failed state.

Israel Flying Aid has stayed on in Haiti to manage two orphanages for girls. The orphanages need serious refurbishments and expansion to accommodate new orphans.

So far IFAid has received great praise for its work in Haiti, but it needs more funds to complete its mission of making the orphanages stable enough to withstand the hurricanes that traverse the Caribbean every fall.

If you would like to make a donation, please see this post for instructions. If you would like to host a parlor meeting with a representative of IFAid, I can arrange it. Please feel free to contact me at Hershtal@actcom.co.il for more information.

Punditry at Vancouver?

2010-02-11T22:53:00.002+02:00

If punditry were featured a sport at the Winter Olympics, I might have a shot at the gold. Well, maybe the bronze.

On January 4, 2010 I wote a column about Iran, predicting its next moves.

Two of my main contentions in the article were that Iran would use totalitarian means to cut off communications between anti-regime groups and that in February Iran would announce that it has achieved nuclear capability, but the US would deny its claims.

Today, February 11, is the 31st anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution. In order to prevent protestors from organizing against the government, the regime blocked Google e-mail and services.

As well, Ahmedinejad, in his speech, claimed that Iran had reached a point where it could produce weapons-grade uranium, but the USA denied that this claim was true.

Iran did not claim to have performed an actual test, as I had thought. It's possible they knew this claim could be easily proved false, as I also mentioned in my column.

I wish that my correct assessments weren't of such Jeremiaic proportions, but I feel I should get some punditry points for a generally correct analysis.

Recent Radio Appearances part I

2010-02-03T10:51:00.003+02:00

I have recently made appearances on Israel National Radio:

On the "Soul Matters" show, I was interviewed at a Tu Bishvat tree planting ceremony at Maoz Tzvi. Maoz Tzvi is an Educational Farm adjacent to the Shomron community of Mevo Dotan which brings at-risk teens to learn about agriculture and involves them in learning and building up the Land of Israel. I attended the event as the representative of Yisrael Beytenu to convey the support of the party and of Avigdor Lieberman for the efforts to continue to plant and grow in the Shomron. You can listen to my interview here, about 10 minutes in.

I will also be guest co-hosting a show with Dr. Mike Cohen from 3-5 pm Israel time, which I will discuss in the next post. Tune in to Israel National Radio to find out why Richard Goldstone is "Kosher", which country is revoking the rights of Palestinians, which NGO is trying to break down Israel, and which NGO is trying to build up Haiti.

Conference in Havat Gilad

2010-01-11T09:52:00.003+02:00

Last week I attended an activist conference in the Shomron community of Havat Gilad.

The conference was dedicated to showing support for the Shomron communities effected by the useless building freeze.

Havat Gilad, especially has had trouble. Although the farm rests on privately owned land (with the owner's full permission and support) the Israeli government has refused to recognize the farm community or to allow it to be attached to state electrical and water systems. The dedicated residents have paid exorbitant prices for diesel generators and tanked water.

If anyone would like to contribute money to help the residents aleve their water and electricity debts, please contact David HaIvri at the Shomron Liason Office at haivri@gmail.com

The conference was covered by INN and in the Jerusalem Post.

The Post article particularly upset me as it focussed on the most negative aspects of the conference. In response I wrote the following letter to the reporter:

Dear Tovah,

I appreciate that you wrote an article about last night’s important meeting of activists in Havat Gilad. I, too, participated in the meeting and was proud to be there. However, I feel it was categorically unfair and journalistically misrepresenting to lead off your article with the most extreme views presented by fringe elements that were not part of the main speaking program.

I do appreciate that you later explained the debate within the room by highlighting Fleisher’s and Haetzni’s ties to the state (as well as a casual mention of MKs Michael ben-Ari and Ayoub Kara). But it is important to note that Fleisher, Haetzni, Ben-Ari, Kara, Mesika and other speakers were the leaders of the discussion while the more extreme voices were simply comments after the main program, which were not reflective of the vast majority of attendees. Moshe Elkman, one of the distinguished visitors from Melbourne also spoke about using utterly non-violent political organization to combat the freeze, and still acknowledged it was “chutzpah” for a non-Israeli to even discuss political opposition. All in all it was a very moderate and serious discussion, which I think did not go far enough in calling for any direct civil or political action. For instance, why should anyone in Yehuda or Shomron pay Arnona if the government is preventing their local councils from providing necessary services?

I feel your article unnecessarily focused on the most extreme elements – people who are devoted Zionists whose spirits were literally crushed by Arik Sharon and the disengagement. People who had worked closely with Sharon to build the land and saw him destroy part of it , felt that the State had purposefully cast them from its society, and I cannot blame such people for feeling disconnected from the State and thus speaking with hyperbole and poorly-conceived ideas.

As a respected journalist I expected that you would be able to separate these comments made in anguish from the main thrust of the meeting and its speakers, who spoke about returning the spirit of settlement and Zionism to the army and the entire land of Israel. The Jerusalem Post is the paper of record for many international readers and I thought that you were above the need to satisfy their baseless stereotypes of the right-wing community.

I look forward to reading your articles in the future.

Shabbat Shalom,

Danny Hershtal

Yisrael Beyntenu English-Speakers

The Winter of our Discontent

2010-01-04T16:16:00.001+02:00

This winter will be a critical time for the state of Iran. Both internal and foreign issues are coming to a head in the home of Israel’s most dangerous enemy and it is worthwhile to attempt to understand the current issues facing Iran and analyze the potential responses of the Islamic government.

Obviously, the most prevalent external issue with which Iran is dealing is the international pressure to curtail its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Recently, it seems that Russia has toned down its opposition to levying harsh sanctions on Iran, making a UN Security Council resolution against it more likely. However, while China may be the lone standoff of the P5 to “crippling” sanctions, it still has veto power, and Russia knows this, switching sides may have been prudent for Russia in November because it earned them credit with the Western nations. However, if China continues to resist, as expected, Russia can continue its business in Iran and say “don’t blame us, we tried.” Furthermore, Russia being “on board” with creating sanctions gives them license to “water them down” during the formulation stage.

Thus Iran does not necessarily fear the United Nations, what it does fear is the breakdown of United Nations discussions. At the start of its nuclear endeavors, Iran was shielded by co-operation with the IAEA, since initially there was no difference between military and civilian nuclear research and development. However, the IAEA has now decisively outed Iran as developing SOLELY a programme for nuclear weaponization (while Russia provides it with a light-water reactor for production of nuclear energy).

Now Iran is counting on indefinite diplomacy to run out the clock before Israel, the USA or both decide that a military attack on Iran is necessary. How worried is Iran about an attack? Extremely. It is interesting to note how Iran has changed its strategy since October.2009.

For years, Iran has officially denied the existence of its military nuclear program, even long after they new that every intelligence service AND the IAEA knew of its existence. The purpose of this was to throw a shadow of doubt in the minds of the American and European public who were still annoyed about the Iraq War and the lack of physical evidence of WMD there. The strategy was to make a strike on Iran sufficiently unpopular and to cause the self-abasing Western left to instinctively take sides against their own governments. However, in October of 2009 something changed. Perhaps it was due to Dimitriy Medvedev’s agreeable meeting with Barack Obama on the sidelines of the UNGA opening session, or perhaps they found out about a “target-list” being put together by the US and Israeli air forces. It is also possible that they figured that further pressure on Iran was the payback that Israel AND Arab countries demanded in return for the awkward tri-partite summit between Obama, Abbas and Netanyahu.

Whatever the reason, Iran changed its tactic from denial to fait acompli. In otherwords, they now tried to show that no sanctions could effectively stop nuclear development, and were, therefore, unnecessary. Essentially, Iran figured, that no country would want to take on an almost nuclear power, and it was better to feared than loved. The tactic – to scare the world out of confrontation – may be working. Iran publicly revealed its secret facility near Qom, even though most Western intelligence services knew about it, to undermine Western militaries in the forum of public opinion: Don’t trust the USA to destroy our program, they don’t even know about all of it, was the essential message. However, this scare tactic helped Russia to come further aboard the side of harsh sanctions. Is suspect, however, that Iran will ramp-up its hints toward nuclear capability in order to delay an attack, even if further sanctions are enacted. I have said this too enough people that it is already worth putting in writing. By the end of January 2010, Iran will withdraw from the NPT. During February it will claim to have conducted a test detonation. The monitoring station recently erected in Turkmenistan to detect any nuclear detonation in Iran was objected to by Iran for just this reason. It plans to claim it has nuclear weapons capability before it actually does. The monitoring station will show this to be a hoax. However, the station is not yet fully operational, so Iran will likely act fast to create the impression that it has achieved its goal and the world will just have to live with a nuclear Islamic Republic. Of course, the USA and Israel will deny that Iran has actually accomplished this feat, and, in order to justify a military response, paradoxically, Israel will release information that Iran is still a long way from making an effective bomb, while Iran will claim to already have one. Of course, these external concerns are not the sole concern for Iranian leadership. They are also being assisted in their nuclear drive by the turmoil within the country.

Yes, assisted.

One might think that an internal popular revolution against the regime led by ideological youth would be a bad thing for a government, but perpetuating these riots actually work in the Mullahs’ favor. As stated above, Iran no longer needs the pretext that it is a peaceful, enlightened nation. It now only has to deter the world’s powers from engaging it in armed conflict or crippling sanctions. These protests accomplish this goal by giving a potential out for nations reluctant to start a bloody war, or even to invest in sanctions enforcement.

A number of western diplomats, including a former head of Israeli Miltary Intellingence have recommended laying off the sanctions talk in order to allow Iran’s revolutionaries to topple the government. Everyone knows that sanctions mainly weaken those not in power, and outside invasions usually unite a country against a common enemy. All governments would much rather see the Islamic regime fall apart internally than have to risk lives taking it down.

Unfortunately, that won’t happen. I’m not claiming that the Iranian government is staging these protests. Though, the way Ahmedinejad stole an election so brazenly, lends one to think that many expected this to happen. The protestors are mainly young Iranians looking to assert further individual rights and have valid reasons to protest a violent and bloodthirsty regime. However, they have no guns. A key point in all of these demonstrations are the headlines that X number of protetors were killed and Y number of police/Revolutionary guards were injured. X is generally greater than Y and clearly less effective. Iran has strict limits on gun control and is now using the more dedicated officers to control protests in order to prevent armed men (from the police or military) from switching sides. Iran’s curtailing of second amendment rights are matched by its disdain for freedom of the press. Iran has effectively managed to suppress reports coming out of Iran and communication in Iran between sympathetic groups. Taking advice from a 1990s Reebok commercial, this revolution will not be televised.

Iran ahs allowed out snippets of violence in order to serve its purpose: to give the world an excuse not to attack, and also to show just how violent the regime can be, as further deterrence to entering into direct conflict.

Israel and its partners, on this issue, have two important tasks. The first is to ignore internal Iranian revolution and press on with crippling sanctions, while planning a military strike. The second task is to pre-emptively show Iran to be behind schedule in its nuclear development so that reports of its weapons test look foolish and embarrassing.

A last ditch option may be to somehow arm and organize Iranian revolutionaries, but I don’t think that this will be easy without an open military attack, and may backfire, in the way the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is now interested in cooperating with the Taliban.

As a final warning look for opposite signs: The more Israeli leaders state that Iran can be stopped with sanctions, or revolution, the closer we are to a strike. The more War-like either side seems, the more unlikely that a strike will occur.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

2009-12-02T20:18:00.001+02:00

Also at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831475145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Question:

Which of the following will be completely frozen next week:
a. Building in Judea and Samaria
b. Carbon emissions
c. Temperatures in Copenhagen

The answer, of course, is:
d. The debate over climate change data.

As many of you surely know, next week the United Nations will hold a massive conference on climate change, for which the world’s leaders and environmental jet-setters will all fly in to Copenhagen International on their chartered airplanes, in order to decide what punitive taxes to impose on commercial airlines, for those of us who cannot avail ourselves of taxpayer-funded chartered airplanes.

The basis for taxing and restricting air travel and other carbon and carbon dioxide output activities (breathing?) is the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory or AGW. The AGW theory claims that the Earth’s surface and ocean temperatures are steadily rising and that this rise has been caused by the increase in manmade carbon pollution since the onset of the industrial revolution. It should be noted that even the maximalist proponents of the theory only attribute a 0.75 degree temperature rise over the 20th century and only a portion of this is anthropogenic – man caused. However, in 1988, the United Nations empanelled the International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, to address the issues of AGW and make recommendations. Since then, the IPCC has released 4 key assessment reports.

Interestingly the term “climate change” was adopted by the IPCC so as to remain neutral about the global warming. However, the first assessment report was said to have “settled the science” and proven the AGW to be true. It was a good thing, too, because, as if on heavenly cue, surface temperatures immediately began to cool. The current decade has been significantly cooler than its two predecessors. The “settled science” came into question.

In 2005, hurricane expert Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC before the fourth assessment report was released. He viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

A large amount of environmental climate research has been conducted at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. Last month, someone hacked into their e-mail accounts and posted a number of them online at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/.

The running thread through these e-mails was that the CRU scientists knowingly contorted data, violated the IPCC standards, suppressed skeptics and manipulated the peer review process.

The scientists who wrote the e-mails confirmed that the e-mails were factual but disputed the interpretation. For instance they say that using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures is not a deception but a proven scientific technique. They were more hard-pressed to explain why they would rather delete hard research data than allow it to be reviewed by other scientists, especially when they were asked by the media to produce the raw data and admitted that it had been deleted. I encourage everyone to use the search tool on the website to skim through as many e-mails as possible.

Scientists not directly related to the CRU work could not deny that the CRU had been fudging some results and suppressing others. However, environmentalists like Dan Esty have justified the misdoings by stating that by massaging the data, the scientists helped the average person understand the problem, without exposing us to piddling, annoying contradictory facts.

In all seriousness, the e-mails, while damaging, do not debunk AGW. However, they do require returning to scientific principles and reopening debate to truly determine whether or not carbon emissions have a significant detrimental effect on the planet.

However, even as the CRU e-mails have moved from the blogosphere into mainstream news, world leaders and delegations to the Copenhagen conference have refused to reopen the debate. The only topic on the agenda will be which extreme measures can all governments agree upon to punish their citizens for releasing carbon and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Strangely, the majority of the people who propose raising taxes in order to discourage carbon output are many of the same people who insist that raising corporate taxes won’t discourage business growth.

I am an environmentalist. I believe that we should maintain a clean society and that local governments have a responsibility to dispose of waste in a sanitary and responsible way. I also appreciate the preservation of green spaces and conservation of natural resources. But I also appreciate the quality of life that progressive industry and technology have provided us. Before our society is forced to curtail its progress and the conveniences, such as air travel, which facilitate business, investment and leisure, we must have an open and honest debate on the veracity of AGW and evaluate the risk/benefit ratio before taking drastic steps.

Israel already has a reputation as a contrarian state in the United Nations. If Environment Minister Gilad Erdan were to call for a cautious reevaluation with fair and open debate, based on raw data available to all parties, it would only be to Israel’s and the world’s benefit.
In Hamlet, Shakespeare wrote “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” The solution to the problem appears in the same play: “This above all, to thine own self be true.”

1 vs. 1000

2009-11-26T23:38:00.002+02:00

Can we trade 1000 duly tried and imprisoned terrorists for our soldier captured on Israeli soil (even on the "Israeli side" of the 1949 armistice lines)? On one hand it's a terrible precedent. On the other it's a precedent taht has already been set. It empowers Hamas and releases to them bloodthirsty masterminds, including those who been active in the killing of civilians. It encourages future kidnappings of soldiers and even unarmed civilians. Do any these reasons counteract the fact that a Jewish life can be saved? On one hand, it smacks of the unfairness of terrorist warfare: Israel cannot cut off its prisoners the way Gilad Schalit has been cut off. Israel cannot devalue its soldiers the way Hamas does. But maybe there is a point to be made: that Hamas feels one Jew is worth a thousand Arabs. Isn't that what they're saying? That Marwan Barghouti, the great Tanzim general who terrorized the roads of Yesh"a, isn't worth the fingernail of young first-class private in the IDF? But will anyone learn that lesson, or just rally behind the "liberators" of their comfortably jailed relatives? Israel can do well to show its compassionate face to its citizens, but can Israel afford to look pliant to its enemies? Can one life be justified in the face of recidivist terrorists and an emboldened terrorist regime taking many other innocent lives? Isn't it the job of a soldier to protect citizens, even at the expense of his own life? It is, but that decision is the soldiers to make. And we can't ask him. Do we dare risk a life now to prevent murders which may, or may not, take place in the future? I don't think any of our jailed terrorists have reformed, but we have learned a lot about stopping organized terrorism since 2002. We have a fence we have a retrained army and better reserve training. Can we afford to take future risks battling terrorism, so that a sure deal can be performed now? And can we be sure the deal will happen? We're not dealing with Honest Ed's here. If we accept to release 1000, could they balk and demand 1200? What would we do then? Scrap the deal? Tell the family and their many sympathizers that for a slight increase in the ante, their son has to die? The thoughts keep flowing and the dilemma is impossible. Each person ahs to use their own ethical compass to make a decision.

Mine: Hamas, though monstorous, are men not beasts. We cannot treat them like rabid dogs and absolve them of responsibility for their actions. We must deny the deal and demand that Hamas allow the Red Cross visit and examine Schalit and upon confirmation of his health and security, release a small number of as yet untried detainees, without blood on their hands. The deal must be a final take-it or leave-it and if they leave it, only they are responsible for the life they have chosen to hold in their hands.

Gilad Schalit is now Hamas' responsibility. Our government is responsible for all our citizens.
Deny the deal.

Why Replace the AG?

2009-11-22T00:50:00.000+02:00

Recently the committee to select a new Attorney General returned the mandate directly to the Prime Minister. This, after a whirlwind push by Justice Minister Neeman to split the job into two positions - government counsel and chief of prosecution. Prime Minister Netanyahu quashed the idea, at least for the current appointment.

It may be too late to split this important job now, but there are sound reasons for doing so. The most current example is the case of Past President Katzav. To recall, when faced with blackmail by a former employee, demanding that he pay her money or she would accuse him of sexual harassment, President Katzav sought advice from Attorney General Meni Mazuz. Months later, Mazuz was the one to make the final decision to indict Katzav for his crimes. Clearly, his role as legal advisor and chief prosecutor created a conflict of interest in this case.

The main concern of Labor and Meretz in dividing this job was that the AG required an inside knowledge of the government in order to root out corruption. Essentially that’s saying that a criminal prosecutor would have an easier time if he listened in on the defendants conversation with his lawyer. It’s true, but not in line with the adversarial process and the concept of a fair trial.

To me, the question is not should the job be split but should it be maintained at all? Every Knesset committee and ministry, as well as the Prime Minister’s Office have their own legal counsel. As well, the country of Israel is blessed with an abundance of private lawyers, willing to represent and advise any government agency or employee. There is no need to have one official counsel for the entire executive and legislative branches.

Furthermore, Israel has a hierarchical prosecutorial staff, and a lead prosecutor. There is no need for this person to answer to anyone else.

I humbly suggest to the Prime Minister’s Office to appoint Lead Prosecutor Moshe Lador to the role of Chief Prosecutor and to ask the PMO legal advisor to attend cabinet meetings. Advocacy on behalf of the government can be dealt with by the legal department of whichever government office is involved or the particular office can hire a an independent counsel on a per incident basis.

Opponents to splitting the AG position feel that Israel cannot afford to pay to high-priced lawyers for this position. I say, Israel cannot afford to pay one.

Hadar Presents Danny Ayalon, Moshe Ahrens and Dore Gold in English

2009-11-16T14:01:00.002+02:00

A new organization called “Hadar” has been set up to help promote the views of English Speaking Olim. Hadar is a cross-partisan effort to coalesce the ideas of “Anglo-Olim” and help them raise their voice and profile in Israeli society.

I am proud to be involved in this effort.

The initial event will be a bonanza of fantastic speakers in English on Wednesday, 8 Kislev (November 25) at the Begin Center (6 Nahon St.) in Jerusalem. Please see the information below. Admission is FREE but registration is REQUIRED. Please respond to me (Hershtal@actcom.co.il) or to register@hadar-israel.org to reserve space for the event.

Whether or not you are interested in this initiative, this will be a fantastic, worthwhile event. If you can not make the event, but would like to be involved in Hadar, please reply to me.

Event details:

1947 to 2009: WOULD THE U.N. VOTE TO CREATE ISRAEL TODAY? You are invited to a special evening, launching
HADAR: Israel Council for Civic Action The new organization for Anglo leadership
in Israeli public affairs. Featuring:

* Danny Ayalon - Deputy Foreign Minister
* Moshe Arens - Former Defense and Foreign Minister
* Dore Gold - Former U.N. ambassador, President Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
* Alan Baker -Former Ambassador to Canada, Former Legal Counsel, Foreign Ministry

In conversation with journalist Ruthie Blum Leibowitz

"Confronting New Threats to Delegitimize Israel: The U.N. and the Jewish State 62 Years Later"

Wednesday, November 25, 7:30 p.m.
Menachem Begin Heritage Center, Jerusalem
Limited seating: Advance registration required
at:
register@hadar-israel.org 052-477-6275

Another Mixed Day

2009-10-29T09:46:00.001+02:00

Rabin Memorial Day always stirs mixed feelings in me. Originally, when Rabin was assassinated, in 1995, my initial reaction was deep sadness, which grew deeper when I heard a fellow Jew murdered him. I did not agree with his policies then anymore than I do now, but I felt sorrow for the loss of a great warrior and leader in Israel. I still feel sad while commemorating today.

On the 30th day after Rabin’s burial, I attended a large “Shloshim” memorial service held at an arena in Toronto the place was packed and the ceremony was moving. However, on my way out I was accosted by a woman who screamed at me for “daring” to come to such an event while wearing a Kippa. I could only feel anger at this insensitivity, and I was upset that some one would infringe on my right to mourn. Unfortunately, this feeling of anger also continues today.

I definitely think that it is appropriate to commemorate the life of Yitzhak Rabin and in any memorial service it is appropriate to mention the deeds and ideals of the deceased. However, very little of that occurs today. Since I have lived in Israel, Rabin Memorial Day has been filled with radio and TV interviews of self-styled Mark Anthonies who come not praise Caesar but to castigate all those who ever opposed him as though they were active participants in the murder. The question is not “who was Rabin the leader?” But “who opposed him and how repentant are they.” It should be added that the tone goes beyond mere repentance for the murder itself, but for even doubting Rabin in the first place. The atmosphere is one of “Those who don’t fall in line are assassins.”

The concept that an idea is right because its proponent was murdered is as silly as the idea that a an idea was wrong because it led someone to kill for it.

Until the “bearers” of Rabin’s “legacy” stop using his tragic death as an excuse to embarrass and show hatred of their opponents, Rabin will never be properly memorialized.

The other phrase that has become prominent on Israeli radio annually has been “the dark day for democracy.” This also angers me so much in that it shows contempt for the democratic ideal I believe in and a fundamental flaw in understanding the concept.

True, democracy was created to prevent the settling of political differences through violence. However, democracy was not created to change human nature. Some people will always take things a step too far. Some people will always think violent thoughts and attempt to act on them. Democracy is not a social engineering project that attempts to suppress these or any other thoughts.

After Rabin was killed, an relatively smooth transfer of power took place. The man who took charge, Shimon Peres, was Rabin’s closest confidant in his cabinet, the second ranked politician in the country and considered to share Rabin’s ideology. In other words, the vote of the people for a certain policy did not change because of the assassination. Furthermore, the assassin was apprehended, not lynched. No civil war ensued. The perpetrator was tried and received his day in court to explain his actions. He was punished severely, but within the bounds of the law, and the country’s institutions remained in tact. In fact, in a time of crisis, democracy performed admirably to ensure that one man’s breach of public order was insignificant to the political structure of the society. For democracy, this was a good day.
A bad day would be a day on which a group is invalidated for the actions of a one member. A day on which an evil deed is used to vilify a valid opinion and on which legitimate debate is stifled in the name of “legacy.”

I will mourn Rabin in private, as I have done since his death. But I will not make of him an infallible diety and I will not participate in any public ceremony until Rabin’s memorial day becomes a day of inclusiveness for the sole purpose of remembering Yitzhak Rabin.

The Internal Investigation That Was

2009-10-26T01:41:00.000+02:00

There has recently been pressure from both the opposition and the government for Israel to perform its own investigation on the actions of the IDF during the Sderot War, in light of the Goldstone Report.

There are many reasons cited to perform such an internal investigation and none of them are convincing. The main reason not to hold such an investigation is because it has already happened.

Before Israel began Operation Cast Lead, Hamas had been shelling Sderot and surrounding communities for years. Israel knew that any heavy reaction in Gaza would cause civilian deaths due to the sheer density of Gaza City, so Israel worked hard to devise a plan to minimize collateral damage and to broker a “truce” rather than attack. This truce held out (somewhat) until Hamas decided not to renew it, and to increase the rocket shelling. Israel had no option but to launch a military operation. Leading up to the operation, Israel examined international law in preparation for the attack, including a piece I wrote examining the fourth Geneva Convention, which can be read here. The army decided to invest effort and money to warn civilians to leave areas of combat.

During Operation Cast Lead I know that IDF international lawyers were on call 24/7, working as hard as the combat soldiers to review every stage and operation to ensure it was legally viable. Many combat soldiers felt that the operation was “over-lawyered” and too dependent on legal, not operational needs.

After the Israeli operation ended, specific instances of the war were investigated internally by the IDF. Most were not reported but one incident that was reported was the allegations made by students at the Oranim pre-military academy about potential human-rights abuses in Gaza. These hearsay rumors were thoroughly investigated and proved false.

Before, during, and after Operation Cast Lead, Israel reviewed, conformed to and investigated legal issues pertaining to its military actions.

When the Goldstone Commision was set up, Israel refused to participate with good reason. The commission was seen as prejudiced – searching for evidence of crimes they assumed had been committed. But more importantly, the IDF had no desire to grant access to an international commission to its staging and operational procedures, for a report meant to be publicized to the world. I cannot imagine that any army on Earth would allow its operational procedures and field tactics to be scrutinized publicly, especially by that army’s enemies.

Less than one year later, Israel still has a responsibility to its soldiers to maintain the secrecy of matters regarding operations and planning. Israel cannot reasonably counter Goldstone report claims without divulging specific troop movements and locations.

Furthermore, a separate investigation would assert the claim that the IDF requires further oversight. As I stated above, the IDF is fully aware of international law and takes pains to adhere to it and investigate potential violations. Any further investigation may cause officers to hesitate in the future, endangering soldiers and civilians.

Rounds of post-mortem investigation will also encourage our enemies to continue to attack Israeli civilians, since such investigations will add another layer of reluctance to any military reprisal.

Some have argued that Israel should conduct an investigation into the Goldstone report itself, but I believe this is redundant, as well. Ad hominem attacks on the investigators or even nitpicking about points of bias within the report still legitimize the need for an international review of Israel’s actions. Even if the commission had been comprised of Avigdor Lieberman, Uzi Landau and Aryeh Eldad, the report would have been unnecessary beyond the IDF’s internal review process.

Lastly, all the talk of an internal investigation or an anti-report report is based on a narrow perception. Yes, the Goldstone report is still big news now, but its prospects of long-term survival are dim. It seems unlikely that the report will be discussed at the Security Council or even in the General Assembly. Even if it does reach the UNGA table, there it will most probably die. I challenge any average world citizen to cite any UNGA resolution of the last 50 years, which has had any international impact. It is unwise for Israel to extend the life of the report by addressing it or its authors any further.

In our volatile Middle East, the news cycle is short. Soon enough a new event will sweep all mention of Operation Cast Lead off of the table and our next challenge will require our full attention.

Talking Turkey

2009-10-19T14:15:00.002+02:00

As many of you know, Israel has recently chilled its ties with Turkey. First, Turkey asked Israel not to join an airforce training exercise which was to be conducted along with the USA and Italy. Italy and the US both backed out of the exercise when Israel was disinvited.

Turkey then announced a joint military exercise with Syria, much to Israel, America and Europe's dismay.

Also, a state owned Turkish TV channel produced and aired an extremely biased and inciting show about life in Gaza, protraying Israeli soldiers as bloodthirsty maniacs.

At that point, FM Lieberman summoned the (absentee) Turkish Ambassador for an official admonishment.

The quick series of events prompted a wave of commentary in the Israeli press regarding the cooling of relations between Israel and its closest ally in the region. Paraphrasing the famous 1949 question of "Who lost China?" (to the communists), Israeli journalists attempted to find out "Who lost Turkey?" And "How Turkey was lost."

The Jpost editorial claims that Israel could not possibly have "kept" Turkey as it turned toward a radical Muslim agenda. Essentially, "That's nobody's business but the Turks'." However, Caroline Glick criticizes the USA and other Western powers for not recognizing the Islamic tendencies of the ruling AKP party and not reacting fast enough to save the secularist Ataturk regime.

I'm not sure that Western intervention into a fairly run Turkish election would necessarily have engendered Israel or the west any more to the Turkish people, but it is interesting to note that the commentators see the rift between Turkey and Israel as a section of the rift between Islamism and the West.

I don't really think that Turkey is "lost." They are not the first ally of Israel's to air an antisemitic TV program - Egypt, France and even the USA have done so in the near and distant past. It is important that Turks be chastised for this, but it does not an alliance break. It is particularly insensitive to air such a program during the UN hearings regarding the Goldstone report, but that issue has to be factored into Turkey's actions, as well. Turkey has a leadership and population who are clearly interested in participating in the Muslim world. While Israel is in the headlights, even for a bogus, trumped up charge, it is wise for Turkey to lower the flame on its Israeli military cooperation, until things return to the normal anti-Israel levels (which they will).

I don't hold Turkey blameless for this but I don't think it signals a permanent closure of Israeli-Turkish relations.

However, there is one facet of the Turkish dilemma which I have not seen covered, and that is the reason Turkey turned to the Islamic AKP in the first place. The JPost editorial seems to think that radical Islamism has some sort of "easy-answer appeal" but I'm not sure that there are many easier answers than outright secularism. We have to look beyond psychology and see why radical Islamism is growing, not just in Muslim countries like Turkey but in every other secular western country, as well.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said that "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" but the bedrooms of the nation have much business in the state.

The staunchest Kemalists lived in Turkey's cities, primarily in Rumelia and Ionia and served in key positions in the bureaucracy and army. They modeled themselves after classic Europeans and quickly took on the standard European fertility rates of roughly 1.5 children per woman.

Western pundits saw this as a joyous occurrence - the total westernization of the former seat of the Great Caliph. However, while the elites rose, the rural, more-devout muslims, bred. After 80 years the consequences were inevitable.

This is a lesson we have to learn quickly, both in in our bedrooms - about our own cultural future - and in our boardrooms. Demographic shift is the easiest thing to predict because a cohort has about 20 years (childhood) when it has no influence on its government. It would be very wise to examine the 2009 birth aspects in all of our allied and enemy countries to recognize how those countries may look by 2030.

Forward thinking is a valuable asset for any military strategy, but as Solomon the Wise has said (Psalm 127): "Like the arrows in the hand of a hero are young children. Fortunate is the man who fills his quiver with them."

P.S.> If I inadvertantly stole the Trudeau parallel from Mark Steyn or anyone else, I thank and apologize.

International Buddy Quiz

2009-09-23T14:54:00.002+03:00

Who is Israel's best international friend?

Here's a hint:

Which country gave Israel its full support to defend itself during bothe the Second Lebanon War and the Sderot War?

Which country was the first to announce (before Israel) taht it would boycott the anti-semitic Durban II conference in Geneva?

Which country's leader spoke at a Celebration of Israel's 60th year of Independence and related to the reconstruction of the country of the bible?

And which country was the first, besides Israel, to announce that its delegation would walk out of Ahmedinejad's speech at the opening of this years UN General Assembly?

The answer to all of the above is, of course, Canada.

Canada is a G-7 nation with the currently fastest growing economy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been far and away supportive of Israel's policy and, while officially supportive of the peace process, has never made any demands on Israel.

While friendship with the USA is important to Israel, it is time for Israel to work on deeping diplomatic ties with Canada and perhaps asking Canada to act as an intermediary between Israel and Arab nations.

My Response to Prince Turki al-Faisal

2009-09-17T09:30:00.000+03:00

Prince Turki al-Faisal has done us all a great service. His recent article in the New York Times has clearly shown the reason Arab-Israeli peace is elusive and unlikely in the near future.

The Prince concisely laid out his views and the views off the Saudi Arabian monarchy on the prospect of Arab-Israeli relations. He also presented his distorted view of recent Israeli history, thus showing us the warped foundations upon which his opinions are based.

Israel declared its independence from the British mandate in 1948. The mountain regions of Judea and Samaria, as well as the Jordan River valley, which were all part of that mandate, were to once again to be included as the heartland and Eastern border of a Jewish State. Israel committed to foster the development of the country for all its inhabitants, even amidst the Arab violence toward the Jews in the Land of Israel at the time.

Rather than allowing Israel to complete its directive as set out by the League of Nations at San Remo, Arab armies attacked the re-born State of Israel and stole from it the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. During the brutal war for Israel’s existence, these territories were ethnically cleansed of their Jewish residents and Jewish towns were completely destroyed. Israel acquiesced to the 1949 armistice lines which cut the Land of Israel in half, divided its capital city and left the Jewish State with a tenuous strip of indefensible land which was constantly violated by terrorists. It should be noted that this terrorism continued even though all Jews had been murdered or ethnically cleansed from the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem, Kfar Darom, Gush Etzion, Atarot and all other areas, which were illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan.

When Egypt declared war on Israel by closing the straits of Tiran and advanced its army into the Sinai Desert, and when the Jordanian army attacked Israel, violating the ’49 lines, Israel regained these sections of its land. Israel’s victory in that war rescinded the need for the armistice lines and reunited the country and Jerusalem, allowing Jewish residents to return to areas from which they had been expelled.

Prince Turki al-Faisal has now shown us that none of these facts are relevant to him or to his kingdom. This comes as no surprise since the Prince considers the Hamas charter written in 1988 to be “outdated”, even though it has never been rescinded and is still used as an impetus for internal violence and to launch rocket fire indiscriminately on Israeli civilian areas outside the Gaza Strip. But regardless of intentions to destroy Israel, whether by Hamas in 1988 or Iran in 2005, Israel’s right to the territory stems not from its right to security but to its rights to that territory to fulfill the Jewish Nation’s right to self-determination in its ancestral homeland.

The refusal of Arab states to recognize this right is and always has been the source of this conflict and has been used as a smokescreen for the intra-Arab and intra-Muslim conflicts that plague the Middle East.

Saudi “peace” plans based on a warped view of history have asked Israel to surrender its rightful, hard-fought territory for transient promises of “normalization.”

Israel is and always has been open to offers of diplomatic co-operation. Our interest is to create an area of mutual social and economic benefit in our wider region. However, we do not pine for anyone’s recognition. Saudi Arabia may be the custodian of Islam’s holiest shrines, but even in peace these shrines would be inaccessible to more than 80% of Israel’s population. Conversely, Israel allows Muslim prayer, and even restricts Jewish prayer at the site of Judaism’s holiest shrine: the Temple of Jerusalem, which was ransacked by Roman legions and continues to be desecrated even today by irresponsible wanton Muslim construction with no regard to the historical, cultural or religious significance of the site.

Saudi Arabia obviously still suffers from this intolerance and inability to understand the complexity of an international issue. This is more than evident from Prince al-Faisal’s warped and selective view of history and an inability to see the conflict from the other side.

I have no illusion that this article will change Prince Turki al-Faisal’s mind, but until the Arab nations are willing to also consider Israel’s perspective the chances of reaching a true peace agreement are less than slim and negotiating would be like comparing fictional apples to fictional oranges and the entire process would be fruitless.

However, Israel, like on the Temple Mount, sees its counterparts’ perspective and our Prime Minister has even suggested forgoing our basic right to build anywhere on our sovereign territory while we explore whether any chance of regional co-operation exists. If Saudi Arabia or any other country expects Israel to permanently sacrifice its rights or reject history, there is little chance that the Arab world will be able to benefit from ties with Israel.

Some Thoughts On Rosh HaShana

2009-09-15T14:17:00.002+03:00

The Lunar New Year is about to start (not the "Jewish New Year", which is in Nisan).

I decided to depart from usual topics to focus a bit on the seasonal issue of repentance and some of my thoughts on the subject. Before reading, you may wan to review chapters 18 and 33 of Yechezkel (Ezekiel) for reference:

On the surface, Chapters 18 and 33 of the book of Yechezkel seem quite similar. These two prophecies deal with repentance and its ability or inability to help. I think that by noting the similarities and differences in these chapters we can formulate a deeper understanding of the obstacles and requirements of true repentance, which we can focus on during the ten days of repentance between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, inclusive.

The two chapters each deal with separate mental obstacles to repentance.

Chapter 18 describes the process of rationalizing actions by claiming that it was a previous generation who sinned, and influenced the current one. The entire prophecy is directed against those who claim, “Our fathers ate sweet grapes but our teeth have rotted.” God explains that the actions of one generation do not necessarily reflect those of the next, and that each generation is judged on it own merit. One must repent for one’s own actions and cannot rationalize. One cannot even say that his or her own past actions should influence God’s judgment of the present.

Chapter 33 describes the process of despairing that one is too mired in sin to ever be judged favorably, or merit redemption. Here, again, God points out that only one’s latest actions determine judgment and the past can be totally disregarded.

It is important to note that an implicit third mental obstacle to repentance is hidden in both these chapters. If a person feels no need to repent from his own self-righteousness s/he may feel that “one little sin can’t be that bad” or, worse, “I’m such a good person, nothing I do can be wrong.” In either of these cases, God explicitly states that one slip up can mean death, unless the transgression is corrected.

Does any of this seem fair? That’s exactly what God knows we ask! Judging us favorably on only our last action seems nice, but not when it works the other way around! And what if a wicked person does one quick mitzvah? Does that mean that everything else disappears? It looks that way.

So why not take advantage of this? Have an evil year and then give some charity just before Yom Kippur and everything will be all right?

The prophet knows that this is how we think. We look for loopholes in every day life, even in the laws that were given to us for our own good. In verse 18:30 & 33:20 the prophet states, “I will judge each man according to his ways (ideas).”

In Chapter 33 this verse closes the section. If we think in loopholes we will be judged with scrutiny. If we refuse to believe that one good action can change our entire destiny, then it will not. The implications of this are stated clearly in Chapter 18. “Return and repent from all of your sins so that they will not act as a stumbling block for punishment. Throw off all of your sins that you sinned and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, for why should you die, House of Israel?”

If we are judged according to our way of thinking, we will be judged on all of our actions and then we must do full repentance and completely change our ways.

So is that the only answer?
Looking back, we can choose to avoid these problems by looking at repentance in a different way. Instead of trying to change God’s judgment of us, let us try to change our judgment of God.

If we adjust our thinking to accepting His way we may find ourselves in a totally different frame of mind on Rosh Hashana. If we treat every action as if it is the one that determines our fate, independent of those prior to it, we will inevitably act with more focus. We may stop ourselves before saying something hurtful, or from making promises we can’t or don’t intend to keep. We may give a bit more charity than we used to and be a little more respectful of people and of God. Each mitzvah we perform may be done with more concentration, since it is that mitzvah which may determine your ultimate fate. But most importantly, see each action as a reflection of our true selves, not of some fleeting whim or desire.

Instead of trying to alter God’s perception of us, let’s appreciate the time between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur as time to reevaluate our conceptions of God, which can have an overall impact on our perceptions of others and of ourselves!

לשנה טובה תכתבו ותחתמו לאלתר לחיים טובים ולשלום

Why E1 Doesn’t Matter

2009-09-12T23:16:00.002+03:00

On Tuesday, the 19th of Elul (September 7), I attended a cornerstone laying ceremony for the new Mevasseret Adumim neighborhood of Maaleh Adumim.

3 government ministers, a number of Knesset members and lots of local and foreign press, attended the event. There were also about 1000 citizens, mostly from Maaleh Adumim who attended. I came to make an important point:

Mevasseret Adumim doesn’t matter.

At least, it shouldn’t matter.

The planned neighborhood has ignited rage from both the current and former US administrations, as well as internationally. The controversy was spurred by Arab claims that building on E1 (the hill on which Mevasseret Adumim will be built) would “cut a Palestinian State in half” and “cut off Arab Jerusalem from Judea and Samaria.” This is besides the fact that Maaleh Adumim is a “settlement” on “Palestinian land.”

Last week’s cornerstone laying ceremony brought a lot of foreign press to the site and showed the world that all of these theories are rubbish!

E1 is currently a barren desert hill surrounded by 7 or 8 other equally empty hills. The idea that any Arabs had ever cared about or built on this locale was disproved. The new neighborhood would not displace or restrict any Arab housing. There is none in the area to be spoken of.

The attendees also saw a panoramic view of the current city of Maaleh Adumim which is not some tiny “settlement” but a full-fledged town.

The new neighborhood will in no way “block off” Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem from Arab towns in Judea and Samaria because Mevasseret Adumim will be built on the hill with the Jerusalem-Jericho highway running below.

Lastly, the idea that a “Palestinian state” would be cut in half by this extension of Maaleh Adumim is simply ludicrous. Israel extends east for a good distance till the Jordan River and the current connections between Judea and Samaria, highways 60 and 90 are nowhere near the planned construction site.

Whether you are for or against creating an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, Mevasseret Adumim doesn’t matter.

The ADL recently sponsored an ad in many American newspapers stating, “The problem isn’t settlements but Arab rejectionism.” There is no better proof of this than in Mevasseret Adumim – a neighborhood that should be built without any regard for spurious condemnation.

For the major issues of the Israeli-Arab conflict, Mevasseret Adumim won’t matter. It is simply a dummy issue that the Arabs can use to avoid ending the conflict and showing that the true source of the conflict is any Jewish presence in the ancestral Jewish Homeland.

Start School on Aleph Elul

2009-09-02T23:40:00.001+03:00

In Israel September 1st is a holy day. It is the day that the ministry of education has stated that Israeli public schools must begin the school year, barring teacher strikes or lockouts.

The date is treated as if it was mentioned in the Torah as the official start of the school year, but it isn’t. And it doesn’t have to be.

In the Jewish country, the school year rightfully revolves around the Jewish holidays for education and vacations, so why shouldn’t the start and end dates of the school year be based on the Jewish calendar, as well?

One of the problems with Israeli elementary education is the holiday season coming so close to the start of the year. Often, instead of marching into things, and taking advantage of the period of the year when kids are happy to return to a structured regimen, teachers push off starting any subject of substance till “after the holidays.” In some years, kids come to school and disappear so often at the beginning of the year that, one-tenth of the way through the school year, teachers don’t yet know all of the students names. Besides delaying important knowledge, the teacher loses an opportunity to quickly bond with the class, and educational issue as important as any knowledge that is taught.

This may be only a minor issue compared to some other faults with our education system, but it is such a simple one to fix:

Start classes on Rosh Hodesh Elul.

This date, which falls between mid-August and early September is an ideal start date because it provides four straight weeks of regular classes before the Tishrei holidays begin. The school year would end on the thirtieth of Sivan, which, excepting the single day of Shavuot, is also holiday free, providing ample time to review for exams.

Tammuz and Av would constitute “the big vacation” between grade years. This period of 59 days would still roughly correspond to today’s summer break. This break would be three days shorter than the current 62 days of July and August, so taxpayers would have to pay for an extra 2 or 3 days of school (50% of the time one of the three extra days would be Shabbat) but I believe that this extra payment would be well worth the tremendous educational gains of beginning the year in earnest before the holiday season.

The idea of switching a system even with so small a change as switching the first day of school to the first of Elul, is always met with resistance from bureaucracy. That is why we must enact a law now to change the system for the 5772 (2011-2012) school year. In that year, Rosh Hodesh Elul will coincide with August 31, a mere day before the standard start date. It is the perfect time to enact the change without any “transition pains.”

Our elementary and high school students live in the cycle of the Jewish calendar and there is no reason our school year should be framed by anything but Jewish dates.

Shame on J Street!

2009-08-26T02:28:00.003+03:00

J Street has been a controversial organization since its inception, claiming that current Israel lobbies in the USA didn't reflect the views of American Jews. I thought that this was a claim that was worth testing and I am a big fan of controversy, so I was initially excited by J Street's creation.

I am a very cognizant of the wide array of opinions in the Jewish Community and it is only fair that these opinions be subject to debate and the free exchange of ideas.

However, this ideal was not one that J Street has been able to live up to! To advance the goals of their organization, J Street has engaged in many shady and underhanded tactics intended to stifle debate and mis-inform American Jews (and others) about Israel.

JPost blogger, Shmuel Rosner, has done an excellent job of exposing these tactics in a number of articles (see here) but I would like to pick a particular bone regarding this organization's latest intellectual atrocity.

Featured on J Street's homepage is a new video entitled "Israelis Discuss Support for President Obama and Two-State Solution."

The term "Israelis" seems quite vague but the accompanying text explains:

J Street sat down with a number of prominent Israelis, including former
military and security officials, to discuss the importance of a two-state
solution and J Street’s work supporting the President’s efforts to achieve such
a resolution.
These interviews demonstrate the deep support among prominent
Israeli former military officials, political leaders, diplomats, writers, and
artists for the strong American leadership that is critical to achieving a
two-state solution and providing real peace and security to Israel as a Jewish
democracy.
Watch the video below and then click here to send it to
your friends and family.
For a longer version of the video, click here.
The complete list of Israelis interviewed for the videos is below the fold.
Adm. Ami Ayalon (Ret.): Former head of Israeli Navy and Shin-Bet, Former
Minister and Member of Knesset
Brig. Gen. Israela Oron (Ret.): Deputy National Security Advisor to Prime
Minister Sharon, Led Integration of Women in Combat UnitsCol.
Shaul Arieli (Ret.): Brigade Commander in Gaza Strip, Head of Peace
Administration under four Prime Ministers
Uri Savir: Chief Negotiator for the Oslo Accords, Former Director of
Foreign Ministry
Colette Avital: Former Consul General to New York, Former Member of Knesset David Grossman: Writer
Dalia Rabin: Former Deputy Minister of Defense,
Daughter of Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
Amb. Shimon Shamir: Former Ambassador to Egypt & Jordan, Professor of
Middle East Studies, Tel Aviv University
Achinoam “Noa” Nini: Singer/Songwriter
Sha'anan Street: Founder & Lead Singer, Hadag Nahash Hip-Hop Group
David Broza: Singer/Songwriter

What makes this whole video particularly deplorable is that it is entirely in English, aimed at American citizens and does not address the current status of these "prominent Israelis" in current Israeli society.

Therefore, I will do so:
Ami Ayalon, Uri Savir, Collete Avital, David Grossman and Dalia Rabin have all been Knesset members and candidates for the Labor or Meretz political parties that were trounced in the recent elections. In other words, these prominent Israelis represent the political minority of Israeli voters.

Israela Oron, Shaul Arieli and Shimon Shamir are mainly prominent for their "peace" activism. In other words, they are prominent for espousing the views that J Street approves.

Noa, Shaanan Street and David Broza are talented performers, but their opinions are formed by the views of the above-mentioned people and parties.

If Israelis were to see this video they would laugh it off. A group of people who have been out-voted to the sidelines of Israeli policy are now appealing to a foreign leader to force their view of what is best for Israel against the will of the majority of Israeli voters. What chutzpah!

However, the video is not aimed at Israelis who are familiar with these personalities, but toward Americans, to whom these people are portrayed as prominent representatives of the people.

Why didn't J Street interview Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Amir Peretz or Yossi Beilin - they are certainly more prominent espousers of the two-state solution? Perhaps it was because these people are too famous, too well known for having been democratically cast from power and influence due to their J Street-compliant ideas.

To enforce my point I present an equal list of prominent Israelis who have been embraced by Israeli society for their views against the Oslo process and a two-state solution:

Lt. General Moshe Yaalon: former Commander of the Israeli Defence Force and current MK and Minister for Startegic Affairs
Brigadier General Effi Eitam: Yom Kippur War Hero and former MK and Minister
Maj. General Yaakov Amidror: former commander of the IDF's National Defense College and served as the military secretary of the defense minister.
Moshe Ahrens: Former Defense and Foreign Minister
Dr. Uzi Landau: Current Minister and MK
Prof. Daniel Herschkovitz: Tenured Professor of Mathematics at Technion University and current MK and Minister
Benny Begin: Current Minister and son of a former Prime Minister
Israel Aumann: Nobel Laureate

I don't particularly see the need to cite the views of entertainers, but, since J Street does, I will mention musician Ariel Zilber, singer/songwriter Aaron Raziel and founder of the rock band Teapacks, Kobi Oz.

I could go on with my list but there is no need. My point here is not to dispute J Streets ideas (which I can do, vehemently, in a civilized debate) but to show that J Street intentionally misleads Americans with this video by implying that Israeli security, political and cultural elites uniformly support their ideas. This is both false and patronizing and shows us another reason why J Street must be reject by the Jewish community - not for its ideas, but for its misleading and underhanded tactics used to promote them.

Two Days in Har Bracha (Part II)

2009-08-19T00:22:00.001+03:00

Yesterday, I met up with the tour at the Lavie Restaurant, just outside Har Bracha. The lunch with Mike Huckabee was attended was by Gershon Mesika, the head of the Shomron Regional Council, Rav Eliezer Melamed, the Rabbi of Har Bracha, MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) Americans and Israelis associated with the Ateret Cohanim organization and lots of press. Besides the Israeli Press, there were also photographers and videogrphers from a number of international media organizations. At lunch, I sat next to a reporter and cameraman from Time Magazine.

The crowd and atmosphere certainly gave the impression that Huckabee, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, was interested in running for president once again, or at least that he was a person of great interest. Huckabee was a gracious guest, thanking the restaurant owners for the meal and speaking highly of the vitality that Jews had brought to the Shomron, which he insisted was their birthright, in which they should eb allowed to continue and build.

What Huckabee said was impressive, but not as impressive as what was asked of him. Mesika, Ben-Ari and Rav Melamed all spoke about the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the Shomron and the part that Huckabee cold play in bring these to fruition as a President of the USA. They spoke about him convincing Jews of their mission to re-cultivate their land. MK Ben-Ari even compared him to Coresh (Cyrus) who allowed the Jews exiled in the Persian Empire to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash, and repopulate Jerusalem. Huckabee, himself mentioned that these goals seem to be a bit larger than him.

After lunch, the tour continued to the Givot Olam Ranch, near the town of Itamar. The ranch, which triples the footprint of the town of Itamar, is Israel’s largest producer of organic eggs and also grows organic fruits and raises goats for producing organic cheeses. While walking through the farm, I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Huckabee. I got the impression that, while he carries himself as a simple, unassuming figure, he is politically very shrewd. While I don’t doubt his honesty, I see that he is a much more polished politician thatn I had assumed from his failed primary campaign. The experience left me with three questions:

1. What does Israel stand to gain from Huckabee’s visit?

2. What does the Shomron Council have to agin from offering the VIP treatment to a politician already squarely in their corner?

3. What did Huckabee have to gain from this trip, and from accepting to go on such a tour?

As I drove back home (with two grape farmers from Givat Arnon who both happened to be originally from the Kayot) I pondered these questions and I am not sure I arrived at satisfactory answers, in fact it led to more questions:

1. Huckabee’s visit allowed the media to paint Israeli settlement in Yehuda and Shomron as a wedge issue between Democracts led by Obama and Republicans possibly to be led by Huckabee. I’m not sure that this is really to Israel’s benefit. Should construction in one country be an issue in a different country’s elections?

2. The Shomron Council is always looking for friends in high places. Also, the accompanying media allowed them to showcase the normal life and impressive communities that the current administration is asking us to strangle. Also, Huckabee deserves the appreciation he received. However, was it worthwhile to turn Huckabee into a potential Balfour or Cyrus? Should the Shomron reps be trying to create a savior? Is it wise to rely so much on one potential presidential candidate – or will they give the same compliments when Sarah Palin comes traipsing through? More importantly, Should the Shomron Council be perpetuating the attitude that by the whim of the American President do we live or die?

3. Huckabee took a very pro-Israel stand. He has always been a strong supporter of Israel and is well liked among the Christian Zionist community, especially in the Southern USA. However, actually visiting the disputed areas is going a step beyond – was he trying to drum up extra media attention to place himself as the anti-Obama? Does such a position really help in a presidential race, or is Huckabee simply reaching for the faltering Republican throne? If so, is he likely to moderate his positions if he has to face a Democrat in an election? More importantly, does Huckabee really see himself as presidential material? His last primary run won him one major caucus, but was otherwise unsuccessful. His popularity has risen since then and the Christian Coalition probably sees him as their candidate, but would America, or even its Republicans want to nominate a Social Conservative if he is essentially a Fiscal Liberal? Obama is currently “on the ropes” both for his one-sided pressure against Israel and his proposed healthcare reform, but he doesn’t have to stand for election until 2012. Meanwhile, Blanche Lincoln, on of Arkansas’ two Democrat senators must face the voters in 2010. She has supported Obama on healthcare and has remained silent on foreign issues, in a state with a high church-going voter base. Perhaps Huckabee is really looking for popularity mostly in his home state. It wouldn’t make him President but his ability to steal a Democratic senate seat would make him a real republican star and a potential candidate for 2016. Could that be Huckabee’s plan?

If anyone has any thoughts or answers, feel free to comment below.

Two Days in Har Bracha (Part I)

2009-08-18T23:34:00.000+03:00

Last Week, I was invited to visit with a unique group of university students on a special program run by the Zionist Freedom Alliance. The program invited the volunteers to contribute to building and planting in the Shomron region.

I brought a light lunch for the group while they were planting a new vineyard at Har Bracha, a small town near the peak of Mount Gerizim, the hill overlooking the ancient city of Shechem. The town gets its name (which literally means Mountain of Blessing) from the ceremony commanded in the Torah and performed under Joshua’s command, in which the nation gathered around Shechem, half on Mount Geriziim and half on the opposing Mount Eival. The Levites stood in Shechem and called out the biblical blessings while facing Mount Gerizim and then turned and recited the curses while facing Mount Eival.

Visting this community, and especially helping the group to plant a few new vines, brought out the biblical enthusiast in me, and reminded me of the famous prophecy of Yirmiyahu (31:4) “There will still be planted vineyards in the hills of the Shomron. Planters will plant and reap.”

I spoke about these feelings with the group and, hopefully gave them the impression that they were taking part in a process that was both ancient and modern. In my mind, this seeming contradiction of ancient prophecies and modern cultivation is the very essence of Zionism.

While planting, I spoke to Yehuda Hakohen, a director of the ZFA who had organized the volunteers, as well as with David Ha’ivri, the spokesman for the Shomron Regional Council. David invited me to return to Har Bracha this week, to greet the former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, who would be taking a supportive tour of the region.

To be continued…

Million Dollar Mermaid

2009-08-11T09:30:00.001+03:00

In the category of questions you don't hear everyday belongs, "Is your neighbor a mermaid?" But answering the question in the affirmative could be a lucrative endeavor.

Numerous people walking along the Kiryat Yam promenade, near the new pier, about a mile from my house, have reported seeing a mermaid in the waters of Haifa Bay. At first the Kiryat Yam city hall dismissed the claims as a practical joke but the sightings kept coming, including from a city hall employee who reportedly had no way of knowing about the other calls.

Accordingly, the municipality is now offering a ONE MILLION DOLLAR reward for anyone who can bring verifiable proof of the Mermaid's existence.

Hat tip to Mayor Siso, for this idea. The Krayot don't really receive much tourism attention, sandwiched between the major port city of Haifa and the ancient city of Akko, and Lord knows that Kiryat Yam could use another source of revenue. For years, the government has neglected the potentially beautiful Haifa Bay coastline and has repeatedly promised and then reneged on efforts to guarantee loans to build a resort hotel on the Kiryat Yam beach. Perhaps this small abnormality will draw some much needed attention to an old community with a high immigrant population and enrich our area. Perhaps people from other parts of the country will say:

"Up where they walk, up where they run
Up where they stay all day in the sun
Wanderin' free - wish I could be
Part of that world"

Credit Where It's Due

2009-08-06T15:58:00.002+03:00

In my last post regarding Obama's popularity among Jews in Israel and America, I cited a poll from June which showed that only 6% of Israeli Jews felt that Obama was "pro-Israel."

What I failed to cite was that the poll was conducted by Smith Research and sponsored by the Jerusalem Post at the behest of political reporter Gil Hoffman. Hoffman's article about the poll proved to have a powerful effect on both Israeli and American decisions. As I described in the previous post. The poll indicated that Obama had no credibility among right-wing or left-wing Israelis.

I am positive that the consensus in Israel had a large effect on the Jewish organizations in America as well as the on other Obama supporters such as the Washington Post.

Gil Hoffman and the Jerusalem Post deserve credit for pointing out that foreign pressure against Israel, particularly regarding Jerusalem is a non-partisan issue.

Return of the Jewdi and the Ompire Strikes Back

2009-08-05T15:22:00.004+03:00

A version article now appears at Israel National News, here.

When US President Obama first forayed into the Israeli-Arab conflict, many Israelis became very apprehensive about his tone. While Obama’s policies essentially echoed those set by previous administrations, there was a general feeling that there was a change in the US-Israel dynamic.

Of greatest concern to me and many other Israelis was the dissonance between Israeli Jews and Jews living in the USA. A poll found that Obama’s popularity in Israel had dropped to 6%, indicating that both left-wing and right-wing Israelis were opposed to Obama’s foreign policy decisions. In the meantime, US Jewish support for Obama remained relatively unchanged.

However, in the past couple of weeks, things have changed and classic left wing sources are beginning to question Obama’s approach to Israel.

The New York Times ran an opinion article by Aluf Benn (a reporter for Haaretz, who was a correspondent in Washington for a number of years.), which called on Obama to speak directly to the Israeli public as he had to the Arabs in his famous Cairo speech.

A Washington Post editorial decried Obama’s relentless pressure on Israel’s government at the same time he advocated an outstretched hand approach to countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Iran.

An article in Newsweek by Greg Levey (a former speechwriter for PM Ariel Sharon), advised Obama to take a more Bush-like approach lest he lose all ability to have influence over Israeli policy.

These three organs of America’s left-wing all took a critical view of the demands Obama placed on Israel and American Jews reacted, as well.

In all fairness, Aluf Benn is Israeli and Greg Levey is Canadian, but the sentiment was reflected in Jewish attitudes even among Obama supporters. Obama had to react.

Sure enough, George Mitchell, the American Special Envoy to the Middle East, began granting interviews to Israeli papers. Other administration officials wrote rebuttal pieces in the NY Times and the Post and the National Chair of the Jewish Democratic Council refuted the charges laid by Aluf Benn in an article in the Jerusalem Post.

So what’s the story? Is Obama ina dialogue with Israel or not? Is he responsive to Jews concerns or not? The answer, of course, is both.

As Mr. Stanley points out in his Jpost piece, top-level Americans have been flooding Israel to hold discussions with their Israeli counterparts. On the other hand, we aren’t sure if they are just talking, or also listening.

Israel feels, especially after the Lebanon and Sderot wars, that land concessions have not achieved peace and are not in Israel’s interest. There have been no statements from Obama or any other American official recognizing or empathizing with this sentiment. In fact, America essentially sidelined Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, after his meeting with Hillary Clinton in Washington, essentially because the State Department felt that he was not receptive to the proposed settlement freeze.
Lieberman is an integral leader of the right-wing bloc that commanded a majority in Israel’s recent election. The mutual policy of this bloc was that the US-mediated negotiations started at the Annapolis conference and promoted by Tzipi Livni and Kadima, were not in Israel’s greater interest. The process, which was rejected by the Israel people, was embraced wholeheartedly by Obama’s administration.

Also, Obama has specifically attacked Israeli construction and law-enforcement in Jerusalem. In Israel, a united Jerusalem enjoys a broad consensus of support from both the right and the left, and enjoys even more support among American Jewry.

While Mr. Stanley is correct that official communication with Israel has continued apace on a myriad of diplomatic issues, Aluf Benn is correct that Obama has not spoken to the Israeli populace directly. The Washington Post argues that this contradicts Obama’s own diplomatic view of bypassing leadership and creating bottom-up support, rather than the top-down support which had led to widespread anti-Americanism in much of the Arab world. Levey is correct in his assessment that Obama has not reassured the Israeli people on the right or the left that his policies are intended to benefit them.

If the current US administration wants to retain the great amount of Jewish support it received in the last election, and maintain a sense of trust and friendship among the Israeli people, it must take a hard look at why Israel has shifted its attitudes toward the concept of “land for peace.” Obama has to deliver the “change” he promised and stop arrogantly insisting that the US has the only solution to the conflict. He must try to listen to the Israeli people and their representatives who echo their concerns.

My Interview with Tovia Singer on Israel National Radio

2009-07-25T23:34:00.001+03:00

What Policies does Avigdor Leiberman's Yisrael Beteinu Support?

Shared via AddThis

The Most Capitalist Law

2009-07-23T13:50:00.000+03:00

Last week the Knesset Labor Committee passed a bill against delaying wages which would make the practice a felony warranting jail and the possibility of a 35,000 shekel fine. The law will now be voted on in the Knesset, and will hopefully pass easily into law.

Many people have asked me why I am so supportive of this bill. As a declared free-market capitalist, one might think I’d oppose a bill sponsored by the Histadrut, Israel’s major labor union, and opposed by the Israel Manufacturers Association and local government councils. Many people assume that anything opposed to socialism and workers’ rights must be a pro-market stance. However, this bill highlights the difference between being pro-business and pro a truly free market.

A pro-business economic policy has some benefits in that it usually increases employment opportunities by favoring businesses and allowing them to grow, unencumbered. However, this is not a true free-market policy. A pro-business economic plan, such as the one advocated by Kadima’s Finance Ministers over the last few years and even a bit during Netanyahu’s tenure, created a dependence of business on government. The basic assumption by the Likud-Kadima run Finance Ministry that socialism is bad and anything opposed by socialists must be good has been disproved during this time of economic decline.

As I’ve said before, Israel’s economy is actually quite strong relative to other world economies in this global financial crisis. However, many of the problems that caused the economic meltdown in the USA and Europe were symptomatic of the same flawed thinking – that government intervention in the market on the side of business is not really interventionist policy. The idea that certain financial institutions could receive government support money and were “too big to fail” was based on the plans made by George Bush’s anti-socialist treasury.

When the media has discussed the failure of capitalism, they have actually been discussing the failure of pro-business intervention, which is indeed as damaging to an economy as pro-labor intervention.

The current bill, which makes it an actionable felony to delay salaries, was initially seen as a “populist” pro-labor bill. But it is the very essence of capitalism.

The basis of the free-market system is that prices and wages are agreed upon by both parties to a contract for their mutual benefit. A transaction can only take place if both sides see in it the opportunity to create wealth. It is the job of a capitalist government to ensure that these contracts, be it employment contracts or grocery shopping, are performed fairly, without intrusion on anybody’s rights.

Employers, especially in tough times, try to justify delaying salaries in order to save their business. “We’ll invest the money to keep us afloat and ensure that your job will be around for many more months to come.” Is a common rationalization. Often the fear that employee will lose their job because a company dissolves is enough to dissuade that employee for suing for the salary that is rightfully theirs. This bill seeks to eliminate the chance of such manipulation by removing salary delay from the civil courts and introducing it to the criminal justice system.

Salary delay is a breach of contract and causes a spiral of debt, which hurts the company, the employee and the economy in general. The government has an absolute interest in ensuring that contracts are carried out properly, so that the free-market can continue to set prices, unimpeded.

The fact that this law was opposed by employers, who may feel the need at times to delay their employees’ salaries, is an attempt to get preferential treatment and government support to manipulate contracts and the capitalist market. Companies which cannot afford to pay their employees on time should be allowed to fail and not given government assurances to rob their own workers.

Hopefully, this important capitalist bill will be voted into law by the Knesset in order to give us all a better environment in which to work, and an economy in which the government only intervenes in order to enforce contracts and prevent theft.

It is also noteworthy to remember that the Hebrew phrase for delaying salary is הלנת שכר – Halanat Sakhar, literally: laying wages. The source of this phrase is, of course, our Torah:

“Do not defraud, do not rob and do not let the wages of your employee lay with you until morning.” Vayikra 19:13

A law enforcing this prohibition will benefit both our souls and our economy.

What's He Thinking?

2009-07-20T18:57:00.003+03:00

This week started with a report about the US State Department inviting Israel's ambassador to Washington to complain about the permission to begin construction on a privately Jewish-owned property in Eastern Jerusalem. Eventually, this resulted into a standoff where Israeli PM Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and others defended the ability for Jews to build anywhere in municipal Jerusalem. This forced the US Secretary of State to reiterate the US position that the US does not recognize Israeli sovereignty anywhere over the "green line" – including Eastern parts of Jerusalem.

Officially, this has been US policy since Israel passed the Jerusalem Reunification Law, however, it has not really been enforced. It is strange that Obama would choose to bring this up now, at a time when American relations with Israel are tenser than usual and the vast majority of Israelis are adamant on keeping Jerusalem united.

Several thoughts have been posited:

(1) An agreement in which Obama allows building in all of Jerusalem and perhaps some ongoing projects in large towns in Samaria will allow Netanyahu to save face and freeze construction everywhere else.

(2) The state department rep went above his authority and caused problems, however, when Israeli High-Officials got involved, the wayward State Department rep had to be defended by his boss.

(3) The order did come from Obama and truly shocked Netanyahu. Obama's previous call for a complete settlement freeze was essentially waved off by Netanyahu and Lieberman and both insisted that US-Israeli ties remain strong. It is possible that Obama wants to show that :

(a) USA-Israeli ties can be weakened by continuing flouting of US "advice." or

(b) Obama can create a wide enough rift between washiongton and Jerusalem to allow him access to deal with Tehran and other Muslim countries who despise the US's close relationship with Israel.

It is also possible that Obama really is just anti-Israel and wants it to wither and fall. However, I don't believe this to be true and I believe that a vast majority of his own party members are avid Israel supporters and would not allow any real damage to be done. Furthermore, summoning an ambassador for complaint is seen as a serious problem, but a problem between allies. Since the Israeli government adamantly backed construction at the site, no real harm to Israel has been done…yet.

On the Radio Tonight!

2009-07-14T16:18:00.002+03:00

I will be interviewed tonight at 11 pm Israel time (4 pm EDT) by Rabbi Tovia Singer on Israel National Radio.

Please tune in and give a listen.

Citizenship on Parade

2009-07-14T01:07:00.001+03:00

On June 16^th the Yisrael Beytenu Anglophone Division held an event featuring Uzi Landau (see the pictures HERE). The Minister had planned to speak about citizenship and responsibility but felt he had to offer his response to the Prime Misters speech at Bar Ilan University, two days prior.

At the beginning of July, a Jerusalem District Court struck down a suit against the Ministry of the Interior, based on the judge's concept of civil responsibility. I wrote an article about the implications of this decision, which was published by Israel National News at: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8911

Thank you to Ashley Perry for alerting me to this case and for proof reading and editing the article

I know that this article can open a lively discussion. If you have anything to add please post a comment on this blog and I will be happy to respond. (I will probably NOT respond to comments left at the Israel National News site).

In the meantime, please stay tuned for information about the next Yisrael Beytenu event in English. Details to follow.

Netanyahu's Success

2009-06-14T21:47:00.002+03:00

I was, understandably, pleased with Netanyahu's speech.

I would like to point out four items, which particularly impressed me:

1. He fully explained the need for recognizing Israel as THE State of the Jewish Nation (not just "A" Jewish State -as if there could be any other).

2. He explicitly refuted Obama's assertion that Israel was created because of the Holocaust.

"There are those who think that the State of Israel would not have existed if not for the Holocaust. I say that, were the State of Israel created when it should have been, there would not have been a Holocaust,"

was my favorite line in the speech and will resound in my memory for years to come. In particular this also refuted Obama's position of colonialism hampering Arab aspirations. The above quote shows how British colonialism and hesitation to fulfill the obligations of the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations mandate, led not only to delayed Jewish aspirations but the death of millions of Jews.

3. Netanyahu paralleled the plight of the Palestinian refugees with the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. He mentioned that Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees without international help and made the argument that there has been an effective "exchange of populations." I believe this is the first time that this position has been so publicly explained by an Israeli PM.

4. Netanyahu did not mention removing any settlements, only that new ones would not be established. It will be interesting to see if the Judea and Samaria council decides to work with Netanyahu to expand all, even small, existing settlements, or if it tries to undermine him for not being sufficiently right wing.

The one point that I wish Netanyahu HAD addressed was the gap in Israeli-American relations. I would like to have heard Netanyahu mention that the bonds between allies can weather disagreements and perhaps use the opportunity to address the issue of Jonathon Pollard. His brief mention of Gilad Shalit was also rather shallow.

Still, overall the speech clearly laid out Israel's philosophy and the philosophy that brought Netanyahu to power: that Jews belong in Israel and it is their only natural homeland, whose Jewish character must be preserved. As Netanyahu repeated numerous times during his speech, this is a point which a vast majority of right-wing and left-wing Israelis believe.

The Netanyahu Conundrum

2009-06-14T00:46:00.001+03:00

Speculation is rife about what Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu will say in his policy address later today.

I am most marveled by the range of this speculation. Left wing optimists, feel Netanyahu will have no choice but to concede to a “two state solution”, as do the right wing pessimists. There are also right wing optimists and left wing pessimists that see Netanyahu refusing to endorse this idea, and insisting on allowing for natural growth in Judean and Samarian towns.

This speculation coincides with the fact that Netanyahu has consulted with Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak, and parts of the speech have reportedly been written with the assistance of far left author David Grossman and right wing journalist Uri Elitzur.

How is it possible that in a democracy, where the leader and parliament were chosen by the people, that no one is sure what the elected representative will say? There was some speculation about Obama’s bridge building speech in Cairo, but the argument was mainly about terminology. For the most part, the speech reiterated his previously stated opinions and pundits left and right understood just what the main gist of the speech would be. Only in Israel can a Prime Minister be duly elected without any idea of what his stated policy will be on the country’s major issue.

In discussing these thoughts, a family member pointed out to me that this oddity is based on the fact that Netanyahu must react to a nascent gap between Israel and its most important ally, the USA. Were Israel to have a left wing government, approving of American demands, the speech would come as no surprise to anyone. The conundrum faced in understanding Netanyahu is a parallel of Netanyahu’s conundrum of exacerbating the differences between Israel and its ally while maintaining Israel’s right to an independent policy.

I will anxiously listen to Netanyahu’s address and provide my analysis once it is digested.

Obama's Cairo Speech

2009-06-05T12:02:00.002+03:00

Obama's "landmark" speech delivered in Cairo on Thursday has been nicely analyzed by Herb Kenion in the Jerusalem Post here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1244035003338&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

However, I would like to add some of my own analyses:

1. The speech to the Muslim world was only to the Arab world. He didn't mention the tensions between the USA and Indonesia or Bangladesh, and only casually mentioned Pakistan (The three largest Muslim nations). He basically ignored the growing extremism in all parts of Muslim society, particularly in the non-Arab world and in non-Muslim countries such as Spain, France, Russia and the UK. Note how he made a big deal about "the Israeli-Palestinian issue" but made no mention of non-Arab Muslim conflicts in Kashmir, Kosovo, Chechnya etc. Even the Arab world was not completely addressed as he ignored the spread of Arab extremism and propogation of Muslim terror in Arab states in Africa. He mentioned how people in Darfur being slaughtered affect the whole world, but forgot to mention who is slaughtering them, or what the affects are on those slaughtered. Interesting how the subjugation of African Americans in America was compared to the Arab-Israeli conflict but not to the Muslim conflicts where African Africans are being killed, abused and subjugated into slavery, including in Egypt!

3. Also, no one seems to make note of the fact that mid-way through the speech he switched from "Palestinian people" to "Palestine." This was an ad lib which is not found in many of the official transcriptions of the speech – it may have been a "When in Egypt, do as Egyptians do" case, or it may be an important tell.

4. It should be mentioned that everything he said about Israel and about Palestinians has been said before, by himself, by Bush and by Clinton– nothing in the speech really "surprised" Israel's policymakers.

5. The speech was apologetic and justified the Muslim hatred of the west by invoking colonialism and speaking of Palestinian suffering. He also apologized for the USA invasion of Iraq. That's his prerogative, after all, he voted against it, but the ramifications may be problematic. Shortly after 9/11 I was driving from Birmingham to Atlanta and an Imam from Atlanta was being interviewed on CBS radio. The Imam, who called himself a "moderate Muslim" said that Bin Laden did not properly represent Islam, basically, because he used terrorism to address the grievances which Muslim's had against the USA. This was a wake up call for me. It is not enough for Muslims to renounce violence. They must examine the validity of their grievances, which I find profoundly lacking. Unfortunately, Obama's speech and conciliatory tone will push many Muslims in the opposite direction. If the grievances are valid, why not join in the Jihad?

Lastly, the most important part of the speech, for Israel's sake, was not about Israel at all. It was this line:

"We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case... And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists."

I Hope Israel reminds Obama of this remark when we next need to defend our people by entering Gaza.

Lebanon on Target

2009-05-25T14:03:00.001+03:00

On June 7, there will be an important election in Lebanon. Hizbullah is predicted to garner greater power in the Lebanese parliament and, more importantly, hold a plurality of ministers in the government. As per Lebanon’s ethnic-based electoral system, Hizbullah will control the position of the Speaker of the House, who holds the ability to open and close parliament sessions at will. Current speaker, Nabih Berri, has used this power in a number of occasions to stymie any progress by the western-minded government.

Since parliament in Lebanon is often sidelined, the government makes many decisions without parliamentary oversight. Therefore, Hizbullah’s electoral goal is to gain a plurality of ministers in the government or, at least, create a sustainable “blocking coalition” with the AMAL party, to render the government useless, as well. The more feeble Lebanon’s government is, the more susceptible the country will be to Syrian and Iranian influence.

In order to stem the tide of Hizbullah’s successful campaign, the US has dispatched Joe Biden to Beirut to endorse the western-minded, anti-Islamist “Mach 14” movement. However, Islamist parties have in the last two decades, increased their power in all elections in which they have been allowed to participate. US support has only been used to further taint the less Islamist parties as being stooges of the American regime. My suggestion, then, is for Vice President Biden to announce an unequivocal endorsement of Hizbullah. He should mention how Hizbullah’s 2006 attacks against Israel were exactly the policies that America wants to see from a Middle Eastern country. Pledge that if Hizbullah wins, there will certainly be greater American influence in Lebanon and that America views Hassan Nasrallah as an important figure in any Middle East peace process.

I see this as a no-lose situation for the Obama administration. If Hizbullah support plummets, they can claim to have stemmed the tide of Islamism, if Hizbullah is victorious the President can claim that America has finally learned how to bet on the right horse.

Just for good measure, I have asked Avigdor Lieberman to endorse Hizbullah as well.

Euro-Delusion

2009-05-14T00:09:00.002+03:00

It's Eurovision week and, I'll admit it, I'm always fascinated by this kitschy, shallow song contest. I could say that I just watch it for laughs, probably it's main appeal, but once the whole gaudy production is up and going, I tend to get caught up in the moment.

It also sets some sort form of barometer for Europe. In the past, a Finnish heavy metal group won the contest, but this year the usual hip-hop shallow dance-beat numbers advanced to the finals while two quality rock entries - Switzerland's and Macedonia's - were eliminated. Of course, since few Eurovision winners go on to genuine international fame, these trends may only apply to the performances themselves.

And then there is the Nationalist aspect - How will Israel do? Any international contest in which Israel competes is meticulously watched by Israelis. I suppose most countries inspire some national pride but I feel that Israelis in particular are always curious about how we stack up to other states. Is it latent inferiority complex? Perhaps. But for whatever the reason Israelis put a lot of pressure on their representatives to perform admirably and, therefore, the selectors for the Eurovision song contest are pressured to produce winning entries.

In the past, Israel was tried eextrely traditional songs such as Chai, Chai, Chai, and Halleluyah (which won). We have also succeeded with the extremely untraditional approach - Dana International (winner), and with power voclists like Shiri Maimon (placed 4th). However, Israel has usually been shunned by the Eurovision voters.

Winners are selected by viewers in each country select their favorite performance, and the votes are tabulated and ranked in each country. A country cannnot give any points to it own performance. This is where the politics comes in.

Former Russian republics tend to give the Russian entry the most points. Greece and Cyprus always trade first place rankings, as do Germany and Austria. This "quid pro quo" favours countries which are generally well liked and hurts those with poor reputations: the UK and Israel.

Don't get me wrong - the music does play a large factor, but some performers are simply handicapped in the voting by perceptions of the country they represent. Especially Israel.

BUT NOT THIS YEAR

This year Israel entered a "middle of the pack" song sung by two fabulous singers, Achinoam Nini (stage-named Noa) and Mira Awad. Both of these women are fantastic vocalists and their harmonies somewhat salvage the sappy lyrics and boilerplate melody. However, the fact taht the song is a "peace song" sung by a Jew and an Arab, and includes lyrics in English, Hebrew and some Arabic, gives the song much more significance. Was thos symbolism lost on the crowd? I don't think so! The Eurovision promoters hyped the Israeli performance bigtime, and the "odd-couple" duet (even though they had released a joint single in 2002) became an international news item. The voters responded and sent Israel to the finals. Was it based on the performance, the song's sappy message or the ethnicity of the singers? We can't really know, but upon announcing that Israel advanced, the show's presenter said "and also in the finals, the most politically correct song in Eurovision 2009..." Clearly, the subtext was not lost on him.

So what's the deal here? Has Israel decided that it's high-time Israel sned an Arab representative to an international event? Was the bi-ethnic duet chosen to compliment the song's lyrics about co-existence? Or was Israel just whoring itself out to for the tourist sheqels that hosting the 2010 Eurovision contest will bring?

I find it hard to believe taht Israel was trying to use Eurovision to "soften its image." As it is, many Jews are upset that a representative of Israel has voiced opinions that Israel doesn't represent her. Many Arabs feel that she has become a "fig leaf", a token Arab thrown on to the stage to mask discrimnation beneath. Also, the anti-semitic protestors across Europe have completely ignored the facts and, as Awad herself stated, "turned into a Hamas apology force," so that one bi-ethnic peace lullaby is unlikely to change many minds. The duet does compliment the songs sappy and naive lyrics, but the song itself seems to be written to give people what they want to hear.

A couple of years ago, Teapacks caused a controversy by singing about potential nuclear terrorism. They set off Europe's alarm clock and Europe pressed SNOOZE and eliminated them early. This year's entry gives the opposite effect - it sedates the Europeans into thinking that someone is working on the Jewish Arab conflict and all will be OK. And, in essence, isn't taht what political correctness is all about providing warm fuzzy delusions.

Correct, to me, always seemed to be a binary value. Something was either correct or not. When we tell someone they are partially correct, it usually means that they have made multiple assertions, some of which are correct and some are not. However, "political correctness" means that something is in correct, but we say it anyway to keep-up appearances.

Some people confuse "political correctness" with "politeness." For instance, black people of people of Africandescent, prefer taht they not be called certain N-words because of the derogatory nature of these words' origin. It is simply a matter of politeness not to describe a person by a term he or she finds offensive. Political correctness implies a certain delusion where we state things not as they are, but as we wish them to be.

This is the danger of "political correctness", the politically correct term for delusional incorrectness. We might wow the Europeans with the voices of our singers but what they are looking for -at least from Israel - is not a pleasant harmony, but general pleasantness - a "why can't we all just get along?" that completely ignores the roots or the specifics of the conlict. Europe has mastered self-delusion as well as political correctness. If Israel can bilk a bit of cash out of that delusion, why not just sell out?

A View on Independence

2009-04-28T18:17:00.002+03:00

I know I have been quiet lately but I am anxious to start blogging again. Therefore, I will start by re-posting a post I wrote last year, in honor of Israel celebrating it's 61st Indepedence Day.

Enjoy!

50 Days of Independence

Most people are focusing on Israel’s 61 years of independence. I’d like to examine 50 days.

The counting of the Omer is generally considered a sad time, saved for remembering the students of Rabbi Akiva who were killed at this time, as well as later crusades and expulsions. However, the 50 days of spring harvest are, yearly, regaining a joyous atmosphere through their connection to Jewish independence.

The Omer period begins during the Pesach holiday, Israel’s original Independence Day. The first day of the Omer was not only the children of Israel’s first full day of independence from Egyptian bondage, but it was also the first day, forty years later, that Children of Israel partook of the Land of Israel’s produce (Joshua 5:10).

On the 20th day of the Omer (or sometimes the 18th, 19th or 23rd) we celebrate the modern Independence Day, the day that Jews claimed sovereignty over the Land of Israel in 5708 (1948). I have heard some arguments that Israeli Independence Day should have been marked on 5 Tevet, 5709 (January 6, 1949). This was the day that the war basically ended, leaving Israel’s independence as a Jewish State stable for the first time. On one hand, this would have put Yom HaAtzmaut just after Hanukka; a nice fit since Hanukka marked the end of the war that gave Judea its first Independence from foreign rule in the Second Temple Period. However, I feel that the greater spirit of Jewish independence and attachment to the land appears during the spring harvest, commemorated during the period of the Omer. As well, one cannot overlook the miracle of the very Declaration of Independence which ushered out the British immigration restrictions and offered immediate sanctuary to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees in Europe.

The 33rd day of the Omer is commonly referred to as “Lag Ba’Omer.” The reason behind this minor holiday is shrouded in mystery. The Talmud (Bavli, tractate Yevamot 62b) states that this day was the day Rabbi Akiva’s students ceased dying. Some have interpreted this statement as the day when Bar Kochva reconquered Jerusalem, and thus the deadly battles ended for a short time. While Bar Kochva’s conquest of Jerusalem was extremely short lived, it also granted the Jews a sense of independence.

The 43rd day of the Omer commemorates a longer lasting conquest of Jerusalem. Jerusalem Day marks the day in 5727 (1967) that the Temple Mount was recaptured and Jerusalem was reunited. Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik Zt”L commented that, for him, Jerusalem Day was the real Independence Day for Israel. Also, Natan Sharansky has said on numerous occasions that “There is no Zionism without Zion.” Sovereignty over the Temple Mount and all of Jerusalem solidified Israel’s Independence with its return to its historic capital and most hallowed ground.

The 50th day, the end of the Omer is the holiday of Shavuot. This holiday completes the period of Jewish Independence by marking the day of the assembly at Mount Sinai, where the Ten Commandments were presented to the Jewish Nation, and they accepted the Torah. The full break from Egyptian servitude came when the children of Israel accepted the Torah and thus supplanted the Egyptian laws and culture they had known with their own unique culture. “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved upon the tablets.” (Exodus 32:16) Our sages expounded on this verse saying: Do not read the word as “Harut” (engraved) but as “Herut” (freedom), for there is no one who is free except for one who learns Torah.

A Happy Independence Days to all.

Post-Election Round up

2009-02-18T10:41:00.002+02:00

This year's election night was not as fun for me as the one in 2006. Mostly, this was because I was running back and forth from the party to the Jerusalem media studios to give interviews. I was doing this in extrelmly cold rain at extremly late hours. Still, I think I was successful during my CBC Newsworld and Sky News interviews.

Due to the number of interviews I have done recently, I have stopped tracking them all down and posting the links here.

As most of you know, I did not get a Knesset seat as Yisrael Beytenu received 15 mandates instead of the required 21 (or the minimum of 17, from which I could have possibly made it to Knesset by replacing a Minister). However, I was not disappointed with the results. As a candidate, I significantly raised my profile in both the English speaking and Hebrew speaking communities. I would venture to say that I received more media attention than any candidate who did not make the cut, except for Moshe Feiglin. I think that my efforts in the anglo-campaign helped the party rise in power, and be recognized as mainstream party.

As well, the party increased its Knesset strength by 35% and has positioned itself to be the influential party in fomring the next government. Coalition negotiations will be tough but I suspect that I will be able to secure myself a notable position in the government, which will allow me to push my agenda and achieve some of my goals. More on that to come.

In the meantime, I would very much like to thank all of those who helped me during the campaign, and all those who gave me moral support. There are too many people to mention, but I will single out my wife. I spent many hours on the campaign trail away from my family but my wife really held things together.

In the coming days, I will send out an e-mail newsletter to those on our list which will detail the roles of our MKs in the Knesset and some of their initial goals. l

A Final Appeal for your Vote: VOTE LAMED - ל

2009-02-09T13:04:00.000+02:00

15 Shevat, 5769
9 February, 2009

Dear Friends,

Tomorrow Israelis will go to the polls, hopefully in larger numbers than expected, and influence the course of Israel’s future. As most of you know, I have become deeply involved with Israeli politics through the Yisrael Beytenu party. I am the 21st candidate on their list, which means I actually stand a chance of being elected to the next Knesset, but I need your help. I am asking for your support in order to ensure that Yisrael Beytenu is large enough to accomplish its goals but also to allow me to contour the party’s efforts. Even if we do not receive 21 mandates, the closer we get, the greater my influence will be.

I will help ensure that the party stands strong against any foreign pressures to surrender land to organizations with links to terrorism and I will also ensure that the party remains true to its promise to increase the country’s Jewish character by supporting Religious-Zionist institutions and promoting Rabbis from Tsohar so that the Rabbanut can return to Religious-Zionist hands and reclaim its legitimacy among the religious and non-religious public. I ensure you that an accessible Rabbanut will improve Israel’s Jewish character more than any enforcement of Kashrut or Shabbat laws.
Voting LAMED for Yisrael Beytenu may put me in Knesset. A recent Globes poll gave Yisrael Beytenu the 21 seats it needs to make me your representative. I will work with the Absorption Committee and the Interior Committee to remove many of the hurdles faced by Olim from the West and increase government co-operation with organizations such as Nefesh B’Nefesh and AMI. As a recent Oleh, I can give this issue unprecedented effort and attention to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate the need for Protexia and lay the groundwork for facilitating further Aliyah. I will act to restore funding for TaLa”N classes so that English Mother Tongue students will be taught at the appropriate level, and receive help with Hebrew so that they will be integrated more easily into the system. I will ask that certification for professionals be more easily transformed to Israeli certification so that Olim are not forced to take a step backwards in their careers, or wait endless months to begin a new job. I will help expand general employment opportunities by voting to lower corporate taxes, increase competition and reduce tariffs, so that all Jews can assist in building our land while receiving a salary that allows for a high quality of life.

Also, I intend to be open to your queries and publish an in depth “congressional” newsletter to bring a more accessible, accountable and effective government. Send me to Knesset and you will see that our community is truly represented for the benefit of new and longtime Israelis.

If you would like more information about the specific policies I intend to advance or if you have any questions about Yisrael Beytenu, please feel free to call me at 054-7663230. I will be hard-pressed to answer e-mails but will be glad to respond to your phone calls.

VOTE "LAMED" – ל

Wishing the best to you and all of Israel,

Danny Hershtal

Good Morning Hillary

2009-01-26T15:39:00.002+02:00

Like many bloggers, I have a simple tracking program on my blog that gives me crude statistics on who is checking my blog. I can't see any personal information (I am using a free tracking program offered by Google) just the general server through which a hit arrived. The main purpose of this is to see how many Israelis (hopefully of voting age) are checking my blog versus international visitors.

In anycase, as I said, I can only see the basic information on the server. However, some large organizations which have their own servers can be identified.

With that introduction I will announce that on January 26 at 7:35 am Eastern Standard Time, someone from the US State Department in Washington DC logged on to this blog.

I suppose that's good to know - you'd assume that the new US administration would want to quickly get up to speed on the Israeli elections, and my blog is very focused on that topic. Obviously, I also focus on Yisrael Beytenu, which is closing in on Kadima in the polls and is generating international interest. Not a bad way to begin the first Monday of a new administration.

However, my visit from Mrs. Clinton was no accident. My tracker also shows the link source of hits to my blog and the State Department hit came through a Google search for "Danny Hershtal."

It seems that I have now garnered some international recognition and I hope to make use of this during the next Knesset term.

Good morning, Hillary. Please drop by anytime and feel free to leave me a message here or e-mail me at hershtal@actcom.co.il . I am anxious to start working with you.

Good Press

2009-01-26T09:52:00.003+02:00

Yisrael Beytenu recently attempted to disqualify to Arab parties from running for Knesset due to the fact that they oppose to Israel being defined as the Jewish State. The Political Parties Law clearly states that a party with such a platform cannot run for Knesset.

Most Israelis would agree that these parties and there representatives have many times crossed the line between political dissent and outright sedition. This is why almost all of the other parties backed our position. However, the Supreme Court decided that the level of opposition was insufficient to disqualify them. Hopefully, in the next Knesset, we will be able to pass a law so that such subjective judgment cannot be used.

I was interviewed by a Belgian journalist about this subject and the interview (for IPS News service was reprinted in numerous locations. The original, in English can be read here:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45479

Every country has a few nut cases who wish for the county's demise, Canada actually lets some of them sit in its parliament. However, only Israel allows those who actually applaud armed resistance and visit with its enemies to be members of its legislature at the same time.

Could anyone really fathom Gilles Duceppe visiting with the Taliban or applauding the killing of Candian soldiers?

Interview on Israel National Radio

2009-01-19T21:53:00.003+02:00

On Sunday, I was interviewed on Israel National Radio by Tamar Yonah.

You can listen to it here: http://msmedia.a7.org:90/arutz7/shows/we/week090118b.mp3
The interview with me begins at the 28:15 mark.

I felt that this wasn't my best performance, though most people think I held up OK. At least I was able to put in a quick plug for Yisrael Beytenu's English event for this Thursday at 8pm at the Shalom Hotel in Jerusalem

Please listen and tell me what you think.

Ceasefire in the CJN

2009-01-15T23:57:00.002+02:00

The Canadian Jewish News published a column about my ceasefire proposal. It can be seen at:

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16077&Itemid=86

Obviously, this publication won't be read by many voters, but hopefully it will introduce Israel beytenu to a new Jewish audience, which can then start a conversation with friends and relatives in Israel.

There doesn't seem to be an option to leave feedback at the CJN site, so feel free to leave comments here.

¿Tu Sabes Danny Hershtal?

2009-01-13T10:03:00.003+02:00

I have made my Spanish language debut in an article in Proceso, a major left-wing Mexican political magazine. The questions I was asked for this article had to do with the differences in the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" as they are used in Israeli versus Mexican politics, and the differences between Zionists and anti-Zionists on both the left and the right. The article can be seen at:

http://www.proceso.com.mx/suplementos_articulo.php?articulo=65053

The article was reprinted with slight variations in Tribuna De Los Cabos, the largest newspaper in the State of Baja-California Sur: http://www.tribunadeloscabos.com.mx/newpage/index.cfm?op=por&recordID=66608&seccion=Opinion

The Google translations of these pages make me think I might have been misquoted, and the article clearly favours the extreme-left Mexican Jew in the article. However, I hope that I will give the Right-Wing some credence based on the fact that (a) I point out that Yisrael Beytenu, though being a right-wing party, has a high female representation on its list, which seems to be an anomoly to most Mexicans, and (b) my predictions at the end of the article, especially that there would be soon be a large-scale fight against Hamas (the article was published on the second day of Operation Cast Lead, but the interview took place a week earlier) will prove true, showing that I had a much better grasp on reality than my counterpart.

If you are a fluent Spanish speaker, please comment on this post and tell me your impressions. Also, keep a look out for more articles about me in the Spanish Language press.

My Ceasefire Proposal

2009-01-10T21:22:00.002+02:00

I was surprised and pleased that Israel resisted efforts by the UN to prevent it from achieving a meaningful victory over Hamas, who have been shooting missiles and mortars at Israeli citizens for over seven years. However, as internal and international pressure mounts, I am worried that our current leadership will accept a less than proper ceasefire. In order to resist this pressure, I have proposed an alternate ceasefire agreement for Israel to present its demands to the international community.

Hamas will not accept this agreement, but it is not expected to. This ceasefire agreement must be made with the UN and then forced on Hamas, and must be as binding on the UN itself (see point #e) as much as it is upon Israel or Hamas.

A proper cease-fire agreement has to include five points in the following order:

a. Gilad Shalit must be handed to the Red Cross or UN officials immediately, for return to Israel. In return, all Hamas fighters seized in this operation can be released back into Gaza.

b. All rocket and mortar fire on Israel must cease for 48 hours before Israeli soldiers leave the strip, and not resume afterward

c. Hamas must consent to Israeli control of all borders into the strip including the Philadelphi corridor.

d. Hamas must make immediate arrangements to receive electrical and fuel services from Egypt through the town of Rafah, so as to remove these responsibilities from Israel.

e. UNRWA must end all of its activities in the Gaza Strip. Refugees in the area must be handled by the UNHCR, according to its usual procedures.

If these five conditions are met, Israel can remove its forces to the border crossings, and allow approved shipments of necessary goods (food, household products, etc.), while preventing the import of weapons and missile components.

While this ceasefire is being contemplated, Israel must continue its efforts to topple Hamas and take full military control of the Gaza Strip.

More Upcoming Events

2009-01-07T11:48:00.000+02:00

Here's a list of up coming Yisrael Beytenu Events in English, for all of these events, please RSVP to hershtal@actcom.co.il if you intend to come, so that we have some idea of attendance numbers. Feel free to pass this information to friends.

January 12: Danny Hershtal in Givat Shmuel (near Bar Ilan) - 9pm at Keren Hayesod 11, apt #41.

January 20: Danny Ayalon in Beit Shemesh - 8pm at Nahal Shimshon 14, Ramat Beit Shemesh Alef

January 22: Uzi Landau, Danny Ayalon, Danny Hershtal and more at the Shalom Hotel in Jerusalem, Shacharai 24

We hope that everyone can make it to at least one event.
VOTE 'LAMED'!

Yisrael Beytenu Events in English

2008-12-30T21:12:00.002+02:00

Yisrael Beytenu will soon start holding events in English across the country.

On Sunday, January 11, at 8 pm, I will be speaking in Haifa at Nachshon 9, apt. 3 in Ahuza.

For more info, or for a lift to the event from the Krayot, please contact me at hershtal@actcom.co.il

More events to come...

Got Form?

2008-12-30T09:49:00.002+02:00

What's the hottest new file available for download on the web?

The Yisrael Beytenu Supporter Form, of course. You can find it yourself at:

http://www.geocities.com/hershtal/Form.doc

We are hoping to get as many of these forms as possible before election day as a show of support for our party and to organize our Get Out The Vote machine.

If you are planning to vote for Yisrael Beytenu, please fill out the form and e-mail it to hershtal@actcom.co.il . Also, please feel free to pas this on to your friends.

The form is non-binding, private and all fields are optional, though the more you fill out the better. We request that only Israelis who can leaglly vote complete the form.

If you want more information about why you should vote for Yisrael Beytenu, feel free to e-mail me at hershtal@actcom.co.il or check back for details about Yisrael Beytenu information meetings in your area.

Install the Rocket Warning System at the Nitzanim Base, NOW!

2008-12-24T23:37:00.001+02:00

I just heard that a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip has landed near the Nitzanim training base, located between Ashkelon and Ashdod.

I was shocked to hear that, even though an early warning system has already been installed in Ashdod, there is no warning system at the Nitzanim base. This base is used for training many new soldiers who have not yet seen any combat. Furthermore, there are very few fortified buildings on base, and the soldiers sleep in tents!

The IDF has already evacuated the base where I did my basic training - Zikim base - after more than 60 soldiers were injured in a rocket attack. Our government cannot be allowed to abandon our new soldiers this way. We must demand the installation of a Rocket Warning System at the Nitanim base immediately!Unfortunately, our government only responds to negative press coverage, so please pass this on to make it a press worthy issue.

Thank you,

Danny Hershtal
#22 in Yisrael Beytenu

אמתיתות

2008-12-23T22:39:00.004+02:00

Today is the memorial day of the death of Eliezer Ben Yehuda, a passionate Zionist who revived the spoken Hebrew language. In his honour, I have decided to make my own contribution to the Hebrew language.

In 2006 the Merriam-Webster Dictionary crowned as its word of the year the word Truthiness coined by Stephen Colbert. For two years, this dynamic Englishish word has not had a Hebrew parallel, despite the vast amounts of truthiness propounded by Israel's politicians. Until today.

אמתיתות (a-meet-tee-toot) can now be used to describe all sorts of punditry, taken as fact. Hopefully, from my position on Yisrael Beytenu's list I can become Israel's first
Minister of Truthiness - שר האמתיתות.

I'm on the List

2008-12-22T23:42:00.002+02:00

Thank you to all of my supporters. I have been placed 22nd on Yisrael Beytenu's list and I am pleased with that result.

The next step is for me to use this personal success to the betternment of the party and the country. I will warmly welcome opportunities to speak at parlour meetings across the country to explain Yisrael Beytenu's policies and goals for the 18th Knesset. I am asking you to help me organize a meeting in your neighborhood.

At larger meetings, I will be happy to bring along former ambassador Danny Ayalon, number 7 on the list. Ayalon is a first class diplomat who can outline Yisrael Beytenu's plan to raise Israel's diplomatic profile and how Israel must act to truly achieve international respect. He is also a fluent English Speaker.

If you'd like to organize a meeting, please message me or call me at 054-766-3230. I look forward to hearing from you.

Happy Hanukka,
Danny Hershtal

Good News, Bad News

2008-12-11T21:31:00.002+02:00

The Good News:

I was profiled in today's Jerusalem Post. The article can be seen here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1228728147330

The Bad News:

The article, in my opinion, was not written very well. The quotes in the article were gleaned from paragraphs of conversation and often quoted out of context. For instance:

The plan would strip any Israelis living in those areas of their citizenship, he said.

This statement was accurately not in quotation marks because it is not at all what I said. To clarify, the Lieberman Plan would require all Israelis, Jew and Arab, in all areas of the country to pledge allegiance to the country and commit to national or military service. This makes the plan equitable to all residents. Residents who would not make this commitment would be residents, but not citizens - so they could not vote or be elected to office.

Another non-quotation was:

In addition, Hershtal said, there needed to be a greater diversification of the economy in light of the current trend of monopolies on the markets.

What I actually said was that we need to continue the trend of BREAKING UP monopolies in order to diversify the market.

Most aggravating was the reporter's obsession with "overcrowding" in schools. I did mention that there are many teachers and parents who complain that classes are too large. I did not attribute this to Israel's four-track system - that was the reporter's own opinion!

The reporter also added the word fluctuating into this quote:

"I want to reverse the [fluctuating] trend in Israel's educational performance... by using a system which allows parents to choose the schools they want their children to go to."

Thankfully, the added word was put in brackets so as to indicate that it was not what I said. It was also not what I meant. Israel's educational performance is not fluctuating, it is sliding. I would also never describe a trend as fluctuating, since these two words are opposites.

Lastly, the reporter paraphrases me saying that overcrowding was not as serious an issue as teacher quality. I did say that, but it is not simply my opinion. I explictly told the reporter that this was proved in a 2007 report by McKinsey & Co., which you can read here:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/resources/pdf/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf
(see page 14 of the PDF, which is page 11 of the report)

The astonishing conclusion of the McKinsey report is that it is better for children to be herded into large classrooms if that means the students are exposed to only the highest quality teachers.

Back to the good news:

Despite these inaccuracies, the article was positive and showed that I have a range of opinions not solely related to Aliyah issues. I am a proponent of Anglo-Aliyah, but it will only be brought about by the general improvement of our country for all of its citizens.

Implications of the Likud List

2008-12-10T18:15:00.001+02:00

The Likud list, decided this week, has led to countless reactions from other parties and the press.

I have been asked if the fact that right-wing politicians populate the Likud list will impact negatively on Yisrael Beytenu and my opportunity to be elected. Am I upset by the success of Moshe Feiglin et al?

Absolutely not!

The 50,000 Likud members who voted in the primaries clearly showed that the political attitude in Israel has shifted to the right. Likud’s showing in the polls is not just from disgust with Kadima but from a genuine interest to return to our Nationalist Zionist values. A Nationalist Likud will invigorate the other Nationalist parties, as well.
With partners like Bennie Begin and Leah Ness Likud can be seen as a natural coalition partner for Yisrael Beytenu, and our Knesset list will be a compliment to Likud’s.

I look forward to working with loyal Zionists, such as those who have placed high on Likud’s list on any number of issues.

CORRECTION AND APOLOGY

2008-12-02T21:02:00.002+02:00

In my last post and in my recent Jerusalem Post article I mentioned that many Likud MKs who did not leave for Kadima had voted for the disengagement from Gaza during most of the Knesset votes on the subject. Erroneously, I included MK Erdan in this list. This error was pointed out to me by an astute Jerusalem Post reader, whom I thank.

MK Erdan did oppose the Gaza disengagement plan and I apologize deeply for besmirching his name among his party members who were not of like mind. I want to have a vigorous debate in this campaign, but most important is having a fair fight where the voters can decide based on facts.

Making the Right "Righter"

2008-12-01T21:44:00.002+02:00

Thi article was also published by the Jerusaelm Post and can be seen at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702377797&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Evelyn Gordon made an impassioned plea for all right-leaning voters to vote in the Likud primaries and vote for Likud in the general election in her article: "Civil Fights: Stop whining, start voting!" (Jerusalem Post, November 26).

This partisan piece was rife with inaccuracies and misinformation designed to benefit the Likud and its apparatchiks, not the right-leaning voters and certainly not the people of Israel.Gordon begins by stating a valid and notable complaint: right-leaning voters are upset with some of Likud's recent left-leaning additions and are dubious about Likud's intentions. People are also concerned that, should Likud win the election, it will partner with Kadima and return the conciliatory Livni back to the Foreign Ministry.

The claim that the Likud primaries will allay this concern is immaterial, since only registered Likud members can vote in the primaries and registration for Likud is now impossible. Also, Netanyahu has campaigned hard to promote his acquisitions, and primaries are often influenced by less-than-ideological issues (what party was Naomi Blumenthal part of?).

The claim that the primary results will affect Netanyahu's ability to lean left, imply that this is indeed his intention. It also disregards the fact that the government wields an inordinate amount of power over the Knesset, and can often push through legislation by buying off Knesset votes through promises of ministerial appointments and party advancements. In the run up to the destruction of Gush Katif, a Likud-led government not only overran its Knesset members, but even the will of its party members. If a Likud-led government can ignore the results of its own referendum, can any primary voter be sure that s/he can have any influence on the party machine? Gordon herself, admits to the weakness of the Knesset in her contention that it is actually the ministers who set the tone of the country. She adds a further untruth about primaries: that Netanyahu will have to appoint the primary leaders as ministers. Ehud Olmert rose to power from the Likud's fourth tier, simply by showing his willingness to tow Sharon's left-leaning line.

Gordon also plays to the sympathies of the "strategic voter" by claiming that the Likud leader is the only right-wing contender for the post of prime minister. If Netanyahu's rightist credentials are in question, this tautology is simply untrue. In the last elections, Yisrael Beytenu received only 116 fewer votes than Likud. Right-Wing voters have already asked for an alternative to Netanyahu and the Likud, which Yisrael Beytenu intends to provide. The only way for a true right-wing government to emerge is for voters to distance themselves from the continuing contradictory stances of Likud and to choose a new party to represent them.

Gordon lists a number of left-leaning moves committed by Likud leaders in recent years, finishing with the most heinous, the Gaza disengagement. She claims that the pro-withdrawal faction "left to become Kadima." This is misleading and factually untrue. If the pro-withdrawal faction can be defined as people who publicly voted for the disengagement and its supporting bills, then this faction's rolls include Limor Livnat, Silvan Shalom, Yuval Steinitz, Gideon Saar, Gilad Erdan and of course, Binyamin Netanyahu, who consistently supported the disengagement votes and only left the government when it was already a fait accomplit. The faction that was spat out of the Likud roster included those Knesset members who actually voted against the disengagement plan, and activists like Moshe Feiglin, who convinced Likud members to vote against the plan in the referendum, which was subsequently ignored.

Conversely, Yisrael Beytenu opposed the disengagement both in the Knesset and in the government, and Avigdor Lieberman allowed himself to be fired from his ministry in order to preserve his ideals. After the Second Lebanon War, Yisrael Beytenu entered the government to shore up the army and to pass a fiscally responsible budget. Despite being members of the government, Yisrael Beytenu consistently voted against Kadima's dangerous left-wing moves, and when our opposition to the Annapolis Conference could not prevent it, activists such as myself pressured our faction to leave the government. The party respected its conscience and the will of its voters and resigned. Yisrael Beytenu showed accountability to its voters and to its nationalist, right-wing ideals. That is true representative leadership. This is the reason that a true nationalist, Uzi Landau, joined Israel Beiteinu and abandoned the ideologically-ambiguous Likud.

Gordon is correct in a number of points: if the ruling party has many seats its coalition partners and their demands become less relevant. Also, she is correct in stating that another left-leaning government will be catastrophic for Israel. Even those with the shortest memories will recall that this was precisely the situation after the 2003 elections. Likud was given enough mandates to completely control the government and the result was the destruction of the Gaza and North Shomron towns. If Likud takes on Kadima and Labor as coalition partners, as Netanyahu intends, will the right-leaning voters see more appealing results? The only way to avoid catastrophe is to support a party with a clear set of ideals, which has shown responsibility to the right-leaning public, and which is poised to lead the nationalist camp.

The right's impotence has stemmed from its blind support of an ideologically-impotent party. So do as Gordon suggests: stop whining and start voting for Yisrael Beytenu.

Why Uzi Landau joined Yisrael Beytenu

2008-11-26T14:59:00.003+02:00

Uzi Landau is an idealogue who as also accomplished much in the government as a Likud Minister. One major accomplishment to recall was, as Minister of Internal security, he reopened the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site, to Jewish visitation. He was also principled enough to vote against the disengagement plan, for which he lost his ministry, and eventually his Knesset seat. His dedication to his ideals make Uzi Landau a national hero.

For your reading enjoyment, I have translated his statements made on officially joining Yisrael Beytenu. The original Hebrew can be read here: http://israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=512993&blogcode=10183449

Greetings friends and colleagues,

Today I am leaving the Likud which was my political home from the days of my youth, as a natural continuation of my membership in Beitar, the Herut movement and GaHaL. I have traversed this path with many of you, and our camp progressively grew. My loyalty was always to the idea. The movement and the party, as important as they were, were not as important as the idea. The party is simply a vehicle to advance an idea. To my dismay, in the past few years, too many people have used this vehicle in order to perpetuate alien ideas which do not coincide with the outlook of the Nationalist camp, and endanger the future of the Nation of Israel. Even after the vehicle was “repaired” through excising Kadima, which has no path and no ideology and is a paradigm of pure opportunism, there still remains in the Likud a gradual tendency of loss of identity, and it is not clear to me where the party is heading.

My deep feeling is that to serve the people of Israel as pest as possible, one has to take more definitive positions. To tell the public the truth. For instance, about the Golan, about the Jordan Valley, about the settlement enterprise, about dealing with the terrorism from Gaza at atime when, once again, rockets are exploding in Sderot. Immediately after these elections, Israel will be placed under tremendous diplomatic and political pressure. What will be required is a spirit of national honor, a definitive nationalist policy, steadfastness and tenacity. And we need now, quickly, to build the wall that will reinforce the Nationalist Camp, and through it, the State of Israel.

Yisrael Beytenu, the party which I am joining today, is the anchor of this camp. It is the wall. I disagree with some of the steps it has taken, but I do not forget for a moment that at the defining moments and events which influenced Israel, such as the “Roadmap” and the “Disengagement,” I found in Yisrael Beytenu’s representatives partners to my stance through there votes in the Knesset and the government more than with most of my colleagues in the Likud.

Before my eyes stands the defense of the Nationalist Camp and its success to lead the nation to a more secure future. I have no doubt in my heart that I can contribute to this more effectively from within Yisrael Beytenu.

I am not leaving my home. I am leaving the vehicle, to strengthen the home. The Nationalist Camp was and remains my home. I am confident that my true friends will understand this transition. Many will surely join with me. Israel requires a strong nationalist camp, which is its only hope for withstanding the challenges we will face.

I want to thank each and every one of you for the loyalty and support you have given me all along.

The Lord will give his nation Strength, the Lord will bless his nation with peace.

With all my heart,

Uzi Landau

Written by Uzi Landau at 11:44, November 17, 2008

Financial Planning

2008-11-20T21:57:00.002+02:00

Finance Minister Bar-On released a much-anticipated emergency plan yesterday. The details of the plan can be read here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404781598&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

As mentioned in the above article, virtually nobody is happy with this plan. Here are my viewpoints, which do not necessarily conform 100% with the views of other members of Yisrael Beytenu:

1. The plan to retrain hi-tech workers as teachers is unrealistic. If these people really want to choose teaching as a career, they will be welcomed with open arms by the Ministry of Education. If they are only doing this for a quick, small paycheck, well, we’ve all had teachers who just went through the motions. They are not the ones that most of us remember.

2. Infrastructure is all well and good, but it is often misdirected. If you need a road and can’t afford it, why is a recession a good time to take on extra expenses? If you don’t need the road, why pay people to pave it?

3. I agree that the treasury cannot make a “safety net” for the pensions and trust funds. If the managers of these funds did not explain the risks of investment, they are guilty of negligence. However, I assume that most people just didn’t listen. Financial investment is risky business. That’s the only way it works. If people wanted solid investments, they could keep their money under their pillows. If the government bails out risk takers, one of two things happen: managers take higher risks – they might win the lottery, worst comes to worse they’re bailed out. Or the market sees reduced risk and thus offers lower returns. That’s when people do put their money under their pillows and everybody loses.

Most importantly, all of this is extremely costly and Israel would need to take on a huge debt, which will cost much in foreign investments and control of monetary policy in the future.

Lastly, the headline of the day did not come from Roni Bar-On or from the Histadrut. Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer said "If we define the crisis as negative growth, then it won't be ten years and it won't even be two years," Fischer says. "In the second half of 2009 we will see positive growth in the U.S. They've stated dealing with the financial crisis very seriously, and now we'll see them dealing with the recession through fiscal policy." (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037215.html)

So all of this strange financial planning and wrangling and talk of the 21st century great depression may only last 14 months!

A little patience and financial prudence will allow all of us to ride this recession out much faster than the last one (2000-2003).

Let’s all keep clear heads and work on opening up our economy to encourage our entrepreneurs and talented workers to continue to make Israel a world-class economy in which Olim and native-born Israelis can live financially secure lives.

Why Separation of Powers is Important

2008-11-18T14:41:00.001+02:00

Peace House is a small apartment building at the edge of Hevron, close to the Jewish suburb of Kiryat Arba. During its construction, the former-owner of the property, an Arab, sold the building to a Jordanian Arab. It is not clear whether the original seller new this at the time, but the Jordanian was acting as an intermediary for an American Jewish family, which wanted to finish the apartments and rent them to young Jewish families.

At a certain point, this plan was revealed to the Arab residents of Hevron, who were not pleased. The Palestinian Authority has a law prohibiting selling Arab-owned real-estate to Jews under penalty of death. Often, before legal proceedings are even convened the defendants in such cases are lynched. Therefore, the seller, out of fear, tried to break off the sale but the Jewish owner refused to retract and instead told the renters to move in immediately. Sure enough, the seller claimed that he had not sold the building and that the Jewish families were squatters.

A civil case was instigated. Meanwhile organizations with political agendas pressured the government to expel the residents of Peace House chiefly because it is in Hevron, in Judea and is thus considered a “settlement.” At the tie of occupancy, settlement expansion was prohibited. When it was pointed out that this was a private real-estate purchase, the government sided with the seller claiming that the residents were squatters.

The residents brought a case against the government in the Supreme Court, who ruled this week that the government can expel the residents of Peace House before the civil suit against them is closed.

From a political perspective I support the Jewish community in Hevron, and I see no reason anyone can object to its legal acquisition of property. However, I am also aware that the left of the spectrum sees it differently and I am glad to hold a debate on this issue.

From a democractic perspective I am shocked over the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the government to expel the residents of Peace House in Hevron while its ownership is still being determined in legal proceedings. I have no illusions about the politics of most of our Supreme Court Justices but I cannot fathom a Supreme Court decision which over steps its bounds and allows the government to interfere in a civil legal matter.

The government has also overstepped it jurisdiction by arrogantly taken sides in a real-estate contracts case in which it has no legal standing. I call upon all of our colleagues, right and left, and all Members of Knesset who are concerned with the rule of law to object to the trampling of the centuries-old common law that ‘Possesion is nine-tenths of the law’ which in Jewish law is phrased as ‘The burden of proof lies on one who wishes to remove from the hands of another.’

Furthermore, every citizen who expects governance based on a separation of powers must condemn the interference of the executive authority in a judicial matter.

If the government feels the need to interfere in the matter, perhaps they should encourage the Palestinian leadership to abolish a ridiculous and cruel law which limits freedom of enterprise and makes real-estate transactions punishable by death. Were it not for the threat imposed by this law, the seller of the Peace House, would not have brought any claim.

On to the Issues

2008-11-13T10:14:00.002+02:00

The campaign is gearing up and I want to now focus on particular campaign issues.

The first topic I want to discuss is government reform, something YB has been advocating since 1999.

Anglophone Olim trace their roots to the most established democracies and may have a keen understanding as to what a government needs to be properly representative but also stable and effective.

One of the main government reforms I will be championing will be the "Norwegian Law" in which a Minister must resign from the Knesset so that the legislative and executive bodies are fully detached. In fact, I would like to make it impossible for the government to technically advance legislation. At the moment, government legislation gets debated in the cabinet first. It is often changed to appease coalition partners, but more often Ministers allow such legislation to pass in order to "cling to their seats." One example of this is the original law which declared Gaza a closed military zone in adavance of the Gaza Disengagement. Avigdor Lieberman was fired before he could vote against this, but other Likud Ministers and NRP Ministers passed the motion rather than openly defy Sharon.

If all Knesset laws are first proposed as "private member bills" and discussed first in Knesset committees, Knesset Members are more likely to speak their minds and use their individual judgment rather than simply tow the party line.

What are your opinions of these changes? What other laws could further help Israeli democracy and government effectiveness?

American Interlude

2008-11-05T14:05:00.004+02:00

This Article was also published on Israel National News at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8350

A few people have already asked me why I haven’t commented on the US elections yet. The short answer is that I don’t think it really matters.

Obama in the White House and Democratic majorities on both sides of the Capitol do matter to many people: to the American taxpayer, to worldwide investors, certainly to Iraqi citizens who are yearning to breathe free, or are yearning to see more spilled blood, and to many others.

However, I don’t think Obama’s victory should have any impact on Israeli policy per se. Does Obama understand what is really going here? I don’t know, but I wasn’t so sure about McCain, either. Yes, both candidates spouted the platitudes to Jewish leaders, to AACI, and to Protestant groups, but both candidates implied that, in the end, the basic State Department line would hold them to the same approach taken by the last three presidents.

It was folly for anyone in Israel to believe that George W. Bush or any American official could substitute his or her personal feelings toward Israel for Israel’s own conciliatory and self-abasing internal policies.

The prevalent Israeli opinion that appeasement is more important than reciprocal alliance; that recognition is more important than respect, is the attitude that drove Israel to the Oslo Accords, the Gaza Disengagement and to various other strategic blunders. November is the month to remember this crucial lesson. The month begins with the commemoration of the Balfour Declaration of Britain’s willingness to set up a Jewish homeland in the Palestine Mandate. The month concludes with the memorial for the UN General Assembly vote to partition the remnant of that mandate into Jewish and Arab States. Both these events condition Israel’s existence on international whim. And both, in the end were failures. The Balfour Declaration indeed inspired a huge wave of Aliyah but this only forced the British to curtail Jewish immigration to the Palestine Mandate significantly. The idea of a Jewish homeland faced the hard truth that most Jews would be kept out of it. UNGA Resolution 181 was completely stillborn. Arab refusal of the partition plan meant that the resolution would not be elevated to Security Council for ratification, and was, therefore, a useless piece of paper.

Israel’s independence came about by those who disregarded the British Mandate restrictions: Aliyah Bet, and the Palmach, and those who fought for independence regardless of international opinion: the Irgun and the Haganah.

Today, what Israel needs is not a sympathetic UN or a sympathetic American President. What Israel needs is confidence in its own right to exist. A right won through the strength and conviction of its settlers, its army and, if I may be so bold, its Rock and Redeemer.

I predict that as Israel’s campaign shifts into high gear, we will hear Israeli politicians, especially in the Labor Party, claim that a vote for the left will reduce the friction between Israel and America, with its leftist President. This is not the message we have to hear. Harvard professor Ruth Wisse, in her study Jews and Power, poignantly indicates that this mentality was the most beneficial for the Jews in exile, who were dependant on the grace of their sovereign to survive. However, Wisse points out that this is the most dangerous attitude for a Jewish State to exhibit if that State truly wants to remain independent.

I will say that alliances are important. There is no reason Israel should not forge strong ties with America and with Egypt. However, these ties must be built on reciprocity. On our allies treating us with the importance with which we treat them. That we not be seen as crickets in their eyes, and that we not seem as such in our own eyes. The opportunity to effect this change in attitude and direction will be presented to Israel on the coming 16th of Shevat – February 10, 2009. This will be the chance for Israelis to vote for a more confident foreign policy, and a confident step forward for our country.

Let us use this opportunity to create the country we feel we deserve, that we can shape in our image and of which we control the destiny. To quote a certain American politician, “We are the change that we’ve been waiting for.”

Getting Started

2008-11-02T00:42:00.001+02:00

We're getting started.

As many of you may know, all of the major party leaders have made statements top launch their National election campaigns. I have also started laying the groundwork for my primary campaign. Yisrael beitenu creates its list though an appointments committee, but this committee obviously pays attention to the electability of the candidates and their ability to draw voters to the party.

Therefore, my main task in beginning my campaign will be a registration drive for Yisrael Beitenu, particularly for Anglophone Israelis. To start, we have already set up a Facebook Group which can be seen and joined at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=41449204975

The next step will be to recruit volunteers at three levels:

1. Staff
2. Precinct Captains
3. Grassroots

Campaign Staff will be working very closely to me, the candidate. The Staff will be responsible for the operation of the registration drive and co-ordinating my public and/or media appearances. I will greatly appreciate and welcome to my staff anyone willing to volunteer significant time to my campaign.

I am also searching for Preceinct Captains. A Precinct Captain is a local volunteer in charge of generating support for the registration drive and for involving the grassroots activists. This job will require volunteers who are willing to talk about Yisrael Beitenu to their peers and neighbours and arrange local appearances for the candidate.

If you are short on time but would still like to be of invaluable assistance. We need grassroots activists to host small parlour meetings, pass on information about this blog and other campaign info and articles. Direct potential registrants to the presinct captain in their area and provide further ideas to get the word out.

If you or anyone you know is interested in taking on any of these volunteer positions, thank you!
Please contact me at Hershtal@actcom.co.il and know that, at this point, I am more than willing to sit down with anyone to clarify any of my positions and those of the party.

In the next few posts I will outlining some of Yisrael Beytenu's platform, focussing specifically on the points which will be most important to Anglophone Olim.

Send Kadima Home!

2008-10-30T00:16:00.002+02:00

Tonight, a few short hours after Yisrael Beytenu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman made headlines by calling out the one-sidedness of Israel’s “relationship” with Egypt, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced, on a Russian-language channel, that she would put a law before this Knesset to permit civil unions among those unable to marry legally in Israel. Here were my reactions:

(1) Yisrael Beytenu has promoted this issue for years and has even drafted a formulation for a civil partnership registry with the help of the National Religious Party. Livni made an offhand announcement with no co-ordination with those whose sensibilities may have been offended. We did the legwork and Livni is trying to take the glory.

(2) Oh yeah, and when Yisrael Beytenu presented this idea two years ago, Livni and Kadima voted against it.

(3) Livni’s very appearance on Channel 9 is proof that she is running scared of Lieberman. Kadima has 29 seats – an estimated 4 of which came from the Russian-speaking community. Livni is obviously afraid that Yisrael Beytenu will pick those seats up and knock Kadima down!

(4) The fact that a Minister can initiate legislation is a travesty of democracy in itself, in that it blurs the separation of powers which should exist between the executive and legislative branches of government. This is why Yisrael Beitenu will make government reform a major issue in the next Knesset, starting with a law that a Minister MUST resign his or her Knesset seat and leave legislative activity solely to the legislators. Only an independent Knesset can properly critique a wayward government.

(5) Livni is the FOREIGN Minister – why should she even be dealing with internal Israeli social issues. She is no longer the Prime-Minister-Designate and has no mandate over Israeli society. This is a blatant electoral ploy outside the scope of Livni’s position from a woman who promised us a “different” kind of politics!

(6) This Knesset will meet six more times before taking an extended election pause. The government is only a transitional government. Livni’s proposal of a new, society-changing law at this point is improper from a legal perspective, impossible from a political perspective and immoral from a democratic ethics perspective.

VOTERS: Send this self-serving woman and her egocentric party to the dustbin of history. And don’t risk voting for Likud who wants a “broad unity government” lest Tzipi Livni be returned to the Foreign Ministry, from which she may decide to propose laws for the Parks and Nature Reserves Authority, or worse, continue to kowtow to Egypt.

For information on joining Yisrael Beitenu and helping us improve Israel's democracy, write to me at Hershtal@actcom.co.il

Off to the Races

2008-10-29T19:19:00.001+02:00

Israel is at it again. Elections have now been scheduled for the 16th of Shevat - February 10. As I stated previously, I will be involved.
The election campaign will swing into high gear only on November 11, after the municipal elections and the Knesset goes into pre-election recess. Between now and then I will be working on building a viable Anglophone division of Yisrael Beytenu.

I will be working hard on getting English Speakers to join the party to help build this division, which, I believe, will become an important voting block in the next election.

If I can bring enough supporters into the Anglophone division, I will run for Knesset in order to advance an agenda of making Israel a more welcoming country for English speaking Olim, and better for all of the country, in general.
In the coming posts, I will be outlining my position on various issues. If you are interested in taking part in Yisrael Beytenu and in helping me reach the 18th Knesset, please e-mail me at Hershtal@actcom.co.il . All help is welcome.

1 Shevat, 5769

2008-10-25T22:59:00.002+02:00

The first day of the month of Shevat, 5769 - January 27, 2009

It seems that this will be the date of the elections for the 18th Knesset. I am looking forward to this election campaign because (1) It will hopefully give Israel the kind of government it has been longing for since mid-2006. (2) It will give me the chance to Blog more often and have some insider information to pass along to my readers. (3) It may lead me to and interesting places.

I have, for many months, awaited the collapse of the Kadima regime. Mostly, I have been hoping for this for the sake of the country of Israel, but I have also given some thought as to how best I can serve my country. I have been invited to repeat my role from last campaign as the English spokesperson for Yisrael Beytenu for the foreign media and to assist in encouraging English-speaking Israelis to vote for us. I have already told the campaign director (who did a fantastic job in 2006) that I will be happy to join if I can have a more managerial role and weigh in on general campaign decisions.

Another option I will have will be to attempt to run for the Knesset. To do so, I would have to get the support of a good number of friends and associates, willing to assist me in my campaign. I would probably need to bring people into the Yisrael Beytenu party to prove my electoral worth. An advantage that I would have is that I would not be competing for supporters with other members of the party. My main disadvantage is that my placement on the candidates list would still depend on a steering committee who would judge me by my lack of experience.

I willing to take advice from anyone who wishes to comment, or offer help. Whatever, I do, I feel optimistic that this election will indeed be pivotal one for Israel which may turn it toward a brighter future.

"My heart is unto the lawmakers of Israel, those who serve the people, be blessed by God." (Judges 5)

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown

2008-10-24T02:13:00.002+02:00

Recently, a co-worker said to me, “There will be two superpowers in the twenty first century: China and Google.” The conversation, in fact, revolved around “Chrome”, the new Google browser. I had earlier remarked that this was Google’s opening shot in its first battle against the Microsoft Empire. Clearly, my co-worker was making a joke in comparing Google to China, but the underlying assumption of this joke was that China’s ascendancy to superpower status was inevitable.

For a while, many have looked at China’s impressive yearly economic growth and made this same conclusion. America’s current financial woes have only further promoted the theory that the USA must now hand over its superpower crown to The People’s Republic. However, there is one large group of people who severely doubt that China’s economic growth and importance will continue – the people of China.

The people of China have a keen intuition about China’s problem because the people are the problem. In my previous post, I titled Russia as “No Country for Old Men.” But China’s demographic problem is the polar opposite. It is “No Country for Young Girls.”

Since China’s “One Child Policy” was enacted in 1978 not so many Chinese have actually followed it. Rural Chinese, especially Tibetans far from Beijing’s authority, skirted the law in any number of ways. Meanwhile, those living in China’s gargantuan cities failed to live up to the law, they had hardly any children at all. And the children that were born were predominantly boys.

China is an overcrowded country, which is why the original One Child law was enacted, but China has used its manpower to its advantage. Right now, there are an estimated 109,000,000 Chinese people employed in the manufacturing industry (see http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf) - nearly a tenth of the total population. Manufacturing is a people heavy industry and the lack of people in the upcoming generation is sure to cause havoc. There are already reports of manufacturing wages rising, as factories have to search harder for employees (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/business/chilabor.php). This is a good thing for Chinese workers in the short term, but if the increase in wages and benefits leads to a rise in manufacturing costs, the manufacturing contracts will dry up faster than China’s environmentally devastated rivers. The lack of future employees is most pronounced in the cities, where most of the jobs are located. The fertility rate in Chinese cities is a crippling 0.86 (see http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/1969.1/3892/1/etd-tamu-2005A-SOCI-Terrell.pdf). That means the average woman has only 0.86 children or that in a neighborhood of 100 families there will only be 86 kids. Compare this to Israel where an average neighborhood of 100 families has almost 280 kids, enough to justify a school. The Xiangyang district has a fertility rate of only 0.41, meaning that more than half the women in the district are childless! This is the not just the countrywide low, but it is the lowest fertility rate anywhere, ever recorded!

The rural birthrate of close to 1.5 is still below replacement level, but is considerably better. So won’t the rural people just flow to the cities to keep the factories running? It seems not.

In thirst for workers, factories are being moved out to rural districts, exposing China’s last bastion of childbirth to the cities’ conditions. Furthermore, the education and wealth gap between the urbanites and the rural dwellers that increaesed both through Communism and Liberalization has made the rural people technologically retarted. Manufacturing is often thought of as an unskilled job, but 25.6% of Chinese exports to the USA are in fact advanced technology products, requiring semi-skilled technicians on the manufacturing line and industrial engineers as supervisors (see http://censtats.census.gov/sitc/sitc.shtml).

So China is shrinking, so what? Even at half its size, China will still have almost 700 million citizens, and a large enough workforce to power a serious economy. However, the population shrinkage is occurring most rapidly in the sectors of the population most attuned to modern life. The main industry, manufacturing, is undergoing changes that will make it less desirable (harder to find skilled workers, higher production costs) at the same time that a worlwide recession is decreasing the overall demand for consumer products.

Also, China’s One Child Policy had further consequences as to who was actually born. Traditional Chinese families (the kind of family that made China have the largest population in the world) wanted their one child to be of male persuasion, for traditional reasons and to carry on the family name. This led to sex-selective abortion and even infanticide to ensure that a government approved child would be a boy. The youth of China are estimated to have a 1.11 male/female ratio, or 111 boys to every 100 girls. In some districts, the ratio gets as high as 1.28. Overall, close to 100,000,000 (ONE HUNDRED MILLION) young men will have trouble finding a local bride. Wife-hunting may be one of the reasons that more than 3 million emmigrants are expected to abandon China in the coming decade (see http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf). Virtually all of the emigrants are expected to be between the ages of 20 and 35.

Therefore, China is aging rapidly. Unlike Russia, the Chinese men do make it to retirement age and well beyond. A friend of mine mentioned that the authoritarian dictators who run the place are unlikely to be overly sympathetic and grant unsustainable pension entitlements. However, China is still largely a traditional society and many of their most important traditions involve care and reverence for the elderly. Despite our Fifth Commandment, it is difficult for most non-Orientals to really comprehend the central role that the elderly play in Chinese society, and the sacrifice required to honor them. As an example (from the non-fiction book Stiff by Mary Roach), a Chinese daughter-in-law was expected to cut off flesh from her breast or thigh and cook and feed it to an ailing mother or father-in-law. This extreme example is no longer practiced, but it illustrates the degree to which the Confuscian view differs from our own. Even without a tax burden for senior welfare benefits, much energy and resources will be invested in caring for the Chinese elderly, as fewer and fewer young people exist. Those that buck ancient traditions and abandon their ailing parents and grandparents are those youths most likely to emmigrate, not to stick around to amass a Chinese fortune.

In the very near future, China will feel the effects of the above trends. The Chinese themselves know this, but it is too late. A remarkably honest report from the Chinese Embassy in Washington, summarizes the issue neatly:

“After years of decline, China's birth rate is now equivalent to that of other
emerging East Asian economies. The low birth rate in the country is mainly a
result of the family planning policy initiated in the late 1970s. Some scholars
have estimated China will see zero growth in young labourers in 2015. Some have
also projected that by 2030, 20 per cent of China's population will be over
60-years-old, compared to 8 per cent now, and the number of pensioners will be
more than 40 per cent of the number of working people. The ageing process
and the slowdown in labour supply will combine to limit room for China's future
growth.”

(from http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t169398.htm)
Please note that the Chinese foreign Ministry is itself predicting an economic slowdown by 2015 – less than seven years from now. Time will soon tell if even this is an overly optimistic forecast.

One last but not least significant result of China’s demographic decline will be its loss of first place in world population statistics. Will foreign capital start shifting from China to India, when India grabs top spot circa 2020? I would guess yes. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE OF BEING NUMBER ONE, EVEN IN A TRIVIAL FIELD LIKE TOTAL NATIONAL POPULATION, HAS PROFOUND EFFECTS. Ask any executive at Pepsi about the challenges they have to overcome from being seen as the world’s number two beverage. Being the “second largest nation” will also have a psychological effect in the diplomatic field and I wouldn’t be surprised if it even cost China its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

In summary, China’s demographic decline will, in the very near future, arrest its economic growth and world standing. It is unlikely to make gains on the USA, Japan or Europe in the short growth-period that remains, and it will likely feel harsher effects from the current economic downturn than it chief rivals. In short, China will not be a superpower in the twenty first century.

No Country for Old men

2008-10-06T23:11:00.002+02:00

Something I have wanted to say for a long while is encapsulated beautifully in this Jerusalem Post article by Murray Feshbach:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017467718&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To summarize, pundits have greatly overestimated Russia’s power in worrying about its resurgence as an international power. In truth, as Feshbach points out, Russia is merely lashing out in its death throes. Putin’s attempt to leave a legacy as either a savior or a tyrant, is to prevent being remembered as the last of a long line of Strong Russian leaders to completely wreck their country. Putin, who will soon celebrate his 56th birthday is fast approaching the average Russian male death age of 59. In those next three short years, Russia may seriously endanger the world as it begins to implode. Russia has a negative growth rate. There are more deaths in an average year than births. The deaths come, in a large part from disease, which is the main focus of Feshbach’s article, and he touches on the low birthrate, mentioning that in the last few years, it has risen slightly. However, that is bad news for the Russians.

The only explanation for a rising birthrate in a dying country is that the sterile majority has all but died off, leaving only the fertile to prop up the statistics. And who are the fertile in Russia? The Muslims. In truth, Russian Muslims were never all that Islamic. Former Soviet states like Uzbekistan and Azerbijan are the least extreme majority Muslim countries, and major allies in the war on terror. Inside Russia, Chechnya was also a relatively moderate province, which had only a nationalist beef with the Kremlin. However, not long after they started taking money and support for their civil war from Al-Qaeda, the conflict took on a much more religious character. Osama bin-Laden is no dummy. He sends his best imams to deliver his cheques, and throws in a little extra to build a mosque for that imam to preach in. The Islamism in Chechnya inspired the more radical actions such as the Beslan school massacre and Chechen sympathizers in Dagestan and other Muslim enclaves of Russia immediately hooked onto the religious aspects of the war and Islamism has started to spread.

Meanwhile, ethnic-Russian Russia is suffering from a disease more deadly than those mentioned in the Jpost article – Societal Malaise. Russia’s suicide rate is the inverse of its birthrate – a birthrate depleted in the most grizzly way, with more abortions occurring than live births. Besides the high suicide rate (almost 40 declared suicides per 100,000 people), many of the diseases studied by Feshbach such as AIDS and alcohol-induced cirrhosis, are completely preventable, especially in a country famed for its science education.
Russia is willingly commiting mass suicide and the only threat it poses to the world is what it might try to grab on it way down.

In my next post, I'll debunk another "truism" taken for granted - that China will rival America's economic power, or die trying.

Terrorists and Militants

2008-09-23T00:15:00.002+03:00

Those of us who have worked in Israeli Hasbara (public relations) often cringe when foreign media (and some of our own) refer to terrorists as "militants." “Terrorist” has a universally negative connotation of someone who harms indiscriminately in order to advance a political cause through fear. This is clearly what the Arab terrorists in Israel have repeatedly done. They have used violent tactics against average Israelis to pressure Israel's government into offering more concessions. On the other hand, the word "militant" has more of a positive connotation of someone using violence in fighting for a cause. This word is intentionally used by Israel's detractors to connote a moral equivalence between the homicide bomber and his innocent victims.

In my own Hasbara efforts, I have tried to avoid using the term "terrorist" because it is usually redacted automatically by press agencies like Reuters and AFP to the less charged and less accurate term of militant. It was for this reason that I used the more descriptive term "homicide bomber" in 2001, and eventually had the term adopted by President Bush and his spokespeople.

However, the mainstream media is sometimes willing to use the word “terrorist”, ironically, in a situation where “militant” may be the more appropriate term.

The bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan killed dozens of people and was roundly condemned as a despicable act of terrorism – by the USA, by the EU and even by Iran. The media took up the terminology of terrorism in this case to make it seem as if there is some group using random acts of violence to disrupt Pakistani life. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The perpetrators of this attack were not seeking revenge against Pakistan’s government and they were not protesting Pakistan’s help in America’s military exploits in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have been fighting a civil war for control of the country, and week after week they come closer to achieving their goal.

From a casual glance, the hotel bombing looks like classic terrorism. A high profile target, mainly innocents killed, and an unconventional method of attack. However, the difference lies in the motivation. For example: the September 11 attacks on the USA were devastating in terms of loss of life but no one in Al-Qaeda really assumed that they would allow Osama Bin Laden to conquer America and convert everyone to Islam. Similarly, terrorist attacks in Israel are not meant to actually destroy the Zionist State. However, the ever-increasing violence in Pakistan is “militant” in nature. Islamists (be it Al-Qaeda, the TTP or any other amorphous Islamist group) have been creating disturbances in Pakistan in slowly encroaching circles around the capital. This attack, in the heart of downtown Islamabad will cause Pakistan to reign in its army from outlying provinces to protect its major centers of power. In the coming weeks, I suspect we will see greater autonomy in Pakistan’s FATAs (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and attempts to expand their boundaries. An additional bonus will be achieved if, after the Pakistani Army redeploys, more rural Pakistanis see the conflict as one between devout Muslims and the US army. This will bring the Islamists further recruitment and support.

Terrorism is often used as a tool in an ideological war, but the ongoing Islamist rebellion in Pakistan must be seen as a traditional war, meant to replace the current regime and conquer the territory. The unconventional means used, such as truck bombs only attest to the Islamist realization that they cannot take on the Pakistani army on an open battlefield. However, the successes that Islamist soldiers have had so far may indeed shift that balance in the very near future.

If Pakistan becomes an Islamic State, Sunni Islamists may control a nuclear bomb even before the Shiites in Iran are able to. Pakistan’s extremists have never been as obsessed with Israel as are Iran’s current leaders. However, if an Islamist, Taliban like group were to take over a large country like Pakistan, Islamists worldwide would be energized and a possible export of the revolution could spread to other Westernized Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Yemen.

Also, the nuclear umbrella of an Islamist Pakistan would support increasingly bold terrorist activities against India and Israel and would no doubt accelerate the nuclear development in Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia, as well. In short, a worldwide disaster will ensue if Pakistan falls to Islamist rule.

Meanwhile, the story is buried by leftists who don’t want America fighting a wider foreign war, and by rightists who are ashamed to admit to the resurgent strength of Islamism, despite America’s efforts against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Governments avoid any mention of this potential for global calamity by covering the Islamic revolution in Pakistan as if it is a series of discrete incidents: an internal problem for Pakistanis to sort out for themselves.

The other, more frightening reason that the violence in Pakistan is not seen as a civil war may be that the Western powers have still not adjusted their thinking to twenty-first century warfare. Today, billions of dollars can be poured into hi-tech military machinery and Special Ops training. However, the Islamist enemy has identified that by following the rules of Brazilian terrorist, Marighella, every “little warrior” or “guerilla” becomes the equivalent of a Delta Ranger. If today’s superpowers can’t spot a war when they see one, and adjust their tactics to the new reality, then there is little chance that the forces of freedom will be able to triumph.

At the moment there is only one force tipping the balance in favor of a Westernized Pakistan – the United States Army. The US has been stepping up activity in the FATAs and making important captures and kills. However, as the Pakistani army recedes and the US army advances, the extremists gain support from the local population who see aggressive US military behavior as an invasion of their country, and they see the Islamists as their defenders. Recently, calls have been made from within the US government to hold back the army in order to allow Pakistan’s new, fragile government to gain the people’s confidence. This is a big mistake. As in Israel, Islamic extremists only understand the use of force. Propping up “moderates” is only seen as weakness.

Whether it is militants in Waziristan or terrorists in Gaza, enemies must be confronted ruthlessly for the sake of our civilians and for the sake of the entire world.

This article also appears on Israel National News here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8265

Democracy In Action?

2008-09-22T01:04:00.002+03:00

Ehud Olmert has now resigned and, as the law dictates, this automatically disbands the cabinet. The task of forming a new government will be placed on Tzipi Livni after her narrow win in last week's Kadima primary vote.

I have heard many grumblings about the fact that Livni was essentially elected to be Prime Minister-Designate by only 0.54% of the country. People complained that since only 40,000 Kadima members participated in a primary that effectively appointed the county's next leader, the process was thoroughly undemocratic.

However, the entire notion of succession of an elected leader is problematic. Is Israel in really in such bad company?

In 2003, Canada, a country of some 32 million people, changed Prime Ministers. After PM Chretien resigned, Liberal party delgates voted for Paul Martin to replace him as Prime Minister. Martin was essentially elected by 3,242 delegates, or 0.01% of Canada's population.

In 2007, the Prime Minister of the United kingdom, Tony Blair resigned. An ensuing primary took place among the Labour Caucus - Members of the current Parliament. Gordon Brown was then appointed by the Queen based on 313 nominations, or 0.0005% of the UK's population.

Of course, the two examples above were based on long-serving Prime Ministers resigning; to bring renewed energies to their parties. One could say that, in such cases, the leading party may still justify continuing its leadership. In Israel's case, an enormously unpopular leader was forced to resign from office due to public outcry and legal scandals. His ruling party was equally unpopular.

One might want to be proud that Israeli democracy can unseat an unpopular leader through public pressure, even if that pressure took more than a year and a half to ripen.

The USA also had a scandal-ridden and unpopular leader who fended off resignation calls for more than a year. Richard Nixon made the Republican party extremely unpopular, but he was replaced immediately on resignation by Gerald Ford - total votes for Ford - ZERO.

Furthermore, Americans had voted for Nixon directly by name in 1972. Ford was not asked to be President or Vice President by the electorate. On the other hand, Olmert only became Prime Minister by virtue of Israelis voting for the Kadima party. Theoretically, one could say that whomever that party appoints as its leader has a democratic right to be PM.

To call Israel's succession procedure undemocratic is to badmouth the procedures in Canada, Britain and the USA. While I am not a fan of Livni's policies or platforms, and I am anxious for Yisrael Beytenu to have the chance to grow and gain more power, I will not say that Livni has no right to be Prime Minister.

I am a big proponent of electoral and government reform in israel, but it's process of succession is sufficiently democratic.

Googling to the Knesset

2008-09-01T10:14:00.002+03:00

As the Israeli political scene heats up, so does my blog!

Since August 27, electme.blogspot.com has been in the top ten Google search results for "18th Knesset", "Knesset 2009" and "Knesset elections."

As expected this has caused a huge bump in hits on my blog (200% increase from the first half of August) and hopefully it also indicates a renewed interest in the upcoming elections which will offset the low voter turnout for the 2006 elections.

While I will obviously encourage voters to choose Yisrael Beytenu, I am happy to see any party bring in new voters and renewed interest in determining the future of the country. It is obvious that democracy works best when the public is interested and well informed about the issues.
I suppose that this means that I should take the hint from the electorate and become more active in blogging as we approach the end of the Olmert era and move on to (hopefully) better horizons.

Stay tuned...

My Letter to President Shimon Peres (translated)

2008-07-31T16:41:00.001+03:00

To his Honor, The President Shimon Peres:

Dear Mr. President,

Recently, as you are well aware, our Prime Minister has stated his intention to resign following the election of a new leader of the Kadima Party. According to law, the candidate chosen to lead Kadima will then need to ask your permission to form a government, set about coalition negotiations and create a new government, which, due to the fractured nature of the current Knesset, is unlikely to survive the deadline imposed by the failure to pass a budget (as stated in the Basic Law: The Knesset).

While our law clearly stipulates that there cannot be a power-vacuum during this transitory phase, you know as well as I do, that this is a legal fiction. The Prime Minister lost his mandate the moment he set a date for his resignation. In this day and age it is intolerable for Israel to be without effective leadership, supported by the people.

Therefore, I ask you, Mr. President, to invite the various Knesset faction leaders to a meeting at the Presidential Residence and ask them to agree on a date for General Elections for the 18th Knesset. When an agreement is reached, Mr. Olmert can then ask you to dissolve the Knesset immediately, as described in the Basic Law: The Government. The election date I would suggest is 20 Heshvan 5769, 18 November 2008.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I will mention that I am an activist for the Yisrael Beytenu Party. I am in disagreement with the policies of the current government, and, in truth, in disagreement with most of the policies Your Honor has pursued throughout his career. However, I have always had great respect for your dedication to your principles and because all of your decisions were done solely for the glory of the State of Israel.

That is why I ask you now to look past all partisan politics and continue to use your authority for the betterment of the State of Israel. The date I mention above allows enough time for Kadima and other parties to elect leaders and run a fast, but proper campaign. Election broadcasts would begin immediately after the holiday of Shmini Atzeret, and the elction would be held, as is traditional, on the third Tuesday in Heshvan. With the agreement of the Interior Minister, local elections can be postponed until January.

I appeal to your sense of fairness and your stature in Israeli politics and Israeli society to encourage the factions to agree to General Elections on 20 Heshvan 5769, 18 November 2008.

Yours truly,

Daniel Hershtal
hershtal@actcom.co.il
054-766-3230

IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN!

2008-07-30T19:07:00.002+03:00

Ehud Olmert will soon announce that he will not participate in Kadima's primaries, meaning he is now a political lame duck.

Is this the political end of Ehud Olmert? Maybe not. In Israel politicians have a way of resurrecting their careers. However, Olmert's ability from now until he is officially replaced will be severly hampered. The big winners tonight are Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, the ministers who will now have sway in the cabinet meetings. Look for Livni to start buttering up the Shas leaders in order to secure the possibility of forming a coalition, should she win the party leadership in September. All in all...not great news, but the end of Olmert's leadership will hopefully cause a new push for fresh knesset elections, so the country can get back on the right path.

It starts tonight at 8pm IDT.

Our Polygraphs, our Lies

2008-07-27T17:56:00.002+03:00

This post was also published on Israel National News here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8140

This week, Knesset Members lashed out against Channel 2’s new hit game show, “The Polygraph.” While at the same time, our Attorney General decided to limit the use of the polygraph at his disposal.

Channel 2’s new show, hosted by ex-news anchor Gadi Sukenik has contestants answer a series of questions while hooked up to a polygraph lie-detector. The contestants can advance through the rounds, earning more money, by answering the questions truthfully. In the meantime, the contestants’ families and friends watch in the audience. The show and its producers have been heavily criticized for the unabashed questions they pose to the contestants, mostly dealing with extremely intimate details of their sexual fidelity. In an interview on Army radio Sukenik, the show’s host, bragged that results of pre-recorded shows have already caused the breakup of families. Even the commercials for the show, which was hyped heavily across the network, featured some of the most suggestive questions. One schoolteacher garnered 400 signatures on a petition, which convinced Channel 2 to cancel the commercials during the daytime when children may be watching TV. The network also agreed to air the show at a later time slot. However, Knesset Members called the show’s star and producer to a Knesset meeting where they were encouraged to have some shame and censor themselves. Sukenik retorted that, while some people found the show abrasive, the ratings for the show were high and many people have already contacted the producers to become contestants. He said he’d keep on polygraphing as long as the show was a success.

However, one person who did put away his polygraph last week was Attorney General Meni Mazuz. Over the last number of days, complete sections of the police investigation of Prime Minister Olmert have been published in Israel’s major newspapers, including transcripts of police interviews of witnesses and suspects. This unprecedented interference with an ongoing investigation prompted Olmert’s lawyers as well as members of the prosecution to call for an investigation to find the sources of the leaks. At first, Attorney General Mazuz threatened to force every person who had access to the material to submit to a polygraph test to see who among the police, prosecution or defense team provided the transcripts to the press. However, after Olmert’s lawyers submitted their list of 26 people and expressed their willingness to undergo the polygraph, Mazuz decided that there were too many people with access to the transcripts to make an effective investigation and the issue was closed.

Immediately, recriminations came from both sides of the political spectrum; with Olmert supporters (both of them) saying that closing the investigation into the leaks proved that it was the police who did it to smear Olmert, while Olmert detractors said that this proved that Mazuz was going easy on Olmert to maintain him as PM. Clearly, the people feel that the Attorney General can not be an objective interlocutor between his boss, the Prime Minister and his representative, the chief prosecutor. However, most Israelis still want these leaks investigated, with good reason. It is normal for journalists to get tips and leads from sources in the know, but to have documents from a police investigation handed over to a reporter shows a willful interference to police procedure.

By now, I’m sure you’ll have guessed my solution to this problem – to name a third party to conduct the investigation into these leaks, namely, Gadi Sukenik. I’m told he has a polygraph ready for use on short notice. Sukenik can clearly be trusted to be objective, as long as the ratings are remain high.

Since all details of an investigation about leaks would obviously get leaked to the press immediately, why not cut out those greedy newspapers and take the investigation directly to the public via Channel 2 television?

Would this be a farce? Perhaps. But no more of a farce than the current proceedings against the Prime Minister and the ongoing pre-indictment testimony of Morris Talansky. In the English media this was often referred to as a “deposition” but this is not an adequate translation. What the prosecution requested was full-blown witness testimony in a courtroom setting which could then be added automatically to the official trial record, should a trial involving the suspects, Prime Minsiter Olmert and his office manager, Shula Zaken, ever occur. While a deposition is used to set the groundwork for a trial and allow both sides to hear the witnesses version of events, this was to be an official part of the possible trial of a sitting Prime Minister and a woman who had essentially been managing the Prime Minister’s office (until she had been suspended for her role in a separate scandal at the Finance Ministry). While deposing witnesses is rather routine, I cannot adequately stress how odd a legal procedure this was.
My suspicion is that this early testimony had much more to do with appearances than with content. Talansky, as has been pointed out during cross-examination, has done some less than immaculate money transfers between various bank accounts. His nickname in Shula Zaken’s diary – the laundryman – seems a bit on the nose. I would guess that the American Internal Revenue Service considers Talansky a “Person of Interest” and could probably process him in short order. However, I suspect that there was a deal between the Israeli Justice Ministry and the U.S. Treasury Department that Israel could use Talansky first, so that his eventual trial testimony would not have to be broadcast via closed circuit television from a federal prison. No prosecutor, especially one prosecuting a sitting official, wants a lead witness testifying from prison in an orange jumpsuit. The Treasury Department seemed to agree to this on one condition, that they speed things up to get Talansky’s testimony over with quickly, so that the IRS could pounce.

As I said, this is merely conjecture, but, if this is so, it is only one example of how this whole case has been played out in the court of public opinion more than in the court of justice, with the leaked interrogation transcripts being a paradigm example.

While I have no doubt that Olmert is corrupt, and a belief that unpopular leaders should be unseated by public pressure, I am upset that legal issues are not confined to the courtroom. I am also shocked at the perversion of justice of essentially initiating a trial – since Talansky’s testimony is for the trial record – without identifying the crime for which the defendants are accused! Pre-indictment testimony has been used before in cases where all involved were relatively clear about the nature of the crime that was suspected. However, to this date, no charge has been leveled officially by the police or prosecution against Olmert! The crimes of breach of public trust, bribery, illegal campaign funding, and tax-evasion have all been raised as possibilities, but each of these requires a distinct and separate defense. It would seem that a very basic right of justice has been denied to our Prime Minister as Olmert has been put on trial without being told why. While Olmert may feel like Joseph K., the hero of Kafka’s “The Trial, his lawyers have shown that they can give as hard as they get. Olmert’s publicist, Amir Dan, as well as his legal team have pulled no punches in insulting Talansky, the police, the prosecution and the Attorney General in the most public of forums. This circus has at least two rings.

If this is the level to which Israeli Justice has descended, I see no reason it can’t be put on full display for all to see. While I consider “The Polygraph” a vile and offensive show, if Prime Minister Olmert, his legal team and Lead Prosecutor Moshe Lador and his associates were all to appear on an upcoming episode of “The Polygraph”, I may even be tempted to watch.

Trial Analysis

2008-07-27T17:55:00.001+03:00

While I am not a legal scholar, I am fascinated with details of Olmert’s trial both because of the implications it will have on Israeli political culture and because of the interesting legal and PR tactics being used by both the prosecution and the defense attorneys in this case. However, I find that while the media has often quoted lengthy sections of testimony and investigation of both Olmert and Talansky, they seem to be unable to see the wider scope of the material they quoted and their conclusions seem to be tainted by the interpretations of the attorneys involved. Therefore, I’d like to analyze this case from a macro-perspective and perhaps arrive at some insight as to where the prosecution and defense teams want to lead the investigation.

To begin, lets have a short review of history. On MAY 01 the media reported that Ehud Olmert would be questioned under caution (for American readers, this is equivalent to being “mirandized” before a police interview – it indicates that the police suspect the interviewee of a crime). As soon as this story broke, the police imposed a media gag order on the entire investigation and implied that the original reports had been illegal and interfered with a police investigation. As soon as the gag order was imposed, leaks started springing from all sides. On MAY 06, the New York Post ran a cover story about Morris Talansky’s involvement Olmert’s case. By MAY 08, an Israeli judge partially lifted the police gag order and the media then poured forth the torrents of leaked material they had received. It was at this point, that Olmert was forced to reply publicly to the charges which were being leveled against him in the media (N.B.: to this date no charge has been leveled officially by the police or prosecution! The crimes of breach of public trust, bribery, illegal campaign funding, and tax-evasion have all been raised as possibilities through anonymous sources). In Olmert’s official response, he claimed that he had received money from Talansky as legal campaign contributions. He also mentioned, off hand, that his associate, Uri Messer, had been responsible for managing his campaign funds and recording the contributions according to Election Commission guidelines. Olmert mentioned that he had not taken one Agora from Talansky for personal use.

The media leaks had revealed that two other people, besides Talansky and Olmert had been questioned in this case. Shula Zaken, Olmert’s office manager throughout his political career, had also been, reportedly, questioned under caution. According to the anonymous sources, she had maintained her right to remain silent and, literally, stared at policemen for four straight hours as they tried to interrogate her. Uri Messer, Olmert’s former legal partner and sometimes campaign manager had also, reportedly, been questioned and had, reportedly, co-operated with the police.

On MAY 11, the State Prosecutor’s office made its first official acknowledgement that Olmert and Zaken were under investigation without citing a particular crime. This statement was made in context of an abnormal request to the Jerusalem District Court to collect pre-indictment testimony from Morris Talansky as soon as possible. In the English media this was often referred to as a “deposition” but this is not an adequate translation. What the prosecution requested was full-blown witness testimony in a courtroom setting which could then be added automatically to the official trial record, should a trial involving the suspects ever occur. While a deposition is used to set the groundwork for a trial and allow both sides to hear the witnesses version of events, this was to be an official part of the possible trial of a sitting Prime Minister and a woman who had essentially been managing the Prime Minister’s office (until she had been suspended for her role in a separate scandal at the Finance Ministry). While deposing witnesses is rather routine, I cannot adequately stress how odd a legal request this was. Furthermore, in making the request to the court the prosecution publicly claimed that the reason Talansky had to testify at a trial for which no indictment or charge had yet been presented was that his life was in danger and he might not be available later to testify.

Amazingly, the claim was accepted and Talansky testified on May 27 and 28. The cross examination took place on July 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22. It will continue, as scheduled for two more days at the end of August.

In a future post, we will examine Talansky's testimony in detail. I may also add a post about the political occurremces spurred by this trial as well.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

2008-07-20T14:53:00.001+03:00

Last week, Yisrael Beytenu’s Chairman, Avigdor Lieberman, spoke to gathering of supporters in Haifa. The get together was originally meant to launch the party’s municipal election campaign but Lieberman’s speech mainly focused on national issues. I was glad to hear him state that government reform would be one of the major issues we would focus on in the next election. As I said in my last post, constituent elections will not necessarily reduce corruption in government but one change that will help to some extent is a clearer separation of powers. I qualify this with “to some extent” because corrupt individuals always exist and bad people will always try to find a way to subvert good laws. However, by turning the Knesset into a separate body from the government, a greater amount of supervision can be placed on government actions.

To return you to civics classes for a moment, I will briefly explain the ideal roles of government and Parliament/Congress/Knesset. In all modern democracies, two branches (at least) of government exist – A legislative and an executive branch. The purpose of the legislative branch is to decide on laws. The purpose of the executive branch is to put those laws into practice as they best see fit.

Currently, all but two of the government ministries are headed by members of parliament. In other words, the executive branch is staffed at the highest levels with key members of the legislature. This means that the Knesset cannot adequately monitor the execution of its laws without treading on the government. In many democracies, Canada and Britain for example, there is a similar situation in which ministers are also voting members of parliament. However, in these countries, only a small percentage of the legislature has executive power. In Israel, due to the need for coalition governments and rewards for supporters, Israel’s executives occupy more than a quarter of the Knesset. If a law were to be enacted in which the ministers had to resign their Knesset seats this would allow some new faces to join the Knesset. If a PM were allowed to appoint a cabinet of non-elected officials (as is done in the United States) requiring Knesset approval, the executive branch would become more beholden to the legislative branch and greater legislative scrutiny could lead to a less corrupt system. Knesset members of various committees would be freer to criticize the government without putting their own bills into jeopardy. Creating this balance of power between Knesset and ministries will allow for more finger pointing between the two competing branches, when corruption is suspected. Of course, it will still be the job of the media and law enforcement to publicize and stop corrupt activity but any counterweight to the current system will certainly help.

Is the System the Problem?

2008-06-17T15:14:00.002+03:00

Is the System the Problem?

As we approach elections for the 18th Knesset, government and election reform is becoming a serious campaign issue.

Israel’s electoral system has always been controversial, but especially at the end of a Knesset with so many corruption scandals, that seems to be closing based on the corruption of the Prime Minister, people are looking to any potential solution to cut down corruption in the halls of power.

The famous Lord Acton, may have said that such a task is impossible, considering the synonymous nature of corruption and power, according to his dictum. However, several bodies, including my party, Yisrael Beytenu, have proposed government reforms aimed at reducing corruption in the government.

One of the most talked about remedies for corruption, which we did not propose, is to partition Israel in to 120 single member districts, as occurs in most democracies. The fact that Israelis vote only for political parties and not for individual candidates is uniquely Israeli, and often pointed at as a source of the corrupt nature of Israeli politics. Proponents of single-member districts contend that if candidates have to answer directly to voters, instead of to party bosses, they will be forced to clean up their act and provide more voter accountability.

On some level, this may be true. A corrupt candidate can “buy” his or her (yes I’m talking about you, Naomi Blumenthal) way on to a party list in a relatively high slot without facing the vetting a candidate in a single-member district receives. It is important to note that this vetting in US, Canadian and British elections is often done by the opposing candidate, and more than often by a rival party member who wants to run on the party’s ticket in the same district. In Israel, no opposing party really tries to dig up dirt on the number 12 candidate on a list, but often people who are forced down on that same list will tattletale. That is how Naomi Blumenthal was convicted. Also, despite all of this incentive to thoroughly review an individual candidate, in those three democracies mentioned above: USA, Canada and Britain, the congress/parliaments have had plenty of corrupt members over the years, and are perceived as hopelessly corrupt by large portions of the general population. Furthermore, the 17th Knesset is about to fold based on corruption charges against a Prime Minister. The party leaders and especially the Prime Ministerial candidates ARE thoroughly reviewed in Israel, by their opponents and by the media, but Olmert was elected despite the open investigations against him. Furthermore, every Israeli does have the opportunity to vote in a single-member election during municipal elections. One will notice, though, that the local governments are rife with corrupt practices and shady individuals, to a greater degree than is the Knesset. In some instances, since their voters are all located in a confined geographical boundary, there have been reports of voter intimidation winning city council seats. Just recently, on 8 Sivan, 5768 (June 11, 2008), no less than 3 mayors were questioned by police at the Special Fraud Unit headquarters, and many more have undergone similar procedures. The Talansky case which is threatening Olmert’s premiership actually started during an election for the mayor of Jerusalem.

I think it’s apparent that single-member district elections do not necessarily reduce corruption. This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be tried, but certainly they should be tested and debated vigorously first. They are clearly not the be all and end all solution to Israel’s governmental problems.

In the coming posts I will outline some of the government changes that I believe can create a more accountable government, creating less corruption.

Election Time?

2008-06-05T16:25:00.000+03:00

It seems that there will be primaries in Kadima but will there be National elections in 2008? My qualified answer is “Yes” but it depends on several factors:

(1) Olmert not “slipping the noose.” Olmert has escaped political crises before but this is different. The Talansky affair has an endless news cycle. The public outrage after Talansky’s testimony will be reignited in July during his cross-examination, even if he is found to be a total liar. Olmert may never be legally indicted, but the public seems fed up with him ingeneral. The indictment of his close ally, Avraham Hirschson, hasn’t helped Olmert one bit.

(2) Kadima not deposing Olmert outright. If Kadima decides to hold a primary for “Vice-Chairman” or “heir to the throne” without explicitly removing Olmert from power, two things will happen. First, Labor will not be happy about it. They want Olmert off the scene and could pull out of the coalition. If Barak doesn’t his credibility and popularity will nosedive and Labor may wind up having primaries itself. Barak won’t risk staying loyal in that case. Also, once a “next in line” is crowned it will boost that person’s profile and popularity. The primary winner will effectively control the party and will find too many reasons to call an election to push his/her self into first place.

(3) Saving Shas. If Olmert suddenly coughs up money for increased child benefits, Shas will have to stay in the government to fulfill its major campaign promise and it will be tough for Labor to leave under such circumstances, since they were also elected on a socialist platform. However, should Olmert sell out to Shas, many of his own fiscally minded Kadima members will quit, especially if they can then regain their seats in a fiscally sound government led by capitalist parties like Yisrael Beytenu and Likud.

(4) The hail-mary peace plan. If Olmert decides to sign away the country, he may just make it. Shas would probably leave the coalition, but Labor, Meretz and the Arab parties might still keep the government propped up, and the “Justice for Pensioners” faction might wise up and fight for its tenuous survival.

(5) No agreed date in 2008. This is actually a quite likely scenario that will push the elections into 2009. The Knesset will probably not vote to disperse, until most of the party heads can agree on a new election date. Labor may want a date in 2009 so that it can look like it is trying to depose the current government and still have more time to gain on Likud in the polls (though it probably won’t). Yisrael Beytenu and some other parties would be more than willing to hold Knesset election before the scheduled municipal elections in November. A short campaign would benefit parties (like mine) without deep pockets. It would also allow for a separate campaign for municipal elections. Likud wants the two elections held simultaneously. On one hand, this is meant to save the taxpayers the costs of putting polling stations twice in one short time. Also, it will increase the number of people who come to the polls for municipal elections. However, those people may be confused by the “double ballot” which has never happened in Israel. Many votes may end up as invalid. Furthermore, the National election will totally overshadow and out spend the municipal campaigns which may hurt the local authorities. This would also happen if the local elections were held while a national campaign was in full swing.

However, when push comes to shove, these logistical issues will be irrelevant. Likud and Labor have already opened elections headquarters and hired extra campaign staff. No party can afford to waste that money, and most Israelis will reward any party that can change up the current failed government and its unpopular policies. The sooner the better.

First Strike Advantage; Rehashed.

2008-05-27T10:57:00.002+03:00

It seems that all possible cease fire attempts with Hamas are breaking down. Longer range rockets are being fired toward Ashkelon and Netivot. I had said to amny people in the past that the best thing that can happen to Sderot would be for Hamas to improve their rockets so that they concentrate on more populous cities - unfortunately, that is what has happened, even though Sderot is still in a constant state of threat.

All of these factors, as well as increasingly strong rhetoric from the cabinet and pressure from Yisrael Beytenu and other opposition parties, makes a serious raid into Gaza seem likely.

The army has been preparing for this scenario for quite some time, but has the diplomatic core?

In asking that question, Israel National News has asked me to revamp an earlier piece I wrote about the necessity of military-diplomatic coordination. The article also contains some important "talking points" for people who may find themselves, formally or informally defending Israel's actions to thos around them.

Please read the article here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8003
and please add your comments and reactions at this blog or on the Israel National News site.

Talking and Shooting

2008-05-25T20:19:00.001+03:00

“It is always better to talk than to shoot.” said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the opening of his remarks at the Kibbutzim Seminar College. The speech, which was mostly dull boilerplate about the importance of education, was mainly used as a response to the dramatic announcement earlier that day, that Israel has opened peace negotiations with Syria.

Except that it hasn’t. The ‘momentous’ three-way announcement made by Israel, Turkey and Syria last week was essentially an official confirmation of media leaks that had been swirling around the region for almost 9 months. The announcement also didn’t talk about peace negotiations, but rather about an almost year long process of Turkish mediation between second tier Israeli and Syrian diplomats to co-ordinate when they would publicize a ‘momentous’ three-way announcement.

Residents of the Golan need not dig trenches just yet. The peace negotiation announcement also contained no authoritative mention of peace. The announcement only acknowledged that the two sides, Israel and Syria, had negotiated a procedural structure for continuing negotiations based on the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991. In other words, they agreed to sit in the same room at an odd-shaped table.

The presumptive issues which were meant to be discussed at these upcoming negotiations were then scuttled by Syrian pronouncements that Israel had already agreed to return to the 1949 armistice lines, as stated Syrian FM Walid Muallem, and that Syria would not cut its ties with Iran or Hizbullah, as said explicitly by Syrian President Bashaar Assad. With these issues out of the way – what is left to negotiate? It would seem that the as yet unscheduled face to face meeting between Israeli and Syrian representatives will consist mostly of frosty stares.

Binyamin Netanyahu and others across the political spectrum have linked the timing of the Syria announcement to Olmert’s legal issues, since, it seems, there has been no value to the announcement other than to push the “Talansky affair” to page 2.

The by-product of the announcement has allowed the Top Syrian officials to disown any concept of compromise with Israel and present its “peace negotiations” in irredentist terms of reclaiming the Golan Heights. In the meantime, Syria has continued to allow weapons to flow through to Hizbullah, and voted against an Arab League resolution condemning Hizbullah’s Beirut putsch.

Syria has continued to give residence to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, allowing these organizations to promulgate their propaganda while launching missiles into Sderot and Ashkelon. It is clear that Syria provides financial support for these organizations, as well. As recently as last September Syria was actively developing nuclear materiel, and has thwarted attempts by the IAEA to investigate the site.

Proponents of peace with Syria believe that Assad is in some imminent danger of being hauled off in chains to The Hague for his role in the murder of Lebanese Reformist, Rafik Hariri and that he is in need of help and the endearment of the West. However, no government anywhere has made a serious attempt to remove Assad from power, and none will as long as he maintains his ties with Iran. Syria’s own people don’t really threaten Assad’s leadership. In a recent election he won 97% of the vote. Whether this points to enormous support for his leadership or enormous fear of his secret police, the conclusion is the same: The Syrian people won’t topple Assad.

Assad has no fear from the West and no reason to Westernize Syria. In fact, forgoing an alliance with Iran, or linking Syria’s future to aid from the USA will in fact destabilize Assad more than will holding to his current path.

In fact, the most likely reason Assad would want to enter negotiations with Israel (besides reclaiming the Golan) would be to weaken Israel’s position and to shield itself from Israel’s wrath for the actions of the terrorist groups Syria sponsors. This same policy has worked for both Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, where Israel has to weigh violating jurisdiction and treaties against its security interests.

Olmert knows all this, and his advisors have been saying these things for a long time. However, they also know he’ll get a standing ovation when he says “It is always better to talk than to shoot.”

Those who gave him this ovation should ask if this catchphrase is indeed always true, especially if your counterpart is shooting back.

50 days of Independence

2008-05-13T16:57:00.000+03:00

Most people are focusing on Israel’s 60 years of independence. I’d like to examine 50 days.

The counting of the Omer is generally considered a sad time, saved for remembering the students of Rabbi Akiva who were killed at this time, as well as later crusades and expulsions. However, the 50 days of spring harvest are, yearly, regaining a joyous atmosphere through their connection to Jewish independence.

The Omer period begins during the Pesach holiday, Israel’s original Independence Day. The first day of the Omer was not only the children of Israel’s first full day of independence from Egyptian bondage, but it was also the first day, forty years later, that Children of Israel partook of the Land of Israel’s produce (Joshua 5:10).

On the 20th day of the Omer (or sometimes the 18th, 19th or 23rd) we celebrate the modern Independence Day, the day that Jews claimed sovereignty over the Land of Israel in 5708 (1948). I have heard some arguments that Israeli Independence Day should have been marked on 5 Tevet, 5709 (January 6, 1949). This was the day that the war basically ended, leaving Israel’s independence as a Jewish State stable for the first time. On one hand, this would have put Yom HaAtzmaut just after Hanukka; a nice fit since Hanukka marked the end of the war that gave Judea its first Independence from foreign rule in the Second Temple period.

However, I feel that the greater spirit of Jewish independence and attachment to the land appears during the spring harvest, commemorated during the period of the Omer. As well, one cannot overlook the miracle of the very Declaration of Independence which ushered out the British immigration restrictions and offered immediate sanctuary to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees in Europe.

The 33rd day of the Omer is commonly referred to as “Lag Ba’Omer.” The reason behind this minor holiday is shrouded in mystery. The Talmud (Bavli, tractate Yevamot 62b) states that this day was the day Rabbi Akiva’s students ceased dying. Some have interpreted this statement as the day when Bar Kochva reconquered Jerusalem, and thus the deadly battles ended for a short time. While Bar Kochva’s conquest of Jerusalem was extremely short lived, it also granted the Jews a sense of independence.

The 43rd day of the Omer commemorates a longer lasting conquest of Jerusalem. Jerusalem Day marks the day in 5727 (1967) that the Temple Mount was recaptured and Jerusalem was reunited. Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik Zt”L commented that for him, Jerusalem Day was the real Independence Day for Israel. Also, Natan Sharansky has said on numerous occasions that “There is no Zionism without Zion.” Sovereignty over the Temple Mount and all of Jerusalem solidified Israel’s Independence with it return to it’s historic capital and most hallowed ground.

The 50th day, the end of the Omer is the holiday of Shavuot. This holiday completes the period of Jewish Independence by marking the day of the assembly at Mount Sinai, where the Ten Commandments were presented to the Jewish Nation, and they accepted the Torah. “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved upon the tablets.” (Exodus 32:16) Our sages expounded on this verse saying: Do not read the word as “Harut” (engraved) but as “Herut” (freedom), for there is no one who is free except for one who learns Torah.

Rice's Prices Crisis

2008-04-28T14:52:00.003+03:00

This post also appears as an op-ed piece on the Israel National News website at:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7939

Rice is the issue.

For a change the issue isn’t America’s Secretary of State or her demands for further Israeli security concessions. This time, the problem is with eponymous long grain, a staple for almost two and a half billion of the world’s residents.

Consumers all across the globe, including Israel will see a steep increase in the price of rice in the coming week, to compliment the rising prices of many other food products in recent weeks.

In Latin America, Africa and East Asia, the food price hikes have already sparked political upheaval and drastic government measures. What should we do in Israel to avoid a crisis which could potentially cause mass hunger and death?

Before tackling the issue, it is important to examine the background of the problem. Here, it is important to state that these price hikes on basic foods are in no way the fault of the Israeli government. Israel, a net food exporter, is a tiny country which can not affect, for the positive or the negative, world food supply. While I am no fan of the current government or it policies – this particular problem is not their fault. So, too, any action Israel undertakes cannot reverse the worldwide problem but can only help its own citizens cope as best as possible.

Many experts who have examined the food crisis pinpoint several factors which contribute to the shortage of supply, which has led to the increased prices. These include increased consumption in developing countries such as China and India, biofuel subsidies and urbanization. The huge countries, China and India, have a burgeoning middle class who can now afford to consume more local goods, leaving less for export. Biofuel subsidies granted by Western governments have made it more worthwhile for American, Canadian and French farmers to grow fuel crops and abandon food crops. Also, the wealth in these western countries has led to greater demand for meat, so that South American countries like Argentina and Brazil have left their grain fields to the cows, instead of harvesting them for people. In all of the countries mentioned above, in fact, in the majority of countries on the globe, young people have abandoned their family farms for more lucrative and social city life, leaving large tracts of agriculture in the hands of an aging population, without sufficient capital to modernize and increase yields.

The causes of mass urbanization present an interesting topic in itself, which lies beyond the scope of this article. The main focus here must be the initial question: What should the Israeli government due in light of the increase in food prices? And its answer: Nothing.

The Israeli government must avoid any excessive intervention, which could only cause the problem to worsen, or create strange, unpredictable side effects, such as bureaucratic corruption and the advent of a black market.
On the other hand, by doing nothing, the market cycle will self adjust, as it always has. Higher prices for food products will make growing them more worthwhile. City congestion may convince new families to move to the farms where higher prices for their products will grant them a decent standard of living. Alternatively (and more likely), huge conglomerates will buy and modernize farms to maximize their yields. As always, high-priced goods attract attention. All of this increased attention will creat increased market competition, which will eventually lower prices (in real terms – don’t expect the number on the price tag to become smaller).

If the Israeli government just can’t help itself, and needs to take some action because of political pressure, or because parties like Labour, Shas and Gil are interventionists by ideology, I do have some suggestions:

(1) Remove all price controls: If bread bakers can make a fair market profit, who knows? They just might bake more bread!

(2) Remove tariffs: Mutual tariff reduction agreements will make Israeli food exports more attractive and greater revenues will bring more people into the food growing business. Reduced import tariffs will subject Israeli farmers to greater competition, which will increase the quality and/or reduce the price of goods in Israeli stores.

(3) Grant more foreign work permits: No matter how much money a farmer can get for a tomato, few computer programmers will leave their air conditioned office to pick hothouse vegetables. A greater willingness to grant work permits will reduce the amount of illegal immigrants in legal industries, and the problems that illegal immigration causes.

Other than the above suggestions, let the market tide ebb on it own. It will only be a few months before a new, lucrative crop can be planted. The market reacts quickly, more quickly than most government programs can be put into place. Also, when the crisis does ebb…and it will – at least in a modern country like Israel – the market can shift again in much less time than a government decision can be repealed, or a bureaucracy disbanded.

The main beneficiaries of non-intervention will be the Kibbutzim and collectives, poised for a revival after years of decline, and periphery towns, which are local centers for farming communities. The growth of kibbutzim may cause a growth in the natural electoral base of parties such as Labour or Meretz, and the wealth of farmers spent in development towns will enrich the electoral base of Shas – the best incentive for these parties to adopt my ideas. So why should I encourage this if I am a member of Yisrael Beytenu, a Nationalist party who represents a predominately urban immigrant population? For the simple reason that, when I come home tonight, I’d like to eat dinner.

Important Post Script:

If the government does nothing, what should the individual do?

Donate! Here are some links to a few of the many organizations that provide food to Israel’s hungry (with no prejudice):
http://www.yadezra.net
http://www.naomi.org.il/_En/index.asp
http://www.latet.org.il/english/
http://www.meirpanim.org/index_e.php

If you still have some charity left over give to:
http://www.wfp.org/english/
http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1